It seems Swedish government has totally lost it. I mean really really totally..
Swedish government is considering raising taxes, in worst case up to 800% higher taxes (http://idg.se/ArticlePages/200310/06/20031006094517_STU/20031006094517_STU.dbp.asp) for CD-Rs.
As of January 2004 all CDRs and other optical storage medias may have 800% raised taxes to compensate the losses of the music industry.
According to MTRH, DVD-Rs may have 4-5 € tax per piece, hard disks may be taxed about 1 €/GB. Even satelite recievers with HDDs might be taxed.
I'm speechless. Swedish government truely went crazy. Poor swedes, but I have to hope this total madness doesn't spread to other European countries!
What can possibly justify these kind of tax raises? The power of the music industry really seems to be huge. There's simply no rational justification for this kind of tax raising, so one have to wonder what some of the Swedish governement representatives pushing this have gained...
1. It has not been implemented.
2. It's been up before. Last year. Same thing.
It _is_ a crazy suggestion, but many countries see many crazy suggestions that are never implemented.
So will 120GB HDDs retail for 120 euros more?
Totally stupid.
this was more or less passed by the Swedish government and should be actualized January 1st 2004. check out the Swedish government's pages for more updates. http://justitie.regeringen.se (http://justitie.regeringen.se) As of now the best source would be http://studio.idg.se (http://studio.idg.se).
As for the taxes on HDDs it's not yet settled, but it's most likely less than what I told JohnV at first :B one is really waiting for updated figures. However that figure by GB is for any other format such as DVD and memory used in other medial contexts.
I'm not sure what you were referring to when you point out that this was adressed in the past because it has not, perhaps merely as a motion, but then it must have been a different scenario and approach.
Also the new laws for copyprotection and updates in existing laws considering sharing and duplication are to take place next year. It seems like a nice move from the government to put a stand and take the first large step in the direction where RIAA/MIAA wants our governments to go.
If they introduced that here in the UK i'd see it as an invitation, even a right, to start copying all my music. Why pay for original cds when i've already paid with cdr tax?
unbelievable! ...
it is only a question of time until the rest european countries go the same way.
BadHorsie
Sweden is now governed by the RIAA!
Well, hopefully the gov't will see the error of their ways in public and industry reaction to this (otherwise it could spread to more of Europe -- not good). IMO, people in the USA would put up such an outcry at something like this that it likely never could pass... must have been done more 'secretly' in Sweden.
Perhaps you should know that a similar thing has already been made active in Spain. Not that high tax, but very similar.
Starting 1st of September, prices of CD-Rs and DVD-Rs went up in Spain, and the increase is a new tax that is going to the spanish equivalent of the RIAA.
It is sad to see that other European countries are going the same way, or even worse...
Without more actual information it's frustrating, but it's reasonable to believe that this forwarded motion is accepted. It's along the guidelines of our new laws for 2004. This would be a trend to start, and if Sweden would actualize this I'm certain many countries would follow the little and very respected country up-north due to it's normally conservative nature and stands in discussions such as this one.
It will be most interesting to see the progress in this perticular issue in the following months, but there is little to see on the con-side of this since there really are few arguments valid in the politically and economically related dialogs.
Facts are the piracy is enormous and it's painful for the software, music and videoindustry. There's is little to be said about that other than something is required for countermeasuring this. A proposal as this one passing would be a great victory and yield the industries well in the views of many.
I'm puzzled myself, I agree it's awful with the levels suggested, but I also see the need of something. The way things are now with sharing is unacceptable, I have to admit that. I also have to point out that I find the concurrent pricing on CDDA and DVD for contentmedia is massively overpriced and that an approach there should be the first priority to atleast attempt - not to lower piracy - but increase the quantity of actually purchased items.
This dark wave is spreading all over the world, and looks clearly the industry has a powerful lobby and lot$ of money to buy people everywhere.
Do you think they'll give tax rebates for every CD-R sold that does not eventually have music burnt onto it?
And, as seanyseansean suggested, does this make music "piracy" legal, because you've paid for it?
Cheers,
David.
higher taxes only mean more smuggling
what about if people buy things abroad or on the net?
What seems unjust to me is that RIAA is doing this "where they can get away with it." In other words -- Asia has the worst piracy (I think) but they can't stop it... and even if they could, it wouldn't change much of anything ('nobody' would buy the full price stuff, too much poverty). In the USA they can't get away with it because of many citizen and consumer lobbyist groups. So "middle of the road" Europe gets the stick right over the head (ouch)...
And, as seanyseansean suggested, does this make music "piracy" legal, because you've paid for it?
That's the way is works in Canada, if I recall a Slashdot story correctly.
btw. this has been something that has been discussed for long, only now the matter has progressed onto being close to actualized.
No, no such reasoning is acceptable. This tax is more adressed to the downloading and sharing of copyrighted material than it's about copying your own material you've purchased.
Our new laws still allow you to copy your own music, just as before, even to share it in you family "sphere". You're not allowed to ducplicate copyprotected material though, as that would "be against the purpose to the protected media" :B
the only way to lessen the tax is to become a "professional user" and pay fees as a firm or organization to the swedish copyrights organization http://www.copyswede.se (http://www.copyswede.se) , similar organizations exist in any country. Ofcourse, you have to live up to certain things to be allowed to get such a permit and taxreleave.
Since "The Music Inquisition" is already running worldwide, I just wonder if the CD sales keep falling, despite high taxation on blanks, copy protection, subpoenas, etc...what the music industry will do? Starting burning computer-users and file-sharers alive?
/edit: typos
I'm the author of the article on IDG.se in my magazine Studio (Studio (http://www.studio.se) - all articles on that site is published on IDG.se).
As for the example 40 swedish crowns extra for a dvd-r that costs about 60 swedish crowns - it is of course not 100 percent sure that will happen, since Copyswede and the market actors are always negotiating about the fees. That example is made to illustrate one extreme side of the law.
Regards,
It will be most interesting to see the progress in this perticular issue in the following months, but there is little to see on the con-side of this since there really are few arguments valid in the politically and economically related dialogs.
So to put it straight - to compensate for the virtual loss (because software/music which is pirated cannot be guarenteed that it would be sold anyway) goverment is robbing normal people with ridiculosly high taxes? I have only one word for it - mafia, and that is what record companies are starting to look like.
And, of course - there is no "valid argument in politically and economically related dialogs" except that the law is not fair among biggest part of population which does not share files and uses media for normal use. I don't want to pay extra tax because one industry is incapable of modernizing itself and coping with the latest trends in industry.
Digital media production and distribution is of pure commercial nature - it is not some kind of goverment service like public health, and it is definitely not the role of the state, at least not in liberal capitalism, to "help" that industry by robbing others - just because the same industry is not willing to improve itself and change its business practices.
Goverments didn't rob TV broadcasters because they could destroy the radio market, instead radio and cinema markets improved. VoIP providers are widely accepted although the good-old telephone industry is suffering biiig loss, but who cares? Limiting others is stopping the growth and industry evolution - and it is not good in general.
Facts are the piracy is enormous and it's painful for the software, music and videoindustry. There's is little to be said about that other than something is required for countermeasuring this. A proposal as this one passing would be a great victory and yield the industries well in the views of many.
So charging for the media and transmission resources not used by piracy and
that is huge majority is fair? And who is getting the money? Is it going to be dispatched among artists/production houses worldwide, or it will be kept inside the state - what if majority of people buy international CDs and movies, and local music industry gets the tax $, that is supposed to be fair?
Overcharging of the storage media is painful for the IT, hardware and software indusry - it is going to increase IT spending and decrease the number of jobs because of limited budgets and slow growith. It is also going to decrease public spending and to slow down development of several industries -
so that is good?
Do you think it is fair that some goverment gets $100 for every hard drive I buy just because of some loss in the industry which, in fact, does not belong to that country in most cases? I don't think so - if it is bound to die, let it die.
It would be like introducing postal tax on every email because the post and delivery industry is losing money on digital e-mail transmisssion. Or, like charging every citizen yearly tax because of possible tax hiding?
It looks to me as a way to improve annual budget and tax income, nothing else.
This would be a trend to start, and if Sweden would actualize this I'm certain many countries would follow the little and very respected country up-north due to it's normally conservative nature and stands in discussions such as this one.
I sincerely hope they
won't like they didn't with prohibition of alchoholic bewerages or with death penalties like in USA. It is just dead, flat, wrong.
So to put it straight - to compensate for the virtual loss (because software/music which is pirated cannot be guarenteed that it would be sold anyway) goverment is robbing normal people with ridiculosly high taxes? I have only one word for it - mafia, and that is what record companies are starting to look like.
Well said.
In resume: The indu$try is financing corruption and taking financial advantage of it.
On a very practical level, are people going to re-elect a government that does this? That's what politicians care about most. In those democratic countries where money doesn't buy power, taxing blank media will not help the government at all.
Cheers,
David.
P.S. - hadn't we better wait and see what happens? Isn't it likely that, if there is any tax at all, it'll be 0.01% or something?
This reminds me a lot of airline industry and goverment regulations about which airline can fly, where and with what number of passengers - and with what price - hopefully, things are beginning to change, and silly arguments like "doing this will destroy the industry" are starting to fade away.
Industry is changing - if RIAA was to be asked, we would still have scratchy records as main storage medium, but foruntately they are not the decision makers.
The future of music distribution is cheap internet service on pay-basis, and there is nothing that will stop it - even overpricing all media. It will happen sooner or later, and the "industry" is going to shed some already useless jobs for good - and give more space for creative thought and people.
Poor swedes, but I have to hope this total madness doesn't spread to other European countries!
We have an extra fee on blank media for quite a while now. It's just not as ridicilously high as what's proposed in Sweden.
- analog audio tape €0.23 per hour
- analog video tape €0.33 per hour
- digital minidisc €0.32 per hour
- digital data CD-r/rw €0.14 per disc
- digital audio CD-r/rw €0.42 per hour
- blanc dvd-r/rw € 1,00 per 4,7 gigabyte
- blanc dvd+r/rw € 0,50 per 4,7 gigabyte
- blanc dvd-ram no extra
This should be to compensate for copying "at home". Now this issue is out of the way, all the record companies do is saying how much income they miss because of file sharing
This really blows... if this actually goes ahead think about the implications it would have on the market as a whole... crazy I do second that point about the legality of copying if this law was to pass. I would copy like crazy cause I am already paying the "license" to copy by buying blank media. Also by taxing a commodity like CD-Rs' (which they are these days), it opens up a black market for CD-Rs' to come in by other means.
Regards
AgentMil
So..
I've just been on the phone with the president of CopySwede, Gun Magnusson to clarify the whole deal.
The discussion confirmed the the site http://idg.se (http://idg.se) are simply writing complete nonsense without any grounds at all. The Mrs. Magnusson was to say the least very disappointed in this article and has contacted the writer to inform him of his misinformative article.
She claimed this being one of the absolute worst articles she had ever read and referred to the whole deal as a "PR coup" to actually remove the existing tax by waking debate and mislikings towards the existing taxes.
The taxes are to be raised by merely 25%, but the will be raised further in the future to meet the load on the market.
Taxes are based per minute; 0.02SEK(0.0024EUR)/minute and maximum 6SEK(0.6710) per media.
note that even today it's supposed to be 1.60SEK(0.1788EUR) but merely 62.5% are inclined in tax; ~1SEK(8.9466EUR)/CDR
She pointed out that it's not yet time to promote further taxes, more investigation is needed to eg. find out how well one can compress media on a single CDR, she used the example of using MP3 to fit the entire ABBA collection on one single CDR.
When I pointed out the existance of Ogg Vorbis she immediately noted this as an even more aggressive format in need of consideration.
So, one can blow this whole deal of and learn a lesson about the otherwize well respected Idg.se...
Although, in the future one can expect a pretty massive extension of the taxes as written in the article, but it will then have grounds for printing, and not as in this case, being without grounds and claims.
edit: EUR/SEK are based on values of 2003-10-06
Do you think they'll give tax rebates for every CD-R sold that does not eventually have music burnt onto it?
Danish government added a "tax" like this around 1990 on blank MCs and VHS.
A similar "tax" was added to blank CD-R medias a few years ago. Companies can get the money back by filling in a form.
digital data CD-r/rw ?0.14 per disc
digital audio CD-r/rw ?0.42 per hour
blanc dvd-r/rw ? 1,00 per 4,7 gigabyte
blanco dvd+r/rw ? 0,50 per 4,7 gigabyte
Sorry, but the values on blank CDs are too high, being equal or higher than the cost of the media itself.
DVD blanks prices are falling, and soon 1.00 euro will represent almost 50% of the price tag.
Looks like 2Bdecided had the right idea... "P.S. - hadn't we better wait and see what happens?" Anyway, this stimulated some interesting discussion (probably on many other message boards as well) and probably some more dislike toward the RIAA...
Out of curiosity...can someone in Sweden order CD-R's and HDD's over the internet from another country and avoid such a tax?
I guess there are at least two good things to come out of such a law:
-1- It is now justified to make as many copies of music as you'd like to now because, as others have mentioned, you've already paid to do so.
-2- The recording industry in Sweden can never again complain of piracy and copied music, as they are now being "properly" reimbursed for it.
And how about JoeAverageSwede who needs to buy a HDD for his computer but has never (nor has never wanted) to copy music onto a HDD. Well, now he's paid extra and accordingly has the rationale to do it, and if he didn't do it, it would be money wasted. In turn, I wonder if the Swedish government website will also sponsor links to download EAC/LAME/Musepack/Vorbis/Nero/BurnAtOnce/etc., now that they have fully justified/legitimized their citizenry to copy music onto all this media which has been taxed to reimburse their string-holders, the recording industry?
Also, they'll have to follow this with laws against copy protection of CD (and other) media to allow their citizens to receive the proper benefits of their tax investments.
Also, they'll have to follow this with laws against copy protection of CD (and other) media to allow their citizens to receive the proper benefits of their tax investments
That's true - imagine this:
1. Country has DMCA-like law in place, which explicitly prohibits any kind of copyright protection breaking and making many copy programs illegal
2. Despite of that, same country applies midle-age taxing scheme, to tax everything assuming that everyone is breaking the law a priori (since they tax everyone)?
3. Since you paid "piracy tax", does it mean that your possibly illegal material on the hard drive is legitimate, because you compensated someone by paying 100% more for a storage unit?
Isn't this absurd and against many ideas of modern civilization? Like treating someone as innocent until proven otherwise, positivism, and so on? Maybe it works in Sweden, but I am positive that it won't work in the rest of the EU.
1- It is now justified to make as many copies of music as you'd like to now because, as others have mentioned, you've already paid to do so.
In theory, you're 100% right.
But the "recording" industry doesnt care about costumer rights.
A fine example of it:
In Australia and Canada there is a levy on blank media, but some australians and canadians are complaining because most of the new music discs are being sold which copy protection, despite the extra taxation collected for the benefit of the music industry "losses".
edit: clarification and typo.
In theory, you're 100% right.
But the industry doesnt care.
Hopefully these issues will eventually be brought to supreme courts to test it against constitutions in many civilized countries.
Music industry != majority of the population
Enforcing the "music industry" rights, and compensating them for their inability to cope with the development of science is equal to "protecting minority and harming majority" and, in addition to the points I've made about incompatibility with copyright and crime laws, this is not going to stand any trial in sureme court.
I've just been on the phone with the president of CopySwede, Gun Magnusson to clarify the whole deal.
The discussion confirmed the the site http://idg.se (http://idg.se) are simply writing complete nonsense without any grounds at all. The Mrs. Magnusson was to say the least very disappointed in this article and has contacted the writer to inform him of his misinformative article.
First of all, read my previous post. As you say, me an Gun Magnusson has been in contact and I would definetly not say that the article is misinformative.
First of all she pointed out that the numbers are all wrong. They are not. Copyswede calculates taxes excluding VAT and consumer oriented magazines including VAT (in Sweden 25 precent).
Secondly. You mention that the raise should be 25 percent. That is for analog media such as audio and video cassettes. Digital media (as the proposal states right now) has much higher raise.
As for the 800 percent raise. I do not think that would ever happen - especially since the fees are negotiated between Copyswede and the manufacturers of digital media. Noone will benefit from 800 percent raise of copyright fees. As I said - the articles primary purpose is to illustrate worst case scenario.
But a raise will come.
Also, they'll have to follow this with laws against copy protection of CD (and other) media to allow their citizens to receive the proper benefits of their tax investments
That's true - imagine this:
1. Country has DMCA-like law in place, which explicitly prohibits any kind of copyright protection breaking and making many copy programs illegal
2. Despite of that, same country applies midle-age taxing scheme, to tax everything assuming that everyone is breaking the law a priori (since they tax everyone)?
3. Since you paid "piracy tax", does it mean that your possibly illegal material on the hard drive is legitimate, because you compensated someone by paying 100% more for a storage unit?
Isn't this absurd and against many ideas of modern civilization? Like treating someone as innocent until proven otherwise, positivism, and so on? Maybe it works in Sweden, but I am positive that it won't work in the rest of the EU.
Exactly! The simple concept of punishing
everyone for what only
some people (and likely a vast minority) are doing wrong. Hence justifying the concept of "If I am punished for it, shouldn't I at least get to do it?"
If you have to do the time, then you get to do the crime...
But anyway, it sounds like (according to MTRH) that the article may be FUD anyway. I hope so. (I don't live in Sweden, but I'd oppose injustice against anyone.)
...RIAA...
The last A in the RIAA stands for America. Last time I checked, Sweden was in Europe. Sweden, Denmark and most other countries have their own organisations to screw their own citizens. We have no need for American help in this particular field.
BTW, the Danish tax on CD-R is 0,50-1,00 euro per CD. That's why I order mine in Germany; this way I pay Danish VAT and German tax. If I go get them in Germany, I can get them even cheaper by paying VAT in Germany too.
Emanuel:
Please define digital media;
CD-R is still based per minute.
Have you read the 600pages long divided by two pdfs text where the definitions are?
I just can't take Mrs. Magnussons opinion lightly, she had valid points and you have your journalistic interests which makes you a less credible and objective person.
1- It is now justified to make as many copies of music as you'd like to now because, as others have mentioned, you've already paid to do so.
In theory, you're 100% right.
But the industry doesnt care.
In Australia and Canada there is a levy on blank media, but some australians and canadians are complaining because most of the new music discs are being sold which copy protection, despite the extra taxation collected for the benefit of the industry.
That's what I'd fear would happen in a real-world scenario. Doesn't this seem like the actions of a dying, cornered animal? Because of internet-based streaming audio and new approaches toward even paid music-sharing on legal distribution sites, the recording industries of the world seem to be becoming
less viable as required entities for bringing music to the people of the world?
We (the people of the world) don't need them anymore, they can in turn see their inevitable end coming, and so they're scratching to stay alive by any means possible, moral or not, using their vast money and political power to accomplish the task.
Edit: Clarification re: "recording industries"
no, I said "Me" as in "I".. have been in contact with Mrs. Magnusson - just now.
I understand what you say.
And I say "me" as in "I" as well. That means we both have been in contact with her.
Emanuel, I misread and I rewrote my text, I'm sorry about that, please read the latter. I'd be happy to read your idea of the whole, since from what I've gathered now from various sources the article was misinformative and should be treated with a touch of sceptisism.
...RIAA...
The last A in the RIAA stands for America. Last time I checked, Sweden was in Europe. Sweden, Denmark and most other countries have their own organisations to screw their own citizens. We have no need for American help in this particular field.
Hey man, whatever it's called (RI-EU? )... it's still "the recording industry" (ok that's more accurate, I guess... whatever).
Well, the fact is that Sweden is one of the countries with highest % of people online in whole Europe - majority of them is on broadband I would say that filesharing is quite popular there ... oh, where isn't
The thing that makes me angry about all this 'piracy' FUD is that although the pundits in the software and music industries stand up and scream about all the millions of dollars being lost each year, the real fact is that no one really has the first idea if they are actually loosing any money at all, at least in the domestic markets.
What no one can prove is whether if the pirated version of the software/music track had not been available, would it have resulted in a normal retail sale? Both these industries use this argument as justification for falling sales or targets not being met. It would also be more than interesting to know whether such pirating would even take place if the software and music were priced at a more realistic level in the first place.
Hey man, whatever it's called (RI-EU? )... it's still "the recording industry" (ok, that's more accurate perhaps -- whatever).
In Denmark, we have the so-called AntiPirateGroup, and I'd say they're at least as annoying as the RIAA. Their scare tactics have been so effective that I know no-one who actually shares anything on a peer to peer network. Denmark is a small area, and therefore relatively easy to control. I personally dislike the fact that they behave as if they were the police - they even do some things the police aren't allowed to do.
The thing that makes me angry about all this 'piracy' FUD is that although the pundits in the software and music industries stand up and scream about all the millions of dollars being lost each year, the real fact is that no one really has the first idea if they are actually loosing any money at all, at least in the domestic markets.
The only statistics I know of in this area stems from Universities in the U.S. in the days of Napster. It turned out that the record sales rose in the areas surrounding the universities; more than in other areas. Music is a luxury, and it is quite likely that the drop in sales is caused by the economic downturn.
The future of music distribution is cheap internet service on pay-basis, and there is nothing that will stop it - even overpricing all media. It will happen sooner or later, and the "industry" is going to shed some already useless jobs for good - and give more space for creative thought and people.
Maybe CDs and DVDs will be less popular, but to think that the future of music sales is 100% download and burn (legal or not) is to seriously misjudge human nature.
People like collecting things, and people like having the "real" item - to buy, to sell, to collect, to save, to treasure, to brag about, to look at the art work etc etc etc.
People also distrust computers. They see them as fickle, and unreliable. For many people in many circumstances it's much more convenient to buy a CD than to download it, even if they have the option.
So whilst some people certainly will buy and download their music on-line, this isn't the end for CDs or DVDs. They will be around for a long time.
I like the idea of renting access to the entire back catalogue of a record label (or all record labels?) for a party or something*, but it would probably just make me go out and buy more CDs!
Cheers,
David.
* - that's a proposed business model for sometime in the future, when traceable content watermarking, and player-side detectors make it unlikely that you'd put such content onto a P2P network, or even be able to record it permanently for your own use on the then "current" equipment.
Emanuel:
I just can't take Mrs. Magnussons opinion lightly, she had valid points and you have your journalistic interests which makes you a less credible and objective person.
MTRH,
If I understood correctly, Mrs. Magnusson is actually a president of that copyright-enforcing body "CopySwede" which consists of, among others, members of the music industry?
And, according to the annual report - http://www.copyswede.se/english/summary01.pdf (http://www.copyswede.se/english/summary01.pdf) the biggest renumeration they got in 2001 was from blank tape levy (almost 50%, this includes digital media fees)
Which makes me think that:
- They are protecting the rights and interests of music industry
- Direct taxing increase will increase their annual income, which already is near 50% of ther annual income
Based on these two conclusions, I just wouldn't take her opinion as "non biased" because she represents the one side of the story - and that is definitely not the "consumer" side which is a huge majority.
* - that's a proposed business model for sometime in the future, when traceable content watermarking, and player-side detectors make it unlikely that you'd put such content onto a P2P network, or even be able to record it permanently for your own use on the then "current" equipment.
Actually, direct watermarking of the content with personal data would be the best idea and it would prevent illegal spreading because data would be traceable to the identity level.
This is the way that research should go, instead of robbing the whole society.
Something different: Should this thread really remain in "Validated news"?
I mean, there has been some light shed on the issue and all written in the first post isn't really true. Like:
1. 800% is sort of worst case, even the author of the article says that it won't happen.
2. Nothing has been decided. The department of justice has only presented a suggestion. This has to be passed by the parliament first.
But from the post, it clearly states that it has been decided already and that it will be 800%...
As of January 2004 all CDRs and other optical storage medias will have 800% raised taxes to compensate the losses of the music industry.
Based on these two conclusions, I just wouldn't take her opinion as "non biased" because she represents the one side of the story - and that is definitely not the "consumer" side which is a huge majority.
Well, I wouldn't say that everything written on idg.se is non-biased either. I have seen quite a lot of articles on that site that are quite horrific in terms of objectivity.
* - that's a proposed business model for sometime in the future, when traceable content watermarking, and player-side detectors make it unlikely that you'd put such content onto a P2P network, or even be able to record it permanently for your own use on the then "current" equipment.
Actually, direct watermarking of the content with personal data would be the best idea and it would prevent illegal spreading because data would be traceable to the identity level.
This is the way that research should go, instead of robbing the whole society.
I second that emotion wholeheartedly. In fact, I've made reference to it before as the direction that recording industries should pursue instead of punishing us "legit" copiers who only want to play the music
we paid for in our car's HDDs (or head units via CD-R), from our portable (notebook) PC's HDD's, and on our portable encoded-music players.
David made a point I agree with also in people wanting something tangible to hold/touch/collect. Personally, this is one of the top reasons I don't download my music. I like having the physical CD and everything that comes with it...it's its own backup to an extent, you often get lyrics and nice artwork, you get something which you and your family and friends can thumb through on a shelf. When someone asks, "So, what kind of music do you have?", there's something more elegant about a row of CDs on a shelf than pointing to a PC monitor.
But of course, I rip/encode for portability. I never casually listen to an actual CD since -1- I have the music already residing on convenient devices in encoded form, and -2- my CDs are my backups. If I lose an encoding, I re-rip and re-encode...no need to risk handling the CD for casual play.
But these are all concepts too logical for a misguided money-hungry industry to understand and cater to. Punish us all...anyone with an encoded music file is the devil, right?
Have you read the 600pages long divided by two pdfs text where the definitions are?
MRTH: I agree that she is a more credible person than me in this matter - she works full time at Copyswede that allocates the fees to the copyright holders. I work as a reporter on many topics and have no possibility to be as insightful in seperate topics.
As a result of this, I have not read through the 600 pages. And even if I/one should have, the possibility of misunderstandings even there would be quite big. We have not yet seen any practical examples of the 600 pages in this matter and changes in fees where the fees are a big percent of the whole media cost might also change according to Magnusson. The actual fee is, as I said before, an agreement from both sides.
My source regarding the fees are from Bo Rydin at "Institute of Recording media" (located at Branschkansliet (http://www.branschkansliet.se/)) who are also in the article. They act as a "link between the market and the society", and I had no reason to doubt their facts at the time.
In any case, I have updated the article with correct information from the 600 page law proposal at The Swedish Government (http://justitie.regeringen.se/index.htm) and it is also marked "Updated". The main difference is that the extreme fees only covers re-recordable digital media such as dvd+(-)rw and cd-rw.
Kind regards,
EDIT: Corrected URL
[aside]
Any chance the linked articles (including the one in JohnV's original post) have English-language equivalents? (For us lowly mono-lingual folks. ) What I have gathered so far has been in the context of posts by other people in this thread.
I looked for buttons that might mean "English version" on the linked pages, but couldn't find any.
[/aside]
Really sorry, this article is written in Swedish as a daily web-article. The only english information is on liks to pdf-docs above.
Regards,
A.) I have to pay tax because i could use a certain device to illegaly copy music.
B.) I am not allowed to actually circumvent copy protections and copy music.
How do the two fit together? It boggles my mind.
Hi thop,
That's exactly what the AI (Internauts Association) is asking in Spain. But they took another step and went to court to sue Alejandro Sanz (he's a very famous singer here in Spain) and ask the same question to a judge.
The case isn't over yet, but Alejandro's record company reacted quickly and launched a new edition of his latest album without copy protection. They even offered consumers a free replacement CD for those that had already bought the original copy protected CD.
However, it would be very sad if we had to go to court everytime we want to copy a CD.
Cheers.
Hi thop,
That's exactly what the AI (Internauts Association) is asking in Spain. But they took another step and went to court to sue Alejandro Sanz (he's a very famous singer here in Spain) and ask the same question to a judge.
The case isn't over yet, but Alejandro's record company reacted quickly and launched a new edition of his latest album without copy protection. They even offered consumers a free replacement CD for those that had already bought the original copy protected CD.
However, it would be very sad if we had to go to court everytime we want to copy a CD.
Cheers.
Sometimes all you need is a precident. I wish that would happen in the U.S.
Edit: Then again, copy protection's not much of a problem here, but a nice court case in the favor of the consumer for any instances of copy-protection would (maybe) help prevent the spread of such a disease.
Here in Italy taxes on cd dvd and hard disk increased few months ago.
Result: cdr price doubled
Here the income of that tax is given to local riaa equivalent.
I still have to understand what they are doing with that money.
Have you read the 600pages long divided by two pdfs text where the definitions are?
MRTH: I agree that she is a more credible person than me in this matter - she works full time at Copyswede that allocates the fees to the copyright holders. I work as a reporter on many topics and have no possibility to be as insightful in seperate topics.
As a result of this, I have not read through the 600 pages. And even if I/one should have, the possibility of misunderstandings even there would be quite big. We have not yet seen any practical examples of the 600 pages in this matter and changes in fees where the fees are a big percent of the whole media cost might also change according to Magnusson. The actual fee is, as I said before, an agreement from both sides.
My source regarding the fees are from Bo Rydin at "Institute of Recording media" (located at Branschkansliet (http://www.branschkansliet.se/)) who are also in the article. They act as a "link between the market and the society", and I had no reason to doubt their facts at the time.
In any case, I have updated the article with correct information from the 600 page law proposal at The Swedish Government (http://justitie.regeringen.se/index.htm) and it is also marked "Updated". The main difference is that the extreme fees only covers re-recordable digital media such as dvd+(-)rw and cd-rw.
Kind regards,
EDIT: Corrected URL
ok,
thank you for the clarification. It's sincerely not easy to pin out truths in matters such as this one.
CD-RW & DVD-RW are the ones affected by this change, but it's unlikely to see a 40SEK(5.xEUR) tax per item, as this is not in line with the product price. The settled figures should be lower.
Here in Germany, it works exactly like the nonsense-scenario some people here talked about. For a long time, the state of affairs was like this in Germany: You have to pay a small fee on everything that can be used to copy copyrighted material (that is, media, scanners, printers, photocopiers, cd-recorders, etc.). This fee goes to an organization called GEMA, which in turn is responsible for distributing the money to the artists which are registered there (virtually every artist). The GEMA is definitely a very mafia-like organization and GEMA-laws are some of the most distubring in German legislation, but that's a different story.
Now, in turn for these fees, you were allowed to make "private copies" of copyrighted material (excluding software, which has special legislation). What exactly constitutes a "private copy" is hard to tell from the laws alone, and would have been up to a judge to decide (although it is of very little interest now, as I will explain shortly). Generally, the consensus was that copies for family members and close friends were allowed.
Now comes the wicked part of the story. The laws for "private copies" are actually very old (about 70 years IIRC). When they were drafted, they were mainly meant for carbon copies. Later they were extended to analog copies of music by court decisions. But now that perfect digital copies are possible, the music companies were rooting for some time for a change of these laws.
About one year ago, the European parliament passed a law which prohibits the evasion of security measures to protect copyrighted material (very similar to the DMCA). Laws which are passed by the EU legislators do not automatically become valid law in the EU countries, but the legislators in EU countries are obliged to pass a law within a certain timeframe which implements the legislation they agreed upon on EU level (of course that's oversimplifying the matter a bit, but roughly, that's the way it works).
So, actually avoiding copy protection will sooner or later be illegal in the entire EU. In Germany a law which implements this, was passed about two months ago. Still, you are allowed to make "private copies" just like before (although you are not allowed to do so anymore if they are from "obviously illegal origin", which practically means that downloading from P2P networks is now illegal in Germany (uploading always was)). Of course, since you are allowed to make private copies, you also have to pay the fee to the GEMA. But now, if the music company use any form of copy protection on their CDs, you can go to jail for trying to copy those (although you paid for the right to do so).
Here in Italy taxes on cd dvd and hard disk increased few months ago.
Result: cdr price doubled
Here the income of that tax is given to local riaa equivalent.
I still have to understand what they are doing with that money.
They same thing is done here. The organisation gives them to the record companies who in turn give some of it to the artists.
In Australia and Canada there is a levy on blank media, but some australians and canadians are complaining because most of the new music discs are being sold which copy protection, despite the extra taxation collected for the benefit of the music industry "losses".
There is definitely NO levy on blank media of any kind here in Australia. It's been proposed many times (it was proposed for the compact cassette back in the 1970s!) but has never become law.
The so-called "audio" CD-R discs are sold at a higher price, but the extra money goes to the CD-R manufacturer, who try to pretend that these are "special" discs that are better for music use
Also, the only record company using CD copy protection in Australia is EMI. All other companies' CDs are free of copy protection.
Incredible..
This thread has put me into a reflective state of mind (please pardon the small diversion)... it seems to me that creativity has traditionally been held under a very tight leash by "the powers that be" -- and no surprise, as it's an incredible force for social and societal change. It seems to me things as the Internet, open source software and such would not be "allowed" to run free by those who despise change and value tight control and maintaining the status quo -- as demonstrated by how Net access is limited in certain societies. To a lesser extent, this limitation on freedom of expression seems to apply everywhere...
I wonder if creativity can really be "owned" and then controlled through laws and restrictions, while still desiring to share one's creations. Isn't it somehow strange to release something to the whole world, while still claiming personal ownership and control?
[/rant off] -- sorry. Hopefully it's related enough to the topic that I won't get in trouble...
I don't know how the actual collection of tax like fees (it's not really a tax in the exact legal sense) happens in Sweden, but I guess it's not all too dissimilar from Finland.
In Finland I'm already buying my CD-R/DVD-R media without the so-called "record company tax". Any rise in these taxes does not affect me.
I just filed for an application that allows me to use the blank media for professional purposes. I can't resell them and can not record other people's IP on them without consent (or ponying up the fees).
If such a bill were to be passed in Sweden/Finland, I'm sure there would be a few million people interested in filling out the same kind of application.
Legally they can't even deny you the possibility to buy the discs tax free.
After all, there is no law that says you have to pay dividends to recording artists or record companies for backing up your own word files or digital photos.
Then again, if you are already putting illegally obtained music (or other people's copyrighted IP) on the recording media you purchased, then I think it's just fair that one has to pay some sort of compensation to the copyrightholders in question.
I'm not one of those "information wants to free, let's pirate everybody else's work for free 12-year-old mentality" people. I think artists at least the very least deserve a compensation and copyright holders in general too.
How much is enough, well that's another discussion completely, but I agree that the proposal JohnV brought to light here is beyond silly considering the rise in recording media fees.
On a related note, Finland also had a law proposal that would criminalise circumvention of digital copy protection mechanisms.
Also, we have system (not law as I understand it) for collecting tax like fees on blank media, mainly to recording artists' benefit.
Now, had the law passed, it would have basically combined into a criminal tax.
It would have taxed activity (copying music onto a blank) that would have been implicitly illegal in 90% of the cases (record companies are projecting 90% copy protection penetration within the next few years within EU).
Such a situation would have been a legislative/juridical nightmare.
Fortunately the law was shot down and sent back to the drawing board.
It will rear it's ugly head again some time, so I'll say this again even though I've already said it once:
Get involved, stay informed and help to stop stupid laws.
Hell, I've even written to US Senators myself (and gotten a non-standard reply from their assistant) and I'm not even a US citizen myself.
Only bitching about things at HA doesn't help diddly squat. Not that you shouldn't bitch, it spreads the word
Not all lawmakers eat from the hands of big conglomerates. They just don't know better, because the lobbying organisations are spewing lies into both of their ears.
If you make reasoned, calm and rational arguments to them, they will listen to you and likely hold up your rights as a consumer as well.
friendly regards,
Halcyon
PS I agree that the American copyright holder conglomerates have way too much power over national and transnational legislative efforts. It is just plain silly that MPAA/RIAA-like lobbying organisations can influence the laws that are drawn up in Sweden. It makes no sense. When did Sweden become under the jurisdiction of United States of Robber Capitalists?
While pirating has certainly had some impact on the music industry, I am not convinced it is as significant as the record companies claim. Ther is a far more common sense reason why music sales have been declining: Overpricing! The industry knows this, which is why the largest company in the U.S. recently announced significant price reduction. Greed had a negative effect, driving sales down. Eventually the same thing will happen with live concerts, where the pricing has climbed to such a high level ($100 tickets are not unusual) that it will push sales down eventually.
Ivan raises an interesting point about the failure of Prohibition in the U.S. in the 1920s. But the issue of the death penalty is very different. It has a history as old as the republic, and laws of that type only exist with the consistent support of a solid majority of the population. No doubt that the crimes are tragic, and so is the punishment.
And, as seanyseansean suggested, does this make music "piracy" legal, because you've paid for it?
That's the way is works in Canada, if I recall a Slashdot story correctly.
here in canada it's not that bad yet. the recording industry here is trying to do the same thing, and its been on the agenda for quite some time. they are already collecting levy off recordable media, and now they wanna hike that as well as tax portable mp3 players and hard drives. i read and watched on TV that it's highly unlikely the new lobby fees they want will be approved, mainly because some hardware companies threatened to stop selling their products in canada because the proposed levy is quite obscene
>>>'Also, the only record company using CD copy protection in Australia is EMI. All other companies' CDs are free of copy protection.'<<<
the same thing here in canada. EMI and whatever small labels they own are the only ones i've seen nowadays using copy protection on their entire catalogue. EMI canada is trying to have it all -- collect a shitload of money from taxes on recordable media as well copy protect all of their releases and prevent customers from making legal copies for personal use. this is madness. they can't have it both ways and the canadian government must step in and protect the consumers who are being ripped off. the record labels are losing money and customers because of lack of innovation and a shitty economic situation, not piracy
the same thing here in canada. EMI and whatever small labels they own are the only ones i've seen nowadays using copy protection on their entire catalogue. EMI canada is trying to have it all -- collect a shitload of money from taxes on recordable media as well copy protect all of their releases and prevent customers from making legal copies for personal use. this is madness. they can't have it both ways and the canadian government must step in and protect the consumers who are being ripped off. the record labels are losing money and customers because of lack of innovation and a shitty economic situation, not piracy
the more they piss people off the more they'll just encourage what they call criminal behavior. pretty soon everybody will be downloading and sharing for free and giving away thier music on cd-r because they paid for distribution rights in advance.
if the record industries think they've got a problem now, just wait and see how bad it can get. soon they won't have to exagerate how much money they're losing, except since they cried wolf for so long nobody will believe them anymore. natural selection will pick them off like it does everything else thats not smart enough to survive. they'll piss off everyone around them and sufer the wrath of the angry masses.
I agree that the American copyright holder conglomerates have way too much power over national and transnational legislative efforts. It is just plain silly that MPAA/RIAA-like lobbying organisations can influence the laws that are drawn up in Sweden. It makes no sense. When did Sweden become under the jurisdiction of United States of Robber Capitalists?
Just like I think it's silly that a price-distorting cartel like OPEC is allowed to exist while the WTO and EU slaps the US for stupid little trade infractions.
We (the people of the world) don't need them anymore, they can in turn see their inevitable end coming, and so they're scratching to stay alive by any means possible, moral or not, using their vast money and political power to accomplish the task.
Why can't they take their money, retire and do something nice with their lives instead.
Sweden is now governed by the RIAA!
I think they call it RIAS (Recording Industry Association of Sweden) or something liek this in Swedish
BTW I know about the levy in Canada, but I stil can get dirty cheap CD-rs @ reflagdeals
I think they call it RIAS (Recording Industry Association of Sweden) or something liek this in Swedish
STIM (Svenska Tonsättares Internationella Musikbyrå)
If anyone really cares...
STIM (Svenska Tonsättares Internationella Musikbyrå)
If anyone really cares...
Bureau of Piracy (Piratbyrån)
If anyone cares...
http://www.piratbyran.org/ (http://www.piratbyran.org/)
STIM (Svenska Tonsättares Internationella Musikbyrå)
If anyone really cares...
Bureau of Piracy (Piratbyrån)
If anyone cares...
http://www.piratbyran.org/ (http://www.piratbyran.org/)
No, its actually "Svenska Antipiratbyrån"
http://www.antipiratbyran.com/ (http://www.antipiratbyran.com/)
piratbyran.org leads to a page that indirectly encourages piracy!
http://www.antipiratbyran.com/ (http://www.antipiratbyran.com/)[/URL]
piratbyran.org leads to a page that indirectly encourages piracy!
Believe me, it was more or less deliberate...