+1
For the Led Zeppelin reference alone.
Now I shall read the article !
EU governments don’t have to impose a levy on blank media to compensate copyright holders for losses from private copies, the European Court of Justice has decreed. It’s actually perfectly lawful to compensate them from a general fund, as Spain and Finland do, an opinion from Advocate General, Maciej Szpunar, clarified today. …
A lot of home taping is NOT of material controlled by the BPI etc. People make home videos, and record their children's first words, as well as distributing Linux, etc,
Who decides who gets the compensation, and how? And why?
How big are the contributions to OpenBSD from this (cess) pool?
This is just step 1.
Soon enough, the argument will be made that USB sticks are the most common storage medium for copied media. Then of course it's just a small leap to hard drives and them newfangled SSD. Come to think of it, your phone stores music too.
Per-gigabyte tax on any form of non-volatile storage is the only way to be fair!
Sorry - you aren't old enough. Pop music was murdered by Stock, Aitken and Waterman.
I'm most certainly old enough to recall the days of SAW. However, they gave us the delightful Kylie Minogue and for that, all sins are forgiven. Like a fine wine, she just gets better with age. Obviously, being a formerly long haired rocker, I usually watch her music videos with the sound off and Black Sabbath on.
When I buy the right to listen to some music it makes no difference to the musician what technology I use to listen to that music. The musician has not lost anything, so the correct amount of compensation is 0. That was the government's clearly stated reason for the lack of compensation from the beginning.
Thanks to this ruling, we must now fund a quango to calculate how much each musician deserves and not pay them because the research ate the entire budget to arrive at a long list of zeroes.
Time for Orlowski to demonstrate the value of a compensation scheme. Lets see financial details of the existing compensation organisations: how much they collect and the amount - if any - that reaches musicians directly and not spent on their behalf on tasks like pointless litigation and lobbying for more pork.
"When I buy the right to listen to some music it makes no difference to the musician what technology I use to listen to that music."
On the contrary, the music industry *loves* an excuse to sell you the same music you've already bought, over and over in different formats.
Mono LP, stereo LP, eight-track cartridge, cassette, CD, remastered CD, re-remastered CD with different bonus tracks, DVD Audio/SACD, blah blah. I'm sure they'd quite like to keep this up in the post-physical-media age.
Meanwhile, the thruppence ha'penny royalties that are the financial crumbs from the table make a big "difference" to the musicians' bank account.
"On the contrary, the music industry *loves* an excuse to sell you the same music you've already bought, over and over in different formats."
Yes, but Flocke specifically said the musicians rather than the music industry. The industry isn't just the musicians - it's a lot of other people as well.
@AC "Meanwhile, the thruppence ha'penny royalties that are the financial crumbs from the table make a big "difference" to the musicians' bank account."
Perhaps then the record label or retailer should absorb the cost of these crumbs and pay the author and artist double or triple the current amount. For those not aware, it's 2%-4%.
The music industry want to have its cake and eat it. They expect you to pay for multiple media copies, but you can't leave your digital music to your children (see Bruce Willis iTunes).
I do have sympathy for struggling artists who are being exploited by the industry. But that doesn't mean we should fix it by penalising the listener. Fix the labels and retailers.
Can you please stop with this nonsense? The right to listen to indeed.
I only buy physical things, Vinyl LP's and CD's. Having purchased the product i use it as i see fit.
I paid the "artist" and associated "parasite" tax at the time of outright purchase.
Anyway, wasn't the original intent of copyright to remunerate creatives "whilst they create more work"?
Not as a parasite foodstuff many years after their creative output ceases (including death).
>No mention of a licence.
You'd better check.
I used to think, but if you dig out your microscope and read the tiny print (can be on the label, booklet or cover) you'll usually find that you have been granted a license for personal use of whatever is on the medium and normally excluding public performance (so a radio station can't just pay £10 for a CD to play on the air as many times as they want, for example).
I must admit, I was quite surprised when I looked into this stuff a few years ago.
When I buy the right to listen to some music it makes no difference to the musician what technology I use to listen to that music. The musician has not lost anything, so the correct amount of compensation is 0. That was the government's clearly stated reason for the lack of compensation from the beginning.
"Thanks to this ruling, we must now fund a quango to calculate"
Er. No.
"Time for Orlowski to demonstrate the value of a compensation scheme..."
Time for you to calm down a little, I think. Any mention of paying musicians seems to send some Commentards round the bend.
"When I buy the right to listen to some music it makes no difference to the musician what technology I use to listen to that music. The musician has not lost anything..."
<slaps forehead>
The state has stepped in and removed a property right. A commercially valuable property right. Which is also your right (and you would care if you were creative in any way). Under international treaties this can't be done without compensation. There are good reasons for this, even if they escape you.
"...spent on their behalf on tasks like pointless litigation and lobbying for more pork"
I do suspect that if Herr Kroes found himself being paid as reliably as musicians get paid for use of their sound recordings, he would be noisily backing a lot of "pointless litigation" on behalf of Herr Kroes.
Funny really, but the musicians I know, did it fot the love of music not the money.
Otherwise they would have been better off just doing their day jobs.
Anyway I am very unimpressed with record labels as the only deals they offered years agp were so bad that many bands stuck to self funded or touring only.
Why would musicians need compensating for format shifting in the first place... what's the original reason for that? A TV station doesn't get compensated if somebody records a TV programme. I get the feeling that there is no real reason, it's just that many EU countries already do it so the rest must too.
Now that the court has clarified that compensation is not linked to a levy on blank media, can it just come out of the same pot that the BPI get and we can be done with this nonsense? Or if it must be a different pot, make it 1p/year.
"Why would musicians need compensating for format shifting in the first place... what's the original reason for that? "
I think that the original reason comes from "way back when", when there were two sources of music - LP's and tape (either reel to reel, cassette, or even 8-track).
As such, the musicians and record companies expected people to buy TWO copies of any specific song or album, assuming you wanted to play said music at home or in the car and you didn't want to buy a record player for the car or a tape deck for home...
For most people it was never an issue as pre-recorded cassette and 8-tracks sounded dire.
But then higher quality hardware came along and you could then record the LP you bought onto a high quality blank take (which usually sounded better that the fast-duplicated tapes available for sale). Or you record certain favorite songs and make up a mix-tape you could share with friends...so they then didn't have to buy said music at all.
The music industry didn't like this and hence campaigned for blank media to be taxed somehow and for musicians to be given this extra money.
The "battle" has been raging since the mid-1970s....and it would be nice if it came to an conclusion now.
It did stem from about that era, but the justification on the Continent was people recording from the radio, or someone else's LP collection. i.e. it was compensation for pirated copies.
How this got turned into a levy on making personal use copies of legitimately owned media is something else altogether.
A TV station doesn't get compensated if somebody records a TV programme.
You take that for granted, but the content producers would very much like to be compensated for just that. That's why there's the relatively short time limit on time shifting services like BBC iPlayer; short period time shifting is grudgingly accepted as basically a delayed broadcast, however anything resembling a permanent copy would require additional licencing.
It's got to the stage where if you run a radio station (hospital radio in my case) and you buy the .wav file from say ilikemusic you have to pay the copyright bodies a dubbing licence to store that wav file in a play out system even though it's not been dubbed over from another media.
Why the hell should they get a penny ?
I wasn't recompensed by the Government when I had my car stolen* and had to be compensated out of insurance that I had to purchase myself. Heck, why not remunerate them additionally due to the sale of blank sheets of paper as that can be used to copy literal works.
* note: permanently deprived of my property and not copied.
Indeed.
If a levy is placed on blank media to compensate musicians, perhaps I can get my music kicks directly from BitTorrent as long as I burn to one of the said media levied formats, since I've already paid for it.
The problem with these kinds of taxation schemes is that morally they work both ways.
It’s actually perfectly lawful to compensate them from a general fund, as Spain and Finland
Every paragraph that mentioned Spain is factually incorrect as far as I know. There IS a tax on blank media and it was implemented for the purpose of paying off rights-holders. Now this may go via a central fund (in fact I'd be surprised if there wasn't some mechanism in place for the politicos to have a nibble as it went past); but it's not paid for for free out of the goodness of the politician's hearts and for the pure love of their citizens, as the article implies.
My understanding of the article is that Spain's blank media tax is not hypothecated (accounted for in a separate accounting). The tax goes into the general fund, the payments come out of the general fund. The collecting societies were presumably appealing because there's no actual law saying that money in has to equal money out - and the court said that was fine, there didn't need to be one. So Spain can set the tax as high or low as they want, and the payments as high or low as they want, as long as the payments are fair.
This is a hell of a lot easier to manage, because they don't need to worry about adjutsing the tax or payment levels to deal with surpluses or deficits in the hypothecated fund, if the aggregate tax collected and payments made don't match up.
I went and looked it up and...
- At the end of 2011 the law was changed from a levy to a general taxation. In the general election this was sold as "we're getting rid of the levy".
- From memory it ended up in court after that. Since then I'm not sure what happened but I suppose the law was upheld.
- As for the actual amount in the pot taken from general taxation, who knows? Probably a state secret.
- I don't remember a sudden drop in media or devices like mp3 players, printers, or phones.
"How about DRM cd's dvd etc."
I think this only covers music and CD's....
As far as DVD goes, there's a different "set" of media companies' interests at stake, namely Hollywood and the film studios.
Most (music) albums might only cost a small number (or even fractions) of millions to create, market and produce - so their "losses" to "home taping" are relatively minor. However, studios can spend hundreds of millions of dollars/pounds etc to do a similar job, so "copying" said movies causes a lot more consternation and as such, it's less likely that they will be appeased by said ruling(s).
The technology does exist for individuals to "copy" DVD's and convert said files into MKV (or similar) files that can be watched on various devices (and without needing the original media)....so, at some point some scheme needs to be thought of, to ensure that film companies can be reimbursed with some form of compensation.....but don't hold your breath !!
The idea of requiring compensation for copying a purchased CD to a writable CD* is utterly at odds with the assertion that when one buys a music CD (etc . . .) one is actually buying a license to consume that content.
Either I am paying for the artistic work or not - end of story.
I understand that the quality of the recording of the work is relevant and buying a VHS copy of a movie does not and should not automatically grant me a right to watch the Blu-Ray version, not least because it is likely remastered, which requires extra work that should be compensated (paid for).
But that's not relevant to this issue at all because the process of transferring the work from one media to another does not increase the quality of the work itself. Ripping a CD as a 24/192 FLAC just gives me a 16/44 track in a bigger size - I don't magically get access to the recorded work as it would sound if the file was created from the original analog masters at 24/192.
* - Or a CD to a cassette or a DVD to another DVD or to a hard drive, etc . . .
Because you haven't bought the right to make a copy.
This is a commercially valuable right that's traded. For money. You have this right too. Anybody stealing this right from you (like a Government, through a copyright exception) needs to pay you.
Nowadays with MP3s, the right is bundled in, and you can wonder why it wasn't years ago. But that's different question.
The Government absolutely can take rights away. It's their prerogative as the UK's legislative body.
For a subset of those rights we defer to the EU and/or the ECHR however, such as in this case, where it's the Gov'ts job to argue that their legislation is allowed and/or challenge existing EU legislation.
And regardless on your opinions on format shifting, implementing a levy on copying media to "compensate" a limited group of people seems completely unjust, as it's a targeted tax on a media that may not even be used for the activities for which these people want to be compensated.
For example, in a hypothetical UK where such a levy is introduced, I would expect that if I used any such media to make a copy of a work that has waived its copyrights (for instance, any non-commercial copy of Linux, or any FOSS software), I shouldn't have to pay a levy, or I should be able to claim back against the levy. Also, I don't understand how the levy would really work, given that most writeable media these days can make multiple copies.
I'd be against a general fund that pays into the industry for copying "compensation" as this money will get caught up in middlemen and the current schemes these companies use tend to disproportionately favour bigger creators (though admittedly I'm basing this off testimony from The Indelicates from a few years back). I'd sooner have some kind of funding available through the UK arts and culture funding that is applied flatly to all artists for any of their works. That would act as an incentive to keep creating.
Those copyright exceptions are known as "fair dealing". That implies it's "fair" to deal in the copyright in the manner dictated by those fair dealing provisions. (e.g. criticism and review etc.). You don't compensate other news sources when you copy their stories, because it's fair dealing. Making a backup copy of a CD I've bought should just be brought into the fair dealing provisions, and then there's no "stealing" as you put it, going on.
So... the government is to maintain a pool of money that it distributes to artists who support it are deserving, based no doubt on a published formula that I'm confident will be as fair, transparent and unbiased as any Putin press release...
And how exactly is this pool supposed to relate to the amount of copying going on?
At least a "tax on blank media" makes some effort to connect the two, albeit in a very blunt and stupid way. (If you add 10p to the price of a blank CD, logically you should be adding 140 quid to the price of a terabyte hard drive, because that can also be used to record music.) A "pool from general taxation" just means "however much the gov't wants to bribe artists by this year". Watch for it to go up the year before an election.
On my frequent visits to China I often pick up 'content' that is not available in Indochina - even though Laos has porous borders and borders China.
Tapes have been passé for years, even DVDs and BlueRay have yielded to SD memory in the copy shops on China - although you need to check the quality. Obviously, DVDs and BlueRay disks remain economic for a few movies or music, but for bulk it's hard to beat SD and the Border Plod / Icemen hardly ever bother about SD chips.
In fact it is cheaper to buy SD memory, with content loaded, and then erase it so you can use it for your own purposes than to buy virgin SD chips.
Well, I've decided to license my ears and eyes to all those providers who bombard me with material I did not request (e.g. music used in a TV programme/ad/on radio/Youtube Vid). I will be sending the broadcasters a bill for the pleasure of using my ears. :-)
Alternatively, bring in a levy on blank media, but phase it in. Start with the earliest form (fair) and then work it in over a period of time. So, now for Video 2000, Laserdisks and reel-to-reel. In two years, do VHS and Betamax, 4 years time 8-track and cassettes, then minidisks in year 6..... :-)
"The UK can now bring in the exception by passing the law along with a provision for a small pot of money. This is seems reluctant to do, in contrast to the way it flings the cash at other recipients, such as internet VCs... Global "human rights initiatives" get over £10m a year, to choose an another example at random."
Not, for instance, the "too big to fail" banks? Hang on [checks byline]. Ah, it's Orlowski.