Syntrillium Backup Forums :: View topic - OT: A tax on CDR writers and CD ripping s/w?

ozpeter · Location: Australia

I note from the BBC news site that a spokesman for one of the file-sharing sites, Grokster, has suggested that instead of those downloading copyright music being prosecuted, there should be a tax on CDR writers and/or CD ripping software - presumably including Cool Edit.

While I'd loudly defend the rights of music copyright holders, taxing everyone to pay for the infringements of some seems a little unfair. It's perfectly possible to use both the hardware and software for legitimate purposes only.

All those in favour?

- Ozpeter

AMSG · Location: Sweden

Well, I read that this is already somewhat of the case here in sweden and in belgium. When you buy cdr's and so on, a small amount of the price goes to the artists. Since they assume that you'll use it to store copyrighted stuff. As you said, this is not so great for those of us that use these things for legitimate purposes!

Bobbsy · Location: United Kingdom

Hmmm....a tax like that would raise an interesting point in my mind.

Is the government condoning an illegal activity by taxing it...or are they declaring that copying copyright material is okay?

Bob

djwayne · Location: USA

Tax on blank media and recorders ?? Didn't they already do that about ten years ago. I thought that's what Debbie Gibson's crusade was all about. I think there was some superfund the money was supposed to go into, to pay artists.. I saw prices go up but never heard anymore about it. I paid thru the nose for my recording equipment, and the salesmen told me a portion was going into a fund, so it was okay for me to record anything I wanted without fear, as it was considered professional equipment, and the right to record fee was included in the price. So in my mind, after already paying for this right to record fee, they want more money. How many times do we have to pay for this ?? Or was that all just a scam by the manufactures,who charged the extra money, but never distributed it ??

Craig Jackman · Location: Canada

Welcome to Canada. We have to pay a levy on blank CDRs of about $0.21 each ... yes this doubles the price of blank CDs ... and it doesn't matter if you use them to back up your Word documents and never put audio on them, you still pay the tax. Does the money go to artists who've been "damaged" by illegal copyright infringement (... like there's legal copyright infringement ....)? I doubt it.

djwayne · Location: USA

That's what I mean. You've already paid for the right to copy music, and now they want more if you do copy music. That fee that you paid should go to artists, but how do you distribute it fairly ?? The whole system stinks. It's sort of like buying license plates for your car, then being told, you're not allowed to drive it, until you buy another license. The consumers are getting ripped. Record clubs offer 12 cd's for the price of one, and really cheapen the value of CD's. The truth is a mp3 is not a CD, and should not be considered something of great value. Even though the sound may be there, the artwork, the hard disk, the case is part of a whole package. The time spent searching out, downloading, and burning a song, is the cost of mp3's, and that's if you find a good quality one. I think it's easier to just buy the CD if I want it. At this time though, all I'm buying is DVD-A's & DVD Concert Video's for the 5.1 2496 sound. The record companies really need to make more titles available, if they want to sell more products.

Note: I don't download any music, other than what's offered for free from artists on MP3.com, and even then, that's a rarity. I thought Napster was a great marketing and research tool for music listeners, as it encouraged music listening. It's too bad the courts didn't see it that way. The monthly fees they are now considering, are a waste to me, as I don't download enough to make a monthly fee worthwhile. The per song charge, makes more sense to me, but with all the bickering and legal problems the music industry is creating, I just turn it all off, and enjoy the silence. And no I'm not buying Metallica's new DVD, or Madonna's new CD, I won't even listen to it, and hopefully, they won't send me a bill anyway.

VoodooRadio · Location: USA

I agree with the majority here... especially,

beetle · Location: USA

CD-R/recorder tax is already a reality in Canada. In the US only CD-R and burners made specifiaclly for music are taxed. Anything that is considered used for data or pro use is exempt.

Craig Jackman · Location: Canada

jester700 · Posted - Fri Jun 27, 2003 6:25 am

MusicConductor · Location: USA

Apples' iTunes uses AAC/MP4 technology. Is that better than 128 kbs mp3 in your book? One of my buddies swears by it. I just want it--or something--to work so there's finally a win-win option on the playing field.

djwayne · Location: USA

I've read that the ACC/MP4 format Apple is using is comparable in sound to the mp3, and the writer wasn't raving about it. The good thing would be to be able to get any recording of an obscure song, not locally available, or brand new music before it's released. The 99 cent fee is worth it to have the record companies shut up and stop labeling music listeners thieves. I stand by my comments that if we've already paid a fee for the right to record something onto blank media, then consumers should have that right, and the record companies are double charging making them the ones who are out of line. For all the legalities and name calling going on though, I'll buy only a very select few things that I've already heard and am familiar with.

Remember it's only 99% of lawyers who give the rest of them a bad name.

What about really badly mixed or defective cd's and DVD can I get my money back ??? It's a gamble.

beetle · Location: USA

William Rose · Location: USA

Wherever this kind of a tax is in place, it doesn't appear to be much more than a "portion of the proceeds goes to charity" type situation.

Or, I don't know, let me understand this. In countries where it is illegal to make copies of copyrighted material, does this taxation relieve the user of the legal burden ? Is there some sort of designation on the media itself that verifies tax has been paid, and so it's therefore considered exempt from the restriction ?

At any rate, it's a moot argument when considered in the context of United States statute without a fundamental change to the copyright laws as they now exist. I mean, I suppose the federal government can impose a tax on anything they wish, provided there's an aspect of interstate traffiking. Not otherwise. And they could argue that that exists via telecommunication exchanges. But this is really stretching it. The federal government really has no plausible fiscal interest here. Lobbying pressures from the recording industry notwithstanding.

In the end I think it will wind up being just another tossed around idea in this ongoing frenzy to manage an entirely un-enforceable section of law. But no harm occurs without distribution. That's the thing. And no federal tax is going to make distribution officially acceptable.

In the days before Napster and P2P, private distribution wasn't a big concern because it was relatively limited in it's potential. But now there's an enormously efficient medium for private distribution in place and operating. So now they have to figure out how to regulate these private exchanges, and under the current system, it just isn't possible. I personally see the only option as being putting a stop to P2P networks, or place some kind of limit on their size. Or put an end to the luxury of anonymity with their usage. But whatever the solution, it will have to be based on intervention of distribution, not possession or the act of copying anything.

Craig, earlier I made a nearly identical observation in another thread about sound quality and how it can have virtually no bearing on the emotive aspect of a song. They're so close it's kinda spooky.

ozpeter · Location: Australia

res1223 · Posted - Sat Jun 28, 2003 2:58 am

William Rose · Location: USA

You pretty much answered your own question. The "Fair Use Clause" is a set of generally accepted exceptions. So, by broad and common interpretation, the U.S Copyright Act allows a number of things, one of them being a purchaser to make copies as he sees fit, limited to copies for distribution or public performance.

Just because it isn't specifically defined as a right doesn't mean it isn't legal or allowed.

res1223 · Posted - Sat Jun 28, 2003 12:02 pm

I wasn't trying to say that it wasn't "legal or allowed", but it isn't a law. I was just trying to say that it's not as clear-cut (in the U.S.) as most people seem to think.

Rob

William Rose · Location: USA

It is a law. It falls under the Fair-Use Clause of the United States Copyright Act. It's subject to interpretation, but.....

Look, there's no law that says, "You can paint your house any color you want." And there is no law specifically granting "Freedom of Choice" except to women in regards to reproduction. But, the 14th amendment does grant the right to "Liberty" so, how much do want to bet that, through interpretation, the color you choose to paint your house, or how long you want to grow your hair, are choices protected by the U.S. Constitution ?

So, until a Federal court issues a ruling saying otherwise, or until Congress changes the law to prohibit such activities, Yes, it is law, covered under the Fair-Use Clause of the U.S. Copyright Act.

beetle · Location: USA

djwayne · Location: USA

Here's a link with tons of info on the copyriright laws.

http://www.musicunited.org/

I found this link on WEA.UK website.

A good attourney knows the law, a great attourney knows the judge.

res1223 · Posted - Sat Jun 28, 2003 5:36 pm