ECJ Rules that Ebooks must have standard VAT rate

[ebookguy]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

No reason to wonder.

People pirate stuff because they can then get it for free. Other factors include how acceptable piracy is within one's peer group.

As for the justice of charging a higher tax for the eBook: I think that in the past, it was consistent with social justice because the people who could afford eReaders were more affluent than paper book purchasers. But as eReader and tablet prices come down, this won't be true any more. So what was a good policy should be reconsidered.

Agreed you should consider signing my petition on this issue at https://www.change.org/p/abolish-the-20-reading-tax is it is time we sorted this injustice for everyone!

As mentioned at the top, the courts are ruling based on the law. There is no conspiracy here. The law simply has to be modified to reflect ebooks. It would be interesting to see how they are defined under such a law. While most of us seem to read traditional books electronically, some ebooks contain embedded audio and video.

[theducks]

Originally Posted by rkomar

So, how do you explain the lower taxes on paper books?

Simple
When the original Tax schedule was made, product placement was squabbled over, the various SIGs would prevail or the law would have been still being hashed over.

We call it filibustered over here

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by ebookguy

Agreed you should consider signing my petition on this issue at https://www.change.org/p/abolish-the-20-reading-tax is it is time we sorted this injustice for everyone!

Have you spoken to your MP about this? That would probably achieve more than an online petition which people are unlikely to come across.

[ebookguy]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Have you spoken to your MP about this? That would probably achieve more than an online petition which people are unlikely to come across.

I will be doing this also but I am more likely to be listened to with signatures.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by BWinmill

As mentioned at the top, the courts are ruling based on the law. There is no conspiracy here. The law simply has to be modified to reflect ebooks. It would be interesting to see how they are defined under such a law. While most of us seem to read traditional books electronically, some ebooks contain embedded audio and video.

Then the solution is to not allow any eBook in the EU that has audio or video or any sort of connectivity to the net. That means no links to the net defined as a proper link. Make eBooks just eBooks.

[ebookguy]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Then the solution is to not allow any eBook in the EU that has audio or video or any sort of connectivity to the net. That means no links to the net defined as a proper link. Make eBooks just eBooks.

This is not just an ebook law, it is a "digital services" law. Thus as long as they are delivered over the internet.

[darryl]

I posted in another thread my belief that bad laws lead not only to increasing disrespect for the law in general but also to many people applying their own moral standards in lieu of the particular offending law. This is yet one more example.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by darryl

I posted in another thread my belief that bad laws lead not only to increasing disrespect for the law in general but also to many people applying their own moral standards in lieu of the particular offending law.

Is there any evidence that piracy is lower in the US, where eBooks don't face higher taxes than paper books? What about France and Luxembourg before this ruling, as compared to Spain and Germany? If you are right, shouldn't there be evidence that the former have less piracy than the later?

A couple years ago, it was, to me, a good law because eBooks, due to the cost of eReaders, were a luxury item. In the less affluent EU countries, it probably still is a good law. Only when eReader and/or tablets become ubiquitous among the less affluent does it become a bad law, in my opinion. And I'm not quite sure we are there yet. If anyone actually has statistics on the average income and wealth of eBook vs. paper buyers, I will be interested.

Now, if you believe form factors prized by the more affluent should be taxed at the same rate as a well-used paperback, you'll have a different opinion. So may low-income persons who spend a lot of their meager income on eBooks. So may those who have other reasons for opposing the EU regulation. But varying opinions don't equate to bad law.

[thewitt]

In less affluent EU countries, taxing eBook more is a good thing?

I'm sorry, I don't get it.

I'm not in favor of taxes as a social weapon, but I know many people are.

I live in a developing nation. eBook readers are expensive for many, but do you know where most of the people I know read eBooks? On their phones.

In spite of the cost of dedicated eReaders, the eBook has become THE way that most of these people read books. There are no libraries of freely available books to check out. There are no used bookstores with the thousands of titles you can find for $0.99 in the big cities of the US.

These people download eBooks and read them on their phones. It's the cheapest way possible for them to get a selection of current, interesting, meaningful books and enjoy reading them.

Imagine my surprise when I found out that 80% of the locals I gifted my 270,000 word novel to, were reading it on their phone! That would drive me crazy, but it's what they have and what they do.

Now you are advocating punishing these people with a higher tax rate because somehow you consider eBooks to be luxury items?

I will never understand. Sorry.

[eschwartz]

Please stop claiming that poor people deserve access to ebooks. It offends me.

[darryl]

@Steve. Thanks for your thoughtful post. It depends, of course, on the criteria you adopt for calling a law a bad law. You seem to have adopted a single criterion, Social Justice, and declared the tax concerned a good one because you feel its application is progressive. Personally I disagree even on this. Once an ereader is purchased, and there are some very cheap ones around, the price of ebooks should be, and often is, much lower, though there is of course currently no market for "used" ebooks.

Leaving this aside, I think the law is a bad one for a number of reasons. It discriminates between sales of the same content on the basis only of its form, with only an arbitrary basis for doing so. Books have often enjoyed "special snowflake" type status so far as laws and taxes are concerned. For many of us they hold a special place in our hearts, and governments are often loath to be seen as interfering with free speech and literature and the spread of ideas. I suspect that the low VAT category for books is not because of their originally paper form, but because of their content. It is effectively not accepting an ebook as being a book, which is at odds not only with the reality but also I believe with the views of most people. It threatens to distort the market in favour of the declining paper book and the publishers of such paper books. And it is effectively unenforceable.

I think it will lead to increased piracy and increased circumvention of geo-blocking. However, there is no reliable measure of either of these things. And there is further harm because even many of those who don't circumvent the law lose that little bit of further respect for the law in general.

[Tarana]

Have you read the 'license' on video tapes and DVD/BluRays? They claim you can't do all kinds of things with them. Which everyone ignores.

In the US, it's already been ruled that you are allowed to make copies for your own personal use. I make use of it- I don't ever lend out my actual DVDs to family members living outside my home. I just give them a copy. Same thing with my CDs. I only had copies in my car. (I can hardly wait for an upgrade to flashdrive in my car!).

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by thewitt

I'm not in favor of taxes as a social weapon, but I know many people are.

Taxing at the standard VAT rate does not translate to taxing as a social weapon.

If the EU policy is any kind of weapon, it is the tax break for paper that is a weapon -- one aimed at keeping traditional paper-focused bookstores from being put out of business by multi-nationals like Amazon.

There are no used bookstores with the thousands of titles you can find for $0.99 in the big cities of the US. These people download eBooks and read them on their phones.

No used bookstores, combined with high smartphone penetration among the poor, is a legitimate reason to tax eBooks at less than the standard VAT rate.

When I purchased my first Kindle in 2010, I think eBooks appealed to a much higher US/Canada/UK income bracket than paper book purchasers, who, as you note, often buy used. Looking at who is reading eBooks on my daily commute, I suspect this still is true in my area. France? Luxembourg? I don't know.

[thewitt]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

Taxing at the standard VAT rate does not translate to taxing as a social weapon.

By your own statements, you agree with using taxes as a weapon against the affluent owning eBook readers and the poor being forced to read paperbacks.

I'm confused.

You are the one who stated that you believed the higher tax rates were justified because they only hurt those with money - and a lower tax rate may be justified because of the ubiquitous nature of cell phones and lower income people now reading eBooks on them.

You can't have it both ways.

Either you believe that higher taxes are a valid way to punish those with money, or you don't.