UK Right to Personal Copy Over-turned?

[Little.Egret]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I would be extremely surprised if the private copying exemption were to be reversed. What's far more likely is that there'll be some kind of compensation arrangement for rights-holders, as already happens in several other EU countries.

" tax should be applied to blank media including blank CDs, hard drives, memory sticks and other blank media."

So my new PC will be charged extra for the 900 GB hard disc ?

But Dropbox isn't in the UK so it's free.

Which proposal has been round two or three times already in the UK (once before 1995) and failed every time because the media to be taxed, from cassette tape and DAT onwards, was also used for plain backup of digital data.

[Little.Egret]

Some of the history.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Audio_Tape

he only concession the RIAA would receive was a more practical recommendation from manufacturers to Congress that legislation be enacted to require that recorders have a Serial Copy Management System to prevent digital copying for more than a single generation.[5] This requirement was enacted as part of the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992, which also imposed taxes on DAT recorders and blank media. However, the computer industry successfully lobbied to have personal computers exempted from that act, setting the stage for massive consumer copying of copyrighted material on materials like recordable CDs and by extension, filesharing systems such as Napster
==

http://self.gutenberg.org/articles/private_copying_levy

An implementation question that arises is whether the tax applies to any type of copyrighted work or is restricted to a limited field such as music. If it is restricted then the issue arises of how to collect the tax on media which can also be used for other purposes.

[Pulpmeister]

What this amounts to is a lobby group asking the government for a handout, on the grounds they are being robbed, and suggesting that the government get the money back by taxing third parties.

This is as logical as, say, the supermarket chains asking the government for a handout, because they are being robbed by shoplifters, and suggesting that the government get the money back by taxing, say, car tires, on the grounds that the shoplifters usually arrive in cars...

Basically, it's corporate welfare. I don't know what the solution is to preventing theft of digital material, and obviously the industry doesn't either. That's no reason to dip into the taxpayers' pockets. It's their own responsibility to protect their own commercial property from theft in the first place.

Currently there is an ongoing "conversation" about Australia's tax system and tax mix, and one of our newspapers studied the submissions by the various corporations and industry groups on how to improve the system. Every one of them simply asked for more tax breaks for them, lower tax rates for them, less regulation for them. None of them (surprise surprise) suggested that a big improvement would be pulling back taxes from secretive tax and regulation havens, which would make a very useful difference to the budget bottom line.

I'm feeling cynical today.

[Ghitulescu]

Since the UK legislation was going against EU directives, I wondered how long it will take to overturn it. Not much, I reckon

[JSWolf]

A tax on blank media and hard drives is basically saying we are crooks. What ever happened to INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY?

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Ghitulescu

Since the UK legislation was going against EU directives, I wondered how long it will take to overturn it. Not much, I reckon

If the UK government sees this as more income (or a way to screw the working people), this tax (if it happens) won't be overturned.

[Cyberman tM]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

A tax on blank media and hard drives is basically saying we are crooks. What ever happened to INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY?

(sarcasm following)

Of course you're considered innocent. But have you ever thought of the artists? Don't you know that every time you copy a CD an artists instantly starves?
Just because you wanted to listen to the music you thought you bought on your cell phone, instead of either buying it again or walking around with a CD walkman...

(end sarcasm)

This seems to be similar to what is currently happening in Austria (no kangaroos).

I've no doubt that the reason for this is to offset the allegedly tremendous losses through piracy.
Which of course would be illegal (and immoral), so instead they claim it's to offset the losses through private copying (which is no less immoral, IMO, since I deny there are losses involved for anyone).

In the end, it's an unconditional unmerited remuneration for enlisted artists.
Who, at least in Austria (no kangaroos) have the gall to actually complain that the suggested 30 Million Euro per year are not enough.

They are fed 30 million euro, for no return service, except producing a product that someone already paid them.

Feels a lot like the internet providers wanting to get paid thrice, doesn't it? (Customer, Website, Website again)

To get to eBooks, it will (in Austria) affect them in a way - anything that contains a storage medium WILL cost more. 6-11% of DEVICE PRICE AFAIK.

[davidfor]

Originally Posted by Cyberman tM

(sarcasm following)

Of course you're considered innocent. But have you ever thought of the artists? Don't you know that every time you copy a CD an artists instantly starves?
Just because you wanted to listen to the music you thought you bought on your cell phone, instead of either buying it again or walking around with a CD walkman...

(end sarcasm)

This seems to be similar to what is currently happening in Austria (no kangaroos).

I've no doubt that the reason for this is to offset the allegedly tremendous losses through piracy.
Which of course would be illegal (and immoral), so instead they claim it's to offset the losses through private copying (which is no less immoral, IMO, since I deny there are losses involved for anyone).

In the end, it's an unconditional unmerited remuneration for enlisted artists.
Who, at least in Austria (no kangaroos) have the gall to actually complain that the suggested 30 Million Euro per year are not enough.

They are fed 30 million euro, for no return service, except producing a product that someone already paid them.

Feels a lot like the internet providers wanting to get paid thrice, doesn't it? (Customer, Website, Website again)

To get to eBooks, it will (in Austria) affect them in a way - anything that contains a storage medium WILL cost more. 6-11% of DEVICE PRICE AFAIK.

Australia (lots of Kangaroos) has had a law like this for a while. But, it only applies to cassette tapes. It was passed in 1989, so that made sense then. I wonder how much it garners now. Hopefully no one notices it now, as it would probably give the wrong people ideas.

[pdurrant]

There's some interesting commentary at outlaw.com.

It seems unlikely that the government would introduce any levy because of this ruling. They will either rule that any such harm is minimal, producing evidence to show this, or they will just drop the legalisation of personal copying.

My guess is that the government will declare that any harm is too small to be significant, and make personal copying legal again.

[pdurrant]

I'm rather surprised to find that there seems to be nothing about this on the BBC news web site.

[crich70]

Originally Posted by HarryT

No, this is about format-shifting, not copying of digital media. It would only impact someone who created their own ebooks by scanning paper books; I suspect that not many people do that. It will remain legal to make as many copies as you want of ebooks that you've bought, and it will remain illegal to copy an ebook that you haven't bought (unless it's in the public domain, etc etc).

Basically it may be a reversion to the silly situation we had for many years whereby someone was technically breaking the law if they bought a music CD and ripped it to their MP3 player, a position that everyone, government and music industry included, agreed was ridiculous, and for which nobody was ever prosecuted.

It'll be interesting to see what the court decides is the appropriate course of action next month.

So they bring a case to court that they themselves agree is ridiculous and for which no one has ever been charged and expect to win what? (It is a tale told by an idiot) sounds like a good quote for a future headline.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

My guess is that the government will declare that any harm is too small to be significant, and make personal copying legal again.

Is it illegal again now, or has the judge simply ruled that the law needs to be changed?

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Is it illegal again now, or has the judge simply ruled that the law needs to be changed?

I believe that since the High Court has ruled that the law itself is unlawful, personal copying is now immediately illegal again, just as it was before the law came in.

But I am not a lawyer, and I'm not certain about this.

But I'm surprised there isn't more mainstream coverage of this.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

A tax on blank media and hard drives is basically saying we are crooks. What ever happened to INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY?

In EU business, it is "guilty until proven innocent" -- so I guess this isn't much of a surprise.

[jl_carter]

Originally Posted by davidfor

Australia (lots of Kangaroos) has had a law like this for a while. But, it only applies to cassette tapes. It was passed in 1989, so that made sense then. I wonder how much it garners now. Hopefully no one notices it now, as it would probably give the wrong people ideas.

There is no levy for anyone to notice or to garner anything. In 1993, the High Court ruled that the levy was in fact a tax and therefore unconstitutional.