4 ms·
> why not pirate your content? You already paid for it Because you didn't pay for the content. Assuming it's analogous to the Dutch law, the tax compensates l
by Aachen 3y ago
> why not pirate your content? You already paid for it
Because you didn't pay for the content.
Assuming it's analogous to the Dutch law, the tax compensates lost income from you being able to store publicly broadcast copyrighted materials, such as music on the radio or movies shown on TV. That's why it is taxed on storage devices and varies per device type.
You haven't gotten a license on every piece of music, software, and movie in existence. That would be great lol, I'd sign up for that tax. Essentially, that's what Netflix was for movies until Disney etc. decided they wanted not to participate and now we wonder why piracy hasn't died
- mulmen 3y agoIf storage devices contain a punitive charge for piracy then you did already pay for it. Why pay for a subscription if you already paid the fine?
- Aachen 3y agoPunitive money goes into the government's general funds ("algemene middelen", not sure if there's an internationally correct legal term). This money, instead, goes to copyright holders. The amount is set to cover minor household use, like copying from a friend or a broadcast. It's not to absolve you from copyright law as an individual altogether and make you never have to pay for a movie in your life If that's what you want, parliament is the assembly you will want to talk to, but I'm afraid that they're bound by international treaties and, even if not, the height of the tax that absolves you of all copyright ever would be more than you're willing to pay
- mulmen 3y agoThat's fucking insane. Like, what? What if the drive isn't used to store any copywritten material ever? What if I use it to store my own log files or literally anything I want because it's none of your damn business? How is this fee distributed? How do I get a cut of this content creator reimbursement money for myself?
- Aachen 3y agoTell me about it :) I'm just explaining how the law works in my understanding (and, interestingly, not getting any upvotes for it. Usually accurate comments are upvoted but then, usually, people don't disagree with the law. People don't like this messenger!), not saying I agree with it
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- TeMPOraL 3y agoIt's pragmatic. It's a pseudo-tax paid in order to cut out some space for fair use within copyright regulations (including international copyright treaties), while getting IP owners and distributors to shut up about "lost revenue from piracy". In some sense, this is a rent extracted by large IP holders, and consumers are getting the short end of the deal just as much as the artists. But arguably it's also a bureaucracy-minimizing and thus cost-minimizing approach at country scale: the alternative to a flat fee paid by some amount of commercial entities (and passed onto buyers through prices of hardware), would likely be dealing with individual-level enforcement, lawsuits targeting individuals and/or some other high-maintenance mess, all ultimately paid for by the taxpayer anyway.
- mulmen 3y agoIt’s pragmatic in the same way as negotiating with terrorists is pragmatic. It’s an exploitable philosophy.
- JTyQZSnP3cQGa8B 3y ago> Because you didn't pay for the content I'm in France and you do actually pay for it through this tax since all the income goes to a private company like the RIAA.