3 ms·

Punitive money goes into the government's general funds ("algemene middelen", not sure if there's an internationally correct legal term). This money, instead,

by Aachen 3y ago

Punitive 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 ago
That'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 ago
  Tell 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 ago
  It'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 ago
    It’s pragmatic in the same way as negotiating with terrorists is pragmatic. It’s an exploitable philosophy.

by Aachen 3y ago

mulmen 3y ago

That'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 ago
Tell 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 ago
It'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 ago
  It’s pragmatic in the same way as negotiating with terrorists is pragmatic. It’s an exploitable philosophy.