Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Music Businesses Media Media (Apple) Apple

Apple Sued in France for iPod Music Royalties 818

alex_guy_CA writes "A musicians rights group in France is suing Apple Computer for back royalties due from iPod sales. It seems in France, all CDs, hard drives, and the like owe musicians money in case any of it is used for piracy. Only Apple isn't paying up." I want compensation from sales of Microsoft Windows just in case it is used for spreading viruses.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Apple Sued in France for iPod Music Royalties

Comments Filter:
  • We're #2! (Score:5, Informative)

    by monstroyer ( 748389 ) * <devnull@slashdot.org> on Wednesday March 10, 2004 @12:13PM (#8522184) Homepage Journal
    This does not bode well for Apple. As a Canadian I know we have the "Blank CD-R Tax" [neil.eton.ca], which is comparable to the French tax. There are at least 25 other countries that have similar taxes.

    If this French musicians rights group wins their case, this could set a precedent for other countries with comparable laws to sue as well.

    As a musician [madtracker.net], i feel embarrassed about this lawsuit.

    On another note, cue the anti-french sentiment from a post-terror american centric peanut gallery... But at least this gives hope that the USA isn't the most litigious country in the world. Maybe you aren't #1 in everything after all. ;)
    • Re:We're #2! (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 10, 2004 @12:16PM (#8522219)
      Ahh see but in France they're not actually paying the tax while in Canada they are. I sure paid my $25 extra for my iPod last month and they clearly label that (bright red letters...yup).
    • by notque ( 636838 ) on Wednesday March 10, 2004 @12:17PM (#8522229) Homepage Journal
      On another note, cue the anti-french sentiment from a post-terror american centric peanut gallery...

      Hey! Don't try to tie in anti-french sentiment, and post-terror americans!

      Allow me to hate the french without any other connected properties you insensitive clod!
    • Re:We're #2! (Score:5, Informative)

      by Serapth ( 643581 ) on Wednesday March 10, 2004 @12:20PM (#8522273)
      Actually, it isnt just CDR's that get this tax in Canada... its almost all storage devices. DVD, mp3 players and I believe there was a stink a little while back about hard drives but im not sure where that one ended, all pay a small tax to the RIAA ( well, the Canadian equivalent ). I believe Australia and Britain pay very similar fee's. In the end, I cant see why France would be much different.

      The only issue I could think of, is if there is a double tax on the players... Such that if Apple is already paying a small tax for each drive they put in the iPod, then the retail sale shouldnt be taxed again. I doubt this is the case though.

      That said... I do think these taxes are BS. Its sorta like charging a tax for a blank piece of paper, because I could use it to plagerism someones work... Hmmm... maybe the should tax the pencil too... etc... etc... etc... Taxing something, for one potential use... of which that use is generally illegal is complete crap. Oh well, just another point of why MPAA's lobbying efforts are so effective.
      • Re:We're #2! (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Pope ( 17780 ) on Wednesday March 10, 2004 @12:28PM (#8522411)

        It's not a tax, it's a levy. Totally different thing in the eyes of the law.

        The only issue I could think of, is if there is a double tax on the players... Such that if Apple is already paying a small tax for each drive they put in the iPod, then the retail sale shouldnt be taxed again. I doubt this is the case though.

        The levy is added in to the retail price of the product. If I see CD-Rs for sale at $25, when I go to pay there's no extra levy added to that price, but there are the applicable sales taxes. It's not as bad as what you are assuming, though I'd rather not pay the levy to begin with.

        • Re:We're #2! (Score:4, Interesting)

          by Serapth ( 643581 ) on Wednesday March 10, 2004 @12:33PM (#8522483)
          [i]The levy is added in to the retail price of the product. If I see CD-Rs for sale at $25, when I go to pay there's no extra levy added to that price, but there are the applicable sales taxes. It's not as bad as what you are assuming, though I'd rather not pay the levy to begin with. Pope [/i]

          I agree about the tax vs levy point... I just chose to use "tax", as thats what the parent thread and origional posting itself used. Nothing like being wrong for the sake of consistancy! :)

          Are you sure the levy is applied at the retail level? If thats the case, it would the responsibility of each and every vender ( the BestBuys and RadioShacks of the world ) to collect and send the monies in. That would seem a terribly inefficent way to handle it. That is why I had assumed it would be at the manufacturers level that the levy got applied... or failing that, at the distributer level.

          I honestly dont know where it is though... im not refuting what you said, im just looking for clarification.
        • Re:We're #2! (Score:5, Informative)

          by radish ( 98371 ) on Wednesday March 10, 2004 @12:37PM (#8522538) Homepage
          Maybe the case in Canada, but in France (and the UK, also mentioned) all taxes/levies/whatever else are always included in the advertised price. In other words, the price tag says 50 euros, you pay 50 euros. How that is divided up between government, retailer, manufacturer etc is another matter.
      • Re:We're #2! (Score:5, Informative)

        by CKW ( 409971 ) on Wednesday March 10, 2004 @12:43PM (#8522619) Journal
        Actually, it isnt just CDR's that get this tax in Canada... its almost all storage devices. DVD, mp3 players

        NOT TRUE.

        They *were* considering it for flash memory and PORTABLE hard drives (no one was proposing it for hard drives in general) as well as vastly increased levies for everything else, but those got shot down as they decided that "there is no evidence that music distribution is happening via these mediums" - aka simply the fact that people are listening to their own collections of music on their own CF/micro-HDD are NOT sufficient to incur a levy - the standard is "are people putting music on it and sharing those with friends". As well there are tons of "non infringing uses" of things like CF which probably also weighed on their minds.

        So there is now a levy on portable devices with non-removable storage, but it's no where near as much as the industry wanted.

        Following is the *complete* list of tarrifs, taken from http://www.sycorp.com/levy/index.htm [sycorp.com], all numbers below in Canadian currency:

        21 cents per CDR/CDRW
        29 cents per cassette tape over 40 minutes
        portable music devices with less than 1 GB NON REMOVABLE memory - $2
        portable music devices with less than 10 GB NON REMOVABLE memory - $15
        portable music devices with more than 10 GB NON REMOVABLE memory - $25

        EVERYTHING ELSE - NO LEVY (that includes DVD R/RWs, removable CF/HDDs, and devices that don't include built in persistent memory).

        The retailers are the ones who collect and submit the levies, I don't think the manufacturers have to do anything. So there won't be lawsuits like this here - besides, no-one has as screwy laws and lawsuits as do the French :-)
        • Re:We're #2! (Score:4, Interesting)

          by Serapth ( 643581 ) on Wednesday March 10, 2004 @01:22PM (#8523097)
          Thanks for the clarification... that does lead me to a question then...

          If the retailers ar the ones who collect the levies, would that mean buying levied media from Costco or Sams would remove the levy? Seeing as the entire ( orginal ) intention of these stores was to be a supplier to other retail stores and government employees?

          In other words... If I own a small electronics store, and I source my cdr's from priceclub, since they are going to be resold... the levy should fall to me to collect?
        • I object! I say that the United States has more screwy laws than any other place in the world. Just take a look at our stupid sex laws that are still on the books. Then there are the laws about where you can park your elephant and how big of a strap you can beat your wife with.
      • Re:We're #2! (Score:3, Informative)

        by Annirak ( 181684 )
        You're a little off here. It would be a breach of the canadian charter of rights and freedoms to *tax* the sales of blank media on the off chance that the media might be used for an illegal use. That's like convicting anyone who ever buys blank media of a crime without any trial of any sort, which is illegal in our country and most other western countries.

        The relevant portion [cb-cda.gc.ca] of the copyright act (sections 79-82 are of note for this discussion) describes the way that the tarrif works. What it ammounts t
    • by Mr. Underbridge ( 666784 ) on Wednesday March 10, 2004 @12:27PM (#8522390)
      On another note, cue the anti-french sentiment from a post-terror american centric peanut gallery... But at least this gives hope that the USA isn't the most litigious country in the world. Maybe you aren't #1 in everything after all. ;)

      That's a little trite. One has nothing to do with the other, but it is interesting how laws like this in other countries don't generate the kneejerk reaction they do in the US. The supposedly liberal France and Canada both have such a law. Where are all the open-minded, rights-protecting leaders of such countries when those laws were passed?

      Point is every country has some stupid laws. And we Americans have been laughing at the French since looooooong before 9/11. That probably started sometime in 1939 or 1940 at the latest. ;)

    • Re:We're #2! (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Lars T. ( 470328 )
      One lawsuit against a company vs. dozens against people who may have used a P2P app - and you think the US lost the #1 spot in "being litigious"? That propels the US right at the top rank in "making up stupid excuses why we are not so bad after all".
    • by gobbo ( 567674 ) on Wednesday March 10, 2004 @01:09PM (#8522926) Journal
      First, it isn't a tax, it's a levy, which makes it a prepaid fee for copying privileges.

      Canadians who've paid this levy (and who hasn't?) have paid for the copyright provisions that allow anyone to make a copy of someone else's licensed/owned copy of a musical work, LEGALLY.

      How it works is this: I buy a CD. I can then loan that CD to any friend, and they can make one copy for personal use. Ad infinitum. They cannot, however, pass that 2nd gen. copy or a copy of that copy on to anyone else.

      What it means in the online world is that it is perfectly okay for a canadian to download one copy of an audio work for personal listening. It is NOT okay to then upload a copy of that copy (yes, that breaks the normal practice of P2P networks).

      So, canadians, leech on, you paid for it. And loan your CD's around to one person at a time, please. Otherwise, work to squash the levy, and we can move to the US IP laws version (why not we're dropping sovereignty everywhere else, eh! OK I'm bitter).
  • What a law... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by LostCluster ( 625375 ) * on Wednesday March 10, 2004 @12:13PM (#8522186)
    Well, it's the law, fair or unfair Apple needs to pay up. Of course, when artists start getting payment from legal users that presume compensation for when the devices are used for piracy, they're more or less waiving their moral claim to any damages for piracy since they've already been paid for that.
    • Re:What a law... (Score:3, Interesting)

      So, here's an easy (if not cheap) solution.

      Pay up, then stop selling. Refuse to sell so long as that law is in place.

      Apple's got the kind of fan base that might make that tactic popular.
      • by Stile 65 ( 722451 ) on Wednesday March 10, 2004 @12:40PM (#8522580) Homepage Journal
        I think, actually, Microsoft could do something like that.

        "You people are pissed off at us and our 'monopoly?' Fine. You can't have any more Windows. What's more, we're firing all our software engineers, sales and marketing professionals, secretaries, etc. and cashing out our stock."

        The US would shit its pants, as would the EU. That'd be thousands of jobs lost, support ended, etc. etc.

        I'd be amused.
        • Re:What a law... (Score:5, Interesting)

          by Planesdragon ( 210349 ) <slashdot&castlesteelstone,us> on Wednesday March 10, 2004 @12:49PM (#8522693) Homepage Journal
          The US would shit its pants, as would the EU. That'd be thousands of jobs lost, support ended, etc. etc.

          Three terms:

          * Apple
          * Linux
          * Emminent Domain.

          If MS folds all of a sudden, people can switch to Apple with new hardware, switch to Linux for extant hardware--or the government can just declare emminent domain, and start a new company with the rights to windows. (It'd probably be a stock market purchase, with the money from the stock going right to the "fair price" for MS.)
    • Re:What a law... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by System.out.println() ( 755533 ) on Wednesday March 10, 2004 @12:21PM (#8522297) Journal
      Are you serious?

      If Apple loses that means that EVERY hard drive that could potentially hold and play illegal music files - which by my calculations is all of them - is fair game for such a tax.

      Not only that, but the iPod is probably the stupidest player to start on - AFAIK it's almost the only player capable of playing LEGAL songs. (via iTMS) ("Almost", because I'm not sure of the status of the iPod clones like the Napster player)

      Why not start with something that is physically unable to play legally downloaded files?
    • by kcornia ( 152859 ) on Wednesday March 10, 2004 @12:23PM (#8522330) Journal
      Of course, when artists start getting payment from legal users that presume compensation for when the devices are used for piracy, they're more or less waiving their moral claim to any damages for piracy since they've already been paid for that.

      Pretty funny how this is always overlooked.

      I couldn't agree more, I think I'll go download some music this afternoon. I mean, I already paid for it when I bought my 2 HDs, my Rio, my CD burner, my blank CDRs, etc.
      • Re:What a law... (Score:4, Insightful)

        by RailGunner ( 554645 ) on Wednesday March 10, 2004 @12:37PM (#8522549) Journal
        I completely agree with your point about having already paid via the tax on your equipment, but there is one minor flaw - there's no way to ensure proper reimbursement for the artists - there's no way Britney Spears or Justim Timberlake or any of their clones should get compensated for a person buying a CD-R and burning an act with talent onto the disk.

        And as far as hating the French? We American's have disliked the French for *years*. They're rude to our tourists, they maybe bathe once a year, they piss and moan about the dominance of English on the internet, (since to them, French is an obviosly superior language), and then they call US arrogant?

    • Re:What a law... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by paranode ( 671698 ) on Wednesday March 10, 2004 @12:34PM (#8522499)
      Well, it's the law, fair or unfair Apple needs to pay up.

      Excellent. So we've just settled a lot of debates like gay marriage, the Patriot Act, DMCA, etc, etc.

      After all, the law is the law.
  • by thf ( 101130 ) * on Wednesday March 10, 2004 @12:13PM (#8522187)
    "It seems in France, all CDs, hard drives, and the like owe musicians money in case any of it is used for piracy."

    Does that mean that organizations like the RIAA are prohibited from suing music downloaders because the musicians have already been paid by the state (perhaps through some industry group), or is this just a tax?
    • "Does that mean that organizations like the RIAA are prohibited from suing music downloaders because the musicians have already been paid by the state (perhaps through some industry group), or is this just a tax?"

      Doubtful. France is a signatory to the Berne Convention and enforces copyright law about as well as any other industrialized country. Such a tariff wouldn't mean throwing out copyright law. Whether French law allows the IFPI (the European equivalent of the RIAA) to sue its citizens for copyr

  • by Space cowboy ( 13680 ) * on Wednesday March 10, 2004 @12:14PM (#8522202) Journal
    ... but it seems a pretty clear-cut infringement, given that the law exists. Perhaps Apple want to make a stand - can't see a USA company getting much sympathy in France though...

    Oh if only the virus line were true ... sigh...

    Simon.
    • by dave420 ( 699308 ) on Wednesday March 10, 2004 @12:22PM (#8522318)
      "can't see a USA company getting much sympathy in France"

      Not all countries work the same way as the US. European countries know about international diplomacy and don't take everything personally. Prime example: When bird flu was found in Delaware and the EU banned imports of US poultry due to safety concerns, the US "retaliated" and banned certain European imports. How on earth you can retaliate over a safety matter is beyond me. Is Europe supposed to import the infected chicken so they don't upset the US?

      This isn't a dig at Americans or the US, but rather the seemingly childish attitude the US has towards international relations. It seems the US is only prepared to use its "big boy voice" when it wants something, and as soon as it has it, it's back to "little boy voice" complete with huffs and pouting. Go figure.

      • by LostCluster ( 625375 ) * on Wednesday March 10, 2004 @12:38PM (#8522557)
        The problem is that Europe is starting to develop a hare-trigger for banning US imports. Afterall, bird flu in one US state does not equate to bird flu being found from coast-to-coast. It'd be the equal of us declaring because a problem was found in Spain that we'd cut off imports of that item for all of Europe... the other countries would have a problem with that.

        See, the EU is walking a fine line between being "The United States of Europe" and being distinct nations. When it's desirable to be many nations, like at the UN, they don't want to give up their individual seats, but they also don't want the USA sending enough people to fill 50 seats either. However, when its desirable to only be counted once, they insist on doing so as well.

        The EU's a rather new entity on the world stage and therefore nobody's sure exactly what to do with it yet. The EU is of course looking for advantages wherever possible...
        • The problem is that Europe is starting to develop a hare-trigger for banning US imports. Afterall, bird flu in one US state does not equate to bird flu being found from coast-to-coast. It'd be the equal of us declaring because a problem was found in Spain that we'd cut off imports of that item for all of Europe... the other countries would have a problem with that.

          And when the USA bans all imports of Canadian beef due to one single case of Mad Cow on the Canadian prairies, this is different how?
  • by funny-jack ( 741994 ) on Wednesday March 10, 2004 @12:15PM (#8522207) Homepage
    Q: Can the editors at /. let even one story go by without taking a pot-shot at Microsoft?

    I want compensation from sales of Microsoft Windows just in case it is used for spreading viruses.

    A: Apparantly not.
    • Re:Come on guys... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Dan667 ( 564390 )
      Actually that is not a bad analogy. Everyone pays when a Micr0$oft virus is successful, but if the company that produces the item is to be held responsible for it when it is used badly then Micr0$oft should be bearing the financial burdern of a successful virus. Still, I would vote for a no to Apple IPod tax, and a no to a Microsoft tax for that matter. To bad things are not more consistent.
      • Re:Come on guys... (Score:3, Insightful)

        by b0r0din ( 304712 )
        "...if the company that produces the item is to be held responsible for it when it is used badly then Micr0$oft should be bearing the financial burdern of a successful virus."

        Now I'm not a big Microsoft fan, nor do I find it amusing that every other day I get another email from someone carrying the Netsky virus. But it's an awful precedent to set to put the financial burden on the people who build an operating system to protect against every known virus. The reason Microsoft's OS is hit more than any othe
    • by morcheeba ( 260908 ) * on Wednesday March 10, 2004 @12:22PM (#8522322) Journal
      Nope, pudge is just saying that the viruses that he wrote are being illegally copied without his permission, and that he wants to be compensated. I don't know what his going rate is per virus, but since I haven't seen one GPL'ed yet, I'm sure people don't write them for free.
    • Re:Come on guys... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by FaasNat ( 522755 ) on Wednesday March 10, 2004 @12:23PM (#8522323)
      Next Q: Can the commenters at /. let even one pot-shot at Microsoft go without taking a pot-shot at the editors?
    • Re:Come on guys... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Neophytus ( 642863 ) *
      That's actually a pot shot at the French government's asinine law rather than at Microsoft. Nobody can deny that most viruses are written for Windows.
  • by Kenja ( 541830 ) on Wednesday March 10, 2004 @12:15PM (#8522211)
    There are some strange and restive laws out there. You should never just release a product and hope for the best. Especially something that makes money of off copywriten material. While you and I may disagree with the law, its still the law in france and Apple needed to have abided by it.
    • by ehiris ( 214677 ) on Wednesday March 10, 2004 @12:39PM (#8522561) Homepage
      "makes money of off copywriten material"

      Apple gives you the web site where you can go and buy the music and its copyright. If you choose to steal the music it's you who are a criminal and not everybody else who uses the devices with legitmate reasons.

      The law in France is dumb. Everyone pays for the ones that steal. It is a perfect example on how socialism is trying to fix society as a whole instead of the individuals who are detrimental to it.

      GO APPLE! I hope they win the battle and don't have to pay.
  • by LostCluster ( 625375 ) * on Wednesday March 10, 2004 @12:15PM (#8522215)
    One thing's that a bit unclear to me is who actually owes this money. Is it really Apple's responsiblity as the maker of the devices, or shouldn't it be the store's since they're the one who set the actual selling price?

    Afterall, if the tax is due based on the sale price, any discounts would lower that price.
    • by Kenja ( 541830 ) on Wednesday March 10, 2004 @12:19PM (#8522264)
      Apple sets the selling price. Thats why every place that sells apples stuff does so at the same price. They can give you bonus deals, but the base price is fixed or you lose your apple reseller license. This is also what put all the third party apple stores out of business since they where forbiden from selling for less then the apple owned stores. Because of this, most apple products are purchased direct from apple and those that are not have their prices set by apple.
    • shouldn't it be the store's since they're the one who set the actual selling price?

      Doesn't apply in France since, as in much of the EU, prices are fixed by the govt at MSRP in the name of "price parity". True advertised sales are allowed twice per year (3 weeks in each august and feb) and things are occasionally marked down but it's truly rare.

  • What if? (Score:5, Funny)

    by tsmit ( 222375 ) <tsmit50.yahoo@com> on Wednesday March 10, 2004 @12:16PM (#8522220) Homepage
    What if we call it a Freedom iPod.... Will that help?
  • by Politicus ( 704035 ) <.salubrious. .at. .ymail.com.> on Wednesday March 10, 2004 @12:17PM (#8522231) Homepage
    They're only threatening to sue. It's the difference between french farmers being disgruntled and actually pouring manure on street intersections.
  • by John Harrison ( 223649 ) <(moc.liamg) (ta) (nosirrahnhoj)> on Wednesday March 10, 2004 @12:18PM (#8522247) Homepage Journal
    Pay the fee, and then remove all the DRM from iPods sold in France and from iTunes musice store downloads made in France.

    That will show them!

    Seriously, Apple has made an effort to prevent piracy and that should be taken into consideration by Sacem.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 10, 2004 @12:18PM (#8522249)
    If I pay the tax, how much music am I entitled to pirate?
    • by gosand ( 234100 ) on Wednesday March 10, 2004 @12:41PM (#8522596)
      If I pay the tax, how much music am I entitled to pirate?

      As much as will fit onto said device.

    • by youdontcare ( 322766 ) on Wednesday March 10, 2004 @12:49PM (#8522683)
      This is not a "piracy tax", this is a "right to copy" tax. In France, we can copy anything but software as long as the source is legit (comes directly from the rights owner) and the copy is kept for our own private use.

      Your friend buys a DVD, CD, book ? Copy it and keep it for yourself - it's legal.
      Rent a movie, copy it, bring it back and watch the copy as much as you want - legal.
      Buy a CD, copy it, sell it - legal.
      Go to your media-hungry friend who owns thousands of DVDs, CDs, books and copy them - legal.
  • double edged sword (Score:3, Interesting)

    by morcheeba ( 260908 ) * on Wednesday March 10, 2004 @12:18PM (#8522252) Journal
    ...Sacem said that unless Apple settles its growing account, the agency that collects the payments "will have no other option than to go immediately to court to make sure that the rights of artists, composers and producers are respected.

    Sacem is playing the "starving artist" card, but they did it poorly. They said they wanted artists' rights protected, but if they really meant this, they should go after actual copyright infringers. They really just want money, which doesn't have much to do with rights.
  • The deal is not It seems in France, all CDs, hard drives, and the like owe musicians money in case any of it is used for piracy. The deal is stated in paragraph two:

    The argument centers on a fee levied in France on sales of blank CDs, tapes, hard disks and other hardware that can be used to copy music. The proceeds go to musicians and other rights holders who lose money to piracy.


    Even that sounds like a reach. Their system is like that used in other nations where there is a fee on media that goes to artists no matter if their work is illegally copied or not.

    The question that the article does not answer is if all/any HDD manufacturers pay the fee already. Guess what? If the fee was already paid by the manufacturer then Appled paid the fee already when they bought the drives. Not saying that is the case, but it is something to think about. Also, if no HDD manufacturer pays this fee then the threat is just as stupid as it sounds on the surface.
    • by happyfrogcow ( 708359 ) on Wednesday March 10, 2004 @12:34PM (#8522503)
      The big question is, how do I become an artist that is entitled to get this money? Do I have to be under contract of a certain recording/distribution company? Do I have to have proof that someone has illegally copied my music? Do all artists get the same amount? Do some get none? Are there any non-artists reaping the benefits of this tax? if so, why?

      This ranks right up there as one of the most assinine laws around, not just france's implementation, but every other country that has such a law.
      • by irix ( 22687 ) on Wednesday March 10, 2004 @01:08PM (#8522920) Journal

        In Canada, the money is theoretically doled out in proportion to album sales. However, if you read this [ccfda.ca] you'll notice that:

        Since the regime was established in December 1999, the CPCC has collected over $54 million in levies. According to an article in the Globe and Mail on February 26, 2003, only $6.8 million has been dispersed to copyright holders to date.

        My understanding is you also have to be the copyright holder to get the money, which is not many musicians. In other words, both consumers and musicians are being fleeced by this inane law, and the only people making money are record companies and Celine Dion.

        This is sadly just another example of influence peddling and corruption with our current government.

        • "My understanding is you also have to be the copyright holder to get the money, which is not many musicians."

          First, let's clarify that there's a distinct difference between the copyright on a recording (which is typically held by the record company and/or the engineer) and the copyright on the music and lyrics, which is held by the lyricist and composer.

          That would indeed suck if the Canadian tariff goes only to holders of the copyright on the recording. Here in the United States -- although many Slas

          • I checked, and here [neil.eton.ca] are the details for Canada. It appears that you are partially correct - the authors should get most of the money, with a bit going to the performer and the record company.

            It still doesn't change the fact that because it is based on sales and airplay that the money is going to be given to a few people and some record companies. It is worth noting that even non-Canadian authors are getting paid by this system - at least what small amount of the money is actually being paid out.

            Now excu

  • Who pays ... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by z0ink ( 572154 ) on Wednesday March 10, 2004 @12:21PM (#8522286)
    The last time I checked that only applied to countries in which the medium was manufactured. It really stinks that such a fine peice of hardware is getting bad press of a trivial matter. IIANAL, but what is the legality of Apple having to pay for loyalties only applying to specific countries? Is this something that would be taken care of during the trade agreement?
  • by infolib ( 618234 ) on Wednesday March 10, 2004 @12:24PM (#8522340)
    In Denmark we have levies too, but we're not paying for piracy, we're paying for "fair use". (Not that we have much fair use left - Denmark has one of the strictest copyright regimes internationally)

    The distinction is important. I resent the thought of paying levies on CD-Rs used to make backups of albums i bought fair and square. OTOH, if I were allowed to swap and burn music all I wanted I'd happily pay up.

    Of course the politicians aren't interested in this distinction at all - to them it's more a matter of stopping the artists from whining. Squeaky wheel gets the grease, that's how politics work.
  • For your information (Score:5, Informative)

    by boa13 ( 548222 ) on Wednesday March 10, 2004 @12:25PM (#8522349) Homepage Journal
    The SACEM is very much like the RIAA in France, so it is more accurately described as a "rights group" than as a "musicians rights group".

    The tax mentioned exists, but wasn't created without an outcry from pretty much everybody in France, which of course didn't prevent the tax from being created. (Lobbies, lobbies everywhere.)

    Like many people I highly doubt that any of the money collected this way goes into the pockets of "musicians". It definitely goes into some pockets, though.

    I didn't know that the tax applied to hard disk drives, this was the point of hottest debate; I thought the government pulled back on that one.
  • Flaimbait Headline (Score:3, Insightful)

    by IanBevan ( 213109 ) * on Wednesday March 10, 2004 @12:25PM (#8522356) Homepage
    I want compensation from sales of Microsoft Windows just in case it is used for spreading viruses.

    So how can I moderate an article's headline as "-1 Flamebait" then ?

  • by Lehk228 ( 705449 ) on Wednesday March 10, 2004 @12:25PM (#8522367) Journal
    If Apple really wants to win they should recall all iPods still in stored in France and put out AD's denouncing the "musicians" rights group and the tax involved, when people can't get what they want is when you get their attention, lawsuits happen all the time but a product being pulled from your country gets things done... "we're sorry, we cannot sell our product to you because is suing us under because they feel they deserve money for every one of our product we sell just in case it is used to pirate music"
  • Atlas Shrugged (Score:3, Insightful)

    by N8F8 ( 4562 ) on Wednesday March 10, 2004 @12:30PM (#8522441)
    It has always seemed to me that in France the looters are winning. If you have ever read Atlas Shrugged by Any Rand you know what I am talking about.
    • Re:Atlas Shrugged (Score:4, Insightful)

      by velo_mike ( 666386 ) on Wednesday March 10, 2004 @12:51PM (#8522705)
      It has always seemed to me that in France the looters are winning

      And just like in the book, they're "winning". As an example, there's a huge public service campaign now trying to "guilt" landlords into building ADA like features into appartments. The ads feature things like "she's 90 years old and lives on the fifth floor without an elevator". I say they're "winning" because just like in AS, it's their own high minded policies which cause this. French appartments are rent controlled, once you sign the contract your rent can only go up by a minimally, govt approved amount (I think it's 2.5%). Further, people can't be evicted except under extreme circumstances and the elderly and infirm are almost completely exempted from those. In short, there's a motivation NOT to build elevators since you can only try and encourage the old to leave and bring in new tenants at market rates.

      You're right though, France is a looters paradise. Want to see Ayn Rand's prediction come true, keep watching France as the baby boom generation retires and the well runs dry.

  • by sparty ( 63226 ) on Wednesday March 10, 2004 @12:42PM (#8522605) Homepage
    So does this mean all the iMacs, PowerMacs, PowerBooks, etc sold in France are also supposed to be taxed and Apple is refusing to pay? Or are those somehow "different"? (or, perhaps, is Apple paying those royalties but not the iPod royalties?)
  • Not piracy (Score:5, Informative)

    by El Cabri ( 13930 ) on Wednesday March 10, 2004 @12:44PM (#8522624) Journal
    To be a bit more accurate than the news summary, in France, as in many other European countries, blank media has a long history of having an additional tax that is not aimed as at fighting piracy, but as a way to remunerate _fair use_. The money is passed on to the various artist unions that handle the distribution of royalties, and of course, Britney Spears and other American "artists" get a share of that.

    I think it started with blank VHS tapes back in the 80s. More recently, CD-Rs and the likes, and even more recently, hard drives in general.

    While it was questionable to tax hard drives in general, since many of them are not used to store media, it is hard to make a case for the iPod's hard drive to be exempt.

    I personaly kind of like this system, which is by itself a better, more modern way of artist compensation than copyright is. Of course in France the two systems coexist, so you get the worse of both worlds.
  • The French are dumb. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by AyeRoxor! ( 471669 ) on Wednesday March 10, 2004 @12:45PM (#8522645) Journal
    Well, as dumb as we Americans, each for letting his gov't get away with 'preventative taxation', although we USAians managed to avoid it on standard CDr's, I think. AFAIK, we involuntarily concede an 'I might be a criminal' tax for DATs, Music-CDs, videocasettes, and audio casettes.

    What bullshit.
  • by Jugalator ( 259273 ) on Wednesday March 10, 2004 @12:46PM (#8522647) Journal
    Some information (in english) about it:

    - Activities of COPYSWEDE [copyswede.se]
    (scroll down the page for information about the blank tape levies)

    - Blank Tape Levy [copyswede.se] (PDF document with more detail)

    Here's a quote summarizing it:

    "Each year private individuals record a great amount of music, films and TV programmes on blank videocassettes, audiocassettes and CDs. Such widespread copying is a way of benefiting from the work of others without directly paying for it. This results in considerable losses for those who earn their living by creating music, films, and TV/radio programmes.

    This is the reason for the regulations governing a blank tape levy in 26 k of the Swedish Copyright Act. The levy is designed to compensate, to some extent, the authors, performers or producers for the increasing amount of private copying of copyright protected material such as music, films and TV/radio programmes.

    Importers and manufacturers are obliged to pay a blank tape levy of SEK 0.02 per recordable minute up to a maximum of SEK 6 per unit of blank audio or video media. The size of the levy is determined by law. According to 26 k the collection of the blank tape levy shall be done collectively by the representative organisations"

    I personally find these levies very unfair as they're added to all recordable media and you're paying for the music and movie industry even when purchasing CD-R's to archive school work.

    I also wonder how they decided what the fees should be. Wouldn't surprise me if they're much much higher (adds about 30% to the CD-R costs right now) than they should be, as people would probably not purchase two identical CD's very often if they were impossible to copy. Hence, in all these cases, they aren't losing money if these customers are copying today for convenience of playing a CD in the car stereo, etc. Usually, media companies and organizations like these totally ignore this important fact.
  • by nurb432 ( 527695 ) on Wednesday March 10, 2004 @12:49PM (#8522685) Homepage Journal
    This is really getting insane.. so much of our income is being lost on taxes and royalties that its no wonder the world economy is in the tank.

    sure there should be a reasonable tax, and some credit given to 'producers' but we are way beyond what should be considered reasonable.

    Problem is most people dont notice until tax time, or when they get hit with a law suit..
  • Paris iPod Party (Score:3, Interesting)

    by happyfrogcow ( 708359 ) on Wednesday March 10, 2004 @01:01PM (#8522840)
    Sounds like a good time for an equivalent to the Boston Tea Party [wikipedia.org].

    Sure, the situations are a bit different, but it's still an unreasonable tax. I remember(atleast i think i remember this happening) a rise in stamp prices back in the 1980's here in the U.S. triggered some protesters to staple tea bags to mailed envelopes, as a reminder to the Boston Tea Party.
  • Passive resistance? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by phorm ( 591458 ) on Wednesday March 10, 2004 @01:02PM (#8522843) Journal
    I wonder if this is Apple's way of protesting an idiotic law. Just let it go and if somebody really wants to take you to court over it, then you come in with 'fair use' and their attack-lawyers.

    If nobody wants to bring it to court (on the grounds that it's stupid and might get shot down), Apple wins. If it goes to court and loses, Apple wins. I'm just wondering how an idiotic law pandering to a profiteering corporation can in any way survive the scrutiny of an intelligent judge.
  • by enrico_suave ( 179651 ) on Wednesday March 10, 2004 @01:03PM (#8522868) Homepage
    The French musicians will surrender...

    =)

    E.

  • An Opportunity (Score:3, Interesting)

    by nightsweat ( 604367 ) on Wednesday March 10, 2004 @01:04PM (#8522872)
    This seems like an opportunity to repeal this ridiculous tax. I might use a photocopier to photocopy a book. Should the publishing industry get royalties? I might use silly putty to lift comic strips from the newspaper. Should the silly putty people be forced to send money to the creator of Hi and Lois?

    Screw that.

  • by erroneus ( 253617 ) on Wednesday March 10, 2004 @01:08PM (#8522914) Homepage
    Just kidding... nothing like a headline to get some public attention.

    But all joking asside, there is some logic to the parallel I am attempting to draw.

    If, because of the liklihood that someone will buy blank media and use it for purposes which result in copyright infringment, the artists and organizations 'harmed' should be repaid proportionally to the number or amount of potentially infringing media purchased.

    That said, there is a fairly high liklihood that young black males will commit a felony before he is 25. If our conviction rate is any indicator (some 15% of all black males are inelligible to vote due to prior felony convictions) then potentially greater than 30% of all black males will be guilty of a violent crime before he is 25 years of age. If we apply the same logic, we should probably put all black males in prison from the age of 18 to about 21. This will protect the public from the violent crimes that they may potentially commit saving lives and property and will also serve as punishment in advance for anything they may do for which they are never caught.

    Please understand that I am being completely ridiculous and I in no way believe the bullcrap I just wrote above. My attempt at writing this garbage is an attempt to draw a parallel at how ridiculous it is to penalize all consumers of recordable media. Just because it doesn't happen in the U.S. is not a reason the people of the U.S. shouldn't be concerned. (We should protect the rights of all if we expect our rights to remain intact.)

    I'd like to see a world-wide abolishment of these proactive punitive measures.
  • by rarose ( 36450 ) <<rob> <at> <robamy.com>> on Wednesday March 10, 2004 @01:08PM (#8522916)
    We ought to demand a tax on blank canvas, paper, pens, ink, and paint since those can be use for reproducing copyrighted books and paintings.

    Those f'in starving (and I'll guess crappy) musicians will have a harder time paying for their supplies than us computer geeks will paying for our blank media. Before long they'll be begging for the government to rescind all the blank media taxes.
  • Paper (Score:4, Interesting)

    by wytcld ( 179112 ) on Wednesday March 10, 2004 @01:12PM (#8522960) Homepage
    Paper is used for more infringement than any other media. Each piece of blank paper could be taxed, with those taxes going to the rights-holders of published works which may be xeroxed, printed from the Web, hand copied, or otherwise imparted to the paper without permission or payment to the content creators.

    If it makes sense for other blank media, it certainly makes sense for blank paper. As for the relative value, look at what we devote educational resources to: 'literacy' and 'numeracy' - activities largely on paper - are viewed as crucial, whereas there is no requirement at all to be able to write pop music to graduate high school. So we should have special taxes on blank media which might be used for pop songs, but none on blank media which might be used for depriving investigative journalists and great short-story writers of income? Are pop musicians more deserving of special income from special taxes than writers? Why?
  • by rcpitt ( 711863 ) * on Wednesday March 10, 2004 @01:16PM (#8523017) Homepage Journal
    It's all well and good to kick the French - but you should realize that the US does a similar thing for the same reasons - they levy a fee on blank cassette tapes which is passed on to the music industry.

    The fact is that over 25 countries have instituted such a levy in some form or other. We here in Canada have the "Blank Media Levy" on CDs, tapes, and "digital storage in portable digital music recorders" which includes hard drives built in at the time of manufacture as well as Flash and/or RAM. The people who administer this levy (Canadian Private Copying Consortium or CPCC) have intimated that they will go after other hard drives in the future (the next round starts some time this month for implementation beginning of 2005)

    The point is that the US people who lobby for this have not been as aggressive so today you don't have the levy on anything but the cassettes AFAIK; but you certainly could.

    To those who think they should get some sort of compensation for their copied software, the Canadian Copyright Act actually leaves it open to potential groups to apply for and get status to do exactly that but it seems that nobody but the music publishers seem to be able to get together and actually do it (thank our lucky stars!)

    As one of the people who directly opposed [pacdat.net] the CPCC in their recent initial request to apply a levy of $21 per Gigabyte for the storage in things like the iPOD, I can tell you that you can make a difference if you try. The actual levy approved by the Copyright Board was from $2 to a maximum of $25 per unit depending on how much storage it has in it when manufactured - and no levy on additional storage modules purchased after the fact. This and a hold at previous levels for CDs and tapes was actually quite a victory. I expect the fight over levies on regular PC hard drives will be every bit as hard when it comes.

    Let this be a lesson to you - and let's see if you can apply it regarding the DMCA and other repressive legislation that your wonderful government (and the business lobby that pays it) are foisting on the world (see what is happening in Austrailia for example)

  • by xtrochu ( 697853 ) on Wednesday March 10, 2004 @01:22PM (#8523100)

    Finally found the text (in french) Here [legifrance.gouv.fr]

    It does say that the hard-drives integrated into TV, VCR or video decoders and hard-drives integrated into mp3 players (like the iPod) are eligible to the tax.

    The law does not apply to hard-drives sold for use in computers.

    So this law is not that stupid, if you think that the general law that pay back artists for the right of users to make private copies is a good thing.

    BTW, another law (here [legifrance.gouv.fr]) says that floppy-disk (3'5 inches only) are eligible for this tax. And this law is probably a lot more stupid.

    NB : The site http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr [legifrance.gouv.fr] messes badly with cookies so the links above may not work at first.

  • by Tokerat ( 150341 ) on Wednesday March 10, 2004 @03:06PM (#8524241) Journal

    ...don't get royalties on copies made, you insensitive clod!
  • License to copy (Score:5, Insightful)

    by lga ( 172042 ) * on Wednesday March 10, 2004 @03:13PM (#8524306) Journal
    The British government forces me to pay a levy on blank music CDs; so why aren't I allowed to copy whatever I want on to it? They can't have it both ways, either I pay the levy and copy any music legally, or they don't charge the levy and prosecute copying.

    It's a good thing that computers can write music to data CD's with no levy to pay.

Almost anything derogatory you could say about today's software design would be accurate. -- K.E. Iverson

Working...