There is a levy on different media and also on machines capable of copying content (yes, there is a levy on computers in Germany). The height of the levy is negotiated with the producers of the product, represented by Bitcom, and the respective "Verwertungsgesellschaft" which in this case is the ZPÜ.
The "Verwertungsgesellschaft" negotiating the levy for (paper) copying machines would be the VG-Wort.
Negotiations for USB-Sticks failed, so the ZPÜ made a unilateral move and simply set the new levy to said price.
Bitcom states in the original article (on heise.de), that one part of the underlying law has not been properly respected, namely §54a, Absatz 4 which stated that the levy has to have a sane relation to the price of the media.
They are expecting a lengthy lawsuit with the adverse effect that the producers of sticks have to set aside some money for the case of losing. In addition to that they expect the european market to become skewed since there is no such levy in switzerland and other neighbouring countries where consumers can easily order sticks.
Most of the people in Germany don't seem to be aware of the situation, simply not knowing that there is such a levy. Most of them also don't even know that they are allowed to make private copies (aka Privatkopie), and fall for the 'U r all pirates' propaganda of the content industry.
Friends are often astonished when they joke about pirating while we swap music and when I subsequently tell them, that what we are doing is absolutely legal.
Those tech savy of us who are aware about the situation are massively annoyed. Basically because THEY are taking our money as compensation for the Privatkopie while spreading propaganda that copying is illegal. WITH THE MONEY WE GAVE THEM.
While she is member of the dreaded neoliberal FDP, she is actually one of the very few politicians acting in favour of the developing information society. For example she is taking a stance against the EU data retention laws (Vorratsdatenspeicherung).
PS: whishing the term "Privatkopie" would become part of the english spoken world just like "Zeitgeist", "Gestalt" or "Kindergarten".
Jupp. Not much people in my circle do know about any of these "taxes".
I really "like" (sarcasm) the levy on smartphones. This one is 36 Euros. Sad, but true. The problem with these "taxes" is, that the "Verwertungsgesellschaften" give the money to artists or labels but there the big fishes do profit most.
But the lobbying argument is, that all artists strife, because of these "taxes".
Good luck with all that, in the UK, 'format shifting' (i.e. ripping a CD to mp3 to put it on your phone) is still a criminal offence, copyright act has not been changed despite undertakings from both recent governments.
I'm quite interested in what happens in Germany with second hand computers. Many computers end up in recycling or landfill when they could be used for some further time. Do the small computer shops/people on ebay still have to pay a levy? Is the levy a percentage of the asking price or a flat fee like the original article points out is the case for media?
First, if you're not entirely sure about the article, relax a bit. The source of this weird site is a well-known and respected IT site, heise.de.
I'd ~translate~ ZPÜ as 'Central authority (Z) for private (P) rights to create copies (Ü)'. They are, for all I can tell, part of the 'GEMA' group, the German "We're responsible to collect money for artists whenever you run a radio/play music in a public place" guys.
These guys set a ~tax~ on anything you can use to create copies. Cd burner? Check. Hard drives? Check. Empty cds/dvds? Check. All of those, if bought here, are supposed to give a portion of their price to that organization. So I guess you can call it a tax on storage media if you want.
Let's say it's a .. disputable thing.
The rest of the German article is well-written, reasonable and .. well .. IT biased, of course. They discuss that all manufacturers and traders are a tiny bit unhappy with this situation, but do expect to fight for the next years to correct that idiocy. Until then, prices are expected to be adjusted in Germany: They claim that the prices for a 8 GB SD card currently costs 6-15 EUR and now needs to factor in this ~tax~ of 1.95 EUR for the time being -> Prices for consumers go up.
Edit: To save a click on my profile: I'm German, so that's my native language.
Yep, being german I can confirm that. This tax increase is just another proof that the german GEMA system is really broken. The other on is GEMA demanding payment from Kindergartens for singing childrens songs and printing the texts of these things out. And even if I'm to lacy to look up a link to that story, it really actually happened. Guess what? Nobody here did anything about it. With the next guy shouting "PIRACYYYYYY" all the discussion regarding this "single case" just went away. Just my 5 cents.
So I guess I'll be buying my storage in austria or france the next time. Maybe even amazon.co.uk works in this case...
Well, there's some facts that you still need to take into account:
* The fee used to be a flat 0.10 Euros, negotiated in 2008. Since then, the storage sizes have gone up dramatically, so an increase in price is certainly warranted.
* This is the move of the ZPÜ after negotiations failed. Their negotiating partner, the bitcom made an offer that basically called for keeping the old price. So the ZPÜ did what every negotiator will do: The put up a demand where they have room to lower the price.
So all in all, I'm annoyed that the price has gone up, but I'm not as outraged as many are. I don't buy tens or hundreds of USB-Sticks anyways, so the net result for me is negligible. It's the price we chose to pay when private copying was legalized and me for one, I'm happy to pay that price.
In the end, this is the wrong battle to fight, the copyright-issue will be decided on other fronts. We need a complete overhaul of the current system, so don't waste your breath here.
it was not about wether it is 0.10 euro or 1,49. it was more about the reasons why the GEMA and co. are able to pull off what they are able to pull off. This fee is just one symbtom among a lot of others.
It's simple to answer why they are able to pull this off: There's a law for that, a law that dates back to the introduction of tape drives. Back then, there were two options:
1. Allow copying for private purposes, introduce a flat fee on empty media (tapes back then, later cassettes, cd-roms, ...)
2. Ban all private copying, prosecute it at all costs. Ban tape drives, control all technology that can be used for private copying.
3. Copy as copy can, no one gets paid. Ignore that this may be an issue for people that depend on producing (music, films, ...)
The (IMHO wise) decision was to stick with option (1), so that's where we're at. The GEMA and ZPÜ, as much hate is directed at them and as much as is wrong with them, are tasked with collection that fee. It's their job and they do it, even if it's unpopular. It's a bit like the Finanzamt (IRS). You don't have to like them, but at least keep in mind that they're doing what they have to.
Now, one may argue that the current system is not suitable for the digital age where empty media is used for so much more than copying audio, or even that the whole GEMA system should be abandoned - and I'm actually on your side in that respect - but well, that's a different topic.
You could also appeal to the regulatory body and argue that the price is too high, and that's what the bitcom rightfully does, but then you'd have to settle on an acceptable price. So what's acceptable? I don't have an answer, do you? They'll eventually figure this out and the high prices demanded are part of their negotiation strategy.
That was back in what, the 50s and 60s? I completly agree that the system worked back then. But in the 21st century well you can't adopt to new times by charging more from everyone you can. By doing simply that, you will pervert the very idea behind the system. It seems, at least to me, that the systems somehow developed a life by itself. And since that life currently fits into a lot of agendas, nobody will do something about it.
I agree with you that the system does not fit with current times. It's fundamentally incapable of dealing with such basic things as the fact that copying is now digital and lossless, filesharing or the internet as a whole. But still, it's the system we currently have and since we all agreed to some rules we should stick to the rules while we try and find a consensus what the new rules should look like. And part of those rules is that there is a levy on empty media, as much as we both might hate it.
First of all, a levy on storage media? That is so weird!
How the hell did that come about?
Erm, multiple countries have levies like this. They, and increases in them, are for exactly what they say on the tin: the money is given to the recording industry to cover the expected cost of any piracy that occurs using that blank media. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_copying_levy
Your diatribes would be much more effective if they either had a bit more research behind them or did not succumb to poe's law.
As aw3c2 mentioned, it is not officially intended to compensate for losses caused by illegal copying (that would be highly debatable juridically) but for the fact that it is legal to make a few copies for friends and for personal use. At least as long as there's no copy protection. Not much of a right when you have to collectively pay for the "free" personal copies anyway.
Your diatribes would be much more effective if they either had a bit more research behind them or did not succumb to poe's law. - saulrh
Good critique, thanks.
- http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Poes_Law