[pp.int.general] [Cafe] levies

[Amelia Andersdotter]

On 24/03/2008, Carlos Ayala <aiarakoa at yahoo.es> wrote:
>
> ----- Mensaje original ----
> De: Amelia Andersdotter <teirdes at gmail.com>
> Enviado: lunes, 24 de marzo, 2008 14:55:51
> > If the state should take a more active part in the relation between
> economy and culture, it would probably be better to
> > tax things other than broadband, like carbon dioxide emissions or
> something. Taxes in general are usually best used to
> > limit consumption that's less good for society, and shouldn't punish a
> natural development of the market.
>
> I see a risk with that approach: merging levies and State role in culture,
> thus losing the focus.

Is there a risk? Levies and involuntary fees would create such a merge
anyway. You're  extracting a fee/tax/levy by legislation so as to
compensate culture-makers.State collection of money is better when not
used as a restriction on an emerging market. Instead, put this
levy/fee/tax on a market that you wish to dampen or preferably go
away.

Of course, the argument is only valid if you agree that fees or levies
to compensate artists is at all desirable.

> 2001/29/EC talks about compensation for the limits (established by laws) of
> exclusive author's commercial rights- actions, and if such actions
> supposedly cause losses to copyright holders
*cut*
>  this is not about to tax or
> not to tax, but to find out if there is something to be compensated.
>

If we if were to use 2001/29/EC as a basis for arguments questioning
the levies, we don't get much leeway. No matter how you look at it,
digital material is or will be available for free in a way the artist
cannot control. That breaches the premise of the copyright owner's
control over distribution. _Why_ should we compensate copyright
owners? Because the their rights are infringed upon (according to the
directive). The only thing left the _how_.

Of course, it's possible to argue that, say, a broadband levy would
compensate for the lack of control over distribution rather than the
(presumed) loss of income incurred by each downloaded copy. That could
be used as an argument for involuntary fees: you don't pay to get
access to copyrighted material, you pay because you're supporting a
medium that incurs the loss of control over distribution of that same
material. Same shit, different name.

I realise I've picked up a habit from a friend of answering in
different ways to different parts of e-mails I've read. The above
thoughts are actually mutually exclusive: either you want a state tax
or levy to compensate artists. In that case my first thought of making
said tax/fee relate to something else holds.

Or you don't want that, and in that case the directive doesn't hold.

Or you would want the fee to be explicitly tied to the material that's
copyrighted, in which case my third thought about loss of control
would work.

/amelia