EU Court Of Justice Says Private Copying Levy On Device Maker Violates EU Law
from the no-ipod-tax dept
Thanks to David Hammerstein and Glyn Moody for pointing us to the news that the European Court of Justice has rejected an attempt to collect a private copying levy in Spain that was being disputed by a consumer electronics firm, Padawan. The Spanish collection society SGAE demanded that Padawan, which made CD, DVD and MP3 players, pay up for the typical "you must be a criminal" private copying levy.However, the court had some problems with this. You can read the ruling (in English) to get the details -- though, it's a little opaque. The court did say that, in general, private copying levies can be okay, but that the law requires the levies be based on "fair compensation," meaning that they're tied to actual harm. And, the court concludes, that means it should only apply to end-user purchases, where the assumption can be made that private copying may be going on. Trying to force businesses to pay is unreasonable, and contradicts EU law.
While I still have issues with the general concept of private copying levies (a tax presuming you are breaking the law), it's at least good to see the EU not let it expand even further.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: private copying levy, spain
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Because govts only exist to serve businesses and not the public good.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The law in Spain, as well as here in Portugal and other places, recognizes that right, but also says such copying "should" be accompanied by "compensation". And these levies are the mechanism for that.
I'm not saying I don't have a problem with these levies... it's still something you pay whether you buy CDs or DVDs to copy copyrighted works or your vacation photos. But short of a voluntary system, where nobody would pay, it's the best we can do. As long as these levies are reasonably small, I'm OK with them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Good for you.
I don't care how small the levy is I am not okay with paying for something I'm not doing. There is no justifiable reason for forcing me to pay a levy so I can copy things I produce myself e.g. family photos and video.
How's about we introduce a levy to subsidise my gym membership? Surely, if it's small enough you won't mind paying even if you don't use my gym. Right?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
mote to self buy new keyboard.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Nelsoncruz is right, it is not a "you must be a criminal" tax
It is actually a tax which assumes that every single person who buys a hard drive, a camera memory card, a car with a GPS with onboard memory, a tablet, a phone or other things (we've got enough retarded cases) IS a pro who will reencode his own "legally purchased" music CDs and movie DVDs and store them on it.
It conveniently leaves out the facts that :
a) which proportion of the buyers even know what a cd/dvd rip is? I suspect very little of them.
b) it assumes the user will circumvent a DRM, which is an illegal act. God thee DRMs are a real crap.
Actually, such a levy, if allowed to exist (which I contest), should account for :
- the proportion of the population who knows how to reencode, and the amount of "products" they reencode.
- the proportion of "products" which do not come with a "copy protection" mechanisms, which is, again, very low
[ link to this | view in thread ]
To The Groove Tiger
Legally (what the EU has said)
1) Business and Administration as no-private entities has no the right to make PRIVATE copies so is no fair that they pay to compensate for the harm done by private copy and the actual spanish law has no way for them to no pay or to recover this cost.
Other problems:
2) By law, the levies are collected by Collection Agencies (the SGAE in this case) that operate under the asuncion that there aren't no-affiliated authors and in general are no democratic and very unfair to the small author, and has his own bureaucratic and accounting rule that make sure that what Mike Allen propose is not viable.
3) The evaluation of harm is done, in practice, by the Collection Agencies that has in his own interest to make it as high as they can dream up. The growth of no-affiliated authors and the decline in CD sells has reduced the income of the agencies so they calculate the harm to pad their account not to really compensate for the real harm. In EEUU terms the harm is been calculated in BSA piracy accounting.
Nelsoncruz due that, at least in Spain, the private copies for private use are only legal when done from "Legal Copies" would not be easier and fairer to charge the levy in the "Legal Copies" purchasing at the same time the "Legal Copy" and the right to make private copies from it.
The only problem with this model is that the "Legal Copies" are already charged to the monopoly controlled maximum that the market would bear so by market force the "Legal Copies"+Private Copy right would end at the same price that the actual "Legal Copy" because in reality the levy is a double dipping through an different industry ( the consumer electronic one).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Nelsoncruz is right, it is not a "you must be a criminal" tax
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Nelsoncruz is right, it is not a "you must be a criminal" tax
Anyway, if they want to keep this tax, then countries should outlaw such DRMs
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Nelsoncruz is right, it is not a "you must be a criminal" tax
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ohhhh canada
OHHHHH canada
we stand on guard for 6 billion dollar lawsuits.....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Crystal ball
"Members shall confine limitations and exceptions to exclusive rights to certain special cases which do not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the rights holder."
Wouldn't it be neat if an open source project took exception to the levy under the "conflict with a normal exploitation" and "unreasonably prejudice" tests. Which interests are greater, those of a commercial entity, or those of the open source community and society at large?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Actually I think the best we can do is no levy at all.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Nelsoncruz is right, it is not a "you must be a criminal" tax
Here is how the legislators tried to get around this here in Portugal. The law states that DRM "should not" prevent the free uses under the law (like private copies, educational uses, etc). When it does, the distributor of the DRM protected work should deposit with IGAC (General Inspection of Cultural Activities) the means by which anyone can enjoy these rights. That, of course, doesn't happen! Nobody deposits any such "means". One would think the DRMs would loose legal protection because of that... but they don't. Maybe the courts will rule that way one day. As far as I know, no DRM circumvention case has ever gone to court here.
I found out recently we don't even have case law determining whether photocopying an entire book is legal or not, under the same 2004 copyright law update that protects DRMs... so that could take a while. :)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Nelsoncruz is right, it is not a "you must be a criminal" tax
Yes, it's a tax for legal uses. And actually it has been used by a spanish judge to rule file sharing as legal. Mike also did a post on it here on techdirt. Basically the judge ruled that the legality of using file sharing applications depended on what you do with the downloaded copies. If they are for personal/private use (ie you don't go around selling them) then it's legal under the law. He mentioned specifically that such copies end up on physical media and devices that pay levies precisely for that purpose. He also ruled that private individuals uploading files to each other did not equal distribution or broadcasting under the (spanish) law.
That was in March, and legislation that will (probably) overturn that decision is still under discussion.
[ link to this | view in thread ]