Dutch Court Says That Copyright Owners Are Better Off When People Are Downloading From Unauthorized Sources
from the say-that-again dept
Here's a bit of a surprise. According to this report, beyond just the FTD ruling we wrote about last week, there was another copyright case decision in the Dutch appeals court of The Hague, which stated that "since downloading from illegal sources for private use was permitted under Dutch law," it's actually to the advantage of copyright owners that such sites exist.Of course, part of the reasoning for this is that there's a private copying levy, and the court was arguing that unauthorized downloads should be taken into account when calculating that levy. So, this could mean higher subsidies and "you must be a criminal" taxes in the Netherlands. Still, the argument is somewhat striking:
With reference to statements made by the Minister of Justice, the Court argued that the legitimate interest of the right holders is more adequately protected in a regime that allows downloading from illegal sources. In view of the Dutch government's statements, such a levy system better ensures that compensation is due to right holders for the use of their work.I'm not convinced that's actually true, but it's still quite surprising to hear a court say it like that. I would imagine entertainment industry lobbyists are banging down Dutch doors right now...
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: copyright, hague, levies, netherlands, unauthorized sources
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
WAR!!
Can't wait to conquer the red light district...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
For US, a levy and "illegal" aren't mutually exclusive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Common Sense
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
oversimplified
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: oversimplified
Or at least Torrentfreak's interpretation of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No I am not. If I have never downloaded anything from illegal sources at any point in my life, it wouldn't be fair to tax the storage devices I'm going to buy.
Anyway, personally I don't think the tax is that unfair. It's a reasonable part of a bigger solution. The government is always going to subsidize stuff that you will never need or make use of, but the tax and subsidies exist so that society as a whole can profit from it.
However, when it comes to this tax, I do not think the music industry deserves it, since they have failed to provide a good amount of reasonable alternatives in the last years and basically have failed to innovate.
So pay-outs of this money should be frozen, until they do. Or should only be given out after guarantees have been given that the money will be used to develop better alternatives within a certain time-frame.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I am guessing you live in europe. How does a taxing society and giving the money to a group of individuals who never pay the artists benifit society?
"So pay-outs of this money should be frozen, until they do. Or should only be given out after guarantees have been given that the money will be used to develop better alternatives within a certain time-frame."
In all actuallity this "you are a thief" tax is going to be removed with in the next year or two through out europe. Part of it was already struck down and the rest is going to be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
That's why it should be frozen.
However, I also think copyright should be heavily reformed, as well as the horrible licensing systems.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Given that most people download via a P2P service/program that requires or automagically uploads as well as downloads, this might be a difference that makes no difference, but just downloading itself is a legal activity.
Please stop assuming - especially in an article about a non-US based story - that the US system you know and (maybe) love also transfers over! It probably won't....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why can't this idea work?
At the core of the article, and Professor Fisher's work, is an alternative method of paying for content:
"But what if it fell entirely on broadband users? Some might find the figure surprising: excluding all of the other penny taxes we've just mentioned, the cost will be $6 per broadband user per month. Um, is that all? Well, actually, yes it is."
The article is nearly 7 years old now, so maybe it is not even relevant any more, although IMHO it is still very relevant. I am no expert in law or economics (which basically means I don't know if Professor Fisher's ideas would even work), but I can confidently say this: If for $6 a month, on top of my current broadband fee ($69 a month, ADSL2+, 200GB quota), I was able to download/share any content I wanted (without limits) - be it music, tv shows, movies, pictures, etc - I would leap that the chance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why can't this idea work?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why can't this idea work?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why can't this idea work?
I believe there are all sorts of problems with Fisher's idea. I know the EFF has endorsed it, but I think it greatly oversimplifies the issue, and only serves to create a new -- inefficient -- bureaucracy in the middle:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081209/0144083060.shtml
Figuring out who gets paid for what is a big problem. And some of that money goes into managing all of it. It's a solution that creates new middlemen to pay, rather than letting the market sort stuff out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Why can't this idea work?
They could of course use the money to create the biggest, fastest, best music database that has ever existed, so that people will use that instead of filesharing networks, and then it will be much easier to track who gets what piece of the pie.
They should have done that years ago, instead of letting the negotiations with Napster fail and then suing them into bankruptcy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Why can't this idea work?
1. A somewhat philosophical question about who should pay for content and who should be paid. You write a lot about the economics associated with infinite resources, etc, and to the extent that I understand it, I agree with you. Give away the infinite stuff, charge for the scarce stuff. And while there are lots of good examples out there of that working (and I am even trying to apply it in my own business), it doesn't seem to be an approach which has gripped the public's attention. The average "man on the street" would still be of the view that artists should "get paid for what they create", and that the music (or whatever) is the thing which is being paid for.
2. A logistical question about how do people pay for content and how do the payees get paid (whoever they might be). Perhaps it is naive to think that all the stakeholders could agree on a single payment collection and distribution mechanism, but assuming they did all agree, I don't see why it has to be inefficient or bureaucratic.
The big reason I like the idea - as a consumer - is that it's a single (monthly) transaction, one-stop-shop solution. It applies to any content, regardless of format; it doesn't place any restrictions on sharing or copying or redistribution. And as a consumer who genuinely wants to see creators get paid for their creations, I feel "good" about it. It also helps those artists who are great at creating (eg: a brilliant songwriter who can't sing or gets stage fright), but shit-house at everything else - marketing, performing, business management, etc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why can't this idea work?
Here in the Netherlands I pay 20 Euros a month unlmited for blazing fast ADSL. 10 Euros unlmited for cellphone 3G.
You must live in the Useless Snakes.
I have been using Bittorrent for years. Never a problem. Have every tune ever made since late 40's and haven't been in a theater for years.
I feel no guilt whatsover. and in fact proud that I can be screwing some KIKE Hollywood movie company out of profits.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Braaaaiinnsss
Ignoring this is just cherry picking your fights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Braaaaiinnsss
[ link to this | view in chronology ]