CBO Says PROTECT IP Will Cost Taxpayers Over $10 Million Per Year To Censor The Internet
from the why-are-we-doing-this-again? dept
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO), who tries to estimate the cost to taxpayers of all new laws proposed by Congress has put out its report on the PROTECT IP Act, noting that it will cost taxpayers $47 million (pdf) from 2012 to 2016. Specifically, the CBO notes that the Justice Department would have to go out and hire 48 new people (22 special agents and 26 support staff) to act as Hollywood's censor police -- and that the annual cost will run about $10 million. Separately, the CBO notes that outside of the cost for taxpayers, the law would certainly impose costs on a variety of tech companies, by placing liability and requirements on them in regards to sites picked by Hollywood and the Justice Department to censor (you know, sites like that bastion of "piracy," the Internet Archive, which Hollywood has already put on its evil pirates list). However, it does not estimate that additional cost on those companies, since it will depend heavily on "future judicial proceedings."
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: censorship, copyright, costs, protect ip, taxpayers
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And they'll make it all back and more in tax revenues. Recorded music sales have gone up ever since Limewire was shut down almost a year ago.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I apologize for my previous comment, I was out of line.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Are the taxes from recorded music somehow higher than the taxes people spend to buy physical goods? Does the average consumer somehow get more in their paycheck when this law goes into effect? If neither of those are true (and they're not), then you're living in fantasy land.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Maybe the RIAA is going about it the wrong way. Perhaps they should be getting criminal charges placed on these pirates for burning their cash, rather than small time civil bullying...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
When something is overpriced and the market find a way around it those prices are going down and so it is all the infra-structure that supported that way of doing business jobs will be lost of course in that scenario, OTOH when the market is subvalued jobs are added because more people are trading those things and helping create new markets while maintaining others.
Just look at places like Nigeria(Nollywood), India(Bollywood), China, South Korea and Japan and compare that to markets that are sunking like US and Europe.
Piracy is the way the market will adjust itself to the economic reality of the market, you can like it or not it won't chance the outcome.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And how does that translate into taxes?
1. Almost nobody pays tax on internet purchases.
2. Even if they do, there's no Federal Sales Tax.
3. Large corporations like the music industry don't pay taxes, they contribute to tax-free campaign funds.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Good Ideas Gone Bad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
@MRK- Protect IP is exclusively targeted at non-US companies. If you are going to comment, it'd be helpful if you knew what you were talking about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Again, as I stated, it targets foreign websites for blocking, but to do so, puts liability and threats of legal fights on domestic companies. Why do you ignore this?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I guess you missed this comment above:
"hat's incredibly inaccurate. It may be targeted at non-US companies in terms of takedowns, but it will place tremendous liability on US companies in terms of compliance. That's going to harm US tax revenue also.
The idea that this will somehow make more people buy is a total myth as well, so there won't be any increase in tax revenue from the entertainment industry.
Really? Which US companies do you think will dissolve and become foreign companies? American Express? Visa? Paypal? Diner's Club? Mastercard? Or perhaps the ad networks like Google's Adsense? I'm pretty sure a non-US company cannot provide broadband service so that eliminates them. I can't see any company that has skin in the game fleeing the US to avoid the corporate responsibility associated with stopping criminal infringement. I don't recall any banks leaving the US when onerous anti-money laundering laws were imposed on them. How is this situation different?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Why are you moving the goal posts when the statement discusses no increase in tax revenue, not about American companies dissolving?
Perhaps, since the Big ISPs are profiting from torrents, we should shut them down too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Did I say it would dissolve companies? No. I said it would put serious burdens on US companies. Which is the entire point of the bill. Because the entertainment industry is filled with people who don't want to adapt, the PROTECT IP Act is yet another attempt to get the tech industry to try to turn back the clock for them.
So sad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Did you really think such an unfair (and illegal) scam would continue forever?
Silly you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Businesses get rich providing services that people want. Your statement is misleading at best.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Where exactly would the content industry be without the tech industry to provide them with all the cameras, projectors, sound systems, recording equipment, TVs, VCRs, DVD players, computers, software etc., that the content industry uses to both create their content and get it to the masses of people out there that want it?
Sure seems to me like the content industry, who is completely technologically inept, has been making billions off the backs of the tech industry. In fact the only reason they are even capable of creating their content is because of the brilliant minds in the tech industry.
Perhaps its time the tech industry as a whole started their own collection societies and started charging every time one of their inventions was used. Movie studios would have to pay X amount every time they used a camera, theaters would have to pay every time they used a projector plus factor in how many people they're showing to, or by capacity, and pay X amount for that. Sound familiar? Can you see where this would go?
Content is NOT king. The technology that creates it is.
Silly you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Google selling music in China, bad Google we will smack you down, Zynga doing something we don't like, bad Zynga you get a smackdown, Facebook not being able to stop somebody from doing something we don't like bad Facebook take it like a man now.
This means that anything inside the US is now a liability, so people just need to pull out of the US market and close their own markets to Americans because sure as hell if they start claiming jurisdiction for things that happen legally in other countries just because American law doesn't allow it, others countries will slap the USA silly.
Want to see how that will work?
Where is the USA claiming justice against baidu.com? or PPTV.com?
They are not, wanna know why? because the chinese would fuck them up that is why.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
If you're a foreign website you lose your domain, period. So it's more difficult to put up anything and provide a service locally to an area, and it's failed enforcement all around. What exactly is your point? And why did you ignore the point I put up above to ask me this question?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Businesses may choose to abandon the US market if the potential litigation is too much of a liability.
So yes, it would be helpful if you knew what you are talking about.
http://leahy.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/BillText-PROTECTIPAct.pdf
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That's incredibly inaccurate. It may be targeted at non-US companies in terms of takedowns, but it will place tremendous liability on US companies in terms of compliance. That's going to harm US tax revenue also.
The idea that this will somehow make more people buy is a total myth as well, so there won't be any increase in tax revenue from the entertainment industry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The idea that this will somehow make more people buy is a total myth as well, so there won't be any increase in tax revenue from the entertainment industry.
Really? Which US companies do you think will dissolve and become foreign companies? American Express? Visa? Paypal? Diner's Club? Mastercard? Or perhaps the ad networks like Google's Adsense? I'm pretty sure a non-US company cannot provide broadband service so that eliminates them. I can't see any company that has skin in the game fleeing the US to avoid the corporate responsibility associated with stopping criminal infringement. I don't recall any banks leaving the US when onerous anti-money laundering laws were imposed on them. How is this situation different?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Universal is from Japan, EMI is from France, biotech research is moving away from the US
"Building a Better Goat
Brazil's investment in transgenic animals shows how opposition to such technologies in the United States is opening opportunities elsewhere."
http://www.technologyreview.com/biomedicine/26582/
HP is abandoning hardware manufacturing.
Chinese companies are partying buying American companies.
Do you think all that investiment is sure if anybody can seize assets from those people?
Are you mentally challenged?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Think again, if you thought the house bubble was bad wait until foreign investment starts dropping.
Study: Buy Chinese and you support Americans
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/310433
The China Price
Why Chinese investors are overpaying for struggling American companies.
http://www.slate.com/id/2121095/
IBM sold their PC business surprise to foreigners, HP is going to sell theirs too.
http://smarthouse.com.au/Home_Office/Industry/C8G2J6P4
Apple and a tone of other designers depend on foreigners to manufacture something how that affects them?
Not to mention startups that probably will find better places to start a business.
http://developers.slashdot.org/story/11/07/16/1152252/UK-Developers-Quit-US-App-Store-O ver-Patent-Fears
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Mike addressed who was affected by PROTECT IP:
* Non-US companies may be affected, because their domains will effectively become invisible to US citizens.
* US companies may be affected, notably those that run DNS servers. Implementing PROTECT IP will require updates to DNS software/hardware, and there will be other ongoing costs of compliance.
Never mind that all of these measures can be worked around by simply using a different DNS server. (PROTECT IP works in the same way as unlisting a number from the phone book. If you can't turn a name into a number, you can't make the call. The workaround is like using a 3rd party phone book, one which still has the number listed.) So in other words, PROTECT IP will cost a lot, but won't do anything to protect intellectual property.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
No, you ridiculous buffoon, it will indeed result in more sales. Besides simple logic telling you so, there is also the empirical evidence that is recorded music sales going up and staying up since Limewire was shut down.
And the same thing will happen when the rogue sites are blocked; people will cease to spend 10 dollars a month on mediafire, and will buy through itunes.
They're not going to stop consuming music simply because they can't get it for free any more. Seriously, you need to get a grip on reality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why should my tax dollars serve Hollywood? They're not my government, they're behind the times, and they're pretty much useless. They can't even do movies right anymore.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So...
Sign me up, I'm stupid and masochistic. I certainly don't want to see that money go towards education or social services.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Only slightly maybe sorta off-topic
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Only slightly maybe sorta off-topic
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Only slightly maybe sorta off-topic
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Taxes paid by companies this protects - $0.03
This seems like an amazingly fair deal for us.
We get to carry a dinosaur on our backs, have them try to break the internet (I mean they have already broken your TV by disabling features), and make sure they face no competition that often produces superior product with fewer restrictions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
My tax bill was computed at 15%.
And I should contribute almost 3 times the corporations contribution to the 10 million a year, so they can ignore a changing market.
Go on this make perfect sense....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Comparing corporate and personal taxes is irrelevant unless you start counting every penny your employer spends on your benefits, office space, work equipment etc to your gross. You would probably be paying around 5% too when real expenses are included.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
*digs out and dusts off the Harry Potter - Order of the Phoenix balance sheet*
$612 Million Gross Profit...and it "LOST" $167 Million at the end of the day.
One of the top ten worldwide grosses of all time, and this stinker lost $167 Million.
How the hell could they have afforded to make another one?
Mind you the revenue listed for WB is dated 2007 for 11.7 billion.
I don't have the figures for WB's tax bill for that year, but I am guessing its not huge.
Why would things other than benefits be included in my gross?
They are not my things.
I don't get to take the space set aside for my office if I leave.
I don't get the computer if I leave.
Those are tools required to do the job, owned by the corporation.
They get to depreciate them not me.
What I do know is if I used the accounting practices the studios used, the IRS would audit me in a heartbeat.
And no at the end of the day they still have me in the 15% bracket, but its ok... I make about $1500 more than the poverty line I can afford it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It'll be a combination punch.
• The San Andreas fault rips and tears “the big one”.
• The Santa Ana winds drive the flames from the hills all the way down to the ocean.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Easy solution
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Easy solution
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It costs $863 million to censor (jail) rapists
If you look at the cost of law enforcement, it always costs money. Duh
Only an idiot like Mike would bitch about the cost without looking that the reduced crime.
But I agree that suing pirates is a better deal for taxpayers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]