Utah Legislators Want Extra Tax For Owners Of Hybrid & Electric Vehicles

from the incentive-structure dept

Pickle Monger points us to the news that some Utah legislators are hoping pass new laws to add an extra fee for owners of hybrid and electric vehicles. The complaint is that those people don't spend as much (if anything) on gas, and thus don't pay gas taxes. Of course, they're also not polluting the air quite as much, which was part of the point. The article notes that other states are considering similar taxes and fees on those who buy such cars. It's as if politicians don't recognize how incentives work...

Filed Under: electric vehicles, hybrid cars, tax, utah

Why A Copyright Levy ('Music Tax') Is A Bad Idea: Unnecessary Attempt To Retain Old Power Structures

from the creative-destruction dept

While a variety of folks have, over the years, suggested some form of a "private copying levy" or "internet levy" to tax users and hand it over to folks in the entertainment industry to distribute, we've spent a lot of time explaining why this is a terrible idea. The key point that we've explained is that this creates a distorted market that actually harms new business models, by driving (by taxation) money from those models right back into the old industry types who refuse to innovate. Rick Falkvinge has now taken a stab at exploring the issue and appears to agree, noting that the whole thing is an attempt to keep the old structures of the industry in power, to block the new centers of power (which often come directly from the artists):

It is about a previous elite -- bordering on nobility -- which has lost its privileges, an elite which has been replaced by indie artists of all genres and new distribution methods, and where this elite is seeking to restore its former status of special by an ability to tax the public.

Filed Under: copyright, levy, tax

'Consumer' Group Wants Netflix To Tax Customers To Give To Telcos?

from the really? dept

This one's a bit bizarre. We were just talking about the ridiculous boondoggle called the Universal Service Fund, which is one of those "taxes" on your phone bill that's supposed to go towards having the big telcos supply service to rural areas. Of course, since there's no oversight, it seems like most of the money just goes into the telcos coffers. There are all sorts of ways to deal with this, but one idea that makes no sense at all has been put forth by the Consumer Federation of America... who thinks that Netflix should be "taxed" to provide money for the USF. Why? Um, that's not clear. Basically CFA seems to think that big internet companies should now pay up just because:

"The Internet is not an infant industry anymore. It can certainly bear the burden of making sure that wires and the communications mediums are there."

So, really, what this "consumer" group is suggesting is that Netflix raise its prices on consumers, to give telcos more money that they just use to pay for operations, rather than actually investing in infrastructure for the disconnected. How does that possibly help "consumers"?

Filed Under: broadband, consumers, tax, usf
Companies: consumer federation of america, netflix

Commerce Dept. Supports RIAA Bailout Radio Tax

from the well,-of-course-it-does dept

This probably isn't a huge surprise, but the Commerce Department has now come out in favor of the performance rights tax on radio stations, which will force radio stations to pay up to promote music. Basically, as it stands right now, when a radio station plays music, it pays the songwriters/composers, but not the performers. That's because the performers are getting free promotion by getting their songs heard on the radio. As we've pointed out, this is really something of a "bailout" for the RIAA, which will get a new stream of cash for something that makes absolutely no sense in an open market. Historically, record labels have always been known to (often illegally) pay the radio stations to play music. That's because they knew, quite explicitly, that there's value in having their music played.

But, then, when they started pushing for this new tax, suddenly they amusingly started to claim that radio is "a kind of piracy." Seriously. However, they then immediately contradicted themselves by then accusing one radio station of illegally not playing their music.

Basically, the recording industry is willing to make any argument, no matter how contradictory to get this free money, which they claim they're entitled to. They say that they need to get paid for music played on the radio at the same time that they're pushing money the other direction just to get on the air (since they know it's really a promotion). They say that radio is "pirating" from them, but when a radio station stops playing RIAA music (which should make them happy if it's really "piracy,") they accuse them of abusing the airwaves, and demand an FCC investigation.

This has been nothing but a blatant attempt by the recording industry to get free money through legislative fiat, and it's ridiculous that the Commerce Department would support such an effort.

Filed Under: piracy, tax
Companies: riaa

Angus Proposes iPod Tax... Balanced With Greater Fair Dealing Protections

from the is-it-a-trade-worth-making? dept

As was expected, Canadian MP Charlie Angus has introduced a bill that would expand Canada's "you must be a criminal" blank media tax (they prefer "levy," but it's a tax) to iPods and other media players. However, to "balance" that out, he's also proposing a change to copyright law that would make Canada's "fair dealing" laws more flexible. Expanding fair dealing is definitely a necessary and important move, but it seems unfortunate that it appears to be coupled with this idea of taxing people just because they might make use of unauthorized content.

Filed Under: canada, charlie angus, copyright, fair dealing, ipod levy, ipods, tax

Surprising: Charlie Angus Proposing iPod 'You Must Be A Criminal' Tax In Canada

from the why? dept

Every few months or so we hear about proposals in Canada to extend Canada's blank media tax (they prefer "levy") to MP3 players, such as iPods. The Canadian Private Copying Collective has tried to do this multiple times and had the courts strike it down multiple times. These levies make little sense. They massively increase the price of certain products (studies have seen 90% of the cost of blank CDs going to the levy) and, despite claims to the contrary, the money collected really doesn't help many musicians. Hell, even the recording industry isn't a huge fan of the idea, because it's afraid such a levy will get people thinking that file sharing any music is now "legal."

So, it's a bit of a surprise to see that Canadian Member of Parliament, Charlie Angus, who's generally considered one of the sharper folks on copyright issues, is now putting forth legislation for a Canadian "you must be a criminal" tax on MP3 players. The article suggests that it won't get very far, and Angus doesn't seem to be explaining why he's putting this forward, but it is odd. The idea of such a tax is incredibly unpopular with Canadians, and you would think that Angus, of all people, would recognize that.

Filed Under: canada, charlie angus, copyright, ipod levy, ipods, tax

UK Commission Suggests Taxing Google To Prop Up Newspapers

from the tax-the-successes-to-prop-up-the-failures? dept

Earlier this year, we noted that France was considering a plan to tax Google to pay record labels. It looks like the UK has come up with a similarly bad plan for the newspaper industry, with a commission suggesting a tax on Google and other news aggregators, to help prop up newspapers. There doesn't seem to be much greater rationale, other than that old news publications are struggling and Google seems to be doing great, so why not tax them? The argument, of course, makes little sense. It's basically saying let's put a tax on the successful and give that money to the companies squandering it. Talk about a way to give the exact wrong message to companies, while making the economy that much more inefficient.

Filed Under: journalism, newspapers, success, tax
Companies: google

Microsoft Security Exec Suggests Internet Tax To Pay For 'Computer Health Care' Program

from the is-that-an-HMO-or-a-PPO? dept

Tank Szuba alerts us to the story about a Microsoft security exec suggesting that it might make sense to implement an internet usage tax to help fund a "computer healthcare system" to fix the notoriously insecure software that his company produces. It doesn't sound like a well-thought out proposal. It seems more like a brainstorm from a panel discussion by Scott Charney, Microsoft's Vice President for Trustworthy Computing. He suggests, as others have, that a system could be setup for quarantining infected computers, but when asked how to pay for it, he suggests such a tax. Or, of course, Microsoft could make software that doesn't have as many security holes.

Charney seems to model his idea off of our broken healthcare system:

"I actually think the health care model ... might be an interesting way to think about the problem,"

Has he looked at how well healthcare has been working lately? Of course, as with healthcare, the real issue should be preventative efforts, and those mainly start with Microsoft and how it architects its software. But I guess it's easier to just ask everyone to pay a tax to hide that.

Filed Under: computer security, healthcare, scott charney, tax

France's Latest Plan: Tax Google, Microsoft And Yahoo To Fund Record Labels

from the you-can't-make-this-stuff-up dept

If you thought France had already gone off the deep end with its plan to kick file sharers off the internet, now comes the news of a government report that suggests a new plan: tax successful big internet companies, like Google, Yahoo and Microsoft and use that money to fund the "music and publishing" sectors (which basically means the record labels). We've been pointing out how all of these attempts to bolster copyright laws have really been about propping up businesses that haven't been able to adapt, but is there any more blatant example of this than taxing the companies that have figured out how to use the internet to fund those that haven't?? This is entitlement culture in the extreme.

Apparently Nicolas Sarkozy will get "the last word" on whether or not to adopt this policy, which means that it's pretty likely. Sarkozy -- who has a long history of copyright infringement by his own party -- seems to believe that stronger copyright means defending French culture, when it really just means handouts to a few failing businesses who haven't wanted to adapt.

Update: Really good point made by Andrew F in the comments:

The Zelnick Report says the tax would kick in anytime an online ad or sponsored link is clicked in France. One of the most controversial items in the report is that it calls for a company to be taxed regardless of where it is based.

If that's legal, it's rather frightening. Nearly any website with ads could be taxed if visited by the French. Just wait for sites to start setting up IP filtering that blocks all French users.

Filed Under: france, nicolas sarkozy, record labels, tax
Companies: google, microsoft, yahoo

Calculating The DRM Tax On A Kindle

from the important-decision-making-tools dept

Via EFF comes this rather interesting calculation of the DRM tax of owning an Amazon Kindle. It's not a definitive number, as it would differ for different people based on what kinds of books they buy, how often and how many of those books they'd like to keep. But it's a good little thought experiment for those looking to buy a Kindle. The key recognition, of course, is that with a Kindle ebook you're renting, not buying the books:

There is one other problem with DRM protected books. When the reading device reaches its end of life, you have to assume all the content you purchased will be lost. If, for instance, I went with a Kindle, all of the content I purchase can be used only on devices supported by Amazon.

When, several years later, it comes time to replace that Kindle I may get a new Kindle -- but I can't assume that. Maybe somebody else will have a better device at that time. Or, maybe Amazon went bankrupt or evil or stupid and I need to switch to another vendor. There are any number of reasons I might like to switch my e-reader. If I do, I have to assume I won't be able to use any of the content I purchased for the Kindle.

Thanks to DRM, when my e-reader reaches its end of life, I will have to pay to acquire replacement books for the material that's locked out of the new e-reader. I call the amount of that purchase the "DRM tax" -- an added cost imposed by DRM restrictions.

He's quite fair in calculating his own personal DRM tax, noting that he probably wouldn't want to rebuy all the books, but just a portion of them. He also knows that ebooks are cheaper. But, in the end, he realizes that this DRM tax makes the total cost of ownership of a Kindle much higher for him than just buying the physical books -- even if it's more of a pain to have to sometimes lug them around. In his case, he would use it mainly for technical books, which is a different situation than, say, recreational novel reading, where "ownership" may be less important. Still, he feels that the DRM issue is a problem and a serious hidden cost:

Maybe someday Amazon (and publishers) will realize how much harm they are doing with DRM. If the DRM tax was removed, not only would more people get e-readers, but also, thanks to the low friction of e-book purchasing, they'd buy more e-content.

This is actually a key point. Just the fact that he had to run through this calculation to determine if a Kindle made sense is a serious amount of friction. If Amazon made this calculation easy (i.e., no DRM tax) that would lead to more sales.

Filed Under: drm, drm tax, ebooks, kindle, tax
Companies: amazon