A tax on music?

GuyClapperton 0 Tallied Votes 435 Views Share

Of course. That's the answer. Easy. Japan has sorted it all out.

They're planning to .

This will be an interesting move not because a single country is planning such a tax - let's be honest, I'm in the UK, the chances are most readers are going to be in America and Japan can't hit either of us with any sort of levy.

However...

Moves are certainly afoot in the UK to introduce some sort of tax because the music industry is tired of its efforts being distributed without payment. I have no information on whether there's anything similar in the offing Stateside, but it wouldn't surprise me. The problem is going to be that taxing iPods and other MP3 players is missing the point - these aren't the devices that distribute music, they're just the players.

And anyway, how do you define 'MP3 player'? My iMac certainly plays MP3s if I ask it nicely, does that make it eligible for this new sort of tax? It's capable of ripping CDs and duplicating them so it's arguably more of a threat to musicians than a single flash-drive-driven outputter.

So far, so consumery - but what about the corporate networks on which there is already loads of illegal music? I was doing some corporate work a couple of years ago and a senior executive at a company I'd better not name told me that although he knew it was against the rules, he often used his company's PC to download music from iTunes and copy it to his iPod (he had a good reason - it was faster than at home, apparently). So what do we do - tax everything that could be responsible for copying music illegally?

No doubt a lot of people will praise the Japanese idea. Even if it turns out not to be the right solution to a growing problem, it's doing something rather than nothing. The snag is, I think they're addressing the wrong problem.

Dani AI

Generated

A short, practical update anchored to the points raised in the thread.

As observed, charging for players isn’t primarily an anti‑piracy tool — it’s one policy instrument called a “private‑copying” levy, intended to provide compensation to rightsholders for lawful private copying rather than to stop illegal file‑sharing. Countries that use this approach vary widely in scope and implementation; the World Intellectual Property Organization’s comparative survey explains the model and its limits. (tind.wipo.int)
(See: WIPO — International Survey on Private Copying.)

Japan’s debate in 2007–08 about extending the compensation scheme to portable players (the so‑called “iPod charge”) illustrates the political tradeoffs: rights bodies pushed for expansion while manufacturers and industry groups resisted blanket charges and proposed technical or contractual alternatives. The Japanese Copyright Q&A and contemporary reporting summarise those arguments and the policy review process. (cric.or.jp)
(See: CRIC Q&A on private copying in Japan and ITmedia coverage of the debate.)

European law adds complexity: Article 5(2)(b) of the InfoSoc Directive requires “fair compensation” where Member States allow private copying, and CJEU case law (Padawan / Copydan / EGEDA and related decisions) has ruled that levies may reach multifunctional devices only where a real link to private copying exists, that professional use needs refund/exemption mechanisms, and that schemes must avoid double payments or general‑tax funding that fails to place the burden on end users. Those rulings explain why a one‑size‑fits‑all “iPod tax” is legally and administratively hard to design. (vlex.co.uk)

The US took a different path (the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992) and no broad modern device‑levy comparable to some EU models exists there; meanwhile commercial streaming/subscription models have become the dominant revenue route for recorded music, so policy focus has shifted toward licensing and enforcement. For procurement and IT‑policy purposes, levies (where they exist) are usually imposed at manufacture/import/retail and many systems include upfront exemptions or refund routes for professional purchases — national collecting societies and the legislative texts are the definitive source for how any charge would be applied. (law.cornell.edu)
(See: US Code — AHRA (17 U.S.C. Chapter 10) and IFPI reporting on market shift to streaming.)

Bottom line: the device levy idea addresses a narrow policy goal (compensating private copying) and creates practical and legal headaches (definitions, exemptions, double payments). That helps explain ’s point that distribution and licensing innovation — not only hardware levies — are the system‑level remedies the industry has pursued.

UrbanKhoja 89 Practically a Posting Shark Featured Poster

Don't give our already trigger happy Mp's a bandwagon to clamber onto; they'll have it passed through and rates drawn up before the day's out! lol

happygeek 2,411 Most Valuable Poster Team Colleague Featured Poster

I think we should tax the morons who insist on sharing their music with us on the train/tube/bus/street or just about anywhere in fact, courtesy of the crappy little speakers on their mobile phone.

Not that I have a bee in my bonnet about being forced to listen to a tinny rendition of some, as it inevitably always is, tedious dance track.

I do find that being over six feet tall and heavily tattooed helps in these circumstances though...

jwenting 1,905 duckman Team Colleague

nothing new.
There is already a tax on all devices with memory capacity that will go into effect in the EU shortly.
That covers all mp3 players, harddisk DVD recorders, etc.
Computer components are excluded though, as are video and digital photo cameras (the latter only after massive public outcry about people buying digicams having to pay a tax to recover losses due to music piracy).

Techwriter10 42 Practically a Posting Shark

I'm not clear how taxing an MP3 player is gong to help the record companies. Instead of looking for ways to stop the bleeding on the web, the record companies need to get creative and find new ways of distributing their music. Unfortunately, they just cling to their 20th views of ownership and try to buy the politicians (who understand technology even less than record company executives) to do their dirty work for them.

jwenting 1,905 duckman Team Colleague

The idea is that the money will go (in part) to the record companies to compensate them for the losses due to music piracy.
Of course many kids will interpret that as a free ticket to pirate whatever they like, after all they've paid the tax haven't they?

Be a part of the DaniWeb community

We're a friendly, industry-focused community of developers, IT pros, digital marketers, and technology enthusiasts meeting, networking, learning, and sharing knowledge.