Ok, point taken! That does not sound sensible and it is misleading if you just pin it to erotic art and pornography. The important missing word in the article is copyright and the protection of it. It is part of a law to support young freelance artist like painters, actors, filmmakers, photographers, designers, dancers, set designers, performance artists and so on via the copyright of their produced art or performance. If you pay tax you can become a member of a collecting society. If you model in erotic magazines and you pay tax, you are allowed to claim. But as most erotic magazines probably do not pay into the pot you don't get anything out!
1.) This has nothing to do with the government. This is between the performance-rights organizations (PROs) and the industry. PROs represent the content CREATORS — songwriters, musicians, players, actors, directors, screenwriters —, not the INDUSTRY, per se. In the US, these PROs are The Alliance of Artists and Recording Companies for featured artists and copyright owners, ASCAP/BMI/SESAC for writers, Harry Fox Agency for publishers, and The AFM/AFTRA Intellectual Property Rights Distribution Fund (Joint venture of AFM and AFTRA ) for non-featured artists. In Germany, it's usually GEMA and the GVL for music. Because none of these content creators has the time nor ability to actually track use of their copyrighted material and collect appropriate royalties, they usually sign up with a PRO that will do it for them, or negotiate and enforce agreements for situations where individual tracking is outright impossible* — such has the case for burnable optical media, blank tapes, and mp3/video players for many, many years, in many countries, including Canada and the United States. Canada had a levy on iPods that was overturned at some point. The U.S. would have this same regulation, if a 1998 legal precedent hadn't ruled a Rio mp3 player a "computer peripheral", rather than a music device. Belgium has had this same levy on the iPhone and any other mp3-capable cellphone for years now. The money goes directly to the PROs and is passed on to the copyright/performance right holders from there.
2.) The "industry" here is the companies manufacturing blank media/players. They're the ones paying (or making us all pay). While the publishing rights may have been signed over to major-label publishers, the actual copyright is always in the hands of the individual artists who created the stuff. THEY are the ones in whose interest this levy is raised and collected.
3.) You people shouting "socialism!" are really showing your total ignorance here. @SpamSandwich : Yeah, this is all about "protectionism".
*) incidentally, this is also exactly why we can't see so many YouTube videos here in Germany: GEMA is demanding sensible royalties from Google/YT, in the interest of their clients — the content creators, which Google refuses to pay.
1.) This has nothing to do with the government. This is between the performance-rights organizations (PROs) and the industry. PROs represent the content CREATORS — songwriters, musicians, players, actors, directors, screenwriters —, not the INDUSTRY, per se. In the US, these PROs are The Alliance of Artists and Recording Companies for featured artists and copyright owners, ASCAP/BMI/SESAC for writers, Harry Fox Agency for publishers, and The AFM/AFTRA Intellectual Property Rights Distribution Fund (Joint venture of AFM and AFTRA ) for non-featured artists. In Germany, it's usually GEMA and the GVL for music. Because none of these content creators has the time nor ability to actually track use of their copyrighted material and collect appropriate royalties, they usually sign up with a PRO that will do it for them, or negotiate and enforce agreements for situations where individual tracking is outright impossible* — such has the case for burnable optical media, blank tapes, and mp3/video players for many, many years, in many countries, including Canada and the United States. Canada had a levy on iPods that was overturned at some point. The U.S. would have this same regulation, if a 1998 legal precedent hadn't ruled a Rio mp3 player a "computer peripheral", rather than a music device. Belgium has had this same levy on the iPhone and any other mp3-capable cellphone for years now. The money goes directly to the PROs and is passed on to the copyright/performance right holders from there.
2.) The "industry" here is the companies manufacturing blank media/players. They're the ones paying (or making us all pay). While the publishing rights may have been signed over to major-label publishers, the actual copyright is always in the hands of the individual artists who created the stuff. THEY are the ones in whose interest this levy is raised and collected.
3.) You people shouting "socialism!" are really showing your total ignorance here. @SpamSandwich : Yeah, this is all about "protectionism".
*) incidentally, this is also exactly why we can't see so many YouTube videos here in Germany: GEMA is demanding sensible royalties from Google/YT, in the interest of their clients — the content creators, which Google refuses to pay.
If accurate (and I've no interest in performing an in-depth investigation on this matter, that's what the author should be doing), then Apple would appear to be in the wrong, unless they are gaining something in return for this soft extortion.
They are being charged a copyright/performance right-holders' levy on the hardware they sell, that they have to pay per device. I don't see why they shouldn't be allowed to pass the cost on to their customers? All other licensing, whether regional or international, is figured into the sales price as well.
They are being charged a copyright/performance right-holders' levy on the hardware they sell, that they have to pay per device. I don't see why they shouldn't be allowed to pass the cost on to their customers? All other licensing, whether regional or international, is figured into the sales price as well.
How is it extortion? Because it's not the customer making the decision, it's a trade association coercing Apple (and other companies) into "compliance" and those added fees from this "agreement" are passed through to German customers. It's a racket which protects the members. If there were opposing competitive forces at work, then these tactics would be fruitless.
"extortion: |ikˈstôrSH(ə)n| nounthe practice of obtaining something, especially money, through force or threats."
So any time a company has any costs, it's "extortion"? What colour is the sky in the universe you live in?
Employee wages passed on in product pricing are "extortion" because it's not the customer making the decision. Corporate taxes passed on in product pricing because it's not the customer making the decision. Employee insurance passed on in product pricing because it's not the customer making the decision. Technology patent licensing deals passed on in product pricing because it's not the customer making the decision.
GEMA must have some sort of regulatory power granted by Government to be able to enforce this. It isn't actually copyright, as they have no idea what is being played or stored on the device. It is a scam. Apple should be identifying it clearly on each sale, with an explanation as to why it is being 'levied'. And exactly who the snouters are that demand it.
So any time a company has any costs, it's "extortion"? What colour is the sky in the universe you live in?
Employee wages passed on in product pricing are "extortion" because it's not the customer making the decision. Corporate taxes passed on in product pricing because it's not the customer making the decision. Employee insurance passed on in product pricing because it's not the customer making the decision. Technology patent licensing deals passed on in product pricing because it's not the customer making the decision.
I guess. But you're just being ridiculous.
Well you're both right. Yes, it's much the same as any other 'cost of doing business', copyright holders should be paid etc but then it does smack of extortion when only the storage/screen industry is targeted. You could just as easily make a case that every company that is part of the information infrastructure that transmits the copyrighted IP is just as guilty. Hell...they could just as well tax the internet by usage....oh wait.
So any time a company has any costs, it's "extortion"? What colour is the sky in the universe you live in?
Employee wages passed on in product pricing are "extortion" because it's not the customer making the decision. Corporate taxes passed on in product pricing because it's not the customer making the decision. Employee insurance passed on in product pricing because it's not the customer making the decision. Technology patent licensing deals passed on in product pricing because it's not the customer making the decision.
I guess. But you're just being ridiculous.
Well you're both right. Yes, it's much the same as any other 'cost of doing business', copyright holders should be paid etc but then it does smack of extortion when only the storage/screen industry is targeted. You could just as easily make a case that every company that is part of the information infrastructure that transmits the copyrighted IP is just as guilty.
Oh, well then you can just relax. If that's his point, he's in fact just plain ignorant, and quite wrong.
This levy extends (but is not limited) to: PCs, tablets, hard drives, scanners, printers, VCRs, hard disk recorders, CD burners, USB storage devices, cellphones (by capacity and touchscreen/no touchscreen), and blank media. Also, people who make photocopiers publicly available have to pay a lump-sum whose height depends, among other things, upon proximity to a university. Universities in Germany in 2014 paid a flat fee of 9 million € to the VG Wort, Musikedition and the Zentralstelle Fotokopieren an Schulen — who are the equivalent of GEMA for printed media — for duplication licensing of teaching materials.
GEMA must have some sort of regulatory power granted by Government to be able to enforce this. It isn't actually copyright, as they have no idea what is being played or stored on the device. It is a scam. Apple should be identifying it clearly on each sale, with an explanation as to why it is being 'levied'. And exactly who the snouters are that demand it.
Of course it's actually copyright royalties, and yes, the GEMA, GVL, VG Wort, VG Bild-Kunst, GÜFA (these are the guys who mostly handle the porn stuff), VG Musikedition, and a half-dozen other PROs are granted the legal status by the state of being able to enforce and collect royalties ON BEHALF OF THEIR CLIENTS: The actual content creators.
This is the case in most countries, btw, including the United States.
Their clients — musicians, movie makers, authors, artists, etc. — are well aware that there is no real way to tell exactly what a device will be used for. That is why a flat fee is negotiated instead, based on averaged estimated usage and heavily discounted.
Comments
More information: VG Bildkunst states: http://www.bildkunst.de/fileadmin/User_upload/downloads/pdf/Tarife_VG_BK_english.pdf
1.) This has nothing to do with the government. This is between the performance-rights organizations (PROs) and the industry. PROs represent the content CREATORS — songwriters, musicians, players, actors, directors, screenwriters —, not the INDUSTRY, per se. In the US, these PROs are The Alliance of Artists and Recording Companies for featured artists and copyright owners, ASCAP/BMI/SESAC for writers, Harry Fox Agency for publishers, and The AFM/AFTRA Intellectual Property Rights Distribution Fund (Joint venture of AFM and AFTRA ) for non-featured artists. In Germany, it's usually GEMA and the GVL for music.
Because none of these content creators has the time nor ability to actually track use of their copyrighted material and collect appropriate royalties, they usually sign up with a PRO that will do it for them, or negotiate and enforce agreements for situations where individual tracking is outright impossible* — such has the case for burnable optical media, blank tapes, and mp3/video players for many, many years, in many countries, including Canada and the United States. Canada had a levy on iPods that was overturned at some point. The U.S. would have this same regulation, if a 1998 legal precedent hadn't ruled a Rio mp3 player a "computer peripheral", rather than a music device. Belgium has had this same levy on the iPhone and any other mp3-capable cellphone for years now.
The money goes directly to the PROs and is passed on to the copyright/performance right holders from there.
2.) The "industry" here is the companies manufacturing blank media/players. They're the ones paying (or making us all pay). While the publishing rights may have been signed over to major-label publishers, the actual copyright is always in the hands of the individual artists who created the stuff. THEY are the ones in whose interest this levy is raised and collected.
3.) You people shouting "socialism!" are really showing your total ignorance here. @SpamSandwich : Yeah, this is all about "protectionism".
*) incidentally, this is also exactly why we can't see so many YouTube videos here in Germany: GEMA is demanding sensible royalties from Google/YT, in the interest of their clients — the content creators, which Google refuses to pay.
They are being charged a copyright/performance right-holders' levy on the hardware they sell, that they have to pay per device. I don't see why they shouldn't be allowed to pass the cost on to their customers? All other licensing, whether regional or international, is figured into the sales price as well.
"extortion: |ikˈstôrSH(ə)n| nounthe practice of obtaining something, especially money, through force or threats."
Employee wages passed on in product pricing are "extortion" because it's not the customer making the decision. Corporate taxes passed on in product pricing because it's not the customer making the decision. Employee insurance passed on in product pricing because it's not the customer making the decision. Technology patent licensing deals passed on in product pricing because it's not the customer making the decision.
I guess. But you're just being ridiculous.
Hell...they could just as well tax the internet by usage....oh wait.
This levy extends (but is not limited) to: PCs, tablets, hard drives, scanners, printers, VCRs, hard disk recorders, CD burners, USB storage devices, cellphones (by capacity and touchscreen/no touchscreen), and blank media. Also, people who make photocopiers publicly available have to pay a lump-sum whose height depends, among other things, upon proximity to a university. Universities in Germany in 2014 paid a flat fee of 9 million € to the VG Wort, Musikedition and the Zentralstelle Fotokopieren an Schulen — who are the equivalent of GEMA for printed media — for duplication licensing of teaching materials.
Of course it's actually copyright royalties, and yes, the GEMA, GVL, VG Wort, VG Bild-Kunst, GÜFA (these are the guys who mostly handle the porn stuff), VG Musikedition, and a half-dozen other PROs are granted the legal status by the state of being able to enforce and collect royalties ON BEHALF OF THEIR CLIENTS: The actual content creators.
This is the case in most countries, btw, including the United States.
Their clients — musicians, movie makers, authors, artists, etc. — are well aware that there is no real way to tell exactly what a device will be used for. That is why a flat fee is negotiated instead, based on averaged estimated usage and heavily discounted.