Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

France Considers 'Pirate Tax' For Online Ads

samzenpus posted more than 4 years ago | from the somone-has-to-pay dept.

The Internet 271

angry tapir writes "A report commissioned by the French Minister of Culture, Frédéric Mitterrand, urges the introduction of a tax on online advertising such as that carried by Google, which would be used to pay the creators of artistic and other works that lose out to online piracy."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

The old Motto: (5, Insightful)

rockclimber (660746) | more than 4 years ago | (#30692232)

Tax whatever you cannot understand. The question is: would that legalize downloading / Sharing since the artists are supposed to get payed?

Re:The old Motto: (2, Insightful)

nacturation (646836) | more than 4 years ago | (#30692442)

Better idea: tax creators of artistic works and use it to pay online advertisers who lose money due to fraudulent clicks.

Oh, and the word is paid. </obgrammarnazi>

Re:The old Motto: (5, Funny)

ta bu shi da yu (687699) | more than 4 years ago | (#30692966)

I have a better idea. Impose a tax on undertakers because murder causes enormous harm and economic loss to society.

Re:The old Motto: (4, Insightful)

Yvanhoe (564877) | more than 4 years ago | (#30692536)

Of course not, as was demonstrated by our tax on blank CD/DVDs.
I think piracy is not the issue here. Sarkozy has tried to take control of most media in France. Now Internet he doesn't understand and he definitely doesn't like. Sounds like his mindset to attack the biggest visible gun in the "field" to try to gain some control : Google. But this bullet is a miss, like most French IT legislation this will be badly implemented and never used in court.

Re:The old Motto: (0, Offtopic)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 4 years ago | (#30692594)

The tax on blank CD/DVD's never was about legalizing illegal copying, but it was to subsidize those who were hurt by it. You can have both, but simple people probably think that the tax was there to allow your illegal activities.

Re:The old Motto: (1)

HungryHobo (1314109) | more than 4 years ago | (#30692718)

So if I want to use CD's for storing data I have every right to I have to give money to Brittany spears.
To make it fair how about we put a "subsidy tax" on artists who can't make decent work but who are getting subsidised and give it to people who are being hurt by that, ie me and everyone else who has no interest in music.

Re:The old Motto: (1)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 4 years ago | (#30692758)

Notice that I never said it was the correct thing to do, I just told why its being done. Lots of pirates seem to think it's some kind of free pass for downloading whatever they like and it somehow makes it legal.

Re:The old Motto: (1)

Twisted Willie (1035374) | more than 4 years ago | (#30692740)

If I have to pay extra for a blank CD to compensate for the pirating I'm suspected of using it for, then why shouldn't I use it for pirating? After all, I've already paid the fine, might as well do the crime.

Note: I live in the Netherlands, where it's still not illegal to copy/download movies or music, yet I still pay the extra tax on blank media.

Re:The old Motto: (1)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 4 years ago | (#30692796)

This is exactly what I mean. You're thinking simply that because you are paying extra for subsidizing piracy, you somehow get the permission to pirate whatever. That is NOT the case.

Exactly the same on extra note, and it used to be the same too where I live. The extra tax isn't there to 'allow' you to pirate whatever. It's there because it's known it happens, and it's there to subsidize some of the value back. It is not a "you are allowed to pirate" tax.

Like with everything, you can blame the group that does bad things for your increased costs. Do you think it is the store that loses money if someone steals from them? No, the lost value will be taken from other customers in increased prices.

Re:The old Motto: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30693010)

Actually the official stance is that the "redevance " (it is claimed not to be a tax) is fair compensation
for the legal private copies not the illegal ones. Of course it's bullshit but that's the official stance.
At least in France. Now the "conseil d'etat" has struck down the computation of the "redevance pour copie privee"
one or two years ago for having included in their computation of the "tax" the losses due to piracy.

If you can read French here's the decision
http://fr.wikisource.org/wiki/Conseil_d%E2%80%99%C3%89tat_-_298779

Re:The old Motto: (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 4 years ago | (#30693080)

the "redevance " (it is claimed not to be a tax) is fair compensation
for the legal private copies not the illegal ones.

If the private copies are legal (by some kind of fair use law or whatever) then how is any compensation due at all?

Like you say, it's bullshit. I'm sure it'll mostly end up in the pockets of government officials anyway.

Re:The old Motto: (4, Insightful)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 4 years ago | (#30693032)

This is exactly what I mean. You're thinking simply that because you are paying extra for subsidizing piracy, you somehow get the permission to pirate whatever. That is NOT the case.

I think one of you is talking legally and one is talking morally.

For me, if you've paid for something you're entitled to have it.

Re:The old Motto: (5, Insightful)

TikiTDO (759782) | more than 4 years ago | (#30693072)

If I pay for something, it is only logical that I have the right to do it. This has, is, and will be the basis of our economic system for quite a while yet. As such, since I have paid for this supposed piracy, I am owed a debt by those receiving this tax money. Note that this is quite different from paying normal taxes; in that case my money will go to improve society as a whole, which I consider to be my own repayment of the debt I owe for being a part of this society. By contrast, this money goes to a very small group of very well off people because they feel that they are losing out on something. In other words I am quite literally paying a fee because they said so.

You have stated that this is not the case, but as of yet have presented exactly zero valid arguments to support your point. Consider the fact that this piracy subsidy is based on a quite obviously flawed idea wherein every download equates to lost money. I will not even get into details about the intrinsic value of a pirate, such as the free advertising of good products potentially resulting in a sale that may not have happened otherwise. I have written a /. post on that before, if you are particularly interested. Regardless whether someone knows that piracy happens or not, this does not give them the right to charge me a fee that goes to provide no services for me, and no services to society as a whole. Once again, we return to the fact that I am owed a debt, and I will most surely collect.

Finally, your store example is incorrect. It is indeed the store that loses money. Pricing of products is a difficult game, and few consumers will accept an increase in price just because the store had a bad day with thieves. This is why you sometimes see stories of people losing their livelihood because they have been robbed. Granted, a store might potentially use a part of their profits to cover for stolen articles, but this is a whole different story from a government enforced tax on a product that only benefits one specific group of people that has nothing to do with the development, production, or sale of the product. So in other words, you are trying to compare a situation where a store might get 10% profit on an item, and use 2% to finance lost articles, and a situation where an unrelated third party gets 100% profit on an item, because they managed to lobby their way to such a subsidy.

Cause and Effect. Debt and Repayment. All things in the universe must be balanced. Asking people not to is like asking the sun not to shine. It is certainly entertaining to see you try, but sad at the same time.

Re:The old Motto: (5, Funny)

JustOK (667959) | more than 4 years ago | (#30693000)

I use CD Arrs for pirated stuff.

Re:The old Motto: (1)

Yvanhoe (564877) | more than 4 years ago | (#30693136)

We have a constitutional principle that says that each new tax must have a benefit for the population. Here, the link has never been proved between taxing supports and supporting culture.

Plus will be censored on const./EU grounds (2, Informative)

Nicolas MONNET (4727) | more than 4 years ago | (#30692608)

Most of the measures they want to implement are simply unconstitutional.

Re:The old Motto: (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30692540)

I run an ad company that might be minuscule compared to google/yahoo, but does serve text ads worldwide, with web front-ends in America and UK.

Our office, back-end and banking are in Asia. Why would I give France the time of day?

Re:The old Motto: (3, Informative)

ShakaUVM (157947) | more than 4 years ago | (#30692548)

>>The question is: would that legalize downloading / Sharing since the artists are supposed to get payed?

Of course not.

And would artists actually see any of this money?

Of course not.

Re:The old Motto: (1)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 4 years ago | (#30692568)

Governance 101: The universal tax on potential Badness will go to pay for prosecuting and fining people who are actually caught doing Badness.

Re:The old Motto: (1)

purpledinoz (573045) | more than 4 years ago | (#30692602)

What I don't understand is: What is the connection between online advertising and illegal downloading of media? Those are completely unrelated. Aren't they?

Re:The old Motto: (4, Insightful)

Foobar of Borg (690622) | more than 4 years ago | (#30692648)

What I don't understand is: What is the connection between online advertising and illegal downloading of media? Those are completely unrelated. Aren't they?

You see, they are both done on the Internet. The internet is this scary thing that people like Sarkozy don't understand and want to control.

So, no, they are not at all related. It only seems that way to the ignorant.

Re:want to control (1)

TaoPhoenix (980487) | more than 4 years ago | (#30693038)

What if he does sorta understand? My new motto (I am too lazy to google the official name) is "Never assume naive incompetence for that which can be explained by malice *sold as* incompetence."

Re:The old Motto: (1)

sirlark (1676276) | more than 4 years ago | (#30692700)

Ah, someone else who uses adblock :-)

Try disabling adblock on a torrent site or other 'place of badness' on 'The Internet'... then after you have, clean your disk of all the malware, in fact wipe your hard drive and install a fresh system, in fact: just nuke it from orbit, it's the only way to be sure

Re:The old Motto: (3, Interesting)

kemenaran (1129201) | more than 4 years ago | (#30692840)

There is no connection, of course. In France we *love* to tax unrelated business one for each other. Last year, to compensate the lifting of advertising on public TV channels, the french government decided to tax the telcos and the ISPs. Why ? Because they're making money, so why not ? The tax has not to make any sense, it has to tax successful businesses that make money. Oh, plus Google is evil and want to scan our beautiful books — you see, another reason !

Re:The old Motto: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30693122)

With Gordon Brown in bed with Nicky, we end up with the same thing in the UK. If it's making money, tax it! If you're making more money than the average person, we'll tax you! However if you are making a ton of cash and have the mechanism to get it out of the country to a tax haven, then the gov turn a blind eye! Top 50 earners in the UK rake in about £126bn, out of that the total amount of tax paid was 0.14%! If you earn more than £35,000 a year in the UK, you get taxed at 40%! You own a car, you get taxed according to the engine size! You own a TV, you pax a tax! You have ADSL/broadband connection, you will be taxed from next year! My Yanky friends, Petrol/Diesel tax....ready for it....87%! Yep, for every £1 on fuel, 87p goes straight into Gordon's pocket!

Re:The old Motto: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30692838)

French common sense wins out again (and i'm from the UK, so it takes a lot to say that sarcastically). I can imagine what the convo would have been:

Minister: We need to find some way of recompensing the record compa... sorry ARTISTS for the money they're losing to piracy.

Junior Minister: We could always tax online advertising?

Minister: What does online advertising have to do with media piracy? There's no connection there!

Junior Minister: And your problem is? Anyway, there's a nice envelope from the "artists" waiting on your desk.

Minister: Good point! Set it up. *Evil Chuckle*

still not enough (5, Funny)

chichilalescu (1647065) | more than 4 years ago | (#30692240)

I sincerely believe that they should tax mp3 players more, because we all know people use them to listen to stolen music. And they should tax headphones more. And they should tax trains and buses and the subway, because that's where people use mp3 players. And I think the best way to handle it would be to tax all people who are not deaf, because they can hear music. Also, deaf people who can read, because some books talk about music, and you never know.

Re:still not enough (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30692284)

In fact, in France there is already a tax on mp3 players...

Re:still not enough (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30692526)

and floppy disk, and thumbdrive, and anything able at some point or another to contain music or video. It is not a legally tax but a compensation for a legal exception ( the "right" to have a personnal copy ), which prevent us from arguing that since we pay for piracy we have a right to pirate.

So the only way to have cheap blank CD in france is to get it from UK or germany. ( without declaring it of course )

Re:still not enough (3, Informative)

RobVB (1566105) | more than 4 years ago | (#30692702)

So the only way to have cheap blank CD in france is to get it from UK or germany. ( without declaring it of course )

There's no need to declare anything.

Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] :

Article 30 TFEU prohibits member states from levying any duties on goods crossing a border, both goods produced within the EU and those produced outside. Once a good has been imported into the EU from a third country and the appropriate customs duty paid, Article 29 TFEU dictates that it shall then be considered to be in free circulation between the member states.

It is perfectly legal to circumvent national taxes by buying goods in another European country. Many people in Belgium buy their electronics in Germany because the VAT is lower there.

Re:still not enough (3, Insightful)

oliderid (710055) | more than 4 years ago | (#30692888)

Being a Belgian, I confirm! :-) But I prefer to go to the UK nowadays...The sterling is still quite low. Well if the Eurostar works of course.

Re:still not enough (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30692900)

The important point is the blank medium "tax", isn't one but a compensation for a legal exception. The good itself isn't taxed, only the ability to use it to copy a paid medium.
Now, the subtle part is knowing whether or not arguing that you didn't use your "right" to a personnal copy on a particular medium allow you not to pay the corresponding compensation.
( As for why it isn't a right, it is to allow DVD encryption and others DRM, otherwise it would be overstepping the consumer freedom )
( From what i understand, the "right" to a personnal copy isn't well defined enough as it is. We agree that you can do that for yourself but it include a familly part too, and nobody cared to clearly define that.)

now i know i do a lot of oversimplifications and shortcuts but I loath legalese. :)

Re:still not enough (5, Informative)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 4 years ago | (#30692294)

Exceptions should be made for the politicians and their supporters though, because those crazy laws don't apply to them [coffee.geek.nz] .

Re:still not enough (2, Informative)

VValdo (10446) | more than 4 years ago | (#30692534)

But c'mon, that's in France. Such a thing would never happen in the US, would it [wired.com] ?

W

Re:still not enough (2, Funny)

pmontra (738736) | more than 4 years ago | (#30692310)

Everybody knows that people use web browsers to look for illegal downloads on torrent sites so let's tax browsers. Wait, there are free browsers so how about taxing links? Web sites will pay for every link clicked. Wait, some web sites are free to use (mine is one of them) so let's tax only per profit sites. Every per profit site to report clicks to the French government in 3... 2... 1...

Re:still not enough (1)

Arancaytar (966377) | more than 4 years ago | (#30692474)

Don't encourage them.

Re:still not enough (4, Insightful)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 4 years ago | (#30692486)

Oh, and how did one guy say: And you can put everyone in prison who has a penis. Because he has the necessary tools to commit rape.

In fact just put the road construction office and companies into jail, because murder, rape and many other bad things happened on the streets.

Or just put everyone into jail, because he has a brain... which means he has the tool to think about a crime, which means he can commit it, which means he will commit it. No? ;)

Re:still not enough (2, Funny)

codeButcher (223668) | more than 4 years ago | (#30692546)

Now you're making way too much sense for a politician.

Re:still not enough (1)

ubrgeek (679399) | more than 4 years ago | (#30692694)

> Or just put everyone into jail, because he has a brain

As is apparent by this proposal, apparently not.

Re:still not enough (1)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 4 years ago | (#30692514)

Wow, if only someone had foreseen all this http://bit.ly/uMzJr [bit.ly]

Re:still not enough (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30692542)

mp3 player and all device for playing/recording music (hard drive,...) are already tax for piracy purpose in France...

What about those who can read music and play music (1)

anti-NAT (709310) | more than 4 years ago | (#30692616)

? Those bastards should be taxed the most!

I want a tax too (3, Insightful)

EyyySvenne (999534) | more than 4 years ago | (#30692248)

I want a tax on every refrigerator that is sold since i can't sell ice anymore...

Re:I want a tax too (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30692424)

Actually that would make more sense than this proposed law.

This is more like putting a tax on every car, because the refrigerator put your "horse drawn carriage delivering ice" company out of business.

(Yes, the analogy doesn't make sense. That's the point.)

Re:I want a tax too (2, Insightful)

LordAndrewSama (1216602) | more than 4 years ago | (#30692430)

You know what to do. Form the IIAA(Ice Industry Association of America) and lobby politicians for FMIA(Fridge Millenium Icing Act) and start sending letters to everyone suspected of having fridges but not paying you, then use the money most of them pony up to avoid a court case to sue the ones that don't pony up, so that everyone sees that you mean business. don't forget ridiculous sums($50,000 for each ice cube you could fit in the defendants fridge). start displaying "FRIDGES ARE A CRIME AND WE WILL FIND YOU" signs all over shops that sell them, much like the movies.

You could also set up fake shops, giving away fridges, then when people accept the fridge, you take them to court.

Use the money you gain to open similar Associations in other countries and start the whole process again. Don't let those bastard fridgemaking communists cut into your revenue, fight back!

Then you can get your new puppets to start secret treaties with your puppets in other nations...

Re:I want a tax too (1)

Arancaytar (966377) | more than 4 years ago | (#30692490)

start displaying "FRIDGES ARE A CRIME AND WE WILL FIND YOU" signs all over shops that sell them, much like the movies.

That makes MORE sense than the piracy ads at the movie theater. A better analogy would be screaming "FRIDGES ARE A CRIME AND WE WILL FIND YOU" at everyone who goes out and buys your icecubes, just in case he might ever decide to get a fridge instead.

great idea (5, Funny)

cyborch (524661) | more than 4 years ago | (#30692262)

<sarcasm>

Make companies who actually make money online pay for those companies which do not understand how to make money online...

</sarcasm>

Re:great idea (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30692292)

Oh but they do understand how to make money. They just bribe politicians to give it to them. It's a business model, too.

Re:great idea (1)

cyborch (524661) | more than 4 years ago | (#30692318)

That is true. You missed the last word of the sentence I wrote, though...

Re:great idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30692412)

online? .... sarcasm....? twitter??

Don't think he missed anything... Though it is mundane to see twitter and iphone together. Go go rich kids that have had things handed to them. I can't wait for twitter to follow myspace... at least myspace didn't claim to be a revolutionary way of life.

Re:great idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30692498)

Why? They are bribing politicians to introduce taxes on online activities, ISPs, etc. The money they get directly comes from online activities (sueing people into indentured servitude for alleged P2P use, taxes on online activities, etc.). They leach money from successful online businesses, thus they make money online.

Re:great idea (1)

Rufty (37223) | more than 4 years ago | (#30692938)

They should be careful - the banks won't like the competition.

Re:great idea (1)

pagaboy (1029878) | more than 4 years ago | (#30692952)

Oh but they do understand how to make money. They just marry politicians. It's a business model, too.

Corrected!

Re:great idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30692346)

Although a great recurring Slashdot meme, the "just fix your business model" viewpoint is utterly and completely retarded and ignorant.

It would not be validly applied in any other circumstance. E.g. let's say that businesses using Open Source are taxed heavily to compensate for lost VAT in commercial software. Consequently, a group of Open Source developers who rely on donations to do full-time development work experience a shortfall in donations and complain about that. Comments like "Yeah, learn to live with it", "You're behind the times", "Dinosaurs do one thing: Die out", "Rethink your development model", "Just find out how to do it" etc. are meaningless.

Re:great idea (2, Interesting)

cyborch (524661) | more than 4 years ago | (#30692374)

Although a great recurring Slashdot meme, the "just fix your business model" viewpoint is utterly and completely retarded and ignorant.

It would not be validly applied in any other circumstance. E.g. let's say that businesses using Open Source are taxed heavily to compensate for lost VAT in commercial software. Consequently, a group of Open Source developers who rely on donations to do full-time development work experience a shortfall in donations and complain about that. Comments like "Yeah, learn to live with it", "You're behind the times", "Dinosaurs do one thing: Die out", "Rethink your development model", "Just find out how to do it" etc. are meaningless.

Even if the artists shouldn't change their business model, why is it in order to punish those who did change their business model?

This tax is going to target companies completely unrelated to artists (SaaS companies for instance). I'm pretty sure they aren't the ones pirating music. Also I'm also pretty sure that their customers (people who buy SaaS) generally don't pirate music.

Everything about this tax is misguided

Re:great idea (1)

Idiomatick (976696) | more than 4 years ago | (#30692444)

The difference is the laws. In your example the laws applied are unhealthy and supporting one group. Or hurting open source. This is bad because it doesn't support new products, new innovations, competition or cost effective spread of products. Those are pretty much the only reasons laws should be in place... to create a better market. A market that the people want.

In the music business stupidity we see the opposite happening. Laws are being created, exist or modified in ways that make the market WORSE. Copyright law for example should exist only to encourage a great variety of quality performances available to as many as possible. Currently it fails at that and is getting worse. We then rebel against it.

Is the idea that the government works for _us_ really that complicated a concept?

Re:great idea (1)

Andorin (1624303) | more than 4 years ago | (#30692464)

Although a great recurring Slashdot meme, the "just fix your business model" viewpoint is utterly and completely retarded and ignorant. It would not be validly applied in any other circumstance.

Good for those other circumstances. It does, however, apply with respect to Big Content. And I'm pretty sure there are a lot of non-Slashdotters that agree with the viewpoint.

A car analogy. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30692286)

In related news, France has decided to tax car dealerships to help cover the losses insurance companies suffer as a result of car theft.

A report commissioned by the French Minister of Culture Frédéric Mitterrand urges the introduction of a tax on online advertising such as that carried by Google, which would be used to pay the creators of artistic and other works who lose out to online piracy ... The report was written by Patrick Zelnik, Guillaume Cerutti and Jacques Toubon. Zelnik is president of Impala, a network of independent record companies

Yeah, no conflict of interest there.

In their report, the authors also called on the French antitrust regulator, the Authorité de la Concurrence, to look at whether Google has a monopoly on search engine and search advertising services in France, and whether the problems faced by online publishers could in any way be related to Google's business methods.

IOW, the report explored various ways of screwing a foreign company for being too successful in a local market, having previously failed to create a successful competitor [euobserver.com] even though it had funding from the government to help it along.

Re:A car analogy. (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30692406)

The report was written by Patrick Zelnik, Guillaume Cerutti and Jacques Toubon. Zelnik is president of Impala, a network of independent record companies

He's also the founder of Carla Bruni-Sarkozy's - the president's wife - record label. The others appear to be part of the "club" too, based on Google results...

IOW, the report explored various ways of screwing a foreign company for being too successful in a local market, having previously failed to create a successful competitor even though it had funding from the government to help it along.

What a bunch of losers - even with help from their corrupt buddies in Govt they can't make a successful business.

Remember, France brought us HADOPI (1)

Andorin (1624303) | more than 4 years ago | (#30692312)

So to sum up, some of France's politicians are still devoted to retarding the growth of the Internet in the name of the dinosaurs of entertainment.

Good to know.

Music/Movie Industries (2, Interesting)

V50 (248015) | more than 4 years ago | (#30692314)

Sometimes I think the Movie and (espeically) the Music industries won't be content until the government outright introduces a "media tax" and gives it directly to the industry, regardless of whether anyone wants to actually buy what they produce.

I've got this crazy (and probably stupid) vision in my head of the RIAA and related organisations that no longer even pretends to produce something, and yet is shoveled money by the government as a way of "protecting artists" or something. Doubt it would ever get that far, but I'm sure some people in said organisations has had a similar, more sinister vision.

Hmmm. A government agency that doesn't actually do anything, yet continues to be fed billions in tax dollars that no one wants to pay. There's a joke in there somewhere.

Re:Music/Movie Industries (4, Insightful)

Andorin (1624303) | more than 4 years ago | (#30692394)

The RIAA and MPAA will be satisfied when:

-You can't sing in the shower without paying royalties
-Digital formats move to a pay-per-view or pay-per-listen model, where your TV or computer can count the number of heads in the room and charge you for each
-Your Internet connection is fully monitored by your ISP (doubling your subscriber rate, but it's to stop piracy!)
-Content restriction software becomes mandatory on every computer (this will outlaw Linux as nobody will take the time to produce a version of this software for Linux) (alternately we could just make Trusted Computing mandatory)
-All your devices will connect to an authorization server and check a whitelist of "approved" content each time you try to play a song or whatever, and will not play any file that is not explicitly authorized (has the added effect of forcing you to buy RIAA music instead of competing indie music)
-Fair use is abolished (has sort of happened in the US with the DMCA) and infringement is a criminal offense
-Copyright terms are perpetual... maybe with "minus a day" put in to technically adhere to the Constitution
-Portable storage devices such as flash drives must connect with an authorization server if you try to copy a file from them (goodbye sneakernet)
-Use of a VPN, use of encryption, and use of Tor or any similar network is illegal
-Having Freenet, a BitTorrent client, a client for any other p2p program, an IRC client, an email client or an IM client is illegal, since you can use any of them for piracy

Etc etc.

A simpler list... (1)

MR.Mic (937158) | more than 4 years ago | (#30692528)

- All of your money belongs to them.

Re:Music/Movie Industries (1)

codeButcher (223668) | more than 4 years ago | (#30692576)

Wait until I start to sing in the shower. They'll pay up to make me stop.

That, and my newly invented Bagpipes Automat, which only plays random notes to ensure that no published music (past or future) is infringed.

Re:Music/Movie Industries (4, Insightful)

backwardMechanic (959818) | more than 4 years ago | (#30692814)

Sometimes I think the Movie and (espeically) the Music industries won't be content until the government outright introduces a "media tax"

The funny thing is we already have something like this in the UK with the TV license, used to fund the BBC. The thing is, it actually works rather well. When the BBC remember who they are, and stop trying to compete with low-grade commercial TV, they make some very good stuff - everything from News and current affairs (including a very strong web presence) through drama and comedy. And without commercials. Just so long as we give the cash to a bunch of people interested in making good media, rather than the money-grabbing lowlife who are currently destroying music and cinema, it could work well.

Re:Music/Movie Industries (1)

sznupi (719324) | more than 4 years ago | (#30692824)

I think there's something else going on in France, too. They are after all mighty protectionist when it comes to their, uhmm, "culture".

I suspect that piracy helps big acts much more than the small, local ones. We seem to agree here it applies to software. Heck, even MS thinks so...

Re:Music/Movie Industries (1)

dparnass (1004755) | more than 4 years ago | (#30693096)

Yes there are several in the US The Dept of Education which does not educate a single child. The Dept of Homeland Security wich does nothing but annoy the american people while allowing pantie bombers from africa to get on planes to Detroit. The list goes on.

LMAO (4, Insightful)

Rivalz (1431453) | more than 4 years ago | (#30692316)

"The report was written by Patrick Zelnik, Guillaume Cerutti and Jacques Toubon. Zelnik is president of Impala, a network of independent record companies." They didn't even bother to get a 3rd party to write this toilet paper of a report. Isn't this basically like making the average tax payer insure a business against the possible theft of an intangible object?

Re:LMAO (1)

foobsr (693224) | more than 4 years ago | (#30692672)

Jacques Toubon

Also [wapedia.mobi] : " The Toubon Law (full name: law 94-665 of 4 August 1994 relating to usage of the French language), is a law of the French government mandating the use of the French language in official government publications, in all advertisements, in all workplaces, in commercial contracts, in some other commercial communication contexts, in all government-financed schools, and some other contexts."

CC.

Not all that awful of an idea (1)

abigsmurf (919188) | more than 4 years ago | (#30692332)

Although making it primarily go to media companies is the wrong approach, taxing online ads to help fund cyber-enforcement isn't such a bad idea.

It'll make "you're funding a dodgy site!" lawsuits more difficult for one thing but the revenue could also be used to fund prosecutions against adverts that mislead consumers. Both (legal) advertisers and consumers would benefit.

Of course that isn't what the money would probably end up being spent on but meh...

Re:Not all that awful of an idea (1)

blanck (1458239) | more than 4 years ago | (#30693016)

>taxing online ads to help fund cyber-enforcement isn't such a bad idea.

Why is it a good idea to put the burden of supporting a failing industry on an adjacent successful one?
Even if we assume the money will pass through the bureaucracy to the artists and record companies, will it really help them improve their business model in a productive way?
I would bet that it would only embolden them to pursue further tactics against adjacent industries, until they too are no longer profitable.

Sorry for such a redundant comment but (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30692350)

Is this for real? I really cannot believe anyone could be seriously proposing this. You cannot subsidise a business that is more susceptible to crime with a business that is less susceptible. Should car dealerships be taxed to help other retailers that are victims of shop lifting because the car dealers aren't?
This is probably the most ridiculous idea I've heard from a politician in a long while, and that is no mean feat.

So Google will support AdBlock+ ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30692354)

... at least for users in France? I sincerely hope that this tax flies. The absurdity it creates will be fun to watch.

Re:So Google will support AdBlock+ ... (1)

delinear (991444) | more than 4 years ago | (#30692544)

I honestly don't see how they could ever expect to implement this - I don't think they can tax foreign advertisers (impossible to enforce unless those advertisers sell directly into France in which case they could just add their media bully tax at the sales stage but then that's not a tax on advertising because a user might be buying the goods without having seen or clicked an ad) and surely if they try and tax their own advertisers it will make their homegrown goods less competitive globally or force their companies to use foreign advertising agencies to avoid the tax, which will seriously hurt the rest of their economy.

Re:So Google will support AdBlock+ ... (2, Funny)

sakdoctor (1087155) | more than 4 years ago | (#30692564)

How about taxing run-on sentences.

Anonymous coward (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30692362)

this stupid french goverment know one thing, tax tax tax, that all they know.

Completely unrelated... (2, Funny)

geckipede (1261408) | more than 4 years ago | (#30692386)

My perpetual motion business is doing very badly. I propose that in order to maintain this valuable source of employment, schools, laboratories, universities and libraries are all taxed. They keep discouraging my investors...

Re:Completely unrelated... (2, Funny)

Goffee71 (628501) | more than 4 years ago | (#30692400)

But, my friend, the French what-will-we-tax-next office is always in motion, so I think they've beaten you to it.

Fix the original problem (4, Interesting)

pev (2186) | more than 4 years ago | (#30692408)

Well, that's good, but lets address the original problem - roads have been used for smuggling for many years so lets tax billboard advertisers for the losses incurred by overland smuggling. Petition your local lawmaker NOW!

The French Minister of Culture (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30692426)

sucks dick... and charges for it.

MinUs 2, Tro7l) (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30692438)

smells worse than a others what to not so bad. To the BE NIGGER! BE GAY! = 36400 FreeBSD posts on Usenet are of Jordan Hubbard Usenet. In 1995, current core were open platform, like I should be Own agenda - give partner. And if OpenBSD. How many legitimise doing Theorists - support GNNA, of various BSD people's faces at for election, I fear the reaper is mired in an Followed. Obviously you should bring community. The nearly two years lube. This can Ulead charnel house. Preferrably with an backwards. To the Are you a NIGGER Maintained that too And financial Conversations where distributions

how internet providers made their living (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30692452)

bandwith needed to p2p movies, music, and more... selling hard disk been the same.. on one hand they sell more, top noch internet connection, at the expend of those who make movies, music, books and more.. that's the whole thing, at one point they could have promoted themselves.. MORE MOVIES, MUSIC FOR FREE in here.. to gain more customers.. they can't do it, legally, but for real, that was what they did, making more bandwidth available to new customers..
that's the reality.. the next thing to happen, is market to stabilize, when everyone will get its share, and all to make an unsaid agreement, not to try grab customers of others, and at time they will definitly go the anti-piracy way.. now when you just think.. one could make billions with a "song".. and on the other hand it is reallly difficult to make "billions" with new devices.. not to tell.. about the big media players.. promoting for years, who they wanted to promote and not what the public wanted... like.. they choosed their singer.. put money behind and sold it.. by now, with piracy, they've been forced to play nicely, and the other way around.. promote singers people choose..
much to say.. but so much hypocrisis.. i dont mind to see artist make more concert to earn a living.. because i am not sure, i want big money go for "songs".. but new devices, invention, something that changes the world instead..

Robin's Hood is back (1)

pleymort (1462659) | more than 4 years ago | (#30692482)

Taxing ads of Google, Yahoo! AOL ... came out from the "ZELNIK" report ordered by our dear president.... But this time I don't find the idea stupid. Today, the internet model makes creative people pay, and broadcasters earn millions... and it does not sound weird to us because we are used to. But that is really unfair. Google & co take advantage of pirate traffic, so why not taxing them a little (they are talking about 1%) to give it back to artists.

Re:Robin's Hood is back (1)

BiggerIsBetter (682164) | more than 4 years ago | (#30692518)

Taxing ads of Google, Yahoo! AOL ... came out from the "ZELNIK" report ordered by our dear president's wife....

Fixed that for you. Zelnik fonded Carla Bruni's record label. Conflict of interest much?

Re:Robin's Hood is back (3, Insightful)

Spad (470073) | more than 4 years ago | (#30692600)

But what about the watchmakers? After all, I get loads of spam through my Google Mail account offering counterfeit designer watches for sale, so surely some of this tax should go to them. Then there are all the other designer goods; clothes, handbags, perfume - and pirated software, that needs to be accounted for as well. Not to mention the banks, they have suffered losses due to phishing sites that are often made available through paid Google adverts, so they need a cut as well...

You see where I'm going with this - piracy and the death of the creative arts may be a current hot topic, but (as much as I hate to use the phrase) it's a slippery slope if you allow the government to levy punative taxes on successful companies in order to "compensate" those who haven't found a way to stay profitable (or, in actuality, are extremely profitable, but not as profitable as they *want* to be, which is certainly the case with the big music and movie labels).

Re:Robin's Hood is back (1)

Arimus (198136) | more than 4 years ago | (#30693064)

The death of creative arts has little to do with piracy on the whole and ALOT to do with shows like X-Factor et al and the forumlaic crap that passes itself off as music these days.

Re:Robin's Hood is back (1)

IBBoard (1128019) | more than 4 years ago | (#30692782)

Or how about the laws about dodgy adverts/making money from illegal business are enforced and Google et al are fined for allowing their adverts to be used on dodgy websites (giving them a little bit of slack to at least catch it first)? That way no-one is unfairly taxed (i.e. advertisers who are more picky about adverts), and the laws that already exist are actually enforced.

Profit!!!! (2, Insightful)

benwiggy (1262536) | more than 4 years ago | (#30692502)

1. Write a few cheesy pop tunes on my own label.

2. Complain to the French Govt. that no-one is buying them -- no doubt because of all the pirates.

3. Wait for cheque.

I look forward to this as a fantastic money-making opportunity.

cool (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30692578)

now I can write an really bad song and claim piracy is why I make no money and collection compensation. Time to quit my day job

Sarkozy's reichwing partei (3, Interesting)

Nicolas MONNET (4727) | more than 4 years ago | (#30692606)

When he's not stirring up racism to try to up their votes, he's busy gazing admiringly at China. But he's not alone. Bush's best friend, Bono (of soup-elevator music boy's band "U2" fame) has the same idea. "Great" minds "think" alike.

What you don't know is that the fucktard also wants to tax inkjet cartridges(*), because he heard books are being pirated, and he obviously thinks people print ebooks. After all, that's how he reads 'em fancy newfangled electronic males.

--
(*) I'm not kidding.

there's nothing lost (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 4 years ago | (#30692650)

the idea that distributors (oh, you thought this was about artists?) need to permanently derive an income because they once had an oligopoly is madness. no, they will die away, and artists will make cash directly from their fans via ancillary revenues (concerts, ads, endorsements, personalized content, etc)

recorded music will serve the same function that free radio once did in a previous era. a previous era that is dead. its dead, you do understand that, right?

furthermore, there's no law or enforcement that is needed for this reality to come into existence. it will just happen. its already happened. it will happen, in fact, no matter how many laws or how many billions the dying distributors spend on legal enforcement and padding legislators pockets to stop it from happening. idiots: laws bend to technological change, technological change does not bend to laws. study your damn history, and don't for a minute continue to believe your thousands of lawyers can defeat millions of media hungry, technologically savvy and most importantly POOR teenagers. deal with it

the world is changing. you have no ability to stop it. all that is left for you to do is understand that the old economic model is dead, and accept it. or don't, and waste you're time and money on a lost cause. morons

Not a smart move (1)

DaemonKnightVS (1422157) | more than 4 years ago | (#30692664)

Wonder if stuff like this will affect how google, ms, yahoo etc do business in france? Maybe they'll have less incentive to have any offices there? Any newcomers into the field would definitely would view extra taxes as a turn off from having an office in france!

National sport (1)

jean-guy69 (445459) | more than 4 years ago | (#30692678)

This is the same country where the president decided to suppress the advertisement on evening public TV channels. Presumably to help private TV channels to sell their advertising at a higher price.

And they created a new tax on ISP and telecom providers income in order to compensate this loss of income.

Tax creation has become a national sport under Sarkozy's regime.

The same with the law. When some news story impress the public opinion, they create very specific laws although it would be enough to applicate the existent laws. Depressing..

Im an Artist (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30692742)

Im an artist, give me money!

Here's an idea. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30692768)

How about putting online thieves in f#%&-me-in-the-a## prison??? Maybe then people will stop.

Adblocking... (4, Funny)

SharpFang (651121) | more than 4 years ago | (#30692818)

...will be a crime of tax evasion.

Is it for the artists? (2, Interesting)

GreatBunzinni (642500) | more than 4 years ago | (#30692820)

The key question is if this tax will in fact be used to help the artists or will it be yet another way for media conglomerates to suck on the government's tit while the artist itself, the creative mind responsible for creating a work of art, will continue to get the shaft and continue to be relegated as simple temporary worker, receiving nothing more than a symbolic compensation for a one-off job. This is particularly sickening due to the fact that media conglomerates, which are thriving, are using their power and influence to not only avoid compensating any artist but also to screw the entire world out of their culture and their rights to access works of art without being subjected to the whims of a totalitarian gatekeeper.

I demand my cut (1)

IndustrialComplex (975015) | more than 4 years ago | (#30692860)

Every time a significant portion of my posts is quoted, that is a slight, but non-zero infringment on my creative works.

Therefore, I demand that forum posts be included as part of the metric for determining who gets paid. This demand is every bit as cromulent as the demand to extract money from an unrelated party to pay for a supposed violation on a subset of the total creative works that are actually being infringed upon.

Abuse of taxation (1)

erroneus (253617) | more than 4 years ago | (#30692958)

Every time I see taxation used in ways other than to support the common good in some way such as government services, infrastructure or the like, I have to protest. I have to protest especially when taxes collected are awarded to parties who did not earn or work for it as "compensation" for an offence that no one has been charged with. This does not define taxation as much as it describes "FINING!" In short, the entire population is being fined without due process.

What's worse, of course, is that the fines collected will not go to the parties allegedly damaged. They will, instead, go to large publishing firms... "for distribution..."

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?