Dutch Artist Unions Call Government to Legalize File-Sharing

Ernesto
November 24, 2010
107
levy,
the netherlands
Print

A strong coalition of two Dutch artists unions and the local consumer watchdog have submitted a proposal to permanently legalize file-sharing of music and movies. In exchange, the parties call for a levy on MP3-players and other devices that can play and record movies and music. In the future, this has to be changed to a general levy on Internet subscriptions.

amsterdam For years, downloading movies and music for personal use has been allowed under Dutch law, but the current Government has plans to change this.

This is a bad idea, according to the consumer watchdog artists unions. Instead, they have issued a counterproposal that would eventually legalize both the uploading and downloading of movies and music entirely.

“The parties find it essential to protect the freedom of consumers on the Internet and to ensure that the rights of artists are respected. A necessary condition for the adoption of the proposal is that the technologies used will not infringe on the rights of consumers,” the press statement reads.

Legalizing ‘illicit’ file-sharing would happen in two stages. The existing levy on blank media such as CDs and DVDs will be replaced by a levy on devices that can play an record movies and music. This includes, but is not limited to mobile phones, MP3-players and TVs.

The average levy would be around 5 euros per device, and the money collected should be fairly divided among artists and other rightsholders. The proposal does not apply to other digital files such as games, software and books.

In the future, when file-sharing is even more dominant than it is now, this levy should be changed into a general Internet levy which will completely legalize the uploading and downloading of movies and music for personal use. Commercial copyright infringement will remain illegal according to the proposal.

The proposal is an interesting one, especially coming from the artists themselves, but it also raises many questions. The proposal is quite vague about how the collected money should be divided. Also, it avoids the important issue that people who are not downloading at all will end up paying more for their mobile phones and TVs.

The proposal will undoubtedly meet some resistance from music retailers such as Apple, who will lose millions in revenue if it was adopted. That said, it’s good to see that the unions and the consumer watchdog are at least thinking about alternative solutions.

Previous Post | Next Post

Follow @torrentfreak

anon

first?
Anonymous

Fairly divided? How do we judge what’s fair?
Anonymous

As already pointed out on tweakers.net this is already happening in other industries (such as electricity). Everyone pays in order to cover expenses made by people that illegally tap electricity. Nobody complains about that, now do they? And how much is 5 bucks on 2500? Or a 500,- phone? It’s a small price to pay, and this way the money goes DIRECTLY to the artists instead of being distributed to the major labels.
Aditya

@2 I agree
but then two this or an improved version of such a law wouldn’t be that bad and as far as the people who don’t share files are considered they will just start doing soo….
‘puterman

It’ll never pass, for 2 reasons as Ernesto listed:

1.)The proposal is quite vague about how the collected money should be divided.

2.)It avoids the important issue that people who are not downloading at all will end up paying more for their mobile phones and TVs.

But they are headed in the right direction imo.

I watch everything on my laptop, or hook it up to my TV via HDMI output & I stream audio to my stereo. Also my MP3 player was cheap. I’m not buying another one any time soon. GG Artist Unions & consumer watchdog. Tax people for my downloads. :)
Aditya

I doubt MPAA and RIAA would let this happen coz they don’t seem to be fighting for the rights of the artists instead just filling their pockets….
Anon

@1 Wow you commented first, Could you at least put a opinion on this matter or was the only reason you posted to say that you were first?

On topic

It is interesting that there are still people trying to do a fair compromise and adapt to a new business model/copyright law that makes both parties happy. I doubt it will change anything big business is really hesitant of changing.

Little do they realise that the pirates will forever win this battle to be honest.
invertedquestionmark

I do a lot of interviews with bands for our university newspaper and I always ask them about piracy. This is one of the things I hear a lot – they don’t want the pirates to be prosecuted but instead propose levy on music players and internet providers.

It makes a lot of sense but it’s a bit dangerous as well. Who will decide how much money each artist gets? Is there going to be an agency that collects download statistics? How about devoted fans who decide to aid their favourite bands by downloading their albums again and again? And what if companies such as Apple or ISPs simply raise the prices?
anonymous

i think the important thing here is that there is a bit of forward thinking going on, not only by the consumer watchdog organisation but also by 2 artists unions as well. although there needs to be more clarification on the levy to be charged because not everyone will be in a position to download, burn or watch the material and who will get what portion of the monies collected, it is a step in a more fair direction. none of the entertainment industries will even consider it though, simply because they are only interested in keeping their aging technology and cash cows going as well as suing the whole world! greed and control before common sense!!
Pingback: Tweets that mention Dutch Artist Unions Call Government to Legalize File-Sharing | TorrentFreak -- Topsy.com
anon

@2

well whoever has the most money already will bribe (lobby) the most succesfully and have their private interests obfuscated by laws and onerous penalties.

at least thats how its worked so far…
hotdog

The future is the internet and artist know the impact it can bring!! I say fair deal… I mean we listen to artist we can help them out too.
I say down with the “corp-rats” and up with the independent artist.Secondly i think
apples partying days have gone down as android/htc/linux has taken over the market. this might even benefit more then go against what censorship has become.
Artist speaking out why not.Hopefully this can become worldwide and best of luck to the artist.
let the battle commence

unrelated but http://blogs.forbes.com/clareoconnor/2010/11/23/billionaire-heir-battling-restraining-order-from-big-four-networks/

Go Alki, Go Alki, Go Alki……..
Wilson Andrew Bolton

The Mafiaa won’t let this happen. It’s too good to be true.
Mick

I was thinking about such a model a while ago and I came up with this: what if instead of the 5 euro’s being distributed you get some sort of 5 euro coupon which you can add to an account on the internet from where you can distribute the money yourself to artists you think deserve the money. And at the end of the year all the coupon money that hasn’t been spent gets distributed in the same ratio people chose to distribute it.
lverona

In Russia the law was passed that puts 1% levy on all digital carriers and all digital devices.

HOWEVER, in spite of all this, downloading continues to be illegal. So in Russia basically copyright holders got even more of the pie without legalizing file sharing. They just decided to strip people of even more money.

So yeah – this idea does get used, question is – how.
Don Marti

“Dude, with all those gradients and sound effects, this PowerPoint presentation is HUGE.”

“I know. I deliberately make them that way. The more hard drives my employer has to buy, the more subsidies my favorite band gets.”

“Rock on — can I have your templates?”
RaCooN

As a Dutch guy myself, this is one of the best things I can possibly hear.

-I AM willing to pay for my good albums
-I AM willing to pay a little extra tax for the music industry

- I DO WANT to be able to try something before buying (downloading)

The music industry is outdated, the money doesn’t go to the artists but to the producers (almost 70%). I think this law will definitely be a success. This is a win/win situation. Downloading may continue, artists get rewarded.
Armo

@ 7 Nov 24, 2010 at 20:43 by invertedquestionmark

“How about devoted fans who decide to aid their favourite bands by downloading their albums again and again?”
ignore multiple downloads from a single IP
maybe something else will decide, like a hit parade or smth

“And what if companies such as Apple or ISPs simply raise the prices?”
dump Apple. get a new ISP

anyone, there’s next to 0 chance of this happening
Anonymous

Viva Hollandia!! :)
neostyles

I love how people are saying that we shouldn’t be paying for things because most of it goes to the record label. Yeah, depriving the artist of what little compensation they do get sounds much better! Have these clowns ever considered how the artist is supposed to earn money? I bet they would think differently if they had to make a living off of their work.

Am I the only one who finds this “make everything free” movement really disturbing? I guess the internet has taught certain people that they are entitled to things..

Also lol @ “paying for things is outdated.” Calling anything outdated seems to be the most popular means of tarnishing something without having any sound reasoning.
Anonymous

@14 Wrong. The levy on storage would be replaced by a levy on devices that play/record.
USA GO AWAY

Seems kind like a fair approach, but I smell a MAFIAA offensive on the horizon, expecially about the uploading part. This could turn interesting.
Paul

There are still going to be people that take the illegal root even if there is a legal one. Not everyone wants to pay for their downloads so i can’t really see this working.
p_c

The Devil is in the detail as they say. The current goals of DRM and suing everyone, or pushing for accuse-and-disconnect rules, is an winnable fight against ‘pirates’ in the long run.
What is needed are better ways to enable free & easy access in return for some reasonable compensation for the artists.
The issues that will make or break this model are (a) how much is collected, (b) on what basis is it charged, and (c) how fair is the resulting distribution.
Kolko

5 euro per device? I might be playing the devil’s advocate here, but that seems too little. Perhaps for small iPod shuffles you can tax €5, but larger capacities should pay more, up to €20. Still not a lot, but a bit fairer.
hotdog

@19
Don’t hate all Americans just hate the greedy bastards that make everyone else look bad.
Anyways!!! What the riaa seems to forget is there is such a thing call
“cc” creative commons.
Have a look here and read about creative commons screw the corp-rats!!

http://creativecommons.org/about/who-uses-cc/
Lothor The Evil

This may sound dumb but….
If file sharing is legalized and people are forced to pay a tax on devices and/or internet service, then what would be the point of paying for anything in the I-Tunes store, or renting movies from Netflix if in the long run you’re paying for it already? I sure as hell wouldn’t pay for something twice.
I can see a potential in the long run of legitimate online services or possible future services to become obsolete if uploading and downloading of copyrighted works is legalized. The artists would have even less of a chance to be fairly compensated because the industry will most likely keep most if not all the profits from the levy which is really a tax.
IMTDb

It’s a kind of “global license” : you pay a “small” (to be defined) amount of money and this gets you the license to profit from every cultural product. Freely and unlimited.

That’s just how it should be. When Gutenberg invented the printer, books right holder fought it thinking it would be the end of their business.

In the mean time, everyone learned to read and their profits skyrocketed.

“Piracy” is not about destroying or stealing. It’s about getting once step further in the access to culture and knowledge.

Besides that, it would really be an amazing economic opportunity for the Dutch to create a unique area where, I think, a lot of websites would want to have their servers hosted.

— Admin of: http://imtdb.kicks-ass.org —
Anonymous

Holy s**t, they just created a solution that makes everyone happy. GO HOLLAND!
meh

…finally… an actual solution which makes sense…
Pingback: Dutch Artist Unions Call Government to Legalize File-Sharing | Arrr Rated
P-Diddy

@ 15

Which artists get rewarded? Who chooses which artists will get a cut and what percentage they get?

To me this seems like it doesn’t have a chance in hell of working.

How are all the lesser know artists going to get a cut from this? And how are they going to keep track off all the artists in the world and how many times their works been download?

failed before it started.
Anonymous

“other devices that can play and record movies and music”

BAD one. Most people do not realize how wide-ranging this would be. It is not only computers. For instance, a microcontroller (some of which cost less than 5€) can, with a very simple circuit (a few resistors forming a ladder DAC and a small speaker), play music (low-quality, but still music).

This would be nothing more than a tax by a small special interest group (music makers) on all uses of general purpose computers, which can used for much more (and much more important uses) than merely playing and recording movies and music.

They act as if playing and recording movies and music is what people use computers for. It is not; it is a very small part of the computing experience.

And more and more things have computers these days, so in the long run this would become a tax on EVERYTHING (a single GPIO output wire can, with the right analog circuit parts connected to it, play music, and even small embedded computers have GPIO outputs).

Finally, this tax would not mean they would stop bothering file sharers. They would stop for a while, then complain people share too much and the tax is too low and raise it, several times (much like the copyright duration was extended several times). They would put pressure for file sharing to be forbidden again, without removing the tax. And so on.

As a popular saying goes, “It’s a trap!”
Hicks

And who is to decide what music is worth subsidizing by the tax payer and which isn’t? The state? The record labels?

Or should it be based on spurious internet stats?

Retarded.
Truther

Paying the artists to own a music player seems ridiculous.
An OK idea, with an unreasonable attachment.
P-Diddy

“Paying the artists to own a music player seems ridiculous.”

That’s because it is ridiculous…
Anonymous

I have much music I haven’t released yet. Also alot of lolis have produced music but the nbi shut down their sites so how can they get their money they are owed when nbi shut them down? I see nothing wrong with playing an instrument nude. They are great performers.
Anonymous

A levy on anything capable of storing data (MP3s, digital cameras, HDDs, phones, CDs…) is already in effect in Spain. Downloads are legal too (despite what the ad campaigns of SGAE & Co say). However, things are not nice. Rightsholders outfits always seek to charge more, get more state funding and get custom-made laws. And they don’t protect the interests of the artists. They just go after the money. They did indeed want to have a levy on Internet connections, but the ISPs said ‘no’. However, they succeeded in having the Govt. pass a law so they can shut down file-sharing sites with little judicial overseeing.

Fucking bastards.

Oh, also: Today ACTA was passed in the EU Parliament.
Ven

I would be willing to bet the money gets divided based on sales statistics from the industry. The end result is that signed artists don’t see a dime, indie artists only see a few dimes, and the labels get the rest while being in the same position they are now.

When is the world going to realize that the best solution is to not support labels and studios with money or file-sharing? If their business model is outdated, we should just let them go extinct. They have the money to lobby, the lawyers to tie up everyone in court for decades, and they refuse to change. The one thing they can’t stop is people not listening/watching their music/movies.
man-o-tor

The concept of general payment to compensate for artists work is not new, but good!
What I don’t get is why everyone is concerned about how much which artist should get, etc.?
Just devide eaqualy between everyone, who proofs to be an artist. This would secure a basic income.
To become insanely rich as a star, is a perversion of the concept of being an artist anyway!
But still, everyone who’d like to earn more in addition to his basic income, could always put an extra effort to it – give concerts, promote and sell his movie by himself, hold readings for his book, etc., in short, earn some money by honest work for a change…;)

I believe this proposal is a step in the right direction and I’m sure this concept (levy on devices) will succeed (on the long run) at least in europe. That is why in germany for instance, the authorites handle copyright infringment a bit less agressive than they do in the US – the germans already pay this levy on devices and media which is able to make or store a record of music/movies.

Since then I +1 hotdog’s link
http://creativecommons.org/about/who-uses-cc/

@ IMTDb: Well said…
Anonymous

@35 man-o-tor:

> Just devide eaqualy between everyone, who proofs to be an artist.

Anyone can learn how to play an instrument.
Anon

To be honest this system would be rather complicated and unfair to put into practice. A big name band that sells more should get more than someone who sells few.

This is a step forward with people giving options but this isn’t corrent
D

“Or should it be based on spurious internet stats?”

Ever heard of last.fm?

Really, it’s not that difficult.

And even if there’s going to be problems, who says it’s going to be worse than now where half of the music is being paid for but most of the money *doesn’t even get to the artists*, and the other half is being pirated (no money for the artists).

This a step into the right direction. Paying a tax to allow for the complete freedom of exchanging information and data? Yes please.
let the battle commence

@36
It should be divided based on annual ticket sales from live performances. simples :-)

But we all know that the labels will only leave small change in the kitty for the artists.
D

The labels make money because they control the sales of music. I don’t see how the proposed solution would increase the influence of the labels. At least in the long run, it should highly diminish it. That’s why it’s backed by artists’ unions after all.
musing

Distributing royalties has hardly ever been fair.
Anonymous

France has already such a fail system.
Any hard drive, IPOD, Iphone, Ipad, blank medias are already affected by a P2P special tax that is then redistributed to artists. And yet it didn’t stop France from deploying HADOPI.
All this will just push people further into darknet and parallel international markets.
It just doesn’t work, and you end up making folks that have nothing to do with it pay extra taxes.
Just legalizes P2P with no extra taxes at all.

But I would give some tax breaks to companies promoting things like Netflix and comparable subscription model.
Violated

On the International level it would be good for some country to be innovative by trying a different approach. I just cannot see this one happening though for several reasons.

To legalize the Dutch to upload would turn the Netherlands into the upload capital of the world. The Dutch upload and every other country downloads.

Their biggest problem is that copyright is a big international treaty and to violate this treaty I doubt they would do.

The major copyright protection organizations in the U.S and elsewhere would freak out.

On the bright side they wont nuke the Netherlands but a long drawn out court case is likely.

Then to be very realistic then copyright has failed to keep with modern technology. I can watch movies on my TVs, laptops, MP4 player, burn to DVDs, play from my media server across my LAN and more. And then people share their goods across the Internet for others to enjoy.

It does seem a fair point that copyright needs to find a new method to do business. This Dutch method presents many problems but just maybe it can work well on a World level.

They can still sell copyrighted goods when people will pay for quality and experience. Then this device tax should really be a percentage. After all $5 tax is a lot on a $5 MP3 player.

The Net connection is the right place to apply this tax but they need both media enabled and disabled accounts to handle fairly all customers. Those on media disabled accounts can then be ISP fined for such downloads. A repeated offence gets them kicked onto a media enabled subscription.

It can work fine for them.
Violated

One extra point.

The funding they raise from this idea SHOULD NOT be evenly distributed to all copyright owners.

It should instead be placed into a media production fund when talented and qualified film makers can be awarded grants to fund their projects.

They make movies, documentaries and more which benefits local culture movie theatres and television. They can grant awards based on quality and not only popularity.

So not only would they drag copyright into the 21st century but they would also get their own Hollywood. All about creating the best results from this tax where people can directly see the results.

Then if foreign copyright owners moan then the Dutch can point out that the media this tax creates their foreign locals also download but what they did not pay for.
Anonymous

What about people brainwashed by MAFIAA that already buy CD/DVD/BluRays? Now they have to spend more 5 euros for every MP3, TV, etc? It doesn’t make sense. This “solution” just won’t work… It’s just another way to get MORE money from the consumer. The solution for “piracy” is not the money because THERE IS NO SOLUTION for this in a economic system. :)
Pingback: Dutch Artist Unions Call Government to Legalize File-Sharing | Systema
r

if filesharing is legalized could people use the word “face” again?
http://activepolitic.com:82/Outside_News/668.html
Dia

You buy new players so rarely that even a larger levy wouldn’t hurt the consumer at all. However, this suggestion is moot because USA would never allow it (yes, they have their say).
Anonymous

i really can’t believe you accepted the BS spin on this article

the canadian supreme court ruled that filesharing was fair use in canada, because we had a piracy tax on CD, just like this countries because it effectively was a valid contract or licience for the activity (offer acceptance, consideration). This country has the same sort of piracy tax and similar laws, which means the only reason filesharing has not been legalized is because the arguement has not been made in the court system. And the artist group basically wants to give you the rights you really already have.
me

TF: “Commercial copyright infringement will remain illegal according to the proposal.”

The problem with that is how to define “commercial”. In Germany, Courts have decided that “commercial” starts already with a simple album (i.e. 10 songs or so). So, Dutch people, beware!
Pingback: Artist News » Dutch Artist Unions Call Government to Legalize File-Sharing …
PiRat

It’s about censorship, they don’t want a solution to a made up problem.
SalaHyena

And what if I should buy computer Components, does the levy go to the HDD,which stores the music,
The processor, which actually opens the music,
The sound card, which converts the digital music to an analogue one,
The motherboard, which may have integrated sound card which is of bad quality,

Or does it divide at all and I have to pay the levy on all of these components separately?
Anonymous

Won’t work. In the US on some blank cd’s that were labeled for music part of the money was supposed to go to the music industry. I wonder who actually got the money?

My guess is it lands in the hands of the RIAA and that is as far as it goes. There is no possible equitable way the money could be paid to artists. The accounting for who really deserves it is just not feasible.

Short of Police state internet there is no way to stop sharing. I think you have to let go of the idea that an artist should be paid for every copy.

Let those who want to pay itunes or whoever pay and consider those who don’t borrowers from an electronic library. In my opinion if I buy a tune from a legal source like itunes I should have the right to sell 1 copy of the music. This would be no different then buying the original cd ripping a copy then selling the original, which is perfectly legal.
Sardin

You end up paying more for mp3 players and maybe harddrives.. not tv’s
Anonymous

This is an absolutely horrible idea.

Yeah, let’s give the big artists all of our money whether we like them or not and whether we ever listen to them or not.

Fucking retarded.
zab

how about the government gets the fuck out of our private business in the first place
Pingback: Dutch Artist Unions Call Government to Legalize File-Sharing | TorrentFreak « MobiusE
Turtle

It seems a fair proposal and I think the argument about people who don’t engage in downloading paying for the rest, is weak now but will become obsolete as sharing becomes commonplace.

What’s worrying my further is that rights organisations may eventually go with it but rather than a one-off charge per piece of equipment we’ll end up seeing a surcharge on access tariffs.

Surely a $5 fee won’t be anywhere near enough to quell those who expect to make an average $20+ on a monthly basis for their wares.

If that worked then we would have seen a provider charing a fiver for an all-you-can-eat menu of media (audio, video etc.)

A fiver is nowehere near what the corps would want out of us.
Pingback: Niederländische Künstlergewerkschaften für die Legalisierung von File-Sharing und die Einführung einer Art Kulturflatrate &laquo DIGITALE LINKE
J

Obviously the current means of attempting to counter piracy are not doing too well….

Pirate sites are like Hydras – for every site the authorities get down, 3 or more are up to replace it by week’s end. DRM & the like only act as a speed bump for pirates – I can’t tell you how many times I’ve read that a supposedly unbreakable DRM has been broken in 24hrs of being released (if that). And when new DRM requires older players to do updates, it could hinder sales of legit buyers (such as with Avatar). And obviously, the “Pay up or else” campaign isn’t being very effective in controlling piracy either – or else we wouldn’t have to consider 3-strikes laws & have 50k people named in the first wave of the Hurt Locker issue…

The only Achilles hill pirates seem to have is hardware. While they seem to be able to cut through just about any DRM TPTB throw at them like a hot knife through butter, hardware is something they can’t do without. I don’t think a downloaded copy of the new Harry Potter movie, for example, would do anyone much good if they didn’t have a monitor/TV/projector to play it on. The same with MP3s, and etc.

By placing a $5 tax on TVs, MP3 players, black CD/DVD/BluRays, etc a lot of the money that piracy is costing the industry could be reclaimed. And who is really going to complain too much about 5-10 dollars when you’re already dropping thousands on a new large screen high def TV, or a 600 dollar smart phone… Especially if it allows you to hop onto your computer & download the current box office hit while you set up the surround sound system…

Although, a few good points were brought up in previous posts. For example, by placing the tax on TVs, phones, etc we will end up taxing people who have never pirated in their life and never will… Like my grandmother who is under the impression that the latest & greatest tech is the VCR she has connected to her TV.

Another issue would be how do we know who to compensate. Why should, for example, 50 Cent get any funds if no one is downloading his music…

One possible solution to these could be copying Spotify. With Spotify, I pay roughly what I’d pay for 1 CD each month. For this ~$15 I get access to an all you can eat buffet. I can listen as long as I want, to any song I want (and yes Apple, they’ve even the Beatles).

I’d like to suggest the various industry leaders come together to create a Spotify like program. Have it combine music, movies, TV shows, etc. Have ISPs, cable companies, etc offer a special… say $30 a month to allow you access to the program. The program could access a large database of just about every music, TV, and movie available. Possibly have it set up similarly, where its just streamed unless you pay 99 cents per song or 2.99 per movie above the 30/month access fee. Then I’m prevented from nabbing a year’s worth of movies & music in just 1 month (rather than paying $360 for a full year’s access)

This way, artists can be paid based on the amount they’re used. And only those who wish to contribute can. And all of the artists can be paid.

Artists get paid, pirates get access to all the music, movie, TV shows they want for the price of a new DVD…

Everyone wins…
Anonymous

@7 welcome to the internet :)
Anonymous

There’re already plenty of softwares available that recognise songs. Just have every newborn planted a small sensor in his ear to track the music he comes into contact with, and from e.g. the age of 14 the music he listens to is automatically subtracted from his credit card.
IMO that’s the only feasible way considering the amount of music already dispersed among the population “illegally.”

Currently, the whole music lobby is lead by big corporations that get their revenue by means of publicity: in the end it’s publicity that pays itself, a vicious circle that puts musical creativity out of play.
Anonymous

@59 J:

Computers are getting less and less expensive as time passes. This proposed tax would get more and more expensive as time passes. It would get to the point that most of the cost of a device is this stupid tax.
Anonymous

Old but relevant article from Techdirt: “Why A Music Tax Is A Bad Idea” http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081209/0144083060.shtml
kuru

I think I got lost in a consumer-blog here.

- why do you pirate?
- coz’ I have a BIG computer, a FAAASSST access, and because I can.
- well…

NEXT!!!
Anonymous

iPod – 80% goes to RIGayGay 20% others

Hard Drive – 70% goes to MPGayGay 30% others
Pingback: Une licence globale aux Pays-Bas ? – Communs / Commons
Pingback: Blanket licensing in the Netherlands? – Communs / Commons
Consumer

I think the “pay up or else” method is the better way. But charges should be impose realistically at $10 per movie, $1 per mp3. Fair MAFIAA?
Johnny

This is a bad proposal.

It means these media companies can just sit back and cash in on “their” tax, without any obligation to innovate and produce new material. Producing new material, might get more downloads, but won’t affect the level of the tax.

It’s also unfair to those who do not download, or who only download free material (creative commons).

And after music there will be a charge for ebooks, another for software, etc… then a few years down the road these same groups will want to increase the tax. We’ll end up paying 40 euros extra for our internet connections.
Drag0nflamez

We already have that – it’s going to a ‘foundation’ called Thuiskopie (Home Copy), which is on the same address as BREIN (which all healthy Dutch people despise)

This won’t fully work.

Fortunately, I already got an iPod, USB drive, a laptop and an internet connection at the most privacy respecting provider we have (XS4All)
I am an artist

I declare myself an artist. Looking forward to getting my piece of the pie.
Reason

This is discussed e.g. in Germany since long under the name ‘culture flatrate’.
Since they already pay levy on devices, hardrives, flashmemory etc. they should consider it a service deal wich they already payed for and therefore are allowed to up- and download.

However, the problems are the same, like how to split the levy among the artists and not just the industry and it’s interest groups.
In a free culture like that, everyone becomes an artist and a consumer alike. So if you blogg something and others are picking it up and spread it you would have a right to your share on the levy paid as well.
I doubt, that the industry interest groups would go that far. They just want an extra easy income revenue for “compensation” to fully keep for themselves.
Anonymous

Holland this is one liberal experiment you do not want.
Me

Unfortunately I do not agree that I should pay this extra tax/fee.

I rarely use my internet connection to download movies and the music I listen to is always legaly and freely obtained and never from the big companies.
It can not be assumed that just because I use the internet I will be causing loss of money to entertainment companies and should have to recompensate them in some way.

I really don’t care how many other millions of people downoload illegally, these are private companies and not the government so it should not be acceptable that I pay towards other peoples actions in any way atall.
me

…well, it’ll end like with collecting societies:
- 70% end in the pockets of collecting societies
- 30% go to the top100 artists

…and what happens to the “normal” artists that are not in the top100 lists and who NOW earn their income with music?

smart step, dutch artist unions!!!!
DRuNKeN MaSTeR

Hey, in Hungary this “thiefing” is well underway since a few years. It’s called “Artisjus” and they put a holographic sticker on every CD, DVD, MP3 player, etc… which makes everything way overpriced. And by making this, they naturally assume of course, that you will put pirated material on the CD you just bought, and not only your family photos. So basically everybody is paying for a crime they didn’t commit (yet).

I personally don’t think, that this is the way to go, but it’s at least a start, that they’re talking about some alternatives.
bod

I only really listen to and support independant artists/labels, and they probably wouldn’t get a cut from the levy. So while I’d continue to buy music from independants I’d also have to give some of my hard earned money to the major commercial labels, even though I don’t listen to their shit.
Anonymous

Dutch Artist Unions, “nice” try but face it: this shit won’t work; you just want more money.
elduka

fuck apple
Anonymous

well atleast in this ways artists would finally get the money that the copyright knights have been promising them
Ninja

Sounds somewhat reasonable and yet it’s not reasonable. Fair division is something that WILL NOT happen for sure. But there might be ways out of this.

ISPs could offer a plan that has a, let’s say, 10% extra that would make anything you download/upload (except for things such as CP) legal. To prevent hit n’ runners they could make the contract obligatory for at least 1 year (and if u move isp it’d migrate). Maybe that could be a nice solution. Still, it doesn’t solve the “fairness” issue when distributing the money among the artists….
Abstract

@20
The system of making money that is in place was made and perpetuated by the people who sought to benefit from it. Users weren’t considered in that model other than as the source from which to reap revenue. Users no longer have to conform to a system that did not consider them in the first place. Things do change, they have changed. That old model was not my model and I have the power to make it obsolete.
Pingback: Online Global Week in Review 26 Nov 10 from IP Think Tank
Violated

As I said above the best use of such a tax on your poor little Net connection is for a media creation fund to help fund film makers and more.

Saves the whole country becoming an artist and fighting each other over the beans.

Or just paying the top artists to consume more drugs and screw more hookers. Such a use of this money would only benefit the crime gangs in the end.

Artists then get nothing but the ability to create and bring any good idea to the screen. They also then have the right to market and sell their product.

Fund creation and not greed. Make them work for it.
Reason

This could only work, when it runs through a non profit organisation with no interest in that matter.

And an evaluation system. Every artist, that want’S to earn a dime with its work, goes to that platform and enters its works name and description. People than vote on how they like it and give points (like in Flattr).
The money is than spread based on analysis of popularity and distribution statistics.

I don’t see how there could be a way around general levy on hardware or services (like internetconnection). Even though some might use these things in other ways and not want to share culture. There is no easy way in letting some pay and others not that don’t want to and than check whether they keep their word.

It’s like with the radio and television license fee. I don’t want to pay it since I don’t use and don’t have a radio or a TV and I refuse to accept paying it on internet, since they didn’t contribute in any way to it but merely used it. But I could accapt a general fee on any household ,regardless of usage, if in return that silly administration office disappears that is known to keep 70% of the obtained dues to themselfes for profit and cost of operation.

Cut out the middlemen. Get rid of the office overhead and the big big distribution industry that make a living on others work by controlling the cashflow.

If that means, everybody has to pay a little, so be it. Still better than giving huge sums to the corrupt lobby.
Anonymous

Levy? call it what it is a tax.

You people want more taxes?
That is fine but those people want stop there the laws will change and you will have to pay a tax and fines just like in Canada.

Besides the tax will not be distributed fairly because no government can do that and no collection agency either they tend to get corrupted and don’t pay anyone right unless you are the friend of the board.

Finally it is not $5 bucks its $60 which will end up being $10, $15, $20, $25 and so on you think it will stay $5 for how long until the bitches start crying about how poor they are?
Anonymous

$5 bucks seems reasonable then they will increase it to $10 because you know its life, then it goes to $20, then we start having fights again then it gets all f’cked up again, then they start saying they need more, more, more, didn’t you people learn anything from the latest news, greed have no boundaries, they think the population is there to only give and not receive anything in return. Will you people give those people a chance to screw you over again?!

Unbelievable.
Anonymous

And artists and producers should be subject to random drug tests, with a positive result resulting in a ban of 2 yrs from receiving income from such a public fund.

Not bloody likely!

Such a proposal will only really benefit the major bands and does the likes of U2, Jackson’s estate, the Beatles, etc really need millions more?

Copyright law should be reduced to a max of 5 years if the dutch proposal is agreed upon give other artists a chance of receiving an income.
Whatever

@”Also, it avoids the important issue that people who are not downloading at all will end up paying more for their mobile phones and TVs”

This is not the best argument as all consumers are now paying for the rights and power usage of DRM on all devices anyhow (or who else do you think pays the bill for this “feature”). Then they could remove DRM and the difference is much less.
Anonymous

No books? Books should definitely be in that list. At least they actually have use outside of mere entertainment.
MD3

This is not a new suggestion.
And it is the only way out.
I totally agree.
Content Something Guy

Finally, its on the table again. Thumbs up! For those that question distribution of such tax – assign it to the new talent and new content production.

WTG!
92

I douBt it of people are really safe by this. the dutch organisations are too small to stand against the american and european rules. the dutch will be called back if they willing to do this
Anonymous

All the people saying “How will artists make a living?” its called live music.. Music was meant to be heard live and thats where artists should make their money, you don’t get the same experience by listening to the CD whether its legal or torrented.
Realitycheck

People that do not use their PCs to watch TV or listen to Radio in Germany are already forced to pay a tax for that very thing.

So arguing that some people might NOT fileshare is moot as long as the more likely case is that they might / eventually will.

At the very least this fee will make a lot more sense than assuming I would ever listen to popcrapradio.
chaz

If an artist sells one painting, he might expect a reasonable amount say $50 or $500 for it. If he sells 5 million identical copies if he only expected no more than a cent for each copy he would net $50,000 dollars.

So for games or music 50 or 500 million copies would be worth at ONE HUNDREDTH of a cent each, MANY thousands of dollars to the Artist.

Shame some of the very rich companies out there CAN’T DO BASIC MATH!!!!!!!!
Andrew

This isn’t going to work as long as people can cross the border to Belgium and Germany and buy their MP3 players, CD-Rs, smartphones, computers etc. and import them, or order them online from suppliers elsewhere in the EU (is there any customs in the EU now that there is Schengen etc.?)
Pingback: Sindicate de artistas Holandeses piden legalizar el P2P. | GeeksRoom
Pingback: Netherlands: Artists’ unions call for P2P legalisation-TorrentFreak « FACT – Freedom Against Censorship Thailand

TorrentFreak

The place where breaking news, BitTorrent and copyright collide

Dutch Artist Unions Call Government to Legalize File-Sharing

Related Posts

Previous Post | Next Post

NewsBits

The Pirate Bay Isn’t Down Completely, Just Having a Few Issues

Pirate Bay Founder Gottfrid Svartholm on Freedom of Speech

Blu-ray Anti-Piracy Tech Stops Discs and Promotes Purchases

Foxtel Breeds Pirates by Locking Up Game of Thrones

UK Student Admits Breaching Sony Copyrights With Leak of PS3 SDK

MostDiscussed

Pirate Bay Takes Over Distribution of Censored 3D Printable Gun

Pirate Bay Finds Safe Haven in Iceland, Switches to .IS Domain

Copyright Trolls Threaten to Call Neighbors of Accused Porn Pirates

The Pirate Bay Moves to .SX as Prosecutor Files Motion to Seize Domains

Game Pirates Whine About Piracy in Game Dev Simulator

CopyQuote

PopularArticles

VPN Services That Take Your Anonymity Seriously, 2013 Edition

Top 10 Most Popular Torrent Sites of 2013

Which VPN Service Providers Really Take Anonymity Seriously?

What’s The Best VPN / Proxy for BitTorrent?

BTGuard Review: How Does it Work?

Optimize Your BitTorrent Download Speed