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 Planning Non-Windows Tablet Tax?

CmdrTaco posted more than 3 years ago | from the sounds-brilliant-to-me dept.

Microsoft 227

An anonymous reader writes "Lots of countries around the world have private copying 'levies,' which are effectively taxes on products that store data, which is put into a pool to be handed out to copyright holders, as a sort of payment for the 'copying' that individuals do. This was quite popular with blank CDRs, for example, but has been expanded in certain countries to cover hard drives, iPods and other such devices. Over in France, they're looking to expand the levy to tablet computers, but apparently if that tablet computer is running Microsoft Windows, it will be exempted from the tax. iPads and Android-powered tablets will have the tax. Why? Well, the argument is that if a tablet is running Windows, it's really a 'computer.' But if it's running one of those 'mobile' operating systems, suddenly it's a brand new category. Not surprisingly, makers of Android tablets — including the French company Archos — are not at all happy about this."

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

Uhhh? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34691176)

Planing?

"Planing?" (4, Funny)

Ferzerp (83619) | more than 3 years ago | (#34691178)

Was the initial design of the tax too rough or too thick that it needed planed?

Re:"Planing?" (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34691206)

"needed planed"?

Grammar Nazi, I am disappoint.

Re:"Planing?" (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34691242)

hi im 12 and what is a grammar nazi?

Re:"Planing?" (2)

JonySuede (1908576) | more than 3 years ago | (#34691282)

something you don't want to be when you grow up !

Re:"Planing?" (2)

PatPending (953482) | more than 3 years ago | (#34691432)

It's like a Soup Nazi [youtube.com] .

Re:"Planing?" (1)

Silfax (1246468) | more than 3 years ago | (#34692104)

It's like a Soup Nazi [youtube.com] .

no grammar for you!

Re:"Planing?" (1)

HRbnjR (12398) | more than 3 years ago | (#34691622)

Alot of people here aren't known for their superior grammar capabilities ;)

Re:"Planing?" (1)

hackerman (1649305) | more than 3 years ago | (#34691702)

But I thought alots had great grammer. They're spelling is another ishu, tho.

Re:"Planing?" (0)

StripedCow (776465) | more than 3 years ago | (#34692016)

That's why we need a "+5 perfect grammar" on slashdot. That might change things.

Re:"Planing?" (2)

Creepy (93888) | more than 3 years ago | (#34692106)

That was grammatically correct, I believe, just spelt wrong. And yes I used spelt intentionally - it is the equivalent of spelled despite Firefox dictionary not recognizing it OotB (it is a rarely used, yet still correct form). Spelt is also a form of wheat my grandpa used to grow in the US, mainly to sell to the German community in South Dakota, though the majority of his wheat was bread grain like most farmers.

Planed was obviously incorrect spelling, but was corrected by the time I read the headline.

Re:"Planing?" (1)

TheABomb (180342) | more than 3 years ago | (#34692090)

What, were you hoping TFA would surrender?

Re:"Planing?" (4, Informative)

Fnordulicious (85996) | more than 3 years ago | (#34692144)

As a real linguist, I feel I should point out that there are dialects of American English which have a “need Verb-ed” construction which is approximated by “need to be Verb-ed” elsewhere. Thus one can say “the dishes need washed” or “the dog needs walked” rather than “the dishes need to be washed“ or “the dog needs to be walked”. This construction is perfectly grammatical in such dialects, and is possibly spreading so that it will become grammatical throughout much of North America in the next few generations. There’s no semantic difference apparently, it’s a purely syntactic distinction.

It *is* however dialectal at this point, and hence should be avoided in most written contexts.

Re:"Planing?" (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34691214)

Do you hear that?! It's the sound of hundreds of spellcheckers stampeding this way on their high horses!

Re:"Planing?" (1)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 3 years ago | (#34691756)

It wasn't on the level.

Re:"Planing?" (1)

Mordok-DestroyerOfWo (1000167) | more than 3 years ago | (#34691906)

Is this your way of getting...even?

Re:"Planing?" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34692126)

I do hope we get this straightened out.

What is Apple's iPad OS? (1, Insightful)

G3ckoG33k (647276) | more than 3 years ago | (#34691194)

What is Apple's iPad OS?

That should matter here.

Re:What is Apple's iPad OS? (2)

cyranix (933484) | more than 3 years ago | (#34691336)

ahem... If windows makes it a real computer, I'd love to know what the "entirely new category" is...

Re:What is Apple's iPad OS? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34691558)

Media devices. Don't get me wrong, France has certainly skewed the terms in some cases but there's no call for being a troll about it at all.

Re:What is Apple's iPad OS? (2)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#34691408)

The non marketing name for the OS it runs. IOS is actually what runs on Cisco Routers, apple pays to use that name since it fits the i$thing theme they have.

iOS is not Mac OS X (2)

perpenso (1613749) | more than 3 years ago | (#34691738)

What is Apple's iPad OS?

That should matter here.

iOS, formerly iPhone OS, is the operating system for iPad. It is related but different and distinct from Mac OS X. The French could make a similar exception for Mac OS X as they have for Windows 7 and iOS and Windows CE would still be taxed.

Those cheese eating surrender monkeys fail again (4, Insightful)

Iphtashu Fitz (263795) | more than 3 years ago | (#34691228)

So because it's a computer it's unable to distribute copyrighted materials? Now that is some pretty twisted logic right there.

And what the hell does a "clean operating system" mean?

From the Google translation of the French article:

"Windows 7 will not be affected by the fee for private copying, which by definition is adopted touch pads "provided with an operating system for mobile devices or a clean operating system".

Re:Those cheese eating surrender monkeys fail agai (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34691258)

Yea, I think you fail more than them if you run an article through Google Translate and then complain about the writing because you don't understand something.

Re:Those cheese eating surrender monkeys fail agai (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34691330)

And what the hell does a "clean operating system" mean?

Means the company that sold it to you, took you to the cleaners.

Re:Those cheese eating surrender monkeys fail agai (3, Informative)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 3 years ago | (#34691356)

And what the hell does a "clean operating system" mean?

It means you're relying too heavily on a shitty machine translation that just picked the first meaning of "propre" it could find.

Re:Those cheese eating surrender monkeys fail agai (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34691570)

The French word is "propre".
The most common use of a word spelled that way would be "clean", but here, the meaning is different.
I think what the quote means is that the law would affect mobile device OSs and OSs that were created specifically for whatever device it's running on.
"Propre" would mean "specific"

Re:Those cheese eating surrender monkeys fail agai (2)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 3 years ago | (#34691602)

Or it can actually just mean "proper" as it is a cognate of the English word. This would also make sense since many people do view a mobile OS as not really being a "proper" computer OS considering most mobile OSes have reduced functionality compared to what most people are used to on a full-blown desktop.

Re:Those cheese eating surrender monkeys fail agai (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34691620)

In the french text it says "d’un système d’exploitation propre". In this context "propre" means "of it's own". So if it has an operating system for mobile devices or it has it's own operating system (so develloped with the touchpaddevice in mind) it is taxable. Since windows seven is develloped for personal computers this supposedly does not apply.

Re:Those cheese eating surrender monkeys fail agai (1)

WaroDaBeast (1211048) | more than 3 years ago | (#34692020)

In this context "propre" means "of it's own". I was about to point that out, but it seems you beat me to it. ;-)

To everyone else: never forget that translators are never flawless, humans and non-humans alike.

Re:Those cheese eating surrender monkeys fail agai (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34691674)

A slightly better translation would be "provided with an operating system for mobile devices or a dedicated operating system".

Re:Those cheese eating surrender monkeys fail agai (1)

Yvanhoe (564877) | more than 3 years ago | (#34691710)

The rationale is that computers make illegal copies on CDs and USB sticks so CDs and USB memory sticks must be taxed proportionally to their the space of storage they offer. Of course this is already silly and was created at the time where CDs were the most common movable storage devices. In order for it to not look too silly, it was made so that the tax would not target computers, as a 100 GB HD would make the tax ridiculously high. Then it was extended to devices that could be plugged to computers and provide storages. It sound sensible when applied to MP3 players, like the iPod, as their main use is actually to listen to music. Then came some devices with very high storage space, the design of a computer but the possibility to be seen as a USB storage.

This law was silly to begin with but now that it is a bit too blinding they will change it. Bah, it will have lasted a few years already and netted the music labels several millions.

Re:Those cheese eating surrender monkeys fail agai (1)

dunng808 (448849) | more than 3 years ago | (#34692042)

The rationale is that computers make illegal copies on CDs and USB sticks so CDs and USB memory sticks must be taxed proportionally to their the space of storage they offer.

[snip]

I thought this was too devious for Microsoft to dream up on their own. But is it possible for the French government (or any government) to be more devious than Microsoft? Reminds me of a visit to the optometrist: which is better, #1, or #2?

Re:Those cheese eating surrender monkeys fail agai (1)

interval1066 (668936) | more than 3 years ago | (#34691894)

"And what the hell does a "clean operating system" mean?"

Linux doesn't qualify as a "clean operating system"? In whose twisted world? (Besides the French?) In any case, perhaps they felt that Microsoft's own tax on OEM systems (in which the "privilege" of selling a system pre-bundled and non-opt outable Windows install cost is born by the consumer, thanks Bill) was tax enough?

Need a computer to do the copying (2, Insightful)

GreatDrok (684119) | more than 3 years ago | (#34691232)

Devices like the iPad are just holders and consumers of media. A Windows PC is the usual culprit when it comes to actually defeating copy protection and doing the duping. This seems bass ackwards to me as they should be taxing the computer, not that they should be taxing either.

Re:Need a computer to do the copying (1)

Concerned Onlooker (473481) | more than 3 years ago | (#34691326)

Well, not to put too fine a point on it but there are hundreds of apps that allow content creation on the iPad. My current favorite is the Korg iMS-20 sequencer. There's also the full complement of Apple apps such as Pages, Numbers and Keynote. Also, don't lawmakers ever consult a real technical person when it comes to stuff like this? The Android and Apple mobile OSes and the devices they run on ARE computers. Sheesh.

Re:Need a computer to do the copying (1)

anti-human 1 (911677) | more than 3 years ago | (#34691518)

Also, don't lawmakers ever consult a real technical person when it comes to stuff like this?

What? No. You're getting this backwards. Lawmakers don't seek out people informed with opinions. People with opinions (and agendas) lobby lawmakers to get their views legislated.

This is the result of profit-driven enterprise gaining access to political power, and nothing else.

Re:Need a computer to do the copying (1)

RocketRabbit (830691) | more than 3 years ago | (#34692050)

OP knows that, he was just trolling. YHBT and DFTT and all that.

Re:Need a computer to do the copying (1)

GIL_Dude (850471) | more than 3 years ago | (#34691524)

Devices like the iPad are just holders and consumers of media

Actually I think that may really be the whole point. Levies of this type (as the summary says) have typically been applied to things like CD-R, blank DVD, music players, etc. - because of the fact that they ARE holders of (often copyrighted) media. I don't agree with these levys at all; I think they are very misguided, but I can see how they got into a quagmire trying to define what is "like a CD-R" (holds content) and ended up getting it a bit wrong.

Re:Need a computer to do the copying (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 3 years ago | (#34691562)

Devices like the iPad are just holders and consumers of media.

That's precisely the logic they're using. They seem to think that, to copy something, you need some medium to copy it too - like tapes. So the more you copy, the more tapes you buy - and therefore the tax on tapes is indirectly a tax on how much you copy.

That logic still made some (albeit little) sense when it was applied to CD-Rs, but then they also started to classify everything with storage as a potential target for copying. Except computers, because, well, they obviously aren't like a tape or a CD or a USB stick.

The idea is fundamentally BS, though, so who cares? Just get rid of it all.

Re:Need a computer to do the copying (2)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 3 years ago | (#34691660)

Devices like the iPad are just holders and consumers of media

No, the iPad is a tablet computer, albeit one that Apple designed to thwart attempts by its users to control. Hard drives and SSDs are holders of media, people are consumers of it, who use software to aid them in that consumption. Dividing tablet computers into different classes based on what some corporation thinks you should use it for is not a game I want to play, and it is frankly counter-productive. The sooner we start calling the iPad what it is, the better.

A Windows PC is the usual culprit when it comes to actually defeating copy protection and doing the duping

As are a number of other systems -- routers, switches, etc. -- which operate the Internet and enable the existence of file sharing networks and hosting services. Why leave out all of the other computers and operating systems involved in the process? Why single out "consumer" computers?

This seems bass ackwards to me as they should be taxing the computer, not that they should be taxing either.

Now there I agree with you. Frankly, I think it is time to start asking why we are continuing to placate the recording industry. Nobody shed a tear for all those typewriter companies, or those film manufacturers, or those buggy whip producers and horse breeders, when their industries became obsolete. They either learned to adapt and play by the new rules (e.g. Kodak seeking other ways to make money on photography) or they went out of business. Why should we not expect the recording industry to do the same? The age of CDs is long gone, we just continue to cling to it because the record executives are whining about how awful it is that all these horrible computer users are destroying their business. If they want to stay in business, they need to find a new way to make money on recorded music, rather than trying to fight back against the new technological reality that is here to stay.

Article Title (1, Troll)

Mongoose Disciple (722373) | more than 3 years ago | (#34691236)

Maybe we could have gotten a more inflammatory article title to stoke the inevitable posting flamewar. Such as: "France to Apple Fans: Your iPad is a Toy, Not a Real Computer Like A Windows Machine."

Which is pretty much what the summary says. I'm sure that'll go over well.

From TFA comments (4, Insightful)

C_amiga_fan (1960858) | more than 3 years ago | (#34691238)

"Good for microsoft. Legislation is an easier way to get rid of pesky competition than work is."

That's about right..... and no this isn't just an anti-MS slap. Lots of Megacorps do the same thing, like how McDonalds bought an exemption from the health insurance requirement. Don't play on an even field IF you can get lawmakers to give you special exemptions or favorable laws.

Re:From TFA comments (1)

shentino (1139071) | more than 3 years ago | (#34691492)

Or you can just start a huge harassment campaign against employees of the IRS and then walk in and demand unique tax deductions that nobody else will get, in exchange for dropping the attack.

Oh wait, didn't Scientology do that? I believe they did. It sounds exactly the sort of thing they'd do considering that they use copyright law to protect their scriptures.

And I don't fucking care if I get sued for saying this.

Re:From TFA comments (3, Interesting)

PatPending (953482) | more than 3 years ago | (#34691578)

McDonalds didn't "buy" an exemption; the Department of Health and Human Services said it granted waivers in late September so workers with such plans wouldn't lose coverage from employers who might choose instead to drop health insurance altogether [usatoday.com] .

I found it interesting that you chose to mention "Lots of Megacorps" but failed to mention all the unions that "bought" their exemptions too! [hhs.gov] And, oh, by the way, waivers are available until 2014.

From FactCheck [factcheck.org] :

Q: Has the Obama administration allowed corporations to "opt out" of the new health care law?

A: No. The government has granted more than 200 waivers, but these merely give companies a temporary delay before being required to improve the coverage of cheap, bare-bones plans they currently offer.

Re:From TFA comments (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34691930)

B-b-b-but I thought that mega-corps like McD's didn't give their employees health insurance. And that is why we were force fed this atrocity of a government intrusion into our lives^W^W^W^W health bill.

Not buying it (3, Insightful)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | more than 3 years ago | (#34691246)

This has the smell of something that's so moronic that (for real) it will never get very far.

That, and I'm sure makers of non-Windows devices will be exercising the EU court system like it's going out of style.

kills the tablet market (1)

chronoss2010 (1825454) | more than 3 years ago | (#34691470)

good work as they are utterly useless anyhow

Apple Tax (0)

Stregano (1285764) | more than 3 years ago | (#34691254)

So people have to pay an Apple Tax for owning a iPod XL (err, I mean iPad)? Yeah, I can live with that.

Re:Apple Tax (5, Insightful)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 3 years ago | (#34691280)

So people have to pay an Apple Tax for owning a iPod XL (err, I mean iPad)? Yeah, I can live with that.

Until it extends to a product you wish to have.

Re:Apple Tax (1)

Stregano (1285764) | more than 3 years ago | (#34691328)

I am not too worried about that. My main gaming pc is Windows (would not apply), my server is Unix (does not apply), my netbook is Windows (does not apply), and I have no use for a tablet. My phone is not a smart phone, but an older Nokia phone (does not apply).

It is about time people started taxing the people who buy Apple products.

Re:Apple Tax (3, Insightful)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 3 years ago | (#34691490)

I am not too worried about that.

Yet.

You should think a little bit more about wishing for things like that. Every single thing you said "does not apply" to only means "does not apply today".

Re:Apple Tax (1)

MoonBuggy (611105) | more than 3 years ago | (#34691608)

It is about time people started taxing the people who buy Apple products.

Any real reason, or just being a grouchy bastard for the sake of it?

Seriously, I'm sure you can see that entirely arbitrary legislation like this just lines people up for problems in future. I don't care that much because I don't live in France, but I still think it's asinine to create a specific legal distinction between Windows and Android/iOS/Unix (but only if running on a tablet, not a netbook, apparently).

Re:Apple Tax (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34691830)

I don't live in France, but one thing that bothers me, other than feeling a little bad for the French, is that stakeholders like to push their stupid laws in many countries - particularly ones with large GDP. They use the argument "France is doing it, so it can't be stupid...", which is illogical, but that never influenced a politician.

Re:Apple Tax (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34691670)

OMG Unix you must be a haxxor time to tax him

Re:Apple Tax (2)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | more than 3 years ago | (#34691920)

First they came for the iPods, and I did not speak out --
Because I didn't own a crummy iPod

Then they came for the Android phones, and I did not speak out --
Because I don't like Google and I don't have a smart phone

Then they came for the flash drives, and I did not speak out --
Because I still use CD-Rs, so screw it

Then they came for all non-Windows devices -- and Bill Gates just laughed his ass off.

Re:Apple Tax (1)

I8TheWorm (645702) | more than 3 years ago | (#34691338)

I've got news for you, people who own Apple products have already paid an Apple tax ;)

skippy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34691260)

And the western world takes another step towards corporatism. Wonderful.

I question the comparison.... (1)

klwood911 (731463) | more than 3 years ago | (#34691266)

That's like saying that every car that isn't Chevy isn't a car (but ironically all can carry people?). Someone needs to strung up for this definition.

Re:I question the comparison.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34691698)

It's more like saying that every car that isn't a Chevy is a car, but all Chevys are trucks, because historically Chevy's most successful products have been trucks.

taxes are needed to fund executive pay (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34691286)

Canada has had a copying-tax for many, many years. It's worked very well for the executives of the RIAA and the CRIAA [michaelgeist.ca] :

Canadian Recording Industry Faces $6 Billion Copyright Infringement Lawsuit

Monday December 07, 2009
Chet Baker was a leading jazz musician in the 1950s, playing trumpet and providing vocals. Baker died in 1988, yet he is about to add a new claim to fame as the lead plaintiff in possibly the largest copyright infringement case in Canadian history. His estate, which still owns the copyright in more than 50 of his works, is part of a massive class-action lawsuit that has been underway for the past year.

As my weekly technology law column (Toronto Star version, homepage version) notes, the infringer has effectively already admitted owing at least $50 million and the full claim could exceed $6 billion. If the dollars don't shock, the target of the lawsuit undoubtedly will: The defendants in the case are Warner Music Canada, Sony BMG Music Canada, EMI Music Canada, and Universal Music Canada, the four primary members of the Canadian Recording Industry Association.

The CRIA members were hit with the lawsuit [PDF] in October 2008, after artists decided to turn to the courts following decades of frustration with the rampant infringement (I am adviser to the Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic, which is co-counsel, but have had no involvement in the case). The claims arise from a longstanding practice of the recording industry in Canada, described in the lawsuit as "exploit now, pay later if at all." It involves the use of works that are often included in compilation CDs (ie. the top dance tracks of 2009) or live recordings. The record labels create, press, distribute, and sell the CDs, but do not obtain the necessary copyright licences.

Instead, the names of the songs on the CDs are placed on a "pending list", which signifies that approval and payment is pending. The pending list dates back to the late 1980s, when Canada changed its copyright law by replacing a compulsory licence with the need for specific authorization for each use. It is perhaps better characterized as a copyright infringement admission list, however, since for each use of the work, the record label openly admits that it has not obtained copyright permission and not paid any royalty or fee.

Over the years, the size of the pending list has grown dramatically, now containing over 300,000 songs. From Beyonce to Bruce Springsteen, the artists waiting for payment are far from obscure, as thousands of Canadian and foreign artists have seen their copyrights used without permission and payment.

It is difficult to understand why the industry has been so reluctant to pay its bills. Some works may be in the public domain or belong to a copyright owner difficult to ascertain or locate, yet the likes of Sarah McLachlan, Bruce Cockburn, Sloan, or the Watchmen are not hidden from view.

The more likely reason is that the record labels have had little motivation to pay up. As the balance has grown to over $50 million (Universal alone owes more than $30 million), David Basskin, the President and CEO of the Canadian Musical Reproduction Rights Agency Ltd., notes in his affidavit that "the record labels have devoted insufficient resources to identifying and paying the owners of musical works on the Pending Lists." Basskin adds that some labels believe addressing the issue would be "an unproductive use of their time."

Having engaged in widespread copyright infringement for over 20 years, the CRIA members now face the prospect of far greater liability. The class action seeks the option of statutory damages for each infringement. At $20,000 per infringement (the amount owed on some songs exceed this amount), potential liability exceeds $6 billion. These numbers may sound outrageous, yet they are based on the same rules that has led the recording industry to claim a single file sharer is liable for millions in damages.

After years of claiming Canadian consumers disrespect copyright, the irony of having the recording industry face a massive lawsuit will not be lost on anyone, least of all the artists still waiting to be paid. Indeed, they are also seeking punitive damages, arguing "the conduct of the defendant record companies is aggravated by their strict and unremitting approach to the enforcement of their copyright interests against consumers."

Update: An earlier version of this post noted that record label liability could exceed $60 billion in this case. A reader helpfully noted the math gremlin - the correct number is $6 billion ($20,000 per infringement X 300,000 songs). Toronto Star correction is here.

Hadopi and copy tax... (2)

FranckMartin (1899408) | more than 3 years ago | (#34691294)

What I don't understand, you pay a tax on any digital media to compensate for artists loss of revenue and then you go after people for copying materials via hadopi.

I think we should have one, but not both?

Sounds to me like double jeopardy.

What do you think?

How about neither? (1)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 3 years ago | (#34691466)

Why not take the same approach with the music industry that we took with the typewriter, camera film, and buggy-whip industries?

Beware of mixed metaphors! (1)

mangu (126918) | more than 3 years ago | (#34691566)

Why not take the same approach with the music industry that we took with the typewriter, camera film, and buggy-whip industries?

I parsed your post like this:

Storyline is about copyrights
- typewriters can be used to copy text
- camera film can be used to copy images
hmmm, so far this about old methods used in the past to copy things
buggy-whips? WTF?

Re:Beware of mixed metaphors! (1)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 3 years ago | (#34691682)

Oh, my apologies. The real point was about industries that died in the face of new technology, not about the ability to copy things. I suppose I should be more careful next time!

Re:Beware of mixed metaphors! (1)

Ismellpoop (1949100) | more than 3 years ago | (#34691708)

buggy-whips were for when the scribes weren't scribing quick enough.
But I think the parents point is its a dead/dying industry.

Re:Hadopi and copy tax... (2)

Kjella (173770) | more than 3 years ago | (#34691514)

Sounds to me like double jeopardy.

What do you think?

No. Double jeopardy has a specific legal meaning, and this is not it. Some forms of private copying may be legal but taxed while others can be illegal under Hadopi, at best you have a conflict between two laws/regulations that need resolving. In any case a tax is not a legal punishment, and double jeopardy means being punished twice by the legal system for the same crime.

here we go again (0, Offtopic)

CmdrTacoisafag (1963174) | more than 3 years ago | (#34691318)

It's because it doesn't run flash right? AGAIN WITH THE FLASH BULLSHIT?

Re:here we go again (0)

CmdrTacoisafag (1963174) | more than 3 years ago | (#34691624)

One downgraded comment out of several and I go from neutral to bad? FUCK YOU SLASHDOT you sack of shit.

Might as well burn this stupid fucking account to the ground now. Guess I'll just spawn a new account every day and troll - since I can't post comments more than 3 days in a row without some bullshit.

Thanks for the great idea slashdot - thanks faggots! Way to reward users and encourage good behavior. Go suck a barbed cat penis fucktards!

Ubuntu Tablet? (1)

coolmadsi (823103) | more than 3 years ago | (#34691332)

What about an Ubuntu tablet, like one mentioned in a story on slashdot earlier today?

I've said it before, I'll say it again (1, Troll)

spidercoz (947220) | more than 3 years ago | (#34691340)

Fuck the French.

Re:I've said it before, I'll say it again (2)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | more than 3 years ago | (#34691370)

Fuck the French.

If you mean literally, absolutely!

Re:I've said it before, I'll say it again (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34691618)

Fuck the French.

OK, I'll do that, as long as they are female and take a bath.

Re:I've said it before, I'll say it again (1)

Ismellpoop (1949100) | more than 3 years ago | (#34691680)

Maybe some quality time with a razor. Imagine your old lady's armpit hair tickling your nose when you snuggle up to her at night.

Overblown (1)

euroq (1818100) | more than 3 years ago | (#34691350)

I think too many people here are overblowing the situation. It is not the western world going to shit, corporations taking over the little guy, etc. It's just a bad law, and I highly doubt it is any form of favoritism. The more complicated any rule or plan is, the worse it is (if they have problems with storage, they should just tax all storage media across the board, and not try to specify it based on such details as OS.

Balmer must have sucked (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34691364)

a lot of cock.

Re:Balmer must have sucked (1)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 3 years ago | (#34691414)

You have it backwards. They were most definitely the ones sucking Ballmer's cock.

Re:Balmer must have sucked (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34691458)

Maybe Balmer sucked his own cock and created a cocksucker paradox

Re:Balmer must have sucked (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#34691504)

Balmer has a cock? Why wasn't I informed? I didn't realize he was a rooster aficionado.

Re:Balmer must have sucked (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34691658)

Balmer has a cock? Why wasn't I informed? I didn't realize he was a rooster aficionado.

He must certainly is a rooster aficionado--he prefers cock most of all! And the bigger the cock, the more he likes it. In fact, he can't get enough cock, and partakes of it every day.

Let them eat cake (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34691378)

So cake is an entirely new class of food from bread.

and this is why... (2)

chaboud (231590) | more than 3 years ago | (#34691382)

This is why these taxes were ridiculous in the first place. Take money from one industry or product to give to another for the crimes that might leverage the first's? This should immediately freak any sane uninterested party right the hell out.

It is really not the place of good government to make "crimes" (unproven) right by stealing from one industry to placate another. If your government does this (and yours probably does), your government is corrupt.

I knew the French was commies!1!! (1)

RightwingNutjob (1302813) | more than 3 years ago | (#34691398)

See, see!? Some tablets are more equal than others!!1!one!eleven

Define Computer (3, Insightful)

Archangel Michael (180766) | more than 3 years ago | (#34691402)

If you design a piece of hardware, capable of running Windows 7, but DOESN'T is it a computer? What if it runs Windows 7 in a VM on another OS?

I hate governments more each day.

"Computer" - you keep using that word. (1)

RevWaldo (1186281) | more than 3 years ago | (#34691494)

I do not think it means what you think it means.

.

The intent would seem to include Win7 (1)

ArbitraryDescriptor (1257752) | more than 3 years ago | (#34691496)

Sarkozy isn't an MS shill, he's a shill for the french equivalent of the RIAA. This seems like an extension of the tax they put on mp3 players, as it is based on the internal storage capacity of the device.

"The scale ranges from 0.09 euros for models with up to 128MB of 12 euros for those with 64 GB

Article linked from TFA [google.com]

Thus I suspect 'mobile/clean operating system' is meant to refer to any operating system that can run on a mobile device, and then be used to play music that you probably stole. We all know how the copyright cartels think, why would they intentionally exclude windows users?

Re:The intent would seem to include Win7 (1)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 3 years ago | (#34691574)

Thus I suspect 'mobile/clean operating system' is meant to refer to any operating system that can run on a mobile device, and then be used to play music that you probably stole.

No, that's not what is being meant and the "clean" part is a mistranslation by Google Translate. What they are saying is that there are "mobile OSes" (aka android) and "proper OSes" aka (Windows) and thus they are only going to tax the mobile OSes not what is considered a "proper" OS.

Re:The intent would seem to include Win7 (1)

ArbitraryDescriptor (1257752) | more than 3 years ago | (#34691720)

Consider their viewpoint. They would tax every single means of data storage if they could. People would (rightfully) balk at the idea of taxing any hard drive, or their laptop, but they presently pay a bs tax on MP3 players. So there is a clear line there. So they're thinking "What if they just bought an iPad instead? We can't tax those!" and trying to move tablets and 'mobile devices' to the taxable, 'MP3 player' side of that line.

Ask yourself: Why would they intentionally exclude tablets running Win7 from their potential pool of revenue? Microsoft does not have the legislative influence in France that they do in the states, I really doubt that this is a case of MS massaging their laws and not (poor wording)/((poor/sensational) interpretation) by the press.

Re:The intent would seem to include Win7 (1)

robot256 (1635039) | more than 3 years ago | (#34691774)

Who is actually getting the payout from the "mobile OS netbook tax"? Are they applying it to non-Windows machines under the assumption that you will install an illegal copy of Windows on it? Or does it even matter?

Re:The intent would seem to include Win7 (1)

ArbitraryDescriptor (1257752) | more than 3 years ago | (#34691994)

Who is actually getting the payout from the "mobile OS netbook tax"? Are they applying it to non-Windows machines under the assumption that you will install an illegal copy of Windows on it? Or does it even matter?

I can't find anything about how the existing tax on media, USB sticks, and MP3 players is disbursed, but I doubt it's going to Microsoft. I think they're just trying to add 'tablets' to that list of things get a levy on behalf of whatever copyright think-tank writes their laws, because everyone is, apparently, assumed to be a criminal.

Crony Capitalism (1)

MindlessAutomata (1282944) | more than 3 years ago | (#34691528)

Nothing to see here or much to discuss, really, this is just another case of crony capitalism.

Bill of rights? (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 3 years ago | (#34691564)

In the US(at least for people who aren't suspected of terrorism, or in one of the other undesirable categories) we have a constitutional guarantee of due process of law, presumption of innocence in trial, and such. My understanding is that the EU is, if anything, even more expansive in declaring assorted things to be human rights(if occasionally at the expense of some of the ones that we get touchy about, like free speech...)

How does a "copying" levy, applied more or less indiscriminately to virtually all media and devices, and then paid as atonement for all the sinful copyright infringement presumed to be done with those media and devices, possibly pass "due process"(or any analogous formulation) muster? Is there some way in which making buying a stack of CD-Rs presumptive evidence of partial guilt for hypothetical future copyright infringement, and punishing it on the spot, different than treating buying a knife as presumptive evidence of partial guilt for hypothetical future murder, and making each purchase require a few days in prison?

The voters get the government they deserve (3, Insightful)

n6kuy (172098) | more than 3 years ago | (#34691636)

... even in France.

This was on TechDirt so... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34691672)

As I say before, it's good to be a PC :3

Apple needs to suffer abit. Smug little pieces of-

Windows for tablets -- NT-derived, or CE derived? (1)

whoever57 (658626) | more than 3 years ago | (#34691712)

MS is going to announce an OS for ARM-based tablets, Lots of people have assumed that it will be a derivative of the desktop OSes. However, it seems more likely that it would be a derivative of WIndows CE (like Windows Phone 7). Until more details come out, we won't really know.

If it is CE, why should MS be treated differently from other OSes?

if i were taxed (1)

overcaffein8d (1101951) | more than 3 years ago | (#34691854)

all this tax would tell me is that it's A-OK to pirate as much music as I want, as long as i put it onto the taxed media.

That "tax" in the US would encourage piracy. (1)

TavisJohn (961472) | more than 3 years ago | (#34691858)

If I purchase blank CD's, DVD's or hard drives and I got charged a "Piracy Tax", I would consider that my payment to copyright holders and I would pirate all I wanted.

They have no way to prove what I will be using the media for. If I am doing business backups than copyright holders are getting money from me for not pirating anything.

However there is one, and only one way that I would happily accept such a tax... Is if in adding this tax, copyright holders could no longer file lawsuits against anyone for copyright violations. That their ONLY course of action would be to fill out forms and submit them to the federal government to get some of that "Piracy Tax" money.

Stupid (1)

gilesjuk (604902) | more than 3 years ago | (#34691958)

Everyone knows it is much easier to pirate music and films on a real computer compared to a tablet.

If anything the tax should be the other way around.

This is important... (5, Interesting)

benjamindees (441808) | more than 3 years ago | (#34692002)

This is one of the most important things for supporters of Free Software to understand: businesses are subsidized by the tax code. All businesses, even the terrible ones. Especially the terrible ones.

It doesn't matter which country you're talking about. The economies of nearly every Western government are equally hosed up in the same ridiculous way. Tax agencies assume that everything an individual purchases is consumed, and that everything a corporation purchases is an investment. As far as taxing authorities are concerned, a Windows computer is an investment. It is capital. It fits the obsolete model of production that governments know: labor + capital == profit. When you buy anything as a business, you write it off your taxes and pat yourself on the back.

A non-corporate, non-business operating system, on the other hand, is a toy. It's a distraction, a hobby. Governments consider it not to be an investment, but a consumer item. Same goes for an Android phone. It's assumed to depreciate in value. A Windows phone, though, is for business. It's assumed to produce value. Nevermind the fact that most Windows phones are unproductive toys, or that most Windows computers are inefficient cludges. Nevermind the fact that free and open source software can be orders of magnitude more efficient and productive than proprietary, closed source software. Windows is a capital investment. Free software is a toy.

The result should be obvious. Responsible, non-consumer individuals are punished. Wasteful, non-producing companies are subsidized. Long term investments in things like open standards are discouraged. Short term speculation is encouraged.

It really is as simple as that. Governments don't consider it further. The idea of a Windows computer running a nuclear power plant, therefore, seems perfectly natural. Debian? A toy. Red Hat? One of the most expensive operating systems ever. They are 99% the exact same code. One is a tax write-off produced by a legitimate company. The other is a toy produced by a bunch of hobbyists. In the US, we see all of these crap small businesses that can no longer afford their rent. Corporate real estate is about to take a dump all over itself. Banks are over leveraged, and it turns out they own no real assets. They were subsidized. They bought a bunch of consumable junk like Windows computers, shoddy houses and uninsulated office buildings, wrote it off as a brilliant investment, and waited for the profit to roll in. Unfortunately, everyone else did the same, all the real assets went overseas, and now the US economy is utter crap.

Gimme my share (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34692064)

If I was copyright holder, how would I go about getting my share?

Does any of this money ever get back to the artists? Do the govenments keep it? Do the record companies keep it?

After all the parties have taken their cut, I can imagine the artists get very little of this. But I'm a cynic.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?