ABOUT DISC AND TAPE LEVIES
Comment invited to brk@discdupe.org
April 2003.
Are Australians honest enough for a simple voluntary levy on recordable
media for 'PRIVATE USE' rights?
The government has the choice of a simpler voluntary levy, or a
compulsory levy that treats us like thieves, and are we thieves?
IDDA suggests opt in levy rather than opt out levy on recordable media.
The International Disc Duplicating Association, IDDA, believes that the proposal to
the government for a royalty on recordable discs and tapes by Screenrights, APRA,
AMCOS, and other bodies at www.screen.org/about/submissions.html,
concerned with copyright has merit in legitimising private use, but the Screenrights
proposal needs only minor changes to be widely acceptable, practical and popular.
The IDDA suggests an opt-in levy on designated media, rather than opt-out levy on
all recordable media, involving costly and wasteful exemptions, probable legal attack,
and accusations of another tax.
Instead of the Screenrights proposal of levying a royalty on all media, whether used
to copy copyright material or not, with refunds in certain cases, rather offer optional
designated media for users to buy, that includes the levy, and allow Private Use
copying on this media.
The Screenrights proposal already proposes 'private use' copying, which is an
excellent development, so the only difference between proposals is whether the levy
in on all media with cumbersome and costly exemptions, or offering optional levy
paid paid with 'private use' privilages
Says Bernhard Kirschner, President of the IDDA, and director of CD-ROM Services Pty
Ltd, one of the largest disc duplicating facilities; "The key question is whether we,
the Australian public will pay a voluntary levy, i.e. buy media that is levy paid, or only
buy unlevied media and use it to record unauthorised material. We complete our
own tax returns, we leave tips on tables, and we hand in lost wallets. Why shouldn’t
we pay for Private Use rights?"
Any current Screenrights proposal for a blanket levy on all recordable media, with
specified exemptions, is flawed, and would probably not succeed because of
opposition by so many groups because:
1. It is unfair levying charges on all media when only a small % is used for
unauthorised recording.
2. Proposers of the Screenrights levy would have no indication of the % of media sold that is currently used for unauthorised ‘private use’ copying. Legitimate disc duplicating service such as CD-ROM Services Pty Ltd each use about a million discs a year, none of which is used for unauthorized recording, and they are only one of many organisations and individuals that use discs for legitimate uses.
3. Any exemption system, including exemptions for special groups would be clumsy and abused, apparently requiring a statutory declaration for a refund, which can only be given by the collecting society. Imagine the administration nightmare for schools, charities, libraries, the blind and other exempt parties!
4. The Screenrights proposal will be opposed by the retail industry, which will not be enthusiastic about extra administration.
5. The Screenrights levy would cause resentment and give even more perceived justification to copyright infringement.
6. The Screenrights proposal gives a representative of the collecting society the right to enter and inspect any distributor or retailers premises, a concept that will not be popular with most businesses, never mind those bodies concerned with privacy.
7. The Screenrights levy would not be paid by those most likely to pirate discs and tapes – the professional criminals.
8. The Screenrights levy would damage the Australian economy by encouraging users to buy blank media overseas, particularly China, Indonesia, New Zealand and other well travelled destinations.
9. There is the unresolved legal and ethical problem of charging a levy to allow backups, while many new discs are copy protected, making backup not possible.
10. There would be opportunity for avoidance of the levy by unscrupulous importers, who would be tempted to supply media ‘levy paid” while pocketing the extra income from the levy. For example, despite aggressive action by Philips and other patent holders, most of the recordable discs sold in Australia have been manufactured without paying the patent license fees of about US $0.06 to Philips.
11. The current proposal states that the levy should be paid on “any removable and portable item of electronic storage”, which could be interpreted to include recorders and other hardware.
The IDDA alternative proposal is that disc importers and manufacturers offer the
public discs the option of buying media that has had a levy of between 10c and 50c
per disc or tape. This levy is paid by the importers and manufacturers directly to a
Collecting Society, who distributes it, say 25% to marketing the levy discs, 5% to
administration, and the balance to the artists in the usual manner.
The discs would be imprinted around the centre “Disc may be used for Private Use
copies”, with tapes carrying a similar sticker, or “If you must copy audio and video,
use these discs” with similar labelling on the box.
Users then have the choice of paying the levy or not. Users who pay the levy, and
then use the discs for ‘Private Use’ copying are indemnified against prosecution as
per the Screenrights proposal while anyone who infringes copyright on a commercial
or other basis is still subject to the usual copyright restrictions.
Says Bernhard Kirschner, President of the IDDA;
“Would users pay extra for the “Private Use” discs? If you believe that most
Australians are basically honest, the answer is yes. I believe that most Australians,
given the choice of doing the right thing, will do it. It is only when there is no
acceptable alternative or logical explanation that they will bend the rules. The
current system where it is illegal to make even an extra copy for your own
convenience, such as a copy to play in the car, encourages copyright infringement.
Give us a way to do it right, and most of us will. Parents will be encouraged to set an
example to their children by buying and encouraging the 'Private Use' discs to teach
their children honesty. If after having the opportunity to do it right, and not acting
correctly, we do not buy the ‘opt in’ media, then we can consider the compulsory
levy”
The advantages of an opt in levy are:
1. The music and other industries threatened by new technologies would gain considerable credit for a new approach.
2. Australia would be the first country in the world to try a new approach, which could be followed worldwide.
3. If the opt in scheme were adopted by other countries Australian copyright holders would benefit from reciprocal agreements.
4. Artists would receive royalties that would otherwise not be collected.
5. Users who are currently downloading or copying music would still be able to legitimize their actions.
6. Minor changes need only be made to the copyright act.
7. The 'opt in' levy can be policed within existing structures, and will be much easier to police than a compulsory levy.
8. The market would help determine the levy – if too high users will not buy the media.
9. If the sales of the levied media are disappointing, and we have accurate figures for unauthorised private use, then we can at a later date claim justification for a levy on all media.
Continues Bernhard Kirschner, IDDA President;
"The music and video industry needs new business models, and this is just one way
to both profit from and legitimize a presently illegal act which if not controlled will
soon be accepted as morally OK, diminishing both the law and the moral fibre of society."
See www.discdupe.org for information on the IDDA.
See www.cdroms.com.au/c/profile.htm, for information on CD-ROM Services
Pty Ltd and Bernhard Kirschner.
For more information: Bernhard Kirschner, IDDA President, +61 2 9954 9885, or brk@discdupe.org
