How YOU helped pay €300 million to rights holders (if you're French)
Comments on this video
You can comment on this video at YouTube
Even when you're streaming you still use that memory in your phone or whatever to play the file that is streaming, hence you should still be paying the charge to the rights holders
Austria here. We have it too - although unmentioned above. In the age of streaming it seems a bit out of time to pay for storage - and what's more: usually I fill up my storage media with my own material - photos and videos. And for music: I have a music folder on my drive - but only music I bought - I swear! So I'm made to pay twice and more ...
My apologies to the whole of Austria, and my commiserations.
Exactly, the monthly payment you send to your streaming service enables you to stream all the music that you want, it is clear. But, if you download this music and storage it in a folder on your drive (downloading is not equal to streaming), then we are talking about "Private Copy", and this "Private Copy" is considered by Intelectual Property Laws a second act different o the mere "Public Performance" of the musical work and, therefore, subject to the corresponded levy.
It should be free to copy music which you have purchase the rights to listen to from one type of media (whichever one that came with your licence - in my case mostly CD) to another for personal use, with no fees added to the storage device. If you sell your original media and it's associated licence, you should delete all the copies you made. This is an entirely different activity to making copies for your friends, to sell, or to share via whatever has replaced napster.
Oh, I'm British, my phone has 256GB internal storage, plus a 256GB SD card (Approximately 128GB used for CD rips - though some of that is video files from CD singles, not just mp3s). Also, I watched and commented on the video after this before this one.
Luckily I am not French and I stole my phone....cheers.
In Germany it's the "Urheberrechtsabgabe" and we got it since almost forever. It doesn't just cover mobile devices or computer storage but also printers, PCs, TV sets (yes) and such. It's a crooked system, feeding the wrong mouths. There's an ongoing discussion about the "Kulturflatrate", an alternative compensation system, that would at least try to share the royalties with the right people. One major problem in this regard is the ever-prominent crying of the (sometimes right-wing) libertarians that think this would reduce their freedom (which is actually correct, if they belong to the established order of copyright exploitation firms). The current system is FUBAR, as it doesn't distribute the collected money to the creators and it is not wanted by an influential group of people that having this tax actually working as a payment for the creators, thus making the copies of works onto said devices 100% legal (which it isn't at the moment but that's a totally different discussion).
If you want to read about the German situation, open the Wikipedia page about the "Pauschalabgabe" and throw it into your translation service of choice. The articles in other languages are mostly specific to their countries.
Thank you for this. Germany is mentioned in the Wikipedia page on this topic but doesn't say that it is still active.
This is a question as philosophical as it is economic.
Then you know i'am French. 😅
There shouldn’t be such a thing as a free lunch, but what an artist gets isn’t always or, for that matter, fair. How do you right the wrongs you have no control over? Get over it because you don’t hold the strings. Do you have the answer or a solution? Doubt it! This ranting is overrated. Get a real job or stick to subject matter that may be helpful. Your videos ordinarily are very good. Why ruin it by this waste of your time. You’re smarter than this and I’m certain you know ranting solves nothing. On with the ugly retorts.
I did ... I just have a phone and only have 32 gigabytes with 6 gigabytes free . Thanks for reminding me to clear my cache. And no ! I don't have any music files stored in my phone...cassettes ? 😂
I'll be coming back to this topic soon, and the unfairness of this particular levy.
Which you pay with every phone you buy, even when the rights have already been paid for with the first one.
It makes sense then to buy (and produce) phones with as little memory as possible and use an external memory (sd card or ssd or sth) to hold music and such.
Unfortunately the levy applies to SD cards also.
@@AudioMasterclass Yes, but you only buy it once, then take it out of the old phone and put it into the new one. So you only pay the tax once.
Reminds me of the Blank Tape Levy, imposed on uk cassette tapes in the 1980s.
Supposedly to compensate artists etc for loss of sales because of home taping.
At the time I did the rough maths on the figures claimed by the recording industry at the time, and it came to every man woman and child in the uk makes 100s of recordings of copyright material every year.
At the time I was using a high speed cassette copier to duplicate recordings I made of sermons given in our church, ie we held the copyright. Yet every blank cassette we purchased resulted in a payment to uk record companies!
There was no way around this.
Should have spoke to the Big man upstairs about it.
Years ago I unsubscribed from Sirius/XM because they started charging an RIAA fee. Not my responsibility to pay them just in case someone else is recording songs. 😃
In America, shortly after CD-R's became a thing, CD recorders specifically for music came along. Our wonderful, forward-thinking congress decided (after some money changed hands, no doubt) that media for these music recorders must be taxed, and that the money would go to the artists who would inevitably be harmed by the use of these machines. In response, we simply stopped buying the machines and media. We used computers and regular, untaxed CD-R's for whatever music CD's we chose to make. and the music CD recorders quickly ceased being manufactured. Interestingly, "professional" music CD recorders could use regular CD-R's, while the consumer units were limited by law to the taxed CD's.
It wasn't Congress that made this happen, it was RIAA / ASCAP etc - private enterprise, not government.
@@billmilosz I did say, "after some money changed hands, no doubt." We have the best government money can buy.
I live in the Netherlands and I somewhat support this approach. I may stand to be corrected here, but; personally, I think issues pertaining to the rights of creators and copyright holders are necessarily complex and cannot be resolved or addressed by any single measure. These issues require multidimensional analysis, and one particular solution to one particular degree of analysis won’t necessarily translate to any other. Additionally, while rights holders have… rights… so do consumers. Is it possible to legislate so far towards one particular party that the other is infringed upon- certainly. Ideally we’d seek some form of mutually agreeable balance, a symbiosis of creators and their market. However, it’s not always immediately obvious who has the more reasoned and ethical stance when a dispute arises. This is all to say that we all need to give and take a little here and there, for all of our mutual benefit. I don’t mind paying a little extra on top of the price of storage if it can be put to good use… and if there is a dispute as to what constitutes ‘good use’ amongst creators, it’s likely reasonable to assess options within the scope of the specified method (like how funds are distributed)- but also, possibly, thinking outside the box to find a different solution for an interested party which doesn’t have it’s needs met. Perhaps, a levy on storage is just a tool in a populated toolbox, just as good as any other when used for its intended purpose.
Yes, I am a Spanish's musician and composer and I receive payments from the Spain's Performing Rights (SGAE) to which I am affiliated, for both, my songs and my recordings.
That's great, but are you getting money from the private copying levy of any country? That's what I, and probably my viewers, would like to know.
I think so, at least from those country that have a similar private copy compensatory remuneration
For a better understanding of this matter I copy what the Spanish's law says about private copy:
"Regulation of private copying in Spain
The Government of Spain approved Royal Decree-Law 12/2017, of July 3, <>, amending the revised text of the Intellectual Property Law regarding the system of fair compensation for private copying.
The new and current model, applicable in practically all countries of the European Union, is based on the payment of an amount to be paid by manufacturers and distributors of equipment, devices and online reproduction media.
As established in Royal Decree-Law 12/2017, of July 3, 25 in its Single Additional Provision: "Constitution of the legal entity provided for in article 10.<> of the revised text of the Law on Intellectual Property".
For this reason, for the centralized management of fair compensation for private copying, the nine copyright management organizations in Spain have set up the ventanillaunica.digital through which private copying debtors contact and send their quarterly settlements.
Who are the beneficiaries of the compensation?
Depending on the modality, they are:
Audio Mode: Authors, Artists, Performers and Phonographic Producers
Video modality: Authors, artists, performers, and audiovisual producers
Book Type: Authors and Publishers
Who are the debtors of the compensation?
Manufacturers in Spain, as long as they act as commercial distributors
Importers of reproduction equipment, apparatus and media for distribution in the country
Distributors, wholesalers and retailers whose suppliers have not passed on to them and itemized in the invoice the fair compensation for private copying
What does private copying allow?
It allows us to make copies, for private and non-profit use, of copyrighted works protected by the Intellectual Property Law. Copies are made without the permission of the copyright owners using equipment, devices and reproduction media.
Thus, private copying is a limit to the right of reproduction (copying) of works. Thanks to it, we can make copies of musical, literary, cinematographic works, etc., with absolute peace of mind from a legal source."
And how much does it cost annually to be a benefiting member of said organization...?
@@MarciaFunebre A percentage of the collected rights you get paid as administration expenses, with an average discount about 15% of all the incomes. If there are no incomes you pay nothing.
This reminds me a lot of the stupid French law that makes me pay a tax on every single storage drive or phone or tablet I buy to supposedly pay artists. On those drives I save my photos, my videos, my writings, my designs. Mine. Yet I pay taxes that go to other artists and I get nothing. That's purely theft.
It is exactly this. It’s phones and all storage devices. I might comment more in a future video.
@@AudioMasterclass (this post I made was a repost from your first video about the subject a few days ago).
They call it "taxe copie privée", it means "private copy tax" and they did that to pay artists because they consider that every one is pirating music and movies or games. It's like if you buy a car, there's a tax called drug tax, you know, because we're sure you gonna smuggle drugs in your car.
It’s like SOCAN BMI/ASCAP)collecting $$ from bars to play canned music no??
That’s a different thing entirely. Bars are using music to help their business. That music must be paid for. Composers and songwriters should not be expected to work for free.
@@AudioMasterclass Ok im gonna have to watch this again for it to sink in thanks!
I wrote a message about that on your last video so I might just repost here.
poor me :'(
I live in Sweden so i'm not poor. I enjoy live music and have friends who are top musicians, i like to buy merch and if i can support them directly, that way i know all my hard earned pennies go straight into there pockets.
i'm french and the only thing i know is that i pay more money than americans on everything but i have healthcare and can go to the mall without wondering if someone is carrying an assault rifle ready to start blasting lmao
The irony is that if you survive, your life will be ruined by the cost of the medical care that comes after. Goodbye house, goodbye savings, goodbye investments. Most people would go into bankruptcy just by the added cost of the insurance "co-pays" and "out-of-network" charges for the life-saving measures of the hospital you were taken to that the the insurer doesn't have a contract with.
The $30 co-pay, you need to pay for therapudic visits that turn out to be four appointments a week is $120 a week that a huge chunk of Americans can't afford to pay.
I am jealous.
@@fakshen1973exactly. The medical system takes it out of you before you die in the US. It is a death fee.
No they come up behind you and st@b you in the neck.
e.g. In Sweeden an Armenian man climbed up a ladder with knife in hand to a second story apartment to stab his ex girlfriend,and the man was in the apartment of the ex girl friend was filming him instead of trying to push the ladder away,the guy got up to the apartment broke the window and was still being videoed by phone,only to be stabbed in the neck,but luck he did not die,the guy with the knife was caught and received two years prison.
only two years ? woaw crazy justice system, though is it was me i would have pushed the ladder, why wouldn't he push the ladder ? it's a weird choice @@johnbravo7542
That's a heck of a question - digital music or book !!! As I see now, we will have to go back many century behind. Having a rich family paying for musician or book writer if people keeps trying to get everything's for free. Or another option, government should pay the artist with proof of project. NOP, there is no good solutions here. - Good luck artist.
I have over 30,000 tracks of music stored on a NAS, mostly classical, over 99.5% of which I have paid for from CD's or downloads. On the other hand, I know plenty of people who have no qualms about getting most if not all of their music for free by copying it. I guess it is just one more, but not overly consequential, of a myriad of injustices all of us face because we live in societies where the more powerful players can influence the making or bending of rules to their advantages. I wish I knew of a solution.
Class action would be apropriate, but how do you contact all the artists involved? Shameful how they tramp all over the little people. They need to be reminded that all the big artists were once small. Perhaps some of the truly huge artists ie: (Taylor Swift) might get on board if the group reached out. Could certainly put some preasure on.
Question? How did Taylor swift manage to become worth One Billion dollars as a performing artist in the music industry? The industry is known to use many popular artists to get rich and spit them out with little compensation, compared to their actual worth.
You can comment on this video at YouTube