Why the €300,000,000 private copying levy needs to go

Browse Pro Tools courses...
Browse Logic Pro courses...
Browse Cubase courses...
Get the most from your studio with the Audio Masterclass Music Production and Sound Engineering Course.
Learn more...
@AudioMasterclass replies to @piotrts: That would be assuming that it stayed clean.
@Synthematix: Did you know? computer CDR discs are cheaper than consumer CDR discs (Serarate Hi-Fi CD Recorders) because consumer blanks have a "copyright royalty" charge added too them.
@earFront: It would be nice if the digital levy scam actually paid musicians specifically for an actual copying af an actual music. . . It is simply a greed based system that rich well financed groups benefiting from the work of others. Sounds like a slave based economy . . . Hmmmmmmmm. Any ways, I couldn't care less to have a Tailor Swift anything upon any device I have. I would be expecting to receive a payment if I had to listen to such dwaddle on my phone.
@richiereyn: Years ago, I used to use torrents to download music, and if I found something I liked, I went out and bought the CD. I did that because the downloads were often of dubious quality, and being an "audiophile" I wanted the best quality. Illegal downloading was often a great way to find new music, which would ultimately result in a legitimate sale for the physical media. But as you say, streaming today is different. I use Qobuz and I am happy with it.
@thomasbrouwer3243: Two thumbs or more if I could. Most people (including politicians) are willfully ignorant of these creative rights issues.
@REMY.C.: French here, private copy is different than piracy and many people do not get that. Private copy in France is a copy of something you legally bought.
That private copy is also a bit different from that tax and it's stupid. Let's say I buy an album on cd, so normally I paid the artist. Every drive I buy I pay a tax that's gonna pay the artist twice even if I do not make a copy.
Plus : what artists get that money? French ones? I don't listen to french music. Who gets to have that money? It needs to be transparent or disappear.
I'm a photographer among other things and every single drive or SD card I buy I pay 20% tax + that private copy tax because I'm guilty just by buying storage. I'm guilty of piracy when all I backup is my own things. Why someone else or a shady company should get paid for my photos?
No wonder why people are pirating: I pay a tax? Ok, then I'll take whatever I want.
@maidsandmuses: The system doesn't work. At least you can format shift in France, in the UK even that is illegal. But some of my favourite artists are Japanese indie-rock bands that don't have CDs pressed but only provide music downloads. I legally download these from a Japanese download service that makes it available in accordance with both Japanese and UK law, and pays the proper royalties direct to the relevant Japanese artists. I am now in the UK technically not allowed to format-shift those downloads to a CD-R for private use. Even if it were legal to do so, any copying levies that might or might not have applied in the UK would for sure never make it back to the Japanese artist. Ultimately, I just want to support my favourite artists through a royalties scheme that works for them, through music purchases, not through merch .
@ArturdeSousaRocha: The fact that you used the term "rights holders" and not just "artists" speaks volumes about how the copyright system is broken.
@AudioMasterclass replies to @ArturdeSousaRocha: I'm careful to say 'holder' because the holder is not necessarily the owner. A songwriter would start out the owner but might then assign their rights to a publisher. It would be rare to sell the rights but in practical terms it can be the same thing. NAL by the way.
@richarddeluen5973: There's this thing called Public Performance. When music is played to the public, in a commercial setting, copyright law says the artist deserves to get paid for this commercial use of their music. That's law all around the world, and should remain as it is. How it's collected and distributed in each territory may be up for discussion. But the fact of it all is still true. As for private use, well the laws then say you could whatever you like
@DolphinWave: Why? It is a perfect way to collect revenue for the right holders! They get a stream of money, and they don't even lose anything. Because people don't copy the copyrighted material, but stream it instead, from which those copyright holders get their money, too. Being double-payed - what could be better for the right holders?
I say that if the levy stays, then every SD card, every storage that comes with the levy, should also come with a free premium streaming account that serves no advertisements, because I already paid to those copyright holders with that levy, and I shouldn't be paying by listening to ads, too.
@bryancasler: An album I want by Gary Moore isn’t available for streaming or downloading across any service (it was recently pulled). The only option is to buy a used CD and I don’t have any method for physical playback.
@Hipyon replies to @bryancasler: Bye one
@dangerzone007: If people don't want to pay the private copying Levi just record the music on cassette.
@michaelturner4457 replies to @dangerzone007: Some countries they pay private copying levy on cassettes.
@Downhuman74: I wasn't even aware of this levy ( I live in the States). What a load of horseshit. And it seems like it's only punishing the people who come by their music legally. So what's the point?
@MarcelHuguenin: In the Netherlands it's called the "thuiskopieheffing", probably unpronounceable for you but I totally agree. Thuiskopieheffing should go!
@AudioMasterclass replies to @MarcelHuguenin: The 'heffing' part of that seems like the bad part.
@MarcelHuguenin replies to @MarcelHuguenin: @@AudioMasterclass exactly! There shouldn't be any anymore. Overdue.
@1loveMusic2003: The death of musicians income was mp3 and wav. CDs were great. It was a physical product. Digital copies of mixes should be protected in my humble opinion. Screw Spotify.
@Phil_f8andbethere: Seems to me the music industry as usual, want it both ways. They tried to make out that home taping was killing music, whilst the same companies made tape recorders and blank tapes to copy onto. In fact, instead of killing music it did the opposite.
@mattlm64: Why would I need to pay to copy music I've purchased onto other devices for personal use anyway? If I've bought digital music, that implies I should be able to use and listen on multiple devices surely?
@AudioMasterclass replies to @mattlm64: NAL but this seems to be largely accepted now.
@Synthematix replies to @mattlm64: No, just because you bought the music it belongs to the artist and record label forever.
@musicsubicandcebu1774: We need to go back to vinyl singles and albums
@maxtrue9744: What about the following issue. Bought PF Dark side of the Moon on LP, Then bought it on CD, and then again from HD tracks to get 24/96. Paid the royalty three times as the formats changed. Great video and I agree with to you.
@AudioMasterclass replies to @maxtrue9744: In this case you’ve paid for genuine upgrades, presuming you could hear the benefits of 24/96. Will you be getting the Atmos version though?
@martineyles: I rip CDs to my computer and then copy those files to my phone for portable listening. No-one else receives a copy of these files. It's all material I have purchased a licence for and retained the original physical media for. I gather this may be technically still illegal, though with guidelines to not prosecute. Is this really an illegitimate use of storage? I really don't think a levy for this type of usage is appropriate.
@AudioMasterclass replies to @martineyles: NAL but I think it’s accepted now that you can copy stuff you’ve paid for to your various devices. As you say, retaining the original media is part of this.
@martineyles replies to @martineyles: @@AudioMasterclass NAL?
@Citizen-1a replies to @martineyles: @@martineyles Not A Lawyer
@maidsandmuses replies to @martineyles: Indeed, format-shifting for private use is legally prohibited in the UK. An exemption was created in the law in 2014, but following a judicial review this exemption was revoked less than a year later in 2015. Which leaves a situation that many music lovers in the UK will format-shift legally downloaded songs anyway, knowing that technically they are breaking the law but in practice will not be pursued for it.
Just go with your conscience on this one: buy the music legally with royalties going to the artist, then format-shift it if you need to (for private use). Especially legal DRM-free downloads imply that those artists/distributors selling them know they are likely to be format-shifted and sell them on the understanding that you will be only doing so for private use.
@martineyles replies to @martineyles: @@AudioMasterclass Yes, but it needs storage, so if I lived in France I would still be charged the levy, for what I think everyone agrees is morally (if not legally) acceptable.
@Citizen-1a: There is also similar levy here in Germany (GEMA). One aspect that particularly grates on me; despite paying this mandatory levy on various recordable media, if I did copy some music from a friend, I would still breaking the law. So what exactly did I pay for? Basically its just legalised robbery, but enough hidden that few people complain about it.
@sdrtcacgnrjrc replies to @Citizen-1a: I remember GEMA blocked youtube videos for years. They apparently charge a fortune for playing anything in a public space. Not sure what they do with the money -- probably a lot goes on bureaucracy and more on management
@seveera replies to @Citizen-1a: No, YouTube blocked content in Germany because they didn't want to pay GEMA royalties and wouldn't come to an agreement with them until 2014.
GEMA is a performance rights organization, they collect royalties for composers, writers, etc. who are signed with them so the platforms that make their music available to the public, be it through a release from a label or distributor, or be it a recording of a concert from someone's smartphone, YouTube needs to pay up.
YouTube has done a great job of making GEMA seem in the wrong here by blocking content and naming GEMA as the culprit, which they actually never wanted. GEMA wants the music to be heard, but the artists must be compensanted. The block was YouTube's way of avoiding that royalty payout which every website owner offering streams or downloads of music from GEMA members was already paying at the time.
@thexfile.: The copyright laws are broken.
@Ghandralph: Also, in DVDs and BluRays you get copyprotection. So despite the fact that you pay the levy, you can’t copy. Even worse there are countries, looking at you Germany, where on top of all this it is illegal to circumvent copyprotection, even for private use. So again, you pay a levy for nothing …
@Ghandralph replies to @Ghandralph: @@diabolusvincit well, you can copy it because it is relatively easy to get around the protection (by software) but that software can be illegal (germany)…
@pantegministries: I don't mind paying for the artist so they receive money for their work. I object to the paying for everyone else who adds no value.
@gilberth_: Dear David, you should have learned the lesson that (almost) all money income for any government can't be shut off. You should have learned that some politician don't always get well with reasoning or even good computation. Also, remember the b****t.