[Marker](b) Digital Audio Recording Media.— The royalty payment due under
section [
http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00001004----000-.html/../uscode17/usc_sec_17_00001003----000-.html
]1003 for each digital audio recording medium imported into and
distributed in the United States, or manufactured and distributed in the
United States, shall be 3 percent of the transfer price. Only the first
person to manufacture and distribute or import and distribute such medium
shall be required to pay the royalty with respect to such medium.
Hmm, I wonder if they will pass that cost onto the consumer???...
George Cohen
Chief Information Officer
The Walker School
700 Cobb Parkway North
Marietta, GA 30062
office 678-581-6913
cell 305-297-5543
A forum for independent school educators <ISED-L@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU> writes:
>Wait a minute. Are you sure about this? I seem to recall hearing about
>places in Europe doing this, based on the statistics that showed that most
>blank media was bought to make copies of copyrighted materials, and not of
>Tante Ellen giving the family history, but as far as I knew, we weren't
>doing that here yet.
>
>And I have to admit, there is a certain amount of logic to it. I know that
>90% of the blank cassette tapes I bought from 1969 to 1999 were
>specifically
>for making what we now call "mix tapes" of my records. Similarly, about
>90%
>of the blank VHS tapes I bought were for timeshifting TV shows. It made a
>lot of sense to me that rather than trying to sue us all into oblivion for
>copyright infringement, they just add another 5c to the cost of blank
>media,
>and make sure that goes to all of the proper rights organizations. When I
>first suggested this to some other people I knew, the one or two people in
>the group who *never* bought tapes to copy music or TV shows onto
>(probably
>the only two people in the *world*) complained that it would be making
>them
>pay for something they never did.
>
>When I similarly suggested that the movie industry just tack an additional
>dollar onto the price of videos to cover the "non-theatrical" rights, so
>that your kid could take a movie to school or daycare without having the
>place run afoul of the "public performance" clause, these same two people
>complained that it wouldn't be fair because they never sent stuff in with
>their kids.
>
>The simple fact of the matter is that the amount of paperwork we have to
>go
>through in order to make sure that each of the stakeholders gets their
>perceived correct slice of the pie is way too much, and the rules are
>totally counter-intuitive. We need to streamline the whole copyright and
>public performance thing.
>
>
>On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 2:13 PM, George Cohen <gcohen@thewalkerschool.org>
>wrote:
>
>> What really gets my goat is that every blank cd or tape or anything
>> recordable has a fee added to the cost to cover the copyright fees. This
>> was added in the 70's when the discussion was about recording songs off
>of
>> the radio. I don't beleive they have removed that charge. (If someone
>> knows for sure that it was removed, I'll take back my rant)
>>
>> So your paying for the right to copyright something that they say you
>> can't copy.
>>
>> Sounds a lot like taxation without representation to me.
>>
>
>[ For info on ISED-L see http://www.gds.org/ISED-L ]
>Submissions to ISED-L are released under a creative commons, attribution,
>non-commercial, share-alike license.
>RSS Feed, http://listserv.syr.edu/scripts/wa.exe?RSS&L=ISED-L
[ For info on ISED-L see http://www.gds.org/ISED-L ]
Submissions to ISED-L are released under a creative commons, attribution, non-commercial, share-alike license.
RSS Feed, http://listserv.syr.edu/scripts/wa.exe?RSS&L=ISED-L
