Налог на копирование: история, практика и перспективы.

A private copying levy (also known as blank media tax or levy) is a government mandated scheme in which a special tax or levy (additional to any general sales tax) is charged on purchases of recordable media. Such taxes are in place in various countries and the income is typically allocated to the developers of "content". (A distinction is sometimes made between "tax" and "levy" based on the recipient of the accumulated funds; taxes are received by a government, while levies are received by a private body, such as a copyright collective.) Levy system may operate in principle as a system of collectivisation, partially replacing a property approach of sale of individual units.

Such levies were first introduced in Germany in the 1960s. With the advent of the audio cassette, legislators were persuaded that cassette recorders would decimate sales of records as friend after friend would then make copies of only one purchased album. Levies today are assessed on recordable compact discs, a form of media that did not exist when levies were first conceived. Although the bulk of unrecorded compact discs are actually used in the computing industry, they are still "taxed" to provide a revenue stream to the recording industry. Levies are often considered a compensation for illegal file sharing. This is debatable, however: levies could be seen as not being an advance for fines, but rather, only intended to compensate for copies in the private sphere that are legally allowed in many jurisdictions. A notable exception in Europe is the UK, that does not allow private copies. But generally legislators allow private copies for two reasons: firstly, because otherwise the enforcement would be unfeasible for private reasons, and secondly because the administrative burden would be disproportionate.

It is theorized that such levy may be linked to a corresponding relaxation of copyright law, by permitting the recording of copyrighted works on media for which the tax has been paid. However, there is little evidence to support this theory. On the contrary, lobbyists representing publishers and copyright holders have increased pressures to implement more restrictive laws, even on countries that have implemented private copying levy. In 2007, it was reported that International Intellectual Property Alliance put 23 of the world's 30 most populous countries into Priority Watch List, even though the United States, which was not in the list, has laws that are more liberal than the laws from the countries within the list. Even when restricting levy system to devices that primarily play music, this itself creates loopholes that prevents collecting levies from cellphones, PDAs, and other all in one portable electronic devices. As a result, copyright holders will have to rely on even more laws to collect levy, and to increase rates of already levied product to recover perceived losses, which run against the political trends toward eliminating levy systems.

Australia had a public levy on cassette tapes. The legislation establishing the levy was passed in 1989, challenged in the High Court of Australia in Australian Tape Manufacturers Association Ltd v Commonwealth. The court found the tax legal even though it went to private sources because it served a public purpose. Copyright Amendment Act 1989 (Cth) introduced the Levy on blank tapes but was later repealed by Copyright Amendment (Re Enactment) Act 1993 following the "blank tapes levy case" in the HCA in 1993.

The world's first private copying system was created in Germany in 1965. It was a result of earlier successful litigation by GEMA against an audio equipment manufacturer in GEMA v. Grundig.

Luxembourg is the only EU member state on the continent without a private copying levy, making it a popular "copying levy haven" for blank media buyers from countries such as France and Germany.

Portugal established a levy on CDs and DVDs in 1998.

Article 1245 of Civil Code of Russian Federation "Remuneration for free reproduction of phonograms and audiovisual products for private purposes" ("Вознаграждение за свободное воспроизведение фонограмм и аудиовизуальных произведений в личных целях") mandates a fee, which is to be distributed in the following proportion: 40% to the authors, 30% to the singers, 30% to the manufacturers of the media. In practice, this fee had not been charged until after the Regulation of the Government of Russian Federation 829 from October 14, 2010, which mandated a uniform 1% tax on computers, blank optical disks, memory sticks, TVs, video and audio recorders, radios, mobile phones, etc. The controversial decision of the government to award the collected funds to the Russian Union of Rights Holders for further distribution was criticized by the public and disputed in a lawsuit.

bars copyright infringement action and provides for a royalty of 2% of the initial transfer price for devices and 3% for media. The royalty rate in was established by the Fairness in Music Licensing Act of 1998. This only applies to CDs which are labeled and sold for music use; they do not apply to blank computer CDs, even though they can be (and often are) used to record or "burn" music from the computer to CD. The royalty also applies to stand alone consumer grade CD recorders, but not to professional CD recorders or CD burners used with computers. Most recently, portable satellite radio recording devices contribute to this royalty fund. Thanks to a precedent established in a 1998 lawsuit involving the Rio PMP300 player, most MP3 players are deemed "computer peripherals" and are not subject to a royalty of this type in the U. S.

Currently, private copy royalties are generated in the US by the sale of "blank CDs and personal audio devices, media centers, satellite radio devices, and car audio systems that have recording capabilities."

Currently there is no proper private copy exception in the United Kingdom, there is only a narrow exception regarding broadcast time shifting (s70(1) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (CDPA)). On 1 June 2014, the UK implemented art. 5(2)b of the Infosoc Directive via the Copyright and Rights in Performance (Personal Copies for Private Use) Regulations 2014. This provided an exception limited to the personal use, to the owners of a personal copy and with the exclusion of indirectly commercial uses. It did not provide for compensation. The UK Government's view was that "levies or other compensation are neither required nor desirable in the context of a narrow provision that causes minimal harm. Levies are an unnecessary and inefficient tax on consumers. They are unfair to consumers in that they are payable regardless of the use to which a levied device (for example a hard disk) is put and regardless of whether a user has already paid for the copies they store on a device. Furthermore, particularly in the current economic climate, it is not right to extract more money from the pockets of hard pressed consumers." The British Academy of Songwriters, Composers and Authors (BASCA), the Musicians' Union, and UK Music challenged the introduction of these regulations, and brought an application for judicial review. Their application succeeded when, in June 2015, the High Court ruled that the regulations were unlawful because of a flawed impact assessment.