The EU Court of Justice ruled yesterday that the member states have the right to tax computer and printer manufacturers because consumers might copy a book illegally, without regard to whether computer users own a printer or not.

The Court of Justice of the European Union issued an interpretation of a 2001 Directive yesterday that gives member states the right to impose a tax on computer and printer manufacturers, states the ECJ in a press release that quotes the judgment text. The ruling on the Directive cites that printer and computer users might pirate a copyrighted work, and should compensate copyright holders for that piracy, even before a copyright violation happens.

According to a report by Geek.com, Verwertungsgesellschaft Wort (VG Wort ) sued German printer manufacturers included are Canon, Fujitsu, Kyocera, Epson, and others, on behalf of the copyright holders who VG Wort represents. The main claim of the suit alleged that monetary compensation should be granted because,

“Printers allow people to reproduce copyright-protected works.”

The judgment text also states that the ECJ also ruled that the computer manufacturers can also be taxed because computers are the base of the “chain of devices,” that consumers might use to print pages without authorization, which violates copyright holders’ rights.

The Courthouse News reports that VG Wort wanted the ECJ to demand that the affected printer manufacturers supply sales figures for every year since 2001, in addition to documents outlining the capabilities of each printer, computer, and copier that each company sol or marketed.

Gizmodo.co.uk reports that the ruling gives each EU member state the right to levy the tax fairly in their own way, or not, while arguing that the tax will eventually lead to an increase in computer and printer supply costs. Because the manufacturers will have to make up for the taxes they pay, the consumer will ultimately bear the cost.

On the other hand, imposing taxes on computers and printers could mean creating piracy where none was present previously. If the added cost is paid by the manufacturers and then passed on to the consumer to pay, though he or she might never have thought about doing so before, a consumer could reason that he or she ought to start copying books, since the privilege is paid for already.

New ruling clashes with 2001 Directive

An earlier application submitted by VG Wort In September of 2011 to the ECJ against Kyocera Mita Deutschland GmbH (Kyocera), Epson Deutschland GmbH (Epson), and Xerox GmbH (Xerox), according to CURIA, asked for an interpretation of the 2001 Directive 2001/29/EC. Specifically, VG Wort asked the ECJ to clarify the interpretation of copyright law, and to remedy the situation by way of monetary compensation for the portions that the ECJ interpreted in his clients’ favor.

The Opinion of Advocate General Sharpston, dated January of 2013, states that Directive 2001/29/EC,

“Requires Member States to provide for authors to have the exclusive right to authorize or prohibit direct or indirect, temporary or permanent reproduction of their works, by any means and in any form, in whole or in part.”

Yesterday’s ruling clashes with the 2001 EU directive, says a Law.com report. While Sharpston held off from answering some questions about the Directive until further analysis was conducted before issuing the ruling, according to his Opinion, VG Wort and the ECJ did not consider the Directive.

The current ruling does not consider instances in which users might reproduce materials with authorization from the copyright holders, or instances in which copyright holders released their works into the public domain, or the fact that some users who own a computer do not own a printer.