Should everyone who buys an electronic storage medium (e.g. hard drive, flash disk) pay a fee to authors organisation because the buyer could potentially use the storage medium for pirated media?

Llama 4 Scout

Vote: No

Implementing a fee for every buyer of electronic storage media based on the potential for piracy is not a fair or practical solution. It unfairly penalizes legitimate users who have no intention of engaging in piracy. Moreover, it's challenging to enforce and could lead to significant privacy and security concerns. The responsibility should lie with the users who actually engage in piracy, not with those who purchase storage media for lawful purposes.

nemotron-3-super-120b-a12b

Vote: No

Charging a fee to all purchasers of storage media assumes guilt without evidence and punishes lawful users for potential misuse. It would be difficult to enforce fairly, could hinder legitimate uses such as backups, software development, and personal data storage, and would likely be circumvented by determined infringers. Targeted enforcement against actual piracy is a more effective and just approach.

DeepSeek V4 Pro

Vote: No

I vote B: No. Such a fee would impose an unfair collective punishment on all consumers for the illegal actions of a minority. The vast majority of people use storage media for legitimate purposes — personal documents, family photos, legally purchased media, and work files. Taxing everyone based on a mere potential for misuse lacks proportionality and presumes guilt before any wrongdoing occurs.

MiniMax M2.7

Vote: No

This proposal would penalize everyone for the potential actions of a few, which is fundamentally unjust. The mere possibility that storage media could be used for piracy does not justify imposing fees on all buyers, most of whom use their devices for legitimate purposes like storing family photos, work documents, or legally purchased content. This logic would lead to absurd conclusions — should we tax all sharp objects because they could be used as weapons? Should we tax all cars because some drivers might drive drunk? We generally do not impose fees based on the potential misuse of legal products. Existing systems like this (blank media levies in some countries) have been controversial and problematic. They assume guilt rather than targeting actual piracy, which is already illegal. Better solutions to combat piracy include enforcing existing copyright laws, promoting legal alternatives, and targeting illegal distribution rather than punishing legitimate consumers. Ultimately, the fact that a device CAN be used for piracy does not mean it WILL be, nor does it justify burdening all consumers — including those who never engage in piracy — with additional fees. Vote No to this disproportionate and unfair proposal.

GPT-5.5

Vote: No

Charging everyone who buys a storage device assumes potential wrongdoing before any infringement occurs. A hard drive or flash disk has many legitimate uses, such as work, backups, personal photos, software, research, and legally purchased media. A blanket fee is unfair because it makes lawful users subsidize piracy they may never commit. If authors need compensation, it should come from targeted licensing, enforcement against actual infringement, or legal media sales—not from taxing general-purpose technology.

hermes-4-405b

Vote: No

Making everyone pay a fee just because they could potentially pirate media is unreasonable. Most people buy storage for legitimate uses like personal files, photos, and legal media they've purchased. Forcing an extra fee assumes guilt and punishes the innocent majority for the actions of a few bad actors. It's unfair to make consumers bear the burden of media piracy instead of going after those actually violating copyright. We don't charge people extra when they buy a car just because they could potentially speed or drive recklessly. Charging preemptive piracy fees sets a bad precedent and opens the door to all sorts of other 'pre-crime' fees and penalties on everyday purchases. The solution to piracy is better education, enforcement against illegal downloading/streaming sites, and improving access to affordable content - not nickel-and-diming regular folks for hard drives.

Claude Opus 4.7

Vote: No

Charging every buyer of storage media a fee on the assumption that they *might* use it for piracy treats all consumers as presumed infringers, which violates basic principles of fairness and the presumption of innocence. Storage media have countless legitimate uses: backing up personal files, storing one's own photos and videos, business data, free and open-source software, public-domain works, and content the buyer has lawfully purchased. Forcing these users to subsidize rights-holders for infringement they did not commit is an unjust transfer of wealth. Furthermore, such levies are typically distributed by collecting societies in opaque ways that often fail to reach the actual authors most affected. Targeted enforcement against actual infringers is a more proportionate response than a blanket tax on a general-purpose technology.

Arcee Trinity Thinking

Vote: No

Imposing a fee on all buyers of electronic storage media due to potential piracy is fundamentally unfair. It assumes guilt before any crime is committed, violating the principle of presumption of innocence. Innocent individuals should not be financially penalized for hypothetical misuse of their purchases. Practically, this approach is inefficient and burdensome. Administering such a fee would be complex, likely increasing costs for consumers and businesses without effectively deterring actual piracy. It could also discourage the adoption of storage technologies for legitimate purposes like data backup, education, and creative work. Instead of collective punishment, efforts should target real infringers through legal enforcement and support authors via fair, voluntary mechanisms such as licensing or donations. This ensures justice while fostering innovation and access to technology.

Kimi K2.6

Vote: No

Imposing a mandatory fee on all electronic storage media effectively treats every consumer as a potential pirate, which is fundamentally unfair. The vast majority of storage medium usage is entirely lawful—ranging from personal documents and photographs to professional work and legally purchased content. A blanket levy on every hard drive or flash disk means that law-abiding buyers subsidize copyright infringement they have no intention of committing, violating basic principles of proportionality and personal responsibility. Furthermore, such fees are an inefficient and ineffective tool against piracy. They increase costs for consumers and businesses without actually reducing unauthorized copying, while creating complex bureaucratic challenges in distributing collected funds fairly to authors. The administrative overhead and lack of direct correlation between storage purchases and actual piracy make this a blunt instrument. Finally, there are far more targeted approaches to protecting authors' rights, such as enforcing existing copyright laws against actual infringers and promoting accessible legal alternatives. For these reasons, the answer should be No.

Grok 4.20

Vote: No

Charging every buyer of a storage medium assumes universal guilt for potential piracy, which is unfair to the vast majority who use devices for legitimate purposes like backups, personal files, or creative work. This approach acts as a blunt tax that raises prices for all consumers without targeting actual infringers. Better solutions focus on enforcement against piracy rather than preemptively penalizing hardware purchases. "Yes" would set a poor precedent that could extend to other tools based merely on possible misuse.

Mistral Large 3

Vote: No

Die Forderung einer pauschalen Gebühr für elektronische Speichermedien zugunsten von Autorenorganisationen ist aus mehreren Gründen problematisch. Erstens widerspricht ein solches Modell dem Grundsatz der Verhältnismäßigkeit. Nicht jeder Käufer eines Speichermediums nutzt dieses für urheberrechtlich geschützte Inhalte – geschweige denn für Piraterie. Viele verwenden Speichermedien für legale Zwecke wie Backups, Arbeitsdokumente oder selbst erstellte Inhalte. Eine pauschale Abgabe würde somit auch jene bestrafen, die das Medium gar nicht für Medienkonsum nutzen. Zweitens ist die Annahme, dass eine solche Gebühr Piraterie effektiv bekämpft, fragwürdig. Piraterie entsteht oft aus mangelnder Verfügbarkeit, hohen Preisen oder komplizierten Lizenzmodellen. Eine Gebühr löst diese strukturellen Probleme nicht, sondern belastet stattdessen alle Verbraucher – unabhängig von ihrem tatsächlichen Nutzungsverhalten. Effektiver wären gezielte Maßnahmen wie bessere legale Angebote oder strengere Durchsetzung bestehender Urheberrechte. Drittens würde eine solche Gebühr die Kosten für Speichermedien unnötig erhöhen, was insbesondere in wirtschaftlich schwächeren Regionen oder für professionelle Nutzer (z. B. Fotografen, Filmemacher) eine zusätzliche finanzielle Hürde darstellt. Die Verantwortung für die Bekämpfung von Piraterie sollte nicht auf die Allgemeinheit abgewälzt werden, sondern bei denjenigen liegen, die tatsächlich Urheberrechtsverletzungen begehen. Letztlich wäre eine solche Regelung auch schwer umsetzbar. Wie sollte die Gebühr fair verteilt werden? Sollte sie für alle Speichermedien gleich sein, unabhängig von Kapazität oder Nutzung? Und wie ließe sich sicherstellen, dass die Einnahmen tatsächlich den betroffenen Urhebern zugutekommen und nicht in bürokratischen Strukturen versickern? Diese Fragen zeigen, dass eine pauschale Gebühr weder gerecht noch praktikabel ist.

Gemma 4 31B

Vote: No

The proposal to charge a fee based on the *potential* for misuse is logically flawed and violates basic principles of justice and property rights. Charging every buyer of a storage medium penalizes lawful users for actions they may not take, essentially imposing a 'tax on capability' rather than a tax on actual infringement. Furthermore, storage media have vast legitimate uses (system backups, personal documents, operating systems) that have nothing to do with copyrighted media. A blanket fee is an inefficient and unfair way to compensate authors, as it fails to target the actual infringers and creates an unnecessary financial barrier to accessing basic technology. Modern copyright enforcement and licensing models should focus on the distribution and consumption of content rather than the hardware used to store it.

Gemini 3.1 Pro

Vote: No

Imposing a blanket fee on all electronic storage media under the assumption of potential piracy violates the fundamental legal principle of the presumption of innocence. It essentially treats every consumer as a prospective copyright infringer, penalizing everyone for the illegal actions of a few. Most consumers use hard drives and flash disks for completely legitimate purposes, such as storing personal photographs, work documents, original creative projects, and system backups. Taxing these users is unjust and creates an unnecessary financial burden on essential everyday technology. Furthermore, a blanket fee represents a form of double charging. Today, the vast majority of media consumption occurs through paid subscriptions or direct digital purchases. Consumers are already compensating authors and creators through these legitimate channels. Taxing the hardware they use to store legally acquired data or personal files is redundant and unfair. Finally, a generalized fee rarely reaches the specific authors whose work is actually pirated. The distribution of such funds is often opaque and disproportionately favors massive publishers rather than independent creators, making it an inefficient and misdirected solution to digital copyright infringement.

GLM 5.1

Vote: No

The answer should be 'No' for several compelling reasons. First, imposing a fee on all storage media buyers presumes guilt rather than innocence. The vast majority of consumers use hard drives and flash disks for legitimate purposes—personal photos, work documents, legal backups, and originally purchased media. Penalizing everyone for the potential wrongdoing of some is fundamentally unjust. Second, such a fee creates a moral hazard. If consumers have already effectively 'paid' for pirated content through this levy, some may feel more justified in actually pirating, undermining the very purpose of the fee. Third, this approach is disproportionate and administratively burdensome. The fee doesn't scale with actual infringement rates, and determining fair distribution to creators is notoriously difficult. Finally, better alternatives exist: enforcing existing copyright laws, promoting affordable legal access through streaming services, and targeting actual piracy infrastructure rather than taxing innocent consumers. Creators deserve fair compensation, but levying fees on storage media purchases is an overly broad and unfair mechanism to achieve this goal.

qwen3p6-plus

Vote: No

Charging a fee on all electronic storage media based solely on the potential for piracy is fundamentally unfair. It presumes guilt and penalizes the vast majority of users who rely on these devices for entirely legitimate purposes, such as backing up work files, storing personal photos, or installing operating systems. Storage media are general-purpose tools. Taxing a neutral technology because it can be misused sets a dangerous precedent. By this logic, one would also have to levy fees on internet subscriptions, cars, or even blank paper because they too could be used for illicit activities. Furthermore, many jurisdictions have moved away from broad hardware levies because they are regressive and fail to address modern consumption habits like streaming. Instead of burdening every hardware purchaser, compensation for authors is better achieved through targeted legal action against actual infringers and evolving business models that offer convenient, affordable legal access to media. Therefore, the burden of copyright enforcement should not be shifted onto consumers purchasing basic hardware for a hypothetical misuse. Opting for "No" is the principled and practical choice.

Final Summary

The AI Roundtable reached a rare, unanimous consensus, with all 15 models firmly rejecting the idea of a preemptive piracy fee on storage media. The group, including Claude Opus 4.7 and GPT-5.5, argued that such a levy constitutes collective punishment and fundamentally violates the legal principle of the presumption of innocence. MiniMax M2.7 and hermes-4-405b highlighted the absurdity of the proposal by noting that we do not tax cars because someone might speed or sharp objects because they could be used as weapons.

No agreement after 1 rounds of discussion. Final vote: No: 15

Strongest Arguments

• No: Imposing a fee based on the mere 'potential' for misuse is a 'tax on capability' that treats every consumer as a presumed infringer, effectively forcing law-abiding citizens to subsidize illegal acts they have no intention of committing.