Leggi l’articolo in italiano

The cloud may soon be taxed not for what we do, but for what we could do. A technical measure that hides a dangerous shift: behaviours are no longer assessed, and decisions are made based on mere assumptions. If we accept it, we are no longer regulating markets; we are taxing we are taxing the likelihood that an action could take place in the future.

What’s Happening in Italy

Italy is considering extending the “private copy levy” to cloud services. This means that any digital space hosting copies of music or films should contribute to compensating creators. In other words: the cloud is being taxed because it could be used to copy protected content.

Why it’s Important

This may sound like a technical measure. In reality it introduces a new and dangerous principle: we are no longer taxing actual behaviours, but simply the possibility that they could occur in the future.

Why the Cloud Matters

Today, the cloud is mainly used to store personal photos, documents, backups, and business data. In reality, it is not designed for private copying. Yet it would be taxed as if it were.

The “Ikea Tax” Model

If we accept this principle, the boundary between what can be taxed and what cannot becomes more blurred. Any technology or object that “might” be used in a certain could become taxable. Let’s think about bookshelves that could contain copied books; notebooks that could host transcribed texts; devices that could store protected content. The outcome is predictable: the rule of law is replaced by the “law” of assumptions.

The Dangerous Creation of a Precedent

There is another, more subtle risk to consider: the creation of a precedent. If Italy were to approve this initiative, other countries might follow suit. We have already seen this with taxes on digital services: a national measure can quickly serve as a European model. In this case too, we would no longer discussing a tax—it would represent a true paradigm shift.

My Proposals

Protecting creativity is right. But it must be done properly.

• First: it is the actual behaviours that should be penalised, not the infrastructures. Piracy needs to be established, not assumed. 
• Second: remuneration models need to be updated to ensure fairer and more transparent agreements between platforms and creators.
• Third: fiscal shortcuts need to be avoided. Shifting resources from one sector to another does not solve structural problems.

To conclude: beware of precedents. Bad ideas, if not stopped, tend to spread. The question is simple: do we want to regulate what people do, or tax what they might do? The difference is crucial, and the risk is clear: turning law into a tax on possibilities. 

Read Agri-food and decentralised finance: an open field of opportunities to be seized >>>