|
|
Posted by Dave D on 12/26/05 18:03
"name" <dohduhdah@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1135568061.670129.116270@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> pooter schreef:
>
>> kim [ntscuser@aol.com] said
>> > "pooter" <a@bff.com> wrote in message
>> > news:MPG.1e16727dc85c7c7298a305@nntp.dsl.pipex.com...
>> > > http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/article/ds27581.html
>> >
>> > The version I read was that France has abandoned proposals to make file
>> > sharing software illegal. That is a long way from making the use of it
>> > to
>> > share copyrighted material legal.
>>
>> This story, dated 23 dec 2005, would seem to disagree.
>
> http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/article/ds27581.html
>
> I like the idea of an internet information tax.
I don't. It sounds like what a fascist government would come up with.
>Just raise the cost of
> an internet connection based on the amount of data you download
> (uploading being free).
Why? Not everyone uses the 'net for illegal downloads!
I don't see why people should effectively have to pay a levy to the
entertainment industry just because they view web pages or download windows
updates, Linux distributions or other non-copyright infringing purposes.
This reminds me of the UK TV licence idea which is to fund the BBC. We pay
the TV licence whether or not we watch BBC services or not, even satellite
services.
>Everybody should be free to exchange software,
> music, movies, books, etc..
That depends. I don't see how they can object to lending/exchanging
copyright material person to person, ie amongst friends or families, but
making a copyrighted file available to millions on a network is a different
matter. I don't kid myself here- I download/upload copyrighted material
regularly, and I know it's illegal. However, I don't care! Ultimately, I do
what I do without too many pangs of guilt, because I know how shitty the
entertainment industry is. I may be dishonest in downloading but I feel they
deserve all they get. However, I do not believe I should have a *right* to
do what I do, I just do it in the hope I won't get caught!
>and the government could sample the
> downloads on a statistical basis to determine how the collected tax
> money should be distributed among the creators of original content to
> ensure people are financially compensated for their creative efforts in
> a fair and reliable way.
But this means *everyone* will pay the tax just because some choose to
download copyrighted material. How is that fair exactly?
> This is already happening in various countries with a levy added to the
> price of blank media to compensate for copyright infringement,
> effectively legalizing (or regulating) copyright infringement.
Also unfair. Why should someone who uses media to backup their own files,
photos, or whatever pay more for a blank CD just because some others use
them to store downloaded music or movies?
> What is desperately needed is a reasonable system to compensate people
> who create things instead of the fascist recording industry exploiting
> and prostituting artists any way they see fit and stifling
> technological innovation by insisting on imposing their outdated
> economic models on new forms of information communication technology.
>
Agreed, but making everyone pay is not the answer.
I think a fairier way is simislar to an idea an ISP did here in the UK. They
had a normal ADSL connection at one rate and a P2P ADSL connection at a
higher rate.
I'm not sure what happened to the extra money in that specific case, but
ideally ISPs could offer a P2P-permitted service with the extra money going
to the artists. IMO, this is a glaringly obvious solution to the problem of
illegal downloading, and I'd be quite happy to pay an extra few pounds a
month for the freedom to legally use Bittorrent and WinMX etc, without any
caps or per-gigabyte fees.
I do not, however, endorse any tax or levy schemes which entail web surfers
paying for my music and movie downloads!
Dave
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|