|
|
Posted by name on 12/26/05 18:40
Dave D schreef:
> "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.
Why not? Do you think any form of tax amounts to fascism?
What constitutes the difference between an acceptable form of tax and
one you
would reject?
>
> >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!
The problem is that it's virtually impossible to distinguish between
'legal'
and 'illegal' downloads. I think the distinction between 'public
domain'
and 'copyrighted' material is untenable in the digital age.
If someone creates something, they have to be compensated for it
financially,
regardless whether they like their creations to be distributed for free
or whether
they insist that everybody who enjoys their creations must pay for it.
Just like people pay tax whether they like paying tax or hate it. We
don't tax people only when they enjoy paying their tax.
> 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.
You also pay tax for social security in many countries whether you
actually end up
using it or not. It can be hard or almost impossible to come up with a
system that ensures only people who actually use a service pay for it.
Like an insurance, you pay for something that might happen. If it
doesn't happen you still pay.
>
> >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!
I do believe I should have the right to acces anything I like. The
entertainment industry
doesn't have the authority to dictate the terms on which to enjoy the
creations produced by them. It doesn't work that way. The idea of
making a copyrighted file available to millions on a network is a myth
to begin with. You make the copyrighted file available to just a
limited number of people (let's say 10 to 100 people or something like
that) and they, in turn make it available to a similar number of
people, etc.. So it's a kind of pyramid structure. Nobody has the
required bandwith at their home to effectively distribute a file to
millions of other users.
A file might reach millions of other users eventually, but that
involves many people cooperating in this distribution, instead of a
single centralized distributor.
The essential issue in this discussion is people distributing things on
a grass-roots scale for non-commercial purposes on the one hand and
centralized distributors like recording companies on the other hand.
Recording companies were used to the situation of multiple centralized
distributors competing with one another. With the advent of computers
and the internet, decentralized distribution has become a practical
alternative and copyrights are neither intended nor suitable to
'protect' centralized distributors for commercial purposes against
'unfair competition' from decentralized distributors for non-commercial
purposes.
Technological developments have simply rendered centralized
distribution to be redundant.
>
> >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?
It's fair if most people tend to download things made by others instead
of things made by themselves. Whether or not the originator allows
something to be distributed or not is irrelevant because there is no
way to distinguish between these alternative preferences.
If I create something, I have control over it, until I distribute it.
As soon as I distribute something, it's beyond my control because there
are no effective methods to control what happens to your creations
after you distribute them.
So once I distribute something, it doesn't matter whether I like or
dislike the terms on which others distribute it, because it's beyond my
control.
>
> > 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?
It's unfair to a degree, but there is no better alternative as far as I
can see.
How do you propose to distinguish between people who save their
homevideos on dvds at home or people who save movies from Hollywood
studios?
Well, one way to distinguish between this is that people usually
download content created by others while people already have content
available that they recorded themselves.
So in that respect it would be fair to tax downloading instead of
taxing recording media.
You'd need some kind of mechanism to distinguish between public domain
and copyrighted material in some way in order to come up with a more
fair taxing system
that only taxes people for copyright infringement and not for
downloading public domain material.
>
> > 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.
What is a p2p adsl connection exactly in that case? Does it mean the
regular
adsl connection has a kind of built-in firewall that blocks most p2p
applications?
>
> 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]
|