|
|
Posted by Dave D on 12/27/05 15:03
"name" <dohduhdah@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1135622439.322434.53730@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
<snip>
>> > 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?
>
Acceptable taxes IMO are general taxes which raise revenue for essential
services which most people will require the use of during their lifetimes. I
don't see proposals such as 'information tax', 'fat tax', and 'computer
tax', (a tax proposed by the UK government to raise revenue for the BBC!) as
fair taxes. Information tax is the worst of them all, it is sinister thought
that our basic right to free information should be taxed. This is probably
the thinking behind the UK's zero value added tax policy on books.
>>
>> >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.
That doesn't justify a clunky, unsatisfactory and unjust law.
> 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.
Why? If someone wishes to make their own work public domain free of charge,
that is their right. I don't know how you come to the conclusion that they
*must* receive compensation for it even if they have explicitly stated they
do not want it. That is the beautiful thing about the 'net and the WWW, so
many individuals prepared to contribute their own material completely free
of charge. The less governments get involved in the evolution of the WWW the
better. The more governments get involved, the less freedom of speech we'll
see on the web.
> 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.
>
Strawman.
>> 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.
We are not discussing the welfare state! We are discussing every internet
user having to pay a levy to a private organisation because some people
download the intellectual property of that organisation. It's like everyone
who enters a shopping centre being forced to hand over money to compensate
shop owners for shoplifting losses.
>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.
Well, I mentioned a workable alternative at the end of my last post.
> Like an insurance, you pay for something that might happen. If it
> doesn't happen you still pay.
>
That's a pretty atrocious analogy! :-)
>>
>> >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.
Do you really mean '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.
It's not, and I think this is splitting hairs and isn't really an important
or valid distinction. Only one person has to rip and share a song, and
through natural P2P propagation it could be on millions of computers within
months. That is why copyright owners get so steamed up about cracking DRM
and uploading.
>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.
That's not really the point. The point is that it only takes one person to
do the initial rip and share and the process runs away exponentially. That
single person was responsible for that one file propagating onto millions of
PCs because they chose to rip and share it.
In a similar way, a record distributor does not distribute their single to
everyone on their own, they distribute it to other companies who in turn
transport it to shops. Without the original distributor the process would
never come about so they are ultimately responsible for it. That doesn't
mean they have a part to play in every last part of the process, or that
they put the single in the hands of the end user. P2P is similar in that
respect.
> 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 original ripper/uploader started off the sequence of events which put
that file in the hands of millions of non-paying music lovers. As far as the
RIAA etc are concerned, the end effect is what is important.
> 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
No, it's absolutely relevent. Just as an intellectual property owner has a
basic right to be compensated for their efforts, they also have a right to
choose *not* to. They have the right to do it out of the goodness of their
heart if they wish.
>because there is no
> way to distinguish between these alternative preferences.
Well, there is actually- DRM. However, the major drawback with that is it
doesn't work :-)
> 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.
>
That's simply not true. You have a legal right to state how you want your
product to be distributed, including insisting on *not* charging for it.
One can back it up with enforcement if required. Have a look at the GPL
licence.
http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html
>>
>> > 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?
They already have countermeasures in place on home DVD recorders to prevent
copying movies. Sure, they can often be circumvented, but only by 'savvy'
users who have the will and the knowledge to do so. Same with DVDs- they are
encrypted and cannot be directly copied disc to disc. The encryption has
been long since cracked, but most home users don't have a clue how to rip a
DVD IME, or even know that it can be done.
The real problem with piracy is not with home users copying the odd DVD,
it's the organised crime outfits selling them that need closing down.
Private individuals are soft targets and a few prosecutions will have no
sizeable effect on reducing piracy.
> 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.
A levy on P2P use is the only fair solution AFAICS. An internet tax is too
general.
> 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?
>
AFAIK they extensively blocked ports on the cheaper non-P2P service and
monitored traffic to ensure compliance. It's such an easy solution I'm
amazed it hasn't been endorsed by the RIAA et al and widely developed.
Actually, I'm not that amazed- the RIAA and MPAA brownshirts didn't think of
it first so they'll never endorse it!
Dave
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|