|
|
Posted by name on 12/28/05 22:43
Sla#s wrote:
> "name" <dohduhdah@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1135732581.757710.209990@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > Dave D wrote:
> <SNIP>People who own cars and use
> > roads pay tax so the government is able to maintain the roads. Likewise
> > people who use infrastructure used to transport information ought to
> > pay tax so this network is maintained.
>
> Don't we already pay this to the ISPs? Nationalise them? No WAY!
Not necessarily, the government could just regulate it and ensure that
a kind of information tax to compensate for copyright infringement
would be distributed fairly.
I think it would be more fair to put a levy on your internet connection
proportional to how much data you download (or preferably, proportional
to how much copyrighted data you download) as opposed to a levy on
blank media like we have here in the Netherlands.
>
> <SNIP>
> > But perhaps such a taxation system can also be used to compensate
> > people coming
> > up with original content. I would trust the government more to come up
> > with such a system, since they are accountable for their actions,
> > instead of private corporations that are scamming people most of the
> > time with illegal price-agreements, etc...
>
> What! - Government sponsored films!
I don't see a problem with that as long as the government doesn't get
involved with the content of movies or other forms of culture. As long
as they only observe and check the frequency of how often things occur
among downloads and distribute a levy raised to compensate for
copyright infringement based on that popularity, I think that would be
ok.
It would just allow artists an alternative for depending on traditional
centralized distributors to make a living and have a more dependable
form of income based on the online popularity of their creations.
>
> > What's essential is that a new economic model is developed that takes
> > into account that information is essentially free (because it's not
> > scarce), but that still allows for some method of financially
> > compensation for people coming up with original content.
> <SNIP>
>
> Basically "Hollywood" as we know it is dead.
The distribution channels and method of getting movies to the public
are dead.
A Hollywood production crew could still make a movie, dump it on p2p
and have a massive success simply because the movie turns out to be
very popular and is copied and shared massively. At the moment they
have no reason to do this because they would have to come up with a new
way to exploit that popularity financially. If the government would
ensure massive 'copyright infringement' would result in massive
financial compensation (by means of a fair mechanism), it might
motivate them to embrace p2p rather than condemning it.
It's kind of similar to the current situation where radiostations pay
some percentage to broadcast songs, but in this case it would be the
ISP paying and the internet users deciding for which songs the
percentage would be payed. All the ISP has to do is keep track (maybe
statistically) of what users exchange through their service. This might
be done in a way that doesn't interfere with the freedom to exchange
information online, allowing people to download anything they like for
free, but still paying for it through their ISP (where a part of their
fee is spent to compensate for copyright infringement).
> Just as Buggy Whip makers all died out when cars came along.
> Or closer to nowadays - Tin Pan Ally died when rock bands started to write
> their own music.
> Keeping it alive artificial is wasted effort. Effort that could more
> usefully be put into the next generation of entertainment - What ever that
> might be.
> Look, we have gone from playing and singing to ourselves round the campfire,
> through have professional entertainers to CGI entertainers. Perhaps the Next
> Gen will be amateur again but with (next gen) CGI they will be able to make
> hits & block busters at home on a home computer.
> In a way it's already happening, just look at 'Gorillaz' for example.
Maybe, but instead of a relatively 'violent' revolution where most
performers 'go out of business' (have to find a different job for more
dependable income) because they can't rely any longer on traditional
methods of having their creations distributed and marketed ending up
with the financial compensation they deserve, the government could
allow for a more gentle transition where performers can be more
confident that allowing their creations to be distributed freely on p2p
ensures some form of financial compensation which allows them to enjoy
instead of hate their creations being shared on p2p.
>
> Slatts
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|