|
|
Posted by Morton Davis on 12/28/05 23:42
"anthonyberet" <nospam@me.invalid> wrote in message
news:41dqtbF1e25duU1@individual.net...
> name wrote:
> <snip>
> >
> >>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.
> >
> <snip>
> >
> > 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.
> >
> <snip>
> Hey, that sentiment seems to oppose the sentiment above it...
>
>
> >>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?
> >
> Did you ever think about non-BBC tv in the UK and how it is funded?
> By advertising and subscription of course, but those funded by
> advertising are ultimately paid by the population who may not watch
> those channels (as I don't much).
> At least we only pay for the BBC if we use TV equipment. We pay for ITV
> even if we don't have a TV.
Yet the largest new group of persons sentenced to prison in the UK are young
single mothers who had an unlicensed TV.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|