|
|
Posted by anthonyberet on 12/31/05 17:46
Morton Davis wrote:
> "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.
>
That would prove my point - no-one defaults on their payments for ITV
because it is impossible to avoid paying them.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|