Posted by name on 12/28/05 01:16

Dave D wrote:
> "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.

I think you have to look at it this way. 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.
So in that respect there is nothing wrong with a tax on information to
maintain
the essential infrastructure allowing people to access and share
information.
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'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.

>
> >>
> >> >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.

It might, if it ensures a fairer system of financial compensation of
those coming up with original content compared to the current situation
where a minority of people pays excessive money for their cds/dvds
while others get it for free on p2p.
It doesn't have to be a perfect system as long as it's a significant
improvement of the current situation.

>
> > 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.

But either way, one group suffers from the freedom of the other group.
Either the people who insist on payment suffer from the right to share
information freely, or the people who insist on not getting payed
suffer from
the right of those who deserve to get payed to get their money.
I think that the only fair way to ensure financial compensation would
be
to simply compensate anyone who contributes something originally,
regardless
whether they would like their creations to be shared freely or whether
they would
object to this. We simply don't have the technology to differentiate
between public domain and copyrighted material.
Alternatively we could completely abolish this approach and declare
that anything belongs to the public domain.

> 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.

It's not necessarily a problem if the government gets involved, as long
as the government is not primarily motivated to protect the interests
of major corporations but balances these with the rights of individual
users. A transparant government that is accountable for its actions
isn't necessarily a bad thing, although I agree a government should
strive to make itself redundant by educating and emancipating its
citizens to the point where they behave responsibly and are effectively
self-governing.
I have more fears for basic rights like the freedom to exchange
information and freedom of speech when commercial corporations own the
internet and their actions are primarily motivated by financial
interests. They would like to see submissive customers that buy into
anything and slavishly accept anything thrown their way.
The government, in the ideal case, is a tool for citizens to improve on
society and making it more fair for everyone, not just the people or
corporations with a lot of money.

>
> > 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.

Who's talking about private organisations? You'd pay the levy to the
government and they in turn distribute it among the people coming up
with original content.
I think people who enter a shopping centre already pay for shoplifting
because shoplifting naturally raises the price of goods. It would be
cheaper to have stuff laying around on the street instead of investing
in all sorts of security measures to ensure people actually pay for the
products they are interested in. More shoplifting means more security
measures and these investments are taken into account in the final
price of the product. But the analogy between shoplifting and p2p
sharing (not that you were suggesting this) is faulty because stuff
shared on p2p is duplicated whereas in shoplifting things are actually
being taken away.

>
> >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.

It's not workable because I don't think there are effective ways to
differentiate
between p2p and other internet uses. If you allow people to share
information freely, there is no way to only allow sharing public domain
stuff freely while preventing people from sharing copyrighted material.
Many people use p2p just the same for downloading public domain
material (like linux distributions on bittorrent), so why should they
pay extra for p2p when they only use p2p to obtain public domain
material?

>
> > Like an insurance, you pay for something that might happen. If it
> > doesn't happen you still pay.
> >
>
> That's a pretty atrocious analogy! :-)

Why? You might pay an information tax just in the case (which is kind
of likely) that you end up downloading stuff made by someone who'd like
to receive financial compensation for their creative efforts.
Maybe most people who are downloading stuff are not interested in
knowing whether or not the stuff they download is made by people who
like it to be shared freely or not.
So you just download stuff and never have to worry about whether the
person who ultimately provided it likes you to download it or not and
under what conditions.
A copyright notice accompanying something you download is kind of silly
because there is no way to guarantee it's genuine. Anyone can easily
modify or forge it and change public domain stuff into copyrighted
stuff or vice versa. Also after a certain period things automatically
belong to the public domain when they have been copyrighted and the
accompanying copyright notice would no longer be valid.
One other option would be for the government to set up a website
containing an archive where people can check whether or not something
is public domain material or not. But that sort of nullifies the
'decentralized distribution' idea that makes the internet so beautiful.

>
> >>
> >> >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'?

Yes, because nobody owns information. Nobody owns 0, 0110, 1101011 or a
bitstring
consisting of a thousand or a million digits. So why should I be
prevented to access
certain bitstrings that are 'copyrighted'? It doesn't make any sense.
Note that 'anything' in the case of digital information amounts to a
bitstring of arbitrary length. Since that can encode any book, movie,
music, software, etc.. there could possibly be.
This is a kind of controversial statement though, because a bitstring
might also encode childpornography or other controversial 'content'.
But on a philosophical level, I think it just doesn't make sense to try
and distinguish between legal and illegal bitstrings for people to
access or share.

>
> >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.

It's not splitting hairs. It's the essential distinction between
traditional centralized
distribution of a single source providing all available copies (and
being able to sue other centralized distributors for copyright
infringement in case of unfair competition) and contemporary
decentralized distribution where anyone with a computer and an internet
connection can (and often does) contribute in the distribution process
where it's virtually impossible to trace back a copy to the original
source.
In the latter case it doesn't really matter whether someone shares a
song ripped from cd or a song downloaded from p2p, because many people
will rip the same song from a cd they bought, whether it's already
available on p2p or not (given that there are so many p2p
alternatives).

> Only one person has to rip and share a song, and
> through natural P2P propagation it could be on millions of computers within
> months.

Well, think a little... this is extremely unlikely isn't it? When a
music cd is available in
stores worldwide, that only a single music fan would decide to rip it
and share it on p2p? So what's more a likely scenario is that thousands
of them do this and no single one of them can be hold accountable.
Users are typically sued in certain countries for p2p sharing when they
share 10000 or 50000 songs and not because they were found to be the
first and only users ripping a particular CD.

>That is why copyright owners get so steamed up about cracking DRM
> and uploading.

They get so upset because they depend on centralized distribution for
financial compensation and certain technological developments have
rendered centralized distribution to become obsolete. The whole process
of pressing cds, distributing cds to stores, marketing sales, etc. has
become redundant, because the alternative route of reaching a massive
audience online by p2p distribution is infinitely more efficient
and there is no effective way to prevent it either if you'd prefer
traditional methods of reaching an audience as an artist by depending
on centralized distributors (which might allow for more direct
financial compensation).

>
> >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.

For reasons mentioned above, this scenario is theoretical rather than
practical and extremely unlikely.

>
> 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.

No, because a centralized distributor controls and dictates the
complete distribution process from recording the music and pressing the
cd's and eventually reaching the consumer. They are not going to give
their product to another company and say "well, you decide for yourself
how you're gonna market this (in terms of number of copies and the
price) and when you finally manage to make a profit we will negotiate a
fair share of the profit."

>
> > 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.

There are no original rippers/uploaders. There are many rippers and
uploaders for every given copy of a song on p2p.
Sure, if it was up to the RIAA they would ban computers, taperecorders,
radio, libraries, etc.. because they all present a (more or less
viable) alternative to buying music from them.

>
> > 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.

I think intellectual property owners don't have such a basic right to
be compensated for their efforts. They only have a desire to be
compensated (or not) and whether or not they can actually find methods
or technology that allows for this is another matter.
There is no such thing as intellectual property. It's just an attempt
to draw an analogy between physical property and conceptual property
like digital information and although this might have worked to some
degree in the past, it's no longer feasible in the context of the
widespread proliferation of interconnected computers.
When I come up with a new english word, I might feel that it's my right
to be compensated for my efforts and require everybody using that word
to pay me $1. However, there is no way to implement a system that
ensures people who use the new word I came up with pay me and I can't
rely on the government to fine people for using my word without paying
me for it. Society simply doesn't have a system that allows for
financial compensation for people who come up with new words.
They did have such a system in the case of coming up with something
being copyrighted, but these days copyrighted information can be shared
equally freely as words, so it's no longer (practically) possible to
enforce copyright as a method to guarantee financial compensation for
the creative efforts involved.

>
> >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 :-)

It's not likely to work anytime in the future either, as long as we
have a (relatively) open society.

>
> > 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

But how feasible is this in practice? Suppose I come up with a story
and share it on p2p with an accompanying notice of the terms under
which I allow distribution. What will I do when someone in China
decides to say "fuck those terms"? I don't think it's practical for me
to do anything about it (and I probably wouldn't even know about it),
especially if it's just a kid who isn't doing it for financial gain.

>
>
> >>
> >> > 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.

But it's not fair that only computer illiterate people end up paying
for stuff while others obtain it for free on p2p.

>
> 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.

But eventually, when just about everybody in most western
industrialized nations have a high-speed internet cable connection,
neither organized crime outfits, nor traditional movie distributors
will be able to compete with users simply sharing their copies among
other internet users for non-commercial purposes.
You can do something about crime outfits selling copies illegally to
some degree if they do it on a large scale, but you can't effectively
prevent millions of computer users doing it just for fun, because they
lack an hierarchical organizational structure.

>
> > 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.

How do you propose to differentiate between p2p and other internet
activities?
People share public domain software on p2p as well and people can also
share copyrighted things without using programs specifically designed
for p2p sharing. For instance, people can simply mail a stack of dvds
and only share documentation of their collection online.
Anything that is part of the internet (websites, email, chatprograms,
newsgroups,
etc..) can also be used to share copyrighted content, whether it's
designed
for p2p sharing or not.
P2p sharing is not synonymous with copyright infringement, though many
people think it is.

>
> > 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

I think you fail to understand it's not that easy to monitor traffic
and differentiate between copyrighted and public domain content. The
distinction between public domain and copyrighted content differs for
various countries and the internet is an international phenomenon.
Where I live, in the Netherlands, for instance, it's legal to download
anything for personal use (movies, books, music, etc..), except
software. It's just illegal to upload copyrighted content. In other
countries the laws might be different and there is no world-wide
organization that has the authority to keep track of the distinction
between copyrighted and public domain content and how this works out in
relationship to national legislation in various countries.
Blocking p2p ports is unfair because nobody forces anyone to use p2p to
share copyrighted content. People might just as well use p2p sharing
only for public domain content or their own creations. In that case,
given your proposal for a p2p levy, they would still pay for copyright
infringement without infringing any copyrights.

There is no sensible way to distinguish between p2p and other internet
uses as far as I can see, just like there is no sensible way to
distinguish between copyrighted and public domain content. The division
between p2p and other internet uses is not equal to the distinction
between access to or sharing of copyrighted and public domain
information like you seem to suggest.

[Back to original message]