Posted by Dave D on 12/30/05 20:08

"name" <dohduhdah@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1135732581.757710.209990@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

<snip>

>
> 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.

That is why we in the UK pay line rental for the telephone line, and a fee
to the ISP- to use their infrastructure to access information! Is the
internet entirely free where you live? The taxpayer and telecomms user
already pays handsomely for the development, installation and maintenance of
the systems, you think they should pay twice? These organisations are
already obscenely rich.

> 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.

Maybe, if the basic facts to support your argument weren't bogus!

> But perhaps such a taxation system can also be used to compensate
> people coming
> up with original content.

I think we (almost) all want to see that happen.

>I would trust the government more to come up
> with such a system,

I wouldn't. Governments, at least the current UK one, operate in their own
interests, not the people's. Worse still, they are easily bought by big
business. Ask any US citizen interested in the politics of P2P and
filesharing.

>since they are accountable for their actions,
> instead of private corporations that are scamming people most of the
> time with illegal price-agreements, etc...

Are you referring to ISPs? Here in the UK, broadband is priced reasonably,
and ISPs generally like to allow their subscribers to do whatever they want
within reason, including P2P. They have warnings in their terms and
conditions against copyright infringing activities, but I've never heard of
it being rigidly enforced. ISPs aren't stupid- it's a competitive business
and they know a large chunk of the demand for their services is P2P use.
When that demand is eliminated then so is a big chunk of their customer
base.

> 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,

No, an unjust, clunky law is *never* acceptable.

> 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.
>

Few laws are perfect, but we can do better than this IMO.

>>
>> > 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 just don't get this idea where you believe that people would be *forced*
to be compensated for their work, against their wishes. It doesn't have to
be like that, even with your model. The money simply gets distributed
amongst copyright holders, it doesn't have to involve private individuals
offering their own material for free.

> 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.

How do you propose to force someone to accept payment?

>We simply don't have the technology to differentiate
> between public domain and copyrighted material.

How do you think the RIAA/MPAA et al do it? An ISP can filter out P2P users
by monitoring for a bandwidth/port usage profile, then after they've
narrowed it down, analyse traffic for known 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,

If governments get involved, the web would be a very different place- for
the worse.

>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.

Can you see that happening? One has only to look at the relationship the US
and the EU has with big business to see what will happen. You might want to
take a look at the case of French MEP, Janelly Fourtou.

http://swpat.ffii.org/gasnu/jfourtou/index.en.html

Look who her husband is!

She was also responsible for pushing draconian anti-P2P legislation through.
How nice of her to abuse her position and push her husband's business
interests through, that's hardly putting the people first.

>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.
>

This is why competition must be encouraged and monopolies and uncompetitive
practices squashed. For example, things like DVD region coding should be
outlawed, it's disgraceful that studios have so much pull over electronics
manufacturers that they can force them to add this technology into their
players, and only serves to assist their price fixing cartels- nothing to do
with piracy. The government would be the last institution I'd trust with
controlling information. Especially given that no country has an ideal
government, and isn't likely to either.

>>
>> > 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?

What do you think a recording company is? I'm talking about a government
'shopping centre' tax charged to anyone entering, paid back to businesses to
cover losses, which I don't think is a bad analogy. In your model, we the
internet users would have to pay a levy to the recording companies. The fact
that the government would administer this and collect the money doesn't
change that fact.

>You'd pay the levy to the
> government and they in turn distribute it among the people coming up
> with original content.

Exactly.

> 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)

Correct, I wasn't making that analogy and I agree, filesharing is neither
theft nor equivalent to shoplifting, despite what some people would have us
all believe.

>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.

Then you'd be wrong!

>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?

Because it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever!

>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.

You're contradicting yourself here. Why don't you apply this logic to my
proposal of a P2P tax? You argue that my idea is unfair because not everyone
uses P2P for illegal downloads, yet argue that it's OK to charge *everyone*
who uses the internet to pay, even though a lot of people will pay for
something they won't use?! You can't have it both ways! You say it's likely
that people using the internet will end up downloading copyrighted material.
I suggest it's *far* more likely a P2P user will end up doing just that.
There are far more legal web users than P2P users.

> 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.

This argument is as old as the hills, but it doesn't hold water IMO. How
copyrighted material is stored, whether it be a photocopy of a book, a
magnetic recording of a vinyl record or a CD ripped into 0s and 1s is
irrelevent. It is a reproduction of someone else's work which they are
entitled to earn compensation for. That is their livelyhood, their way of
making ends meet.

The current model is deeply flawed, and I'd like to see the recording
industry extinct and all the greedy executives cleaning toilets, and the
artists getting paid fairly for their work. However IME this red herring
about 0s and 1s is usually a distraction used by people who cannot admit to
themselves that they are accessing copyrighted works without paying for it.


>So why should I be
> prevented to access
> certain bitstrings that are 'copyrighted'?

You shouldn't be prevented from accessing them, provided you agree to pay
whoever created the works that those 0s and 1s represent.

>It doesn't make any sense.

Sure it does. 0s and 1s in this instance are a (almost) perfect reproduction
of someone else's labours. If they choose to exchange their work or a
reproduction of it for money, that is their right.

> 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.
>

I disagree. I think people are hiding behind this '0s and 1s' philosophy
because they cannot come up with a cogent argument as to why they should be
able to 'legally' access people's professional artistic creations without
reimbursing them.

>>
>> >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).
>

If only one person ripped each song, give it long enough and, if the demand
was there, that song would propagate onto as many PCs as multiple versions
of the same song. All that matters here is the end result. One person
ripping one song releases it into the public domain, amd ultimately into the
hands of as many people who want it.

>> 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?

??
I didn't say that. I simply stated that it only takes one person to rip a
song for it to propagate.

>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's not the point I was trying to make.

>>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,

Well, not really. It's still a profitable business.

>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.
>

Of course, but it demonstrates the damage one person can do to the music
industry's unfair business model, which was my point.

>>
>> 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.

Of course there are! The fact that they are not unique is irrelevent, the
file still had a source, albeit usually multiple sources. (I'll bet there
are songs on WinMX which have only one source, though they are far from
common.) The distinction here is between sharers who merely download then
share the song, and the original people who did the ripping. The process of
ripping, which may or may not involve cracking DRM, then putting the song
into one's 'shared' folder is the most damaging part of the sequence, which
was what I was getting at.

>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.
>

They've tried that in the past. Thankfully the people came first. However
the balance is shifting towards the recording companies now.

>>
>> > 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.
>

I don't think 'inventing' a word, which is by definition intended to become
public domain as it enters the local language, and creating an album of
songs or a movie, can be compared.
>>
>> >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.

Which is rapidly disappearing in some countries.

>
>>
>> > 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.
>

That's the whole point of GNU, to prevent people dishonestly making money
from other people's binary creations! It gives the right to modify and
distribute the work freely, with certain conditions, and forbids charging
for the software itself, though handling/distribution charges can be made.
If a kid in China is distributing such material without financial gain, then
GNU has worked!

How is it enforceable? You create a work, apply the GNU licence and
distribute it. The GNU community would pick up rather quickly on someone
then claiming they came up with the idea and trying to market it!

>>
>>
>> >>
>> >> > 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.
>

If they want to join the world of free movies and music, they only have to
spend half and hour reading up on it. I wasn't born knowing how to use P2P,
and neither was anyone else!

>>
>> 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.
>

Ultimately though, most people prefer a nice original DVD with the packaging
etc. If I like a movie after watching a download, I go and buy it! Most
people won't settle for movies filmed in a cinema or jerky, corrupted rips,
they want the real McCoy. There'll always be a market for original DVDs/CDs.
I have access to 2Mb broadband and have downloaded hundreds of movies and
tens of thousands of songs, but I still have an extensive legal collection.

>>
>> > 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?

It can be done, has been for years. For example, monitoring usage patterns
on ports outside the usual ones like web, news and mail.

> People share public domain software on p2p as well

That is true, but I think most people will admit that by far the biggest use
of P2P is illicit.

>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.

True, but that is irrelevent in this discussion, which was about computers,
P2P and internet taxation.

> 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.

They can, but websites hosting such material are answerable and responsible
for the content. They can easily be closed down in many cases, which is why
they are a dying breed. Plus, they have limited bandwidth so large scale
distribution at P2P levels is not possible.

Email? Well it's hardly an ideal medium for distributing copyrighted content
to the extent of P2P. For starters, few mailboxes would handle movies! Even
if it were to become the preferred choice for file exchange, it would be
possible to offer a taxed service which permits binary attachments, and a
cheaper text-only one.

Chat programs? Similar limitations to email.

Newsgroups? My ISP has (or at least had) binary and non-binary groups.
Pretty easy solution there. My ISP already has a cap on binary NG
downloading, which can be raised at a price. It would be possible to tax the
binary service if necessary. How would they enforce it? Simply block
attachments, limit the filesize to a few kilobytes and if possible block
multipart articles.

> P2p sharing is not synonymous with copyright infringement, though many
> people think it is.
>

Well that's like saying sawn-off shotguns aren't synonymous with armed
robbery, but I think it's fair to say that the vast majority of the time
they are. Not everyone who installs P2P apps will go on to download
illegally, but let's not kid ourselves that this isn't it's main raison
d'etre.

>>
>> > 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.


They don't need to. They know that most P2P'ers are sharing copyrighted
material. Fail to understand? The only thing I fail to understand is how you
came to your erroneous conclusion!

>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.

Effectively meaning that sharing is illegal.

>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,

'As far as you can see'. It is fairly trivial for an ISP to isolate those
users who are using P2P by analysing their bandwidth usage. ISPs know what
the profile of P2P usage looks like, they aren't stupid.

>just like there is no sensible way to
> distinguish between copyrighted and public domain content.

So what's your estimation of the proportion of copyrighted v public domain
material on P2P? My guess- 100:1. I'd be surprised if public domain content
makes up a sizeable share of P2P activity.

>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.
>

I don't get this. You propose a system where everyone who uses the internet
should pay a tax even though they might just read emails and surf the web,
but condemn a model which only hits P2P users, albeit affecting a tiny
minority of P2P'ers who may only distribute stuff legally?

The logic here escapes me, sorry. How can it be fairer to penalise
'everybody' and thus hit a sizeable chunk of innocent websurfers, rather
than attempt to minimise the impact on legal users and charge only P2P
users, the vast majority of which are exchanging copyrighted material?

Anyway, time dictates that I can't really spend as much time on this thread
as I have been, especially given the time of year! I'll look out for your
reply but I must let someone else take up the discussion with you now if
they like.

Dave

[Back to original message]