 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel <a_l### [at] hotmail com> wrote:
> If you do take the context it is clear that Darren is using Pirate Bay
> to signal that now persons can be held responsible for things on their
> server if they can know that it may be violating copyrights.
I wonder how long it will take before copyright holders will stop chasing
individuals and instead lobby western governments to impose huge taxes on
internet connections which everybody must pay (regardless of whether they
download music illegally or not), the money going to the music industry.
After they tax the internet, they will start taxing everything that can
contain data, such as, rather obviously, mp3 players, but less obviously
memory cards, usb sticks, cellphones, hard disks, CD-R(W)s, DVD-R(W)s, etc.
After that they will start taxing everything that can *transfer* data,
even if it can't *store* it. This will include things like ADSL modems,
network cards, routers, usb hubs, wlan access points...
After that they will be start taxing people for the sole reason that
they *might* listen to music illegally.
Am I exaggerating here? I'm not. In Finland they are trying to pass a
law that will make every single household in Finland have to pay a "media
tax". Yes, this will include people who are deaf or blind (or both), and
people with no TV, internet or even computers. And this regardless of how
much money they earn. This has caused a huge amount of protest here.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> In Finland they are trying to pass a
> law that will make every single household in Finland have to pay a "media
> tax".
Oh, and get this: Even if you pay the tax in question, it will nevertheless
*still* be illegal to download eg. episodes of a TV show from the internet
(even if those episodes have been broadcast here already).
Of course.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 9-5-2009 15:37, Warp wrote:
> andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>> If you do take the context it is clear that Darren is using Pirate Bay
>> to signal that now persons can be held responsible for things on their
>> server if they can know that it may be violating copyrights.
>
> I wonder how long it will take before copyright holders will stop chasing
> individuals and instead lobby western governments to impose huge taxes on
> internet connections which everybody must pay (regardless of whether they
> download music illegally or not), the money going to the music industry.
>
> After they tax the internet, they will start taxing everything that can
> contain data, such as, rather obviously, mp3 players, but less obviously
> memory cards, usb sticks, cellphones, hard disks, CD-R(W)s, DVD-R(W)s, etc.
>
> After that they will start taxing everything that can *transfer* data,
> even if it can't *store* it. This will include things like ADSL modems,
> network cards, routers, usb hubs, wlan access points...
>
> After that they will be start taxing people for the sole reason that
> they *might* listen to music illegally.
>
> Am I exaggerating here? I'm not. In Finland they are trying to pass a
> law that will make every single household in Finland have to pay a "media
> tax". Yes, this will include people who are deaf or blind (or both), and
> people with no TV, internet or even computers. And this regardless of how
> much money they earn. This has caused a huge amount of protest here.
>
sounds familiar. One of the side effects of the current financial crisis
might be that legislators start realizing that it may not be optimal to
adjust laws to benefit those that can afford to buy a politician. Though
I doubt that that will happen.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Gilles Tran" <gil### [at] gmailcom> wrote in message
news:4a0547b8$1@news.povray.org...
> From: "Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom>
> Newsgroups: povray.off-topic
> Sent: Saturday, May 09, 2009 2:00 AM
> Subject: The next evolution in P2P
>
>
> > This would eliminate the ability to rationally accuse some site like The
> > Pirate Bay of knowing what's in the torrents they're serving. The site
> > would have to actively go and try to download some of every data stream
> > and then check it to find out what's in the torrent.
>
> I'm not sure that would change anything. Either the site can point to
> torrents in a usable way (providing content descriptions, rating etc.) or
it
> can't. It it can then the site can be accused to assist in copyright
> infringement and no amount of obfuscation or "king kong defense" will
> matter. If it cannot then the site is useless and whatever business model
it
> has falls apart.
> BTW, there's an idea floating around, that consists in encrypting content
> without giving the key, but still making it not too hard to crack, so
people
> wanting the content can easily get it (by using a cracking tool and
waiting
> a couple of minutes). However, people wanting to prove an infringement
would
> also have to crack the key, which could be illegal in some legal systems
and
> make the proof null in court, a little like B&E someone's house to prove
> that he stole your things. I don't think it's workable in practice either
> (law enforcement agencies could bypass it of course) , but it's cute.
Now, if all the effort people put into finding ways of stealing other
people's works could be put into actually creating something of their own...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
news:4a0586fc@news.povray.org...
> andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> > If you do take the context it is clear that Darren is using Pirate Bay
> > to signal that now persons can be held responsible for things on their
> > server if they can know that it may be violating copyrights.
> I wonder how long it will take before copyright holders will stop
chasing
> individuals and instead lobby western governments to impose huge taxes on
> internet connections which everybody must pay (regardless of whether they
> download music illegally or not), the money going to the music industry.
>
> After they tax the internet, they will start taxing everything that can
> contain data, such as, rather obviously, mp3 players, but less obviously
> memory cards, usb sticks, cellphones, hard disks, CD-R(W)s, DVD-R(W)s,
etc.
I'm not sure if it's tongue in cheek, especially since Finland already has
that for CDs and DVDs. Blank media levies and taxes on audio recorders have
been implemented since the days of the tape recorder.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blank_media_tax
> After that they will start taxing everything that can *transfer* data,
> even if it can't *store* it. This will include things like ADSL modems,
> network cards, routers, usb hubs, wlan access points...
>
> After that they will be start taxing people for the sole reason that
> they *might* listen to music illegally.
>
> Am I exaggerating here? I'm not. In Finland they are trying to pass a
> law that will make every single household in Finland have to pay a "media
> tax". Yes, this will include people who are deaf or blind (or both), and
> people with no TV, internet or even computers. And this regardless of how
> much money they earn. This has caused a huge amount of protest here.
I cannot blame copyright holders for trying to protect their interests. It's
the freeloaders that are ruining it for everybody. If content creators are
not able to sustain a living in the free market, we will end up with arts
that needs to be fully supported by the government, in which case it will
all come out of your income tax directly.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
somebody <x### [at] ycom> wrote:
> I cannot blame copyright holders for trying to protect their interests.
My major complaint is that priorities are all wrong in this.
The music industry has succeeded in creating a world where a 7yo girl
downloading one piece of music from the internet is considered a bigger
crime than a company using a piece of utility software illegally to make
money.
Where is the corproration that protects *my* rights as a professional
programmer? That hunts people who copy my software without paying the
proper price, who sues them and then gives me the money I deserve?
Nowhere, because the music industry does not consider software piracy
to be even nearly as bad as music piracy. Music piracy is considered so
bad that it feels like the entire society is going to crumble if people
are not stopped.
The priorities are completely reversed. Illegal copying of things which
*do* matter, of things which people use to make actual money, is not
considered even nearly as bad as people copying something which is
irrelevant and doesn't affect anyone's life.
So what if someone's song is copied? He can go and get a real job like
anyone else. What about those whose programs are being copied and used,
illegally, to make actual money? What about those who support the economy
and industry with their software? Who protects them? Who is going on a
witch-hunt against people who illegally copy their software?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
A fine is a tax on doing something wrong.
A tax is a fine on doing something right.
There are only two things certain in life, death and taxes. And doctors
are making remarkable progress with death!
--
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 5/9/2009 6:40 AM, Warp wrote:
> Warp<war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>> In Finland they are trying to pass a
>> law that will make every single household in Finland have to pay a "media
>> tax".
>
> Oh, and get this: Even if you pay the tax in question, it will nevertheless
> *still* be illegal to download eg. episodes of a TV show from the internet
> (even if those episodes have been broadcast here already).
>
> Of course.
>
I would think you'd have a good case against that, claiming that since
you paid the tax, you paid for the content, and so you are entitled to
it for free.
--
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>> luckily nobody said or even implied that
>
> I disagree. The original point seemed to be "now that the pirate bay is
> down, the bittorrent idea might need to be changed", as if bittorrent somehow
> depended on the pirate bay.
No. The original point was "now that people see it's possible to get
prosecuted for providing search engines that index starter-seed (aka torrent
files) for copyrighted materials, starter-seeds for P2P sharing can and I'm
guessing likely will be modified to where you can search them without the
search host knowing what keywords will return what hits.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Oh, and get this: Even if you pay the tax in question, it will nevertheless
> *still* be illegal to download eg. episodes of a TV show from the internet
Well,that's rather awful. I read a study somewhere that estimated if
everyone in the USA paid $5/month, it would cover all the costs of the music
industry. I.e., that it wouldn't be unreasonable at all to get rid of
copyright and pay for music with a universal tax. (Whether that's good or
not is of course debatable.) I also don't think it covered the movie
industry, which would seem to have a different economic model.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
