Why a broadband tax is a bad idea to solve the p2p dilemma
Public debate on filesharing continues in Sweden. The idea of a broadband tax as a way to collect money to copyright holders has received a cautious positive response from several parties who have lately turned from anti-filesharers into pro-filesharers at the face of the scary approach of the Swedish Pirates towards the Swedish Parliament.
Newspaper Expressen opposes the new proposed tax in no unclear terms. Here's what they say in their 10.6.2006 editorial: Quote:
Internet does not have favorites. For the Internet, movie industry's bits - whether paid for or pirated - are just bits among others - its job is to deliver them all from the sender to the receiver, quickly and reliably, period. The idea of some particular content business suffering so much from the existence of this superb neutral communication infrastructure that it would earn a special permanent priviledge to tax all communication on Internet is ridiculous. Businesses that cannot survive free Internet do not deserve to survive. They must reform, restructure or die. True creativity will never be threatened by free communication. And there will always be new, smarter, more visionary businessmen who can set up new businesses - even content businesses - that are fit enough to survive the Internet. Digg this? |
TG,
ALL taxes are bad for the little people. All they do is grow government, who enjoys telling us what to do. |
Above all, artists should not be beholden to the government for their income. Imagine some bureaucrat witholding royalties from a musician simply because he finds the music offensive. That wouldn't be censorship but it would be just as bad. The collection societies like ASCAP that are meant to collect royalties for artists often fail to get their clients paid, and there is no reason to expect any government to do a better job. The government's purpose is to collect taxes and to spend those funds on public works and social programs, not to redistribute them among the people based on aribtrary criteria about online filesharing trends.
The best way, if it's possible, is for musicians and filmakers to be paid by their customers directly. |
Remember - The recording industry, not the artists themselves own most of the copyrights.
A tax (on anything) to support a commercial interest (namely the RIAA and similar recording industry representatives) that claims, but has not yet proven the extent of “injury” due to file sharing is ridiculous. We know how ALL tax-and-spend programs work... . A significant portion of the money that is supposed to be collected for the stated benefit instead supports a huge government bureaucracy, complete with an extensive benefits and retirement package. All that to “oversee” and “manage” the tax funds and dole it out as they see fit. What is next - perhaps a tax to offset all the “losses” Microsoft can come up with because some people pirate Windows? All the recording industry has to do is what every other business must do to survive - provide a quality product or service for a fair price and people will pay for it. |
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:48 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© www.p2p-zone.com - Napsterites - 2000 - 2024 (Contact grm1@iinet.net.au for all admin enquiries)