On Friday 27 September 2002 20:22, Adam Stenseth wrote: > But then wouldn't all those lecherous pirates just copy works by > hand or, *gasp*, transcribe them with typewriters? And musicians(and > labels) can be deprived of their well-deserved income with nothing > more than a musical instrument! > > I mean, yeah, sure, banning unlicensed pencils, pens, paper, > typewriters, or musical instruments good first step, but the > copyright problem will not be solved until we can close the optical > hole. We must not allow unlicensed, non-copy-protecting optical > sensors(like "eyes") if we're to maintain the solvency of the Content > Economy. And if the content economy becomes unsolvent, the economic > devastation would be unparalleled! The damage to the american economy > at large would be horrific. Clearly, only a terrorist would want to > possess unlicensed eyes.
Clearly the only fair solution is to pay a copyright infringement fee to content providers for every item which might infringe on their content. There precedent for this: part of the cost of blank video tapes, blank audio tapes, and blank CDs goes straight to the content providers under the assumption that some fraction of them will be used for copying movies and other content. We can extend this principle to added fees for pencils and paper, typewriter ribbons, musical instruments, and, of course, eyes and ears. When a child is born, his parents can pay the license fees for his eyes and ears to the RIAA and MPAA, along with the license fees for his DNA to whatever pharmo company got the patent. The only wiggle room is for children born blind or deaf. Because of constant medical advances, I'm in favor of charging full fees for them. -- Steve Furlong Computer Condottiere Have GNU, Will Travel Vote Idiotarian --- it's easier than thinking
