On Thu, Aug 17, 2006, E L wrote about "Re: DMCA ן�½�?ן�½�?ן�½�¨ן�½�¥ - ן�½�¢ן�½�?ן�½�¨ן�½�? ן�½�?ן�½�¦ן�½�?ן�½�?ן�½�?ן�½�¨": > Yes, exactly, it will make it right to download and share music. > More people will share music, people who doesn't have money now to buy > ultra expensive cds will be able to get songs and TV shows for their kids. > Is that wrong? More publicity to the owner of the copyright, less money is > wasted on distributions and more new bands can sends their songs to the net > and make money out of it without selling their souls to the record > companies. > How about it? I'm sure you didn't think about that it might actualy support > culture in israel right?
Let's imagine your scheme works. I pay 10 shekels a month and I can copy all the songs I want for free. Now, who decides how the 10 shekels get divided to the copyright owners? Does it go only to Israeli copyright holders or also abroad? And who decides that I should pay 10 shekels, or perhaps it should be 100 shekels a month? or maybe 1000 shekels? In short, your suggestion is basically a "all you can listen to" music buffet. But instead of suggesting that this is a service that companies should sell (like IPOD, but a all-you-can-listen-to plan), and that the free market determines its price, you suggest that it's a thing that the government should maintain such a plan, define and collect its costs. Why? I see no sense in this. > advantages, of course nothing is perfect, you also pay tax now about empty > cds you buy, I don't see you go and complain about it. And of course there I pay 76 agorot per blank CD. This is so low, that I seriously doubt this includes any special "piracy" tax. Are you sure there's such a tax in Israel? > The poor person you talked about above who doesn't have any money, probably > doesn't have money to go to concert or hardly any money to buy cds, now all > the sudden for not so high sum he can expuse his kids to culture variaty he > haven't seen before. Eli, have you ever listened to the... Radio? This is how I was exposed to music when I was a kid. We couldn't afford buying cassettes, and listened to music on the radio and recorded songs from the radio on cassettes. Radio is already partially funded by your taxes. I don't see the need to pay more taxes to give more money to the music industry. They are already getting enough of our taxes exactly for this purpose: to give the general population a legal way to listen to music. > Note also that this will also make it easier for intrenet radio station to > brodcast something that can become very complicated now as they need to go > company company and ask permission, while if there was a way to distributed > money between copyright owner they could use it instead. I don't see why internet radio should have to pay tamlugim any differently from regular radio. If they do, akum is at fault, not the lack of laws or taxes. -- Nadav Har'El | Thursday, Aug 17 2006, 23 Av 5766 [EMAIL PROTECTED] |----------------------------------------- Phone +972-523-790466, ICQ 13349191 |Cats are smarter than dogs. You can't get http://nadav.harel.org.il |eight cats to pull a sled through snow. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
