What are you trying to prove? That it's not a perfect suggestion? well it's not.
What other options do you have? You rather ISP hunting the internet for copyright infrigments?
Once you keep the excisting model it's only a matter of time before more and more strict laws for fair use.
And more and more DRM protection laws will path.
So yes it's not prefect, yes it's a bit unfair but it's much much much better than the alternative.
It's semi fair for the users semi fair for the copyright holders and leaves the fair use right untouched.
One more point is that you should remember that laws can change, at some point the companies will get used to the new model
and this agra will become useless. But it won't be the first time the goverment give money to a company and all sort of atavot to get it used to the new market.
So my question is simple, between the this and the other model which is now pushed in USA and latly in europe as well
what do you prefer?
Cause when things come to shove that the two options you got.
Ely
On 8/17/06, Nadav Har'El <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thu, Aug 17, 2006, Eran Tromer wrote about "Re: DMCA ן?½??ן?½??ן?½?¨ן?½?¥ - ן?½?¢ן?½??ן?½?¨ן?½?? ן?½??ן?½?¦???????¨":
> A "buffet" is organized by the free market is necessarily based on the
> exclusion from service of people who didn't pay for it. So it requires
> legal and technological limitations on distribution of copyrighted
> works, and these limitations have a huge impact in limiting people's
> rights and actions.
I don't understand how you and Ely can hold this belief while an example
of something very similar hangs like a shadow over us - the Israeli "agra".
The Agra is a buffet of (some say crappy) TV and radio stations which you
have to pay for, whether you want to or not. I have been to countries
where there is no Agra, and you know what? People there don't have less
radio or tv rights, and there are free radio and tv stations over there
too - some are even better than the ones we get for our Agra.
And all the while, here in Israel, with the wonderful government-enforced
buffet of tv and radio, we're seeing exactly what you wanted to prevent -
"huge impact in limiting people's rights and actions": the government is
forcing even poor people to pay (it is not a regressive tax), is spying on
your TV buying habits, marriages and similar things, arguing with citizens
whether device X "is a TV" or not, sending threatening letters and sending
collectors to collect these debts by force. Do you like this approach?
Would you like to see it in other walks of life, such as the Internet?
I don't.
Don't get me wrong - I'm not a rabid capitalist that loves privitazation -
far from it. But I don't like the government to start new *businesses* -
i.e., things that have dedicated income - they sell services and citizens
pay for them directly. If the government needs more money to provide us
services it needs to increase the existing taxes (mas hachnasa and VAT),
not to start new initiatives and charge for them (which in essense, is
creating a business). If a business needs to be created, anyone can create
it, and we don't need the government, with its virtually infinite
enforcement power, to create businesses and force them down our throat.
If the government wants to abolish copyright, fine. Let's try that. They
tried it in the USSR, and as far as I hear it wasn't a disaster (but
maybe someone else here has personal experience). If the government wants
to finance the arts with the taxes we pay, fine (it already does this to
a small degree). But make a mish-mash out of all of this together, and
invent a new tax and a new beaurocracy that replaces the copyright law?
> Conversely, if the "buffet" is organized by the government and payment
> is mandatory, then you can abolish copyright and let everyone copy and
> create derivative works as they wish -- a huge social and economical
> benefit.
What you're describing sounds like no copyright at all, period. Yes, the
government is pretending to be charging N shekels a year for replacing
the copyright scheme, but an individual creators do not have any rights
or any recourse if they don't think they are getting enough of this money.
By the way, since the government is only collecting money here for others,
and not using the money directly, what incentive do they have to maintain
a sane amount? If one year the sum is N shekels a year, and there are
elections the next year, what prevents the candidate from proposing to
halve this sum next year? After all, he won't have to stay within budget -
he'll just halve the payments to the creators...
> Have *you*? Did you hear any of the cultural variety Eli is seeking?,
> With few exceptions, Israeli radio is 30% advertisement for junk and
> 70% advertisement for ringtones.
If you want to pay, you can get (e.g., in cable) ad-free radio stations
with a wide variety of musical generes. But if you don't want to pay, or
can't pay, you can still listen to music, albeit with less variaty and with
advertisements.
--
Nadav Har'El | Thursday, Aug 17 2006, 23 Av 5766
[EMAIL PROTECTED] |-----------------------------------------
Phone +972-523-790466, ICQ 13349191 |The meek shall inherit the Earth, for
http://nadav.harel.org.il |they are too timid to refuse it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
