On 8/16/07, Gautam John <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 8/16/07, Jeff Bone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Then they'll use the lobby influence to > > try to get a tax on all such equipment, media, etc... at which > > point, if it flies, we'll probably have arrived at about the best > > practical outcome. > > If this blanket tax is an implied license to download music, videos > et.al. then it might even be an interesting proposal. But of course, > there'll never be a consensus on either the quantum of such tax, the > point of impact of such tax etc. And what do you do with people who > have no interest in 'pirating' (the word will be a moot point in such > a system) content? How do they opt out and how would it be enforced? > >
You'd be surprised. The United States already did something similar under the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992[1], which imposed a tax on CD-Rs and (most) Digital audio recording devices. And like many laws, it was for the most part hashed out by the parties in back room negotiations well before Congress stepped in. Consensus therefore, is attainable. Just like the AHRA, you can readily write in exclusions for devices /services (iTunes?) that are obviously non-infringing, or those that already provide a royalty to artists. The larger problem I see, is keeping the exclusions from subsuming the rule. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_Home_Recording_Act#Digital_Audio_Recording_Device_Defined
