Re: Stallman calls for an end to file sharing war

[Alan Mackenzie]

In gnu.misc.discuss Tim Smith <reply_in_group@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
> In article <i887an$htk$1@colin2.muc.de>, Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> 
> wrote:

>> In gnu.misc.discuss Tim Smith <reply_in_group@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>> > In article <4CA6FF9F.7DFBC770@web.de>,
>> > Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> wrote:

>> >> Tim Smith wrote: [...]
>> >> > That leaves the second approach--have the government fund music,
>> >> > and make copying free and legal (but probably tracked, so they
>> >> > can determine how to allocate funds to artists). It's time to
>> >> > give it a try.

>> >> Yeah... welcome back to the Soviet Union. I think in the North
>> >> Korea they still do it that way... never heard that North Korea is
>> >> a paradise for artists...

>> > Can you suggest a third alternative (that is economically sound)?

>> How about approach 2A: allow free copying of music and films, but
>> instead of paying artists out of taxes, they get paid by a levy on
>> high speed internet lines.  A levy of, say $50 a year, or $100 a year
>> could provide handsome income to musicians and film-makers.  There are
>> obviously difficult practical issues to sort out, but given how badly
>> copyright now misworks the levy would probably work better.

> Isn't that essentially a tax?

It might be, depending on how you view such things.  But it is different
from funding musicians via a general tax:  It is closely linked to the
activity (downloading) it should pay for;  those who object to the tax
can avoid it by having a lower speed connection or none at all;  it is
a large amount of money, which should be less subject to reduction by
government cuts;  since it would be collected by ISPs, it would be
difficult to avoid paying.

-- 
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).