Re: Stallman calls for an end to file sharing war

[Zoolook]

On 10/10/2010 10:07, David Kastrup wrote:
> Zoolook<mr.zoolook@gmail.com>  writes:
>
> > On 08/10/2010 20:22, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> > > In gnu.misc.discuss Zoolook<mr.zoolook@gmail.com>   wrote:
> > > > Isn't the right way to support the artists to BUY it...
> > >
> > > It's one right way, but not the only one.  Artists who perform on radio
> > > or television don't get paid individually by each person
> > > listening/watching.
> >
> > My mistake, I should have said PAY FOR it, rather then BUY it... Over
> > here, we have a thing called the TV license, effectively, a tax on
> > watching television.  Each individual pays a subscription THAT
> > THEORETICALLY the broadcasting companies use the income from to
> > produce (or license from other production companies) the broadcasts
> > they put out.  So anyone listening or watching a performer HAS paid
> > them!
>
> Not likely enough.  Because he is paying for a lot of things he
> _doesn't_ hear.

Which is why I would rather the license was abolished and a subscription 
based mechanism put in its place!

> > Just not directly.
>
> So you _are_ comfortable with a system that does not use a direct
> relation between listener and payment, but a central agency catering for
> the distribution.

I am comfortable with ANY method that allows a performer to garner an 
acceptable payment for his/her performance while at the same time does 
not penalise a user who chooses NOT to listen or watch that 
performance... Is that such a bad thing?

> > Where I live, the electricity used in copying/downloading/streaming
> > costs money, as does the medium I finally store it onto... that's
> > decidedly LESS free then the virtually never ending supply of
> > wood/cotton used to make furniture.
>
> Where I live, you can't just go cut the trees you fancy.

Indeed... in the same way you cant turn on the radio or TV and listen or 
watch what you fancy...

--
A quart jar of oil mixed with zinc oxide makes a very bright paint.