Quote:
Originally Posted by mazzeltjes
The drawback with a "private copying levy" is that people or companies that use cd's to copy their documents for private storage or in-office use are paying a tax on their own work that's not really fair is it?
|
It's not supposed to be "fair"... it's supposed to be a compromise. As such, it gets the job done (without it, we wouldn't have CD's).
I see nothing wrong with such "compromises," as long as it is so minor (a few cents per medium) as to be effectively invisible to the consumer. In fact, if such a thing could be applied to digital files themselves, it might solve some problems.
Imagine if your ISP could detect every instance that you e-mailed an e-book or music file to someone else (legal or not), and charged you a few cents per item (like your phone company charging you per text message). If the charge is small enough, no one is going to scream about a few cents extra on their bill. (Well, okay... a few of you surely will.) But anyone who disseminates large volumes of illegal e-books or music files won't stomach the huge ISP bills, and most will stop (or lose their account due to non-payment). Look, Ma... I just cut back on illegal file sharing!
There will surely be some who will try to find ISPs that will not charge that extra file, and ISPs who will decide not to charge the "upload tax." Publishers will know those ISP's, too, and will keep an eye on them, making file sharers easier to detect and isolate.
It's not what I'd call "fair"... but I would call it a good "compromise" to rein in illegal file sharing.