Publishers need to die

[Donnageddon]

OK, Charbax, I get it.

Kool Aid it is.

[Charbax]

Originally Posted by yagiz

Obviously that tax only applies to the US citizens . What prevents us (the rest of the world) to hook on to those free download servers?

Of course this new copyright tax system needs to be worldwide. I think it is very fair, so surely even China and Russia will gladly participate as well. They only need to pay according to their income, since their income levels are much lower than US and European personal income, they will pay much less in arts tax.

This new art tax needs to be part of the upcoming New Bretton Woods agreement that Obama and other world leaders are going to be working on as a part of the new international economic recovery plan.

Basically put, it makes no sense to sue children for using BitTorrent and Emule. And it makes no sense to try to stop the darknets, and it's impossible to force everyone in using the same DRM. Simply put, pay intellectual propriety through taxes.

This proposition isn't insane. We already pay for TV, radio, libraries, museums, galleries, sculptures and other common good through taxes in many developed countries. This proposition is simply extending this to include all forms of art freely traded over the Internet. It's basically "free trade" with that specific definition on the word free.

[Donnageddon]

... chased by a healthy dose of peyote.

[Over]

Originally Posted by Charbax

This proposition isn't insane. We already pay for TV, radio, libraries, museums, galleries, sculptures and other common good through taxes in many developed countries.

Exactly. We already pay too much. I don't wanna burden myself paying for something that I doubt will enjoy. You pay for what you get, not what you might get.

Ridiculous.

[Charbax]

Originally Posted by Over

Exactly. We already pay too much. I don't wanna burden myself paying for something that I doubt will enjoy. You pay for what you get, not what you might get.

Ridiculous.

Everyone should enjoy the artists work thus everyone should pay.

Arts, inspiration, information and intellectual propriety is for everyone to have unlimited access to. It should not be hidden behind commercial admission doors and it should not be designed by commercially minded marketing teams as it is today.

And here we are still talking about a minuscule part of the New Bretton Woods overall cost. Arts are just something below 0.1% of the overall problem. So really it would be peanuts for Obama and the other world leaders to clear this problem from the table. They have other more expensive things to think about like failing banks, stimulus plans, new clean grid infrastructures and other bigger things.

[yagiz]

Originally Posted by Charbax

I think it is very fair, so surely even China and Russia will gladly participate as well.

It's not fair at all... We should pay for what we're enjoying for...

And, more importantly, I think there are a lot of people/countries out there who would be against an idea just because it's coming from the USA. Dubya was far from being popular, you know .

Anyway, I think it would be utopian to believe that the entire human kind could agree on something, let alone something that involves people paying for it... let alone how much $5 is worth depending on the country... utopian it is indeed...

[yagiz]

Originally Posted by Charbax

Everyone should enjoy the artists work

What the...?

Can you give me a list of what I should enjoy while you're at it? It becomes a burden to choose what to read sometimes...

[Charbax]

Originally Posted by yagiz

And, more importantly, I think there are a lot of people/countries out there who would be against an idea just because it's coming from the USA. Dubya was far from being popular, you know .

I am not from the USA just so you know. Paying for arts through taxes is mostly a European idea. Especially Nordic countries like Denmark where I am from, we have something called public service which means a tax pays for TV, radio, libraries, museums, public sculptures. Our taxes even pay for a large part of all cultural establishments like theaters, art house cinemas, concert halls and art galleries.

Originally Posted by yagiz

What the...?

Can you give me a list of what I should enjoy while you're at it?

Nobody lives in their private bubble not having and not wanting any contact to the rest of the world.

Thus by definition you are enjoying the fruits of other people's intellectual propriety. Thus whether you like it or not you should pay for the intellectual propriety common tax. Whether you will use the Internet much to download lots of ebooks, blog posts, documentaries, movies, songs or pictures. That is totally up to you. The system should host it for everyone to be able to access everything as much as they want.

[Dr. Drib]

I don't buy into this idea at all.

Publishers should make money. How much profit they should be allowed to make is what's at debate here, as we collectively engage in a discussion of ebook prices and marketing costs.

To see the world (and book publishing, reading, marketing, and - by extension - everything else associated with books and ebooks) as binary opposites is a dangerous proposition - a dangerous way of thinking - and leaves no leverage for any kind of creative thinking.

Sorry, but the world doesn't exist in Black and White.

By the way, I think it was somewhat disingenuous to use your post from another thread to start this thread, without at least supplying some introductory material to the fact that you had posted the exact same writing in that other thread.

Additionally, the title of your thread invites a potential flame war. Why do I think this? Answer: To wish a group of people dead is not very clear or rational thinking, in my judgment.


Don

[Krystian Galaj]

People who want me to pay more taxes - eg. money to be used for things I don't need - need to die.

[yagiz]

well put!

[Charbax]

Originally Posted by Dr. Drib

By the way, I think it was somewhat disingenuous to use your post from another thread to start this thread, without at least supplying some introductory material to the fact that you had posted the exact same writing in that other thread.

I do link to the source for each of those quotes I use to start this thread.

Originally Posted by Dr. Drib

Additionally, the title of your thread invites a potential flame war. Why do I think this? Answer: To wish a group of people dead is not very clear or rational thinking, in my judgment.

I am not saying that the people should die. There is another thread that I am referring to where a publisher is saying specifically "Cheaper e-books will kill us". So I am simply starting another thread saying that yes, ebooks should kill them.

Publishers are a bunch of businessmen feeding off the blood of authors. They are not needed anymore.

Sorry for those people in here who might work with publishers or who might have an interest in publishing companies. But they need to face the truth.

Sure the old powerful corporations aren't just going to give up their power just like that. But the fact that Obama has won the election, does prove that it can happen. That the big powerful monopolies in the Oil industry, big energy companies, big banks and yes even big publishers. Those big corporations of the past can loose control on their old markets once those old markets are replaced by new Internet powered systems.

On the Internet, everything is free and nobody can control it or stop it. This basic fact makes it quite clear it is useless to try to delay the full potential of the Internet to come and change things for the better for everyone. The only use it may have to delay that change, would be for the old giants to try to continue to milk the last few billions off of the old system for as long as it can survive. The problem is that they don't care if all the artists, authors and all the people are loosing out in that process. They put their filthy old profit models in front of the good of the people.

Luckily though, this whole thing can easily get fixed by a simple new law signed by Obama and the other world leaders. Basically, Obama can now snap his fingers and this whole thing will be fixed.

[yagiz]

Originally Posted by Charbax

On the Internet, everything is free and nobody can control it or stop it.

That is simply wrong!

Not everything is free on Internet. Actually most of us even pay to get connected...

You can control it: in a company, as a parent, as a country...

Stop it: In China, you can blog, but you cannot see what you wrote . So, they can stop it as well.

[mjh215]

I don't know if I want to cry, laugh or board up my windows... He scares me... I think one should avoid any Kool-Aid mixes that have a biohazard warning on the outside...

-MJ

[Charbax]

Originally Posted by yagiz

In China, you can blog, but you cannot see what you wrote . So, they can stop it as well.

There are about a thousand small applications which channels all your browsing activity through encrypted proxy tunnels.

China doesn't control anything. They know their supposed firewall is pretty useless. Cause who really cares to blog about the Tienanmen square anyways. Chinese people who really want to blog about it simply proxy channel encrypt their online activity.

What publishers would like politicians to do, their only argument, is to do what the Chinese government stupidly does about any mention of their Beijing square to the online exchange of all copyrighted works.

Basically, the only chance publishers have to survive, is if they can have the Governments enforce unworkable China-like firewalls to filter or even block all bittorrent, emule and other darknets activity. The publishers only means of survival is if they can control the device people use to download ebooks onto such as signing exclusive anti-competitive deals with Amazon about exclusivity on the Kindle for example. And then hoping that Google or any other company doesn't come with an open device alternatively. Cause they know that the day that an open device is on the market, it is obviously going to dominate the market and open means publishers loose their only chance of control.