What is Digg?109 Comments
- ajb2015, on 10/12/2007, -12/+92horrible idea, compensate the music industry? why should we support the music industry? if they have become irrelevant and unnecessary, let them die. what are we afraid of? that musicians will stop making music? hell no. they'll just find new ways to distribute it, market, and profit. I never buy music, but if I like a band and they come to town, I'm there. I'll also drop $20 bucks for a t-shirt or maybe $10 for a poster. I don't feel a bit guilty either because I know the profits are going directly to a group that I love.
- jodamiller, on 10/12/2007, -3/+41This is a terrible idea; it'll be forcing those to don't "fileshare" to pay a tax to support those who do.
- CasaMan, on 10/12/2007, -2/+37I don't think this is a "good" idea.. I live in the Netherlands and we pay tax on empty CD's (€ 0,60 p/dvd) and as a small business you have to pay huge tax for copying (even when you don't have a copy machine).. These taxes are collected by the organization "Stichting thuiskopie" (part of "stichting brein" equivalent of RIAA) and not by the government. They use this money to finance the "war against pirates" by bullying isp's, hosters and users, a LOT of propaganda and thinking they are above the law..
- dgaspard, on 10/12/2007, -1/+30Why is the government taxing to compensate a private industry?..... I'm a developer. If software is traded illegally mean I get royalties of this tax?
- RadiantBeing, on 10/12/2007, -1/+27This is just a government wealth redistribution from the people to corporations. Taxing bandwidth, blank media, etc is a ***** idea because it penalizes all consumers. I don't listen to mainstream music. Why should I have to pay a tax to support a company I wouldn't even steal from? This move will ***** up creativity more than DRM ever did. The music companies will get paid by the government for doing nothing!
- baxtermaddux, on 10/12/2007, -4/+271. Legal Marajuana....................................................................................Check
2. Legal Blonde Dutch Prostitutes..............................................................Check
3. No DRM...............................................................................................Check
4. Endless Legal File Sharing ( reamament of my porn and movie arsenal).....Check
pack my bags, im headed to the land of Heineken - aidamina, on 10/12/2007, -1/+19Whats next?
Lets get rid of all the penalties for speeding. Why not let everyone pay 200$ for it and get it over with.
Lets get rid of the justice system. Just put everyone in jail for two year.
This is ridiculous, there is no way that they can force all the Internet users to pay taxes. Especially since these taxes are meant for the music industry. Not all users are downloading illegal music. - edzieba, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14If the taxes were paid to the content PRODUCERS rather than to the music/movie cartels, then this would be an awesome idea.
- andydumi, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14What about those who dont download music or movies? Do they pay the tax also? Will that make everyone download, if its free and legal?
- SniperGX1, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12They aren't winning now, they are suing people who can't afford to defend themselves and are forced to settle. It's extortion.
- 1nhuman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8I'm Dutch and I can tell you these "plans" will never make it. Just a couple of unknown politicians trying to get a name for themselves.
Btw... downloading copyrighted material is not illegal in The Netherlands, however uploading is. - nodream, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7...meanwhile all the dutch have been looking at the US the last couple of years going back and forth between rofl and wtf ????
- geekee, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7It's called socialism. You lose control of your business, and rely on begging (or is that lobbying) the govt. for fair compensation for your work. Now how much money you make will have more to do with who you know in govt., rather than how good the music is of the artists you represent.
- Ascus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Great move, the goverment will keep 95% of the tax and pass the rest to the music companies wich take thier 95% and decide which musicians get whats left. Thats even worse that we have now.
- sloncek, on 10/12/2007, -24/+29At least they are thinking in the right way.
- nimm2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5and don't forget: dutch people can make land out of water!
- galiotti, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5>>horrible idea, compensate the music industry? why should we support the music industry? if they have become irrelevant and unnecessary, let them die.
Hey ajb2015,
I find it fascinating that people like you generally assume that the record/movie companies are just a handful of guys in suits who are sitting around collecting a paycheck. You never stop to consider the thousands of people that go to work every day to make movies, music, etc. that aren't making the big bucks. I'm including the film industry on this one, because it's very related to the subject. Let's face it, people aren't JUST downloading music via file-sharing.
Do me a favor. Next time you're watching an illegal downloaded copy of "fill in the blank," stop and take a look at all of the people's names that worked on said movie in the credits. Those are the people that you're paying royalties to when you PAY for a movie, song, game, or other. I'm fine with looking at alternate forms of payment for these services, if the masses can agree on them. However, let's not forget that the people who made these songs/movies/games/etc that you are stealing, are people with families, dogs, mortgages, etc, and they still deserve to be paid for their work.
Your self-proclaimed right to entitlement sickens me to the core. What have you done that entitles you to steal from other people? - leszek, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4they are not Danish, they are Dutch.
- there, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@catalysis
You mentioned you "steal music"
The RIAA like to promote the idea downloading is like shoplifting but in reality this has no legal basis. The legal term is actually "copyright infringement". Your crime is for not paying royalties on a duplicate copy.... not theft. Primarily the industry encourages the analogy of "theft" for its aesthetic value (i.e. no one likes a thief). - jodamiller, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6@dambuster: Same thing; those who legally own their music will be taxed to compensate others for those to do. The solution is for artists to be in control of their own content and then they could decide whether of not they want to include DRM on their works.
- Jugalator, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"Yet again, Digg users who complain about Bush limiting their freedom, have no problem taking away other people's freedom."
If this is the worst you can bring up about Holland "taking away freedom", it's not so bad.
Limiting civil rights feels much worse to me than applying a music tax.
Anyway, note that:
1. This suggestion doesn't come from a vote of the Dutch population, it's about individual minor politicans that want to make some noise. (and they succeeded)
2. The Europe as a whole is even less involved in this idea.
Just because the Dutch people had some politician that wanted to legalize sex with 12 year olds (yes, true), it doesn't mean that's what their population or Europe is behind. - catbeller, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3socialism... I do not think this word means what you think it means.
- srudes2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3UPDATE: Martijn van Dam denies that he said this and said that reporters didn't understand him in the right way
Use babelfish or google to translate(if you need to) but here is the dutch story from Martijn van Dam:
http://www.martijnvandam.pvda.nl/renderer.do/menuId/44197/clearState/true/sf/44197/returnPage/44197/itemId/330126/realItemId/330126/pageId/44126/instanceId/44205/ - randomgeek, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@ Casaman
But it is exactly that bullying that would be eliminated in this scheme. This effectively silences any RIAA equivalent, while allowing file trading to flurish.
I still take issue with the law presuming guilt - that because I’m online that I’m going to violate copyright law - but if there has to be a compromise, that’s not a terrible one. - leszek, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7I think this is a good idea, the only problem is how to find what percentage of the tax to give to each music provider.
They could set up a site where you could download music, give a login to each one of the internet users and count the numbers of downloading for each song.
Even better, allow the users to rate the songs they have downloaded so that the best songs receive more money.
Maybe this will incite the music providers to produce better music. - leszek, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3and In The US, we can only make water out of land ...
- monkeyrun, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3This is Digg, people who only want to pay for something at cost.
e.g. If you are trying to sell a hot dog.
They will have a break down of how much does the bun and the sausage cost.
Actually no, on second thought,
they need to break it down to how much does the flour (needed to make the bun) and pork (needed to make the sausage) cost.
If you are trying to charge them more than what they believe it cost, it's a ripoff. - Buelldozer, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5Hooo-boy is this a classic socialist answer or what?
First off, why should everyone be paying a tax? What about the people who are not downloading and sharing**AA files? Telemedicine comes to mind, as does IPTV, Linux distro downloads, Windows Updates, and game servers. Why should all of those people be taxed just so the **AAs can get what they view as "their cut"?
Second, why is their government proposing a new tax in order to subsidize private enterprise? This is the WRONG thing to do and will lead to market distortions as surely as adding a "buggy whip" tax to gasoline would have. Government should not be concerned with the profitability of private companies. If the media companies cannot learn how to exist in a new market than they SHOULD die in order to make room for those who can.
I can offer more, but these two should be enough. This is a HORRIBLE idea and people should be throwing rocks at their politicians for even presenting it. - Aeiri, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5Even if they don't tax users and this is just straight DRM banning, I still don't like this idea.
I listen to tons of music and don't have a single DRM'd file because of how anti-DRM I am. But making it illegal?
The company should be able to do whatever they want. If people are willing to pay for crippled formats, let them. They know what they are paying for and they are willing to do so. - Retsudo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@Broomett:
"Retsudo...the only reason there are ANY alternative bands is becuase of hte large profit margin that the reecord labels make on the mainstream pop."
*****. Music was around a long time before the record companies realised they could earn a ***** more money just marketing to gullible pre-teen girls and paying radio stations to play more of their stuff.
There are some (not many, because the big record companies don't like competition) independent and indie record labels as well.
"If they didn't make tons of money on the Britney Spears, Justin Timberlakes, etc., then they would NEVEr take a chance on the crap you listen to to make you think you rae better than those who don't."
They only think they are entitled to the money because they have been getting away with it for years. They aren't. - Retsudo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Well something needs to be done to encourage less pop-zombie ***** and more real music.
- catbeller, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"I find it fascinating that people like you generally assume that the record/movie companies are just a handful of guys in suits who are sitting around collecting a paycheck. "
They are. And thieves, always thieves. Ask Peter Jackson.
"You never stop to consider the thousands of people that go to work every day to make movies, music, etc. that aren't making the big bucks. Do me a favor. Next time you're watching an illegal downloaded copy of "fill in the blank," stop and take a look at all of the people's names that worked on said movie in the credits."
Wrong. The MPAA tried this argument in their PSAs what, last year? A sneaky lie; you see, the people who make movies, the ones who don't make big bucks, don't get percentages. They are paid for services rendered and out the door they go, long before the product is making cash. Hell, film and TV actors used to be paid once and never got royalties. The RIAA tried to sneak in a clause making all musicians work for-hire (paid once, goodbye) in a piece of legislation some five years back. These people are bastards, utter scumbuckets. They don't give a damn about the studio engineers or Wally the Best Boy. They'll cut them out of the proceeds, whatever they now do get, after the permanent subsidy tax on media and pipes is passed. They are leeches on people who do the actual work.
"I'm including the film industry on this one, because it's very related to the subject. Let's face it, people aren't JUST downloading music via file-sharing.""
And they will keep buying after file sharing is re-legalized -- just as they are doing now. And revenue is up for the record companies and the movie makers, aren't they? Seems that people do pay. Even now, when they can get it for free. - dgaspard, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3The problem is the RIAA gets it.
- catbeller, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Actually, Norway nationalized their private oil companies. They are now, as a nation, stinking rich, with an awe-inspiring educational system. So, YES, sometimes you kick the thieves out, because they are worthless to anyone but themselves. Private corporate interests are not a nation's interests.
- natmaster, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2RIAA/MPAA are anti-free market. A capitalist economy cannot function (properly) with these immoral viruses of destruction allowed to live.
- InklingBooks, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3While they're at it, why not make gasoline free and tax everyone whatever it costs to pay the oil companies for all that free gas. That makes about as much sense as this idea. Heck it makes more sense. Far more people drive than download music.
Notice all the "yeah" posts from those who're the music download equivalents of those who own gas guzzlers and cruise a lot. Proves my point. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Pass the dutch...
- geekee, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"What exactly does this have to do with socialism?"
The govt. is deciding how much music is worth, and who gets paid. Everyone pays the same amount regardless of how much music they listen to. How is this anything but socialism? - oxigen, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2You can smoke pot AND pirate software? I'm so moving to Holland!
- joerod, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Holland is my second favorite place after the USA. This is one of the reasons why its so easy to like this place.
- fucayama, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3
VINCENT
'cause – get a load of this – if the cops stop you, it's illegal for them to search you. Searching you is a right that the
cops in Amsterdam don't have.
JULES
That did it, man – I'm *****' goin', that's all there is to it. - randomgeek, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2So start file sharing? Seriously, if it would become legal, there would be no reason not to. You're not supporting something that you wouldn't do, since the main reason most people don't do it is for moral/legal reasons. Remove those reasons and what's stopping to you from engaging in file sharing?
- CasaMan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@randomgeek
The article is a bit inaccurate. They want to apply this tax but NOT change the dutch copyright laws (only abandon DRM).
Thus stichting brein will still use their "right to fight piracy" financed by these taxes. - 2dend, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The industry has always had Media Rights Management. It was a PITA to dupe tapes or CD's and give them to your friends before. Plus that ***** wore out. Plus they would just back the next thing, CD's and everyone would buy the same stuff over again. It wasn't hurting the industry as mush back then so they didn't do too much to stop it. With mp3 it's too easy. The stolen or as many like to call it "shared" album never wears out. "Sharing" could destroy them or anyone trying to sell anything that can be easily duplicated. And by them I also mean the artist, developers, the whole industry. Because if it's legal to "share" U2's latest $10 album on the internet then, in theory, U2 get's to sell one $10 album and everyone else gets it for free. Time for Bono to flip burgers.
- vertinox, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@geekee
And because it is illegal doesn't make it immoral.
Legality should never constitute weather something is right or wrong. Look at slavery in the 1800's in the US. We consider it wrong now, but it was legal back then. Same thing applies here. Maybe in 500 years Society will think it is ok to copy whatever you want because no one has physical limitations... Or of course the reverse in which society thinks it is ok to eat musicians because we can't grow food anymore due to climate change or nuclear war. - Jyce, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2That's ridiculous !
Now imagine you download the latest Linux distro for example. You will pay for something that is free !
At least everything that is downloaded from Internet (legal or not) will become more expensive.
Netherlands politicians are as stupid as in France ... - GeekedAtBirth, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Well...I'm moving.
See you all in Holland. - catalysis, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4@ajb2015
I steal music too but thats quite an attitude you have there. The music industry is not just the major labels but includes smaller ones and the artists themselves who seek out labels because they could not produce music without funds. The music industry has not become irrelevent just because you can DL a CD rip which took thousands of man-hours and dollars to produce. Im anti-DRM and I download but come on man, show a little respect for the artists other than "let them find new ways to distribute it."
If you refuse to ever pay for music whatsoever, what new ways do you expect artists to use to distribute it? You are just piggy-backing off of people who pay for music. Im not saying its necessarily wrong but lets at least be honest about it. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Explain to me how this is a step in the right direction to have people who have no desire to get music online pay a tax to subsidize those that do.
- bitkari, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Absolutely awful idea.
This is merely an extension of existing collection schemes which already run in favour of the media giants.
The reason that things such as DRM exist at all is because these massive corporations wield far too much influence. What is really needed is a way to break their current hegemony over media distribution.
If we were to start removing some of the tools that these corporations have such as generous copyright laws, and stop the kowtowing of the electronics, software and communications industries that are actually allowing DRM to occur, then we'll have a much more even playing field for all who wish to make art, music, games, film, books, or whatever else. -
Show 51 - 100 of 109 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is