
Permalink for comment 511852
RE[4]: Link ?
by silix on Sun 25th Mar 2012 21:26 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Link ?"
Member since:

This analogy is false.

ignore the analogy, i was just pointing out a distinction between punishment (for the guilty) and compensation (for the damaged) - can you really say this distinction does not apply?

The robber is sentenced after the fact whereas you pay this so called "tax" regardless of your actual usage of the blank media.

but the problem is, piracy was already ongoing for a long time when the tax was applied - in fact it was applied because content and sw makers were already being damaged by it, to the point they could ask and be granted idemnification by law
the only difference being that unless all pirates were tracked down, damage from piracy coudnt be blamed on just "one" or even "specific" individuals, so everyone was deemed as potentially guilty thus potentially corresponsible for that damage thus subject to pay a part of that refund

This is crazy! People in the US argue against public health-care and object to paying for somebody else's health costs (even though it likely will save lives) yet it makes perfect sense to pay the rich producers of Hollywood? I'm truly amazed by the logic here.

i live in a country where the healthcare system is funded by tax money in order to give to every taxpayer citizen (who is granted the right to live healthily, by constitution - at least formally) so for me the opposite makes perfect sense...
especially since sw is not a "right" nor a government erogated service, but something made by individuals (who may then distribute it free of charge, but it's their choice) - if i take for myself and use something whose author didnt want me to take and use without his consent, it means that i have extorted its fruition outside the intended scope and terms
thus, i have to accept i'm liable to repay somehow

Reply Parent Score: 2