Planetarion Forums - German government declares all computer users to be criminals

Nodrog · 13 Mar 2003, 20:26

Proteus · 13 Mar 2003, 20:29

Well, they found an easy solution to our speed fines problem. Just assume everyone speeds and fine them all when they buy a car.

Zword · 13 Mar 2003, 20:31

Quote:

Originally posted by Proteus
Well, they found an easy solution to our speed fines problem. Just assume everyone speeds and fine them all when they buy a car.

ok i want the same but the with airplains

Proteus · 13 Mar 2003, 20:34

Quote:

Originally posted by Zword
ok i want the same but the with airplains

Why stop there? Lets stick everyone who buys a knife, gun or baseball bat in prison for a few months because some of them may murder someone. The same for people who buy cameras because some of them take indecent pictures. And people who travel by aeroplane because some of them may be terrorists.

MrL_JaKiri · 13 Mar 2003, 20:36

Putting them not in prison, but being forced to work for a private company for nothing would be a better comparison.

queball · 13 Mar 2003, 20:37

It would be good if the money went to actual producers of copyrighted material, like me.

Proteus · 13 Mar 2003, 20:39

Quote:

Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri
Putting them not in prison, but being forced to work for a private company for nothing would be a better comparison.

There's a difference?

MrL_JaKiri · 13 Mar 2003, 20:41

Quote:

Originally posted by Proteus
There's a difference?

Prison = supposedly retribution for crimes.

The fines from the computery whatsit go straight into an unconnected company.

For no apparant reason.

ps. They won't be able to do that if you build a computer!

queball · 13 Mar 2003, 20:42

NEWSBOT3 · 13 Mar 2003, 20:43

Criminals can use cars!
BAN ALL CARS!

Zword · 13 Mar 2003, 20:43

Quote:

Originally posted by Proteus
Why stop there? Lets stick everyone who buys a knife, gun or baseball bat in prison for a few months because some of them may murder someone. The same for people who buy cameras because some of them take indecent pictures. And people who travel by aeroplane because some of them may be terrorists.

So if i get this correctly. I can buy a whole arsenal of wapons and not get busted. But if i buy 1 little knive i get busted

. Cool , but don't let osamma know this

Proteus · 13 Mar 2003, 20:44

Quote:

Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri
Prison = supposedly retribution for crimes.

The fines from the computery whatsit go straight into an unconnected company.

For no apparant reason.

ps. They won't be able to do that if you build a computer!

I was actually comparing working in a private company to being in prison, but nevermind.

Leshy · 13 Mar 2003, 20:52

Quote:

Originally posted by queball
It would be good if the money went to actual producers of copyrighted material, like me.

No, no. The money has to go to companies such as the MPAA and RIAA who will use it to sue Sharman Networks.

wu_trax · 13 Mar 2003, 21:17

whats the problem ???

Dante Hicks · 13 Mar 2003, 21:23

Quote:

Originally posted by wu_trax
whats the problem ???

You're the Sandsnake/Texan/Warfalcon of Germany aren't you?

LHC · 13 Mar 2003, 21:23

Quote:

Originally posted by wu_trax
whats the problem ???

The German government is making everybody who buys a computer pay back for the losses that filesharing has caused, even if the person didn't have a computer before.

That's what I figured anyway, although I only read the first paragraph.

wu_trax · 13 Mar 2003, 21:27

Quote:

Originally posted by LHC
The German government is making everybody who buys a computer pay back for the losses that filesharing has caused, even if the person didn't have a computer before.

That's what I figured anyway, although I only read the first paragraph.

do you pay for the usage of streets or street lamps only if you use them?
music or videos are public goods now, file sharing made them to this, thats why they have to be paid by the public now

LHC · 13 Mar 2003, 21:27

Even if they don't have access to them?

wu_trax · 13 Mar 2003, 21:30

Quote:

Originally posted by LHC
Even if they don't have access to them?

you pay for the streets with your tax money even if you never bought a car, dont you?
or for universities, even if you never made abitur

Dante Hicks · 13 Mar 2003, 21:30

Quote:

Originally posted by wu_trax
music or videos are public goods now, file sharing made them to this, thats why they have to be paid by the public now

Street lighting is provided by the state, not by private companies. This is a tax directly on potentially honest citizens directly into the pockets of media conglomerates.

And music or videos aren't public goods unless Germany is going to scrap all their copyright laws. Which it isn't.

roadrunner_0 · 13 Mar 2003, 21:31

This is the crux of the battle royal. Middlemen are attempting -- in vain -- to sustain their dying and increasingly parasitic industries and refusing to adapt and re-invent themselves

I have decided that the above is the best line i have ever read

wu_trax · 13 Mar 2003, 21:41

Quote:

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
Street lighting is provided by the state, not by private companies. This is a tax directly on potentially honest citizens directly into the pockets of media conglomerates.

And music or videos aren't public goods unless Germany is going to scrap all their copyright laws. Which it isn't.

and electricity is produced by the state?
this whole thing had to happen sooner or later. these buinesses didnt want to go bancrupt doing nothing at all

Subatai · 13 Mar 2003, 21:49

Quote:

Originally posted by wu_trax
and electricity is produced by the state?
this whole thing had to happen sooner or later. these buinesses didnt want to go bancrupt doing nothing at all

The only result of this kind of tax will be that the average citizen will now feel that it is their right to get music for free because they have paid for it already when they purchased their computer.

Pretty idiotic of the companies.

Cyp · 13 Mar 2003, 21:50

Hmmm, if I made some abstract art out of junk, took a picture of it (or a picture of the mess in my room), copyrighted it, and then one of the (allegedly) cats in the house created a virus, spreading the picture to everyone's computer, could I then collect the copyright tax, as people were (unwillingly) copying my "art"?

Perhaps this should be tested...

queball · 13 Mar 2003, 21:54

Quote:

Originally posted by Cyp
Hmmm, if I made some abstract art out of junk, took a picture of it (or a picture of the mess in my room), copyrighted it, and then one of the (allegedly) cats in the house created a virus, spreading the picture to everyone's computer, could I then collect the copyright tax, as people were (unwillingly) copying my "art"?

Perhaps this should be tested...

Your cat writes computer viruses?

wu_trax · 13 Mar 2003, 21:57

Quote:

Originally posted by Subatai
The only result of this kind of tax will be that the average citizen will now feel that it is their right to get music for free because they have paid for it already when they purchased their computer.

Pretty idiotic of the companies.

rather get nothing at all? people download things anyway, no matter if its legal or illegal and people will never be willing to pay for things they can get for free, thats a fact. these companies probably only want to get the little bit of income they can access.
(other than that i didnt hear at all about this in german media yet)

Mushroom · 13 Mar 2003, 22:06

i can understand why they're doing it, but it does seem a trifle harsh, especially since it only applies to people buying new computers, who are least likely to be the 'guilty' ones.
And where will it stop? Will they put the tax on every new tiny computer component someone buys, even those not connected to the internet?
Hmm...

anyway
* Mushroom sits firmly on the fence

wu_trax · 13 Mar 2003, 22:15

i dont know how muc this will help.
rtadio stations here pay for every song they play some amount of money. i dont know if you do the same in the us/uk/whereever, but something like this would be the perfect solution for the whole problem, but unfortunatly it is impossible to acomplish, because a) you cant stop file sharing and b) there will never be any copyright-protection that cant be broken.
so what else could they do? tax the internet connection? that would hit just as many innocents as this.

G_frog · 13 Mar 2003, 22:18

Quote:

Originally posted by wu_trax
and electricity is produced by the state?
this whole thing had to happen sooner or later. these buinesses didnt want to go bancrupt doing nothing at all

That's the market for you.

Anyway, the state doesn't tax you to pay for street lighting then fine you if you're caught using it.

Quote:

Originally posted by wu_trax
people will never be willing to pay for things they can get for free,

I am and i have. I'm not alone.

(For the record, imo on the one hand file sharing knocks out a large chunk of income from record sales, and on the other hand it removes the entire cost of marketing and distribution. I suspect there is space in that environment for a new business model, especially with the money saved when a lot of production can be done on a PC or laptop.)

Dante Hicks · 13 Mar 2003, 22:21

Quote:

Originally posted by wu_trax
and electricity is produced by the state?
this whole thing had to happen sooner or later. these buinesses didnt want to go bancrupt doing nothing at all

No business wants to go bankrupt. But we don't pass stupid laws to just give the money to keep them afloat. If they can't sell enough of their product they don't deserve to be afloat.

acropolis · 13 Mar 2003, 23:03

Quote:

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
No business wants to go bankrupt. But we don't pass stupid laws to just give the money to keep them afloat. If they can't sell enough of their product they don't deserve to be afloat.

See now that's quality capitalist rhetoric.

But fyi, we should look at just about every single american airline company.

Some have already had multiple billion dollar bailouts in the past 20 years.

I definitely agree that we shouldn't bail them, but if the comapny is able to use a change of laws to keep itself afloat, that is what it is going to do. Were I a record company, I'd probably look at the fact that I'm spending millions a year on legal expenses against the internet and lobbyists and millions more to pay Mariah Carey not to make albums for me, and perhaps the internet is not the reason profits are down.

But I'm sure the advisors in their legal departments tell them their problem is that they aren't spending enough on lawyers:/

Proteus · 13 Mar 2003, 23:07

Quote:

Originally posted by acropolis
See now that's quality capitalist rhetoric.

But fyi, we should look at just about every single american airline company.

Some have already had multiple billion dollar bailouts in the past 20 years.

There's a bit of a difference between airlines and record companies.

For one thing, I believe that your government has agreements with your airlines so they can use their aeroplanes in war to transport troops in exchange for financial support.

acropolis · 13 Mar 2003, 23:09

Quote:

Originally posted by Proteus
There's a bit of a difference between airlines and record companies.

For one thing, I believe that your government has agreements with your airlines so they can use their aeroplanes in war to transport troops in exchange for financial support.

But our military also agreed to pay Jay-Z to entertain the soldiers overseas:/

Dante Hicks · 13 Mar 2003, 23:16

Quote:

Originally posted by acropolis
But fyi, we should look at just about every single american airline company.

Some have already had multiple billion dollar bailouts in the past 20 years.

I quite agree, and indeed there's stats from yonks showing that something stupid like 50% of Fortune 100 companies have had some kind of bail-out or government intervention to save them in the last x years.

But at least airlines (and other transportation companies) could be seen as some kind of necessity (not that I agree with the bail-outs). Most governments have some kind of protection for their airlines - it's seen as necessary to have some kind of aviation industry in each country.

But I don't think the same "national imperative" argument can be made on behalf of people who produce Britney Spears CDs. Also, they are nowhere near collapse. Yet. Unfortunately.

Also, there's a difference between the government just wasting taxpayers money (i.e. taxes already been collected) on industry bail-outs and levying an entirely new charge on an unrelated commodity.

W · 13 Mar 2003, 23:30

Quote:

Originally posted by wu_trax
do you pay for the usage of streets or street lamps only if you use them?
music or videos are public goods now, file sharing made them to this, thats why they have to be paid by the public now

Using streets and taking benefit of street lamps are both LEGAL and most people consider them morally right. My neighbour is not gonna protest his tax because I use the road. I'm sure he's upset if his new computer costs extra because I run an illegal FTP.

wu_trax · 13 Mar 2003, 23:51

Quote:

Originally posted by G_frog
That's the market for you.

Anyway, the state doesn't tax you to pay for street lighting then fine you if you're caught using it.

that is correct, but then, ive never heared of anyone in the country who had to pay a fine (unless they made real money by selling raw copies that is). ive already said i haven heared anything about this in the media here, maybe they will change that law, they did the same thing with cassette recorders in the past. ill try to find some more information.

Quote:

I am and i have. I'm not alone.

(For the record, imo on the one hand file sharing knocks out a large chunk of income from record sales, and on the other hand it removes the entire cost of marketing and distribution. I suspect there is space in that environment for a new business model, especially with the money saved when a lot of production can be done on a PC or laptop.)

as i said the whole thing would have a lot of advantages if there would be a way to make sure everyone pays for the things he/she downloads. unfortunatly there isnt.

Scoot951 · 14 Mar 2003, 04:32

Quote:

Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri
Putting them not in prison, but being forced to work for a private company for nothing would be a better comparison.

I'm trying. You know how hard it is to get an internship in todays economy?

Starbucks · 14 Mar 2003, 04:53

In principal, its a good idea

the fact of the matter is

it will be "so i have to pay 50 euros extra cos i might copyright stuff

well you can shove your software options up your ass, im going down the market/downloading kazaa"

its essentially giving people and excuse TO pirate copyrighted material

which i find amusing

all governments are starting to amuse me

Proteus · 14 Mar 2003, 09:48

Quote:

Originally posted by Starbucks
In principal, its a good idea

the fact of the matter is

it will be "so i have to pay 50 euros extra cos i might copyright stuff

well you can shove your software options up your ass, im going down the market/downloading kazaa"

its essentially giving people and excuse TO pirate copyrighted material

which i find amusing

all governments are starting to amuse me

Governments have amused me for a long time. At times it seems they must sit around a big table and ask themselves "What pointless gimmick shall we do today?", and they must be either incredibly stupid or just not think anything through for more than 15 seconds.

Sub · 14 Mar 2003, 12:50

Let's look at this logically. Firstly, I think you'll agree with these points:

Most criminals live in houses
Most criminals aren't caught
Most criminals have commited lesser crimes like theft rather than murder

From this, I think it's obvious to anyone that houses should be taxed considerably in order to get the funds that were stolen replaced.

Also, we could put cameras in every new house to try and deter criminals. If you aren't a criminal, you don't need to worry obviously. It's not an invasion of privacy, it's just common sense.

menth0l · 14 Mar 2003, 13:00

Quote:

Originally posted by Sub
Let's look at this logically. Firstly, I think you'll agree with these points:

Most criminals live in houses
Most criminals aren't caught
Most criminals have commited lesser crimes like theft rather than murder

From this, I think it's obvious to anyone that houses should be taxed considerably in order to get the funds that were stolen replaced.

Also, we could put cameras in every new house to try and deter criminals. If you aren't a criminal, you don't need to worry obviously. It's not an invasion of privacy, it's just common sense.

Hear hear! Finally some sense!