This week, following pressure from the French media industry, the
French parliament has passed a law allowing those accused of illegally
downloading music and films (exactly how this can be conclusively
proved as digital technology is beyond the typical knowledge of
lawyers and jurors...) to have their internet connection cut off.
Fortunately a similar move in the UK was thrown out- at least
partially - by our parliament.

Whilst I was expecting the media giants to support this move, I was
appalled to read that 10,000 people from the "creative" industry, such
as filmmakers and musicians, were calling for this too.

This amounts to a blank cheque to pull a plug on the communications
facilities of those who disagree with either the government or it's
corporate allies. There's a real problem in how to defend oneself in
court of false allegations - what happens if somebody believes a
download to be legal when it is in fact a pirate site. False banking
sites - a.k.a. "phishing scams" are commonplace. Also independent
content creators such as myself use the likes of BitTorrent to
distribute demos with a view to publishing sales.

When I started playing twenty years ago music was about freedom and
sharing. It really saddens me to think that there's some musicians who
feel that profits count for more than free speech and privacy- the
internet is one of the few places that one can buy / download or view
for free in Europe - most newspapers and radio/TV stations are owned
by a handful of people. Making a living purely as heavily censored
entertainment without any form of message - including LOVE - would be
considered by many of my generation and older as a fate worse than
death!

If piracy is a problem, a much better solution would be to impose a
levy similar to the UK TV licence of around €100 per year on broadband
users to compensate - by way of a filesharing licence.

However I'm not sure that it is. I only buy a couple of CDs a year of
new music - I'm a big music fan, but just don't like what the labels
are putting out. There seems to be a real prejudice against what I
would term "indigo" music- such as soul and folk - especially those
songs with fractal-based melodic and harmonic structures as much of
the best music does- or did.

Some in the industry smell a rat. We're constantly told on one hand
how current artists are breaking new sales records - Britney selling
more than Whitney :) etc and on the other how the music business is
going bust- wird or what. Is someone on the fiddle- do they only offer
recording contracts these days to people without the intellect to
question this?

My last purchase (and my first paid-for download) , Random Thoughts by
Natalie Brown was submitted to me as a demo. I subsequently bought the
full album though I could have quite easily obtained it gratis! I've
been handed home-taped albums and have subsequently been to see the
artists in concert, same with copied videotapes where I've gone on to
spend money on films by the same director or actors.

Interestingly, digital technology would allow a record shop to keep
millions of masters and produce "on demand" professional physical CDs/
DDs to order. CDs and DVDs are after all something to have in your
lounge in their glossy packaging as a conversation piece. Downloads
form iTunes don't look as good!

Write to your MEPs to protest about this law

A few notes about this.  First, it only provides service cutoff for the 
third offense.  The first two offenses merit, basically, a warning.  Second, 
it replaces a law that allows a huge fine and prison time.

Although it's hard to stomach any law that allows a penalty upon 
"accusation", rather than conviction, it's less onerous in France than in 
common law countries.  French criminal procedure generally requires more 
evidence prior to arrest and detention;  the judge, who takes a more active 
role than our judges, can make preliminary and ongoing decisions about how 
likely an eventual conviction might be.

I wouldn't imagine we'd see such a law in the US.  Whatever US-bashing you 
might want to do (and there's plenty to criticize), the scope of free speech 
protection is unequalled in the world.

"Mason Barge"  wrote in
news:Et-dnbtyDuROs0TUnZ2dnUVZ_vadnZ2d@giganews.com: 

> A few notes about this.  First, it only provides service cutoff for
> the third offense.  The first two offenses merit, basically, a
> warning.  Second, it replaces a law that allows a huge fine and prison
> time. 
 
I talked to a lawyer friend of mine.  In the U.S., they are licking their 
chops over this because it is possible to sue service providers and 
networks/studios if the service provider monitors your internet connection 
without cause.  The only way they can find cause is to monitor.  In other 
words, "they'll need a warrant" and since you can't determine what someone 
is downloading without monitoring, they won't get warrants.
Or something like that.

'John Moffat' wrote this:

>"Mason Barge"  wrote in
>news:Et-dnbtyDuROs0TUnZ2dnUVZ_vadnZ2d@giganews.com: 
>
>> A few notes about this.  First, it only provides service cutoff for
>> the third offense.  The first two offenses merit, basically, a
>> warning.  Second, it replaces a law that allows a huge fine and prison
>> time. 
> 
>I talked to a lawyer friend of mine.  In the U.S., they are licking their 
>chops over this because it is possible to sue service providers and 
>networks/studios if the service provider monitors your internet connection 
>without cause.  The only way they can find cause is to monitor.  In other 
>words, "they'll need a warrant" and since you can't determine what someone 
>is downloading without monitoring, they won't get warrants.
>Or something like that.

It is possible for ISPs to carry out data analysis to reveal what
you're downloading. IIUC the analysis can look through a lot of
attempts to obfuscate. Some of those techniques are already in
use to exercise traffic shaping.


-- 
uh oh...black helicopter ... gotta run

> what happens if somebody believes a download to be legal when
> it is in fact a pirate site.

Are you serious?  Are you paying for the movie?  No?  Then it's an illegal 
download.

Are all pirates as stupid as you?

> If piracy is a problem, a much better solution would be to impose a
> levy similar to the UK TV licence of around €100 per year on broadband
> users to compensate - by way of a filesharing licence.

What a stupid idea.  I don't steal anything, I buy my movies and I buy my 
music because I want to support the artists that made them.  Why should *I* 
pay because you steal other people's creative works?

> I only buy a couple of CDs a year of new music - I'm a big music fan

Obviously you're not.

Can I ask what you do for a living?

"Aidy"  wrote in
news:79WdneUw14xzRkTUnZ2dnUVZ8uydnZ2d@bt.com: 

>> what happens if somebody believes a download to be legal when
>> it is in fact a pirate site.
> 
> Are you serious?  Are you paying for the movie?  No?  Then it's an
> illegal download.
> 
> Are all pirates as stupid as you?

Every time someone acts this way I go out and download a Metallica album.
-- 
JG, former Quarterback and Lt. General SWIFT (Socialist Workers 
Infiltrating Federal Targets)

On 5 Apr, 22:50, Andy  wrote:
> This week, following pressure from the French media industry, the
> French parliament has passed a law allowing those accused of illegally
> downloading music and films (exactly how this can be conclusively
> proved as digital technology is beyond the typical knowledge of
> lawyers and jurors...) to have their internet connection cut off.
> Fortunately a similar move in the UK was thrown out- at least
> partially - by our parliament.
>
> Whilst I was expecting the media giants to support this move, I was
> appalled to read that 10,000 people from the "creative" industry, such
> as filmmakers and musicians, were calling for this too.
>
> This amounts to a blank cheque to pull a plug on the communications
> facilities of those who disagree with either the government or it's
> corporate allies. There's a real problem in how to defend oneself in
> court of false allegations - what happens if somebody believes a
> download to be legal when it is in fact a pirate site. False banking
> sites - a.k.a. "phishing scams" are commonplace. Also independent
> content creators such as myself use the likes of BitTorrent to
> distribute demos with a view to publishing sales.
>
> When I started playing twenty years ago music was about freedom and
> sharing. It really saddens me to think that there's some musicians who
> feel that profits count for more than free speech and privacy- the
> internet is one of the few places that one can buy / download or view
> for free in Europe - most newspapers and radio/TV stations are owned
> by a handful of people. Making a living purely as heavily censored
> entertainment without any form of message - including LOVE - would be
> considered by many of my generation and older as a fate worse than
> death!
>
> If piracy is a problem, a much better solution would be to impose a
> levy similar to the UK TV licence of around €100 per year on broadband
> users to compensate - by way of a filesharing licence.
>
> However I'm not sure that it is. I only buy a couple of CDs a year of
> new music - I'm a big music fan, but just don't like what the labels
> are putting out. There seems to be a real prejudice against what I
> would term "indigo" music- such as soul and folk - especially those
> songs with fractal-based melodic and harmonic structures as much of
> the best music does- or did.
>
> Some in the industry smell a rat. We're constantly told on one hand
> how current artists are breaking new sales records - Britney selling
> more than Whitney :) etc and on the other how the music business is
> going bust- wird or what. Is someone on the fiddle- do they only offer
> recording contracts these days to people without the intellect to
> question this?
>
> My last purchase (and my first paid-for download) , Random Thoughts by
> Natalie Brown was submitted to me as a demo. I subsequently bought the
> full album though I could have quite easily obtained it gratis! I've
> been handed home-taped albums and have subsequently been to see the
> artists in concert, same with copied videotapes where I've gone on to
> spend money on films by the same director or actors.
>
> Interestingly, digital technology would allow a record shop to keep
> millions of masters and produce "on demand" professional physical CDs/
> DDs to order. CDs and DVDs are after all something to have in your
> lounge in their glossy packaging as a conversation piece. Downloads
> form iTunes don't look as good!
>
> Write to your MEPs to protest about this law

We don't need the record industry any more.  We can exchange our own
music, which is not covered by their copyright, and leave their mass
produced, expolitative, over priced garbage to people who are
advertising dependent.

I noticed on the news recently, that a lady who owns a stable and has
just two girls working in there, has been sent a bill by PRS for
having a radio on!  It seems we have to pay the music industry a
bribe, even if we listen to news on Radio 4.

Turk182

On Apr 5, 10:50 pm, Andy 
wrote:

> When I started playing twenty years ago music was about freedom and
> sharing. It really saddens me to think that there's some musicians who
> feel that profits count for more than free speech and privacy- the
> internet is one of the few places that one can buy / download or view
> for free in Europe - most newspapers and radio/TV stations are owned
> by a handful of people. Making a living purely as heavily censored
> entertainment without any form of message - including LOVE - would be
> considered by many of my generation and older as a fate worse than
> death!

AIUI there is nothing to stop you giving away original material of
your own creation if that is your wish.

I don't understand why you should insist that other artists behave in
the same way. Being a professional musician/composer/author is surely
an honourable way of earning a living. Free speech and privacy are all
very well but they don't pay the grocer or butcher.

> Every time someone acts this way I go out and download a Metallica album.

Thank God.  The sooner those has-beens go broke the better.

> We don't need the record industry any more.  We can exchange our own
> music, which is not covered by their copyright

Not sure how you intended this but I assume it was one of the following;

a) "We can exchange our own music" ...that we wrote ourselves ... ", which 
is not covered by their copyright"

Maybe I don't want to listen to your music?  Maybe I want to listen to 
muscicians who are at a professional level as the music industry has allowed 
them to persue their abilities as a full-time career?

b) "We can exchange our own " ...copies of other people's ... "music, which 
is not covered by their copyright" ... cos I am an idiot who thinks only the 
physical medium is copyrighted and not the original work.

In which case you're an idiot.

On 6 Apr, 15:46, Mel Rowing  wrote:
> On Apr 5, 10:50 pm, Andy 
> wrote:
>
> > When I started playing twenty years ago music was about freedom and
> > sharing. It really saddens me to think that there's some musicians who
> > feel that profits count for more than free speech and privacy- the
> > internet is one of the few places that one can buy / download or view
> > for free in Europe - most newspapers and radio/TV stations are owned
> > by a handful of people. Making a living purely as heavily censored
> > entertainment without any form of message - including LOVE - would be
> > considered by many of my generation and older as a fate worse than
> > death!
>
> AIUI there is nothing to stop you giving away original material of
> your own creation if that is your wish.
>
> I don't understand why you should insist that other artists behave in
> the same way. Being a professional musician/composer/author is surely
> an honourable way of earning a living. Free speech and privacy are all
> very well but they don't pay the grocer or butcher.

A few months ago I asked for some help regarding a project and
personal issue. I've contacted some supposedly "credible" musicians
and some supposedly ultra-commercial (at least in the 1990s) acts.
More joy from the disposable pop camp!

I can say that quite a few producers / writers and even popstars of
that era would rather work day jobs (including tv ads - even call
centres!!!) and do music for fun than remain in the industry.

With just my mates, missus and sisters I could make 90% of the music I
listen to. Exclusions are live symphony orchestras, top notch jazz,
traditional Asian and opera (and I suppose Mariah Carey - could be
done with some practise... though not by me obviously as I'm not a
woman)

The music industry in the UK is so thoroughly corrupt that they'd
rather have talent shut away in psychiatric wards than risk losing
control of their cartel. From what I can see the "in crowd" has done a
deal with a higher (regretfully earthly) power to maintain their
closed shop, in exchange for removing all threats to the existance of
that power.

I'm in the process of starting an IT business, having pretty much been
shut out of the media industry for my views- which aren't extremist or
terroristic- more 1960s "make love not wars" ideals. It's that or the
dole, and I get bored easily!

"Aidy"  wrote in
news:k5SdnSYpzvosgUfUnZ2dnUVZ8vednZ2d@bt.com: 

>> Every time someone acts this way I go out and download a Metallica
>> album. 
> 
> Thank God.  The sooner those has-beens go broke the better. 

I personally am keeping them buy new Lamborghinis.
-- 
JG, former Quarterback and Lt. General SWIFT (Socialist Workers 
Infiltrating Federal Targets)

On Apr 6, 4:53 pm, Andy 
wrote:

> > I don't understand why you should insist that other artists behave in
> > the same way. Being a professional musician/composer/author is surely
> > an honourable way of earning a living. Free speech and privacy are all
> > very well but they don't pay the grocer or butcher.
>
> A few months ago I asked for some help regarding a project and
> personal issue. I've contacted some supposedly "credible" musicians
> and some supposedly ultra-commercial (at least in the 1990s) acts.
> More joy from the disposable pop camp!
>
> I can say that quite a few producers / writers and even popstars of
> that era would rather work day jobs (including tv ads - even call
> centres!!!) and do music for fun than remain in the industry.

This surely is their own choice. Musicians are not slaves and need not
remain in the industry if they don't want to. The fact is many are
quite content within the industry.

> With just my mates, missus and sisters I could make 90% of the music I
> listen to. Exclusions are live symphony orchestras, top notch jazz,
> traditional Asian and opera (and I suppose Mariah Carey - could be
> done with some practise... though not by me obviously as I'm not a
> woman)
>
> The music industry in the UK is so thoroughly corrupt that they'd
> rather have talent shut away in psychiatric wards than risk losing
> control of their cartel. From what I can see the "in crowd" has done a
> deal with a higher (regretfully earthly) power to maintain their
> closed shop, in exchange for removing all threats to the existance of
> that power.
>
> I'm in the process of starting an IT business, having pretty much been
> shut out of the media industry for my views- which aren't extremist or
> terroristic- more 1960s "make love not wars" ideals. It's that or the
> dole, and I get bored easily!

I don't think any of this goes any way towards answering my question.
If you wish to write and produce material to give away free then I
would be the first to defend your right so to do. Under that scenario,
what you produce is totally and exclusively yours to do with what you
see fit. What I failed to understand and still fail to understand, is
why you feel you should impose these what I suppose you might call
freedoms on others. Others who might sincerely feel that they are
entitled to some remuneration in respect of the fruits of their own
labours.

Mason Barge wrote:
> A few notes about this.  First, it only provides service cutoff for
> the third offense.  The first two offenses merit, basically, a
> warning.  Second, it replaces a law that allows a huge fine and
> prison time.
> Although it's hard to stomach any law that allows a penalty upon
> "accusation", rather than conviction, it's less onerous in France
> than in common law countries.  French criminal procedure generally
> requires more evidence prior to arrest and detention;  the judge, who
> takes a more active role than our judges, can make preliminary and
> ongoing decisions about how likely an eventual conviction might be.

And I don't think they'll try very hard. While there was indeed support 
for this law (la loi Hadopi) among some media people, many others were 
against and, more to the point, so were many members of the governing 
party it had a rough ride, as well as a large slice of the general 
population, probably the majority. To boot, the EU recently made it 
clear that it considered an internet connection to be a human right and 
therefore to remove it would get the French into trouble no doubt. In 
any case, I think it will do nothing to stop piracy.

Mel Rowing wrote:

> I don't think any of this goes any way towards answering my question.
> If you wish to write and produce material to give away free then I
> would be the first to defend your right so to do. Under that scenario,
> what you produce is totally and exclusively yours to do with what you
> see fit. What I failed to understand and still fail to understand, is
> why you feel you should impose these what I suppose you might call
> freedoms on others. Others who might sincerely feel that they are
> entitled to some remuneration in respect of the fruits of their own
> labours.

Of course and I don't think that will ever stop and in some ways piracy 
might turn out to be a good thing for them. Those who download might not 
be interested enough in something to want to buy it but want to give it 
a listen at least. If they like it the file sharing process will 
continue, or it might be played to friends. In any case, the piece gets 
better known. As we have seen here, many people are willing to pay and 
perhaps in the diffusion process, albeit begun via piracy, there will be 
more who come across it, who like it and are willing to make a 
contribution to the artist.

On 6 Apr, 18:33, "Lou Ravi"  wrote:
> Mel Rowing wrote:
> > I don't think any of this goes any way towards answering my question.
> > If you wish to write and produce material to give away free then I
> > would be the first to defend your right so to do. Under that scenario,
> > what you produce is totally and exclusively yours to do with what you
> > see fit. What I failed to understand and still fail to understand, is
> > why you feel you should impose these what I suppose you might call
> > freedoms on others. Others who might sincerely feel that they are
> > entitled to some remuneration in respect of the fruits of their own
> > labours.
>
> Of course and I don't think that will ever stop and in some ways piracy
> might turn out to be a good thing for them. Those who download might not
> be interested enough in something to want to buy it but want to give it
> a listen at least. If they like it the file sharing process will
> continue, or it might be played to friends. In any case, the piece gets
> better known. As we have seen here, many people are willing to pay and
> perhaps in the diffusion process, albeit begun via piracy, there will be
> more who come across it, who like it and are willing to make a
> contribution to the artist.


"Maybe I don't want to listen to your music?  Maybe I want to listen
to
muscicians who are at a professional level as the music industry has
allowed
them to persue their abilities as a full-time career? "

When the BRIT school was announced in the early 1990s, my writing
partners said we'd better be looking for another job... Live 8 proved
him sadly right...

Imagine that you were a programmer working on the linux / gnu / fsf
project. You'd be headhunted be a top commercial company! In music,
you wouldn't work again. Even offering your expertise and equipment
for free if premises were provided for a charity project to record
original material with the low waged / unwaged, disabled and
underprivilaged (at a cost of about £50 p/w) and you would not even be
able to get your PRESS RELEASE in the media.

What does that say...

On 6 Apr, 16:21, "Aidy"  wrote:
> > We don't need the record industry any more.  We can exchange our own
> > music, which is not covered by their copyright
>
> Not sure how you intended this but I assume it was one of the following;
>
> a) "We can exchange our own music" ...that we wrote ourselves ... ", which
> is not covered by their copyright"
>
> Maybe I don't want to listen to your music?  Maybe I want to listen to
> muscicians who are at a professional level as the music industry has allowed
> them to persue their abilities as a full-time career?
>
> b) "We can exchange our own " ...copies of other people's ... "music, which
> is not covered by their copyright" ... cos I am an idiot who thinks only the
> physical medium is copyrighted and not the original work.
>
> In which case you're an idiot.

If you read Andy's posting below, you'll read what I know.

The music 'industry' is like the banking industry and the politics
industry.  Their corrupt.

Artists should now sell their wares direct to consumers and accept
that the young people of today are not too interested in paying a lot
of money to hear music.  Whereas once upon a time a band had to hire a
studio and get a record deal - now, you need neither.  Songwriters
income was chpped off by the British record industry from at least the
80's, and most artists were stiched up by their labels, as were the
public.  Now we all have the technology.  As Andy said, we can make
ouir own.  Anyone could make a credible product of reasonable quality
after 2 hours practice.  So what have the music industry got that we
all want now?  Not a lot.  They gave up on real music a long time ago.

Turk182

On Apr 6, 12:20 am, "Mason Barge"  wrote:
> A few notes about this.  First, it only provides service cutoff for the
> third offense.  

Third *accusation*.

"hognoxious"  wrote in message 
news:b33171df-5286-464f-ad0b-d5cf98037f9a@v12g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 6, 12:20 am, "Mason Barge"  wrote:
> A few notes about this. First, it only provides service cutoff for the
> third offense.

~ Third *accusation*.

Giving credit to your point, the truth is somewhere in between. At some 
point prior accusations are going to be proven or disproven.  Without 
knowing, I'm almost certain that a disproven accusation would not count.

"Turk182"  wrote in message 
news:d47d7246-9a26-484a-bb4e-513fcb617381@v12g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
On 6 Apr, 16:21, "Aidy"  wrote:

> The music 'industry' is like the banking industry and the politics
> industry.  They're corrupt.

Oh my.  It's hard to insult the integrity of politics or banking, but you've 
done it.

The music industry lies somewhere between prostitution and meth 
distribution, on the integrity scale.

"Andy"  wrote in message 
news:851d3be9-a8a5-49ae-a8de-9984ab95b41e@n17g2000vba.googlegroups.com...

...
If piracy is a problem, a much better solution would be to impose a
levy similar to the UK TV licence of around €100 per year on broadband
users to compensate - by way of a filesharing licence.
...
==========================

I think that many people may find this sort of solution more acceptable. 
The main problem that I would have with this is being assured that the money 
would go to the correct people, ie. the artists ... and not help to line the 
pockets of these huge and rich coporate executives.

No - I didn't think that you could assure me of that!!

Iain

Iain wrote:
> "Andy"  wrote in message
> news:851d3be9-a8a5-49ae-a8de-9984ab95b41e@n17g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
>
> ...
> If piracy is a problem, a much better solution would be to impose a
> levy similar to the UK TV licence of around ?100 per year on broadband
> users to compensate - by way of a filesharing licence.
> ...
> ==========================
>
> I think that many people may find this sort of solution more
> acceptable. The main problem that I would have with this is being
> assured that the money would go to the correct people, ie. the
> artists ... and not help to line the pockets of these huge and rich
> coporate executives.

Greedy people always find it very agreeable if the cost is shared out.

The solution is actually to make those who pirate stuff pay heavily for 
their illegal activities.  That means laws that can be enforced, and much 
stiffer penalties than we have at present.

On Apr 7, 10:27 am, "Iain"  wrote:
> "Andy"  wrote in message
>
> news:851d3be9-a8a5-49ae-a8de-9984ab95b41e@n17g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
>
> ...
> If piracy is a problem, a much better solution would be to impose a
> levy similar to the UK TV licence of around €100 per year on broadband
> users to compensate - by way of a filesharing licence.
> ...
> ==========================
>
> I think that many people may find this sort of solution more acceptable.
> The main problem that I would have with this is being assured that the money
> would go to the correct people, ie. the artists ... and not help to line the
> pockets of these huge and rich coporate executives.
>
> No - I didn't think that you could assure me of that!!

To begin with, broadband has uses other than downloading music and
films. Not all broadband users download this material. There is no
technical reason as to why down loaders should not pay as they go.

The problem with piracy is that every original downloaded track was
bought legally initially. It seems therefore that justice all round
could be done through pyramid selling where the initial download
rights are sold at the highest possible cost. Then the creator(s) of
the work has/have been remunerated and so they lose all commercial
interest in  it.

The buyer(s) of the original would of course be free to pass it on but
if they were to recoup and profit from their outlay, they could only
pass it on at a price. Once the work has passed down several
generations of buyers all of whom are free to pass it on then you
reach the stage where the asking price has been driven down to such a
level that an increasing number of buyers will be prepared either to
swap or distribute the work free.

You create a market in other words.

As regards the "rich corporate executives" it should not be forgotten
that these people carry risk. In offering up and coming artistes and
composers contracts, they assure them a steady income whether they
eventually become successful or not. There is no compunction for any
artiste to enter into any contract. They do so in the belief that to
do so advances their career. It is not unknown for a very successful
artiste to buy out their contract and publish independently. It's not
unknown for even unknown artistes to publish independently right from
the outset.

"Norman Wells"  wrote in message 
news:hxFCl.258825$Dz4.201491@newsfe20.ams2...
> Iain wrote:
>> "Andy"  wrote in message
>> news:851d3be9-a8a5-49ae-a8de-9984ab95b41e@n17g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> ...
>> If piracy is a problem, a much better solution would be to impose a
>> levy similar to the UK TV licence of around ?100 per year on broadband
>> users to compensate - by way of a filesharing licence.
>> ...
>> ==========================
>>
>> I think that many people may find this sort of solution more
>> acceptable. The main problem that I would have with this is being
>> assured that the money would go to the correct people, ie. the
>> artists ... and not help to line the pockets of these huge and rich
>> coporate executives.
>
> Greedy people always find it very agreeable if the cost is shared out.
>
> The solution is actually to make those who pirate stuff pay heavily for 
> their illegal activities.  That means laws that can be enforced, and much 
> stiffer penalties than we have at present.

It is interesting to note that the use of P2P software (which may or may not 
include the civil offence of infringing copyrighted material (by 
downloading)) has frequently been countered by criminally illegal activies 
(eg. bombarding IP addresses) by certain large companies.

Iain

"Mel Rowing"  wrote in message 
news:d2b5fca1-7b1f-4779-bf60-ce9bed15d4e4@v19g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...

> To begin with, broadband has uses other than downloading music and
> films. Not all broadband users download this material. There is no
> technical reason as to why down loaders should not pay as they go.

Ten years ago I was involved in a campaign that put a stop to metering 
telecommunications.  It will be a step backwards if that sort of solution 
were re-introduced.

> The problem with piracy is that every original downloaded track was
> bought legally initially. It seems therefore that justice all round
> could be done through pyramid selling where the initial download
> rights are sold at the highest possible cost. Then the creator(s) of
> the work has/have been remunerated and so they lose all commercial
> interest in  it.
>
> The buyer(s) of the original would of course be free to pass it on but
> if they were to recoup and profit from their outlay, they could only
> pass it on at a price. Once the work has passed down several
> generations of buyers all of whom are free to pass it on then you
> reach the stage where the asking price has been driven down to such a
> level that an increasing number of buyers will be prepared either to
> swap or distribute the work free.
>
> You create a market in other words.
>
> As regards the "rich corporate executives" it should not be forgotten
> that these people carry risk. In offering up and coming artistes and
> composers contracts, they assure them a steady income whether they
> eventually become successful or not. There is no compunction for any
> artiste to enter into any contract. They do so in the belief that to
> do so advances their career. It is not unknown for a very successful
> artiste to buy out their contract and publish independently. It's not
> unknown for even unknown artistes to publish independently right from
> the outset.

There is some music being produced solely for the internet market.  The 
artists then have a direct (including financial) relationship with their 
audience (consumer).  Also artists have now realised that their worth is far 
greater than what they were previously receiving - they are being conned 
less by the industry and receiving more of what they should be due.

One of the problems, certainly within the UK, is that the many intermediary 
elements involved between the artist and consumer all have to take their 
cut.  This just grows disproportionately larger and larger.  Shareholders 
expect their element to be profitable.

You talk about risk.  Everything carries a risk.  You need to look at 
company reports, and then read between the lines.  Many large companies 
(rather like governments!) have specialists to 'manipulate' figures.


(Going a bit off-topic, but ....)
Do you honestly think that the UK banks are really in that much need of 
support from the government?  There are two key points where I can see the 
flaws, and this almost certainly applies to many other areas:
1.  The banks dare not put themselves back into a more financially sound 
position.  This will be admitting the 'make-believe' finances produced 
previously.
2.  The govenment dare not upset the banks, the revenue generated by these 
invisible exports is vast.

We are becoming more and more like the US - more of an exploitative culture 
and less and less of the true entrepreneurial societly where 'service' 
should still be an important element.

Iain

On Tue, 7 Apr 2009 03:07:58 -0700 (PDT), Mel Rowing
 wrote:

>To begin with, broadband has uses other than downloading music and
>films. Not all broadband users download this material.

Just as not all broadcast TV viewers want to watch the BBC.  But we
all have to pay the licence.

> There is no
>technical reason as to why down loaders should not pay as they go.

Au contraire.  There is a very good technical reason.  It is
impossible to find any but a small fraction of the people who are
downloading copyright material.

-- 
Cynic

> Lou Ravi
>
> To boot, the EU recently made it clear that it considered
> an internet connection to be a human right

While I agree with that stance, (and I'm not trying to side
track the discussion) I find it disturbing that at the same
time, the EU _does not_ consider self defense and thus
the right to keep and bear arms, a human right.

> Just as not all broadcast TV viewers want to watch the BBC.  But we
> all have to pay the licence.

Irrelevant.  Everyone who watches TV is operating broadcast receiving 
equipment and that is what you pay your license for.  If I own a gun but 
never fire it, I still need a license.

> Au contraire.  There is a very good technical reason.  It is
> impossible to find any but a small fraction of the people who are
> downloading copyright material.

What is that ratio, do you think, of people downloaded copyrighted movies 
and MP3s to those downloading copyright-free movies and MP3s?  The problem 
with making downloaders "pay as you go" is how do you ensure the money goes 
to the right places?

"Iain"  wrote in message 
news:740q8iF116gsqU1@mid.individual.net...
> "Mel Rowing"  wrote in message 
> news:d2b5fca1-7b1f-4779-bf60-ce9bed15d4e4@v19g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
> There is some music being produced solely for the internet market.  The 
> artists then have a direct (including financial) relationship with their 
> audience (consumer).  Also artists have now realised that their worth is 
> far greater than what they were previously receiving - they are being 
> conned less by the industry and receiving more of what they should be due.

It's not being "solely" produced for the Internet, but it is licensed to 
allow for use on the Internet. These artists still want people to buy their 
CDs and attend their concerts. The internet is like the radio for them. Many 
of these artists don't or can't get broadcast radio play and the Internet 
gives them exposure. Although there's some lame stuff, a surprising amount 
of it is just as good or better than what one gets on the radio.

It's often referred to as "podsafe" music, although it's usually played on 
Internet radio as well. I use some for my podcasts.

-- 
Patrick McNamara
E-mail: patjmcnamara@gmail.com
Webpage: http://www.geocities.com/writerpatrick
Blue Hot Gossip comedy: http://bluehotgossip.blogspot.com
Podcast Ping: http://podcastping.blogspot.com
Torrentcast: http://www.mininova.org/rss.xml?user=PodcastPing

On Apr 7, 12:03 pm, "Iain"  wrote:
> "Mel Rowing"  wrote in message

> > To begin with, broadband has uses other than downloading music and
> > films. Not all broadband users download this material. There is no
> > technical reason as to why down loaders should not pay as they go.
>
> Ten years ago I was involved in a campaign that put a stop to metering
> telecommunications.  It will be a step backwards if that sort of solution
> were re-introduced.

You would have to explain much more deeply to convince me of that.

If an artist performs in a concert and I wish to involve myself then I
buy a ticket and few would disagree with the fairness of that. A
download, CD or whatever is nothing more than a virtualised
performance. If I wish to experience it then why should I not pay?
Copyright piracy to a very large extent is a product of the digital
age. Of course in the old analogue days, material was copied but
because the act of copying degraded the material exponentially the
practice was self limiting.

Any procedure that seeks to ensure that a creator receives due
reimbursement for the sweat of his brow must take into account the
fact that this intergenerational degradation that once to a large
extent protected the copyright holder is now no more.

Unless that basic truth is recognised, there can be no procedure that
will protect the original copyright holder adequately. Performance
will be less financially rewarding. Incentive to perform will be
reduced and standards will almost inevitably fall.

> There is some music being produced solely for the internet market.  The
> artists then have a direct (including financial) relationship with their
> audience (consumer).  Also artists have now realised that their worth is far
> greater than what they were previously receiving - they are being conned
> less by the industry and receiving more of what they should be due.

Of course there is nothing, absolutely nothing, to prevent  the
original owner of the copyright (the performer) from selling rights to
it directly as indeed some artists do now. If they believe that they
can distribute the product at least as profitably as anyone else then
why not?

> One of the problems, certainly within the UK, is that the many intermediary
> elements involved between the artist and consumer all have to take their
> cut.  This just grows disproportionately larger and larger.  Shareholders
> expect their element to be profitable.

Of course they do. If anybody borrows my money then I expect there to
be something in it for me besides risk.

It's called added value and this applies to just about everything that
is sold. Work out the retail value of a ton of potato crisps and
compare it with  the farm gate value of a ton of potatoes.

(I've just done it 1 tonne of Seabook's crisps sold multi-pack at
supermarket prices have a retail value of £6720!)

> You talk about risk.  Everything carries a risk.  You need to look at
> company reports, and then read between the lines.  Many large companies
> (rather like governments!) have specialists to 'manipulate' figures.

Of course everything carries a  risk which is why that risk needs to
be factored into every commercial transaction. If it is not then there
is no point or incentive in entering into that transaction.

> (Going a bit off-topic, but ....)
> Do you honestly think that the UK banks are really in that much need of
> support from the government?  There are two key points where I can see the
> flaws, and this almost certainly applies to many other areas:
> 1.  The banks dare not put themselves back into a more financially sound
> position.  This will be admitting the 'make-believe' finances produced
> previously.
> 2.  The govenment dare not upset the banks, the revenue generated by these
> invisible exports is vast.
>
> We are becoming more and more like the US - more of an exploitative culture
> and less and less of the true entrepreneurial societly where 'service'
> should still be an important element.

I like to keep my discussions tidy so will initiate a new thread.

On Tue, 7 Apr 2009 14:57:27 +0100, "Aidy"  wrote:

>> Just as not all broadcast TV viewers want to watch the BBC.  But we
>> all have to pay the licence.
>
>Irrelevant.  Everyone who watches TV is operating broadcast receiving 
>equipment and that is what you pay your license for.  If I own a gun but 
>never fire it, I still need a license.

Exactly.  Similarly, the argument being made is that a licence fee
should be paid to operate any internet-connected computer, no matter
what you do on it.

The reason for such a blanket licence is the same in all cases - it
would otherwise be impossible to enforce because you would not be able
to easily prove who is and who is not using the equipment for the
purpose you *really* want to get a fee for.

-- 
Cynic

> Exactly.  Similarly, the argument being made is that a licence fee
> should be paid to operate any internet-connected computer, no matter
> what you do on it.

What does that have to do with watching the BBC?  You said;

"not all broadcast TV viewers want to watch the BBC.  But we all have to pay 
the licence"

I was pointing out that the license fee is not for watching the BBC, it is 
for operating the equipment.  You then seemed to go on to agree with this, 
completely abandoning your prior implication that the fee was for watching 
the BBC.

On Tue, 7 Apr 2009 16:30:56 +0100, "Aidy"  wrote:

>> Exactly.  Similarly, the argument being made is that a licence fee
>> should be paid to operate any internet-connected computer, no matter
>> what you do on it.

>What does that have to do with watching the BBC?  You said;

>"not all broadcast TV viewers want to watch the BBC.  But we all have to pay 
>the licence"

>I was pointing out that the license fee is not for watching the BBC, it is 
>for operating the equipment.  You then seemed to go on to agree with this, 
>completely abandoning your prior implication that the fee was for watching 
>the BBC. 

OK, the sequence AIUI was as follows.

1) It was proposed that a fee be charged to all broadband users to
compensate copyright holders for infringements carried out by some
broadband users.

2) An argument was put forward that doing such a thing would be unfair
on the people who do not download.

3) I stated that it would be no different to charging a licence fee
(that indirectly funds only the BBC) to everyone who watches broadcast
TV regardless of what channels they watch.

4) You stated that that was a different thing because the licence was
for watching broadcast TV, not watching the BBC.

5) I said that it was exactly the same, because the proposed fee would
similarly be for using a broadband connection, not for downloading
copyright material - even though the fee would be *used* to compensate
copyright holders for the downloads that only some broadband users
carried out.

Not that I believe the TV licence fee is fair - just pointing out that
such an across-the-board fee is not unprecedented.

-- 
Cynic

Aidy wrote:
>> Just as not all broadcast TV viewers want to watch the BBC.  But we
>> all have to pay the licence.
>
> Irrelevant.  Everyone who watches TV is operating broadcast receiving
> equipment and that is what you pay your license for.  If I own a gun
> but never fire it, I still need a license.
>
>> Au contraire.  There is a very good technical reason.  It is
>> impossible to find any but a small fraction of the people who are
>> downloading copyright material.
>
> What is that ratio, do you think, of people downloaded copyrighted
> movies and MP3s to those downloading copyright-free movies and MP3s? The 
> problem with making downloaders "pay as you go" is how do you
> ensure the money goes to the right places?

Don't you worry your pretty little head about that.  The government will 
distribute it.

"Iain"  wrote in message 
news:740kjpF11a44kU1@mid.individual.net...
> "Andy"  wrote in message 
> news:851d3be9-a8a5-49ae-a8de-9984ab95b41e@n17g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
>
> ...
> If piracy is a problem, a much better solution would be to impose a
> levy similar to the UK TV licence of around €100 per year on broadband
> users to compensate - by way of a filesharing licence.
> ...
> ==========================
>
> I think that many people may find this sort of solution more acceptable.

That's socialist "problem-solving" at its worst.  Why the hell should I pay 
a significant amount of money because other people download pirated movies 
or music?  And exactly who am I paying it *to*?

On Tue, 7 Apr 2009, Mason Barge wrote:

>> I think that many people may find this sort of solution more acceptable.
>
> That's socialist "problem-solving" at its worst.  Why the hell should I pay a 
> significant amount of money because other people download pirated movies or 
> music?  And exactly who am I paying it *to*? 
>
You know very well it will go to the big commercial outlets, and not
to people like my friend Annabelle Chvostek who is an independent musician
who for about a year performed with the "Wailin' Jennies".

We already have it here in Canada, with a charge on blank cassettes and
CDRs (even if you aren't illegally copying copyrighted material).

The money goes to some organization that then doles it out.  I'm sure
the money is more likely to go to the big companies, while ironically
the small independent musician, if they are getting bootlegged, is
likely to feel the loss of sales more than the big company.

So the process is unfair in two ways.  First, because it takes
money from people who aren't illegally downloading, and then it
goes not to directly pay for what is illegally  downloaded, but
in a very vague way to those who make the biggest fuss about
getting the money.

The debate doesn't even go into anything but music and video.
Over in the Heinlein group, every so often people will point out
illegal copies in digital form of Heinlein books, and while
the estate goes after them, I don't see anyone talking about
authors getting money from copies of their books illegally placed
on the internet.

    Michael

"Cynic"  wrote in message 
news:djtmt41nl8n80qt1s88ks6f6phptlqscqj@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 7 Apr 2009 16:30:56 +0100, "Aidy"  wrote:
>
>>> Exactly.  Similarly, the argument being made is that a licence fee
>>> should be paid to operate any internet-connected computer, no matter
>>> what you do on it.
>
>>What does that have to do with watching the BBC?  You said;
>
>>"not all broadcast TV viewers want to watch the BBC.  But we all have to 
>>pay
>>the licence"
>
>>I was pointing out that the license fee is not for watching the BBC, it is
>>for operating the equipment.  You then seemed to go on to agree with this,
>>completely abandoning your prior implication that the fee was for watching
>>the BBC.
>
> OK, the sequence AIUI was as follows.
>
> 1) It was proposed that a fee be charged to all broadband users to
> compensate copyright holders for infringements carried out by some
> broadband users.
>
> 2) An argument was put forward that doing such a thing would be unfair
> on the people who do not download.
>
> 3) I stated that it would be no different to charging a licence fee
> (that indirectly funds only the BBC) to everyone who watches broadcast
> TV regardless of what channels they watch.
>
> 4) You stated that that was a different thing because the licence was
> for watching broadcast TV, not watching the BBC.
>
> 5) I said that it was exactly the same, because the proposed fee would
> similarly be for using a broadband connection, not for downloading
> copyright material - even though the fee would be *used* to compensate
> copyright holders for the downloads that only some broadband users
> carried out.
>
> Not that I believe the TV licence fee is fair - just pointing out that
> such an across-the-board fee is not unprecedented.

This is a bit harder to swallow on the left side of the Pond.  I was, 
actually, shocked to learn that there is such a thing as a license fee to 
"operate a receiver".

> 3) I stated that it would be no different to charging a licence fee
> (that indirectly funds only the BBC) to everyone who watches broadcast
> TV regardless of what channels they watch.

Now you are merely paraphrasing yourself to try and get out of the hole. 
What you actually said was

"Just as not all broadcast TV viewers want to watch the BBC.  But we all 
have to pay the licence."

This is a clear implication that the TV license is to fund the BBC.  Wheras 
it is to operate the equipment.

> 4) You stated that that was a different thing because the licence was
> for watching broadcast TV, not watching the BBC.

Now you are paraphrasing me to try and make it look like our arguments meet 
in the middle.  What I actually said was

"Everyone who watches TV is operating broadcast receiving equipment and that 
is what you pay your license for"

On Wed, 8 Apr 2009, Aidy wrote:

>> 3) I stated that it would be no different to charging a licence fee
>> (that indirectly funds only the BBC) to everyone who watches broadcast
>> TV regardless of what channels they watch.
>
> Now you are merely paraphrasing yourself to try and get out of the hole.
> What you actually said was
>
> "Just as not all broadcast TV viewers want to watch the BBC.  But we all
> have to pay the licence."
>
> This is a clear implication that the TV license is to fund the BBC.  Wheras
> it is to operate the equipment.
>
Yet the money goes to the BBC.

When the license was implemented so many decades ago, the only UK 
broadcaster was the BBC.  The fact that that has changed doesn't change
the initial purpose.  And it hasn't changed where the fee goes, it still
goes to the BBC.

For the 30 years or so when I had to pay a yearl fee for my amateur radio
license here in Canada, that fee went to the Department of Communication,
or more likely general revenue.  That license was clearly a license
requirement, I needed it to operate the station, and the fee was to
pay for administration and regulation of that radio service.

You can make all kinds of gestures about how the UK license is about
licensing, but it still remains that the money the licensee pays goes
to the BBC.

The UK even dropped the requirement for radio receivers, instead going
to licensing of TV sets.  If there's actually some need t license
receiving equipment beyond a cash grab, then surely they should have
kept the license on the radio receivers.

     Michael

On Apr 8, 2:40 pm, Michael Black  wrote:

> The UK even dropped the requirement for radio receivers, instead going
> to licensing of TV sets.  If there's actually some need t license
> receiving equipment beyond a cash grab, then surely they should have
> kept the license on the radio receivers.

There is a reason for that!

There still are one or two people who do not own or possess a TV set.
There are virtually none who do not own either a TV or a radio even if
the radio is in a car. However, these are so few in number as to make
the collection and enforcement of a "radio only" licence fee non
viable.

The real motivation behind those who wish to see the end of the TV
licence is meanness. They want free television and claim "hand on
heart" that they never watch the BBC. Yet they always seem to be able
to comment on the programmes.

On Apr 8, 3:18 am, "Aidy"  wrote:
> > 3) I stated that it would be no different to charging a licence fee
> > (that indirectly funds only the BBC) to everyone who watches broadcast
> > TV regardless of what channels they watch.
>
> Now you are merely paraphrasing yourself to try and get out of the hole.
> What you actually said was
>
> "Just as not all broadcast TV viewers want to watch the BBC.  But we all
> have to pay the licence."
>
> This is a clear implication that the TV license is to fund the BBC.  Wheras
> it is to operate the equipment.

There is no cost to the government for you to operate a television.
The fee is to fund the BBC, as clearly stated here

http://www.bbc.co.uk/info/licencefee/

> > 4) You stated that that was a different thing because the licence was
> > for watching broadcast TV, not watching the BBC.
>
> Now you are paraphrasing me to try and make it look like our arguments meet
> in the middle.  What I actually said was
>
> "Everyone who watches TV is operating broadcast receiving equipment and that
> is what you pay your license for"

That is what you say, but that is not why they charge you the money.
The money is to pay for the BBC.

Tater

On Wed, 8 Apr 2009 10:18:45 +0100, "Aidy"  wrote:

>> 3) I stated that it would be no different to charging a licence fee
>> (that indirectly funds only the BBC) to everyone who watches broadcast
>> TV regardless of what channels they watch.

>Now you are merely paraphrasing yourself to try and get out of the hole. 
>What you actually said was

>"Just as not all broadcast TV viewers want to watch the BBC.  But we all 
>have to pay the licence."

>This is a clear implication that the TV license is to fund the BBC.  Wheras 
>it is to operate the equipment.

The fee is *used* to fund the BBC.  The basis upon which it is imposed
is a different factor.

>Now you are paraphrasing me to try and make it look like our arguments meet 
>in the middle.  What I actually said was

>"Everyone who watches TV is operating broadcast receiving equipment and that 
>is what you pay your license for"

Depending on what you mean by "pay your licence for".  The licence fee
is certainly *not* to pay for the costs of operating a receiver!

but whatever way you spin it, in what way would it be different to
having an Internet licence fee that you have to pay in order to
operate a broadband connection?

-- 
Cynic

On Tue, 7 Apr 2009 12:56:05 -0400, "Mason Barge"
 wrote:

>> I think that many people may find this sort of solution more acceptable.
>
>That's socialist "problem-solving" at its worst.  Why the hell should I pay 
>a significant amount of money because other people download pirated movies 
>or music?  And exactly who am I paying it *to*? 

You would probably pay it to the government for them to distribute as
they see fit (after deducting whatever they can get away with).

Why should I pay for a TV licence because other people watch the BBC?

-- 
Cynic

"Cynic"  wrote in message 
news:9tjpt4569lig4n4fst8aaqgfvgaho8c9qg@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 7 Apr 2009 12:56:05 -0400, "Mason Barge"
>  wrote:
>
>>> I think that many people may find this sort of solution more acceptable.
>>
>>That's socialist "problem-solving" at its worst.  Why the hell should I 
>>pay
>>a significant amount of money because other people download pirated movies
>>or music?  And exactly who am I paying it *to*?
>
> You would probably pay it to the government for them to distribute as
> they see fit (after deducting whatever they can get away with).
>
> Why should I pay for a TV licence because other people watch the BBC?

I'm a Yank.  I'd never heard of this.  It won't happen here (First Amendment 
problems, for one thing) but I'd vote against it, in theory.

> There is no cost to the government for you to operate a television.

There is no cost to the government for me to own a firearm, or drive a car, 
yet I need a license for both of those.

> Depending on what you mean by "pay your licence for".  The licence fee
> is certainly *not* to pay for the costs of operating a receiver!

And a gun license is not used to pay the costs of operating a gun.  I fail 
to see your point.

> but whatever way you spin it, in what way would it be different to
> having an Internet licence fee that you have to pay in order to
> operate a broadband connection?

Such a system already exists.  Or do you get your broadband for free?

On Apr 9, 3:43 am, "Aidy"  wrote:
> > There is no cost to the government for you to operate a television.
>
> There is no cost to the government for me to own a firearm, or drive a car,
> yet I need a license for both of those.

That has nothing to do with the discussion.

The BBC site clearly states that the license fee is to pay for the
BBC.

Tater

"Aidy"  wrote in message 
news:vd6dnZPZw8z9XkDUnZ2dnUVZ8tKdnZ2d@bt.com...
>> There is no cost to the government for you to operate a television.
>
> There is no cost to the government for me to own a firearm, or drive a 
> car, yet I need a license for both of those.

There is a legitimate cost to the government for you to drive a car on the 
roads, and also for them to handle title registration and transfer.  My 
understanding is that, in the US, road maintenance is handled at a huge loss 
and comes mostly from general funds.  In fact, it is often called a 
"subsidy" to truck (lorry) companies, especially long-haul freight trucks. 
There's less of it in Europe, which is more amenable generally to toll roads 
(one small reason for more and better trains).

Firearms are a different matter.  We don't have a registration fee for 
rifles and shotguns, but most places do for pistols.  Again, registration is 
an expense to the government, and most people would say it is necessary or 
at least worthwhile.

> The BBC site clearly states that the license fee is to pay for the BBC.

It *clearly* states does it?  Where?  On the posted link?  If so it doesn't 
state that at all let alone "clearly".  Looking at the license site itself 
the BBC isn't even mentioned;

http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/information/index.jsp

I wonder why....oh yes, I quote;

----

      You must be covered by a valid TV Licence if you watch or record 
television programmes as they're being shown on TV. It makes no difference 
what equipment you use - whether it's a laptop, PC, mobile phone, digital 
box, DVD recorder or a TV set - you still need a licence.

      You do not need a TV Licence to view video clips on the internet, as 
long as what you are viewing is not being shown on TV at the same time as 
you are viewing it.

      If you use a digital box with a hi-fi system, or another device that 
can only be used to produce sounds and can't display TV programmes, and you 
don't install or use any other TV receiving equipment, you don't need a TV 
Licence.

> There is a legitimate cost to the government for you to drive a car on the 
> roads

All handled by taxes.  Next?

> Again, [gun] registration is an expense to the government

All handled by taxes.

On Apr 9, 9:16 am, "Aidy"  wrote:
> > The BBC site clearly states that the license fee is to pay for the BBC.
>
> It *clearly* states does it?  

http://www.bbc.co.uk/info/licencefee/

Third paragraph from the bottom:

"What your licence fee provides
The BBC is paid for directly through each household TV licence."

Is that clear enough? Do I need to tap it out in Morse code directly
on your forhead?

Tater

> "What your licence fee provides
> The BBC is paid for directly through each household TV licence."

> Is that clear enough?

That simply states that the BBC get their funding via the license fee.  What 
you said was;

"The BBC site clearly states that the license fee is to pay for the BBC"

You said that the purpose of the license is to pay for the BBC but it isn't. 
While they may get funded by it, the purpose of the license is to operate 
broadcast receiving equipment.  As I said, the BBC isn't even mentioned on 
the TV license website.  An odd exclusion if the purpose of the license is 
to pay for it, no?

On Apr 12, 8:45 am, "Aidy"  wrote:
> > "What your licence fee provides
> > The BBC is paid for directly through each household TV licence."
> > Is that clear enough?
>
> That simply states that the BBC get their funding via the license fee.  What
> you said was;
>
> "The BBC site clearly states that the license fee is to pay for the BBC"
>
> You said that the purpose of the license is to pay for the BBC but it isn't.
> While they may get funded by it, the purpose of the license is to operate
> broadcast receiving equipment.

No. You are wrong. The license fee was adopted to pay for the BBC. The
fee is paid by TV set owners.

>  As I said, the BBC isn't even mentioned on
> the TV license website.  An odd exclusion if the purpose of the license is
> to pay for it, no?

Not at all. All they care about is that you pay it. You should read
you history (and perhaps take a course in logic and argumentation). I
quote:

"The BBC is authorised by the Communications Act 2003 to collect the
licence fees. The money received is first paid into the Government's
Consolidated Fund. It is subsequently included in the 'vote' for the
Department of Culture Media and Sport in that year's Appropriation
Act, and passed on to the BBC for the running of the BBC's own
services (free from commercial advertisements), and for the BBC to
produce programming for S4C."

Historically,

"When first introduced on 1 June 1946, the licence covering the
monochrome-only single-channel BBC television service cost £2, the
equivalent of £57 in 2006. On 1 January 1968, a 'colour supplement' of
£5 was added to the existing £5 monochrome licence fee; the combined
colour licence fee was therefore £10, the equivalent of £120 in 2006.
The current (2008) cost is £139.50, for colour TV and £47.00 for
monochrome TV, per household."

The fee is paid by TV owners, and was enacted to pay for the BBC.
Parse it any way you want, but the sole purpose of the fee is to pay
for the BBC. It is not charged because there is something inherently
dangerous about operating a TV, or because TV ownership requires some
sort of expertise, or because the government wishes to suppress TV
ownership.

Tater

> No.

<snip>

This may come as a shock to you, but the idea that the BBC is funded from 
the license is not new information to me.  You are neither educating nor 
enlightening.

But I digress.

The license is not to pay for the BBC as you wrongly stated.  It is so that 
you can operate broadcast receiving equipment.

X-No-Archive: Yes


>This amounts to a blank cheque to pull a plug on the communications
>facilities of those who disagree with either the government or it's
>corporate allies. There's a real problem in how to defend oneself in


Use a VPN outside of France, so your activities cannot be
monitored. All they would get if they tried to eavsdrop on
your communications is a bunch of encrypted garbage.

On Apr 14, 2:19 am, "Aidy"  wrote:

> The license is not to pay for the BBC as you wrongly stated.

You pay the license fee it so as not to get fined.

The BBC charges you the license fee so that they can pay operating
expenses.

Both of these constructions are referenced by the phrase "the license
fee is for".

Tater