D
Dave
Guest
Conveniently, the two alleged purposes dovetail, so it's a matter of philosophy as to why they are doing it. First of all we could go back to laws about taxation. I'm not an expert on this but I've read some of the positions of those taxpayers' rights groups, and at the very least they make it clear that most of us are overtaxed for services that we don't need or want.
The Internet exists in a "zone" that many people regard as sacrosanct. It's not because we are all criminals, or tax cheats, but because we don't want stupid and unnecessary regulations placed upon our online activites, placed there by a greedy and philosophically outdated government. If I make money on the Internet it winds up as tax dollars anyway, eventually. I honestly believe that the Internet is outside the regulations of any countries government, at least when we are talking about non-criminal activity. And selling online is not illegal. Making a significant amount of money and not reporting it is illegal, yes, but what's that amendment where they need evidence before they can get a warrant to search for evidence?
The US would be better off if we had more successful online sellers. The money enters the local economy indirectly.
I reject the idea that every time a US citizen makes a trade or a barter, or some casual sales take place, that the government should be involved. That's like the Mafia. I think that the government is entitled to some tax dollars, though this is also open to debate. I'm not hard-core about it though. I like using the library, and I guess I got something from their schools. I use public transportation. The point is, I've always paid taxes since I worked, and I've always accepted it.
But taxing, or modifying the way the Internet works is a huge mistake. Just like open-source software, the Internet is a collaborative ongoing project. Now Microsoft will probably never embrace open source philosophy, but as people become more comfortable with customizing their own machines, we will reach a point where the only reason to buy any microsoft product is because you are too much of a newbie or don't have someone to help you install free open source alternatives.
I don't know what will happen with the Internet, but they are saying that we are all going to have broadband wireless everywhere soon. The possibilities of people collaborating, and discussing ideas with people all over the world can only be a good thing.
You're right about Paypal, but again, that company needs to be regulated. As far as downloading, they keep saying that there are going to be new methods to stop this, or make it more risky. The artists are taking on this task themselves though, in making an affordable product available legally. I haven't listened to NIN for years but I bought that $5 download to support the idea behind it, and show the record companies that there are new ways to sell music online and that people will pay.
Basically, scouring the Internet for criminals, reading people's emails, tracking their activities, with no warrant, and no cause, is against the Constitution, and that's bigger than the downloading problem.
Mostly, I resent the assertion that we can do without the Constitution, and that it's justified because the record companies are dinosaurs who did not learn anything from Napster, and allowed iTunes to become a huge institution, selling us shitty quality files, at roughly the same price per unit, as if you bought a full quality CD with packaging, no limits on what machines you can play it on, no nonsense.
You know, the RIAA says that buying a CD, and putting it on your iPod for your own use, is a violation of copyright law. This isn't about criminals. It's about record companies doing what they have always done, and exploiting the artists and the consumers.
Let's not pretend that downloading is what's wrong with record sales. Even if it is, I'm not ready to throw out the Constitution.
"The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the large centers has owned the government of the U.S. since the days of Andrew Jackson."
Franklin D. Roosevelt, U.S. President
The Internet exists in a "zone" that many people regard as sacrosanct. It's not because we are all criminals, or tax cheats, but because we don't want stupid and unnecessary regulations placed upon our online activites, placed there by a greedy and philosophically outdated government. If I make money on the Internet it winds up as tax dollars anyway, eventually. I honestly believe that the Internet is outside the regulations of any countries government, at least when we are talking about non-criminal activity. And selling online is not illegal. Making a significant amount of money and not reporting it is illegal, yes, but what's that amendment where they need evidence before they can get a warrant to search for evidence?
The US would be better off if we had more successful online sellers. The money enters the local economy indirectly.
I reject the idea that every time a US citizen makes a trade or a barter, or some casual sales take place, that the government should be involved. That's like the Mafia. I think that the government is entitled to some tax dollars, though this is also open to debate. I'm not hard-core about it though. I like using the library, and I guess I got something from their schools. I use public transportation. The point is, I've always paid taxes since I worked, and I've always accepted it.
But taxing, or modifying the way the Internet works is a huge mistake. Just like open-source software, the Internet is a collaborative ongoing project. Now Microsoft will probably never embrace open source philosophy, but as people become more comfortable with customizing their own machines, we will reach a point where the only reason to buy any microsoft product is because you are too much of a newbie or don't have someone to help you install free open source alternatives.
I don't know what will happen with the Internet, but they are saying that we are all going to have broadband wireless everywhere soon. The possibilities of people collaborating, and discussing ideas with people all over the world can only be a good thing.
You're right about Paypal, but again, that company needs to be regulated. As far as downloading, they keep saying that there are going to be new methods to stop this, or make it more risky. The artists are taking on this task themselves though, in making an affordable product available legally. I haven't listened to NIN for years but I bought that $5 download to support the idea behind it, and show the record companies that there are new ways to sell music online and that people will pay.
Basically, scouring the Internet for criminals, reading people's emails, tracking their activities, with no warrant, and no cause, is against the Constitution, and that's bigger than the downloading problem.
Mostly, I resent the assertion that we can do without the Constitution, and that it's justified because the record companies are dinosaurs who did not learn anything from Napster, and allowed iTunes to become a huge institution, selling us shitty quality files, at roughly the same price per unit, as if you bought a full quality CD with packaging, no limits on what machines you can play it on, no nonsense.
You know, the RIAA says that buying a CD, and putting it on your iPod for your own use, is a violation of copyright law. This isn't about criminals. It's about record companies doing what they have always done, and exploiting the artists and the consumers.
Let's not pretend that downloading is what's wrong with record sales. Even if it is, I'm not ready to throw out the Constitution.
"The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the large centers has owned the government of the U.S. since the days of Andrew Jackson."
Franklin D. Roosevelt, U.S. President