3 ms·

Sure, paying for an internet connection means that they are willing to pay for access to media, but that could be because there is no alternative. If there was

by Pheter 16y ago

Sure, paying for an internet connection means that they are willing to pay for access to media, but that could be because there is no alternative. If there was a way to 'pirate' an internet connection then what's to say they wouldn't do that too? And taxing internet subscription revenue is a terrible idea. Many people who pay for an internet connection do not pirate media, and in fact don't rarely purchase media whether physical or digital. Taxing these people for something that they don't want is unfair. Piracy is something that will always be around but the way to tackle it, imho, is to make obtaining it legally a more attractive option. Steam is a step in the right direction; if you pay for a game then you get a number of benefits that you otherwise wouldn't have if you pirated it.

barrkel 16y ago
I believe taxing subscription revenue would be more economically efficient than almost any micropayments architecture conceivable. I also don't think it's necessarily unfair on the whole; for example, consumer accounts with download caps may be taxed differently depending on the size of the cap. It's hard for most consumers to get near their bandwidth caps without consuming large amounts of media. And if there are other uses, e.g. remote work over VPNs, specific contracts with remote locations, etc., such traffic could be exempted from the taxable cap. One thing I'm pretty sure of: trying to sell information (i.e. bits) along the same lines as historical tokens (DVDs, CDs etc.) is doomed to failure. Steam comes with several major drawbacks: you need to be online regularly to log in, you have to put up with a client on every machine, forced advertising, higher prices than the shrinkwrapped box (the case here in the UK), etc. It's also a single point of failure in a business sense - size or past profitability is no guarantee against overreach or future bankruptcy, and the more eggs you have in the Steam basket, the more you have to lose when (and it will eventually) it goes away. Re pirating internet access: that's inherently different, because (most) information is a non-rivalrous good, while access to a network pipe is rivalrous.
petercooper 16y ago
If there was a way to 'pirate' an internet connection then what's to say they wouldn't do that too? You're right. In the past (and probably ongoing now), there have been plenty of people illegally hooking up cable Internet and satellite connections. It's just not quite as easy compared to the price for most people. Heck, I'm ready to pay a lot more to get a much better service that they won't offer me..

by Pheter 16y ago

barrkel 16y ago

I believe taxing subscription revenue would be more economically efficient than almost any micropayments architecture conceivable. I also don't think it's necessarily unfair on the whole; for example, consumer accounts with download caps may be taxed differently depending on the size of the cap. It's hard for most consumers to get near their bandwidth caps without consuming large amounts of media. And if there are other uses, e.g. remote work over VPNs, specific contracts with remote locations, etc., such traffic could be exempted from the taxable cap. One thing I'm pretty sure of: trying to sell information (i.e. bits) along the same lines as historical tokens (DVDs, CDs etc.) is doomed to failure. Steam comes with several major drawbacks: you need to be online regularly to log in, you have to put up with a client on every machine, forced advertising, higher prices than the shrinkwrapped box (the case here in the UK), etc. It's also a single point of failure in a business sense - size or past profitability is no guarantee against overreach or future bankruptcy, and the more eggs you have in the Steam basket, the more you have to lose when (and it will eventually) it goes away. Re pirating internet access: that's inherently different, because (most) information is a non-rivalrous good, while access to a network pipe is rivalrous.

petercooper 16y ago

If there was a way to 'pirate' an internet connection then what's to say they wouldn't do that too? You're right. In the past (and probably ongoing now), there have been plenty of people illegally hooking up cable Internet and satellite connections. It's just not quite as easy compared to the price for most people. Heck, I'm ready to pay a lot more to get a much better service that they won't offer me..