4 ms·

Straight out of the source document -- "Nonetheless, a compulsory license places an effective tax on certain conduct." A tax by any other name is still a tax -

Straight out of the source document -- "Nonetheless, a compulsory license places an effective tax on certain conduct." A tax by any other name is still a tax -- and if these ideas are enacted there would be an effective "news aggregrator" tax.

px 16y ago
Regardless, the opening paragraphs of the source document make it clear that these are NOT formal policy recommendations.
- roboneal 16y ago
  Agreed the source document labels itself as "POTENTIAL POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS TO SUPPORT THE REINVENTION OF JOURNALISM". So I don't see why the bashing of the Washington Times Editorial as "TOTALLY DISHONEST" -- which CLEARLY makes reference to the "May 28 Draft proposal" in the first paragraph. It's obvious that this represents a fairly accurate portrayal of the FTC's existing thinking and deserves to be scrutinized.
  - px 16y ago
    Not trying to be contentious here. I'm just not sure that the FTC has staked out a clear position on this issue, yet. They seem to be inviting scrutiny. For example on page 5, the FTC asks the question, "Is a “wait-and-see” approach preferable at this time, when experimentation to find new revenue sources is ongoing and the likely effects of some proposals may be difficult to gauge?"
  - hristov 16y ago
    The Washington Times are being totally dishonest because this not a FTC proposal, it is not a draft proposal either, it is just a summary of issues that are to be discussed in future meetings with the press and various roundtable discussions etc. "It's obvious that this represents a fairly accurate portrayal of the FTC's existing thinking and deserves to be scrutinized." No that is not obvious. Try reading the document. On the contrary, it is obvious that at this stage they are just throwing ideas at the wall. There is absolutely no indication that the FTC has endorsed any of these ideas or that they even came from FTC personnell (the document actually suggests that many of the ideas came from external sources). If you do not like any of those ideas please comment on them (the document provides a link for that). But if you are going to hold the FTC responsible for everything that gets mentioned in one of their discussions with the public as if it is their plan and idea, the FTC and the government will just stop having discussions with the public.
- anamax 16y ago
  The phrase is "trial balloon". If it doesn't get shot down, the formal policy announcement will include "we're just reiterating something that was discussed and agreed on previously". At that point, some folks will say "hey, when did that happen" and others will say "it's too late to complain now".
  - MichaelSalib 16y ago
    There is no rational basis for claiming this was a trial balloon.
    - anamax 16y ago
      http://www.thefreedictionary.com/trial+balloon http://www.thefreedictionary.com/trial+balloon - "An idea or a plan advanced tentatively to test public reaction." Read the document's self-description quoted above.
      - MichaelSalib 16y ago
        Do you have any idea how many government documents are produced each year with similar sounding verbiage? If that's your criteria for being a trial balloon, then the government puts out millions of trial balloons every year. One for every man, woman and child! A key part of the dictionary definition is intent and you have absolutely no evidence - none whatsoever - indicating that this document was intended to test public reaction. If it was, I imagine they'd have leaked it to a real newspaper and not to the humiliated house organ of a crazy cult leader who had himself proclaimed king of the universe. The Washington Times circulation numbers are pathetic so it is a terrible vehicle for leaking: the public's response can't be gauged if the public doesn't see the proposal to begin with.
        anamax 16y ago
        > Do you have any idea how many government documents are produced each year with similar sounding verbiage? If that's your criteria for being a trial balloon, then the government puts out millions of trial balloons every year. Do you have any idea how many regulations are added each year and how many bills are introduced? Almost all of them are preceeded with one or more documents gauging public interest and there are also such documents for policies that don't make the cut. > A key part of the dictionary definition is intent and you have absolutely no evidence - none whatsoever - indicating that this document was intended to test public reaction. Oh really? As I quoted "Now, one year later, staff responsible for this project present this draft for discussion of 1) the tentative conclusions outlined here about the current and likely future environments for news gathering and reporting, and 2) potential policy recommendations to address the issues raised during this proceeding." Maybe they weren't interested in public reaction, but they certainly are thinking of these policies. > The Washington Times circulation numbers are pathetic so it is a terrible vehicle for leaking The document wasn't "leaked". It was published.
hristov 16y ago
Did you actually read what the document said, or did you just do a search for the word "tax"? The compulsory license idea was not a proposal of the commission but a proposal of "one workshop participant." The commission's report just mentions as something that was mentioned in the round table discussions and then mostly criticises it. That is very far from the title of "FTC mulls taxing news agregators". Also the compulsory license would not be applied to news agregators but directly to ISPs.
- roboneal 16y ago
  Despite all the disclaimer's that this is some sort of loose collection of "ideas" -- the beginning of the report contains about 4 pages of FTC "staff’s key observations and conclusions to date". Reading that is makes it clear to me that the current FTC regime wants to bail out newspapers and traditional media by erecting costs & barriers to new media and citizen journalism.

px 16y ago

Regardless, the opening paragraphs of the source document make it clear that these are NOT formal policy recommendations.

roboneal 16y ago
Agreed the source document labels itself as "POTENTIAL POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS TO SUPPORT THE REINVENTION OF JOURNALISM". So I don't see why the bashing of the Washington Times Editorial as "TOTALLY DISHONEST" -- which CLEARLY makes reference to the "May 28 Draft proposal" in the first paragraph. It's obvious that this represents a fairly accurate portrayal of the FTC's existing thinking and deserves to be scrutinized.
- px 16y ago
  Not trying to be contentious here. I'm just not sure that the FTC has staked out a clear position on this issue, yet. They seem to be inviting scrutiny. For example on page 5, the FTC asks the question, "Is a “wait-and-see” approach preferable at this time, when experimentation to find new revenue sources is ongoing and the likely effects of some proposals may be difficult to gauge?"
- hristov 16y ago
  The Washington Times are being totally dishonest because this not a FTC proposal, it is not a draft proposal either, it is just a summary of issues that are to be discussed in future meetings with the press and various roundtable discussions etc. "It's obvious that this represents a fairly accurate portrayal of the FTC's existing thinking and deserves to be scrutinized." No that is not obvious. Try reading the document. On the contrary, it is obvious that at this stage they are just throwing ideas at the wall. There is absolutely no indication that the FTC has endorsed any of these ideas or that they even came from FTC personnell (the document actually suggests that many of the ideas came from external sources). If you do not like any of those ideas please comment on them (the document provides a link for that). But if you are going to hold the FTC responsible for everything that gets mentioned in one of their discussions with the public as if it is their plan and idea, the FTC and the government will just stop having discussions with the public.
anamax 16y ago
The phrase is "trial balloon". If it doesn't get shot down, the formal policy announcement will include "we're just reiterating something that was discussed and agreed on previously". At that point, some folks will say "hey, when did that happen" and others will say "it's too late to complain now".
- MichaelSalib 16y ago
  There is no rational basis for claiming this was a trial balloon.
  - anamax 16y ago
    http://www.thefreedictionary.com/trial+balloon http://www.thefreedictionary.com/trial+balloon - "An idea or a plan advanced tentatively to test public reaction." Read the document's self-description quoted above.
    - MichaelSalib 16y ago
      Do you have any idea how many government documents are produced each year with similar sounding verbiage? If that's your criteria for being a trial balloon, then the government puts out millions of trial balloons every year. One for every man, woman and child! A key part of the dictionary definition is intent and you have absolutely no evidence - none whatsoever - indicating that this document was intended to test public reaction. If it was, I imagine they'd have leaked it to a real newspaper and not to the humiliated house organ of a crazy cult leader who had himself proclaimed king of the universe. The Washington Times circulation numbers are pathetic so it is a terrible vehicle for leaking: the public's response can't be gauged if the public doesn't see the proposal to begin with.
      - anamax 16y ago
        > Do you have any idea how many government documents are produced each year with similar sounding verbiage? If that's your criteria for being a trial balloon, then the government puts out millions of trial balloons every year. Do you have any idea how many regulations are added each year and how many bills are introduced? Almost all of them are preceeded with one or more documents gauging public interest and there are also such documents for policies that don't make the cut. > A key part of the dictionary definition is intent and you have absolutely no evidence - none whatsoever - indicating that this document was intended to test public reaction. Oh really? As I quoted "Now, one year later, staff responsible for this project present this draft for discussion of 1) the tentative conclusions outlined here about the current and likely future environments for news gathering and reporting, and 2) potential policy recommendations to address the issues raised during this proceeding." Maybe they weren't interested in public reaction, but they certainly are thinking of these policies. > The Washington Times circulation numbers are pathetic so it is a terrible vehicle for leaking The document wasn't "leaked". It was published.

hristov 16y ago

Did you actually read what the document said, or did you just do a search for the word "tax"? The compulsory license idea was not a proposal of the commission but a proposal of "one workshop participant." The commission's report just mentions as something that was mentioned in the round table discussions and then mostly criticises it. That is very far from the title of "FTC mulls taxing news agregators". Also the compulsory license would not be applied to news agregators but directly to ISPs.

roboneal 16y ago
Despite all the disclaimer's that this is some sort of loose collection of "ideas" -- the beginning of the report contains about 4 pages of FTC "staff’s key observations and conclusions to date". Reading that is makes it clear to me that the current FTC regime wants to bail out newspapers and traditional media by erecting costs & barriers to new media and citizen journalism.