3 ms·
It's not that common and it wouldn't make it any less of a travesty. It's like taxing all furniture on the off chance you'll use it to store your vinyl records.
by pedrocr 10y ago
It's not that common and it wouldn't make it any less of a travesty. It's like taxing all furniture on the off chance you'll use it to store your vinyl records. And like with furniture an increasing majority of your media is used to store your own content (e.g., the video of your kid from your brand new 4K camera) so this isn't even directionally correct.
- icebraining 10y agoIt's a tax, not a payment. Sure, there's some attempt to target it at people who can actually enjoy that right (can't copy stuff if you have nowhere to copy it to), but it's not supposed to be an exchange for use.
- pedrocr 10y agoWe already have a tax for content authors, this is supposed to be much more targeted. Instead all it does is make local electronics retailers even less competitive when compared to the online players. This is also a travesty because you're supposedly being taxed for the privilege of enjoying something you are already paying for. In reality it's even worse because this is only relevant to extract money from those who are not buying your content. The ones who are buying your content already have a pricing relationship with you where more or less money can be exchanged for more or less service. At the end of the day this was just a way for entrenched interests to extract money from the population that wouldn't normally be given to them because they don't produce content that interests them.