5 ms·
That's actually a really good idea. Of course it is probably (unfortunately) politically impossible.
by akkat 9y ago
That's actually a really good idea. Of course it is probably (unfortunately) politically impossible.
- derekp7 9y agoNot sure why, since the average voter won't be affected by this tax. Only the media companies. In fact, most voters would benefit greatly by having unlimited legal, free access to a vast library of content that is still relevant to them. And, it can be morally justified -- if someone is sitting on the rights for a work, and isn't using it, then it makes sense to levy a tax against it as they are utilizing the expensive resources of the world governments in order to defend the copyright.
- tempodox 9y ago> Only the media companies. Who will swiftly pass the additional cost on to their customers. Voters who see it that way won't vote voluntarily to pay more just so content creators can keep their copyright.
- JoshTriplett 9y agoEasy framing to get around that: "Only the less creative ones, who prefer to sit on their old works rather than making new ones."
- tempodox 9y agoAnd what stops them from adding those costs to the price of whatever they're currently selling?
- JoshTriplett 9y agoMaking them large enough to make that impossible and uneconomical compared to making new works. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16046563 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16046563
- joncrane 9y agoIt doesn't matter whether it actually affects voters. The media companies with lots of money will "donate" millions to politicians willing to defeat such a bill, and maybe even run ads/frame the discussion as if it's against voters' best interests. There is no large concentration of wealth on the other side of the issue to support it, therefore it will never happen. Sorry folks but that's how politics in the USA works.
- jacksproit 9y agoThat’s extremely cynical.
- SAI_Peregrinus 9y agoIt's not cynical, it's just how oligarchies work.