3 ms·
> You can try to make parallels to the record industry at its worse, but those people at least receive advances. Also, recording artists don't receive taxpayer
by paulgb 13y ago
> You can try to make parallels to the record industry at its worse, but those people at least receive advances.
Also, recording artists don't receive taxpayer money.
- nraynaud 13y agonote that neither do record companies.
- teddyh 13y agoActually, yes, record companies do receive taxpayer money: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_copying_levy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_copying_levy
- nraynaud 13y agolet's talk about proportions and tax law here. I don't find my argument countered in any ways. 1) this is a collection that doesn't go to the general budget, it's a directed levy. 2) it's not as if the record companies main income and business model was to sell to public institutions. Whereas most of the scientific articles are bought by publicly funded laboratories, hospitals, universities (in the non-US world) etc.
- lotsofmangos 13y agoMusicians are extensively subsidised in nearly all countries that have a functioning economy able to subsidise stuff.
- watwut 13y agoI'm ok with taxpayer money going on research, I'm less ok with those taxpayer money being used to feed company sitting on monopoly.