Slashdot Mirror
Playing CDs a Privilege Not A Right
Brett writes "Tommi Kyyrä, of IFPI Finland has said that being able to play music on a Linux or Apple computer is a privilege not a right, and that those that can't because of DRM'd CDs should just go out and buy a CD player. Is switching the debate to rights and privileges really where they want to go when we're talking about something we pay for?" From the article: "If the public and 'their' politicians believe that the entertainment industry is on the verge of collapse, they'll be much more likely to accept restrictions on use of content that they've paid for. For this reason, most industry talking heads keep their comments in check when talking about DRM schemes, but from time to time we've seen people truly speak their mind."
According to TFA, his translated quote is:
Funny, I was just thinking something kind of similar, but slightly different:
Now, we need to understand that listening to music in your car or through your home stereos is an extra privilege. Normally, people listen to music on your computer. If you are a car or home stereo user, you should consider purchasing a regular CD player.
Given that when I pay for a CD, I'm paying for the music, not the plastic and mylar, can any RIAA person please explain to me why my position is any less valid than Tommi Kyyrä's?
Re: the "go out and buy another CD player", I wonder what Philips' stance will be on all of this. Haven't they denied the right of DRM and copy-protected "CD" distributors to actually call them CDs? Call the new "machines" what they are, DRM/copy-protection capable CD-like players.
All I can say is I am sorry for the next generation of people who are introduced to the entertainment marketplace. We who have so long been able to enjoy CDs as they were originally defined, CDs that would play in our cars, would play in our home entertainment centers, and on our computers. It seems that era may be ending. Sigh.
I suggest a meme, (hate that word)... start calling "DRM'ed CDs" something else. Say, maybe non-standard-and-playable-only-on-certain-player-t hingies resembling CDs.
Yet another sordid chapter in the DRM saga...the insulting attempt to redefine our relationship to content we have purchased as a "privilege."
Here's the actual quote from Tommi Kyyrä himself:Tommi, don't you dare try to tell me that playing content I've purchased is a 'privilege'. I paid for that content, and I have the right to enjoy it. If your ridiculous DRM schemes get in the way of my legitimate use of my content, it's up to you and your cronies to remedy that, rather than try to redefine my rights as 'privileges'.
By the way, Tommi, your site seems to be down, but don't worry....I guess having a web site that's up all the time is a 'privilege' as well.
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
From http://www.musexfinland.fi/index.php?page=members& id=7
"IFPI Finland's goal is to ensure a favourable operational environment for the recording industry in Finland. This is achieved by improving recording industry's cultural political status, securing effective legislation to protect the recording industry's interests and improving the competitive environment."
I hope that's a joke. Flamebait rantings like this one can't possibly be helping them "improve the recording industry's cultural political status."
those that can't because of DRM'd CDs should just go out and buy a CD player.
And they wonder why there is so much animosity directed at their cartel from consumers.
Trolling is a art,
No, it's not inherently a right.
I'm suprised the RIAA isn't charging 25 cents a song for DRM "enabled" music, and subsidizing the cost of DRM players. That'll encourage market penetration, and once they've got a certian portion of the market unable to play anything else, they will finally have their freedoms.
Not like their employees (Congress) will do much to stop them, at least for a while.
Music industry execs need to remember this one simple thing: When they sell their music to us, only one side is bringing any money to the transaction. At the end of the day, it they don't offer something consumers will pay for, they will sell none of them. I don't own a Windows PC so I won't be purchasing any of their WMA only crap. Period.
This discussion is very similar to the Jobs v. Music Industry debates over $0.99 song pricing and Jobs is right on the money - I am not going to pay more than a dollar for a song when I can get it for free using another application that is also on my computer.
I only came here to do two things; kick some ass, and drink some beer...looks like we're almost out of beer.
Customer sales for the recording industry is a privelege not a right. Profit is a privelege not a right. Just cause the recording industry has a failed business model and crappy product, doesn't mean government should create a 'right' for them to be profitable.
[Insert pithy quote here]
It's also my RIGHT not to buy that DRM'd crap.
WASTE - The Secure P2P
From the redbook standard information from wikipedia:
Recently, some major recording publishers have begun to sell CDs that violate the Red Book standard for the purposes of copy prevention, using systems like Copy control, or extra features such as DualDisc, which features a CD-layer and a DVD-layer. The CD-layer is much thinner, 0.9mm, than required by the Red Book, which stipulates 1.2mm. Philips and many other companies have warned them that including the Compact Disc Digital Audio logo on such non-conforming discs may constitute trademark infringement; either in anticipation or in response, the long-familiar logo is no longer to be seen on many recent CDs.
Any company can make any product and sell it for how much they like, but if they are going to make a "CD" then it must be a CD, which in turn will play on a Mac or Linux or any CD player with the CD logo on it. If a company wants to create something else, say SACD, DVD-A, it must be labeled and sold as such, and not as a CD.
End of story.
I've GOT alternatives... MP3 player and an online store. Take that away from me? MP3 player and my local p2p app. Shut that down? I can still get vinyl AND cassette tapes. Put two bowls of tomato soup in front of me... one looks great, but I am only allowed to eat it with chopsticks, and the other is a bit cold, but I can eat it with a spoon or whatever I want... guess which one Ill take.
"When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
Er, I mean in my quote, "Normally, people listen to music on their computers. If you are a car or home stereo user, you should consider purchasing a computer."
Damn, those people who don't hit Preview and re-read their messages before posting!
That's pretty cut and dry. They won't give me a product that I want, I will not buy it. It's not as if music and movies are the only form of entertainment out there. I can live without them, but they can't live without me, and if they all starve, I don't care and I don't have to care. Sorry music industry.
This is my sig.
No, seriously, I mean it. Fuck them and their stinking business model that's based around parasiting off talent and screwing the pressure down on young artists to be as commercially successful as possible. BTW I speak as someone who worked at a music publisher for a couple of years. I thought I was pretty cynical when I started there, by the time I left I was a physical and emotional wreck (this was partly caused by my trying to live on 140 quid a week in Notting Hill Gate [expensive & flash area of West London] and partly by trying to reconcile their world view with my own and manage to build myself a career in the industry that didn't involve fucking artists over, lying, cheating, and generally behaving like a dick. (This was over ten years ago, by the way. )
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." -- Goethe
Because CDs, by definition, follow a standard, and play on all devices that conform to that standard.
He should say "Playing music on a Mac from silver coasters that happen to play music in some CD players isn't a right."
It has consistently been my position that technologies like "Digital Rights Management" are less about preventing piracy, and more about finding new ways to nickel-and-dime customers.
This is so true. Also, one thing that doesn't come up a lot is how much of this money actually makes it back to the artists? Artists have to constantly audit the record labels to get their fare share. They're not just nickel-and-diming the customers, they're nickel-and-diming the artists on the other end.
Bradley Holt
No?
Then perhaps Mr. Kyyrä should keep his nose out of other people's brand choice purchases.
Anyways...
I don't go around ripping CD's and sharing them with my friends, in spite of the fact that I not only can, but in fact actually *DO* go around regularly ripping CD's (and DVD's too, for that matter) that I've legally purchased, so that I can play them on my laptop.
I do not in any way shape or form distribute the content that I obtain, and according to good old Copyright Law, copying for personal and private use does not and can not in any way be considered copyright infringement, regardless of the DMCA or other DMCA-like laws.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
... customers will no longer take this shit and will stop buying CDs.
...
wait a minute
Stance 1: They're selling you a CD.
If you buy a CD, you buy the limitation that it only plays on limited devices. You can't play it on your phonograph or eight-track, and it may not work on hardware that isn't Trusted. However, anything you can do with it (under fair use) you must be able to. Play it on your walkman, with audio out to the audio in of your linux box, and wash it through Audacity to get it on an MP3, if you like. You have that right because it's YOUR CD, and format-shifting is fair use.
Stance 2: They're selling you a limited license to listen to a collection of music.
If you buy a license to music, you have the right to hear that music. Copy protection that prevents your accessing your licensed music on devices that are Audio CD compatible (note the little "compact disk" logo on all standards-meeting CD playback devices) is an infringement on your rights to access your licensed property.
They don't want to sell you a CD, because they lose control over it, but they are not letting you use the material you are legally licensed to when you 'buy' a CD's content for personal use. It'd be nice if they'd make up their minds beyond "give us your money, and up yours."
So, if I buy a CD and can't rip the music to my computer due to the industry copy protection, is it then legal for me to download that same music using a P2P device? If I'm truly buying access to those songs (regardless of the medium of delivery), do I then have the rights to those song regardless of the means I am then forced to procure it in the medium I then want? Why wouldn't I be?
Hrm. Having your CDs bought by the public isn't a right, either. It's a privilege, too, and one that asshats who take this stance might have revoked.
After all, according to our RIAA, it's a license, anyway, right?
Check out my sysadmin blog!
DRM is a pipe-dream. As long as I can get music out of my speakers I can record the sound and distribute it online. Most CD drives you install in your computer come with an analogue-out port which you can connect to your sound card, and all you have to do to rip past the copy hinderace is record from that source. IIRC newer SoundBlaster cards come with a native function that lets you record exactly what you hear from your speakers.
All rites reversed 2010
No, they have it the wrong way around.
The record companies receiving my money is a privilege they have - not a right.
The moment they make music that I can't play on my chosen CD playing device (whether that be a car stereo, a non-Windows computer or my old CD player that may not understand non-RedBook CDs) they lose the privilege of receiving my money.
The moment they put music for download that I cannot trivially remove the DRM from is the moment that I stop buying music from them online.
I still buy regular CDs and music from iTMS because the former I can play on all my machines, and the latter I can trivially remove the DRM with JHymn. I buy unencrypted MP3s from places like Magnatune for the same reasons. I'm happy to buy DVDs because the DRM is trivially removed and I can put the movie I bought on my server so I can play it on whatever device is most convenient. The moment I can no longer do this is the moment I stop buying DVDs.
If in 20 years time, I cannot get music/video I can play on any of my chosen devices, so be it - I won't buy music or movies. I don't need them - I can do other activities instead such as read a website, go to the pub with my friends (and see a local live band), or go on a bike ride. I can happily get by without entertainment on plastic disks. The record companies must understand that mine and many others music purchases are discretionary spending they do NOT have a right to have - instead they have the privilege of having. A privilege that can be easily revoked.
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
Idiot.
My karma is not a Chameleon.
...and the only thing that will save it is DRM and the reduction of
my rights, then
LET THE INDUSTRY COLLAPSE!!!!!
Something better will fill the vacuum.
1. My computer is my CD-Player. It should play any Compact Disk. To be a Compact Disk or CD it must follow that standards laid out by Phillips. If it does not the it must be clearly labeled.
2. Any company that uses any method that may intentionally or unintentionally cause confusion as to if the said music storage medium is or is not a Compact Disk is guilt of a violating the trademark and unfair business practices. IE like Lindows vs Windows. I can see far more customer confusion caused buy a music disk displayed with real CDs in a store with no clear label than would ever be caused by the confusion of Lindows and Windows.
3. If I purchase an item their is the assumption that I may do with the item what I want.
So if I can make the disk play in my computer then that is fine. If can rip the disk then I can put it on my music player. If I want to use it to tile my living room so be it.
4. If I do not own the CD but instead just licencing it. Said company must get a signed license from me and keep it on record.
5. If I just own a license to the music and I am not allowed to back it up then the providing company must replace the media forever if it ever fails or is damages. Since I forbidden to protect my investment to protect the Music provider the music provider must protect it for me at no cost and forever.
I can live with rules. I think it is time to stop supporting the record companies.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Rip and burn from one of these DRM'd pieces of plastic, then make lots of copies on audio CD-Rs, which can be purchased for less than $1 each. Give (do not sell) those copies to all of your friends. It's all perfectly legal in the US.
When you buy audio CD-R media, you're automatically paying a royalty tax (3% of wholesale) by law. The RIAA should be more careful about what it wishes for - they pushed for the legislation which allows this.
18 USC, Chapter 10, Subchapter A, Section 1008 specifically states:
[emphasis added]
So, copy and distribute (noncommercially) all you want!
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
Case I: You buy a movie theater ticket. You have purchased the avility to view the movie. But because you can't make it to the theater that night, you instead set up a video camera on your seat, so you can time shift your viewing of the movie. Are you entitled to do that? No.
Case II: You buy some ephedrine, some lithuim batteries, some drano and some Acetone. They are your property to use as you wish. You decide to whip up a batch of Crack. Are you allowed to do this? NO.
Case III: You own your car. You decide it would be cool to remove the windshield wipers and seatbelts. Can you do that? only if you don't put it on the road or try to sell it for such a use.
case IV: you own some swapland. You want to drain it. can you do that? Not if it's considered a protected wetland.
case V: you own a CD. You trade it to someone else for another CD. Can you do that. Yes. You own a peice of DRM'd music for which you contracted to play on a single computer. Can you sell that to someone else. NO. you contracted for that.
In fact that is the single most compelling argument both for and against DRM. If you are forced to contract for something in a take-it-or-leave-it fashion, there is precedent in some situations that says you cannot be forced to contract to give up consumer rights. However if you are offered something at a lower price in return for giving up a right then you can lose a standard right. Thus one thing you could ask is the folloowing. When you bought the DRM'd music, did you ask if you could pay more and not have it DRM'd. If not then tough luck, you accepted the contract. If so, and were refused, you might just barely possibly have a case.
Case VI: Your a farmer and the govenement tells you you can grow so many bushells on your land. You grow more but you plan to use them only for internal consumption on the property. Can you do that? seems like you could but infact you can't (read the case of Wicard Wheat). That case in fact IS the entire basis of 90% of federal law. The goverment has the right to regulate how anything is consumed or used if there is even tangentially some affect on interstate commerce. in the case of Wickard, the Supreme court ruled that if he had not grown the crops for his own use, he might possibly have purhcased them on the open market.
The point is that No you can't do what you please even if you own property. Don't like that? change 200 Years of case law, otherwise stop whining.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
I wonder whether record shops should be allowed to sell discs which loook similar to CDs interleaved with CDs? One could take the view that they are guilty of misrepresentation: they should have a separate section where they clearly display notices telling potential purchasers that the discs in that section don't comply with the CD standards.
Alternatively, they should advise customers at the till that the disc they are about to purchase isn't a CD, despite having been packaged as one.
The last scintilla of doubt just rode out of town
Doesn't the "DISC" logo on the front of my CD-ROM, my Walkman, my home stereo etc. identify the player as a certified CD player based on some consortium of manufacturers??? When one of the RIAA member companies sells me the a CD, and they call it a "Compact Disc" or a "CD", aren't they vouching that it will be compatible with any device that has the "DISC" logo on it?
The RIAA member companies should feel "privileged" that I choose to give them any money for any of their (mostly) lousey products to begin with. That is the only "privilege" involved in any of this.
Understanding is a three edged sword. - Ambassador Kosh Naranek, Babylon 5
If you buy a DRMed CD that does not appear to be DRMed before you even play it, return it. I don't care if it hurts the stores initially, the RIAA will eventually feel it. We have to fight this utter bullshit.
I know we can just boycott whatever these mega-corps push out, but that doesn't tell them our exact meaning, who even says they're listening? I personally think it would be better to be selective on what to not purcahse, if it's DRMed, return it, if it's not DRMed and you want it, let them know.
$fortune
Tomorrow has been canceled due to lack of interest.
I used to buy a lot more music before the whole Napster thing. I don't buy much music today because I get an unpleasent feeling when I think about the fact that the RIAA is behind much of this. I still get indie music (mostly from folk singers who own their own record lables), but I buy a whole lot less music.
Why should I feel guilty when I buy the latest Andrea Bocelli album? Isn't it better simply not to buy it?
I don't pirate music either for the same reason. I would rather give mindshare to independant artists.
So, most of the losses aren't due to piracy, they are due to people making a decision not to support the RIAA.
Hello RIAA: Getting my money is a privilege, not a right. You are not entitled to get my money simply because you think that I should buy your product. I don't buy Microsoft software either for the same reason-- that they treat their customers as criminals for the simple reason that they use their product.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
A socialist is a guy who is determined to control the manner and amount of use the CD gets AFTER it is sold.
Then why is it that Ralph Nader/liberals seem to be the only political voice opposing these institutions? And why is it that Republicans are so closely tied to these businesses (not that Democrats aren't, too)?
my religion lies somewhere between buddhism and super monkey ball - pamphlet?
Nope. The consumer also has a right to be protected against fraud (e.g. the advertisement as a "CD" of that which is not in compliance with the full CD standard and fails to play in all platforms which support the latter). No, a 4-point type disclaimer hidden in the artwork doesn't count.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
My spending money on your product is a privilige, not a right, and I will take my ball and go home if you don't offer me a product I want to buy.
The media world is changing, and while I'm sure the RIAA will squeeze some more cash out of their decaying system, there are plenty of media creators at there who are hungry for my cash and will create the products I want to consume at the price and format that I want.
Funny how that "free-market" argument can bite you in the ass...
"Right to Use is concomitant with purchase."
What does "use" mean? Any damn thing the customer defines it to mean. The vendor gave up all rights to constrain the customer when s/he sold the item (and yes, you sold it despite what that flimsly little piece of paper inside the shrinkwrap may say).
To placate the IP Fundamentalists, we may agree, for the moment, that "use" should not include the making and distribution of copies to others. Anything outside of that should be perfectly okay. Meaningful counterexamples welcome.
Schwab
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions
I agree. We have over a 1000 CDs in this house. But we quit buying when RIAA got nasty. I already support idiots that were forced on me. I will not spend my money on these ones.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Copyright is a pretty clear deal: people publish content, they get certain guarantees from the government for a limited time, and then the content becomes public domain. The emphasis here is on "publish", that is "make public". Any form of DRM actually violates this deal: if a company uses technological measures to prevent copying, they should not also be able to claim copyright because, among other things, the content will never become public domain. In different words, using DRM violates the agreement and constitutional basis on which copyright is based in the first place.
So, the question to ask is not whether I should be able to play copyrighted content on my Linux computer. Rather, it is clear that we need to resolve the conflict between DRM and copyright law in a way that is constitutionally and socially acceptable. And the only way I see is to eliminate all copyright protection for content that prevents copying through technological measures, including DRM or use of proprietary formats.
>Hello RIAA: Getting my money is a privilege, not a right. You are not entitled to get my money simply
>because you think that I should buy your product. I don't buy Microsoft software either for the same
>reason-- that they treat their customers as criminals for the simple reason that they use their product.
To begin, look at something lots of people are doing and say, "What if I had a piece of all of that?" That's OK for a starting point, but it's where you go from there when things get can get nasty. The "good" way would be to come up with some way to help those people do what they're doing, more conveniently, better, or whatever. Then they'd be glad to give you some money as fair exchange for helping them. Unfortunately the current US business model seems to be focused on the "tax" model. ie, find a way to skim the revenue without doing commensurate work. In this model, they also tend to look at an activity and say, "I *deserve* a piece of every bit of that!" What they fail to realize is that people will follow a law of pricing. Music downloaders have lots of music because it's "free." The moment they have to pay for it, then the quantity of music becomes a cost factor balanced with food, clothing, and other such stuff. But somehow the RIAA looks at it as if they were "denied" that much revenue, and had they been charging, they would have gotten that amount of money.
We were out walking the causway through the Bay yesterday, and I had a terrible thought. Someone's probably looking at all those people walking, and saying "What if I had a piece of all of that?" The next step would be to "privatize" bike and walking trails, the then Private Enterprise can run them for a modest fee, and instead of Government paying maintenance, (no doubt doing it incompetently, and government supposedly does with EVERYTHING) they'd be collecting revenue from the initial sale, and tax revenue from the walkers/riders.
Me, I'd be walking somewhere else, and wishing I still had the views.
As for music, I buy as little as I can, because I feel dirty buying label music. I do some shoppig at the indies on cdbaby, also.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
The interview from which this was quoted is about the new Finnish copyright law, which is basically a Finnish version of the DMCA, following the EU directive on national copyright laws. (The interview was originally published in the Tietokone magazine; rumor has it that Mr. Kyyrä was less than amused at being quoted verbatim, and a cleaned up version was put up a few hours later.)
The high points of the law include (these are mostly quoted from Electronic Frontier Finland's FAQ on the law at http://www.effi.org/tekijanoikeus/laki/tekijanoike us-faq.html (Finnish only)):
- prohibition on sale, distribution, possession and "organized discussion" (yes, it says this; no, "organized discussion" is not defined; yes, it's hard to see how this isn't against the Finnish constituion) of products whose purpose is the circumvention of DRM (this would include all non-sanctioned DVD players using something like libdvdcss);
- prohibition on copying of "efficiently" protected music or other copyrighted material to, for example, MP3 players; this is sort of allowed in one clause and expressly prohibited in another (this has been the major point seen in public discussion in the last few days);
- prohibition of "parallel" import of goods from outside the EFTA; individuals can still order goods from outside the EFTA, but all (including private) resale is prohibited; it doesn't actually matter whether the import is "parallel" or the only import, it must still be sanctioned by the copyright holder;
- possibility of expansion of the "cassette tax" (currently paid for recording media such as audio tapes and CD/DVD-Rs sold in Finland; money goes to the record labels based on how many records they sell, IIRC) to other media that "may be used to store copyrighted material"; this potentially includes all hard drives.
"Efficient protection" is a key concept in the law, but is not actually defined. According to the committee responsible for the law, protection is "efficient" if it was "meant to protect the copyrighted work from being copied". So it could be said that this law makes the shift key an illegal circumvention device.
The law was written pretty much behind closed doors, with only "experts" from the record label trade bodies and similar organizations heard. Also the head of the committee, Jukka Liedes, sits on the board of ESEK, a sub-organization of Gramex (a trade association which represents record labels in Finland). The Ministry of Education, which is the ministry responsible for the law, has also been forwarding press releases penned by the abovementioned organizations pretty much verbatim and quoting them in interviews.
It is a matter of discussion whether the committee responsible for the law is actually evil and corrupt, or just so incompetent that they have no actual idea what the rules proposed by the industry actually mean in practice.
The law was accepted in its current form today, with an official (but not having any power of law) note attached effectively saying that "there's some stuff in there that should be fixed". I understand that the law will be headed for the final yes/no vote in the parliament in the near future. In my opinion, it's very likely that it will be pushed through; the recording industry has put their rather powerful propaganda machine in high gear and (I assume) also their lobbying machinery after the outcry from the public began.
The minister of culture Tanja Karpela (who is the "owner" of the law) has refused to admit that there are any problems with the current version of the law, even though it has obvious internal contradictions as well as contradicting the constitution. When opposition to the law first started making headlines, she stated her suspicion that it was a result of "machinations by certain parties" (that's a pretty much literal and verbatim translation). It would appear that she is mostly repeating statements prepared by someone else regar
Hello RIAA: Getting my money is a privilege, not a right.
Great point. Consider that RIAA "pirates" money in a multiplicity of ways.
-If you buy ANYTHING advertised on radio, part of your purchase price goes to RIAA and the labels, because the station has to pay ASCAP licensing in order to play music. Therefore, you pay and kiss rapstar ass EVEN IF YOU HATE THE MUSIC.
-A similar scenario exists in stores which play background music. The store has to pay for a license and when you buy anything in there, you kiss RIAA ass, EVEN IF YOU HATE THE MISIC.
-Furthermore, when you go to clubs and restaurants, part of your bill goes into RIAA pockets. At least here you have a choice to go to places which play music you like. But still, a disproportionate amount of money is diverted away from productive local businesses.
-RIAA thinks you should buy recordings over and over because there is no replacement policy. For instance, I bought Pink Floyd on vinyl LP, and again when it scratched, then cassette tape, (anyone remember the RIAA freak-out in the 70s about tape), then CD, then CD again when it no longer played, then CD again as they came out with the Gold Edition and then the Millenium Edition and then the Aluminum Edition and there is no end in sight. Pardon me if I download a copy because I am too lazy to rip.
Of course the RIAA doesn't think any of this is gravy, and that is why they don't live and think like normal people. It was a beuatiful business model for the 1950s, when the equivalent of megabytes could only be delivered via fragile media, but times have changed and quite simply they don't do enough to justify charging $15 for albums any more. I'm not saying their product should be free. What I am saying is them need to be satisfied with less cocaine, uglier hookers and last year's Bentley.
Because at some point, it's easy to vanish into absurdity.
I don't feel like paying for the road to your home, any more than you feel like paying for the road to mine. Let's privatize ALL roads.
In the end, the only people who would win would be the beancounters. The people who figure out how much I'm paying for my little slice of road, and how much you're paying for yours. Then how much we each have to pay to drive over each other person's stretch of road as we drive to work. Don't forget about the guys who don't want to participate in beancounter madness - they've just put up tollbooths at each side of their property. Isn't it a pain to stop at 3 or 4 of those on the way into work, tossing the coins into the basket so the arm goes up?
As for bike paths, people in the US are exercise-avoidant enough, on their own. If pay to run/ride becomes an impediment to running and riding, let their health go downhill. So let's decide that there will be NO socialized medicine whatsoever, and we're going to let people drop dead in their homes and on sidewalks when they don't take care of themselves. Next someone has to agree to pay before the ambulance leaves the hospital. (or the firetruck leaves the firehouse, for that matter.) Oh, who pays to remove the dead bodies?
Now public health - my health DOES become an issue. The deadbeat's house next door just caught fire. He didn't pay to have the firemen come, so his house burns to the ground. Only problem - the sparks caught my house on fire, too. Oh, and his sanitary problems (dead bodies, for instance) got into the groundwater, and my well's contaminated. I could sue, but there's no point, because he hasn't got any money.
Somewhere you've got to draw a line, and declare "community" or "society." Apparently you draw that line at a lower level of built-in services than I do, and that's fine. But IMHO, drawing that line isn't so much a matter of "peoples' rights" as it is of simple efficiency. At some point it costs more to enumerate, account, and bill than it does to simply tax and provide.
Out of curiousity, what is your ideal minimum provided by taxes?
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.