While we don't want to collect tax from everyone because we will lose sales, that's not the big problem.
We are a small internet retailer (www.buysomebooks.com) and it is already a costly time consuming process to keep up with just two states we need to collect sales tax for. Every state has different amounts, different filing periods, different deadlines, different forms, different rules, and annual filing fees.
On the surface, people position it as "helping out the local guy", but in reality, if the local guy sells online through their website or ebay, this could put him out of business.
Some other things people forget is that the interstate Internet retailer is someone else's 'local business'. I know we are currently less United and more States, but not caring about 'other local' business is not good. We need a little more 'team' spirit right now. It's unfortunate if this type of thing is defining the new American way.
Over all a good article, but could have mentioned other things the content companies are doing which devalue the content they have.
Take movies.
I used to enjoy going to the movies. Now it easily costs $30 per person (much higher admission and exorbitant charge for food) to be jammed into a theater of inconsiderate people and then herded out as quickly as possible so the next showing can start. While I'm waiting for the movie to start, I'm bombarded with advertising telling me how great of time I'm having or telling me I need to buy something. It's no longer worth it.
For those that don't know, The studios (content owners) take almost all of the admission revenue and the theaters (content packaging) make their money on concession and other sales. In an effort to squeeze every last cent they can out of the goer (customer) they've lost many customers. To try to subsidize revenue, 'lost' from customers they drove away, they squeeze some more, driving even more away (snowball). How many mega-plexes have you seen closed down. Many drive-ins still offer a good experience for a reasonable price.
When a customer no longer finds going to the theater worth the cost/hassle, they might wait till it is released on DVD. If they still remember they wanted to see a particular movie they buy the DVD, pop it in their player and are blasted with an advertisement telling them not to steal the DVD they just paid for. They then have to wait through another notices about not copying the movie before waiting through the same notice in another language.
Do the studios actually believe that bombarding someone, who already paid, with irritating threats and warnings is going to increase the odds they will spend hard earned money the next time they want to see a movie?
Now it's the next time and wouldbe customer has to decide it they want to
1. Spend more money, which is harder to come by, to be inundated with advertisements and other baggage, just to have a less enjoyable experience seeing the movie. OR
2. Download it where they won't have all the other bothers. They may think it's wrong, but it doesn't matter as much to them because the perceived victim (the studio) was trying to take advantage of them and the the RIAA is mean/greedy the way they aggressively go after poor college students
The more the content provider does to irritate the customer, the more the customer will cease to be a customer.
I used to be one of the movie business' biggest customers. Now I go hiking, and the Internet gets the blame.
I'm curious. Hypothetically (forgoing the actual task), if Google had contacted everyone who's property they've been parading on the internet and asked, "Would it be OK if we take photos of you and your property and distribute them to anyone who wants to see them so we can make more money?"
What percent would have answered yes?
Hypothetical question #2. What if it was the early 1990's, what would people think about it?
#3. What if Google was a company from China, Iran, the Bush administration?
Finally, #4. What about when Google is flying in a Cessna 100' over your house gathering more data for the 3D model of you and your back yard jacuzzi?
I guess #3 is moot since the results were cataloged, organized, and published so they all have access anyway.
I guess #4 is also moot since they can (even if it's not public yet) do that from orbit at 160mi.
Slashdot Mirror
While we don't want to collect tax from everyone because we will lose sales, that's not the big problem. We are a small internet retailer (www.buysomebooks.com) and it is already a costly time consuming process to keep up with just two states we need to collect sales tax for. Every state has different amounts, different filing periods, different deadlines, different forms, different rules, and annual filing fees.
On the surface, people position it as "helping out the local guy", but in reality, if the local guy sells online through their website or ebay, this could put him out of business.
Some other things people forget is that the interstate Internet retailer is someone else's 'local business'. I know we are currently less United and more States, but not caring about 'other local' business is not good. We need a little more 'team' spirit right now. It's unfortunate if this type of thing is defining the new American way.
Over all a good article, but could have mentioned other things the content companies are doing which devalue the content they have. Take movies. I used to enjoy going to the movies. Now it easily costs $30 per person (much higher admission and exorbitant charge for food) to be jammed into a theater of inconsiderate people and then herded out as quickly as possible so the next showing can start. While I'm waiting for the movie to start, I'm bombarded with advertising telling me how great of time I'm having or telling me I need to buy something. It's no longer worth it.
For those that don't know, The studios (content owners) take almost all of the admission revenue and the theaters (content packaging) make their money on concession and other sales. In an effort to squeeze every last cent they can out of the goer (customer) they've lost many customers. To try to subsidize revenue, 'lost' from customers they drove away, they squeeze some more, driving even more away (snowball). How many mega-plexes have you seen closed down. Many drive-ins still offer a good experience for a reasonable price.
When a customer no longer finds going to the theater worth the cost/hassle, they might wait till it is released on DVD. If they still remember they wanted to see a particular movie they buy the DVD, pop it in their player and are blasted with an advertisement telling them not to steal the DVD they just paid for. They then have to wait through another notices about not copying the movie before waiting through the same notice in another language.
Do the studios actually believe that bombarding someone, who already paid, with irritating threats and warnings is going to increase the odds they will spend hard earned money the next time they want to see a movie?
Now it's the next time and wouldbe customer has to decide it they want to
1. Spend more money, which is harder to come by, to be inundated with advertisements and other baggage, just to have a less enjoyable experience seeing the movie. OR
2. Download it where they won't have all the other bothers. They may think it's wrong, but it doesn't matter as much to them because the perceived victim (the studio) was trying to take advantage of them and the the RIAA is mean/greedy the way they aggressively go after poor college students
The more the content provider does to irritate the customer, the more the customer will cease to be a customer.
I used to be one of the movie business' biggest customers. Now I go hiking, and the Internet gets the blame.
The most secure way to treat peoples information is to not store it in the first place.
I'm curious. Hypothetically (forgoing the actual task), if Google had contacted everyone who's property they've been parading on the internet and asked, "Would it be OK if we take photos of you and your property and distribute them to anyone who wants to see them so we can make more money?" What percent would have answered yes?
Hypothetical question #2. What if it was the early 1990's, what would people think about it?
#3. What if Google was a company from China, Iran, the Bush administration?
Finally, #4. What about when Google is flying in a Cessna 100' over your house gathering more data for the 3D model of you and your back yard jacuzzi?
I guess #3 is moot since the results were cataloged, organized, and published so they all have access anyway.
I guess #4 is also moot since they can (even if it's not public yet) do that from orbit at 160mi.
Actual question #1. Where do we draw the line?