The government may not benefit either. Currently they collect GST on individual's imported goods valued at over $1000. The tax gained from the multitude of items with imported valued less than that probably wouldn't outweigh the actual collection costs. Hence why they exclude such low value items from the GST.
Something struck me as I read your comment on resellers.
How will internet-cafes that have pay-to-play games work with StarCraft II? StarCraft I is still very popular in many of these places. Would users need to BYO their own account or share one for that particular cafe machine or have Blizzard got something up their sleeve on this?
I know they have a special LAN app for tournaments, I guess a cafe one isn't too much of a stretch.
I always took the view that sea creatures and dinosaurs laid eggs, long before there was any semblance of chicken or bird-like animals. No one ever specified it had to be a chicken egg.
Singing it at a school performance may fall under fair use - but my point was you and the school would be making neither profit nor royalties from these performances. Applying the Justice's decision here would not be useful as there's nothing to take a share of.
"Let's hope the primary schools are up to date with their ARIA license fees!"
How did schools come into this? It's a band making royalties and profit from a musical arrangement written by someone else, possibly even sampled directly from a recording (according to the summary).
Oh, and the article link appears broken
Perhaps, but you rely on everyone playing 'nice'. If any one nation/organisation/corporation decides to not play 'nice' they benefit immeasurably more than all other parties.
Also I still think that in your model only the mega-corporations benefit and the taxpayer is left holding the bill.
Sorry but when did I pay another country for their research or legal fees outside of the products that use it? I'm more than happy to pay for a portion of their costs if I buy a related piece of technology (MP3 in your example). What doesn't make sense is Germany alone paying for other countries to use their audio compression technology. Or in CSIRO's case Australia paying for the USA to benefit greatly from their wireless technology. Credit where it is due.
Do I get a net benefit? I hope so. CSIRO is aiming for 50% of its funding to come from commercialisation of their technologies, meaning government and taxpayers will only need to pay for 50% of their budget (currently it's much closer to 80%). As for other countries research, you only pay patent licensing on products you use, I should only pay Fraunhofer if I'm using their tech.
Ah, so you expect government funded research to subsidise multinational conglomerates and citizens of other nations then?
I'm perfectly happy for my government funded research organisation to extract payment where and when it is due, such as from said multinational conglomerates who use their research. It both lessens my tax burden and increases the funds available to the research organisation.
And yes, I'm an Australian taxpayer and CSIRO is my government funded research organisation.
There's nothing inherently wrong with the companies using incentives to encourage new rather than used purchases. They don't see money from used purchases, so it's in their interest to discourage them.
Personally I see the used game market as somewhat parasitic and part of the reason game prices remain so high. I greatly prefer buying new media and reward the original creators than lining the pockets of the local used-game cartel. But then I also prefer to wait until games are discounted heavily;)
I should also point out that the copy protection on them hasn't impacted the used game market at all. It simply prevents discs being copied or backups used.
I think you may run into trouble with your 'chargeback' idea. Technically your credit card only bought funds for your PSN wallet. You got your value there and I think the credit card company will be disinterested in what happens after that.
Isn't it better that the Ugandan researcher patents it and draws licensing revenue from huge international markets (US, EU, JP, etc) to boost her research and the Ugandan economy?
I prefer that story to mega-corporations taking whatever technology they please without doing any pure research and making billions of dollars profit.
In Australia we have quotas on our internet plans, users who download large volumes of data pay a premium for it (up to AU$140 for 140GB per month). iiNet is defending its interests and revenue stream - they don't want to see quota downgrades en-masse from people abandoning file-sharing.
Do you really think the same people are doing the detective work (collecting swabs) as are doing the DNA testing (working in the lab)?
It's the scientists in the back rooms getting lazy. The good thing about police departments is once they find an issue, they take steps to avoid it in future.
Slashdot Mirror
The government may not benefit either. Currently they collect GST on individual's imported goods valued at over $1000. The tax gained from the multitude of items with imported valued less than that probably wouldn't outweigh the actual collection costs. Hence why they exclude such low value items from the GST.
Osaka's Aquarium has 30cm thick plate glass. The tablet may be thicker than it is tall or wide =)
Something struck me as I read your comment on resellers.
How will internet-cafes that have pay-to-play games work with StarCraft II? StarCraft I is still very popular in many of these places. Would users need to BYO their own account or share one for that particular cafe machine or have Blizzard got something up their sleeve on this?
I know they have a special LAN app for tournaments, I guess a cafe one isn't too much of a stretch.
I always took the view that sea creatures and dinosaurs laid eggs, long before there was any semblance of chicken or bird-like animals. No one ever specified it had to be a chicken egg.
Singing it at a school performance may fall under fair use - but my point was you and the school would be making neither profit nor royalties from these performances. Applying the Justice's decision here would not be useful as there's nothing to take a share of.
"Let's hope the primary schools are up to date with their ARIA license fees!" How did schools come into this? It's a band making royalties and profit from a musical arrangement written by someone else, possibly even sampled directly from a recording (according to the summary). Oh, and the article link appears broken
Perhaps, but you rely on everyone playing 'nice'. If any one nation/organisation/corporation decides to not play 'nice' they benefit immeasurably more than all other parties.
Also I still think that in your model only the mega-corporations benefit and the taxpayer is left holding the bill.
Sorry but when did I pay another country for their research or legal fees outside of the products that use it? I'm more than happy to pay for a portion of their costs if I buy a related piece of technology (MP3 in your example). What doesn't make sense is Germany alone paying for other countries to use their audio compression technology. Or in CSIRO's case Australia paying for the USA to benefit greatly from their wireless technology. Credit where it is due.
Do I get a net benefit? I hope so. CSIRO is aiming for 50% of its funding to come from commercialisation of their technologies, meaning government and taxpayers will only need to pay for 50% of their budget (currently it's much closer to 80%). As for other countries research, you only pay patent licensing on products you use, I should only pay Fraunhofer if I'm using their tech.
Ah, so you expect government funded research to subsidise multinational conglomerates and citizens of other nations then? I'm perfectly happy for my government funded research organisation to extract payment where and when it is due, such as from said multinational conglomerates who use their research. It both lessens my tax burden and increases the funds available to the research organisation. And yes, I'm an Australian taxpayer and CSIRO is my government funded research organisation.
Yes, because those researchers do not need to feed or clothe their families. They can just invent more money and goods! /cynicism
Whoops, should be: Results 1 - 10 of about 30,600 for qwyjibo. (0.25 seconds)
Results 1 - 10 of about 379,000 for Kwyjibo. (0.44 seconds) - Google
I don't know about you but I don't give my name and number to my barber. I also pay in cash only.
I agree, the hat doesn't even have corks on strings!
There's nothing inherently wrong with the companies using incentives to encourage new rather than used purchases. They don't see money from used purchases, so it's in their interest to discourage them. Personally I see the used game market as somewhat parasitic and part of the reason game prices remain so high. I greatly prefer buying new media and reward the original creators than lining the pockets of the local used-game cartel. But then I also prefer to wait until games are discounted heavily ;)
I should also point out that the copy protection on them hasn't impacted the used game market at all. It simply prevents discs being copied or backups used.
I've yet to see a pirated PlayStation 3 game.
I think you may run into trouble with your 'chargeback' idea. Technically your credit card only bought funds for your PSN wallet. You got your value there and I think the credit card company will be disinterested in what happens after that.
ANZAC has been used to describe co-operation between AU and NZ fairly regularly for as long as I can remember. That said ANZSA could work.
I'm fairly sure ANZAC is only used when referring to forms of military co-operation
"form an ANZAC Space Agency together" So that'd be an Australia and New Zealand Army Corps Space Agency then?
Isn't it better that the Ugandan researcher patents it and draws licensing revenue from huge international markets (US, EU, JP, etc) to boost her research and the Ugandan economy? I prefer that story to mega-corporations taking whatever technology they please without doing any pure research and making billions of dollars profit.
In Australia we have quotas on our internet plans, users who download large volumes of data pay a premium for it (up to AU$140 for 140GB per month). iiNet is defending its interests and revenue stream - they don't want to see quota downgrades en-masse from people abandoning file-sharing.
Australia
Do you really think the same people are doing the detective work (collecting swabs) as are doing the DNA testing (working in the lab)? It's the scientists in the back rooms getting lazy. The good thing about police departments is once they find an issue, they take steps to avoid it in future.