By this rationale the taxes that are earmarked for things like education, pensions and old geezer medical coverage are not "taxes".
All of those go to the HM treasury, maintained by the government, and are then distributed accordingly. That is tax.
The Licensing Fee goes to the BBC and License company, and then is distributed accordingly. This is not tax, unless you are saying the BBC is part of the government, which according to the laws of the UK, it is not.
That seems incredibly close the the "home taping is killing music" or "home taping is killing tv" arguments, which have always (AFAIK) proven to be false.
Why should I buy a DVD boxed set if I've already watched the shows on tv, HD or not? The companies involved have already squeezed money out of me by virtue of my paying the Tv license which goes to the BBC, allowing them to buy the show in the first place.
One also has to question what the damn point in this is - the BBC is free to watch, paid for by the license. Everyone gets it. So why put DRM in broadcasts that everyone is going to receive?
I can only see two options:
1) They will restrict the HD streams so that only people who pay extra for them get them (unlikely since it's the BBC)
2) They don't want people to rip the shows and share them on the internet (when the shows tend to be available on the iplayer anyway, or broadcast in a different country well before they are broadcast in the UK)
It is insane - they seem to believe that even when you buy a CD in a physical shop you are signing some legal contract restricting what you can do with that music. I don't know about you, but when I buy something from the shop I've never been given a contract to read or sign, only the receipt.
So they would still feel physical pain, but won't care about it?
If they react to painful sensations negatively, then at least they still seem to have some self-preservation mechanisms working...
But even if painful sensations are not unpleasent, it is still pain, which is still cruel in a way.
Harming a masochist is still cruel to a degree, no matter how much they enjoy it.
Then of course behaviouralists would probably want to argue that the fact that they react negatively to pain is what defines them as having an unpleasent experience.
So really, what difference does this make? Do they just forget that pain hurts or something?
Blame Mandelson - he swans off on holiday to Corfu, meets with various people including someone involved in organisations not unlike the MPAA, then suggests this legislation which both artists and the ISPs are strongly opposed to.
It seems obvious that if he suceeds it will only please the higher-up executives, and not the people who provide the products involved.
Slashdot Mirror
By this rationale the taxes that are earmarked for things like education, pensions and old geezer medical coverage are not "taxes".
All of those go to the HM treasury, maintained by the government, and are then distributed accordingly. That is tax.
The Licensing Fee goes to the BBC and License company, and then is distributed accordingly. This is not tax, unless you are saying the BBC is part of the government, which according to the laws of the UK, it is not.
That seems incredibly close the the "home taping is killing music" or "home taping is killing tv" arguments, which have always (AFAIK) proven to be false. Why should I buy a DVD boxed set if I've already watched the shows on tv, HD or not? The companies involved have already squeezed money out of me by virtue of my paying the Tv license which goes to the BBC, allowing them to buy the show in the first place. One also has to question what the damn point in this is - the BBC is free to watch, paid for by the license. Everyone gets it. So why put DRM in broadcasts that everyone is going to receive? I can only see two options: 1) They will restrict the HD streams so that only people who pay extra for them get them (unlikely since it's the BBC) 2) They don't want people to rip the shows and share them on the internet (when the shows tend to be available on the iplayer anyway, or broadcast in a different country well before they are broadcast in the UK)
Ah, but getting Gordon Brown to actually admit to a mistake, even if it wasn't his own, is an achievement in itself.
It is insane - they seem to believe that even when you buy a CD in a physical shop you are signing some legal contract restricting what you can do with that music. I don't know about you, but when I buy something from the shop I've never been given a contract to read or sign, only the receipt.
So they would still feel physical pain, but won't care about it? If they react to painful sensations negatively, then at least they still seem to have some self-preservation mechanisms working... But even if painful sensations are not unpleasent, it is still pain, which is still cruel in a way. Harming a masochist is still cruel to a degree, no matter how much they enjoy it. Then of course behaviouralists would probably want to argue that the fact that they react negatively to pain is what defines them as having an unpleasent experience. So really, what difference does this make? Do they just forget that pain hurts or something?
Thanks for that, and the laugh that came with it.
Blame Mandelson - he swans off on holiday to Corfu, meets with various people including someone involved in organisations not unlike the MPAA, then suggests this legislation which both artists and the ISPs are strongly opposed to. It seems obvious that if he suceeds it will only please the higher-up executives, and not the people who provide the products involved.