Think of it - everyone would have an incentive to install blockers that block video ads, big blocks of graphic ads, those "wallpaper" website backgrounds that javascript changes every few seconds, and a lot of unnecessary javascript libraries.
Even better, people will just download any application they need rather than having to continuously download the UI. So web sites become repositories of data, and different apps access it differently. No more "web office suites." We should be doing this anyway. (no more "slashdot beta").
I would ask the same question of you. Who are you to decide what is essential and what is not?
The internet existed before streaming video, and it will continue to exist if streaming video were to disappear, or be the biggest contributor to the average person's internet costs.
People will adjust their demand for video based on cost. There's nothing nefarious about that. Nothing saying that it is or is not essential. Just a simple fact of how price affects demand.
People already limit how much video they watch on their cell plans when they're not near a wifi access point, because otherwise they can burn through their month's allotment in one day. Is this a "bad thing", or "unfair", or whatever? No. It just indicates that streaming video is not essential, and they can postpone it until they can get it cheaper when near a wifi. If they couldn't get it via wifi, they're not going to max out their data plan in a few hours "just 'cuz" unless money is not an issue - not at today's mobile data overage charges.
Ah, the good ole days, when you ran a bbs and actually worried about bandwidth usage on dial-up, when ascii graphics reigned supreme, and content actually mattered. Where you probably met most of the people using your board on a regular bais, instead of the vacuous "friends" on facebook.
I don't think it would be possible to curb the use of alternatives, such as mesh networks, in a cost-effective way - and certainly never underestimate the bandwidth of a pocket full of USB keys:-)
Toasters and microwaves aren't essential. You can do all the stuff you'd normally use them for in an oven or on a stove. Let's tax toasters and microwaves 50 cents for each minute used.
Last time I looked, electricity was already taxed. Microwaves and toasters use less energy than an oven for those tasks for which they are better suited. So you are already paying a base rate + so much per unit consumed.
Most people could probably walk 2 kilometers. Let's implement a tax on all car trips that are less than 2 kilometers.
In effect we already do - vehicles use a lot more fuel in the first few kilometers before the engine gets to operating temperature, and car use is subject to a base tax rate (licensing) + taxes based on the amount of fuel used.
Please note that I have never said I was in favour of this tax. It's stupid and counter-productive in the long term. However, it is what it is, and if it ever comes to pass, people will adapt. That's what people do.
In my case my internet provider charges me a set amount for up to 350Gb that tax is over 400% my subscription fee if I were to use all 350Gb. The tax would also effect internet based businesses it is an undue burden.
This whole "unfairness" thing ignores my point - that people will change their use habits, the same as they do when any tax level or cost is changed on something that is non-essential and subject to both price and substitution effects. This is a simple fact and has nothing to do with fairness.
Increased gas taxes cause people to substitute gas guzzlers with cars that use less gas, cut back on trips, bike, use public transit, car pool...
Increased tobacco prices cause some people to quit smoking, and others to smoke less, and some not to take up the habit at all.
Increased prices for beef mean people will eat more cheaper chicken instead.
Increased prices for housing will cause people to double up, downsize, or cut back spending elsewhere.
This has nothing to do with "fairness" or an "undue burden." But, speaking of "undue burden", there are plenty of things people will do in such a scenario.
They will reduce their use of streaming video.
They will increase the use of ad-blockers that serve up graphics, videos, etc., forcing advertisers back to text-only ads.
Web designers will be forced to concentrate on content instead of pretty-pretty, with huge wallpaper-style backgrounds, tons of downloaded javascript just to animate one item, or have their sites break when users block the extraneous bandwidth-hogging content.
People will switch from web sites to apps, which don't have to download the whole UI every time.
Now, for internet-based businesses, it's hard to make a case that this is an undue burden when compared to their competition - brick and mortar. Internet-based businesses have been engaging in tax avoidance wrt sales and use taxes since the beginning of the Internet. This wouldn't even begin to create a level playing field.
And the argument that this would represent a huge increment over the base subscription? Well, you pay a "base subscription" to use the roads when you plate your car, but that doesn't mean you get away without paying fuel taxes, which usually amount to much more than the cost of plating the vehicle on an annual basis. You can take measures to mitigate the amount of bandwidth you actually consume, though of course YMMV.
Again, I have never said I was in favour of this tax. However, it is what it is, and if it ever comes to pass, people will change their habits to minimize the impact.
The fact that people will find ways of routing around the problem is exactly why this is a bad idea. Having Linux Install-Fests was exactly what people did 15 years ago, which just goes to show that taxing internet usage will actually stifle technology.
The install-fests were actually better than people just downloading $RANDOM_DISTRO and not having anyone around to help them when things almost invariably go wrong. Since the passing of install-fests, the portion of linux on the desktop has declined, so the convenience of the innert00bs may have actually stifled some adoption.
Another reading comprehension fail by yet another poster. What is it today?
I wrote:
More (much more) than half of all beverage sales in fast-food restaurants are for soft drinks.
And of course, someone who can't read replies:
I find it hard to believe that the drink costs more than the burger AND fries at a fast food restaurant (hint: it doesn't).
That's NOT what I wrote. McDonalds sells far more soft drinks than, for example, fruit juice. They're trying to increase their coffee sales, but that effort has resulted in a decline in their same-store sales in the last quarter (since putting ad dollars into pushing coffee instead of big-mac-fries-and-a-coke has a knock-on effect).
It's not just about streaming. Downloading a modern Linux distro will now cost Hungarians almost five bucks. Downloading a current-gen game on steam, which will already cost them €60 (roughly 80 dollars) will now cost 15 dollars more.
So one person downloads the Linux distro and shares the burned dvd with everyone else who wants it via sneakernet. Big deal. And maybe this will help bring back brick-and-mortar stores for game distribution (and help get rid of all that "you need to be connected all the time and you need downloadable content to actually make the game fun to play" crapola).
You think home users are going to be hit the hardest, and everything that's being hit is non-essential?
Those probably are two common mistakes.
You should see the VPN traffic between our main office and branch offices, and what the cost would be if we had to stop that and return to prehistoric ways.
And that has ZERO to do with my point, which was that video streaming, which is the majority of Internet traffic, is a non-essential service that is subject to flexible demand based on price. Raise the price, people will cut back on their streaming video.
You may want to read up on the US joining the Berne Convention
The US Copyright Office disagrees with you:
(c) Effect of Berne Convention.—No right or interest in a work eligible for protection under this title may be claimed by virtue of, or in reliance upon, the provisions of the Berne Convention, or the adherence of the United States thereto. Any rights in a work eligible for protection under this title that derive from this title, other Federal or State statutes, or the common law, shall not be expanded or reduced by virtue of, or in reliance upon, the provisions of the Berne Convention, or the adherence of the United States thereto.
Fair use is a provision of copyright law. It does not negate it.
Again, read what I actually wrote:
Nor is stuff protected by copyright if it is subject to fair use provisions.
You can't rely on copyright protection to prevent others from using stuff that is subject to fair use. Sure, you hold the copyright - but if it's subject to fair use, good luck protecting it.
I work from home mostly because it's cheaper than driving into an office. I use in the area of 300Gb a month if a $0.62/Gb tax was implemented the tax would be 4 times my subscription fee and it would suddenly be cheaper to drive.
How much of that is for work, and how much for "other stuff?" Since you can't count your basic subscription fee in your calculation as to whether it's cheaper to drive (unless you're willing to give up home access completely), the cost equation may still be in favour of working from home. Or you may decide to re-examine your work processes to figure out ways to use less bandwidth.
OK. So it will only set it back 10 years to the pre-internet-streaming days.
Streaming video isn't an essential part of the internet, any more than facebook is. In the case of Hungary, they'll just have to pay for whatever bandwidth they consume, so video is a logical place to cut back. Services such as streaming video are subject to what economists call demand flexibility and substitution. Price goes too high - demand drops and/or people substitute other services or goods.
More than half of all bandwidth is now devoted to streaming videos. That doesn't mean it's essential. More (much more) than half of all beverage sales in fast-food restaurants are for soft drinks. Doesn't make it essential by any means.
How is "OMG I can't afford to stream 8 hours of video a day any more" going to set society back 20 years? If anything, it will be a huge improvement.
Get rid of all the video and bandwidth consumed drops like a stone.
The internet is non essential?
Please learn to read instead of putting words in my mouth. Streaming video is non-essential. Believe it or not, the internet existed long before youtube.
You do realize that streaming video also includes online coursework, right?
You do realize that before streaming video that there were other ways to do coursework online, right? Streaming video is not an essential commodity, and if it becomes too expensive, people will go back to those other ways (both online and offline), which have never been shown to be inferior to streaming video.
People have ways of working around that - one person downloads the linux iso, and propagates it via sneakernet, for example. The same can be done for updates.
I for one welcome the return of our Linux Install-Fest Overlords:-)
I find it incredibly astonishing that someone would get an account on a technology website and then dismiss the use of technology as a non-essential service. It shows an incredible lack of intelligence.
If streaming video were to disappear tomorrow, the world will not end. Distance learning can (and is) done without resorting to streaming video. People connect to loved ones all the time without streaming video. Business is conducted all the time without streaming video. Streaming video != the internet. There's email, text, voip, anti-social media, chat...
Streaming video is a non-essential technology. Netflix alone (hardly an essential service) now accounts for more than a third of all bandwidth consumed. Throw in youtube and that passes 50%. Will the world die if netflix and youtube cease to exist? Nonsense - but bandwidth usage would drop by half or more.
The stamps thing is BS. Inmates keep track of who owes what. They don't have to have any sort of "token" to remind them that "Jimmy the Stool" owes them, and if he doesn't pay up, Jimmy the Stool will be wobblier than a 2-legged stool.
Stamps have a serious problem - they deteriorate with humidity, so good luck hiding them in any of "the usual places."
Much of the time payment is made via contacts on the outside, usually friends or family, or by prison workers. They don't take stamps in return for smuggling in booze, weed, or cell phones. They do it either out of fear, to return a favour, or for cash or drugs from the outside contacts of an inmate.
Except that the internet is already regulated and untaxed in the United States.
Untaxed? So all equipment for the transmission and reception of signals on the internet are tax-free? There's no sales tax on internet service? Internet companies don't pay taxes wrt their employees salaries and benefits, and neither do their employees? Profits and capital gains are tax-free? No municipal taxes on offices?
Untaxed? Hardly.
The comments at this site are rife with oversimplifications.
For most laypersons, it's not a problem because they'll never be in a position to produce copyright works.
What? Everything you create is covered by copyright.
Au contraire, not everything that someone creates is covered by copyright. To be eligible for copyright, it has to be original, non-trivial, and not a compilation of facts such as a list of names and addresses. And then there's the stuff that people "create" that someone else already did - hence the expression "great minds think alike."
A work is “created” when it is fixed in a copy or phonorecord for the first time; where a work is prepared over a period of time, the portion of it that has been fixed at any particular time constitutes the work as of that time, and where the work has been prepared in different versions, each version constitutes a separate work.
A work is “fixed” in a tangible medium of expression when its embodiment in a copy or phonorecord, by or under the authority of the author, is sufficiently permanent or stable to permit it to be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated for a period of more than transitory duration. A work consisting of sounds, images, or both, that are being transmitted, is “fixed” for purposes of this title if a fixation of the work is being made simultaneously with its transmission.
Only to the extent that artwork contains non-utilitarian aspects is it protected. The rest isn't. So if the artwork is strictly utilitarian, it isn't eligible for copyright, even if it took you 1,000 hours to create it:
“Pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works” include two-dimensional and three-dimensional works of fine, graphic, and applied art, photographs, prints and art reproductions, maps, globes, charts, diagrams, models, and technical drawings, including architectural plans. Such works shall include works of artistic craftsmanship insofar as their form but not their mechanical or utilitarian aspects are concerned; the design of a useful article, as defined in this section, shall be considered a pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work only if, and only to the extent that, such design incorporates pictorial, graphic, or sculptural features that can be identified separately from, and are capable of existing independently of, the utilitarian aspects of the article.
Also, inventions, while an exercise in creativity, are not copyrightable - hence patents. Nor is stuff protected by copyright if it is subject to fair use provisions.
Also, you can't claim copyright on work you did for hire - that resides with the entity that paid you, and only to the extent that it is subject matter fit to copyright.
So no, not everything you create is covered by copyright, and that's a good thing, or there really would be quite the chilling effect on creativity.
How is "OMG I can't afford to stream 8 hours of video a day any more" going to set society back 20 years? If anything, it will be a huge improvement.
People are rational actors, and demand for internet is flexible. The cheaper it is, the more people use. Raise the price, they cut back and substitute another product (dvds, other activities). Same as any other non-essential service.
The "Information superhighway" hasn't existed for years. It was replaced by streaming entertainment. Actual "information", as in, "I want to find something out" is a small minority of internet traffic. Youtube and netflix alone take half of all traffic. Then throw in all those video ads. And the individual broadcasters' own apps. And skype. And torrents of movies.
Get rid of all the video and bandwidth consumed drops like a stone.
So maybe you need to be more creative to find a way that doesn't infringe the law:-)
But how can a layman know where the line is for a particular use? The uncertainty itself has a chilling effect on creativity.
For most laypersons, it's not a problem because they'll never be in a position to produce copyright works. So only those who are actually exercising their creativity in a fashion that is governed by copyright need worry.
From this subset, someone who's producing music, art, or literary works has probably had it drilled into them in school that plagiarism is wrong. So, if they're lifting someone else's work and calling it their own, they're not being creative and deserve what they get. They're just trying to ride on the coattails of someone else anyway.
If, on the other hand, their story, music, or artwork is original and creative, the problem probably won't arise, and if someone falsely accuses them of being rip-off artists, it's up to the accuser to spend the money to take it to court. And not just anyone can do that - only someone who holds the rights to a similar work, so the problem, if your writing, music, or artwork is truly original, is self-limiting.
This being slashdot, there is the question of software. Now since we're talking only about copyrights in this thread (no trademarks or patents), a comparison of the source code of the two products should suffice, and most people in the biz know enough to know that a lot of code is simply not protectable by copyright anyway.
When people have an itch to scratch, whether it's to create a new piece of art, or compose a new song, or write a new story, or even build some new type of software, I don't think that copyright law has a chilling effect on their scratching. To the contrary, they know that if it's original, they can register the copyright to it for a nominal fee, and even if they don't, their copyrights are still enforceable (just that they only get actual damages instead of statutory damages). But actually registering the copyright may have another benefit - it could make your DMCA takedown notices more effective.
The dude who invented the round wheel didn't invent the wheel by "resist common sense", or did he?
If everyone else is rolling heavy loads on logs, and someone else figures out that it's better to just use two sections of logs and another smaller one as an axle, well, that's going against common sense. Until you figure out how to use two or more of these supporting a platform and throwing a bit of bear fat on the "axles" as lube and actually show them your new cart...
... because if you just described it to them, they'd just shake their heads and roll their eyes.
Barb! Slashdot probably wouldn't have half the flame wars it does if you decided to stop visiting.
I'm honored that I'm the source of half the flame wars (somehow I doubt it - just don't let anyone know I'm the one responsible for slashdot BETA:-).
A quick search for "prison barter" found various sources for the "stamps as currency" myth. In fact, prisoners are only allowed 40 stamps at a time. When an illegal cellphone can go for more than a new iPhone 6, stamps aren't going to cut it. Same with booze, drugs, etc.
Do I know someone who as done time? Of course. Who doesn't?
Slashdot Mirror
Think of it - everyone would have an incentive to install blockers that block video ads, big blocks of graphic ads, those "wallpaper" website backgrounds that javascript changes every few seconds, and a lot of unnecessary javascript libraries.
Even better, people will just download any application they need rather than having to continuously download the UI. So web sites become repositories of data, and different apps access it differently. No more "web office suites." We should be doing this anyway. (no more "slashdot beta").
The internet existed before streaming video, and it will continue to exist if streaming video were to disappear, or be the biggest contributor to the average person's internet costs.
People will adjust their demand for video based on cost. There's nothing nefarious about that. Nothing saying that it is or is not essential. Just a simple fact of how price affects demand.
People already limit how much video they watch on their cell plans when they're not near a wifi access point, because otherwise they can burn through their month's allotment in one day. Is this a "bad thing", or "unfair", or whatever? No. It just indicates that streaming video is not essential, and they can postpone it until they can get it cheaper when near a wifi. If they couldn't get it via wifi, they're not going to max out their data plan in a few hours "just 'cuz" unless money is not an issue - not at today's mobile data overage charges.
Ah, the good ole days, when you ran a bbs and actually worried about bandwidth usage on dial-up, when ascii graphics reigned supreme, and content actually mattered. Where you probably met most of the people using your board on a regular bais, instead of the vacuous "friends" on facebook.
I don't think it would be possible to curb the use of alternatives, such as mesh networks, in a cost-effective way - and certainly never underestimate the bandwidth of a pocket full of USB keys :-)
Toasters and microwaves aren't essential. You can do all the stuff you'd normally use them for in an oven or on a stove. Let's tax toasters and microwaves 50 cents for each minute used.
Last time I looked, electricity was already taxed. Microwaves and toasters use less energy than an oven for those tasks for which they are better suited. So you are already paying a base rate + so much per unit consumed.
Most people could probably walk 2 kilometers. Let's implement a tax on all car trips that are less than 2 kilometers.
In effect we already do - vehicles use a lot more fuel in the first few kilometers before the engine gets to operating temperature, and car use is subject to a base tax rate (licensing) + taxes based on the amount of fuel used.
Please note that I have never said I was in favour of this tax. It's stupid and counter-productive in the long term. However, it is what it is, and if it ever comes to pass, people will adapt. That's what people do.
In my case my internet provider charges me a set amount for up to 350Gb that tax is over 400% my subscription fee if I were to use all 350Gb. The tax would also effect internet based businesses it is an undue burden.
This whole "unfairness" thing ignores my point - that people will change their use habits, the same as they do when any tax level or cost is changed on something that is non-essential and subject to both price and substitution effects. This is a simple fact and has nothing to do with fairness.
This has nothing to do with "fairness" or an "undue burden." But, speaking of "undue burden", there are plenty of things people will do in such a scenario.
Now, for internet-based businesses, it's hard to make a case that this is an undue burden when compared to their competition - brick and mortar. Internet-based businesses have been engaging in tax avoidance wrt sales and use taxes since the beginning of the Internet. This wouldn't even begin to create a level playing field.
And the argument that this would represent a huge increment over the base subscription? Well, you pay a "base subscription" to use the roads when you plate your car, but that doesn't mean you get away without paying fuel taxes, which usually amount to much more than the cost of plating the vehicle on an annual basis. You can take measures to mitigate the amount of bandwidth you actually consume, though of course YMMV.
Again, I have never said I was in favour of this tax. However, it is what it is, and if it ever comes to pass, people will change their habits to minimize the impact.
The fact that people will find ways of routing around the problem is exactly why this is a bad idea. Having Linux Install-Fests was exactly what people did 15 years ago, which just goes to show that taxing internet usage will actually stifle technology.
The install-fests were actually better than people just downloading $RANDOM_DISTRO and not having anyone around to help them when things almost invariably go wrong. Since the passing of install-fests, the portion of linux on the desktop has declined, so the convenience of the innert00bs may have actually stifled some adoption.
Another reading comprehension fail by yet another poster. What is it today?
I wrote:
More (much more) than half of all beverage sales in fast-food restaurants are for soft drinks.
And of course, someone who can't read replies:
I find it hard to believe that the drink costs more than the burger AND fries at a fast food restaurant (hint: it doesn't).
That's NOT what I wrote. McDonalds sells far more soft drinks than, for example, fruit juice. They're trying to increase their coffee sales, but that effort has resulted in a decline in their same-store sales in the last quarter (since putting ad dollars into pushing coffee instead of big-mac-fries-and-a-coke has a knock-on effect).
It's not just about streaming. Downloading a modern Linux distro will now cost Hungarians almost five bucks. Downloading a current-gen game on steam, which will already cost them €60 (roughly 80 dollars) will now cost 15 dollars more.
So one person downloads the Linux distro and shares the burned dvd with everyone else who wants it via sneakernet. Big deal. And maybe this will help bring back brick-and-mortar stores for game distribution (and help get rid of all that "you need to be connected all the time and you need downloadable content to actually make the game fun to play" crapola).
You think home users are going to be hit the hardest, and everything that's being hit is non-essential?
Those probably are two common mistakes.
You should see the VPN traffic between our main office and branch offices, and what the cost would be if we had to stop that and return to prehistoric ways.
And that has ZERO to do with my point, which was that video streaming, which is the majority of Internet traffic, is a non-essential service that is subject to flexible demand based on price. Raise the price, people will cut back on their streaming video.
You may want to read up on the US joining the Berne Convention
The US Copyright Office disagrees with you:
(c) Effect of Berne Convention.—No right or interest in a work eligible for protection under this title may be claimed by virtue of, or in reliance upon, the provisions of the Berne Convention, or the adherence of the United States thereto. Any rights in a work eligible for protection under this title that derive from this title, other Federal or State statutes, or the common law, shall not be expanded or reduced by virtue of, or in reliance upon, the provisions of the Berne Convention, or the adherence of the United States thereto.
Fair use is a provision of copyright law. It does not negate it.
Again, read what I actually wrote:
Nor is stuff protected by copyright if it is subject to fair use provisions.
You can't rely on copyright protection to prevent others from using stuff that is subject to fair use. Sure, you hold the copyright - but if it's subject to fair use, good luck protecting it.
I work from home mostly because it's cheaper than driving into an office. I use in the area of 300Gb a month if a $0.62/Gb tax was implemented the tax would be 4 times my subscription fee and it would suddenly be cheaper to drive.
How much of that is for work, and how much for "other stuff?" Since you can't count your basic subscription fee in your calculation as to whether it's cheaper to drive (unless you're willing to give up home access completely), the cost equation may still be in favour of working from home. Or you may decide to re-examine your work processes to figure out ways to use less bandwidth.
OK. So it will only set it back 10 years to the pre-internet-streaming days.
Streaming video isn't an essential part of the internet, any more than facebook is. In the case of Hungary, they'll just have to pay for whatever bandwidth they consume, so video is a logical place to cut back. Services such as streaming video are subject to what economists call demand flexibility and substitution. Price goes too high - demand drops and/or people substitute other services or goods.
More than half of all bandwidth is now devoted to streaming videos. That doesn't mean it's essential. More (much more) than half of all beverage sales in fast-food restaurants are for soft drinks. Doesn't make it essential by any means.
How is "OMG I can't afford to stream 8 hours of video a day any more" going to set society back 20 years? If anything, it will be a huge improvement.
Get rid of all the video and bandwidth consumed drops like a stone.
The internet is non essential?
Please learn to read instead of putting words in my mouth. Streaming video is non-essential. Believe it or not, the internet existed long before youtube.
You do realize that streaming video also includes online coursework, right?
You do realize that before streaming video that there were other ways to do coursework online, right? Streaming video is not an essential commodity, and if it becomes too expensive, people will go back to those other ways (both online and offline), which have never been shown to be inferior to streaming video.
Your ISP is already metering your traffic. So are the upstream providers, since they need to do so for their peering arrangements.
People have ways of working around that - one person downloads the linux iso, and propagates it via sneakernet, for example. The same can be done for updates.
I for one welcome the return of our Linux Install-Fest Overlords :-)
I find it incredibly astonishing that someone would get an account on a technology website and then dismiss the use of technology as a non-essential service. It shows an incredible lack of intelligence.
If streaming video were to disappear tomorrow, the world will not end. Distance learning can (and is) done without resorting to streaming video. People connect to loved ones all the time without streaming video. Business is conducted all the time without streaming video. Streaming video != the internet. There's email, text, voip, anti-social media, chat ...
Streaming video is a non-essential technology. Netflix alone (hardly an essential service) now accounts for more than a third of all bandwidth consumed. Throw in youtube and that passes 50%. Will the world die if netflix and youtube cease to exist? Nonsense - but bandwidth usage would drop by half or more.
The stamps thing is BS. Inmates keep track of who owes what. They don't have to have any sort of "token" to remind them that "Jimmy the Stool" owes them, and if he doesn't pay up, Jimmy the Stool will be wobblier than a 2-legged stool.
Stamps have a serious problem - they deteriorate with humidity, so good luck hiding them in any of "the usual places."
Much of the time payment is made via contacts on the outside, usually friends or family, or by prison workers. They don't take stamps in return for smuggling in booze, weed, or cell phones. They do it either out of fear, to return a favour, or for cash or drugs from the outside contacts of an inmate.
Except that the internet is already regulated and untaxed in the United States.
Untaxed? So all equipment for the transmission and reception of signals on the internet are tax-free? There's no sales tax on internet service? Internet companies don't pay taxes wrt their employees salaries and benefits, and neither do their employees? Profits and capital gains are tax-free? No municipal taxes on offices?
Untaxed? Hardly.
The comments at this site are rife with oversimplifications.
Certainly in the post I'm replying to :-)
For most laypersons, it's not a problem because they'll never be in a position to produce copyright works.
What? Everything you create is covered by copyright.
Au contraire, not everything that someone creates is covered by copyright. To be eligible for copyright, it has to be original, non-trivial, and not a compilation of facts such as a list of names and addresses. And then there's the stuff that people "create" that someone else already did - hence the expression "great minds think alike."
It also has to be fixed in some medium.
A work is “created” when it is fixed in a copy or phonorecord for the first time; where a work is prepared over a period of time, the portion of it that has been fixed at any particular time constitutes the work as of that time, and where the work has been prepared in different versions, each version constitutes a separate work.
A work is “fixed” in a tangible medium of expression when its embodiment in a copy or phonorecord, by or under the authority of the author, is sufficiently permanent or stable to permit it to be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated for a period of more than transitory duration. A work consisting of sounds, images, or both, that are being transmitted, is “fixed” for purposes of this title if a fixation of the work is being made simultaneously with its transmission.
Only to the extent that artwork contains non-utilitarian aspects is it protected. The rest isn't. So if the artwork is strictly utilitarian, it isn't eligible for copyright, even if it took you 1,000 hours to create it:
“Pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works” include two-dimensional and three-dimensional works of fine, graphic, and applied art, photographs, prints and art reproductions, maps, globes, charts, diagrams, models, and technical drawings, including architectural plans. Such works shall include works of artistic craftsmanship insofar as their form but not their mechanical or utilitarian aspects are concerned; the design of a useful article, as defined in this section, shall be considered a pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work only if, and only to the extent that, such design incorporates pictorial, graphic, or sculptural features that can be identified separately from, and are capable of existing independently of, the utilitarian aspects of the article.
Also, inventions, while an exercise in creativity, are not copyrightable - hence patents. Nor is stuff protected by copyright if it is subject to fair use provisions.
Also, you can't claim copyright on work you did for hire - that resides with the entity that paid you, and only to the extent that it is subject matter fit to copyright.
So no, not everything you create is covered by copyright, and that's a good thing, or there really would be quite the chilling effect on creativity.
How is "OMG I can't afford to stream 8 hours of video a day any more" going to set society back 20 years? If anything, it will be a huge improvement.
People are rational actors, and demand for internet is flexible. The cheaper it is, the more people use. Raise the price, they cut back and substitute another product (dvds, other activities). Same as any other non-essential service.
The "Information superhighway" hasn't existed for years. It was replaced by streaming entertainment. Actual "information", as in, "I want to find something out" is a small minority of internet traffic. Youtube and netflix alone take half of all traffic. Then throw in all those video ads. And the individual broadcasters' own apps. And skype. And torrents of movies.
Get rid of all the video and bandwidth consumed drops like a stone.
So maybe you need to be more creative to find a way that doesn't infringe the law :-)
But how can a layman know where the line is for a particular use? The uncertainty itself has a chilling effect on creativity.
For most laypersons, it's not a problem because they'll never be in a position to produce copyright works. So only those who are actually exercising their creativity in a fashion that is governed by copyright need worry.
From this subset, someone who's producing music, art, or literary works has probably had it drilled into them in school that plagiarism is wrong. So, if they're lifting someone else's work and calling it their own, they're not being creative and deserve what they get. They're just trying to ride on the coattails of someone else anyway.
If, on the other hand, their story, music, or artwork is original and creative, the problem probably won't arise, and if someone falsely accuses them of being rip-off artists, it's up to the accuser to spend the money to take it to court. And not just anyone can do that - only someone who holds the rights to a similar work, so the problem, if your writing, music, or artwork is truly original, is self-limiting.
This being slashdot, there is the question of software. Now since we're talking only about copyrights in this thread (no trademarks or patents), a comparison of the source code of the two products should suffice, and most people in the biz know enough to know that a lot of code is simply not protectable by copyright anyway.
When people have an itch to scratch, whether it's to create a new piece of art, or compose a new song, or write a new story, or even build some new type of software, I don't think that copyright law has a chilling effect on their scratching. To the contrary, they know that if it's original, they can register the copyright to it for a nominal fee, and even if they don't, their copyrights are still enforceable (just that they only get actual damages instead of statutory damages). But actually registering the copyright may have another benefit - it could make your DMCA takedown notices more effective.
The dude who invented the round wheel didn't invent the wheel by "resist common sense", or did he?
If everyone else is rolling heavy loads on logs, and someone else figures out that it's better to just use two sections of logs and another smaller one as an axle, well, that's going against common sense. Until you figure out how to use two or more of these supporting a platform and throwing a bit of bear fat on the "axles" as lube and actually show them your new cart ...
All works build on other works, as Asimov wrote when he described connecting A to B to C, yet some forms of such building are forbidden by law.
So maybe you need to be more creative to find a way that doesn't infringe the law :-)
If you succeed, then copyright law has succeeded in its' stated goal, to encourage creativity (though perhaps not quite in the way intended).
Barb! Slashdot probably wouldn't have half the flame wars it does if you decided to stop visiting.
I'm honored that I'm the source of half the flame wars (somehow I doubt it - just don't let anyone know I'm the one responsible for slashdot BETA :-).
A quick search for "prison barter" found various sources for the "stamps as currency" myth. In fact, prisoners are only allowed 40 stamps at a time. When an illegal cellphone can go for more than a new iPhone 6, stamps aren't going to cut it. Same with booze, drugs, etc.
Do I know someone who as done time? Of course. Who doesn't?