If our governments (local, federal, state) would stop trying to squeeze more money out of us and having to hire people to do the squeezing, we could downsize dramatically, have less taxes
If our government were to stay within the limits put on it by the Constitution, taxes wouldn't need to be so high. Many of the agencies, authorities, bureaus, departments, and so on in the federal government are not authorized by the Constitution. Eliminate them and government spending will see a dramatic reduction.
Basically, what this bill is trying to do is have states set uniform use tax laws and in return, the catalog and online companies must collect and pay the taxes for the states.
Why should any catalog or online business collect and pay any tax?
*Note to the pedantic. The word "controul" is a misspelling that's in the original document. Yes, the US Constitution, the Supreme Law of our Land, has misspellings.
Actually it is a correct spelling. Like other spellings used, controul is an archaic spelling. Elsewhere "chuse" is used whereas now it's spelled as "choose".
From a bricks and mortar perspective, *stopping* the shipment of goods shipped over state lines would be a good thing.
If brick and morter stores are loosing sales to online stores then maybe they need to rethink their business, perhaps use the net themself. I knew someone who owned a small brick and morter specialty bookstore and she went ahead and took it online about 10 years ago. After a year or so she sold the physical store and kept the online store.
The thing is, the constitution is clear on this. The states don't have a right to charge taxes on stuff shipped across state lines. Why are we even having this discussion?
Bingo. Of course the way the USSC has ruled on a number of cases before them they'd probably allow states to tax online purchases from out of state businesses.
It's odd that they would prefer to tax the individual at the point of sale, rather than just taxing the income of the companies selling stuff online (like Amazon). It seems it would be significantly cheaper - as far as overhead costs go - to regulate the few at the top, as apposed to the many at the bottom. It's also effectively the same transactions that are being taxed (you get it from the income at the top, rather than the transaction at the bottom - but it's the same money).
All this is is another grab for power and money. Companies like Amazon already pays taxes. There's income tax, property tax, fuel tax, and tax on the services they buy. And I probably left out some taxes.
Incidentally, a decent early book using these techniques would be one that discusses how to market books in this manner:-)
Hey, now there's an idea for a book. It's a new idea for me but it seems you've been thinking of it for some tyme so maybe you could write a book on it. Perhaps a small booklet explaining the basics then a compleat book on how to do it step by step.
I am glad to have been of some help. I wish you the best of luck getting your book on the market.
Unfortunately since an accident I haven't been able to write. Writing friends suggested I write about the accident but when I've tried to I get so angry and find I can't get the words out.
Try again! Point to a peer-reviewed study showing that restricting the free flow of ideas generates a net gain in societal "creativity". Frankly, I'd be pleased if you could actually provide such a reference - I've spent quite a bit of time looking for one myself, although have been unsuccessful so far.
You keep asking me for evidence yet refuse to provide any yourself. Bye.
More likely than not, amazon will want to be on in this gig - if I remember correctly, they have already remarked that a significant portion of their sales is from small-volume titles that normal book stores wouldn't dream of carrying because they're mainly limited by physical restrictions such as shelf space and storage space.
Yea, that's The Long Tail. I believe Apple's iTunes store is the same.
If the book is actually a good one, then the free PDF is probably the best marketing tool you could hope for.
Of course to create the pdf you still need a computer, then to offer it for downloading you need net access, and hosting if the isp doesn't offer space. Many people still don't have that. And some don't want it. I've known some who only use a computer if they have to, my mom uses them at work but she hates them. I realize that if she were to sit down and try a PC or Mac at home she may change though.
Falcon
ps. I wanted to thank you for your comments, ideas, and feedback. Unlike others in this thread you've given me something to think about and how copyrights may not be needed.
Biofuels produce CO2 when burned, which the article has labeled as a pollutants.
However biofuels take in more CO2 while the feedstock is growing than the amount of CO2 emitted when the biofuel is burned. So growing the feedstock and using biofuels reduces CO2 in the atmosphere.
The only non-polluting burnable substance is Hydrogen
Burning hydrogen does not create pollution but the burning does create water vapors, and these vapors are more potent as a greenhouse gas than CO2 is, and depending on how you generate the hydrogen you have you produce pollution there.
BTW, if you look hard enough you'll find environmentalists with concerns about both wind, geothermal, and hydroelectic power.
Oh, I agree. For some of these people nothing will satisfy them. The only solution for them is extermination of humans. Then there are the NIMBYs. I used to consider myself an environmentalist but because these radical minorities corrupted the meaning I no longer do.
NO!!! Are you being dense? My employer pays me to write software for them. They don't pay me FOR the software, they pay me for my labor! Copyright is _irrelevant_ in this business arrangement.
But it is relevant if your employer sales the software you write. And that is one of the questions I asked, if the software you write is for inhouse use or your employer sales said software. A question you didn't answer.
Says who? My original statement was that there is no proof that copyright provides any net societal benefit. So far you haven't referred me to any peer-reviewed studies that show differently - you're just another IP sycophant mindlessly repeating the chant that IP "adds the incentive to create" without being able to back up any of it.
That's no different in what you're doing, all you've done is repeat what you and others have said. You accuse me of not providing evidence however neither have you. I have seen no peer reviewed studied you have submitted, because you haven't. However here's evidence copyrights does work. Copyrights have existed for 200+ years. Take all of the copyrighted works since copyrights were issued and compare how many where are as compared to how many were created in the thousands of years prior to copyrights. I bet you'll see more works have been copyrighted than all of the works created before hand.
What we really need to be doing on a worldwide scale is penalizing countries that harm the environment the most and give the money to countries with vast natural resources that need to be protected like the rain forests.
Oh, I agree. However I do believe ethanol can be "part" of a solution to a sustainable future. There is nothing, not one thing, that can replace all of the fossil fuel derived energy that will cause more problems. But when you add a bunch of little things together they may do the job. I think here's a big part of the problem, so many want one monumental solution to replace fossil fuel. Instead use what is possible where it is feasible. Use geothermal energy where it can be used, like Iceland is doing. Wind is good in midwest states like the Dakotas and Minneasota. Solar is good in other places as is tidal energy.
Teach the poorer countries how to be self sufficient and "green", don't just keep handing them cheap food to the detriment of your own citizens.
Oh, I don't like charity as such, it's not a solution. Instead of giving people a fish to eat I'd rather teach them to fish. However it's not always a matter of simply being poor. Politics and conflict have a big role, both can result in a country being poor. For instance Zimbabwe used to be the bread basket of southern Africa. Now however because of president Mugabe the country has turned into a basket case. Since Mugabe forced all of the white farmers off their farms and gave them to his cronies the country went from being able to grow enough food so everyone had enough to eat and allowed a lot of food to be exported to needing food to be imported so there isn't massive starvation.
You seed the PDF in a torrent and sit back and wait for the word to spread. If your work is good, that word will spread, and people who like books will want the professionally printed hardcopy.
Your right on this, it isn't something I thought of. However I see a problem with this, many people don't like to wait more than a day or two. Since people want what they buy today tomorrow or the next day this means that you're going to need a warehouse to store the printed books. Otherwise, if you're going to have them printed as the orders come in it may be a week or two before you can ship the books. And to have books professionally printed and bound more than likely you're going to need a small printer or vanity publisher who will not only need the tyme to print and bind the books but will also more than likely charge a lot. Traditionally Vanity publishers charge high printing costs. And that comes directly out of the writer's pocket, frequently up front.
Their books will be seen as cheap copies and will be shunned by your main base of readers, who will tend to come to your chosen outlet.
Counterfitters can take just as much due diligence making copies or knockoffs as the owner or creator can. And the creator may not have the means or resources to market never mind print a book. I don't recall her name, but the lady who wrote the "Harry Potter" book series originally wrote the books for her son while she was on welfare. And now she's one of Britian's wealthiest people. And she had been rejected by publishers before she found one that agreed to publish the books.
Yes, there will be freeloaders (they will read the PDF and never pay you a cent). There always have been and there always will be. If you waste your life thinking angry thoughts about freeloaders then you really need to start reconsidering your mindset. They're simply not all that important.
I wouldn't mind that at all, afterall that's what libraries are all about and I support libraries. Actually the USA's first Librarian of Congress, Benjamin Franklin, was a printer. He and other printers got together and opened one of if not the first public library in the US, in Philadelphia.
Afterall what do you think the Business Software Alliance does?
It's basically a legalised protection racket. I see nothing to admire about the BSA. They make it their business to run around screwing up their customers' operations and then suing them afterwards.
Ok, so I take it you don't support or like the BSA. Guess I owe you an apology there, I thought as a programmer you may support them, but I was wrong.
Although I have some questions about your suggestion of creating a pdf for download, it seems you've got an idea I might be able to support. I'd like to learn more and get some answers to my questions answered but you've given me something to think about. Thanks.
That barely coherent. You been sampling those drugs you're talking about?
Do you mean your barely competent? I think it's quite clear what I wrote.
I didn't say the war on drugs would change the "aristocrasy's" claim piracy is harming them.
Seeing as how I wrote about abolishing victimless crimes and ending the so called War on Drugs in the post you replied to it was my assumption that that is what you were replying to. If it wasn't then maybe next tyme you can state what it is you are replying to, all I see you wrote is this:
That's the problem isn't it. The megacorps are claiming that they are indeed being harmed by piracy. Your changes to the law would do nothing to improve this.
The government "encouragement" of ethanol increases demand for corn, the key ingredient in making ethanol. This results in higher prices for corn, and more $$$ for big ag.
Actually sugarcane is a better source for making ethanol than corn is. Switchgrass may be even better. Brazil has a massive infrastructure for sugarcane ethanol for fuel.
"Big Business" makes a ton of money from this. Difference is that "Big Oil" survives despite repeated, baseless congressional investigations and windfall taxes, while "Big Agriculture" flourishes because of subsidies and protections.
Big Oil gets it's own government subsidies. Oil companies don't have to pay much for it's drilling leases and the government does collect royalties off of the oil pumped out. And even when an accident happens oil companies can tie up any money they have to pay for years, if they ever have to pay. Those Alaskan fishermen who had their livelihoods wrecked by Exxon Valdez are still waiting to be paid the first dime. Exxon, now Exxon-Mobile, has managed to delay paying it.
This is all it would take to both make it practical (there being plenty of nuclear material to work with, especially if we are reprocessing spent fuel, of which we have a fair amount just lying around) and profitable (Nuclear not being profitable today without subsidies.)
Without subsidies nuclear power will not be profitable. I bet no one nowhere will want to build and operate nuclear power plants without laws protecting them from lawsuits.
Did you skip over the bit where I explained how I get paid for the work that I do? I get paid just fine, and I don't need to control what other people do with my work to get paid.M
Ah, but I bet that if you don't write programs for inhouse use, ie you write commercial software, your employer wants to get paid as well for the software you write.
The BSA enforces software-as-a-product, not software-as-a-service. If it weren't for artificial scarcity created through government enforcement, they wouldn't have a reason for existing.
Software as a service? Do you mean selling software subscriptions, where the user has to pay each tyme it's used instead of paying it outright? Even this requires copyrights.
You are confusing the PURPOSE of copyright with the MECHANISM of copyright. Copyright is supposed to encourage the generation of creative works.
And it serves it's purpose quite well. Copyright adds the incentive to create by providing a financial reward. It's not the only resaon but it's still a good incentive.
And that's exactly the attitude of somebody who thinks they deserve more out of reality than what reality would normally be willing to give. Why in the world would I let someone with your attitude have control over my private property?
ie, it's my way or the highway. Typical of the arrogant.
Slashdot Mirror
And this makes states that depend on sales tax for a big chunk of their revenue really, really nervous.
Well then those states need to modify their revenue stream and/or reduce their spending.
FalconFrom a bricks and mortar perspective, *stopping* the shipment of goods shipped over state lines would be a good thing.
Those brick and morter stores then need to change their business model.
FalconWe have enough laws.
We have too many laws.
If our governments (local, federal, state) would stop trying to squeeze more money out of us and having to hire people to do the squeezing, we could downsize dramatically, have less taxes
If our government were to stay within the limits put on it by the Constitution, taxes wouldn't need to be so high. Many of the agencies, authorities, bureaus, departments, and so on in the federal government are not authorized by the Constitution. Eliminate them and government spending will see a dramatic reduction.
FalconBasically, what this bill is trying to do is have states set uniform use tax laws and in return, the catalog and online companies must collect and pay the taxes for the states.
Why should any catalog or online business collect and pay any tax?
FalconWho is grabbing for power, and what power are they taking away from who?
The first Who? Those who want to tax. What power? The power to do what one wants with the money they work to earn. The second who? Those who work.
Falcon*Note to the pedantic. The word "controul" is a misspelling that's in the original document. Yes, the US Constitution, the Supreme Law of our Land, has misspellings.
Actually it is a correct spelling. Like other spellings used, controul is an archaic spelling. Elsewhere "chuse" is used whereas now it's spelled as "choose".
FalconIf you use the internet to make a purchase from a business that has no prescence in that state, you are exempt from state taxes.
You are not exempt. Many states have a "use tax" which residents are supposed to file for and pay.
FalconWhat if you live in a state without an income tax?
Some states have what's called a "use tax" residents are supposed to file and pay. This includes catalogue orders and online purchases.
FalconFrom a bricks and mortar perspective, *stopping* the shipment of goods shipped over state lines would be a good thing.
If brick and morter stores are loosing sales to online stores then maybe they need to rethink their business, perhaps use the net themself. I knew someone who owned a small brick and morter specialty bookstore and she went ahead and took it online about 10 years ago. After a year or so she sold the physical store and kept the online store.
The thing is, the constitution is clear on this. The states don't have a right to charge taxes on stuff shipped across state lines. Why are we even having this discussion?
Bingo. Of course the way the USSC has ruled on a number of cases before them they'd probably allow states to tax online purchases from out of state businesses.
FalconIt's odd that they would prefer to tax the individual at the point of sale, rather than just taxing the income of the companies selling stuff online (like Amazon). It seems it would be significantly cheaper - as far as overhead costs go - to regulate the few at the top, as apposed to the many at the bottom. It's also effectively the same transactions that are being taxed (you get it from the income at the top, rather than the transaction at the bottom - but it's the same money).
All this is is another grab for power and money. Companies like Amazon already pays taxes. There's income tax, property tax, fuel tax, and tax on the services they buy. And I probably left out some taxes.
FalconI heard that a Federal phone tax was implemented to help pay for WWII.
Actually the Federal Excise Tax was implemented in 1898 to pay for Spanish American War.
FalconIncidentally, a decent early book using these techniques would be one that discusses how to market books in this manner :-)
Hey, now there's an idea for a book. It's a new idea for me but it seems you've been thinking of it for some tyme so maybe you could write a book on it. Perhaps a small booklet explaining the basics then a compleat book on how to do it step by step.
I am glad to have been of some help. I wish you the best of luck getting your book on the market.
Unfortunately since an accident I haven't been able to write. Writing friends suggested I write about the accident but when I've tried to I get so angry and find I can't get the words out.
FalconTry again! Point to a peer-reviewed study showing that restricting the free flow of ideas generates a net gain in societal "creativity". Frankly, I'd be pleased if you could actually provide such a reference - I've spent quite a bit of time looking for one myself, although have been unsuccessful so far.
You keep asking me for evidence yet refuse to provide any yourself. Bye.
FalconMore likely than not, amazon will want to be on in this gig - if I remember correctly, they have already remarked that a significant portion of their sales is from small-volume titles that normal book stores wouldn't dream of carrying because they're mainly limited by physical restrictions such as shelf space and storage space.
Yea, that's The Long Tail. I believe Apple's iTunes store is the same.
If the book is actually a good one, then the free PDF is probably the best marketing tool you could hope for.
Of course to create the pdf you still need a computer, then to offer it for downloading you need net access, and hosting if the isp doesn't offer space. Many people still don't have that. And some don't want it. I've known some who only use a computer if they have to, my mom uses them at work but she hates them. I realize that if she were to sit down and try a PC or Mac at home she may change though.
Falcon
ps. I wanted to thank you for your comments, ideas, and feedback. Unlike others in this thread you've given me something to think about and how copyrights may not be needed.Biofuels produce CO2 when burned, which the article has labeled as a pollutants.
However biofuels take in more CO2 while the feedstock is growing than the amount of CO2 emitted when the biofuel is burned. So growing the feedstock and using biofuels reduces CO2 in the atmosphere.
The only non-polluting burnable substance is Hydrogen
Burning hydrogen does not create pollution but the burning does create water vapors, and these vapors are more potent as a greenhouse gas than CO2 is, and depending on how you generate the hydrogen you have you produce pollution there.
BTW, if you look hard enough you'll find environmentalists with concerns about both wind, geothermal, and hydroelectic power.
Oh, I agree. For some of these people nothing will satisfy them. The only solution for them is extermination of humans. Then there are the NIMBYs. I used to consider myself an environmentalist but because these radical minorities corrupted the meaning I no longer do.
FalconNO!!! Are you being dense? My employer pays me to write software for them. They don't pay me FOR the software, they pay me for my labor! Copyright is _irrelevant_ in this business arrangement.
But it is relevant if your employer sales the software you write. And that is one of the questions I asked, if the software you write is for inhouse use or your employer sales said software. A question you didn't answer.
Says who? My original statement was that there is no proof that copyright provides any net societal benefit. So far you haven't referred me to any peer-reviewed studies that show differently - you're just another IP sycophant mindlessly repeating the chant that IP "adds the incentive to create" without being able to back up any of it.
That's no different in what you're doing, all you've done is repeat what you and others have said. You accuse me of not providing evidence however neither have you. I have seen no peer reviewed studied you have submitted, because you haven't. However here's evidence copyrights does work. Copyrights have existed for 200+ years. Take all of the copyrighted works since copyrights were issued and compare how many where are as compared to how many were created in the thousands of years prior to copyrights. I bet you'll see more works have been copyrighted than all of the works created before hand.
Falcon
What we really need to be doing on a worldwide scale is penalizing countries that harm the environment the most and give the money to countries with vast natural resources that need to be protected like the rain forests.
Oh, I agree. However I do believe ethanol can be "part" of a solution to a sustainable future. There is nothing, not one thing, that can replace all of the fossil fuel derived energy that will cause more problems. But when you add a bunch of little things together they may do the job. I think here's a big part of the problem, so many want one monumental solution to replace fossil fuel. Instead use what is possible where it is feasible. Use geothermal energy where it can be used, like Iceland is doing. Wind is good in midwest states like the Dakotas and Minneasota. Solar is good in other places as is tidal energy.
Teach the poorer countries how to be self sufficient and "green", don't just keep handing them cheap food to the detriment of your own citizens.
Oh, I don't like charity as such, it's not a solution. Instead of giving people a fish to eat I'd rather teach them to fish. However it's not always a matter of simply being poor. Politics and conflict have a big role, both can result in a country being poor. For instance Zimbabwe used to be the bread basket of southern Africa. Now however because of president Mugabe the country has turned into a basket case. Since Mugabe forced all of the white farmers off their farms and gave them to his cronies the country went from being able to grow enough food so everyone had enough to eat and allowed a lot of food to be exported to needing food to be imported so there isn't massive starvation.
So, the IEEE creates FUD?
FalconYou seed the PDF in a torrent and sit back and wait for the word to spread. If your work is good, that word will spread, and people who like books will want the professionally printed hardcopy.
Your right on this, it isn't something I thought of. However I see a problem with this, many people don't like to wait more than a day or two. Since people want what they buy today tomorrow or the next day this means that you're going to need a warehouse to store the printed books. Otherwise, if you're going to have them printed as the orders come in it may be a week or two before you can ship the books. And to have books professionally printed and bound more than likely you're going to need a small printer or vanity publisher who will not only need the tyme to print and bind the books but will also more than likely charge a lot. Traditionally Vanity publishers charge high printing costs. And that comes directly out of the writer's pocket, frequently up front.
Their books will be seen as cheap copies and will be shunned by your main base of readers, who will tend to come to your chosen outlet.
Counterfitters can take just as much due diligence making copies or knockoffs as the owner or creator can. And the creator may not have the means or resources to market never mind print a book. I don't recall her name, but the lady who wrote the "Harry Potter" book series originally wrote the books for her son while she was on welfare. And now she's one of Britian's wealthiest people. And she had been rejected by publishers before she found one that agreed to publish the books.
Yes, there will be freeloaders (they will read the PDF and never pay you a cent). There always have been and there always will be. If you waste your life thinking angry thoughts about freeloaders then you really need to start reconsidering your mindset. They're simply not all that important.
I wouldn't mind that at all, afterall that's what libraries are all about and I support libraries. Actually the USA's first Librarian of Congress, Benjamin Franklin, was a printer. He and other printers got together and opened one of if not the first public library in the US, in Philadelphia.
Afterall what do you think the Business Software Alliance does?
It's basically a legalised protection racket. I see nothing to admire about the BSA. They make it their business to run around screwing up their customers' operations and then suing them afterwards.
Ok, so I take it you don't support or like the BSA. Guess I owe you an apology there, I thought as a programmer you may support them, but I was wrong.
Although I have some questions about your suggestion of creating a pdf for download, it seems you've got an idea I might be able to support. I'd like to learn more and get some answers to my questions answered but you've given me something to think about. Thanks.
FalconThat barely coherent. You been sampling those drugs you're talking about?
Do you mean your barely competent? I think it's quite clear what I wrote.
I didn't say the war on drugs would change the "aristocrasy's" claim piracy is harming them.
Seeing as how I wrote about abolishing victimless crimes and ending the so called War on Drugs in the post you replied to it was my assumption that that is what you were replying to. If it wasn't then maybe next tyme you can state what it is you are replying to, all I see you wrote is this:
That's the problem isn't it. The megacorps are claiming that they are indeed being harmed by piracy. Your changes to the law would do nothing to improve this.
FalconI have a hunch that we needed to go with more nuclear plants and hydrogen fueled cars all along.
In a free market, ie one without government subsidies, nuclear power would never be built.
Personally, I'm hoping for a solar and hydrogen revolution
Same here. That's why I like the Governator's push for a hyrdrogen economy.
FalconThe government "encouragement" of ethanol increases demand for corn, the key ingredient in making ethanol. This results in higher prices for corn, and more $$$ for big ag.
Actually sugarcane is a better source for making ethanol than corn is. Switchgrass may be even better. Brazil has a massive infrastructure for sugarcane ethanol for fuel.
"Big Business" makes a ton of money from this. Difference is that "Big Oil" survives despite repeated, baseless congressional investigations and windfall taxes, while "Big Agriculture" flourishes because of subsidies and protections.
Big Oil gets it's own government subsidies. Oil companies don't have to pay much for it's drilling leases and the government does collect royalties off of the oil pumped out. And even when an accident happens oil companies can tie up any money they have to pay for years, if they ever have to pay. Those Alaskan fishermen who had their livelihoods wrecked by Exxon Valdez are still waiting to be paid the first dime. Exxon, now Exxon-Mobile, has managed to delay paying it.
FalconThis is all it would take to both make it practical (there being plenty of nuclear material to work with, especially if we are reprocessing spent fuel, of which we have a fair amount just lying around) and profitable (Nuclear not being profitable today without subsidies.)
Without subsidies nuclear power will not be profitable. I bet no one nowhere will want to build and operate nuclear power plants without laws protecting them from lawsuits.
FalconObvious troll comment to be ignored from here on out.
/i>Funny, I take your post as the troll. Bye.
FalconDid you skip over the bit where I explained how I get paid for the work that I do? I get paid just fine, and I don't need to control what other people do with my work to get paid.M
Ah, but I bet that if you don't write programs for inhouse use, ie you write commercial software, your employer wants to get paid as well for the software you write.
The BSA enforces software-as-a-product, not software-as-a-service. If it weren't for artificial scarcity created through government enforcement, they wouldn't have a reason for existing.
Software as a service? Do you mean selling software subscriptions, where the user has to pay each tyme it's used instead of paying it outright? Even this requires copyrights.
You are confusing the PURPOSE of copyright with the MECHANISM of copyright. Copyright is supposed to encourage the generation of creative works.
And it serves it's purpose quite well. Copyright adds the incentive to create by providing a financial reward. It's not the only resaon but it's still a good incentive.
And that's exactly the attitude of somebody who thinks they deserve more out of reality than what reality would normally be willing to give. Why in the world would I let someone with your attitude have control over my private property?
ie, it's my way or the highway. Typical of the arrogant.
Falcon