[pp.int.general] You have GOT to check this out

[Carlos Ayala]

----- Mensaje original ----
De: Ray Jenson <ray.jenson at gmail.com>
Enviado: sábado, 19 de enero, 2008 19:54:20
> Jan Huwald wrote:

I think Jan's mail didn't reach my inbox ... damn Yahoo ...

> > They want a tax on advertisments wich is dedicated to culture
 funding. I love the idea (and actually thought
> > proposing it would immediatly
 brandmark one as communist), because:
> > a. Advertisments pollute information space by false information and
 destroying poeples (and therefore society's)
> > attention
> > b. Those polluting the information space should pay compensation for
 that damage
> > c. Culture (including journalism) can clean up information space and
 also extend it
> Just my own opinions:
>
> Advertisements don't really "pollute" information space any more than politics do.

A precise nuance :) Actually politics make 24/7 advertisements -specially when they're at the government xD-.

> A tax merely shifts who has more power and who can command more money out of the system. A tax would do
> nothing to change the system other than this.

I have to say that such tax goes against the rules of the Civil Law -at least in Spain-. Directive 2001/29/CE forces to settle a levy in exchange of allowing non-lucrative culture sharing, to compensate a hypothetical loss caused by that sharing -but only if that hypothetical loss exists or if it's not minimal; in accordance with 2001/29/CE, if there is no significant loss there is no room for levies-; however, the creditor must be the author, or the copyright holder if other, and the debtor must be the one who shares the copyrighted works. One of the causes of such a strong opposition against levies in Spain is that, as currently they're implemented, levies in Spain make every single CD/DVD/MP3/4/Mobile Phone/USB/etc customer a debtor -which is illegal as only must be debtor the one who shares-. So how would a tax on advertisements be compatible with Civil Law, if the ones who would pay the tax wouldn't be the ones who share the copyrighted works?

> The question again (as you said, Jan), is one of whom the money goes
 to, how much is going, and how it is paid. Simply
> paying a tax would worsen the problem, rather than bettering it. The big companies would gladly pay a tax to be able
> to propagandize at will, since they already
 control the lobbies. A tax would offer them more freedom to propagandize,
> not less. They have virtually unlimited amounts of money with which to accomplish their aims. However, money is not
> really important where the ability to remain free. The issue is not as much one of who gets paid

I also agree with this one, Ray. Recently in France -Valentin can confirm it- Sarkozy proposed to create a tax on private media advertisements, in exchange of removing advertisements from public TV. Obviously -as themselves have stated- private media are largely cheerful, because while they will have to give up a share of the ad thing to the State, they will own the whole ad thing. Did I mention that Sarko also proposed to create a tax for that purpose -removing ads from public TV- ... on internet companies -who will probably add those taxes to internet connections-? Regards


                                                                                          Carlos Ayala
                                                                                          ( Aiarakoa )

                                                                Partido Pirata National Board's Chairman




       
______________________________________________ 
Web Revelación Yahoo! 2007:
Premio Favorita del Público. 
http://es.promotions.yahoo.com/revelacion2007/favoritos/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.pirateweb.net/pipermail/pp.international.general/attachments/20080119/ef6ef471/attachment.htm