Post by Alex HeneyOn Wed, 05 Jul 2006 03:34:20 GMT, "Amanda Angelika"
Post by Amanda AngelikaPost by Alex HeneyOn Tue, 04 Jul 2006 19:18:14 GMT, "Amanda Angelika"
Post by Amanda AngelikaRegardless of whether the government could actually get away with
specifically taxing a tool and/or a medium of free of expression to
fund a state broadcasting corporation and thereby in effect
institute a means of suppression to fund an oracle of state
propaganda. I think it would be wrong in a democracy to institute
any kind of suppression on something that is a cornerstone of
democracy.
I don't consider taxing it (unless at a punitive level) to be
suppressing anything.
Well even if it were equivalent in cost to the current TV licence,
it could make broadband unaffordable to many people.
Those same people who somehow manage to pay for their TV licence now.
As I say I don't think the figures are accurate. They do heavily target
poorer inner city and student areas and if the compliance rate was as high
as census figures suggest there would be no need of that. When I was living
in beddsitter land the TV licence people would call once or twice a year,
and you would see them visiting most of the houses in the street, which
means according to their records there was no licence registered at those
addresses.
I've never owned a TV licence, My B/W portable is in a black bin liner
buried under a massive pile of junk in the bottom of a cupboard LOL The fact
that I save £10+ per month helps me to afford a 4mb broadband connection,
but there is no way on my budgeting that I could afford a TV licence at
least not without getting rid of broadband, but in that case there would
actually be no reason for me to have a TV licence in any case, unless I
actually installed an operable TV.
Technically according to the BBC and TVLA one should have a licence to watch
any TV program on the internet. But what is a TV program? Does that apply to
my own streaming video. What about people who use Webcams is that
broadcasting? Does one need a TV licence for a broken clock because it may
synchronise with the BBC One clock twice a day, Obviously any correlation or
similarity between Web content and broadcast TV is coincidental and a very
minor aspect of the Internet in any case.
Besides no one would use Broadband Internet with the sole intention of
dodging the TV licence fee. It's more expensive than TV even with the TV
licence and by no stretch of the imagination an effective way to watch TV
it's a totally different medium with totally different purpose.
Post by Alex HeneyPost by Amanda AngelikaPost by Alex HeneyPost by Amanda AngelikaIMO It's terrifying that such a thing could even be considered let
alone carried through.
I don't find it even slightly worrying, although I still doubt it
will happen.
Well the whole principle of adding specific extra taxes to a tool or
medium of expression and creativity just seems wrong.
I don't agree that is what your internet connection is.
On a basic level an Internet connection is a two way street a means of
sending and receiving packets of data. So it's both a means of consumption
and creation. It's totally interactive. It bears little resemblance to
traditional broadcasting which is largely a one way street and intended for
consumption.
The fact an Internet connection is a two way street makes the Internet an
interactive medium of expression and creativity as well as of consumption.
You can't separate the one from the other. Interactivity is the nature of
the beast and that nature is not based on the way people use the Internet,
it's something intrinsic to the technology itself. Which doesn't change
according to opinion or political will since it's an underlying fact of the
medium and not a matter of interpretation.
Post by Alex HeneyPost by Amanda AngelikaIn some ways it's a form of
theft, apart from undermining freedom of expression. I dare say it
could also negate certain aspects of copyright law, one would in
effect be paying the BBC for entitlement to the copyright of one's
own digital work. One imagines if they introduced such a system
there would have to be specific exceptions for artists, musicians,
writers and other creative people who use digital technology and the
Internet as a vehicle of creativity. I suggest they call it artist's
licence :)
If they introduced such a tax, it would seem extremely unlikely they
would have exceptions for those who use it professionally.
It wouldn't be so bad if it were a tax on professional earnings. But a tax
on the means of actual creativity and speculative work, would IMO be wrong.
Well on a basic level it would seem wrong to tax an unemployed person to
place his or her CV on a Website which may be one use of the internet. But
beyond that they would be taxing artists, musicians, videographers, web
designers etc, for the right to use the Internet as a creative medium and
advertise their skills to a wider audience. So in effect it would be a tax
on talent and creativity, things that should actually be encouraged and
appreciated within our society not discouraged and penalised.
But considering the BBC itself is reliant on the future development of
talent and creativity and it is the life blood of practically all BBC
broadcasting such a tax would be counter productive to it's own creative
development and interests.
Mind it would be relatively easy for creative people to band together and
destroy such a tax, simply by boycotting the BBC IOW refuse to allow the BBC
to broadcast your copyrighted music, or creative work, until the taxation
was removed.
--
Amanda