Re: "My dad is a pirate."

[mark . kent . is . owned]

Tim Smith wrote:
> In article <6aii85-t0v.ln1@ridcully.ntlworld.com>, spike1@freenet.co.uk the 
> pirate
> wrote:
> > In the garbage domain of comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> > Tim Smith <reply_in_group@mouse-potato.com> didnst hastily scribble thusly:
> > > Name a country that has a tax on piracy.  Think carefully, and remember
> > > what you wrote earlier before you answer:
> >
> > >      "Every single blank is taxed. Why? They are not all used
> > >      illegally. Therefore, all people in those countries are paying
> > >      for something the minority does. So of course they should use the
> > >      rights they have paid for"
> >
> > There have been many stories about blank media tax/levy being considered
> > and/or implemented in recent years...
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_copying_levy
>
> Those are taxes on blank media, not taxes on piracy.

Indeed. But to a PIRATE like spike1 (Andrew Halliwell), it can do
anything with a product as long as he pays tax. I am sure he lives in
the basement of his mom's house but if he ever had a house and paid
fire insurance, he might as well lit his house on fire, and burn other
houses whose owners pay fire insurance. Based on his theory, would it
be fair to assume that if he paid tax on his income (if he had any, of
course) the government mandates him to rob a bank?

> There is a
> difference, since, as you noted, not all blank media is used for piracy.
> And because of that, your theory that the tax justifies piracy fails.
> At best, you could perhaps argue that the purchasers of the taxed media
> are justified in using it to record works of those artists who are in
> the pool that the tax revenue is distributed to.