> Felice. You're missing my point, and I'm not exactly> sure what your trying to say. I was stating that all> the arguements against Ebay bootleggers can be > equally applied to Simons bootleggingNo they can't; Simon is loosing sales to the Ebay bootleggers; the copyright holders are _not_ loosing sales to Simon, because they aren't trying to sell the series. _If_ they were, then the same argument would apply, but they're not.And auctioning bootlegs doesn't make any sense, since there is an unlimited supply; doing so is clearly an attempt to rip off people who don't realise this.> And as for the "100 dollar" stuff, where are you people> getting this from?It was a hypothetical example - if the copyright holders realsed official DVDs at 贄 an episode, I think it would be morally justified to continue selling unofficial copies, since the copyright holders would be trying to rip us off.> As for your other points, and without wishing to be> rude, you're talking absolute nonsense Debateable. It makes sense to me.> income tax raises to pay for communal DVDs? I mean> come on! What you're saying, out of context, just> doesn't make any sense at all.Yes it does. We have tax-funded communal books (you've heard of libraries?); why not DVDs?> Joint funding by potential users of a DVD/CD? What?.> Which users? Where? How much?I was thinking more of software here, though it could apply to video too (eg training videos). For highly specialised data with limited numbers of potential users, it might make sense for the users to pay directly. An example would be for the world's airports to get together to fund development of better software for their control towers.> Are you suggesting that we should round up every > "potential user" of a Britney album and charge em> their percentage in order to subsidise prices?No. I'm suggesting that Britney albums should be available at cost (50c or so, I believe) from your local record store, the record stores would tell the government how many copies were sold, and the government would pay Britney and her colleagues an appropriate proportion of the entertainment fund (preferably capped at a reasonable hourly rate for the work they put in).> No, of course you're not, you're talking about a kind of> global economic , no other word for it, Communism. Well, there are other words for it, such as Socialism, but you're essentially correct.> On a global scale?Possibly, but not necessarily.> RE the entertainment industries?Entertainment, software, anything where the per-unit cost is negligible but the original requires significant investment.> Well, you gotta laugh I spose, tax increases to > subsidise cheap DVDs? Classic, absolute classic! Bet> Tony Blair never thought of that one......Exactly the same thing used to happen with the BBC (maybe still does - I'm not sure). Programs were paid for by taxes, and broadcast on commercial-free television, generating no revenue. Allowing free copying of DVDs is no different, it's simply using an alternative means distribution (physical discs rather than broadcasting).> Also, advertising is argueably of "net value to society"> because it fuels consumption, which in turn fuels> productivity, which puts people in jobs, who then have> the money for consumption, which in turn fuels> productivity.........Under capitalism, perhaps, but it's a crazy system. Objectively, consumption and production should be _minimised_, to get as many people out of jobs as possible (or more precisely, have everyone in jobs, but minimise the number of hours a week they need to work). People generally don't _want_ jobs, they want reliable income.