Pribek

Arghhhh…Piracy!

There is an article in the Mail called “Every household to pay £20 internet piracy tax as Government announces ‘broadband for all’ plan”. Here are some excerpts.

Every home in the UK will have to pay an internet piracy tax as part of a new Government commitment to give every household broadband access by 2012…

…The government also announced its plans to legislate around illegal internet file sharing, which would see online providers force to tell those breaking rules their conduct is unlawful….

…Internet service providers will be required to collect information on serious repeat offenders and hand over details to music and film companies that own the content. They will then be subject to court orders.

As part of the clampdown the government will launch a rights agency to bring together figures in the industry to agree how to encourage and people to stop the practice.

The new rights agency would be funded via a levy – believed to be £20 – on internet service providers (ISPs) and the music and film industry.

So, it’s a big step; a tax on every household in an effort to rectify some of the damage incurred by piracy. Real deal government intervention on a large scale.

I read the article and then I read the comments. At the time there were 120 comments. I looked at all 120. People are incensed, infuriated, vitriolic at the notion of a piracy tax. Some of the comments focused on the concept of state facilitated broadband for all. All 120 were outwardly, fervently against the legislation. 120 to Zero. A shutout of epic proportion.

Here are a couple of the comments…

Every home in the country will not want to have broadband if the Labour snoop charter takes a grip. Nobody will want to send any email and nor will they look at any web page as big brother might not like it and send in the gestapo.
Click to rate
- John, A state in Europe.,

Why should we pay levies to cartels like the music and film industries, the very people who have been ripping us off for years?

Most people don’t download music or films illegally but will be forced to pay organisations like the BPI and the other American mafia R.I.A.A.

Given the penache of Labour Lords these days to be offered backhanders I’d be very worried that the brown envelope brigade have been pretty busy of late.
- William Peden, Browns Wilderness,

That’s pretty much the gist; the government should not be in the business of broadband and we should not have to subsidize the music industry.

I think this is an indication of the way things are headed. My cynical side says that governments will see broadband as too juicy a plum to keep their hands off of. They will also see the notion of protecting creative content based industries as an end to that means.

Realistically, I agree that the music business was the “canary in the coalmine” and all other industries that rely on creative content are following suit. The music biz is small enough to be a sacrificial lamb but, others like film, T.V., news, book and magazine publishing and advertising are more important to the worldwide economy and governments will be willing to take some drastic steps to avoid letting them get the deep six.

That’s my opinion today, I’d love to hear yours.

I don’t know why I haven’t heard about this before but, there is much debate about “fire safe cigarettes”.

On one hand we have The Coalition for Fire Safe Cigarettes, who state…

Our goal: The Coalition is calling for cigarette manufacturers to immediately produce and market only cigarettes that adhere to an established cigarette fire safety performance standard. In addition, the Coalition is working to see that these standards for fire-safe cigarettes are required in every state in the country.

That’s an illustration of a fire safe cigarette from the coalition. The two pink bands there are thicker and cause the cigarette to stop burning if unattended.

Fire-safe cigarettes are a proven, practical, and effective way to eliminate the risk of cigarette-ignited fires. The use of cigarettes that have a reduced propensity to burn when left unattended will help prevent tens of thousands of cigarette-ignited fires each year.

Red-States in which legislation has become effective
Green-States that have passed legislation
Yellow-States that have filed legislation in 2009
White-States that have not filed legislation in 2009

Note that Missouri is a white state which may account for why I haven’t heard much about this.

On the other side of the street, we have the Citizens Against Fire Safe Cigarettes who have a Petition to Repeal Fire Safe Cigarette Law. Prominent in their argument is the claim that fire safe cigarettes cause the smoker to inhale more and more often in order to keep the cigarette lit thus, more damaging. Here are a few other points from the petition…

The Fire Safe Cigarette design has resulted in more frequent ash, which may fall and ignite more fires than regular cigarettes.

Having to relight cigarettes increases the potential for more fire related accidents with matches and lighters.

The added and higher level chemicals contained in FSC cigarettes has proven to be more toxic than regular cigarettes and cause increased health related problems for smokers. Symptoms/conditions include, but are not limited to: Nausea, Sores in mouth and throat, Dry throat, constant headaches, extreme coughing, tightness in the chest, vomiting, body aches, pain in the abdomen and respiratory conditions including asthma and bronchitis.

The Harvard School of Health reported that when comparing NY Cigarettes (FSC) versus Regular Cigarettes, the FSC cigarettes produced 13.9% more Naphthalene and 11.4% more carbon monoxide than regular cigarettes.

The chemical issue seems to be a sticking point. I didn’t see anything from the pro-fire safe cigarette side that mentioned added and/or higher levels of chemicals in the inhaled smoke. The phrase I keep seeing is “thicker paper”; there is thicker paper in two spots.

I’d be interested in some opinions here. Is this more misguided protecting ourselves from ourselves or, a good idea?