[KLUG Advocacy] Re: And the Spam Wars continue...

Robert G. Brown advocacy@kalamazoolinux.org
Tue, 19 Nov 2002 01:13:40 -0500


>Just when I had my hopes up that you'd let this tread drop ...  :-(
Yeah, I leave things for days, and just when you think it's safe... :)

>>>>>>The Britsh do this...They collect a license fee for operating
>>>>>>a RECEIVER.
....
>Slight change of subject, but how do they enforce the fee if the signals
>are broadcast over the airwaves?  Do they just charge a fee to every
>person, no matter if they own a TV or not?  Otherwise, how would they
>know who has working TV's and who doesn't?  (the honor system? :)
I'm not exactly sure of the mechanics of this (I can ask any one of a number
of people in the UK if there's some great demand for it, there's lots of stuff
on this topic online). It is apparently not possible to buy a TV or radio 
without showing your licence document or paying the tax. Operating a TV or 
radio without a licence is a serious crime, and a pub can have the equivalent 
of its alchoholic beverage licence revoked if it is operating a TV or radio 
without a licence.

In the USA, federal communications law says almost nothing about receivers.
What the Brits did is very different from the choices we made, very early 
on. I offer it as something of an instructive contrast.

>> >>>>>But what happens when the next release of Mozilla/Netscape/IE/Opera/...
>> >>>>We have two conflicting commercial interests here; perhaps they need to 
>> >>>>get together and discuss things....
>> >I doubt the commercial browsers will.  They'll accept payoffs instead.
>> Payoffs? In what form? By who? To serve what ends?
>> Are you suggesting that Proctor and Gamble (for example) would compensate
>> Microsoft (for example) to NOT block their ads, while everything else (save
>> other takers) is blocked?
>I'm saying that the advertisers will band together and "convince"
>browser developers NOT to put blocking software in their browser.
They're certainly free to do so, and others are free to provide another
point of view. This is part of the process of "Special Interests" TheBS
was talking about.

>"Convincing" could be lobbying it into law, or perhaps "explaining" how
>it would destroy the internet if it happened.  Perhaps paying M$ a nice
>fee just for listening to their side of the argument.  In any case, they
>have the resources to make it happen.
No question, and also (IMO) no question that there are other forces that
legislatures will be placed under which are at odds with this. Money isn't
the only factor here, votes still count in our system. If I were a congress-
man, I would not be too happy to vote on a bill that hands an issue like this
to my opponent next time I have to stand for election. In any district there
are more voters who dislike this stuff than will support it. Politicians do
consider this when they decide how to come down on issues.

>>>I wouldn't put it past Mozilla ...
>>The point is that I wouldn't put it past any of them, since the end users 
>>have generally expressed opposition to some of the methods used to promote 
>>products on the net....
>Since Mozilla is open source, they are not as driven by money as much as
>corporations.  Some rebel some where will make a patch . . .
That's right, and if the Mozilla people won't include it, our rebel will
put it on his website, and maybe 5% of the users will include it (if you
think my number is too high, no problem).

For closed-source alternative browsers, there are still ways to provide
this service, such as libraries, add/pug-ins, and so on.

I would agree that wherever there is demand for a prodcut, someone will
create it, although it may not be encumbered by any larger sense of reason.

							Regards,
							---> RGB <---