🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <9277@inews.intel.com> bhoughto@hopi.intel.com (Blair P. Houghton) writes:
>In article <4851@pdxgate.UUCP> marcus@eecs.cs.pdx.edu (Marcus Daniels) writes:
>>Maybe I am a commie pinko, but I would rather pay the government who
>>(presumably) would be interested in promoting progress in the arts
>>than some big media business.
>
>Now, do you propose to install a working government, ...
>
>If I hadn't just read an article in rec.arts.funny about how 53% of the
>nation's college students think gravity doesn't work on the moon, I'd be
>amazed at the naivety of your opinion.

[that's rec.humour.funny for those of you trying to track that article]
And since I can hardly followup in *that* newsgroup, a quick digression:
Somehow nearly 50% of college students not having a clue about gravity
doesn't surprise or bother me nearly as much as supposedly scientifically
educated students (such as engineers) who think that there's no gravity
in earth orbit because you see guys floating around in space shuttles
(my experience is that the number is surprisingly high).

Returning to the subject at hand, I would have to guess that Marcus had
something like the National Endowment for the Arts in mind as an example
of how the government can effectively promote the arts.  Of course, I
personally feel that taxing recording media to compensate a recording
industry that is doing quite well for itself is an abuse of government.
As for RMS' alternative, of trying to directly compensate the musicians:
I don't in general like taxing on the assumption of a specific use, but in
particular, his suggestion of voluntary surveying of actual copying to
determine the distribution of wealth, seems ungainly, inaccurate, and
easily given to abuse (if you like a group a lot, make a copy of their
recordings over and over again).

Further, to those who say home taping for use in your car is illegal,
whatever happened to the `fair use' doctrine, or am I misapplying the
interpretation of the law here?

--Jeff