Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: H-Man who wrote (8795)	9/21/2003 5:07:55 PM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793709

When I smoked-quit in 74-it was 2 packs a day of the expensive stuff. THE CORNER BLOG: IGNORANCE IS LETHAL [Andrew Stuttaford] R.J. Reynolds announced last week that it will reduce its workforce by 40 percent as it tries to deal with the competitive threat posed by a significant increase in demand for low-cost brands. Demand for cheap smokes has been boosted by tax hikes, and their makers' ability to keep prices (relatively) low is helped by the fact that they are often not burdened by the tobacco 'settlement' costs that burden more established manufacturers. So what's the big deal? Well, no cigarette is safe, but generics generally have far, far more of the bad stuff than the brand names. You'd think that is something that the health watchdogs would want publicized, but they don't, lest it detract from their misleading - and dangerous - mantra that all cigarettes are equally lethal. They are not. And the cigarette companies should be allowed to say so nationalreview.com

To: H-Man who wrote (8795)	9/22/2003 1:19:15 AM
From: D. Long	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793709

Everybody pays the royalty tax on CD-Rs whether or not they use them to copy music. It is a blunt instrument, but a well used one. I think the significant impact suing individuals is going to have, is alienating the public (further eroding CD sales) and bringing an angry Congress into the matter. As to changing attitudes, regulation has only a minor impact. It certainly didn't change people's attitudes towards alcohol during Prohibition, and it hasn't done much for drug use, either. File sharing has more in common with alcohol than sexual harrassment, IMHO. People can readily see that sexual harrassment causes harm, while file sharing is seen as a victimless crime (and it isn't a crime, unless willfully done for commercial purposes). Attitudes aren't likely to change where no harm is apparent. Taping music from the radio and dubbing tapes were, like file sharing, bugbears of the recording industry. The examples were stated for a reason... Derek