ISPs and A Way for Authors And CEOs of Record Companies to Be Rich and Have Enough To Eat Once More!

...Many authors are considering class action type lawsuits against Internet Service Providers, ISPs because they aren't being paid. On sites such as this there is discussion about how this won't work because if the ISPs are taxed they'll only want to promote what sells, and so the web would be a watered down version like TV, so creativity would be reduced, not boost. As I say here on my page, the web is not the same, so may be too simplistic a view. The web has other science. Wouldn't it be great if The Opera was on another 300 years? The web has been for months!!
....
Obviously just pulling the ISPs tooth for the money wouldn't be much better than TV but it could work in a basic way, like a sort of higher resolution TV or Radio. The airwaves are by far the most rich real estate on the planet, not just because there's so much room, there's real worth there in business (and business is good for the economy, no doubt.) As you would expect for a flexible media like the internet, if advertising often won't pay the bills as many are finding, there are other ways to make it of worth to good or great authors, who are making real contributions to the world wide web, without downsizing. Because of the web, authors haven't just ceased to exist, and we can expect lawsuits in favor of their rights to the ISP tax. I think a good way to pay authors is not just to charge the ISPs or radio stations to play a song, this is like making a book publisher pay for the books they sell. The real business in publishing is where the money comes from, not the publishers, rather from "The People who Buy The Books" or tunes or shows like it always was; so a web subscribers tax; 3 dollars more a month (not much) than the usual price may be of worth. Most don't read 1000 sites a month. If you loaded 60 sites a month, you would just divide the 3 dollars by those 60 sites, or 5 or 10 cents per page you download, people pay this much for printers. Authors may say they should be paid as much as a 20 dollar machine. It seems like a privilege to pay for the worth of the web. Carl Sagan in Cosmos says the health of a civilization is often measured by how much care is taken to strengthen and boost bookstores and marms and others in storehouses of truth. If today's lexicon is the web, and much of our whole world may be based on the web, like winning our modem wars and more, when we go back to paying authors, the better the boost civilization in the long run may be, and anyone with a good or great idea would have a real reason to add to the web. While authors would favor this plan the most no doubt, it would be a way for anyone to be in higher income and it wouldn't hurt the ISPs. One of the main problems might seem at first glance to be that the subscribers if paying for the content would be more picky about the sites they visit, so it would reduce the number of visitors the author would receive, but there would be no downsizing of sites if a flat rate was used. The ISPs might lose some volume, but this would be small since almost all the ISP users could afford to pay the tax. This isn't control of the content by the government as some have said, rather just the tax to the contributors to the web and society. The main problem after a web tax might be plagiarism, but there's software to find it well and notary sites like myows.com are at no cost to establish precedence. The web is good and not the simple picture like TV on the link above, so it's more efficient and can pay the authors more by worth,. E.g. if beyond say the 60 sites a month, the ISP would charge no more, or less if it were more, what else. The ISP might get the unused clicks, so there would be worth to them for tracking the clicks and pay. Holding cash makes you calm, they say in research, s I always was so alert for months! Some say that advertisers pay radio stations, and thus the songs are pr at no cost for the musicians and the radio stations shouldn't be charged because it would put them out of business. Though musicians should be paid, and an information product like a song is essentially being consumed by listening to the song, and this is not like buying a Mazda, a radio tax seems unviable because there's no simple way to keep track of who's listening to the song on what radio, and charging the radio stations is a bad idea like charging book publishers to sell books. The web however, is connected between the ISPs and the consumers of the web sites, so an ISP tax wouldn't much change the ISP's. With a radio tax or an ISP tax, musicians, artists, and writers will still be paid less than the old days of records, shows and books because of file sharing. Even so creative people should be at least paid more by way of the general flow of the information through the ISPs than no pay, a huge industry otherwise in ruins. The government can't always look bad for all they do, often the government helps more than hurts because life is complex, many of those we know well are only able live because of the good of this government I think by much of the evidenceis real kind, not oppressive. I care about Aunt Sally and my neighbors with all my might. An ISP tax might be more a stimulus to the economy than another boost would be in years.

Building a better umbrella hat... You read where just about all the innovations possible have been put into umbrellas, finally someone thought of an umbrella hat the wearer doesn't have to take 15 minutes to put on, it's a compact umbrella hat that spirals or fiolds out when the wearer taps his hat and thinks of big flowers!
..
..