With 100k unauthorized downloads you have fans but no cash.
But fans have a monetary value so unauthorized downloads would be preferred.
Now that you took the preferred option you have two choices:
1. Sell fans other things like boxed sets, posters, t-shirts, concerts etc and make some money. This option leads to more fans that are happy to put money into your pocket.
2. Sue your fans to make money. This option leads to less fans, lots of haters and maybe some money.
"those with this greater access complain on paying a few % higher in taxes on high income even though in many cases they would have much lower income were it not for their greater than average access useful in anticipating the direction of major market movements."
The problem here is not tax rates, the problem you describe is that some people have above average access to information.
I am with you on fixing that, information should be available to all citizens equally.
Using taxes in the manner you suggest seems like using taxes to punish people.
What is a rich persons incentive to innovate and create jobs only to have more of their money sucked away in taxes?
What is a poor persons incentive to work hard and attempt to become rich only to pay a higher tax rate *AND* get less "free" governmental assistance?
The progressive tax system is simply another mess of "insider" information that people must understand in-order to move from one class to the next. It is not shocking that this complex tax code benefits those elite "in the know" people.
Raising the rates on the rich without fixing the real problem does nothing other than promote more class warfare. If you want to "hurt" the elite take away their "insider" advantage by drastically simplifying the tax laws.
It might be true that "sometimes propitiatory software IS cheaper than OSS" but do not confuse software with standards.
With open standards both proprietary and OSS vendors can make software that meets the standard. This gives consumers and governments a wide range of software to choose from(contrary to the BSA's false claims) and in many cases helps promote innovation. Look how open standards allowed Internet to grow if you need an example.
When a government chooses to use a proprietary standard for documents(as an example) then said government is also choosing to force citizens to PURCHASE the proprietary software that supports that standard so they can communicate with the government.
Seems to me the BSA is simply trying to get governments to choose software that forces its citizens to then purchase said software that conveniently happens to be sold by BSA supporters.
As Denis Leary once said: "You could have cigarettes that come in a black pack, with a skull and a cross bone on the front, called tumors and smokers would be lined up around the block going, "I can't wait to get my hands on these f%$^&*& things! I bet you get a tumor as soon as you light up!"
People ignore the warning on their SVU that it may tip over if turning too fast.
People ignore the warning on their toaster to keep it away from the sink.
People ignore the warning on their hair spray to keep away from flames.
People will ignore the warning on the cigarette packs too.
These warning label laws sound good on paper.
But in practice do not result in changing people's behaviour.
So why do we waste time and money making such ineffective laws?