What you (and Mike) are not seeing is that today's "helper" is tomorrow's monopolistic market controller. The best solutions tend to be where everyone ends up, and those best solutions end up having to do things that turns them into gatekeepers in order to make their clients (end users) happy. There is just too much stuff out there to have a wide open, unfiltered, never checked flood of crap.
I tend to agree. As companies get bigger, and especially when they are publicly traded, they are going to start acting like the companies they once fought. Many of the news stories about the big tech companies these days are about power struggles. And it will become interesting if Apple starts taking over everything. If IP laws are bad, Apple hasn't yet gotten that message.
Take your 'stifling creativity' argument up to Google, Facebook and Apple.
In the last few months I have begun to wonder if all the emphasis on Big Media being evil is a way to divert attention from Big Tech being evil. Take down Big Media if you want, but don't assume Big Tech is on the side of the "little people" of the world. Any company that has to play the stock market game is pretty much going to do whatever boosts its interests.
I've been intrigued by all these big companies suing each other.
It's like watching the rich throw money at baubles the rest of us could never afford. We're shut out of this, so we get to watch the destruction from the sidelines.
I think this is more of a modern day version of MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction). I'm just waiting to see which of the major software giants fire the first strike igniting the first Worldwide Patent War.
You'll be interested in this, then.
Mark Cuban Invests In Vringo, Which Is Suing Google - Business Insider: "However, it's not hard to figure out what's happening here. Rather than sit on the sidelines and cheer for Yahoo to blow up Facebook, Cuban is jumping in on his own. He's going to try and nuke Google and cause a big change in the patent law."
Even better! Lets get money for fiber infrastructure. I want fiber to the house in every city over 4000 people. Ditch diggers be praised!
God, yes.
You get it. It's never been about reducing inappropriate transfer of wealth. It's just that some people have fixed the laws to transfer wealth to others who don't necessarily need it and that preserve the status quo rather than actually benefiting lots of people.
We could also benefit from having more money into technologies that wean us off fossil fuels, but by God we're going to pump every last drop of available oil out of this country before we think of doing that. If we've got to frack every neighborhood to do it, we'll do it.
And heaven forbid that we build more bike paths. Cycling is an international conspiracy to take our cars away from us. And what is the military thinking that it should go green. Oil for them, too.
I think the patent system is broken, but I also think that as big tech companies become big, dominant companies, they act like big dominant companies. So do these economists:
Freakonomics: Acemoglu and Robinson Answer Your Questions: "But when left unchecked, all companies, even successful and inventive ones like Microsoft and Google, will also try to monopolize the market, create entry barriers, and tilt the playing field to their favor. The robber barons did this very successfully."
When I was talking about social support, I'm talking about education, infrastructure, and other principles that require heavy government investment.
I definitely support that. I'm skeptical, though, when those on the Right talk about shrinking government. I think we'll just the Bush version: more government spending, but on activities I'd rather not see.
People should make their own free music instead of taking music that has a fee attached (without it's creators permission).
I think this is precisely where music is headed. As music technology becomes cheaper and easier to use, more people can and are creating their own music. There is a decreasing wall between music creators and music consumers. Therefore I think we will have an ever increasing amount of music, but fewer music people who can pull together a large enough audience to support themselves. Everyone is a rock star unto themselves, but very few will make much money from it. People counter that it's always been this way, which is probably the point: If you want to make a living at something, music is probably not the best career to pick, Internet marketing opportunities or not.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: There are better places to discuss music and the arts
You start producing the things you need yourself, money is used to by work from others less money means more work. In the past that meant poverty since people couldn't do a lot, today automation and new technologies means you can make a lot of things yourself that will guarantee your living standards.
Yes, I have a self-sufficiency mindset myself. I would like to see more people get off the grid, grow food gardens rather than lawns, share when they can rather than buy, etc.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: There are better places to discuss music and the arts
A worker income is irrelevant, how much he gets as a paycheck is not relevant, only his quality of life is, money is not, that is why Chinese can become developed even though workers are paid a fraction of other and they still live above others there.
What people get paid in China can set the wage standard around the world. That's why, for example, we have overseas call centers, why freelance design and coding projects can be outsourced to talented people in other countries, why China is often the first place startups go when they need a new product made, and so on.
Wages are driven down by global competition. Therefore what people get paid in one country will likely affect what people ultimately get paid in another country unless the jobs have to be done on site.
Therefore I am advocating that Americans find cheaper ways to live in anticipation of a continuing falling income. Don't get yourself locked into a high mortgage when you don't know how long you will have your current job. Live as lean as possible in anticipation of a rapidly changing future.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: There are better places to discuss music and the arts
Here's something else to add to the discussion about how the current economic system is not necessarily trickling down into higher wages.
Apple’s iPhone profits dwarf its labor costs | Economic Policy Institute: "Apple’s estimated $319 profit per phone is at least 20 times the cost of producing the iPhone. In fact, because the labor cost is only part of Foxconn’s costs, which include energy, property, and its own profit, Apple’s profit per phone is more than 20 times the labor cost."
One thing that concerns me with a focus on demonizing Big Media is a possible tendency to give Big Tech a pass as they move into their own power plays. I think all big companies will work the system to their advantage, even if they have crusaded to drop laws that have hindered them.
Freakonomics -- Acemoglu and Robinson Answer Your Questions: "But when left unchecked, all companies, even successful and inventive ones like Microsoft and Google, will also try to monopolize the market, create entry barriers, and tilt the playing field to their favor."
I just don't think it's a positive to force artists of any kind into charitable status.
There is never enough charity to go around and therefore someone somewhere makes a judgement as to which artist benefits and which doesn't.
Yes, right now it sounds like charity. But I think in the future there will be more moneyless transactions, so more than musicians/artists will have the lifestyle.
I did a seven part series on gift economies because some people think that's how art should be handled. However, artists can only give their art away as a gift if they get their basic needs for free, too, or if they get a day job or grants.
In terms of sorting out how we can use network technology to advance civilization, the P2P Foundation is the best place I have seen so far in terms of tackling these questions.
Here's the last installment of my series and it has links to the previous six parts.
The more I looked at how to support artists, the more I came to the conclusion that the best way to do it was to look at the overall economy. I also feel that creativity is something that should be encouraged in all people, so as the wall between those who create and those who consume blurs, I think this is a good thing, though it changes the dynamics of creativity economics.
However, the technology industries and the internet seem to be strengthening capitalism and widening the gap between rich and poor. Apple bring out a new phone or iPad every year, and some people, especially the young, literally throw the perfectly good versions away.
That's where I am coming from and why I am so frustrated with traditional economists. They are always looking for ways to grow the economy. I am more concerned with sustainability and actually reducing consumption, both because it will lessen impact on the environment and because it will get people off the treadmill working to pay for stuff they don't need. What I like about the Shareable Movement and the Tiny House movement is a realization that more is not necessarily better. But as we downsize consumption, that means anyone who is hoping to sell more products for their income is going to be impacted. However, I think there is enough wealth to go around that there are economic solutions other than making stuff and selling stuff we don't need. The advantage of new technology is that we can reduce consumption if we want. That perhaps means buying less, traveling less, sharing more, etc. It's a different economy. In terms of musicians and artists, I envision a time where they can survive without necessarily having to sell stuff, to tour, etc. Perhaps we will support our artists with food from our gardens and letting them live in empty houses and giving them solar energy generators to use. They won't make any money, but they won't necessarily need any money either. The one issue could be health care. Either health care providers have to donate their services, or we need an expanded system that provides free health care to low income people.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: There are better places to discuss music and the arts
Here's another article that pulls together thoughts on work and income.
The Case for Shiftlessness: "U.S. worker productivity has increased 400 percent since 1950. 'The conclusion is inescapable: if productivity means anything at all, a worker should be able to earn the same standard of living as a 1950 worker in only 11 hours a week,' according to a MIT study.
"Obviously that's not the case. American workers are toiling longer hours than ever. They're not being paid more —to the contrary, wages have been stagnant or declining since 1970. Numerous analyses have established that, especially since 1970, the lion's share of profits from productivity increases have gone to employers."
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: There are better places to discuss music and the arts
Are you asking if people WILL work for free or ARE working for free?
In terms of "will they work for free" there have been studies (even cited in Techdirt) that people have other motivations than money.
In terms of "are working for free" that touches upon how low wages get before someone is essentially working for free. In the US one could cite data that shows the gutting of the middle class. Many of the jobs now being created are low-paying service jobs, but people still take them because that's all that is available. From there you can go to the articles on jobless recoveries, etc. One book I have seen cited concerning automation and jobs is this: The Lights In the Tunnel - Automation, Accelerating Technology and the Economy of the Future
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: There are better places to discuss music and the arts
It is difficult to find stuff there. I became aware of the site as I was doing research on gift economies. Many of the articles I referenced were archived there. I'll point you to an article by Michel Bauwens, who started the foundation.
The $100bn Facebook question: Will capitalism survive 'value abundance'?: The financial crisis beginning in 2008, far from diminishing the enthusiasm for sharing and peer production, is in fact accelerating the adoption of such practices. This is not just a problem for the increasingly precarious working class, but also for capitalism itself, which is seeing its opportunities for accumulation and expansion dry up.
Not only is the world faced with a global resource crisis, it is also facing a crisis of intensive development, because value creators are increasingly income-less. The knowledge economy turns out to be a pipe dream, because what is abundant cannot sustain market dynamics.
Thus we have an exponential rise in the creation of use value, but only a linear increase in the creation of monetary value. If workers have less and less income, who can buy the commodities that are offered for sale by companies? This, in a nutshell, is the crisis of value that we are facing as humanity. It is a challenge just as big as climate change or increases in social inequality.
On the post: How Rumblefish Ended Up Claiming Copyright On A Song Uploaded By The Band Who Actually Held The Copyright
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I tend to agree. As companies get bigger, and especially when they are publicly traded, they are going to start acting like the companies they once fought. Many of the news stories about the big tech companies these days are about power struggles. And it will become interesting if Apple starts taking over everything. If IP laws are bad, Apple hasn't yet gotten that message.
On the post: The Chilling Effects Of Copyfraud: Blocking A Researcher From Fair Use... And Scaring Him Into Staying Quiet About It
I'm confused
Did your friend publish the research paper and then after the fact ask for permission to use the image?
Did he ask for permission first, was turned down, and then used the image anyway?
Did he ask for permission, was turned down, and then didn't use the image? In that case there shouldn't be any problem.
On the post: Facebook Buys Most Of The AOL Patents From Microsoft That It Bought Just Weeks Ago
Re:
In the last few months I have begun to wonder if all the emphasis on Big Media being evil is a way to divert attention from Big Tech being evil. Take down Big Media if you want, but don't assume Big Tech is on the side of the "little people" of the world. Any company that has to play the stock market game is pretty much going to do whatever boosts its interests.
On the post: Facebook Buys Most Of The AOL Patents From Microsoft That It Bought Just Weeks Ago
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's like watching the rich throw money at baubles the rest of us could never afford. We're shut out of this, so we get to watch the destruction from the sidelines.
On the post: Facebook Buys Most Of The AOL Patents From Microsoft That It Bought Just Weeks Ago
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You'll be interested in this, then.
Mark Cuban Invests In Vringo, Which Is Suing Google - Business Insider: "However, it's not hard to figure out what's happening here. Rather than sit on the sidelines and cheer for Yahoo to blow up Facebook, Cuban is jumping in on his own. He's going to try and nuke Google and cause a big change in the patent law."
On the post: Facebook Buys Most Of The AOL Patents From Microsoft That It Bought Just Weeks Ago
Re: ..
God, yes.
You get it. It's never been about reducing inappropriate transfer of wealth. It's just that some people have fixed the laws to transfer wealth to others who don't necessarily need it and that preserve the status quo rather than actually benefiting lots of people.
We could also benefit from having more money into technologies that wean us off fossil fuels, but by God we're going to pump every last drop of available oil out of this country before we think of doing that. If we've got to frack every neighborhood to do it, we'll do it.
And heaven forbid that we build more bike paths. Cycling is an international conspiracy to take our cars away from us. And what is the military thinking that it should go green. Oil for them, too.
On the post: Facebook Buys Most Of The AOL Patents From Microsoft That It Bought Just Weeks Ago
Re:
It looks like a big game to me too, and now that some of these companies have more wealth than they know what to do with, this is how they play.
On the post: Facebook Buys Most Of The AOL Patents From Microsoft That It Bought Just Weeks Ago
Re:
Freakonomics: Acemoglu and Robinson Answer Your Questions: "But when left unchecked, all companies, even successful and inventive ones like Microsoft and Google, will also try to monopolize the market, create entry barriers, and tilt the playing field to their favor. The robber barons did this very successfully."
On the post: Is Lobbying Closer To Bribery... Or Extortion?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Gah
I definitely support that. I'm skeptical, though, when those on the Right talk about shrinking government. I think we'll just the Bush version: more government spending, but on activities I'd rather not see.
On the post: The Difference Between Nuanced Discussion And The Evil Underbelly Of The Internet Is Apparently A Fine Line Indeed
Re: Make things yourself
I think this is precisely where music is headed. As music technology becomes cheaper and easier to use, more people can and are creating their own music. There is a decreasing wall between music creators and music consumers. Therefore I think we will have an ever increasing amount of music, but fewer music people who can pull together a large enough audience to support themselves. Everyone is a rock star unto themselves, but very few will make much money from it. People counter that it's always been this way, which is probably the point: If you want to make a living at something, music is probably not the best career to pick, Internet marketing opportunities or not.
On the post: The Difference Between Nuanced Discussion And The Evil Underbelly Of The Internet Is Apparently A Fine Line Indeed
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: There are better places to discuss music and the arts
Yes, I have a self-sufficiency mindset myself. I would like to see more people get off the grid, grow food gardens rather than lawns, share when they can rather than buy, etc.
On the post: The Difference Between Nuanced Discussion And The Evil Underbelly Of The Internet Is Apparently A Fine Line Indeed
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: There are better places to discuss music and the arts
P2P Foundation. Blog Archive "Unemployment Is The Cure"
And here is something from another economics blog that I enjoy reading.
charles hugh smith, "Productivity, Baumol's Disease and the Cliff Just Ahead"
On the post: The Difference Between Nuanced Discussion And The Evil Underbelly Of The Internet Is Apparently A Fine Line Indeed
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: There are better places to discuss music and the arts
What people get paid in China can set the wage standard around the world. That's why, for example, we have overseas call centers, why freelance design and coding projects can be outsourced to talented people in other countries, why China is often the first place startups go when they need a new product made, and so on.
Wages are driven down by global competition. Therefore what people get paid in one country will likely affect what people ultimately get paid in another country unless the jobs have to be done on site.
Therefore I am advocating that Americans find cheaper ways to live in anticipation of a continuing falling income. Don't get yourself locked into a high mortgage when you don't know how long you will have your current job. Live as lean as possible in anticipation of a rapidly changing future.
On the post: The Difference Between Nuanced Discussion And The Evil Underbelly Of The Internet Is Apparently A Fine Line Indeed
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: There are better places to discuss music and the arts
Apple’s iPhone profits dwarf its labor costs | Economic Policy Institute: "Apple’s estimated $319 profit per phone is at least 20 times the cost of producing the iPhone. In fact, because the labor cost is only part of Foxconn’s costs, which include energy, property, and its own profit, Apple’s profit per phone is more than 20 times the labor cost."
On the post: The Difference Between Nuanced Discussion And The Evil Underbelly Of The Internet Is Apparently A Fine Line Indeed
Watch out for Big Tech, too
Freakonomics -- Acemoglu and Robinson Answer Your Questions: "But when left unchecked, all companies, even successful and inventive ones like Microsoft and Google, will also try to monopolize the market, create entry barriers, and tilt the playing field to their favor."
On the post: The Difference Between Nuanced Discussion And The Evil Underbelly Of The Internet Is Apparently A Fine Line Indeed
Re:
There is never enough charity to go around and therefore someone somewhere makes a judgement as to which artist benefits and which doesn't.
Yes, right now it sounds like charity. But I think in the future there will be more moneyless transactions, so more than musicians/artists will have the lifestyle.
I did a seven part series on gift economies because some people think that's how art should be handled. However, artists can only give their art away as a gift if they get their basic needs for free, too, or if they get a day job or grants.
In terms of sorting out how we can use network technology to advance civilization, the P2P Foundation is the best place I have seen so far in terms of tackling these questions.
Here's the last installment of my series and it has links to the previous six parts.
Music and the "Gift Economy" 7: Alternative Economies
The more I looked at how to support artists, the more I came to the conclusion that the best way to do it was to look at the overall economy. I also feel that creativity is something that should be encouraged in all people, so as the wall between those who create and those who consume blurs, I think this is a good thing, though it changes the dynamics of creativity economics.
On the post: The Difference Between Nuanced Discussion And The Evil Underbelly Of The Internet Is Apparently A Fine Line Indeed
Re:
That's where I am coming from and why I am so frustrated with traditional economists. They are always looking for ways to grow the economy. I am more concerned with sustainability and actually reducing consumption, both because it will lessen impact on the environment and because it will get people off the treadmill working to pay for stuff they don't need. What I like about the Shareable Movement and the Tiny House movement is a realization that more is not necessarily better. But as we downsize consumption, that means anyone who is hoping to sell more products for their income is going to be impacted. However, I think there is enough wealth to go around that there are economic solutions other than making stuff and selling stuff we don't need. The advantage of new technology is that we can reduce consumption if we want. That perhaps means buying less, traveling less, sharing more, etc. It's a different economy. In terms of musicians and artists, I envision a time where they can survive without necessarily having to sell stuff, to tour, etc. Perhaps we will support our artists with food from our gardens and letting them live in empty houses and giving them solar energy generators to use. They won't make any money, but they won't necessarily need any money either. The one issue could be health care. Either health care providers have to donate their services, or we need an expanded system that provides free health care to low income people.
On the post: The Difference Between Nuanced Discussion And The Evil Underbelly Of The Internet Is Apparently A Fine Line Indeed
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: There are better places to discuss music and the arts
The Case for Shiftlessness: "U.S. worker productivity has increased 400 percent since 1950. 'The conclusion is inescapable: if productivity means anything at all, a worker should be able to earn the same standard of living as a 1950 worker in only 11 hours a week,' according to a MIT study.
"Obviously that's not the case. American workers are toiling longer hours than ever. They're not being paid more —to the contrary, wages have been stagnant or declining since 1970. Numerous analyses have established that, especially since 1970, the lion's share of profits from productivity increases have gone to employers."
On the post: The Difference Between Nuanced Discussion And The Evil Underbelly Of The Internet Is Apparently A Fine Line Indeed
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: There are better places to discuss music and the arts
In terms of "will they work for free" there have been studies (even cited in Techdirt) that people have other motivations than money.
In terms of "are working for free" that touches upon how low wages get before someone is essentially working for free. In the US one could cite data that shows the gutting of the middle class. Many of the jobs now being created are low-paying service jobs, but people still take them because that's all that is available. From there you can go to the articles on jobless recoveries, etc. One book I have seen cited concerning automation and jobs is this:
The Lights In the Tunnel - Automation, Accelerating Technology and the Economy of the Future
On the post: The Difference Between Nuanced Discussion And The Evil Underbelly Of The Internet Is Apparently A Fine Line Indeed
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: There are better places to discuss music and the arts
The $100bn Facebook question: Will capitalism survive 'value abundance'?: The financial crisis beginning in 2008, far from diminishing the enthusiasm for sharing and peer production, is in fact accelerating the adoption of such practices. This is not just a problem for the increasingly precarious working class, but also for capitalism itself, which is seeing its opportunities for accumulation and expansion dry up.
Not only is the world faced with a global resource crisis, it is also facing a crisis of intensive development, because value creators are increasingly income-less. The knowledge economy turns out to be a pipe dream, because what is abundant cannot sustain market dynamics.
Thus we have an exponential rise in the creation of use value, but only a linear increase in the creation of monetary value. If workers have less and less income, who can buy the commodities that are offered for sale by companies? This, in a nutshell, is the crisis of value that we are facing as humanity. It is a challenge just as big as climate change or increases in social inequality.
Next >>