Well, capitalism is the nuclear option of government with regard to its susceptibility to corruption. It is designed to blow up big scale. It's the "greed is controllable as long as it is our superior breed of men at the helm" option.
Sorry, but no. Capitalism (which is not a form of government) leads to far less corruption than communist/fascist governments. As for "large human-driven catastrophes" how many people did Mao, Stalin, Hitler, and the Khmer Rouge kill?
It is time to start electing people who will role back, but not eliminate, the role of the state in everyday life.
I agree. But very few folks will agree on the appropriate role of the state. I've argued for limited government in the context of net neutrality and gotten fairly well shouted down in this forum, so it seems most tech dirt posters believe that the government should regulate commerce as to protect us from corporate greed. I know just as many folks that would argue that government regulations are choking our economy. Everybody wants laws passed that protect their position.
Any suggestions as to how we find folks to vote for that support rolling back the role of government in our everyday life without bias one way or the other?
I wasn't challenging your assertion (this time). The data backs up your assertion.
The paper does point out that the highest income musicians are the most affected by changes in copyright law. Roger Waters is in the category of "highest-income musicians". Would you disagree that, based on the data and the conclusions of the study, his income would be negatively affected by the changes taking place in the music industry?
The points you mention were contributing factors but the root cause was collapse of home prices which caused those mortgage backed securities to be worthless.
"At the height of the housing boom, homeownership hit an all-time high of almost 70 percent. I had supported policies to expand homeownership, including down-payment assistance for low-income and first-time buyers. I was pleased to see the ownership society grow. ...: This precarious structure was fated to collapse as soon as the underlying card—the nonstop growth of housing prices—was pulled out. That was clear in retrospect. But very few saw it at the time, including me."
From a survey conducted at Northwest Law School "Money from Music: Survey Evidence on Musicians’ Revenue and Lessons About Copyright Incentives" (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2199058)
Rather than providing marginal incentives to create to all musicians at all times, copyright law mostly affects the revenue of the highest-income musicians in a direct fashion. This is not a surprise given the prevalence of winner-take-all markets in the entertainment industry.
One could conclude that Roger Waters is correct in that HIS income has been affected negatively, but incorrect in assuming that all musicians are suffering.
We no longer live in a world where meeting a demand can be met without affecting the supply. We can keep using references to the past where a disruptive technology changed the balance of supply and demand; where supply and demand were both variable. We now live in a time where demand is vairable but supply is a boolean (it's either available or not).
I can see how this applied to digital goods, but for physical goods supply is still variable.
How would that work exactly? Say I'm a farmer, I grow food for my family and some extra that I can sell to pay for other things my family needs. In this Utopian economy you describe, why would I bother to plant anything more than my family needs? I can get whatever I need for free, so why work that hard? Heck, why should I even grow any food at all. Easier to sleep in than to work from dawn to dusk. Everything is free, why work at all? I think I'll become a painter. Much more fun than farming. I'll never have to worry about where my next meal will come from, but if all the farmers decided not to work...
From The Hill (http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/nsa/241511-pressure-mounts-as-congress-dives-into-nsa-f ight):
Among those provisions, which will expire at the end of the month unless Congress acts, is Section 215, which the Obama administration has said authorizes the government to collect, in bulk, “metadata” records about millions of Americans’ phone calls.
Let's give credit where credit is due, the republicans mentioned in this post are not the only idiots in Washington.
Mike, can you provide any links re "There's a ton of research showing that greater enforcement of IP and stricter IP laws have actually done plenty to discourage innovation."
Or just provide the correct search terms and I'll find it on Google. I did a search for "weak Intellectual property protection fosters innovation" and most the research on the first page of the search results seemed counter to your statement.
In the short run, if everything is free, I can see that helping the consumer, but in the long run that would seem to discourage anyone from investing in creating content.
I can also see how sharing ideas would foster innovation, but how many start-ups would get funded if there wasn't sufficient protection of their proprietary IP?
At the conference table and in the minds of men, the free world’s cause is strengthened because it is just. But it is strengthened even more by the dedicated efforts of free men and free nations. As the great parliamentarian Edmund Burke said, “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”
"Zuckerberg has chosen a way that harms the internet as a whole and benefits Facebook."
I guess I'm more concerned with helping people in poor countries and Internet.org will help them. I don't give a damn if it ruins your idea of a perfect Internet. I don't care if Zuckerberg is obnoxious. I don't care if there is a profit motive involved. We sit here is a rich country and what we're saying to the 3rd world is "let them eat cake". Talk about tone deaf.
What you said was "Government entities aren't in a position to make such an offer unless they happen to be ISPs, so that's a strange question." It wasn't a strange question since government entities are ISPs in several cases.
I already stated what I think your position is and, based on what you posted, I wasn't that far off.
Zuckerberg wants to provide limited free access (from the Internet.org site)
The Internet.org app provides free basic services in markets where internet access may be less affordable. It allows people to browse selected health, employment and local information websites without data charges.
You may think Zuckerberg's manner offensive, but I've traveled in the 3rd world. I've met folks that live on a less than $500/year. It's very hard to believe that providing some access to folks that can't afford any access is better than no access.
So I think you just agreed with most of the points I made in my first post (the one you accused me of "putting words in your mouth" that were 100% incorrect)
I posted "If Facebook access is free it gives Facebook too much control." You reference an approach where "that doesn't encourage the control of the internet by major corporations"
I said "It stopped being about poor folks in India who can't afford Internet access a long time ago." - you say in the last paragraph "This isn't about helping poor people".
Sounds like I wasn't 100% wrong about your position.
On the post: US Says 'No' To Corporate Sovereignty Reform; Hungary Says 'No' To Corporate Sovereignty
Re: Re: Re: Wrong reason?
Sorry, but no. Capitalism (which is not a form of government) leads to far less corruption than communist/fascist governments. As for "large human-driven catastrophes" how many people did Mao, Stalin, Hitler, and the Khmer Rouge kill?
On the post: US Says 'No' To Corporate Sovereignty Reform; Hungary Says 'No' To Corporate Sovereignty
Re: Re: Re: Re: Wrong reason?
I agree. But very few folks will agree on the appropriate role of the state. I've argued for limited government in the context of net neutrality and gotten fairly well shouted down in this forum, so it seems most tech dirt posters believe that the government should regulate commerce as to protect us from corporate greed. I know just as many folks that would argue that government regulations are choking our economy. Everybody wants laws passed that protect their position.
Any suggestions as to how we find folks to vote for that support rolling back the role of government in our everyday life without bias one way or the other?
On the post: Pink Floyd's Roger Waters Declares Silicon Valley A 'Gallery Of Rogues And Thieves'
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The paper does point out that the highest income musicians are the most affected by changes in copyright law. Roger Waters is in the category of "highest-income musicians". Would you disagree that, based on the data and the conclusions of the study, his income would be negatively affected by the changes taking place in the music industry?
On the post: Pink Floyd's Roger Waters Declares Silicon Valley A 'Gallery Of Rogues And Thieves'
Re: Re: Silicon Valley? What about Wall Street?
"At the height of the housing boom, homeownership hit an all-time high of almost 70 percent. I had supported policies to expand homeownership, including down-payment assistance for low-income and first-time buyers. I was pleased to see the ownership society grow. ...: This precarious structure was fated to collapse as soon as the underlying card—the nonstop growth of housing prices—was pulled out. That was clear in retrospect. But very few saw it at the time, including me."
POTUS 41
On the post: Pink Floyd's Roger Waters Declares Silicon Valley A 'Gallery Of Rogues And Thieves'
Re: Re: Re:
Rather than providing marginal incentives to create to all musicians at all times, copyright law mostly affects the revenue of the highest-income musicians in a direct fashion. This is not a surprise given the prevalence of winner-take-all markets in the entertainment industry.
One could conclude that Roger Waters is correct in that HIS income has been affected negatively, but incorrect in assuming that all musicians are suffering.
On the post: Pink Floyd's Roger Waters Declares Silicon Valley A 'Gallery Of Rogues And Thieves'
Re: Re:
https://musicbusinessresearch.wordpress.com/2013/02/01/money-from-music-a-study-on-musicians-r evenue-in-the-u-s/
On the post: Pink Floyd's Roger Waters Declares Silicon Valley A 'Gallery Of Rogues And Thieves'
Re: TV's and oranges.
We no longer live in a world where meeting a demand can be met without affecting the supply.
We can keep using references to the past where a disruptive technology changed the balance of supply and demand; where supply and demand were both variable. We now live in a time where demand is vairable but supply is a boolean (it's either available or not).
I can see how this applied to digital goods, but for physical goods supply is still variable.
On the post: Pink Floyd's Roger Waters Declares Silicon Valley A 'Gallery Of Rogues And Thieves'
Re: Silicon Valley? What about Wall Street?
On the post: Pink Floyd's Roger Waters Declares Silicon Valley A 'Gallery Of Rogues And Thieves'
Re: Why not make everything free?
On the post: These Clueless Politicians Are The Ones Determining If The NSA Gets To Keep Spying On All Of Us
Non-partisan?
Among those provisions, which will expire at the end of the month unless Congress acts, is Section 215, which the Obama administration has said authorizes the government to collect, in bulk, “metadata” records about millions of Americans’ phone calls.
Let's give credit where credit is due, the republicans mentioned in this post are not the only idiots in Washington.
On the post: Why Is Consumers' Research Pushing For Anti-Consumer Trade Deals, And Bad Intellectual Property Laws?
Weaker IP laws are the solution?
Or just provide the correct search terms and I'll find it on Google. I did a search for "weak Intellectual property protection fosters innovation" and most the research on the first page of the search results seemed counter to your statement.
In the short run, if everything is free, I can see that helping the consumer, but in the long run that would seem to discourage anyone from investing in creating content.
I can also see how sharing ideas would foster innovation, but how many start-ups would get funded if there wasn't sufficient protection of their proprietary IP?
On the post: Tone Deaf Zuckerberg Declares Opposition To Zero Rated Apps An 'Extremist' Position That Hurts The Poor
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Tone Deaf Zuckerberg Declares Opposition To Zero Rated Apps An 'Extremist' Position That Hurts The Poor
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: France And Canada Both Move To Massively Expand The Surveillance State
Re: Re: Re: Thank Islam for this...
JFK 1961
On the post: France And Canada Both Move To Massively Expand The Surveillance State
Re: Re: Re: Thank Islam for this...
On the post: France And Canada Both Move To Massively Expand The Surveillance State
Re: Thank Islam for this...
To expand on your point, without the increase in terrorism - no justification for the new laws.
But - if the terrorists succeed in turning countries into police states - they've probably won haven't they.
On the post: Tone Deaf Zuckerberg Declares Opposition To Zero Rated Apps An 'Extremist' Position That Hurts The Poor
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I guess I'm more concerned with helping people in poor countries and Internet.org will help them. I don't give a damn if it ruins your idea of a perfect Internet. I don't care if Zuckerberg is obnoxious. I don't care if there is a profit motive involved. We sit here is a rich country and what we're saying to the 3rd world is "let them eat cake". Talk about tone deaf.
On the post: Tone Deaf Zuckerberg Declares Opposition To Zero Rated Apps An 'Extremist' Position That Hurts The Poor
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I already stated what I think your position is and, based on what you posted, I wasn't that far off.
On the post: Tone Deaf Zuckerberg Declares Opposition To Zero Rated Apps An 'Extremist' Position That Hurts The Poor
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The Internet.org app provides free basic services in markets where internet access may be less affordable. It allows people to browse selected health, employment and local information websites without data charges.
You may think Zuckerberg's manner offensive, but I've traveled in the 3rd world. I've met folks that live on a less than $500/year. It's very hard to believe that providing some access to folks that can't afford any access is better than no access.
On the post: Tone Deaf Zuckerberg Declares Opposition To Zero Rated Apps An 'Extremist' Position That Hurts The Poor
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I posted "If Facebook access is free it gives Facebook too much control." You reference an approach where "that doesn't encourage the control of the internet by major corporations"
I said "It stopped being about poor folks in India who can't afford Internet access a long time ago." - you say in the last paragraph "This isn't about helping poor people".
Sounds like I wasn't 100% wrong about your position.
"Government entities aren't in a position to make such an offer unless they happen to be ISPs, so that's a strange question." Government entities as ISPs? Not that strange as it turns out: http://stopthecap.com/2014/03/06/most-cutting-edge-gigabit-broadband-networks-are-community-owned/
Yo u could argue that municipalities are not government entities, but please don't.
Next >>