Here are a couple of other resources. Health care costs are likely to bite us all at some point, so we need to find ways to lower costs. The current system isn't doing that.
Spending on Housing and Transportation Fell in 2009 - NYTimes.com: "Health care was the only major category of spending that rose, climbing 5 percent in 2009 to $3,126. Not coincidentally, health care is also the only industry whose job count has grown every month in the last three years."
More Patients Balk at Cost of Prescriptions - WSJ.com: "Mark Spiers, chief executive of Wolters Kluwer, points to efforts by employers and health plans to control fast-growing health-care spending by shifting more costs to consumers. The out-of-pocket costs, combined with people's sense they can't afford it, is causing some to make 'real consumption choices about prescriptions versus other goods for their home,' Mr. Spiers said."
The insurance companies keep denying people in order to only insure the healthy. But that means fewer people have insurance. So the ones without insurance don't get care or they end up at hospitals who must take them and then those hospitals try to pass on the costs of the uninsured to those who have insurance, thus driving up insurance rates even more.
The idea behind getting everyone to have insurance is to spread out the expenses over a bigger population, which hopefully means lower rates overall and a healthier population by treating everyone in a timely manner.
People who are happy with the system right now haven't run into problems yet. But if, for example, you are buying your own insurance and you are a young woman of child-bearing age or you have a wife of child-bearing age, either you aren't going to get pregnancy coverage or you are going to pay extra for it.
I'm for a single payer system because I think we waste a lot money with all the paperwork the current system requires. Some people think a single payer system might ration care. But what we have now definitely rations care, either by denying coverage altogether or by not paying for certain treatments. I think a system that provides basic health care is a better way to ration it than to take the money and then not pay it back out in coverage.
We're going to reach a point where very few companies or individuals are going to be able to afford either health insurance or health care so we'll have to do without.
Among everyone polled:
For landline only, 46% say Republican and 45% say Democrat.
For landline and cell, 44% say Republican and 47% say Democrat.
HOWEVER, among LIKELY voters:
For landline only, 53% say Republican and 41% say Democrat.
For landline and cell, 50% say Republican and 43% say Democrat.
So while including cellphone voters does increase the percentage of responding Democrats, when you ask who is likely to vote, the Republicans take the lead. The main difference is that it's a 53/41 split based on landline only, while it is a 50/43 spilt when including landline and cell.
I agree with your reasoning, but I think the demographic dissonance expressed by the poll figures needs to be scrutinized in detail.
Well, there are at least two different ways to sample if we are talking about political polls.
1. A random sample of all people.
2. A random sample of all potential voters.
If you are doing a random sample of all people and don't have enough cellphone-only people, you don't truly have a random sample.
If, on the other hand, you want a random sample of voters and you find out that cellphone-only people don't vote, then you wouldn't want them anyway. Or, if you did reach them (via cellphone or by mail or in person) and you found out they weren't planning on voting, then you'd toss out their opinions because you were only trying to reach likely voters.
Let me ask you. So what does it mean if current polling under-represents younger, more liberal voters? Do you expect the election results to be more liberal than predicted? Anyone here placing any bets?
I think it is reasonable to assume that if pollers are only reaching landlines, they are tapping an older, more conservative demographic.
But will the people they aren't reaching get out and vote? If the results are skewed, but those polled are most likely to vote, then their views WILL reflect the final results.
In other words, if you only end up talking to Republicans, but the Republicans are the only ones who vote, then your predictions will be accurate.
So if you feel you are underrepresented in the polls, ignore the polls, but still make sure you vote.
I think the organizations that want to archive materials are already archiving materials, even if those aren't being made publicly available yet. It's time consuming to go back and make digital copies for old items, so more is involved than just obtaining copyrights.
I'm actually more disturbed by how much is available, either online or in libraries, that no one bothers to read anymore. That's where I think our cultural legacy is being lost. People aren't going very deep even with stuff that they can easily read.
Given the lack of spending on so many government services, hoping to round up more money right now for this probably isn't going to happen. Would it be cool for all students to have access to digital libraries? Yes, but we have schools that are physically failing apart, so getting enough computers to those students seems a long way off.
There are more issues in creating a worldwide accessible digital library than just eliminating copyright laws, so if we want to improve the education of all the people in the world, let's look for really big solutions. Giving them books online that they either don't want to read or don't have the machines to use to read won't transform their lives.
Re: In part because money for luxuries is being blown up in Iraq.
I agree that there are lots of things not being done because our spending priorities are elsewhere. And I suspect that even if a massive digital library were created, the average person wouldn't use it.
I do a done of research online. I dig up stuff that rarely gets cited because I don't think most people care to dig that deeply.
My point: Having everything online would be cool. But commercial interests are only likely to do it if they can sell it. The government is looking for ways to cut spending. Individuals are doing what they can, whether it is legal or not. Universities are moving to digital bit by bit. It's not being done for the public at large, both because of licensing reasons and because universities are not trying to educate the world for free.
My public library lets me read a lot of magazines online, which is very cool. If I want to read an article in a recent magazine and it is their database, I can do it online from home. So I think there are quite a few opportunities already. I was doing some research on an article last week and discovered I could access one of the books I wanted to read via Google books. I've found a surprising amount of stuff already online.
Big companies depend on their image, social mores apply to them more then others, no one wants bad publicity especially people who can pay for it, so you don't need to worry about that,
I don't think it will come to that. What I think will happen is that everyone will freely use everyone else's stuff and when someone objects, the answer will be, "Hey, we were giving you exposure."
I think the social mores of using content created by others will change. Maybe there will be a system to at least give credit, but I think we are evolving to a point where more and more people think it is fine to freely borrow from everyone else.
The only likelihood you might have to shame a company is if they are using your music in a reprehensible way and you point that out.
I'm watching the political landscape right now and there are some major distortions of the truth. And yet at least some part of the public eats it up. So I don't think there is a social more we can depend on. People find ways to justify a lot of things.
So, I propose that artists should not have to pay rent, for food, for cars, or anything else.
I've been seriously pondering this actually. Here's one real example.
Brooklyn hospital swaps health care for art: "Among the sacrifices many artists make in pursuit of their passion is health care; it's simply too expensive for those struggling to live off of their creativity. However, Woodhull Hospital in the New York City borough of Brooklyn has come up with an ingenious plan to address this problem; allowing artists of all types to swap their art for health care."
Re: Re: Re: Re: While we're saying "it's not so bad..."
Service is the key word here, those Club Goods are for the most part always services, a theater is a real physical object that needs maintenance, cable TV is a service which people pay for, your ISP and phone too, how that compares to writing music and trying to take ownership of that group of sounds?
You may think you have paid for something and don't feel you should have to pay for it again. But if the true cost of one item is $1 million, do you think no one should get it until one person or company pays $1 million?
If you want to compare music to working for an employer with the idea that everyone should only be paid once, then it would make sense for musicians only to do custom music and write one song per fan/company and charge a significant amount for each one. And maybe it will come to that.
Sports: The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics | Library of Economics and Liberty: "By their very nature, sports leagues are cartels that exclude competition from other companies. You cannot start a baseball team and hope to play the Yankees unless you can get Major League Baseball (the cartel) to grant you a franchise. The antitrust laws prohibit cartels, but professional sports is the only private business in the United States that is largely exempt from those laws. Ever since a 1922 court decision (Federal Baseball Club of Baltimore v. National League et al.), baseball has been totally exempt. No other sport enjoys such a blanket exemption from antitrust, but all professional team sports have a labor exemption and, since the Sports Television Act of 1961, a broadcast exemption."
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Commercial vs. non-commercial
That has nothing to do with copyright laws. It's just the market at work. Nothing wrong with that.
As I have said before, I don't really take a stand on copyright. I'm far more interested in how everyone makes a living. I do see market forces working against most content creators because the market is flooded with art/photography/design/video/music, etc. Crowdsourcing has made it quite easy for anyone who wants content to find it for little or no money. So if you aren't selling your creative output, then you need to find other ways to pay your bills or to eliminate the bills altogether.
I would love to see an anti trust challenge to the whole draft system in professional sports.
I actually see the current NFL and NBA systems as comparable to anti-trust legislation. If one team gains an unfair advantage, the league officials rejigger the rules to create parity again. So it's like forcing AT&T to spilt up into regional companies.
But that argument doesn't apply to commercial entities, because businesses aren't members of the public. They don't, and shouldn't, have as many rights as any citizen. If their commercial rights are infringed upon, so what?
I agree with the idea that it's nice to share the wealth. The reasoning behind having artists receive payment from a for-sale use is that if they contribute to the sale, they should share in the sale. Michael Jordan has an arrangement from Nike that he gets a percentage of every Air Jordan being sold.
Most musicians don't have the clout to negotiate that kind of deal, however. And with so many musicians willing to provide their music for free in exchange for exposure, most companies do not have to pay much for music. In a few cases the song may be so iconic that the company wants that particular song and nothing else, but relatively few companies are that committed to any particular piece of music. Substitutions can be and are found. And as more music libraries are amassed, where music is pre-cleared and organized by type, it becomes increasingly easy for music supervisors to find what they want quickly and without much expense.
Do you see builders trying to get money from the buildings they build after they have build it?
If you build a building (like a museum), pay for all the materials, the construction, etc., and then charge admission each time people go through the door, isn't that the same thing? You're not even delivering a different experience each time. Same exhibits. Same staffers. Why aren't users charged a one-time fee that covers them for life? Why do they pay each time they enter? Because in order to recover costs, the museum would have to charge a fairly high one-time fee, so it is more affordable for most people to pay per visit.
They can't sue you for telling the truth and even if they do that, you will get popular support to defend yourself and your work you don't actually need more than that to give them a bad day.
Bands have tried to steer their fans clear of unauthorized merchandise, but the fans aren't necessarily sympathetic.
Similarly, while some companies emphasize that they use "fair trade" practices or that their products are certified organic, you have people who don't want to pay extra and will go with the cheapest price. There have been boycotts (e.g., grapes, Nike products), but generally to have much effect it requires quite a bit of organizing.
I can't see shaming companies that don't pay artists to use their music gaining a lot of traction. All the companies have to do, like MTV has done, is ask artists to submit their artwork/music/writing for free and sign a licensing agreement for those terms. There's just so much content/art out there that most companies can get what they need for free. In fact, that's what crowdsourcing is all about now. Get lots of submissions and pay little or nothing for them.
Huffington Post is a great example of not feeling the need to pay contributors. That's just how it is going with everything these days. People want audiences to such extent that they will give away their photos, their writing, their music, their videos, etc. In some cases they hope to make their money via whatever fame they might accrue from the exposure. In other cases, they don't care if they make money because they aren't depending on these creative efforts to pay their bills.
I'm primarily concerned with the bigger economic picture of how anyone makes any money doing anything. If consumers don't have jobs, they don't go to shows, they don't buy t-shirts, etc., so artists don't get paid no matter what they hope to sell. We end up with a lot of people giving each other free stuff, which works well for a lot of things online, but less well when there are things you need to survive and can't find anyone to give you those for free.
I have more faith in people, they will notice something is wrong and start using those things, that is the major incentive big companies will have to endorse artists and pay them, because they don't won't to be cast in a bad light that could hurt their bottom line, and sure there will be people who will take it and not pay anything or give credit, but people are smart they notice those things and care about and that didn't change much throughout history why would it change now?
The average consumer probably isn't going to know which companies are paying artists and which ones aren't. How are they going to know? Sure, there may be websites that point out which companies don't pay artists or musicians, but to what extent do people monitor those sites? Generally people only boycott companies when there is a big campaign and it's centered around a major social issue.
Let's say you are out somewhere and your kid wants a t-shirt with some tv star or sports image on it. You see two of them in the mall. One is noticeably cheaper than the other and your kid is screaming that he wants one. One might have been officially licensed and other other may involve an unauthorized use of the image. Do you think the average harried parent is going to think to himself, "I better look for the official licensed tag and buy that one"?
And how many of you make sure that you only support companies that pay for licensing?
On the post: Belle & Sebastian Considers Opening Up A Taqueria
More musician owned restaurants
Ten Musician-Owned Restaurants: Paste
Great Dining Venues by Famous Actors and Musicians
On the post: The New Children's Health Plan Is Videogames?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sleazy???
Spending on Housing and Transportation Fell in 2009 - NYTimes.com: "Health care was the only major category of spending that rose, climbing 5 percent in 2009 to $3,126. Not coincidentally, health care is also the only industry whose job count has grown every month in the last three years."
More Patients Balk at Cost of Prescriptions - WSJ.com: "Mark Spiers, chief executive of Wolters Kluwer, points to efforts by employers and health plans to control fast-growing health-care spending by shifting more costs to consumers. The out-of-pocket costs, combined with people's sense they can't afford it, is causing some to make 'real consumption choices about prescriptions versus other goods for their home,' Mr. Spiers said."
On the post: The New Children's Health Plan Is Videogames?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sleazy???
The idea behind getting everyone to have insurance is to spread out the expenses over a bigger population, which hopefully means lower rates overall and a healthier population by treating everyone in a timely manner.
People who are happy with the system right now haven't run into problems yet. But if, for example, you are buying your own insurance and you are a young woman of child-bearing age or you have a wife of child-bearing age, either you aren't going to get pregnancy coverage or you are going to pay extra for it.
I'm for a single payer system because I think we waste a lot money with all the paperwork the current system requires. Some people think a single payer system might ration care. But what we have now definitely rations care, either by denying coverage altogether or by not paying for certain treatments. I think a system that provides basic health care is a better way to ration it than to take the money and then not pay it back out in coverage.
We're going to reach a point where very few companies or individuals are going to be able to afford either health insurance or health care so we'll have to do without.
On the post: The New Children's Health Plan Is Videogames?
Our system is expensive and inefficient
http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/reprint/hlthaff.2010.0073v1.pdf
Here's the last sentence: "... meaningful reform may not only save money of the long term, it may also save lives."
On the post: Obvious News Is Obvious: Polls That Only Call Landlines May Be Biased
Re: Re: Re: But will the cellphone holders vote?
Cell Phones and Election Polls: An Update - Pew Research Center
Among everyone polled:
For landline only, 46% say Republican and 45% say Democrat.
For landline and cell, 44% say Republican and 47% say Democrat.
HOWEVER, among LIKELY voters:
For landline only, 53% say Republican and 41% say Democrat.
For landline and cell, 50% say Republican and 43% say Democrat.
So while including cellphone voters does increase the percentage of responding Democrats, when you ask who is likely to vote, the Republicans take the lead. The main difference is that it's a 53/41 split based on landline only, while it is a 50/43 spilt when including landline and cell.
On the post: Obvious News Is Obvious: Polls That Only Call Landlines May Be Biased
Re: Re: But will the cellphone holders vote?
Well, there are at least two different ways to sample if we are talking about political polls.
1. A random sample of all people.
2. A random sample of all potential voters.
If you are doing a random sample of all people and don't have enough cellphone-only people, you don't truly have a random sample.
If, on the other hand, you want a random sample of voters and you find out that cellphone-only people don't vote, then you wouldn't want them anyway. Or, if you did reach them (via cellphone or by mail or in person) and you found out they weren't planning on voting, then you'd toss out their opinions because you were only trying to reach likely voters.
Let me ask you. So what does it mean if current polling under-represents younger, more liberal voters? Do you expect the election results to be more liberal than predicted? Anyone here placing any bets?
On the post: Obvious News Is Obvious: Polls That Only Call Landlines May Be Biased
But will the cellphone holders vote?
But will the people they aren't reaching get out and vote? If the results are skewed, but those polled are most likely to vote, then their views WILL reflect the final results.
In other words, if you only end up talking to Republicans, but the Republicans are the only ones who vote, then your predictions will be accurate.
So if you feel you are underrepresented in the polls, ignore the polls, but still make sure you vote.
On the post: Why Aren't We Creating A National Digital Library?
Re: Some are already working on this
http://www.hathitrust.org/rights_management
I think the organizations that want to archive materials are already archiving materials, even if those aren't being made publicly available yet. It's time consuming to go back and make digital copies for old items, so more is involved than just obtaining copyrights.
I'm actually more disturbed by how much is available, either online or in libraries, that no one bothers to read anymore. That's where I think our cultural legacy is being lost. People aren't going very deep even with stuff that they can easily read.
Given the lack of spending on so many government services, hoping to round up more money right now for this probably isn't going to happen. Would it be cool for all students to have access to digital libraries? Yes, but we have schools that are physically failing apart, so getting enough computers to those students seems a long way off.
There are more issues in creating a worldwide accessible digital library than just eliminating copyright laws, so if we want to improve the education of all the people in the world, let's look for really big solutions. Giving them books online that they either don't want to read or don't have the machines to use to read won't transform their lives.
On the post: Why Aren't We Creating A National Digital Library?
Re: In part because money for luxuries is being blown up in Iraq.
I do a done of research online. I dig up stuff that rarely gets cited because I don't think most people care to dig that deeply.
My point: Having everything online would be cool. But commercial interests are only likely to do it if they can sell it. The government is looking for ways to cut spending. Individuals are doing what they can, whether it is legal or not. Universities are moving to digital bit by bit. It's not being done for the public at large, both because of licensing reasons and because universities are not trying to educate the world for free.
My public library lets me read a lot of magazines online, which is very cool. If I want to read an article in a recent magazine and it is their database, I can do it online from home. So I think there are quite a few opportunities already. I was doing some research on an article last week and discovered I could access one of the books I wanted to read via Google books. I've found a surprising amount of stuff already online.
On the post: Is Uncompensated Commercial Use Of An Artist's Content Really That Bad?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I don't think it will come to that. What I think will happen is that everyone will freely use everyone else's stuff and when someone objects, the answer will be, "Hey, we were giving you exposure."
I think the social mores of using content created by others will change. Maybe there will be a system to at least give credit, but I think we are evolving to a point where more and more people think it is fine to freely borrow from everyone else.
The only likelihood you might have to shame a company is if they are using your music in a reprehensible way and you point that out.
I'm watching the political landscape right now and there are some major distortions of the truth. And yet at least some part of the public eats it up. So I don't think there is a social more we can depend on. People find ways to justify a lot of things.
On the post: Is Uncompensated Commercial Use Of An Artist's Content Really That Bad?
Re: Solution
I've been seriously pondering this actually. Here's one real example.
Brooklyn hospital swaps health care for art: "Among the sacrifices many artists make in pursuit of their passion is health care; it's simply too expensive for those struggling to live off of their creativity. However, Woodhull Hospital in the New York City borough of Brooklyn has come up with an ingenious plan to address this problem; allowing artists of all types to swap their art for health care."
On the post: Is Uncompensated Commercial Use Of An Artist's Content Really That Bad?
Re: Re: Re: Re: While we're saying "it's not so bad..."
You may think you have paid for something and don't feel you should have to pay for it again. But if the true cost of one item is $1 million, do you think no one should get it until one person or company pays $1 million?
If you want to compare music to working for an employer with the idea that everyone should only be paid once, then it would make sense for musicians only to do custom music and write one song per fan/company and charge a significant amount for each one. And maybe it will come to that.
On the post: Yet Another Example Of Creativity Exploding Without Copyright Law: Football Plays
Re:
On the post: Is Uncompensated Commercial Use Of An Artist's Content Really That Bad?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Commercial vs. non-commercial
As I have said before, I don't really take a stand on copyright. I'm far more interested in how everyone makes a living. I do see market forces working against most content creators because the market is flooded with art/photography/design/video/music, etc. Crowdsourcing has made it quite easy for anyone who wants content to find it for little or no money. So if you aren't selling your creative output, then you need to find other ways to pay your bills or to eliminate the bills altogether.
On the post: Yet Another Example Of Creativity Exploding Without Copyright Law: Football Plays
Re:
I actually see the current NFL and NBA systems as comparable to anti-trust legislation. If one team gains an unfair advantage, the league officials rejigger the rules to create parity again. So it's like forcing AT&T to spilt up into regional companies.
On the post: Is Uncompensated Commercial Use Of An Artist's Content Really That Bad?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Commercial vs. non-commercial
I agree with the idea that it's nice to share the wealth. The reasoning behind having artists receive payment from a for-sale use is that if they contribute to the sale, they should share in the sale. Michael Jordan has an arrangement from Nike that he gets a percentage of every Air Jordan being sold.
Most musicians don't have the clout to negotiate that kind of deal, however. And with so many musicians willing to provide their music for free in exchange for exposure, most companies do not have to pay much for music. In a few cases the song may be so iconic that the company wants that particular song and nothing else, but relatively few companies are that committed to any particular piece of music. Substitutions can be and are found. And as more music libraries are amassed, where music is pre-cleared and organized by type, it becomes increasingly easy for music supervisors to find what they want quickly and without much expense.
On the post: Is Uncompensated Commercial Use Of An Artist's Content Really That Bad?
Re: Re: While we're saying "it's not so bad..."
If you build a building (like a museum), pay for all the materials, the construction, etc., and then charge admission each time people go through the door, isn't that the same thing? You're not even delivering a different experience each time. Same exhibits. Same staffers. Why aren't users charged a one-time fee that covers them for life? Why do they pay each time they enter? Because in order to recover costs, the museum would have to charge a fairly high one-time fee, so it is more affordable for most people to pay per visit.
On the post: Is Uncompensated Commercial Use Of An Artist's Content Really That Bad?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Commercial vs. non-commercial
Bands have tried to steer their fans clear of unauthorized merchandise, but the fans aren't necessarily sympathetic.
Similarly, while some companies emphasize that they use "fair trade" practices or that their products are certified organic, you have people who don't want to pay extra and will go with the cheapest price. There have been boycotts (e.g., grapes, Nike products), but generally to have much effect it requires quite a bit of organizing.
I can't see shaming companies that don't pay artists to use their music gaining a lot of traction. All the companies have to do, like MTV has done, is ask artists to submit their artwork/music/writing for free and sign a licensing agreement for those terms. There's just so much content/art out there that most companies can get what they need for free. In fact, that's what crowdsourcing is all about now. Get lots of submissions and pay little or nothing for them.
On the post: Is Uncompensated Commercial Use Of An Artist's Content Really That Bad?
Re: While we're saying "it's not so bad..."
I'm primarily concerned with the bigger economic picture of how anyone makes any money doing anything. If consumers don't have jobs, they don't go to shows, they don't buy t-shirts, etc., so artists don't get paid no matter what they hope to sell. We end up with a lot of people giving each other free stuff, which works well for a lot of things online, but less well when there are things you need to survive and can't find anyone to give you those for free.
On the post: Is Uncompensated Commercial Use Of An Artist's Content Really That Bad?
Re: Re: There's more than money involved here
The average consumer probably isn't going to know which companies are paying artists and which ones aren't. How are they going to know? Sure, there may be websites that point out which companies don't pay artists or musicians, but to what extent do people monitor those sites? Generally people only boycott companies when there is a big campaign and it's centered around a major social issue.
Let's say you are out somewhere and your kid wants a t-shirt with some tv star or sports image on it. You see two of them in the mall. One is noticeably cheaper than the other and your kid is screaming that he wants one. One might have been officially licensed and other other may involve an unauthorized use of the image. Do you think the average harried parent is going to think to himself, "I better look for the official licensed tag and buy that one"?
And how many of you make sure that you only support companies that pay for licensing?
Next >>