if people can more easily just do a quick search and download a song, thats what they will do. I don't know why the industry can't get that through their heads.
Okay, Michael, can I ask you why they can do that search?
Oh, yeah, it's because people are illegally sharing the content. If Google (example) was obliged by law to remove torrent sites from their listings (example by making it easy for copyright holders to DMCA pages out of Google), users would have a much harder time just searching for the (illegal) free stuff.
Wouldn't it be funny as heck if the only versions you could download for free online had a 16mhz bit rate, played like an AM radio, and was interrupted in the middle with an ad for Itunes?
You can argue the morality of it until you are blue in the face, but the bottom line will not change.
When those who seed stuff no longer feel safe to do it, or when the size of the audience for it drops enough, things will change.
The current wild west phase is just that, a phase, and something that will be replaced soon enough I suspect.
Perhaps, just maybe, it's those papers that are the valuable information that members pay for, not coffee klatches or miniputt games. Perhaps that is what members value.
You keep thinking the whole world will work hard and use all sorts of means to get around things. Most people won't take the time. They pirate stuff because it's easy, it's safe, and they don't need to know anything other than how to turn on their computers. and download utorrent.
When that becomes an option that doesn't work, some of them will give up. Each time it gets harder, more people stop trying.
You can never entirely stop anything online, you can just make it difficult enough or risky enough that most people will stop trying.
I would not be shocked to find out that the banks in India are getting pressure from the government regarding payments made that are untraceable and thus not taxable. India is a country that loves it's paperwork and official stamps.
when Big Media manage to close the net so that only they can distribute content
This is a classic mistake made here.
If you want to make your own content and distribute it, go for it. You probably would want to use a "legal" torrent site to do it, as you won't be able to reach the Italian market if you are using The Pirate Bay. Then again, I can't picture a legit business wanting to be associated with pirates.
people want the content and there will be only official sources to get it
Isn't that just the way it should be? If people are willing to pay for it at the market price asked, then there is no issue. If the people don't want to pay, the market will adjust.
Again, nothing stops you from freely distributing your own work. All this does it try to stop you from choosing what other content producers will do. If they don't want your free distribution and "free marketing", why should you be allowed to choose it?
Basically, your post is exactly right, except you have forgotten that you still have the rights to make and distribute your own material, and you have the right to enjoy whatever free material that other content producers put out there. Vote with your wallet, and quit acting like you have some divine right to take other people's content without permission.
Re: Re: TAM: You've really got to wake up to reality
Likewise, the more overtly pernicious *your* side manages to make copyright "law", the less people will be inclined to apologize for such "laws" --- EVEN in an extremely attenuated form.
Exactly what part of this don't you get, TAM?
I get it, and I laugh only because you don't get it.
Any changes won't suddenly make copyright any worse or better for the vast majority of people. It might change it for you and your file sharing friends, mostly because I have a feeling that there will be provisions to speed up the process of taking down material that violates copyright. I can't help but thinking that there will be provisions to block up some of the dodges that file traders use now.
The problem isn't piracy by the small groups that will pirate it no matter what, but rather what happens with the large majority of traders who do it now because they can get away with it. When they can't get away with it so easily, when their mom and dad get notices from the ISP about junior's file trading activities, things change.
You keep going on like copyright law is somehow going to be made so draconian that you can't live. Even if the laws were made super tight to the point of a police officer in every house, there would still be there things happening:
- Bands will still be able to use free if they like.
- movie producers will still be able to use free if the like
- consumers will still be able to download the products from the first two groups if they like
- youtube and all of it's ilk will still exist.
Nobody is saying any of that would stop, and if it does turn out to be a better business model than the current music or movie businesses, great. But it is just stupid to support widespread infringement and lowering of the value and retail price of the existing product, and then trying to say "the business model doesn't work". The business model works. Without illegal filesharing (and even currently with a lot of it) the model STILL works. That seems like a pretty strong business model to me.
it's *entirely too possible* that such rhetoric simply originates from one of the many sock-puppets you've already admitted to using.
It's also entirely too possible that you do the same, welcome to the internets webs thing.
The only thing I can say is that my opinion remains the same. If your strongest dismissal is this, then I would say I have probably won the debate, as your final slam point is extremely weak tea.
You drew a comparison between two completely unrelated things. Criminals breathe air, I've observed it and can swear that you observe the same. Should it be said therefore that anyone who breathes air is a criminal? Drawing a comparison between two unrelated things serves only to bring the object of comparison into focus, usually the kind of tactic reserved for those known under 'Godwin's Law'.
You entirely miss the point.
The only point is that a signficant number of neo-nazi types really believe that their ideas are right, they will defend them, they will quote court rulings, papers, and the whole nine yards which shows they are right. A growing number of people in those countries are buying it.
It isn't anything else. Don't mistake it for me calling Mike a neo-nazi or anything like that. I am only identifying a group that few of us would agree with, but who will claim their opinion to be right, and have a growing following (as Mike claims to have here).
So, going back to your earlier post, you said 'essentially you are saying that your opinion isn't right', which would seem impossible. Your subsequent post makes even less sense so I figured it would be quicker to explain the earlier point than to unravel the resulting mess.
What Mike said was that not everyone agrees with his point of view, and suggested that the people who agree with him is a minority but growing. That would make his opinions somewhat less than right, because the majority of people think they are wrong, no?
I see you have skipped the details of the comparison altogether for that one.
it's the same comparison: A group of people who believe what they think is true, and is right, and everyone else is wrong. Nothing more, and nothing less. Heck, they were willing to die for their ideals and for what they thought was right.
Can one company hire more people than a thousands of small ones?
Nope, but 1000 small companies with no money for research don't hire very many people either.
Can one company out spend thousands of small ones?
Happens all the time, see the previous point. "it takes money to make money"
Can one company suffer a crippling blow to sales and survive?
Can 1000 small companies survive having nothing to sell?
Can one company do more research than a thousand small ones?
if the 1000 companies have no money to research, the big company can always do more research.
Can one company evolve faster than a thousand small ones?
Again, without money to research, the small companies can't evolve because they aren't moving at all
Big companies are a single point of failure that are not efficient, not resilient and consume large amounts of resources to stay in the game.
This is where your logic fails. If your 1000 smaller companies are going to hire more people and do more research, they are going to consume larger sums of money and resources, and likely are going to duplicate each other's efforts, thus being even more inefficient. Having many players is not the most efficient market.
IP laws are like cell growth inhibitors.
yeah, all the do is make it possible for companies in invest in new developments, to grow, and to bring new products to market. The only thing inhibited is companies who would seek to profit off of others by flooding the market with generic drugs, not paying for research, just paying to replicate.
You are making the same mistake Mike seems to make: You cannot look only at the marginal costs of selling the product, you have to look at the costs to get to that moment. In a market without protections, the generic makers would just sit there and pick off ever decent medication, and make it impossible for the people paying to create the new medicines to make them pay out.
RD, once again it is so hard to deal with your rant filled tirades. Meds time for you again, i think!
You MUST answer this
Sorry son, but you can't order me to do anything. That might work on your dog or your mom, but it doesn't work on me. I will answer you as I feel, not because you are trying to put a virtual gun to my head. Don't be such a dick!
Times change. Business changes. NO ONE, and I repeat, NO ONE is guaranteed that either their business wont change or fail
Did I say that? Nope. All I said is that the public loves movies and music, they continue to love music and movies. Ripping down those industries (by widely supporting piracy) where there is no business model replacement isn't workable.
WHERE has Mike or this site or any of these ideas said "its all FREE! Give everything away FREE?"
He says it all the time. Give away the content, and sell the scarce goods around it. Give away your music and movies, and sell scarce things like t-shirts and miniputt games. That's his whole mantra. Mike considering content to be infinite, not rare or scarce, and as such, his take on econ says it has not market price.
Further, Mike has advocated selling DVDs at the exit of movies running in theaters, which would clearly lead to high quality DVD rips being all over the world and in people's homes while the companies are still trying to sell the scarcity of theater viewings. He is against windowing of any sort, and wants the studios and production companies to compete against their own product free in the market.
HOW exactly would Avatar FAIL to recoup its money FROM A THEATRICAL RUN?
Avatar is obviously recouping just from the theater run, but plenty of movies do not. They need the income from dvd sales, PPV, and licensing for TV play to make ends meet. Plenty of movie companies go out of business because they have a couple of poor movies in a row. If you want all of those other retail markets to go away (because remember, everything is free, and Mike says that the content should be out there without restriction), it changes the equation. For every Avatar, there is a Waterworld. There are movies that end up as "direct to DVD", which would no longer exist because the move her is to make that movie infinite and free.
the movie theater experience IS UNIQUE
It is less and less unique all the time. Home theaters are becoming as sophisticated (if not more) than most local movie houses. The only uniqueness of the experience is that the content isn't available online in a decent quality to be downloaded, otherwise people would likely avoid the theater altogether.
CLASSIC TRAITOR AGAINST MANKIND FAIL
Not at all, sorry you feel that way. Avatar is an example of a success, but those successes are rare. You have to pay attention to how many movies are made which never break even in the theaters, and who's profit and loss comes only in the secondary markets that Mike is pushing to abolish (by making them "FREE!").
All I can say is that you appear to be making a CLASSIC TOO MUCH KOOLAID FAIL by not looking past the end of your nose, perhaps because all you can see is Mike's butt.
Again, I just think you are being a baiting troll, so I choose to limit my answers to you. Where you are baiting, I am not biting.
The examples of Italy and Swiss companies are nice, but I would love to see where they were getting their funding from, and where they were actually selling their products. I can't help but thinking that they may have patent the medicines in other jurisdictions. I don't have the full history of Pharma close at hand, but I am sure you will have all the details for us, right?
So what if you sell like this? You think you cannot fund R&D through other means, that only profit from selling can drive this development?
If your only income covers just your products and a small margin of profit, you don't have the money to play the game again. Further, the drug companies would not have the money to fund the R&D on the many drugs and treatments that either never make it to the market, or may take decades to turn into viable products.
How would you suggest they make money? if they sell their developments to another company who is only charging marginal costs, they can't afford to pay for it. The money has to appear somewhere in the game. If all of the market is "marginal only" pricing, it will fail. Mike seems to ignore it, and you are entirely ignoring it. Are you related?
Last time I checked you can thank most of your modern technologies to taxpayer run government programs like NASA and the Pentagon.
Well all know that government run programs are the most cost efficient way to develop things. It's "FREE!", except that you pay big taxes to support it, and companies do as well. Now, funny, if a company is selling at "marginal price only", they won't make enough money to pay taxes, thus making it impossible for the government to fund things.
Wait, I don't want to confuse you with cause and effect, it's not clear that you have studied that yet, I don't think it happens until 8th grade.
Mike has never stated inventors do not deserve to be compensated. Only that they do not need special privileges or rights to do so.
Yet, he is unable to show this to be true. There is zero explanation of how the pharma companies would be able to continue to pay for research, development, and the ever more expensive approval process to get new drugs to market, nor any consideration for the legal ramifications of cutting any corners and getting it wrong.
We just wouldn't have the same levels of research and development if the retail price of medicines was set only by marginal costs.
In fact, this pretty much explains where Mike has a problem with real world business. Marginal costs are often the small end of the expenses in many fields. This is one of those blank spaces between the facts that he rarely addresses.
Actually, I undertand it completely and accept it, but I also understand that just like the wild west and many other times in history, this situation is just transitional. Not matter how much you (or Mike) might wish, there is little out there to support the concept that the wild west will continue.
Mike goes on and on about business models, yet he has never put forward a business model that would support the quality and levels of media that we have seen in the last 20 years. Quantity perhaps, but not quality, and certainly not business models that would rival or surpass the current movie or music industry models.
Will those models go away? Probably. Models have changed with technology, but those models rarely support working for free for very long. So the wild west "it's all free!" sort of mentality is transitional, as we go from a disc, paper, broadcast model of media distribution to digital subscription models, memberships, or other systems to continue to put enough money into the systems to make them run at the levels people have come to expect.
Of course, you could suggest that a movie like Avatar should never happen (too expensive) and that we should all be watching $50 monster movie CGI home made stuff instead. Without a way to turn the 300 million dollar investment into profit to finance the next movies, it is unlikely that the big studios will continue.
So it isn't a question of protecting "the dinosaur corporate megaliths", rather, it is looking around and saying "there isn't a replacement for something the public en masse is demanding, using, and enjoying, so why would it die?". So you can kill "the industries" if you like, but the only replacements that are out there are like watching high school football instead of the Super Bowl. I know which one will pull on TV and which one won't even run on the local community access cable channel.
You see, your imaginary friend and you don't get it - my opinion is worth about as much, which is key.
His opinion may be right, his opinion may be wrong, the same with mine. Of the the true skills of a great guru type is that they are able to weave just enough provable truth into their message that most people don't question all the big blank space in between those hard data points.
I personally think it is a great thing that Mike is admitting that many people don't share his views, and the way he explains it, his views are those of the few, not the masses. I think it's a great advancement in his self-view.
It is only 'interesting to note' if your aim is to pose a mischaracterisation. While the majority of people who read this site, on either side of the copyright debate, are likely to disagree with the facts presented by racists, that has nothing to do with the subject at hand.
The point isn't racism, the point is that a significant (and growing) group of people have a point of view that most of us accept as wrong. However, they totally believe it, the write newsletters and run blogs that support their point of view as fact.
What Mike has just admitted that plenty of people disagree with his views (as I disagree with the racist skinheads), but that more and more people are looking at the "facts" and moving to his view (similar to what is happening with the skinhead groups).
He said people don't agree, not that his opinion isn't right.
His opinion is an opinion, it isn't "right", because it is just an opinion, and there is plenty wrong with it. Certainly, there is enough wrong with it that a fair number of people disagree with him, and at least a couple of them have called out is "right" opinion in very public ways in the last few days. His answers are pretty much the standard dismissive answers that you would expect. He doesn't speak about his opinion, as much as lecture about how they are wrong and he is right. Yet, his "right" answers are only an opinion.
Hmmm. You have to think what other type of person would do this sort of thing. The wackos from Waco come to mind.
Yup, you could narrowly surround yourself with yes men and syncopates would tell you that would make you feel like you are always right, have the perfect opinion, and that nobody disagrees.
Yes, that sounds like a plan. You can join Mike's "growing number of people are looking at the facts, understanding the issues and realizing that what I have to say makes a lot of sense", which is sort of the same thing.
I get that you disagree with my opinion on copyright law. Fine, lots of people do. But a growing number of people are looking at the facts, understanding the issues and realizing that what I have to say makes a lot of sense. And most of them are willing to sign their name.
It is interesting to note that in places like Poland and Russia, a growing number of people are looking at the "facts" and are becoming skinheads, racists, and anti-immigrant yahoos.
Your logic isn't very strong here. Essentially you are saying that your opinion isn't right, it isn't very common, but a few more people are agreeing with you.
Okay, now I understand, thanks. I will let the AC have at the rest, I guess.
On the post: No, Copyright Has Never Been About Protecting Labor
Re: Truth.
Okay, Michael, can I ask you why they can do that search?
Oh, yeah, it's because people are illegally sharing the content. If Google (example) was obliged by law to remove torrent sites from their listings (example by making it easy for copyright holders to DMCA pages out of Google), users would have a much harder time just searching for the (illegal) free stuff.
Wouldn't it be funny as heck if the only versions you could download for free online had a 16mhz bit rate, played like an AM radio, and was interrupted in the middle with an ad for Itunes?
You can argue the morality of it until you are blue in the face, but the bottom line will not change.
When those who seed stuff no longer feel safe to do it, or when the size of the audience for it drops enough, things will change.
The current wild west phase is just that, a phase, and something that will be replaced soon enough I suspect.
On the post: Why Does The IEEE Make It So Difficult To Access And Share Research?
On the post: Italy Blocks The Pirate Bay Yet Again
Re: Re: Re:
Just remember all the good you could do if you put that much energy towards creating something, rather than helping people to "infringe".
On the post: Italy Blocks The Pirate Bay Yet Again
Re:
You keep thinking the whole world will work hard and use all sorts of means to get around things. Most people won't take the time. They pirate stuff because it's easy, it's safe, and they don't need to know anything other than how to turn on their computers. and download utorrent.
When that becomes an option that doesn't work, some of them will give up. Each time it gets harder, more people stop trying.
You can never entirely stop anything online, you can just make it difficult enough or risky enough that most people will stop trying.
Got that?
On the post: PayPal Suspends Payments In India?
On the post: Italy Blocks The Pirate Bay Yet Again
Re:
This is a classic mistake made here.
If you want to make your own content and distribute it, go for it. You probably would want to use a "legal" torrent site to do it, as you won't be able to reach the Italian market if you are using The Pirate Bay. Then again, I can't picture a legit business wanting to be associated with pirates.
people want the content and there will be only official sources to get it
Isn't that just the way it should be? If people are willing to pay for it at the market price asked, then there is no issue. If the people don't want to pay, the market will adjust.
Again, nothing stops you from freely distributing your own work. All this does it try to stop you from choosing what other content producers will do. If they don't want your free distribution and "free marketing", why should you be allowed to choose it?
Basically, your post is exactly right, except you have forgotten that you still have the rights to make and distribute your own material, and you have the right to enjoy whatever free material that other content producers put out there. Vote with your wallet, and quit acting like you have some divine right to take other people's content without permission.
On the post: How Patents Harm Biotech Innovation
Re: Ultra low cost medical expenses.
India is showing the world that it can be done on the cheap using an untrained workforce
I somehow don't look forward to getting medical care from cheap, untrained workers.
FAIL!
On the post: No, Copyright Has Never Been About Protecting Labor
Re: Re: TAM: You've really got to wake up to reality
Exactly what part of this don't you get, TAM?
I get it, and I laugh only because you don't get it.
Any changes won't suddenly make copyright any worse or better for the vast majority of people. It might change it for you and your file sharing friends, mostly because I have a feeling that there will be provisions to speed up the process of taking down material that violates copyright. I can't help but thinking that there will be provisions to block up some of the dodges that file traders use now.
The problem isn't piracy by the small groups that will pirate it no matter what, but rather what happens with the large majority of traders who do it now because they can get away with it. When they can't get away with it so easily, when their mom and dad get notices from the ISP about junior's file trading activities, things change.
You keep going on like copyright law is somehow going to be made so draconian that you can't live. Even if the laws were made super tight to the point of a police officer in every house, there would still be there things happening:
- Bands will still be able to use free if they like.
- movie producers will still be able to use free if the like
- consumers will still be able to download the products from the first two groups if they like
- youtube and all of it's ilk will still exist.
Nobody is saying any of that would stop, and if it does turn out to be a better business model than the current music or movie businesses, great. But it is just stupid to support widespread infringement and lowering of the value and retail price of the existing product, and then trying to say "the business model doesn't work". The business model works. Without illegal filesharing (and even currently with a lot of it) the model STILL works. That seems like a pretty strong business model to me.
it's *entirely too possible* that such rhetoric simply originates from one of the many sock-puppets you've already admitted to using.
It's also entirely too possible that you do the same, welcome to the internets webs thing.
The only thing I can say is that my opinion remains the same. If your strongest dismissal is this, then I would say I have probably won the debate, as your final slam point is extremely weak tea.
On the post: No, Copyright Has Never Been About Protecting Labor
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You entirely miss the point.
The only point is that a signficant number of neo-nazi types really believe that their ideas are right, they will defend them, they will quote court rulings, papers, and the whole nine yards which shows they are right. A growing number of people in those countries are buying it.
It isn't anything else. Don't mistake it for me calling Mike a neo-nazi or anything like that. I am only identifying a group that few of us would agree with, but who will claim their opinion to be right, and have a growing following (as Mike claims to have here).
So, going back to your earlier post, you said 'essentially you are saying that your opinion isn't right', which would seem impossible. Your subsequent post makes even less sense so I figured it would be quicker to explain the earlier point than to unravel the resulting mess.
What Mike said was that not everyone agrees with his point of view, and suggested that the people who agree with him is a minority but growing. That would make his opinions somewhat less than right, because the majority of people think they are wrong, no?
I see you have skipped the details of the comparison altogether for that one.
it's the same comparison: A group of people who believe what they think is true, and is right, and everyone else is wrong. Nothing more, and nothing less. Heck, they were willing to die for their ideals and for what they thought was right.
On the post: How Patents Harm Biotech Innovation
Re: Re: Re: investments
Nope, but 1000 small companies with no money for research don't hire very many people either.
Can one company out spend thousands of small ones?
Happens all the time, see the previous point. "it takes money to make money"
Can one company suffer a crippling blow to sales and survive?
Can 1000 small companies survive having nothing to sell?
Can one company do more research than a thousand small ones?
if the 1000 companies have no money to research, the big company can always do more research.
Can one company evolve faster than a thousand small ones?
Again, without money to research, the small companies can't evolve because they aren't moving at all
Big companies are a single point of failure that are not efficient, not resilient and consume large amounts of resources to stay in the game.
This is where your logic fails. If your 1000 smaller companies are going to hire more people and do more research, they are going to consume larger sums of money and resources, and likely are going to duplicate each other's efforts, thus being even more inefficient. Having many players is not the most efficient market.
IP laws are like cell growth inhibitors.
yeah, all the do is make it possible for companies in invest in new developments, to grow, and to bring new products to market. The only thing inhibited is companies who would seek to profit off of others by flooding the market with generic drugs, not paying for research, just paying to replicate.
You are making the same mistake Mike seems to make: You cannot look only at the marginal costs of selling the product, you have to look at the costs to get to that moment. In a market without protections, the generic makers would just sit there and pick off ever decent medication, and make it impossible for the people paying to create the new medicines to make them pay out.
On the post: No, Copyright Has Never Been About Protecting Labor
Re: More LIES AND MISREPRESENTATION FROM TAMHOLE
You MUST answer this
Sorry son, but you can't order me to do anything. That might work on your dog or your mom, but it doesn't work on me. I will answer you as I feel, not because you are trying to put a virtual gun to my head. Don't be such a dick!
Times change. Business changes. NO ONE, and I repeat, NO ONE is guaranteed that either their business wont change or fail
Did I say that? Nope. All I said is that the public loves movies and music, they continue to love music and movies. Ripping down those industries (by widely supporting piracy) where there is no business model replacement isn't workable.
WHERE has Mike or this site or any of these ideas said "its all FREE! Give everything away FREE?"
He says it all the time. Give away the content, and sell the scarce goods around it. Give away your music and movies, and sell scarce things like t-shirts and miniputt games. That's his whole mantra. Mike considering content to be infinite, not rare or scarce, and as such, his take on econ says it has not market price.
Further, Mike has advocated selling DVDs at the exit of movies running in theaters, which would clearly lead to high quality DVD rips being all over the world and in people's homes while the companies are still trying to sell the scarcity of theater viewings. He is against windowing of any sort, and wants the studios and production companies to compete against their own product free in the market.
HOW exactly would Avatar FAIL to recoup its money FROM A THEATRICAL RUN?
Avatar is obviously recouping just from the theater run, but plenty of movies do not. They need the income from dvd sales, PPV, and licensing for TV play to make ends meet. Plenty of movie companies go out of business because they have a couple of poor movies in a row. If you want all of those other retail markets to go away (because remember, everything is free, and Mike says that the content should be out there without restriction), it changes the equation. For every Avatar, there is a Waterworld. There are movies that end up as "direct to DVD", which would no longer exist because the move her is to make that movie infinite and free.
the movie theater experience IS UNIQUE
It is less and less unique all the time. Home theaters are becoming as sophisticated (if not more) than most local movie houses. The only uniqueness of the experience is that the content isn't available online in a decent quality to be downloaded, otherwise people would likely avoid the theater altogether.
CLASSIC TRAITOR AGAINST MANKIND FAIL
Not at all, sorry you feel that way. Avatar is an example of a success, but those successes are rare. You have to pay attention to how many movies are made which never break even in the theaters, and who's profit and loss comes only in the secondary markets that Mike is pushing to abolish (by making them "FREE!").
All I can say is that you appear to be making a CLASSIC TOO MUCH KOOLAID FAIL by not looking past the end of your nose, perhaps because all you can see is Mike's butt.
On the post: How Patents Harm Biotech Innovation
Re: Re: Re: Re: Fringe studies funded by who?
The examples of Italy and Swiss companies are nice, but I would love to see where they were getting their funding from, and where they were actually selling their products. I can't help but thinking that they may have patent the medicines in other jurisdictions. I don't have the full history of Pharma close at hand, but I am sure you will have all the details for us, right?
So what if you sell like this? You think you cannot fund R&D through other means, that only profit from selling can drive this development?
If your only income covers just your products and a small margin of profit, you don't have the money to play the game again. Further, the drug companies would not have the money to fund the R&D on the many drugs and treatments that either never make it to the market, or may take decades to turn into viable products.
How would you suggest they make money? if they sell their developments to another company who is only charging marginal costs, they can't afford to pay for it. The money has to appear somewhere in the game. If all of the market is "marginal only" pricing, it will fail. Mike seems to ignore it, and you are entirely ignoring it. Are you related?
Last time I checked you can thank most of your modern technologies to taxpayer run government programs like NASA and the Pentagon.
Well all know that government run programs are the most cost efficient way to develop things. It's "FREE!", except that you pay big taxes to support it, and companies do as well. Now, funny, if a company is selling at "marginal price only", they won't make enough money to pay taxes, thus making it impossible for the government to fund things.
Wait, I don't want to confuse you with cause and effect, it's not clear that you have studied that yet, I don't think it happens until 8th grade.
On the post: How Patents Harm Biotech Innovation
Re: Re: Fringe studies funded by who?
Yet, he is unable to show this to be true. There is zero explanation of how the pharma companies would be able to continue to pay for research, development, and the ever more expensive approval process to get new drugs to market, nor any consideration for the legal ramifications of cutting any corners and getting it wrong.
We just wouldn't have the same levels of research and development if the retail price of medicines was set only by marginal costs.
In fact, this pretty much explains where Mike has a problem with real world business. Marginal costs are often the small end of the expenses in many fields. This is one of those blank spaces between the facts that he rarely addresses.
On the post: How Patents Harm Biotech Innovation
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Patents.
I think I hear your mommy calling you for dinner little boy. Don't forget to eat all your veggies.
On the post: No, Copyright Has Never Been About Protecting Labor
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Mike goes on and on about business models, yet he has never put forward a business model that would support the quality and levels of media that we have seen in the last 20 years. Quantity perhaps, but not quality, and certainly not business models that would rival or surpass the current movie or music industry models.
Will those models go away? Probably. Models have changed with technology, but those models rarely support working for free for very long. So the wild west "it's all free!" sort of mentality is transitional, as we go from a disc, paper, broadcast model of media distribution to digital subscription models, memberships, or other systems to continue to put enough money into the systems to make them run at the levels people have come to expect.
Of course, you could suggest that a movie like Avatar should never happen (too expensive) and that we should all be watching $50 monster movie CGI home made stuff instead. Without a way to turn the 300 million dollar investment into profit to finance the next movies, it is unlikely that the big studios will continue.
So it isn't a question of protecting "the dinosaur corporate megaliths", rather, it is looking around and saying "there isn't a replacement for something the public en masse is demanding, using, and enjoying, so why would it die?". So you can kill "the industries" if you like, but the only replacements that are out there are like watching high school football instead of the Super Bowl. I know which one will pull on TV and which one won't even run on the local community access cable channel.
On the post: No, Copyright Has Never Been About Protecting Labor
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
His opinion may be right, his opinion may be wrong, the same with mine. Of the the true skills of a great guru type is that they are able to weave just enough provable truth into their message that most people don't question all the big blank space in between those hard data points.
I personally think it is a great thing that Mike is admitting that many people don't share his views, and the way he explains it, his views are those of the few, not the masses. I think it's a great advancement in his self-view.
On the post: No, Copyright Has Never Been About Protecting Labor
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The point isn't racism, the point is that a significant (and growing) group of people have a point of view that most of us accept as wrong. However, they totally believe it, the write newsletters and run blogs that support their point of view as fact.
What Mike has just admitted that plenty of people disagree with his views (as I disagree with the racist skinheads), but that more and more people are looking at the "facts" and moving to his view (similar to what is happening with the skinhead groups).
He said people don't agree, not that his opinion isn't right.
His opinion is an opinion, it isn't "right", because it is just an opinion, and there is plenty wrong with it. Certainly, there is enough wrong with it that a fair number of people disagree with him, and at least a couple of them have called out is "right" opinion in very public ways in the last few days. His answers are pretty much the standard dismissive answers that you would expect. He doesn't speak about his opinion, as much as lecture about how they are wrong and he is right. Yet, his "right" answers are only an opinion.
Hmmm. You have to think what other type of person would do this sort of thing. The wackos from Waco come to mind.
On the post: No, Copyright Has Never Been About Protecting Labor
Re: If only
Yes, that sounds like a plan. You can join Mike's "growing number of people are looking at the facts, understanding the issues and realizing that what I have to say makes a lot of sense", which is sort of the same thing.
On the post: No, Copyright Has Never Been About Protecting Labor
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It is interesting to note that in places like Poland and Russia, a growing number of people are looking at the "facts" and are becoming skinheads, racists, and anti-immigrant yahoos.
Your logic isn't very strong here. Essentially you are saying that your opinion isn't right, it isn't very common, but a few more people are agreeing with you.
Okay, now I understand, thanks. I will let the AC have at the rest, I guess.
On the post: How Patents Harm Biotech Innovation
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Patents.
yes, using US and Asian techology. They have great schools, but little of their own medical advances or equipment.
Next >>