I think that the main problem here is that the goal of copyrights has been forgotten. The goal of copyrights is encouraging innovation. However, for some odd reason, the newly established goal is to help content creators to make money. So as a result, it's ok to use copyrights to stifle innovation as long as the original content creators make money...
Well, the whole friending the lawyer thing was just plain dumb. They both should know better. However, I don't see a problem with googling the people involved. If you are a public figure, you will have a public image which may influence a judge. If you are an actor with the public image of being an asshole, tell me that it will not influence the judge if ever someone sues you for slander. Websites are part of your public image. Now of course, that is more of a problem under the adversarial system where the point is letting both parties present their side of the story as opposed to the inquisitorial system where the point is to gather as much information as is necessary to make a good decision.
I think I have to disagree here. During a time of abundance, it is very easy to get big and fat. When people have money falling out of every orifice, it's relatively easy to bend down and pick it up even if your business plan is poor. So if you start at the beginning of a bubble with a mediocre idea and you know how to take advantage of it, you can grow really fast. If you're lucky, by the time the bubble bursts, you're too big to fail. So the government bails you out of your own mediocrity and here comes the endless cycle of throwing good money after bad. (CF the auto industry for an example of that kind of cycle) Expansion is good, but it needs to be real. People spending money they don't have on things they don't really want diverts resources away from real innovation.
You need to leave behind the notion that intellectual property is some sort of universally morally superior principle. It is not. It is a system the purpose of which is encouraging content creation. Now, you are saying that the movie X-Men Wolverine something might have made 100 million dollars without piracy. That may be true, but that is not the point. The real question to ask is: Would the people who made the movie do it again if they knew they would only make 90 million dollars? Let me go out on a limb here and say that they most likely would. Yes, it is possible that content creators will make less money. But they will still make enough money to encourage them to continue producing content. That is what is socially important, and that is what the state should care about. In addition, people who depend upon the business of those content producers such as the deli shop where the movie technician has lunch will not actually loose money. If people have free content, they have more disposable income to spend on other things. (such as the deli shop) So the business of the deli shop will mutate, but they will be just as well off if not better since they also get free content. Whether you are a Keynesian who believes that people have a Marginal Propensity to Consume or a classical economist in love with calculus or you buy like I do into the evolutionary game theory approach, free content is going to help the economy. The only economic paradigm in which you might find an argument against free content is in Marxism and even then, it's a toss-up.
Now, it seems to me that B/S cannot deliver the income as soon as it comes in. They probably have a payment schedule. However, between the moment they receive the money and the moment they distribute it, it would be somewhat silly to stick it in a checking account at 0.04% wouldn't it? So it makes sense that they would invest it. It's not gambling, it's just logical. Whether they were prudent fiduciary or not however cannot be determined from the information here. Though if they lost 10%, I would imagine that they were way too heavily invested in equities...
Thanks for setting up this opportunity to ask questions.
How will you set the price for the service? Unlike traditional products, you can't base it on marginal cost (which is 0 or close to 0) and also unlike traditional product, if it is a required service, you won't get information that your price is too high or too low based on how many people choose the service.
I assume that it won't be a per-download price as that would defeat the point. (iTunes already offers that service and yet people still download) Is that an accurate assumption? (Same thing for per-listen effectively)
Do you expect to require users to have to use special software in order to participate in the program? If yes, will that software be available for all platforms?
If this is successful, do you intend to expand that program outside of universities? Perhaps through partnerships with Comcast and such? If so, how would you avoid anti-trust issues?
Concerning the issue of artists not wanting to participate, I would not worry. If such a program saw widespread use, there would be little reason for the RIIA to expand significant resources to fight the piracy of the works of just a few people.
I think that the crowding out question is good, but perhaps not appropriate. Companies have the interests of their shareholders at heart. Consumers are just the means. (Nothing wrong with that) I think it is evident that a mandatory licensing system would benefit the music industry and it is in their best interest to pursue it. After all, artists can also use the business models you are promoting on top of the licensing system. There is just an extra tax which they receive. Inefficient and bad for us, but that is not their concern. Not to say that we should not lobby government to do something about it. But it is silly to expect them to work against having more money.
To be fair, if you are playing an MMO, having to swap information, then exit the game, enter the information (which usually you can't copy-paste because the way game chat functions work), then re-enter the game is kind of a pain. Also, then, if you want to talk to someone, you have to give them access to information that will allow them to bug you in the future. If the whole thing is done in game, you don't have to do the whole exit, re-enter little dance and your privacy is protected by the use of the game server as a third party relay. I think there is some value there. How much value? That's a very different question...
OK, the first guy to have called socialists NAZIs gets a Godwin Point. Also, just to set the record straight, while the NAZI party did support some aspects of socialism, the implication that NAZI=socialist is demonstrative of a lack of historical understanding and political awareness. Some fascists supported some aspects of capitalism. I don't suppose many of you here would argue that because you defend the free market, you also support killing off the opposition. (At least I hope) Similarly, there are people who support government services without supporting killing the Jews.
To be fair, when your Internet connection is cut off, you still have to pay for it. (And of course the tax if it gets passed)
Though the most amusing thing is that the 3-strike law has an interesting loophole where if you have a government approved bug setup, (most likely software it seems) you are considered to have your Internet connection "secured" and are immune from the 3-strike law. (Basically, it is assumed that someone went out and hacked the government bug and then downloaded with your Internet connection) Now, I don't know how many of you have a background in computer security, but the idea that you can create such a system such that a competent person cannot hack it and bypass it while it still looking like it works fine is ridiculous.
Oh, also, the government bug will not be free, (let's make people pay for the device that spies on their private communication) and there is no provision for incompatible OSs. (Who said anti-trust?)
To the attention of the socialist debate:
The US is a socialist state. Medicare, social security, medicaid, unemployment benefits, free education etc... Get over it. It's not that bad as long as you are smart about it.
I know you guys aren't big fans of global licensing and especially mandatory global licensing, and copyrights. How about BOTH??????
Apparently the SACEM (french equivalent of the RIAA) is now gunning for a tax on ISPs in order to be compensated for the fact that people use the Internet to download music and somehow benefit from music existing! Now, France already taxes all storage devices because it allows private copies to be made.
This is the absolute best business model ever! You make money off what is now a basic necessity without having to provide it AND you get to sell strings of 1s and 0s! This is brilliant!
Perhaps we should tax auto manufacturers because people use their cars to go to the movies and therefore, an externalities is generated by movies...
That reminds me of an interview I recently heard of a poet. He simply posts his poems online. He was attacked by other writers who said that he was preventing them from making a living. They were arguing that he was a disloyal competition in the anti-trust law sense. It was ridiculous and similar to this. Competition is good. If the service that you are offering can be offered for free, that is good for the economy, not bad. Also, this is honestly a very easy problem to solve. Make your campground free and open a restaurant. (Or rent out a building to a restaurant if you don't want to move from your primary business) One of the bill's supporters said that people were going to him to get their waste pumped. Offer that as a paid service! It's easy!
Just a heads up. I've been following that story and as it turns out, the rep basically asked the minister for help in answering the questions. Then, the minister's cabinet director forwarded the letter to TF1. The cabinet director is apparently getting close to joining the other guy on unemployment.
France does not have at-will employment. (Which sucks when you are young right out of college and can't prove you're worth a dime, but that is off topic) That guy most likely had a CDI which basically means he cannot be fire ever without gigantic benefits. Also, he will probably win a wrongful firing lawsuit which can order the company to rehire him.
I recently found this blog and it is very good in my opinion. You however seem to have an unexamined assumption. You seem to be assuming that there is always a scarce product that content producers can sell... I think there is a question to ask: What if that scarce product is insufficient to cover fixed costs? I mean, that is a possibility. Now, in those cases, we might see at the very least under-provision of the content type. How can we deal with that? How can we even detect it? Or perhaps you have something to back that assumption.
I think your title is misleading in that it seems to imply that music companies say they can compete. That is effectively wrong. IPR are a monopoly on a particular piece of music/movie/software etc... If you have IPR, you are not competing for that specific product. Now obviously, you are competing with other similar products, but
On the post: JD Salinger Sues Author For Writing A Sequel To 'The Catcher In The Rye'
On the post: Judge 'Friends' Lawyer During Case, Influenced By Defendant's Website
On the post: The Role Of Abundance In Innovation
Too big to fail
On the post: Sony Pictures CEO: The Internet Is Still Bad
To Steve
On the post: Dutch Music Collection Society Loses Artist Royalties In The Stock Market
Time-Value of Money
On the post: Ask Jim Griffin Questions About Choruss... Along With My Concerns About It
My turn
How will you set the price for the service? Unlike traditional products, you can't base it on marginal cost (which is 0 or close to 0) and also unlike traditional product, if it is a required service, you won't get information that your price is too high or too low based on how many people choose the service.
I assume that it won't be a per-download price as that would defeat the point. (iTunes already offers that service and yet people still download) Is that an accurate assumption? (Same thing for per-listen effectively)
Do you expect to require users to have to use special software in order to participate in the program? If yes, will that software be available for all platforms?
If this is successful, do you intend to expand that program outside of universities? Perhaps through partnerships with Comcast and such? If so, how would you avoid anti-trust issues?
Concerning the issue of artists not wanting to participate, I would not worry. If such a program saw widespread use, there would be little reason for the RIIA to expand significant resources to fight the piracy of the works of just a few people.
I think that the crowding out question is good, but perhaps not appropriate. Companies have the interests of their shareholders at heart. Consumers are just the means. (Nothing wrong with that) I think it is evident that a mandatory licensing system would benefit the music industry and it is in their best interest to pursue it. After all, artists can also use the business models you are promoting on top of the licensing system. There is just an extra tax which they receive. Inefficient and bad for us, but that is not their concern. Not to say that we should not lobby government to do something about it. But it is silly to expect them to work against having more money.
On the post: People Will Pay For VoIP Because It's In A Game?
Convenience
On the post: France Continues Its Campaign To Pass The Worst Internet-Related Laws Around
Socialists are not NAZIs
On the post: France Continues Its Campaign To Pass The Worst Internet-Related Laws Around
To be fair
Though the most amusing thing is that the 3-strike law has an interesting loophole where if you have a government approved bug setup, (most likely software it seems) you are considered to have your Internet connection "secured" and are immune from the 3-strike law. (Basically, it is assumed that someone went out and hacked the government bug and then downloaded with your Internet connection) Now, I don't know how many of you have a background in computer security, but the idea that you can create such a system such that a competent person cannot hack it and bypass it while it still looking like it works fine is ridiculous.
Oh, also, the government bug will not be free, (let's make people pay for the device that spies on their private communication) and there is no provision for incompatible OSs. (Who said anti-trust?)
To the attention of the socialist debate:
The US is a socialist state. Medicare, social security, medicaid, unemployment benefits, free education etc... Get over it. It's not that bad as long as you are smart about it.
On the post: UK Politicians Recognizing That Draconian Licensing Policies Can Harm Up-And-Coming Musicians
France, global licence + copyrights
Apparently the SACEM (french equivalent of the RIAA) is now gunning for a tax on ISPs in order to be compensated for the fact that people use the Internet to download music and somehow benefit from music existing! Now, France already taxes all storage devices because it allows private copies to be made.
This is the absolute best business model ever! You make money off what is now a basic necessity without having to provide it AND you get to sell strings of 1s and 0s! This is brilliant!
Perhaps we should tax auto manufacturers because people use their cars to go to the movies and therefore, an externalities is generated by movies...
In French: http://www.pcinpact.com/actu/news/48524-taxe-fai-sacem-creation-internet.htm
On the post: Campgrounds In Maine Can't Compete Against Free... So Want It Outlawed
On the post: Employee Of French TV Station Fired For Criticizing Three Strikes Plan
France does not have at-will employment. (Which sucks when you are young right out of college and can't prove you're worth a dime, but that is off topic) That guy most likely had a CDI which basically means he cannot be fire ever without gigantic benefits. Also, he will probably win a wrongful firing lawsuit which can order the company to rehire him.
On the post: Free Does Not Mean No Business Model
Unaddressed Assumption
On the post: Saying You Can't Compete With Free Is Saying You Can't Compete Period
Really late
Next >>