Actually, no. just the opposite. A monopoly no longer has to worry very much about the quality of their products when they are big enough to make the barrier to entry nearly impossible to mount and to outright purchase any competitors who manage to do so. Both of these are the historical methods by which monopolies grow and persist. The quality or nature of the product becomes relatively insignificant.
I'd agree that most of the monopolies have been bad, such as Standard Oil or AT&T and even Microsoft, but I think the problem in all of those cases wasn't the monopoly itself, but the use of that monopoly to strangle competition through anti-competitive means (monopolize.)
Unfortunately, I am having problems thinking of a monopoly that hasn't been bad...maybe Army and Air Forces Exchange Service? They have an effective monopoly (selling goods and services to armed forces on military bases,) government granted, and still seem to be good guys about it. But I think that may be because they are regulated by guys with guns.
How could you possibly make monopolies illegal when monopolies are economic snapshots of a given market at a given point in time? Microsoft had a monopoly on the internet browser for a number of years (after starting out as the underdog in that market). That certainly isn't the case today.
Having a monopoly isn't illegal, and shouldn't be. Using your monopoly to unfairly crush the competition is another story. If you fairly crush them, however, you win.
Just because 1 player in a market does it better than anyone else does not mean competition is broken. And there's nothing inherently wrong with a monopoly so long as that monopoly's position is not aided by government.
I didn't say there is something inherently wrong with a monopoly, and quite frankly, I agree with you. Someone who is in a monopoly position (without government intervention,) got there with a lot of sweat and effort. And I don't have a problem with them keeping that monopoly so long as they continue to work hard for it. Their biggest fear, and what keeps them competitive is someone else coming along with a better product, and so in order to stay on top, they need to keep their products on top.
Microsoft, so long as they were playing nice, had a good monopoly, and you won't hear me complaining about them. There is still plenty of competition to Microsoft, in the form of Apple and the Open Source vendors, that if a company doesn't want to deal with Microsoft, they aren't forced to do so, and so long as Microsoft isn't using their influence to destroy their competition, such as suing all Linux users or having other parties do so, they are competing fairly. People choose Microsoft because they offer value over their competitors.
However, competition is still broken, not that it is a problem or bad thing. The moment a competitor comes along that does it better for less, then they will find their monopoly disappearing quickly.
I think when we flag troll comments like this we are just telling the 'other side' that we can't handle criticism, as stupid as it may be.
I don't think any reasonable person on "the other side" would deduce from the reports that we can't handle criticism. There have been plenty of folks on "the other side", who've had very good discussions here about copyright. AJ has always been crazy, but he used to be a lot more civil at discussing copyright issues before he went bat-shit crazy and over the deep end. I just hope he is getting help he desperately needs.
Most of these are just feeble attempts to derail the conversation because they know they can't argue with reason and for some people it is easier to just report and remove the loony from their view. I tend to agree that report should be only used for commercial spam and hate speech, but I've long ago given up pointing that out here, since it is so easy to access the post even when it is hidden.
Copyright stifles competition and competition is vital to a free market so, no, copyright is not part of free market capitalism.
Absolutely. Copyright is simply crony capitalism, where those who come first or scream the loudest get special favors while everyone else is left to deal with unfair competition it creates.
A monopoly in capitalism is broken competition...anyone should be allowed to compete to remove that monopoly, and those who obtain a monopoly by producing a good product have to fight hard to maintain that monopoly. Those who don't, go out of business or are replaced by those who will fight hard.
Copyright should be something companies have to fight to maintain, not a magic sword some tart throws at them which gives them unlimited power for a very long time.
The whole issue is that their business model has been turned upside down and people are just choosing to not click on their ads.
I think we are in violent agreement. I doubt Mike cares that you don't click the ad, and he certainly doesn't hide the article until you click the ad (unlike Murdoch and the other media barons.) He offers the carrot (content) and in exchange, you occasionally get crappy flash-pop-overs from Siemens when you move your mouse over their ad while switching windows.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Do you not understand contracts, Mike?
At this point, I really don't follow your analogies any longer.
Not a problem, analogies suck.
"Keep in mind that in this case, the label didn't fulfill its end of the bargain either, in actually distributing the content."
That's patently false. If you read the original article, you'll see that the label delayed the release, they didn't refuse to release it.
You have a different definition of "not distributing" than I do apparently. My definition of "not distributing" is not offering the item for sale at that particular moment. I never said they refused to distribute. I said they didn't actually distribute the content (was it available for sale at that time?) The problem I see with this is there are plenty of examples of labels burying the content never to be seen again. Hopefully, as more artists become aware of the stupidity, they will cut out the middle-man, or at least sign with one that is interested in their future.
Really? So the fact that the label made a business decision that was entirely in their legal discretion under the contact (that the artist signed) justified the artist breaching the contract and threatening the label's $200k investment? Amazing.
Have they offered the album for sale yet? Aren't you making the assumption that they won't make $200k or more off of the album even though it was released by a third party? Others have been able to sell their product despite piracy, so you are telling me that this label, if it were to offer this album for sale right now, wouldn't make back their investment? Isn't that the point of this whole thing, they couldn't recoup their investment anyway when they didn't release the album, so why are they now crying when they decided themselves not to recoup the costs by not distributing the content?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Do you not understand contracts, Mike?
If you agreed to repay the government's school loan in 2 years, and then after you graduated you decided that the loan should be repaid IF and how you choose, would you similarly argue that the government absolutely did not pay for your eduction? Semantics aside, isn't it important to recognize that the label has made a significant investment in the artist that the artist has put at risk because of its breach? There's no mention of that in this article.
I am not entirely certain this is a correct analogy, but instead if instead of deciding if and when to pay them back, instead I completed my course of education online early instead of in the classroom, and then all of the sudden the government comes back and says because I chose to complete the coursework online, then I didn't really follow their contract and thus not only do I still have to pay them back, but I need to go back to school and learn something else without their help. It is the government deciding, by themselves, that I somehow violated their contract and what my penance should be. Keep in mind that in this case, the label didn't fulfill its end of the bargain either, in actually distributing the content.
We attack the label because it isn't entirely the victim here either. It decided it didn't want to release the album, despite being contractually obligated to do so. If the label had released the album, instead of dragging its heels, then the band would have "childishly" breached their contract and released the album, would they?
Happens all the time to me. I really got to get this memory checked out, as it is occasionally popping checksum errors too.
The point stands though...how does a fight, or any of the other stuff here have to do with a sexual nature, which should be the only thing recorded on a "sex offenders registry."
Maybe it's just me, but my personal sentiment has always been that if the politicians want to try and regulate a global computer network they are more than welcome to go and program their own.
Be careful what you wish for. They may make you live with what they create on their own, and I'd be much happier living on a global computer network built by scientists and engineers than politicians and dictators.
Yes, the commercials in Fox reruns onDemand are unskippable. Their precious, precious content? Feel free to whiz on by all of it.
It makes sense to them...most people want their content, but don't care for commercials. Instead of offering the carrot by allowing customers to decide what they wish to do, they employ the stick by making them view the commercials. The truth is, the content itself is the only carrot Fox (and other media ventures) have, it is the content that drives the consumer to their only commercial product, the commercials, which of course, they are selling to their customers. So in otherwords, it isn't their content that is precious, but the commercials.
There was also a case of an elementary school boy kissing a girl on the cheek. SEX OFFENDER.
I am so glad I was a kid 30 years ago. I propositioned a girl to marry me at 6 years old (she was the same age.) She was cute, and a close friend, and I really had no idea what marriage meant at the time, other than knowing my parents were married and it was something that some friends did. I believe the trade for her hand in marriage was a Twinkie. It certainly wasn't sexual, kids say the darnedest things, and years later I regretted the moment when she used it to make fun of me when I was a teen (sadly, I think she was teasing me because she liked me, but it hurt me at the time, raging hormones and the opposite sex being what they were when you're a teen.)
I'd probably be locked up for 100 years for that, if I was a kid today and did the same thing.
One can only assume that the superintendent/principle involved was a seriously kinky individual, if he could even conceive of kicking someone in the shins as being a sexual act.
"Not everyone keeps their genitals in the same place, Captain." - Martia, Star Trek VI - The Undiscovered Country.
However, I too remember reading it as a groin shot and not a shin.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Do you not understand contracts, Mike?
Epic has already paid for the album via the recording advance (likely around $200k). This is how recording deals work. Epic is saying that they will not count net sales toward that advance or pay royalties on top of that advance, because the artist breached the contract in numerous ways.
I hear what you are saying, but I don't think you understand what I am saying. If they loaned the band $200K with the intention to use the net sales to pay off the advance, and then do not apply the royalties to that advance, then what they have done is loaned $200K to the band, NOT paid for development. It would be the same as the US Government loaning me $200K to go back to school, and then claiming that they paid for my education. If I paid them back, then I paid for my education.
2. the part of a Web site that can be accessed only by paid subscribers.
Nevermind the fact that neither Mike nor the Techdirt community have any specific problem with "paywalls" in general, but just the particular implementation of paywalls that Murdoch and other Newspaper tycoons employ. After all, to somewhat of an extent, Techdirt has a paywall, where features like the crystal ball or the chat capability are only available to subscribers. The difference being that anyone, anywhere, can read the entirety of the content here, but special features like the ability to read the content before everyone else and the ability to contribute to the chat (though anyone can read it) are given to those who pay. For most newspapers who employ paywalls, the content itself is unavailable to anyone without paying (or after a mystical number of pageviews is hit.)
Bob is the only one here who complains about those sites using his special definition of paywalls.
The Law of Large Numbers is poorly understood by the public, and I think that misunderstanding is hardwired into humanity's thought patterns
I thought it was amazing that we all think logarithmically naturally when we are babies, but then learn to think linearly later on in life. We know the difference between a few and a lot, but when numbers start getting really large, we forget what that means. There has to be an evolutionary driver for this.
Of course, I disagree with Mike that Statistics should be taught along with Economics in school. It *should* be taught at home, and then reinforced at school. Teaching it as part of Sesame Street or something like that. And critical thinking and theory of knowledge. But then again, kids should be allowed to be kids too. Figuring how to teach while making it fun is the trick, and I don't think we've mastered that yet in our current old-folks run (grind the new teachers down) education system.
That's funny, you regularly feature an artist who succeeds using a system you approve of as evidence that the whole industry should follow suit.
That's funny, you regularly come in here and complain about things Mike says (and yes, Mike didn't write this article,) that he doesn't really say, as evidence that we are all pirates and pirate apologists, and when someone calls you on it you run away.
I think Out of the blue has a point here. Epic paid for the development on the album and Death Grips, having NOT paid for the album, gives it away.
Actually, it appears they hadn't paid for the development, and they say they shouldn't have to in the email. See #5: "(5) while Epic still intended to collect money for the sale of the album (which, again, would not count towards the recording commitment), Epic would not cover the cost of recording the album."
On the post: MPAA To Aussies: Obey US Created Copyright Rules! But Don't Even Think About Importing Fair Use
Re: Re: Not clever enough sneering to sell me.
Second!
"Back, or I'll call the brute squad!"
"I'm on the brute squad."
"You are the brute squad."
I'd go as far to say it is the yardstick that all other comedies measure themselves to.
On the post: Fixing Copyright: Is Copyright A Part Of Free Market Capitalism?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'd agree that most of the monopolies have been bad, such as Standard Oil or AT&T and even Microsoft, but I think the problem in all of those cases wasn't the monopoly itself, but the use of that monopoly to strangle competition through anti-competitive means (monopolize.)
Unfortunately, I am having problems thinking of a monopoly that hasn't been bad...maybe Army and Air Forces Exchange Service? They have an effective monopoly (selling goods and services to armed forces on military bases,) government granted, and still seem to be good guys about it. But I think that may be because they are regulated by guys with guns.
On the post: Fixing Copyright: Is Copyright A Part Of Free Market Capitalism?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Having a monopoly isn't illegal, and shouldn't be. Using your monopoly to unfairly crush the competition is another story. If you fairly crush them, however, you win.
On the post: Fixing Copyright: Is Copyright A Part Of Free Market Capitalism?
Re: Re: Re:
I didn't say there is something inherently wrong with a monopoly, and quite frankly, I agree with you. Someone who is in a monopoly position (without government intervention,) got there with a lot of sweat and effort. And I don't have a problem with them keeping that monopoly so long as they continue to work hard for it. Their biggest fear, and what keeps them competitive is someone else coming along with a better product, and so in order to stay on top, they need to keep their products on top.
Microsoft, so long as they were playing nice, had a good monopoly, and you won't hear me complaining about them. There is still plenty of competition to Microsoft, in the form of Apple and the Open Source vendors, that if a company doesn't want to deal with Microsoft, they aren't forced to do so, and so long as Microsoft isn't using their influence to destroy their competition, such as suing all Linux users or having other parties do so, they are competing fairly. People choose Microsoft because they offer value over their competitors.
However, competition is still broken, not that it is a problem or bad thing. The moment a competitor comes along that does it better for less, then they will find their monopoly disappearing quickly.
On the post: Fixing Copyright: Is Copyright A Part Of Free Market Capitalism?
Re: Re:
I don't think any reasonable person on "the other side" would deduce from the reports that we can't handle criticism. There have been plenty of folks on "the other side", who've had very good discussions here about copyright. AJ has always been crazy, but he used to be a lot more civil at discussing copyright issues before he went bat-shit crazy and over the deep end. I just hope he is getting help he desperately needs.
Most of these are just feeble attempts to derail the conversation because they know they can't argue with reason and for some people it is easier to just report and remove the loony from their view. I tend to agree that report should be only used for commercial spam and hate speech, but I've long ago given up pointing that out here, since it is so easy to access the post even when it is hidden.
On the post: Fixing Copyright: Is Copyright A Part Of Free Market Capitalism?
Re:
Absolutely. Copyright is simply crony capitalism, where those who come first or scream the loudest get special favors while everyone else is left to deal with unfair competition it creates.
A monopoly in capitalism is broken competition...anyone should be allowed to compete to remove that monopoly, and those who obtain a monopoly by producing a good product have to fight hard to maintain that monopoly. Those who don't, go out of business or are replaced by those who will fight hard.
Copyright should be something companies have to fight to maintain, not a magic sword some tart throws at them which gives them unlimited power for a very long time.
On the post: Literary Agent: Authors Don't Need Middlemen, They Need Partners
Re: Re:
Hey Randy, how is that Blockbuster video working out for you?
On the post: Judge Rejects Fox's Attempt To Shut Down Dish's Autohop Feature, But Indicates It May Still Infringe
Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright harm
I think we are in violent agreement. I doubt Mike cares that you don't click the ad, and he certainly doesn't hide the article until you click the ad (unlike Murdoch and the other media barons.) He offers the carrot (content) and in exchange, you occasionally get crappy flash-pop-overs from Siemens when you move your mouse over their ad while switching windows.
On the post: Epic's 'Music First' Approach: Delay Album Release; Drop Band When They Leak It
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Do you not understand contracts, Mike?
Not a problem, analogies suck.
"Keep in mind that in this case, the label didn't fulfill its end of the bargain either, in actually distributing the content."
That's patently false. If you read the original article, you'll see that the label delayed the release, they didn't refuse to release it.
You have a different definition of "not distributing" than I do apparently. My definition of "not distributing" is not offering the item for sale at that particular moment. I never said they refused to distribute. I said they didn't actually distribute the content (was it available for sale at that time?) The problem I see with this is there are plenty of examples of labels burying the content never to be seen again. Hopefully, as more artists become aware of the stupidity, they will cut out the middle-man, or at least sign with one that is interested in their future.
Really? So the fact that the label made a business decision that was entirely in their legal discretion under the contact (that the artist signed) justified the artist breaching the contract and threatening the label's $200k investment? Amazing.
Have they offered the album for sale yet? Aren't you making the assumption that they won't make $200k or more off of the album even though it was released by a third party? Others have been able to sell their product despite piracy, so you are telling me that this label, if it were to offer this album for sale right now, wouldn't make back their investment? Isn't that the point of this whole thing, they couldn't recoup their investment anyway when they didn't release the album, so why are they now crying when they decided themselves not to recoup the costs by not distributing the content?
On the post: Epic's 'Music First' Approach: Delay Album Release; Drop Band When They Leak It
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Do you not understand contracts, Mike?
I am not entirely certain this is a correct analogy, but instead if instead of deciding if and when to pay them back, instead I completed my course of education online early instead of in the classroom, and then all of the sudden the government comes back and says because I chose to complete the coursework online, then I didn't really follow their contract and thus not only do I still have to pay them back, but I need to go back to school and learn something else without their help. It is the government deciding, by themselves, that I somehow violated their contract and what my penance should be. Keep in mind that in this case, the label didn't fulfill its end of the bargain either, in actually distributing the content.
We attack the label because it isn't entirely the victim here either. It decided it didn't want to release the album, despite being contractually obligated to do so. If the label had released the album, instead of dragging its heels, then the band would have "childishly" breached their contract and released the album, would they?
On the post: Judge Quickly (But Temporarily) Blocks New CA Law That Takes Away Anonymous Speech Rights
Re: To the two above:
Happens all the time to me. I really got to get this memory checked out, as it is occasionally popping checksum errors too.
The point stands though...how does a fight, or any of the other stuff here have to do with a sexual nature, which should be the only thing recorded on a "sex offenders registry."
On the post: ITU Boss Explains Why He Wants The UN To Start Regulating The Internet
Re:
Be careful what you wish for. They may make you live with what they create on their own, and I'd be much happier living on a global computer network built by scientists and engineers than politicians and dictators.
On the post: Judge Rejects Fox's Attempt To Shut Down Dish's Autohop Feature, But Indicates It May Still Infringe
Re: Re: Copyright harm
It makes sense to them...most people want their content, but don't care for commercials. Instead of offering the carrot by allowing customers to decide what they wish to do, they employ the stick by making them view the commercials. The truth is, the content itself is the only carrot Fox (and other media ventures) have, it is the content that drives the consumer to their only commercial product, the commercials, which of course, they are selling to their customers. So in otherwords, it isn't their content that is precious, but the commercials.
On the post: Judge Quickly (But Temporarily) Blocks New CA Law That Takes Away Anonymous Speech Rights
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I am so glad I was a kid 30 years ago. I propositioned a girl to marry me at 6 years old (she was the same age.) She was cute, and a close friend, and I really had no idea what marriage meant at the time, other than knowing my parents were married and it was something that some friends did. I believe the trade for her hand in marriage was a Twinkie. It certainly wasn't sexual, kids say the darnedest things, and years later I regretted the moment when she used it to make fun of me when I was a teen (sadly, I think she was teasing me because she liked me, but it hurt me at the time, raging hormones and the opposite sex being what they were when you're a teen.)
I'd probably be locked up for 100 years for that, if I was a kid today and did the same thing.
On the post: Judge Quickly (But Temporarily) Blocks New CA Law That Takes Away Anonymous Speech Rights
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Not everyone keeps their genitals in the same place, Captain." - Martia, Star Trek VI - The Undiscovered Country.
However, I too remember reading it as a groin shot and not a shin.
On the post: Epic's 'Music First' Approach: Delay Album Release; Drop Band When They Leak It
Re: Re: Re: Re: Do you not understand contracts, Mike?
I hear what you are saying, but I don't think you understand what I am saying. If they loaned the band $200K with the intention to use the net sales to pay off the advance, and then do not apply the royalties to that advance, then what they have done is loaned $200K to the band, NOT paid for development. It would be the same as the US Government loaning me $200K to go back to school, and then claiming that they paid for my education. If I paid them back, then I paid for my education.
On the post: Cat Power Gets Sick, Atlantic Wire Declares Indie Music Dead
Re: From dictionary.com:
Nevermind the fact that neither Mike nor the Techdirt community have any specific problem with "paywalls" in general, but just the particular implementation of paywalls that Murdoch and other Newspaper tycoons employ. After all, to somewhat of an extent, Techdirt has a paywall, where features like the crystal ball or the chat capability are only available to subscribers. The difference being that anyone, anywhere, can read the entirety of the content here, but special features like the ability to read the content before everyone else and the ability to contribute to the chat (though anyone can read it) are given to those who pay. For most newspapers who employ paywalls, the content itself is unavailable to anyone without paying (or after a mystical number of pageviews is hit.)
Bob is the only one here who complains about those sites using his special definition of paywalls.
On the post: Why The Press Is Getting The Wrong Message Out Of The 'Nate Silver Walloped The Pundits' Story
Re:
I thought it was amazing that we all think logarithmically naturally when we are babies, but then learn to think linearly later on in life. We know the difference between a few and a lot, but when numbers start getting really large, we forget what that means. There has to be an evolutionary driver for this.
Of course, I disagree with Mike that Statistics should be taught along with Economics in school. It *should* be taught at home, and then reinforced at school. Teaching it as part of Sesame Street or something like that. And critical thinking and theory of knowledge. But then again, kids should be allowed to be kids too. Figuring how to teach while making it fun is the trick, and I don't think we've mastered that yet in our current old-folks run (grind the new teachers down) education system.
On the post: Cat Power Gets Sick, Atlantic Wire Declares Indie Music Dead
Re:
That's funny, you regularly come in here and complain about things Mike says (and yes, Mike didn't write this article,) that he doesn't really say, as evidence that we are all pirates and pirate apologists, and when someone calls you on it you run away.
On the post: Epic's 'Music First' Approach: Delay Album Release; Drop Band When They Leak It
Re: Re: Do you not understand contracts, Mike?
Actually, it appears they hadn't paid for the development, and they say they shouldn't have to in the email. See #5: "(5) while Epic still intended to collect money for the sale of the album (which, again, would not count towards the recording commitment), Epic would not cover the cost of recording the album."
Next >>