Yes, exactly. Black markets are not a free markets at all. Demonstrating this is easy: just try posing a competitive threat in someone else's territory.
You are using "free" in different terms then economist do. "Free" in "free market" simply means free from government regulation and/or intervention. I'm not really sure how you are defining "free".
Actually, your demonstration really proves my point. The danger of bodily harm (or worse) in black markets proves that government intervention and property rights (ie: laws) do not exist there. It's a classic free market system and will always exist with or without governments.
Yes, true enough. But that means that the "free market" is like a unicorn: it's entirely mythical.
No, it's not mythical and it does exist, even today. Just look to any black market that's out there. The markets for drugs, weapons, human trafficking, etc. are all examples of free market economies. They exist outside of regulations and without property rights.
It seems to me that the default market in the absence of government would be monopoly or oligopoly.
I'm not really a student of economics, so I could be completely wrong here, but I think the words "monopoly" and "oligopoly" are terms that describe the state of a particular market at a given time and are not really definitions of what kind of market it actually is.
Monopolies can exist in a free market economy, but it's still a free market economy as long as there is no intervention from government. Where it gets a little fuzzy in my mind is when the monopoly is, or becomes the government.
Laissez-faire capitalism is also a form of free market capitalism where the government only protects property rights and doesn't intervene in the market itself.
And yes, the biggest problem with a free market economy is that it does promote monopolies and distribute most of the wealth to a few. We operate under a hybrid capitalistic economy that incorporates a few different flavors of capitalism and we still have those same problems.
I still see capitalism as the best choice, regardless. Obviously, feudalism isn't desired and large scale socialism experiments have not proven to be sustainable due to human nature.
Anyways, my main point was that the free market economy is the default without a government. People trade goods with each other at prices that both find to be fair and have done so throughout history.
By its very design, it's a system of class and wealth, and so far, history proves this system never works long term. Ever.
Not really sure what you mean by that statement. Free market capitalism has been around for as long as humans have traded goods and services. Free market capitalism is the default in the absence of a government. Governments fall, but supply and demand remains. The trading of goods and services continues unabated.
You missed my point. In Mike's utopian world, where content is unprotected, many copies would be on YouTube.
As soon as the movie showed up on YouTube it was "unprotected". Where do you think the torrents came from?
And I'm guessing that the 2.5 million YouTube number would be much higher if it wasn't limited to the US. You can basically disregard any piracy numbers from outside the US in this comparison since that's the only choice that was available to them.
I'm one of those who went the "legitimate route." So what? Not everyone is a selfish pirate. We know that. What does that have to do with protecting content?
This is where our philosophies disagree. You seem to think that the public needs to be forced into paying like children or else zero money will be made. I happen to think that's a bunch of hogwash. Most everybody will gladly pay a price they think is fair for a movie as long as it's convenient and available when it's desired. That's a pretty much a proven fact when you consider that Hollywood's bottom lines continue grow despite piracy. I believe that protecting the content actually hinders their sales. One number I would really like to see instead of "sales lost to piracy" is "sales lost to DRM, release windows & unavailability".
How many would rent it for $6 from YouTube when there's tons of free copies available on the same platform?
Show me these free copies on YouTube. I couldn't find any at all. Your question is flawed from the get go.
And like RadioactiveSmurf indicated - at least 2.5 million people choose to go the legitimate route online, even though free versions were available to them. So my answer to your question is "quite a few of them".
I just had a better idea. Instead of a license plate flipping device.
This guy invented a license plate holder that detects a red light camera flash and floods the license plate with light to overexpose the picture. Probably wouldn't work for plate readers since I don't think they need a flash.
You didn't think there was any way to distinguish Aereo from other cloud services
In my opinion, this court attempted to distinguish Dish's service from Aereo, but it didn't really accomplish that.
First, it claims that there's a difference because Dish has a license. I've argued that Aereo's customers also have implied license to over-the-air broadcasts and Aereo was simply assisting them in receiving them. So no go there in my opinion.
Second, it claims that there is a difference because of where the hard drive resides. So we are basically back to the length of the cord argument, which is just plain silly to me.
Third, it claims that because the transmission goes to the customer's home and from there to internet devices it's not a public performance. Aereo's system did the exact same thing only it used OTA broadcast signals which reached the user's home and Aereo's facilities simultaneously.
A few years ago I was a satellite TV installer and worked all over SE Michigan. I've traveled pretty much all of lower Michigan and most of the UP throughout my life.
Sure, there are areas where crime is more prevalent and you need to be a bit more alert, but I wouldn't call them "no go areas" and I've never seen *anywhere* in Michigan that the police are afraid to patrol.
It's trashy to curse in public. If you don't see a problem with it, it's because you're trash.
I was just getting prepared to compose an eloquent retort to you, complete with colorful expletives and rapier wit, and then I realized that you are simply not worth my time.
in Michigan a homeless person can live in your house and you can't kick them out. you cant deny them access to the home once they have their belongings there either. you cant stop them from eating your food and you cant stop them from using utilities. if you decide to move into an apartment bc you don't feel safe you must continue paying for utilities or you get charged with who knows what crimes.
Some of that has never been true. Trespassing, home invasion and breaking and entering have been and still are against the law in Michigan. Complete strangers have never been able to enter your occupied property and take it over.
Last year some new laws concerning squatters rights went on the books and now it's much easier to have squatters removed since it made squatting a crime.
You won't understand unless you have kids of your own.
I have kids & grandchildren and I still don't understand the problem. It's not like you can ever shield your kids from swear words in this world. Much better to teach them why such words are inappropriate and shouldn't be used. They're going to hear them all from their classmates anyways.
As a private business, the restaurant should have ejected the trash on their own. That's completely within their rights as a private business.
It's also completely within their rights NOT to do anything about it too.
I agree that that this is a big step forward, if nothing else than for increasing public awareness of this massive problem.
While I don't necessarily disagree with Holder's exceptions concerning illegal firearms, ammunition, explosives and property associated with child pornography, I do find it interesting that extra forfeiture/seizure laws aren't really necessary for those items, because in most in instances, it's illegal to possess those items anyways.
Keyword is "lawful" command. Just because an officer gives you a command, does not mean it's a lawful command.
Yes, that is true.
But it hasn't always been that way. In 2004 the Michigan Court of Appeals ruled on People v. Ventura and stated that the officer's actions need not be lawful. This was overturned in 2012 with People v. Moreno and the lawful requirement was reinstated (it was common law prior to a statute change in 2002 combined with the 2004 ruling)
But in reality, all of that is really moot anyways. It's only a defense against the charges. You still can be arrested, booked, charged, have to pay a lawyer and go to court before you can actually assert that the command was unlawful.
This is an unfortunately common attitude with police officers. They tend to think that everyone must obey their orders no matter what. That simply isn't true, no matter how hard the cops wish it were.
Unfortunately, it is true in my state:
(7) As used in this section:
(a) "Obstruct" includes the use or threatened use of physical interference or force or a knowing failure to comply with a lawful command.
Although it may not be applicable to a case like the one we are discussing - it would depend upon whether the command was "lawful" or not and in Michigan our "swearing law" was overturned by our Appeals Court in 2002.
I'm not arguing about fair use. The "loophole" I'm referring to is Wikimedia volunteers declaring this image public domain via a simple majority vote conducted amongst themselves, based on a weird and unprecedented technicality.
Ahh, I see why I was confused. What you are referring to as a "loophole" isn't any such thing, it's following the law as written. (Disclaimer: This is a minor pet peeve of mine - following the law as written is not "skirting the law" or "pushing the limits of the law" or "using a loophole" or any other such nonsense. It's following the law as written, nothing more and nothing less)
Also, it's not just Wikimedia declaring this work to be public domain, it's also quite a few respected people who are extremely knowledgeable in copyright law who are saying this.
And Techdirt have simply latched onto it like it's some sort of "cause" to fight for.
I disagree with this statement. This situation is very newsworthy and lands smack dab in the middle of Techdirt's wheelhouse. Much along the lines of the discussions that occur here concerning how the 1969 version of "Night of the Living Dead" is public domain because the distributor didn't affix a proper copyright notice on the film as was required at the time.
In effect, what that commenter is saying is that artists should be able to have complete and total control over all copies of their artistic product.
Yes, I also think that is what the commenter is implying.
The funny thing is that artists have never really had that kind of control over copies. You ever hear of anyone being prosecuted for writing in the margins of a book they bought or for tearing pages out to use for cat litter?
On the post: Comcast Kept VIP List For Influential Customers In DC Suburbs, Still Insists Nobody Gets Special Treatment
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You are using "free" in different terms then economist do. "Free" in "free market" simply means free from government regulation and/or intervention. I'm not really sure how you are defining "free".
Actually, your demonstration really proves my point. The danger of bodily harm (or worse) in black markets proves that government intervention and property rights (ie: laws) do not exist there. It's a classic free market system and will always exist with or without governments.
On the post: Comcast Kept VIP List For Influential Customers In DC Suburbs, Still Insists Nobody Gets Special Treatment
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, it's not mythical and it does exist, even today. Just look to any black market that's out there. The markets for drugs, weapons, human trafficking, etc. are all examples of free market economies. They exist outside of regulations and without property rights.
It seems to me that the default market in the absence of government would be monopoly or oligopoly.
I'm not really a student of economics, so I could be completely wrong here, but I think the words "monopoly" and "oligopoly" are terms that describe the state of a particular market at a given time and are not really definitions of what kind of market it actually is.
Monopolies can exist in a free market economy, but it's still a free market economy as long as there is no intervention from government. Where it gets a little fuzzy in my mind is when the monopoly is, or becomes the government.
On the post: Comcast Kept VIP List For Influential Customers In DC Suburbs, Still Insists Nobody Gets Special Treatment
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
By it's very definition free market capitalism only exits without government intervention.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market
Laissez-faire capitalism is also a form of free market capitalism where the government only protects property rights and doesn't intervene in the market itself.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laissez-faire
And yes, the biggest problem with a free market economy is that it does promote monopolies and distribute most of the wealth to a few. We operate under a hybrid capitalistic economy that incorporates a few different flavors of capitalism and we still have those same problems.
I still see capitalism as the best choice, regardless. Obviously, feudalism isn't desired and large scale socialism experiments have not proven to be sustainable due to human nature.
Anyways, my main point was that the free market economy is the default without a government. People trade goods with each other at prices that both find to be fair and have done so throughout history.
On the post: Comcast Kept VIP List For Influential Customers In DC Suburbs, Still Insists Nobody Gets Special Treatment
Re: Re: Re:
Not really sure what you mean by that statement. Free market capitalism has been around for as long as humans have traded goods and services. Free market capitalism is the default in the absence of a government. Governments fall, but supply and demand remains. The trading of goods and services continues unabated.
On the post: The MPAA Isn't About Helping Hollywood. It's About Preserving Its Own Need To Exist.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
As soon as the movie showed up on YouTube it was "unprotected". Where do you think the torrents came from?
And I'm guessing that the 2.5 million YouTube number would be much higher if it wasn't limited to the US. You can basically disregard any piracy numbers from outside the US in this comparison since that's the only choice that was available to them.
I'm one of those who went the "legitimate route." So what? Not everyone is a selfish pirate. We know that. What does that have to do with protecting content?
This is where our philosophies disagree. You seem to think that the public needs to be forced into paying like children or else zero money will be made. I happen to think that's a bunch of hogwash. Most everybody will gladly pay a price they think is fair for a movie as long as it's convenient and available when it's desired. That's a pretty much a proven fact when you consider that Hollywood's bottom lines continue grow despite piracy. I believe that protecting the content actually hinders their sales. One number I would really like to see instead of "sales lost to piracy" is "sales lost to DRM, release windows & unavailability".
On the post: If The DOJ Gets Its Way, Tweeting Out A List Of The 'Worst Passwords On The Internet' Will Be A Felony
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: DOJ to white-hats: If you see something, shut up, or face a felony
On the post: The MPAA Isn't About Helping Hollywood. It's About Preserving Its Own Need To Exist.
Re: Re: Re:
Show me these free copies on YouTube. I couldn't find any at all. Your question is flawed from the get go.
And like RadioactiveSmurf indicated - at least 2.5 million people choose to go the legitimate route online, even though free versions were available to them. So my answer to your question is "quite a few of them".
On the post: Chris Christie, Port Authority Official Abused E-ZPass Data For Their Own Ends
Re:
This guy invented a license plate holder that detects a red light camera flash and floods the license plate with light to overexpose the picture. Probably wouldn't work for plate readers since I don't think they need a flash.
On the post: Court Says Dish's Hopper Technology Does Not Infringe On Copyrights
Re: Re:
Doesn't matter. This use, as long as it's a "face to face" teaching environment in a "classroom", would fall squarely under the Fair Use doctrine.
On the post: Court Says Dish's Hopper Technology Does Not Infringe On Copyrights
Re:
In my opinion, this court attempted to distinguish Dish's service from Aereo, but it didn't really accomplish that.
First, it claims that there's a difference because Dish has a license. I've argued that Aereo's customers also have implied license to over-the-air broadcasts and Aereo was simply assisting them in receiving them. So no go there in my opinion.
Second, it claims that there is a difference because of where the hard drive resides. So we are basically back to the length of the cord argument, which is just plain silly to me.
Third, it claims that because the transmission goes to the customer's home and from there to internet devices it's not a public performance. Aereo's system did the exact same thing only it used OTA broadcast signals which reached the user's home and Aereo's facilities simultaneously.
On the post: Paris, France To Sue Fox News For Being Fox News
Re: Re: NO GO zones
Really? Where?
A few years ago I was a satellite TV installer and worked all over SE Michigan. I've traveled pretty much all of lower Michigan and most of the UP throughout my life.
Sure, there are areas where crime is more prevalent and you need to be a bit more alert, but I wouldn't call them "no go areas" and I've never seen *anywhere* in Michigan that the police are afraid to patrol.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re:
I was just getting prepared to compose an eloquent retort to you, complete with colorful expletives and rapier wit, and then I realized that you are simply not worth my time.
Have a nice life. :)
On the post: Dumb Criminal Proves Again That Open WiFi Doesn't Mean Everyone Gets Away With Everything
Re:
Some of that has never been true. Trespassing, home invasion and breaking and entering have been and still are against the law in Michigan. Complete strangers have never been able to enter your occupied property and take it over.
Last year some new laws concerning squatters rights went on the books and now it's much easier to have squatters removed since it made squatting a crime.
http://detroit.curbed.com/archives/2014/08/there-are-some-new-squatters-laws-on-the-books-in-m ichigan.php
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re:
I have kids & grandchildren and I still don't understand the problem. It's not like you can ever shield your kids from swear words in this world. Much better to teach them why such words are inappropriate and shouldn't be used. They're going to hear them all from their classmates anyways.
As a private business, the restaurant should have ejected the trash on their own. That's completely within their rights as a private business.
It's also completely within their rights NOT to do anything about it too.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: People make bodily functions swear words.
On the post: Eric Holder Cuts Off Program That Helped Spur Police Asset Seizure 'Shopping Sprees'
While I don't necessarily disagree with Holder's exceptions concerning illegal firearms, ammunition, explosives and property associated with child pornography, I do find it interesting that extra forfeiture/seizure laws aren't really necessary for those items, because in most in instances, it's illegal to possess those items anyways.
On the post: Man Sues City After Arrest For Dropping F-Bombs In A Local Restaurant
Re: Re: Re: The real "crime"
Yes, that is true.
But it hasn't always been that way. In 2004 the Michigan Court of Appeals ruled on People v. Ventura and stated that the officer's actions need not be lawful. This was overturned in 2012 with People v. Moreno and the lawful requirement was reinstated (it was common law prior to a statute change in 2002 combined with the 2004 ruling)
But in reality, all of that is really moot anyways. It's only a defense against the charges. You still can be arrested, booked, charged, have to pay a lawyer and go to court before you can actually assert that the command was unlawful.
On the post: Man Sues City After Arrest For Dropping F-Bombs In A Local Restaurant
Re: The real "crime"
Unfortunately, it is true in my state:
Although it may not be applicable to a case like the one we are discussing - it would depend upon whether the command was "lawful" or not and in Michigan our "swearing law" was overturned by our Appeals Court in 2002.
On the post: Monkey Selfie Back In The News: Photographer Threatens Copyright Experts With His Confused Understanding Of Copyright
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Ahh, I see why I was confused. What you are referring to as a "loophole" isn't any such thing, it's following the law as written. (Disclaimer: This is a minor pet peeve of mine - following the law as written is not "skirting the law" or "pushing the limits of the law" or "using a loophole" or any other such nonsense. It's following the law as written, nothing more and nothing less)
Also, it's not just Wikimedia declaring this work to be public domain, it's also quite a few respected people who are extremely knowledgeable in copyright law who are saying this.
And Techdirt have simply latched onto it like it's some sort of "cause" to fight for.
I disagree with this statement. This situation is very newsworthy and lands smack dab in the middle of Techdirt's wheelhouse. Much along the lines of the discussions that occur here concerning how the 1969 version of "Night of the Living Dead" is public domain because the distributor didn't affix a proper copyright notice on the film as was required at the time.
On the post: Steven Soderbergh Fought To Make Re-Editing Films Illegal; Now He's Re-Editing Famous Films
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, I also think that is what the commenter is implying.
The funny thing is that artists have never really had that kind of control over copies. You ever hear of anyone being prosecuted for writing in the margins of a book they bought or for tearing pages out to use for cat litter?
Next >>