On December 05 2011 06:08 liberal wrote: Let's assume for a moment the following:
1) The music industry cannot make enough money to make music without selling CD's/downloads/etc. (This is of course highly debatable but we're playing devil's advocate here)
2) As a society, we believe it would be a proper role for the government to ensure that the music industry makes money and therefore continues to produce music.
Now let's consider two possible solutions:
1) Subsidize the music industry. They can afford to continue making music, and everyone in society gets as much free music as they want. Perhaps the degree of subsidizing could be determined by analyzing download counts of songs or albums, thereby ensuring that market demand dictates production.
2) We create regulatory agencies and police the market, attempting to track down, fine, and punish individuals who share a naturally unscarce good that we value, in order to artificially restrict the supply, raise the price of music, and to force people to purchase individual songs. The agencies will do a generally terrible job of achieving this goal, and will settle for arbitrarily punishing individuals to serve as a warning to the rest of society. Meanwhile, society as a whole continues to have less of this good they value, and music industries continue to lose money to piracy.
One thing that the study of economics teaches is this: It is almost always better to simply subsidize something than to attempt to manipulate supply, cost, price, etc.
or you could let the music industry die. if they can't make money, tough shit. its very possible that a better more efficient business structure out there that companies don't want to adopt.
where did you get that last line. subsidization is the manipulation of price, consequentially manipulation of demand/supply.
This is so true.
Let the industry and business die. It wouldn't kill off music, there will still be people all over the internet distributing their own music, making money from shows etc, because people still want that. It'd be better.
On December 05 2011 06:08 liberal wrote: Let's assume for a moment the following:
1) The music industry cannot make enough money to make music without selling CD's/downloads/etc. (This is of course highly debatable but we're playing devil's advocate here)
2) As a society, we believe it would be a proper role for the government to ensure that the music industry makes money and therefore continues to produce music.
Now let's consider two possible solutions:
1) Subsidize the music industry. They can afford to continue making music, and everyone in society gets as much free music as they want. Perhaps the degree of subsidizing could be determined by analyzing download counts of songs or albums, thereby ensuring that market demand dictates production.
2) We create regulatory agencies and police the market, attempting to track down, fine, and punish individuals who share a naturally unscarce good that we value, in order to artificially restrict the supply, raise the price of music, and to force people to purchase individual songs. The agencies will do a generally terrible job of achieving this goal, and will settle for arbitrarily punishing individuals to serve as a warning to the rest of society. Meanwhile, society as a whole continues to have less of this good they value, and music industries continue to lose money to piracy.
One thing that the study of economics teaches is this: It is almost always better to simply subsidize something than to attempt to manipulate supply, cost, price, etc.
or you could let the music industry die. if they can't make money, tough shit. its very possible that a better more efficient business structure out there that companies don't want to adopt.
where did you get that last line. subsidization is the manipulation of price, consequentially manipulation of demand/supply.
While it would manipulate the price it does by no means that it has to be a bad thing. Especially for the smaller bands. There Swedish systembolaget is a perfect example of this. They have increased not only the selection but also they have reduced the price.
Infact 90% of the swedish movie industry is based on state subteties. Music is such an important thing that I am sure it being state funded is possible and might even make the industry stronger.
On December 05 2011 07:57 FliedLice wrote: why is everybody so happy about being allowed to steal things?
this is weird
Because it will hopefully force the industry to adapt, just as it had to adapt when tape cassettes and VHS were cutting edge. (You will notice that recording the radio and / or TV did not result in the demise of various entertainment industries).
Corporations need to be protected from the average man living in a hut, or society will collapse because the majority will rip off the poor defenseless minority 1% CEO's of media giants Disney and Viamcom that have more money than god. Check the video out.
Its fair enough, it is a barely policed law, Switzerland for a long time have actually known how to run a country properly, socialism that has not been corrupt, its a wonderful country, all people can seem to mock it with is being boring, boring meaning, is not an aggressor, would rather not get involved in war and does not have a high crime rate. I would love to live in that country, gtz to anyone who does, this is a completely justifiable idea and will result in less people being prosecuted for things they dont really deserve prosecution for
Corporations need to be protected from the average man living in a hut, or society will collapse because the majority will rip off the poor defenseless minority 1% CEO's of media giants Disney and Viamcom that have more money than god. Check the video out.
I had the exact same problem when F.E.A.R was released... ...This guy solved my problem. (Had similar problems with Bioshock.)
Why is Swiss policy always so sensible? Because they have decentralized government, direct democracy, limited government authority, and strict adherence to the rule of law. That is why they are the most prosperous nation on earth. I just hope they can resist the immense pressure from the EU to control them.
On December 05 2011 06:08 liberal wrote: Let's assume for a moment the following:
1) The music industry cannot make enough money to make music without selling CD's/downloads/etc. (This is of course highly debatable but we're playing devil's advocate here)
2) As a society, we believe it would be a proper role for the government to ensure that the music industry makes money and therefore continues to produce music.
Now let's consider two possible solutions:
1) Subsidize the music industry. They can afford to continue making music, and everyone in society gets as much free music as they want. Perhaps the degree of subsidizing could be determined by analyzing download counts of songs or albums, thereby ensuring that market demand dictates production.
2) We create regulatory agencies and police the market, attempting to track down, fine, and punish individuals who share a naturally unscarce good that we value, in order to artificially restrict the supply, raise the price of music, and to force people to purchase individual songs. The agencies will do a generally terrible job of achieving this goal, and will settle for arbitrarily punishing individuals to serve as a warning to the rest of society. Meanwhile, society as a whole continues to have less of this good they value, and music industries continue to lose money to piracy.
One thing that the study of economics teaches is this: It is almost always better to simply subsidize something than to attempt to manipulate supply, cost, price, etc.
or you could let the music industry die. if they can't make money, tough shit. its very possible that a better more efficient business structure out there that companies don't want to adopt.
where did you get that last line. subsidization is the manipulation of price, consequentially manipulation of demand/supply.
While it would manipulate the price it does by no means that it has to be a bad thing. Especially for the smaller bands. There Swedish systembolaget is a perfect example of this. They have increased not only the selection but also they have reduced the price.
Infact 90% of the swedish movie industry is based on state subteties. Music is such an important thing that I am sure it being state funded is possible and might even make the industry stronger.
Music isn't vital. But it wouldn't exactly stop if the current music industry completely and utterly died. People like music, therefore people will make music, with or without the current industry in place. Same goes for tv, movies, games, etc. The governments of the world help and protect them not because they're vital, but because they have deep and loose pockets.
So yes, price manipulation is bad, because it starts with malintent. Even if some small good comes from it, it's not right for tax dollars to go towards protecting this specific company and this specific product from this specific not-exactly-a-crime because they produced a bullshit system that allows their product to be duplicated and distributed free of charge.
We got better things to spend those dollars on, like medical research and feeding the starving.
On December 05 2011 02:17 ShoCkeyy wrote: U.S time for you to step uppp!
What world are you dreaming that you live in? The us wants to step up internet regulation not back down on it.
Swiss take this issue makes a lot of sense.
To be fair, Switzerland has a lot of advantages when it comes to this sort of legislation. Consider the nature of exactly what is being downloaded in Switzerland, how much of it is produced in a foreign country? It is quite easy to declare piracy legal when the harms associated with said piracy are being felt in another place entirely.
This is exactly why scandinavians and small euro countries can do this.
On December 05 2011 05:03 seedfreedom wrote: so... who can teach me swiss...
I hope it was a joke, but I fear its actually not one :/
ya, my bad. i try to keep myself somewhat informed but meh, everyone makes mistakes.
On December 05 2011 07:57 FliedLice wrote: why is everybody so happy about being allowed to steal things?
this is weird
because they arent broke, poor, or helpless. Besides, 90% of their "missed revenue" weren't going to buy the game anyways. 90% of people who would buy the game, do so now anyways. yet they treat it as they are missing billions.
On December 05 2011 02:17 ShoCkeyy wrote: U.S time for you to step uppp!
What world are you dreaming that you live in? The us wants to step up internet regulation not back down on it.
Swiss take this issue makes a lot of sense.
To be fair, Switzerland has a lot of advantages when it comes to this sort of legislation. Consider the nature of exactly what is being downloaded in Switzerland, how much of it is produced in a foreign country? It is quite easy to declare piracy legal when the harms associated with said piracy are being felt in another place entirely.
This is exactly why scandinavians and small euro countries can do this.
Okay, the whole Sweden/Switzerland thing was pretty fun in the start, but are you really going to continue? Or have you just not got a clue about what is going on in Scandinavia?
Okay, the whole Sweden/Switzerland thing was pretty fun in the start, but are you really going to continue? Or have you just not got a clue about what is going on in Scandinavia?
What's the problem? Most of scandinavia had very relaxed laws on piracy and still do relative to UK/US/France.
EPT
