|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On September 18 2018 23:04 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2018 21:57 Plansix wrote:
I’ve said it before, but I dislike the framing that the internet has agency or the ability to create anything. The internet is a man made collection of technology, not a force of nature. The nature of the internet is designed, not organic. That is a good way to look at anything. We should look at every law based on such a material approach and argue whether a law contributes to personal freedom (=prevention of coercion) or whether it doesn't. Show nested quote +On September 18 2018 21:57 Plansix wrote:
Companies pick and choose which aspects of the internet benefit them and promote those aspects, including the ones that undermine the creative rights of writers, news publications and traditional media. The internet is as artificial as the concept of property rights. Maybe it is simply time to let those "creative rights" go or acknowledge, that they aren't worth a lot anymore? We have hundreds of years of music and an extremely stacked international competition for it, with worldwide distribution for almost no money. It is not a good business to get into, if you just want to record and sell a few songs and make money with it, plain as that. What the radical conservatives do instead is that they create copyrights and property rights out of thin air so that more and more money can be extracted, although the costs for creation and distribution are going down.
My wife is in a local band that plays small venues all the time. It is hard enough getting the small bar to pay for a live performance by 4 people. Or make back the money they spent recording an EP by selling it on Itunes. They are not even trying to make a living, its a hobby that they would like to just come close to breaking even on. My sister did wedding photography and people would always try to lower the price after photos were taken. This happened so often that she finally started demanding payment in advance
The whole word undervalues entertainment and art. I completely reject the idea that conservatives created copyright laws out of the air, they were made for the very reasons stated above. They were created to allow artists to profit from their work. They should be reformed, not obliterated by the internet and billion dollar companies like google wanting to profit off of others people’s labor.
|
On September 18 2018 23:25 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2018 23:04 Big J wrote:On September 18 2018 21:57 Plansix wrote:
I’ve said it before, but I dislike the framing that the internet has agency or the ability to create anything. The internet is a man made collection of technology, not a force of nature. The nature of the internet is designed, not organic. That is a good way to look at anything. We should look at every law based on such a material approach and argue whether a law contributes to personal freedom (=prevention of coercion) or whether it doesn't. On September 18 2018 21:57 Plansix wrote:
Companies pick and choose which aspects of the internet benefit them and promote those aspects, including the ones that undermine the creative rights of writers, news publications and traditional media. The internet is as artificial as the concept of property rights. Maybe it is simply time to let those "creative rights" go or acknowledge, that they aren't worth a lot anymore? We have hundreds of years of music and an extremely stacked international competition for it, with worldwide distribution for almost no money. It is not a good business to get into, if you just want to record and sell a few songs and make money with it, plain as that. What the radical conservatives do instead is that they create copyrights and property rights out of thin air so that more and more money can be extracted, although the costs for creation and distribution are going down. I disagree. There is no need to destroy "arts" as a profession. Do I think copyright law needs to be reformed? Absolutely. But abolishing it is too drastic. Musicians deserve some form of royalty for their work in creating the content. It's clearly not the distribution that is hard, but the original production, and thus the original producer should be remunerated for that effort. Unless you feel "being entertained" is not a service you should pay for.
True, there should always be protection for original labor. That protection needs to be deployed between the original worker/artist and the original customer of work, e.g. the employer or publisher.
What is being done is the complete opposite. The rights to original labor contracts and customership are being destroyed and instead more and more rights for property, ownership and distribution are being stockpiled. The power is shifted from those that create and consume to those that own. (this is also mirrored in the tax system: ownership is hardly taxed, labor and consumption carry the whole state, the laws of which are less and less about freedom and more and more about controlling the masses)
|
On September 18 2018 23:53 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2018 23:25 Acrofales wrote:On September 18 2018 23:04 Big J wrote:On September 18 2018 21:57 Plansix wrote:
I’ve said it before, but I dislike the framing that the internet has agency or the ability to create anything. The internet is a man made collection of technology, not a force of nature. The nature of the internet is designed, not organic. That is a good way to look at anything. We should look at every law based on such a material approach and argue whether a law contributes to personal freedom (=prevention of coercion) or whether it doesn't. On September 18 2018 21:57 Plansix wrote:
Companies pick and choose which aspects of the internet benefit them and promote those aspects, including the ones that undermine the creative rights of writers, news publications and traditional media. The internet is as artificial as the concept of property rights. Maybe it is simply time to let those "creative rights" go or acknowledge, that they aren't worth a lot anymore? We have hundreds of years of music and an extremely stacked international competition for it, with worldwide distribution for almost no money. It is not a good business to get into, if you just want to record and sell a few songs and make money with it, plain as that. What the radical conservatives do instead is that they create copyrights and property rights out of thin air so that more and more money can be extracted, although the costs for creation and distribution are going down. I disagree. There is no need to destroy "arts" as a profession. Do I think copyright law needs to be reformed? Absolutely. But abolishing it is too drastic. Musicians deserve some form of royalty for their work in creating the content. It's clearly not the distribution that is hard, but the original production, and thus the original producer should be remunerated for that effort. Unless you feel "being entertained" is not a service you should pay for. True, there should always be protection for original labor. That protection needs to be deployed between the original worker/artist and the original customer of work, e.g. the employer or publisher. What is being done is the complete opposite. The rights to original labor contracts and customership are being destroyed and instead more and more rights for property, ownership and distribution are being stockpiled. The power is shifted from those that create and consume to those that own. (this is also mirrored in the tax system: ownership is hardly taxed, labor and consumption carry the whole state, the laws of which are less and less about freedom and more and more about controlling the masses)
Well I agree with pretty much everything you said here and I think it is important to notice it. It is a shift that will probably continue for a long time to come.
But I still think that the content creators have the rights to the content they have produced,and can ask money from other people if they want to use,link or publish that content. And I also think the rights should go further then the first sale. If I write a book and sell it to someone,then that doesn't give him the right to put my book on the internet. Noone would write books anymore if that would be the case. And if I want to sell my rights to a big corporation in exchange for a paycheck,which many artists do,then that is my own decision. It doesn't make the rights any different imo.
The big benefits go to the big corporations and the copy rights,distribution rights and what not is the game they play. I don't like it but it is how it is. In the end they wont be able to extract much money from this as almost no one is willing to pay. Google will pay though I think,as they have a lot to lose and they can not operate without the major mainstream content.
|
If anyone follows Patrick Rothfuss, author of Name of the Wind, he is pretty open about being a successful author can feel perilous a lot of the times. Especially in the US where health insurance is trash. He is by no means poor, but the sale of the book and money from that is his primary source of income. And worrying about making rent/mortgage payments can only detract from future writings. He also points out that the marketing and promotion of a successful book is a lot of work in this video driven era and the people who do that also need to get paid. None of that can happy without copyrights.
More importantly, a lot of the publishing industry is based on advances of money to allow the author freedom to work. Without copyrights, authors would not have the ability to sign over a portion of those rights to publishers. Which in turn would eliminate the assurances the publisher had to the future books potential profit and any reason for them to advance the author money. Copyrights don't just protect existing art, but facilitate the creation of future art through the rights of the creator.
As I've grown older(and worked in the legal field) I've become more aware of the potential abuses of the technology being created by companies like Google, Facebook and others. If people remember the movie Seven, there is a scene where Morgan Freeman's character talks about the goverment tracking books that are taken out of the library like its some really dangerous invasion of privacy. That anyone tracking what we read is dangerous. Now we have a whole economy based on things that would make our blood run cold if the goverment did it. We carry around tracking devices that the companies swear turn off when we tell them to.
I don't want laws to be created to destroy that industry. But I think it is in everyone's best interest to take the wind out of their sails and claw back some of the things we collectively have let slide in our love affair with the digital future. In the US we have whole sections of the country that have no local news papers, digital or otherwise. Just think about what that says about this digital information market: that the events and issues facing small towns lack the value to support anyone reporting and writing about them. Or that companies like Google/Facebook soaked up all that value for themselves.
|
As long as you have that capital distribution situation you are going to have supply side economies. Google will sell what they want to sell, and if you regulate them then Rupert Murdoch will do it. Your small town won't get local news until they either prostitute for a big investor who donates something like that as a trade off for tax benefits, or until the demand side of its inhabitants actually matters.
And the EU directive probably won't even make Murdoch extract money from Google, just possibly from someone else.
|
Except that isn’t the case. There are papers like the Denver Post, which were purchased by a hedge fund manager who filed the majority of the staff and reduced the coverage overnight. It seems to be a clear attempt to instantly lower the overhead of the paper, extract as much profit as possible until the paper is closed due to the drop in quality. The Denver Post was a viable paper before this purchase.
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/05/13/denver-post-profits-newspaper-industry-218360
I reject the idea that the market and supply side economics are the sole driver of the death of local news. There are plenty of cases where the local markets value local news and they still go out of business due ownership that wishes to extract all profit and shutter the paper. It a direct effort of the extremely wealthy to undercut smaller media outlets by whatever lawful means necessary. Rupert Murdoch is just the most well known. And is only made worse by the top heavy internet media market.
|
On September 19 2018 04:11 Plansix wrote:Except that isn’t the case. There are papers like the Denver Post, which were purchased by a hedge fund manager who filed the majority of the staff and reduced the coverage overnight. It seems to be a clear attempt to instantly lower the overhead of the paper, extract as much profit as possible until the paper is closed due to the drop in quality. The Denver Post was a viable paper before this purchase. https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/05/13/denver-post-profits-newspaper-industry-218360I reject the idea that the market and supply side economics are the sole driver of the death of local news. There are plenty of cases where the local markets value local news and they still go out of business due ownership that wishes to extract all profit and shutter the paper. It a direct effort of the extremely wealthy to undercut smaller media outlets by whatever lawful means necessary. Rupert Murdoch is just the most well known. And is only made worse by the top heavy internet media market.
Good, lefties have to get that idea out of their head that markets are bad. Markets are inevitable. People will always interact by trading with one another. You can regulate market interactions to their death, but that will just stop interaction. Unless you want that (e.g. in enviromental questions), you shouldn't be against markets.
Markets are the friends of freedom, bad distribution of things that you can trade on a market, due to savings processes (and subsequently inheritance) of undertaxed capital rights, are the enemy.
You say that you don't think supply side economics is the driver and then you bring a perfect example of a company that was destroyed because it didn't actually matter that the consumers liked the product. The Hedgefond, which is the supply side, acts pretty much independently from the wishes of the consumers. There is no real market here. The Hedgefond is its own little Soviet Union that will do whatever they want to do.
|
Markets are not inherently good nor are they the ideal method of exchange with regards to all of the goods and services folks might purchase or otherwise obtain. Some goods/services fit market schemes well, some don't. To suggest otherwise is to assume that transactional events remain constant among all goods/services and we clearly see that not to be the case in many contexts, art being only one of them.
|
Unregulated markets lead to monopolies and exploitation.
Every
single
time
Lefties have no problem with markets. They have a problem with human greed leading to inevitable exploitation of people.
|
And if you want to know why monopolies are bad, play Monopoly. Not only is the game bad, it also very clearly shows you both exactly why an unregulated market leads to monopolies, and how those monopolies ruin everything for everyone but the person who has the monopoly.
|
On September 19 2018 05:20 Simberto wrote:
And if you want to know why monopolies are bad, play Monopoly. Not only is the game bad, it also very clearly shows you both exactly why an unregulated market leads to monopolies, and how those monopolies ruin everything for everyone but the person who has the monopoly.
Do you know the story of monopoly?
Edit: Also, I am not against regulations, social insurances and those likes. But regulation doesn't work against massive capital interests and the rich don't want to pay for the poor. I believe it is delusional to think that we can regulate against the will of the rich. You have to get rid of the rich, whatever it takes. The civil way is taxes, I am open to any other solution.
|
On September 19 2018 04:59 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2018 04:11 Plansix wrote:Except that isn’t the case. There are papers like the Denver Post, which were purchased by a hedge fund manager who filed the majority of the staff and reduced the coverage overnight. It seems to be a clear attempt to instantly lower the overhead of the paper, extract as much profit as possible until the paper is closed due to the drop in quality. The Denver Post was a viable paper before this purchase. https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/05/13/denver-post-profits-newspaper-industry-218360I reject the idea that the market and supply side economics are the sole driver of the death of local news. There are plenty of cases where the local markets value local news and they still go out of business due ownership that wishes to extract all profit and shutter the paper. It a direct effort of the extremely wealthy to undercut smaller media outlets by whatever lawful means necessary. Rupert Murdoch is just the most well known. And is only made worse by the top heavy internet media market. Good, lefties have to get that idea out of their head that markets are bad. Markets are inevitable. People will always interact by trading with one another. You can regulate market interactions to their death, but that will just stop interaction. Unless you want that (e.g. in enviromental questions), you shouldn't be against markets. Markets are the friends of freedom, bad distribution of things that you can trade on a market, due to savings processes (and subsequently inheritance) of undertaxed capital rights, are the enemy. You say that you don't think supply side economics is the driver and then you bring a perfect example of a company that was destroyed because it didn't actually matter that the consumers liked the product. The Hedgefond, which is the supply side, acts pretty much independently from the wishes of the consumers. There is no real market here. The Hedgefond is its own little Soviet Union that will do whatever they want to do.
The hedge fund is a robber baron using his money to buy up and control the local media landscape. There is no need to make some ham-fisted attempt to connect this to the dreaded Communism. It is good old fashion wealth and power being used abuse the lower classes.
Also, no need to slot me into your pre-disposed version of leftism that hates the markets, because I’m not. I have no problem with markets that function. I am just more aware of markets of that don’t or that are rigged(see the news papers being bought up and shuttered) by the wealthy. New local media will arise at some point, but there will be a large gap while the market struggles to fill that void that could last a decade or more.
And people who are into supply side economics don’t seem to understand that Adam Smith’s concept of a free market is one that is free of from outside influence. The robber baron buying up the local paper is as much of a threat as the government to a functioning market. And Adam Smith also advocated for strong social safety nets to assure the citizens could participate in the market if they fell out of it. The entire concept of supply side economics seems to disregard the basics of Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations entirely and worship this hollow shell of his Free Market.
|
On September 19 2018 05:38 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2018 05:20 Simberto wrote:
And if you want to know why monopolies are bad, play Monopoly. Not only is the game bad, it also very clearly shows you both exactly why an unregulated market leads to monopolies, and how those monopolies ruin everything for everyone but the person who has the monopoly. Do you know the story of monopoly? Edit: Also, I am not against regulations, social insurances and those likes. But regulation doesn't work against massive capital interests and the rich don't want to pay for the poor. I believe it is delusional to think that we can regulate against the will of the rich. You have to get rid of the rich, whatever it takes. The civil way is taxes, I am open to any other solution.
I'm baffled right now. It's like I'm reading one thing and the other people responding to you are reading something very different in your posts.
Hopefully that line helps give some perspective/context so that if they disagree, they disagree with the right part.
|
I'm sure hes not advocating for holocausting a group of people he doesnt like. At most I'm sure hes just talking about more punitive taxs such as a cap or more.
|
I havent understood his posts for the last 20 pages...
|
It's funny, the more I learn about politics, the more manichaean my vision becomes. I don't think that's the way it's supposed to go.
|
On September 19 2018 19:52 Nebuchad wrote:
It's funny, the more I learn about politics, the more manichaean my vision becomes. I don't think that's the way it's supposed to go.
You increasingly believe the world is separated into good and evil, and you can reach nirvana through spiritual enlightenment?
|
EDIT: I won't have time to follow this discussion through
|
On September 19 2018 19:55 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2018 19:52 Nebuchad wrote:
It's funny, the more I learn about politics, the more manichaean my vision becomes. I don't think that's the way it's supposed to go. You increasingly believe the world is separated into good and evil, and you can reach nirvana through spiritual enlightenment?
The dualism part, yeah. Might be a frenchism on my part, looks like the word isn't as used in english.
I increasingly see the world in light of liberalism failing. Liberalism in terms of economy emphasizes individual freedom and supports a hierarchical system with the notion that it's a meritocracy, those who deserve it the most rise on top. Its failure is becoming apparent in three main ways:
- Those who are on top make sure that their peers and offspring stay on top, for their own security => the system always tends towards oligarchy and the meritocracy is always shaky.
- The fact that there are identities makes the system difficult to defend. You either have to ignore problems that people can encounter because of their identities, in which case the system isn't entirely meritocratic as some people have a headstart, or you have to consider those identities, but if you do it's incoherent not to consider class as well.
- The kind of people that are selected by liberalism to be on top are predatory, and society doesn't really benefit from them being on top, as their instinct will be to maximize their profit and they will do that at the expense of the people below them.
As people become more and more skeptical of liberalism, they have two options, socialism and fascism (of course you're going to need to soften the blow a little bit so we're going to start with the things that aim in those directions within capitalism: social democracy and far right politics).
Two choices there, to resolve this conflict between liberalism and reality. You can either reconsider liberalism, which is the socialist position: should we look for alternatives? Or you can reconsider reality, which is the fascist position: does it matter if things don't make sense?
|
On September 19 2018 05:15 Gorsameth wrote:
Unregulated markets lead to monopolies and exploitation.
Every
single
time
Lefties have no problem with markets. They have a problem with human greed leading to inevitable exploitation of people.
Any source for the claim that an unregulated market leads to monopoly?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
