If The Government Needs To Step In To Help Your Business Model, You Shouldn't Be In Business
from the simple-statement dept
We recently wrote about a bunch of super successful UK musicians complaining that the UK government needed to force ISPs and startups to make their old business model viable again. We, quite naturally, thought that was a pretty crazy suggestion. In reaction to this post on Twitter, reader botaday rephrased Tim’s closing line in a way that so perfectly summed up a key sentiment that many of us had for years in dealing with the copyright fight, that it was worth repeating here:
If the government needs to “step in” to help your business model, maybe you shouldn’t be in business.
Just keep repeating this. Because it’s the crux of so many of the fights that we keep seeing all the time. It’s the history of protectionism and mercantilism. It’s the basis of regulatory capture and anti-competitive laws. And it’s always couched in phrases to try to hide the fact that it’s about having the government prop up a business model, by trying to make it a “moral” issue. But it’s not a moral issue when your business model fails. So, every time you see one of these fights going on, repeat that line: If the government needs to “step in” to help your business model, maybe you shouldn’t be in business.”
Filed Under: business models, copyright, regulations
Comments on “If The Government Needs To Step In To Help Your Business Model, You Shouldn't Be In Business”
“We recently wrote about a bunch of super successful UK musicians complaining that the UK government needed to force ISPs and startups to make their old business model viable again. We, quite naturally, thought that was a pretty crazy suggestion.”
Of course you did. Because you (singular) are pirates!!!
.
.
.
There, it’s done. Can we move on to having a productive dialogue now? Thank you.
Re: Re:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/no-copyright-law-the-real-reason-for-germany-s-industrial-expansion-a-710976.html
Authors are only motivated to write, runs the conventional belief, if they know their rights will be protected.
Yet a historical comparison, at least, reaches a different conclusion. Publishers in England exploited their monopoly shamelessly. New discoveries were generally published in limited editions of at most 750 copies and sold at a price that often exceeded the weekly salary of an educated worker.
London’s most prominent publishers made very good money with this system, some driving around the city in gilt carriages. Their customers were the wealthy and the nobility, and their books regarded as pure luxury goods. In the few libraries that did exist, the valuable volumes were chained to the shelves to protect them from potential thieves.
In Germany during the same period, publishers had plagiarizers — who could reprint each new publication and sell it cheaply without fear of punishment — breathing down their necks. Successful publishers were the ones who took a sophisticated approach in reaction to these copycats and devised a form of publication still common today, issuing fancy editions for their wealthy customers and low-priced paperbacks for the masses.
Re: Re:
“Can we move on to having a productive dialogue now? Thank you.”
You’re a dipshit. (Wow, this is fun. You, know I’ve never really started a productive dialogue this way before. Have you?)
Re: Re:
“Of course you did. Because you (singular) are pirates!!!”
Who’s “you”?
Ain’t me, boy.
Another thing
No industry should ever be forced to act in the protectionist interests of another industry.
Re: Another thing
“If the government needs to “step in” to help your business model, maybe you shouldn’t be in business.”
Unless you’re a bank…or an automaker, or a steel conglomerate, or a railroad or…. Think of it as Newton’s law of bailoutting: Basically if an industry has something to do with moving something, the government shall be th’intertia.
“No industry should ever be forced to act in the protectionist interests of another industry.”
Unless you’re a…no, no, I can’t even think of one.
Re: Re: Another thing
“Unless you’re a…no, no, I can’t even think of one.”
If the entertainment industry get their way, ISPs will have to do just that. In fact, it is already happening with these stupid 3 strike laws that are coming into effect all over the place.
Re: Another thing
I agree with your statement, but there is false dichotomy that I feel is being created with Mike’s and your statements.
It is very true that other industries shouldn’t be forced to help prop up other industries… But that doesn’t mean that that “if government needs to step [in] to help your business model you shouldn’t be in business”. There are some very evident business industries that the gov’t _should_ be assisting. (and potentially levying taxes on other industries or activities to pay for such assistance.)
1) renewable energies: Solar (thermal/PV/whatever else)
2) geo-thermal
3) fusion
4) wind
… etc.
Because “profit” to a nation or a state can be measured in more ways than just purely instant $. A government ranging from township to federal helping a company in any of the above industries which aren’t yet profitable, but will be in the future(and even if they aren’t we as a society will need those technologies for self-sufficiently) , and therefore is an investment for the future.
This is kinda a rant, but it feels like it needed saying.
Re: Re: Another thing
There are some very evident business industries that the gov’t _should_ be assisting. (and potentially levying taxes on other industries or activities to pay for such assistance.)
In summary – if you provide something that society can’t manage without then yes – the government needs to make sure that your service continues – but that doesn’t mean that your company needs to be saved.
Re: Re: Another thing
A lot of those are starting industries, with developing markets. That’s not true of publishing or these fancy moving pictures or audio reproductions…
Seems about right. I wonder where the expecation that because you want the government to ‘step in’ when a business is gains too much control over a market, the government should also step in when a business has too little?
this is an ‘oh so true’ comment in general but when the people it is aimed at are those that were extraordinarily successful in their day and still have a reasonable margin of success today, they definitely ought to take a real close look at what they are doing/still trying to do. if it ain’t working for them in the way it was, then change they must. if they cant change, get the fuck out of the business! would Simon Cowell and co. mind if i got the government add new laws to prop up my ailing welding business or would he complain and tell me to get out and do something else? we all know the answer, so why doesn’t it apply to him and his co-conspirators?
Re: Re:
Change is fundamental to a successful business. Markets change, consumers change, circumstances change, the world changes.
A business must constantly evolve and keep pace with the changes in the world. If they cannot keep pace, they do not deserve to stay in business.
The government offers to step in in exchange for campaign contributions and revolving door favors. It has nothing to do with the public interest.
If you need the law...
to protect you from the public perhaps you need to consider what it is that you are actually selling.
since if it so easy to “obtain” without you, what value exactly do you add?
serious question.
laws covering commercial activities I can understand, regulating companies etc, but to try and use the same laws to regulate the public makes little sense and is more or less impossible to enforce. and hence a waste of public resources to try.
the music labels, and artists, well some of them, think they are in the business of selling plastic discs and music downloads – I’m not so sure, if your product is so easy to copy as an mp3 file, or to rip as any other streaming format you are selling the wrong thing. Sell the experience or the convenience.
if the only thing between you and your customers not needing you is the law your business model has a flaw in it and people will, and do, simply cut you out.
“If the government needs to “step in” to help your business model, maybe you shouldn’t be in business.”
So all of those businesses that make a living off of abusing the copyright laws by using DMCA, which is what the government did when they stepped in the last time… they should get out of business?
Close down Google and YouTube, the party is over.
Re: Re:
Youtube didnt have a business model before DMCA? Obviously the DMCA is not needed without the other government intervention of ridiculous copyright interpretations.
So, to answer your question. Yes – if youtube can’t survive without the DMCA and without constant abuse of copyright laws – it should go out of business.
The great thing about capitalism though..someone else will figure out a way to make money without constant abuse of copyright laws if youtube can’t.
Re: Re:
YouTube wouldn’t need the DMCA safe harbors at all because hosting user content wasn’t illegal before the DMCA.
Re: Re: Re:
+1. The DMCA doesn’t provide a “safe harbor” to anyone. It doesn’t help YouTube and similar sites; it restricts their rights.
If there was no “Safe Harbor” provision, such sites would still have the same protections they have now, without the DMCA takedown strings attached. If someone tried to sue them over hosting infringing content, they could simply state that they operate under Common Carrier law and the whole thing would be thrown out. The complainant would have to go after the users, not the site, which is a lot more expensive.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Nice try, but sadly, websites are not legally considered as “common carriers”. It’s a nice try, but a fail all down the lines. Without the safe harbor provisions, Those sites would be entirely liable for copyright infringements on their sites.
DMCA “stepped in” to help their business models exist.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
… and naturally there’s a DMCA equivalent in every country in the world for just that reason… oh, wait.
In actual fact, the DMCA attempts to inject some common sense into the ‘who to sue’ decision – it wouldn’t need to exist if some people didn’t automatically jump for the money-grab rather than targetting the people that are actually at fault.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Wrong. The DMCA was a wholesale attack against a number of legitimate activities, and would have made them impossible. The safe harbor provision included to try and blunt one of the worst effects of it.
Pretty much everyone who isn’t part of the old-school content companies would love to have the DMCA stricken altogether, including safe harbor.
The DMCA did not make the YouTube business model possible. The safe harbor provision is the only thing that kept an existing legal model from being made legally impossible.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
“DMCA “stepped in” to help their business models exist.”
BS. The DMCA is a terrible piece of legislation that has one redeeming feature: the safe harbour provisions that codifies the obvious common sense fact that websites that host user-generated content should not be held liable for user’s actions.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Your revisionist view of the world must makes things pretty exciting. You can just pretend history agrees with you, and if you truly believe in your river of shit, you don’t even need to worry about anyone pointing out th massive inaccuracies.
Re: Re:
Wait a sec….
Who’s abusing copyright and the DMCA??
Re: Re:
“So all of those businesses that make a living off of abusing the copyright laws by using DMCA, which is what the government did when they stepped in the last time… they should get out of business?”
Yes!
Sony, Time-Warner, Vivendi, Disney, and all the rest should be shut down!
Re: Re:
Yup, exactly. All of those businesses lobbied for the DMCA to give them a government enforced safe harbor from copyright infringement lawsuits. If it weren’t for the DMCA safe harbor, they would be toast in the courts.
Re: Re: Re:
You keep predicting various companies will be dead in the courts courtesy of copyright lawsuits yet they seem quite alive by all intents and purposes.
One day you’re gonna get this right, bob, today just isn’t that day.
I’ve never seen the RIAA, or legacy industry types ever try to argue that they have a valid business model.
Their motives seem to be cradled on the belief that art would somehow stop if they didn’t provide their vital cultural services and is thus worth protecting at all costs.
Making the legacy players understand it’s not a moral issue seems as likely as them explaining to us that it is a moral issue.
So, where can this conversation possibly move in a productive rational manner?
I am Botaday
And I approve of this business model.
I post an image (Not exactly a webcomic, I prefer Art Humor Blog) a day – for free – and offer prints for sale.
I love the future.
But if the government doesn’t give me $700 billion dollars in bailout money then I’ll take the entire economy down with me!
Re: Re:
You’re in banking or setting credit ratings of countries are you?
oh thats right the Luddites had the same argument
where art thou now Luddite ?
adapt or die
“If the government needs to ‘step in’ to help your business model, maybe you shouldn’t be in business.”
Everyone should be, and is, whether they know it or not, “in business.” I would rephrase this as:
“If the government needs to ‘step in’ to help your business model, maybe you should be in a different business.”
Also, we need to stop using “business” and “capitalism” as synonyms. There is a lot of business these days that is not capitalism, but if you attack it you get attacked back for attacking capitalism.
Re: Argh
“If the government needs to ‘step in’ to help your business model, maybe you should be in a different business”
Wished I’d made that distinction.
Pure rubbish -- the government protects TechDirt's business model every day!
When riots swept through south central LA in 1992, the government sent in troops to protect everyone from themselves and the stores from looters. Was the government protecting the store’s business model? You bet.
When the government sends police officers into the streets after big ball games to keep the peace, you can bet the government is protecting the business model of the NCAA, the NFL, the NBA and the rest of them.
When the government creates Cybercommand to stop, among other things, DDOS on web sites like this one, you can bet the government is protecting TechDirt’s business model.
As Elizabeth Warren and President Obama said: you didn’t build this web site on your own. Others helped and others continue to help you maintain your business model. (What it is? I can’t be sure, but it seems to be to get Big Search to fund your journalism panels and put ads on your site.)
So quit thinking that your manure doesn’t stink.
Re: Pure rubbish -- the government protects TechDirt's business model every day!
I think we’ve already established that “looting” is not the same as “pirating music.”
Plus, I don’t see piracy endangering lives the same way a riot does, bob.
Is it laziness that keep you from posting these thoughts on your own blog?
Re: Re: Pure rubbish -- the government protects TechDirt's business model every day!
Of course you don’t see piracy, but that’s not the point. Mike was just wielding his precision machete and claiming that any business that needs the help of the government to stay in business is bad. I just pointed out two good examples but there are many. The farmers in the midwest need the government to dredge the Mississippi so their crops can get to market. Manufacturers need trademark enforcement to keep out poorly made frauds.
And who cares if piracy isn’t as bad as a riot. Most things aren’t as dangerous as a riot, but that doesn’t mean we stop enforcing those laws.
Re: Re: Re: Pure rubbish -- the government protects TechDirt's business model every day!
Trademarks were supposed to protect the CONSUMER, not the business model…
Re: Re: Re: Pure rubbish -- the government protects TechDirt's business model every day!
The public needs trademarks for that and that companies get to enjoy it is a corollary.
Re: Re: Re: Pure rubbish -- the government protects TechDirt's business model every day!
“I just pointed out two good examples…”
No you didn’t.
Re: Re: Pure rubbish -- the government protects TechDirt's business model every day!
Give it up, Bob has been talking about looting and robing banks being the same as making copies for 8 years. He will never get it, because he doesn’t want to.
Re: Pure rubbish -- the government protects TechDirt's business model every day!
I just farted and it made more sense than this post.
Re: Re: Pure rubbish -- the government protects TechDirt's business model every day!
Did you record it? I have a feeling if we play it backwards, we could accurately predict what comments bob will leave next.
Re: Re: Re: Pure rubbish -- the government protects TechDirt's business model every day!
I did not, it sort of just crept up on me 🙂
Re: Re: Re: Pure rubbish -- the government protects TechDirt's business model every day!
Then we need to put a patent on it so bob can’t post his crap anymore. Hey, sounds like a plan!
Re: Pure rubbish -- the government protects TechDirt's business model every day!
I’m sorry I have trouble understanding what you say when you start confounding EVERY meaning of every word with every other word.
That is, to say that general peacekeeping and public safety =/= specialized, industry-specific protection. Upholding the law =/= stretching the law beyond all reason to support self-interested, protectionist interpretation of a specific industry.
You no make-a no sense. But I do agree with Pres. Obama. Al Gore DID invent the intertubes.
Re: Re: Pure rubbish -- the government protects TechDirt's business model every day!
Mario? Is that you?
Did you ever find out what castle the princess is in?
Re: Pure rubbish -- the government protects TechDirt's business model every day!
when the government send in forces to quell violence, that is not protecting a business model. it’s protecting human rights.
Re: Re: Pure rubbish -- the government protects TechDirt's business model every day!
Oh sure, but when those troops camp out in front of stores– as they did — they’re protect the store’s business model. They were both protecting the public order AND protecting the business model.
But I guess Mike thinks there’s something wrong here and we should just let looters run wild.
Re: Re: Re: Pure rubbish -- the government protects TechDirt's business model every day!
This claptrap is all coming from someone who has a deep hatred for libraries – which, by the way, are government-protected. You want to complain about that too, you “independent producer” and supporter of John Steele?
Re: Re: Re: Pure rubbish -- the government protects TechDirt's business model every day!
“Oh sure, but when those troops camp out in front of stores– as they did — they’re protect the store’s business model.”
My God, how do you even tie your own laces?!
They were protecting physical property from damage, which has nothing at all to do with how a shop chooses to do business.
Re: Re: Re:2 Pure rubbish -- the government protects TechDirt's business model every day!
Doesn’t matter what you just posted, next week he’ll be back saying EXACTLY the same thing.
Re: Re: Re:2 Pure rubbish -- the government protects TechDirt's business model every day!
I believe a proper example would be the US Govt bailing banks and automakers a few years back. If bob had mentioned this as an example he would have made more sense. But he’d still be wrong because if those companies had to be saved then they were doing it wrong.
Re: Pure rubbish -- the government protects TechDirt's business model every day!
I voted ‘insightful’. Why? Because, for one fleeting fraction of a second, I tried to make some sense of what you typed. I failed but, not entirely unlike string theory, I could not prove that there was or was not some tiny semblance of insight therein.
That and I figure that after all your hard work and effort you should get at least one vote of confidence. A bit like C- I guess, deliver a deserved blow but do not crush.
Terror, destruction and mayhem. Seems legit.
The irony of Robert plant signing this letter is priceless considering how often he copied other musicians work.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=JyvLsutfI5M
Re: Re:
Copying isn’t theft if *I* do it, only you filty commeners can be thieves.
I'm from the government and I'm here to help you
One industry that has suffered from the government “stepping in” is the grocery business. Back in the 50’s and 60’s more and more grocery stores began to consolidate and streamline. This made it so that a number of mom and pop shops could not compete. They complained to the government about how unfair this is (a moral issue to be sure), and the government stepped in and made laws about how much a grocery store chain could make in profit. Today grocers still are operating under these arcane laws where it is illegal for them to make more than a 3% profit margin. Most of these laws have been abolished or reformed but some still remain. The question is: Did the government “stepping in” benefit the public and the “free market”? I think you know the answer.
Re: I'm from the government and I'm here to help you
“Today grocers still are operating under these arcane laws where it is illegal for them to make more than a 3% profit margin.”
Is this a federal, state, or local law?
Could you direct me to a site where it is posted, please?
Re: Re: I'm from the government and I'm here to help you
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robinson%E2%80%93Patman_Act
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/384/270/case.html
Trickle down logic
I’m confused again. I’m supposed to believe in trickle down economics, basically that if the government lowers taxes on corporations, then those corporations will in turn invest money saved by hiring more employees; thus creating jobs and stimulating the economy.
So money saved is reinvested.
But but but.. When consumers save money, it seems to disappear completely from the economy, not spent anywhere else. It doesn’t seem to make its way into grocery stores or utility companies or mortgage banks or insurance companies or any other necessity.
I guess there is no such thing as trickle up economics
Re: Trickle down logic
Trickle down economics is a myth.
Re: Re: Trickle down logic
Less of a myth and more of a conscious, outright scam.
Of course the government should step in because, obviously, “You didn’t build that.”
It’s not an old business model, it’s a current business model.
Anyone who puts a song up for sale is putting forth an old business model?
But if they sell a T-shirt that’s a hip happening groundbreaking new model?
What if your “business model” is dependent upon the government stepping in to change laws, sign soi-disant “free trade” treaties, etc., to allow you to move factories to the Third World?
What if your “business model” is dependent upon the government refusing to enforce the immigration laws already on the books?
I never understood what was “conservative” about allowing Wall Street’s bandit chieftains and cannibal kings to impose destructive and radical social, demographic, and economic changes upon the other 99.9% of the country in the name of a quick buck.