They want it now, they want it all, they want it cheap, they want it delivered in a million different formats, and they want it whenever and wherever without restriction. ... and they want it so cheap that it's impossible to provide.
Impossible? How does the Pirate Bay manage to do it then?
I guess you missed the fact that I was replying not to the OP (who you're quoting) but to the AC who suggests that the Techdirt community isn't sympathetic to the OP because we don't support SOPA et al.
You're right, though: I should have made it more clear that I wasn't attacking the OP's comments, which I think are reasonable and fair. I just thought it worthwhile to point out to those who think we need SOPA what a miniscule percentage of the population they're pretending to protect (anyone with any reason knows that these types of laws are really just intended to keep the fat cats fat).
"...you are looking in the wrong direction here on this blog for the support you most definitely need and deserve."
And that support would be ... what? Creating even more absurd and draconian IP laws with something like SOPA? Let's use the OPs original figures to look at this, and be generous by using the higher "400 thousand of us who do this for a living" figure.
That equates to 0.013% of the US population.
You want to set up a system that "helps" and "protects" less than 1 in 10,000 people, while screwing over everyone else ... oh, and stifling free speech and breaking the internet while you're at it? Really?
I think you're right that we don't have a truly free market, that we haven't had one in a while, and that what we have now is corporatism.
Where I think we may differ, however, is how we got here. You say that it's been decades or more since we had a free market, so the implied assertion is that we did at one time. So, how did we get from there to here? My opinion is that a free market will cause what we're seeing today. I think monopolies were being created and that people realized what a Bad Thing this would be so they tried to regulate to prevent it. However, the corporations were able to infiltrate and corrupt the regulation process.
I just don't think there's any way to avoid this happening if you allow a free market to run loose. They are always going to head toward monopolies and will always gain the power/influence to subvert the system.
In the end, I think we really DO know what a free market will do.
The "regulation method" is ineffective, discourages growth...
You say this as if it's a bad thing, but the fact of the matter is that discouraging growth should be exactly what regulation does. It's not, it wasn't designed to, but it should.
Our economy depends on growth, and the myth that growth is infinite. The fact, however, is that it's not. It can not be. There is no such thing as an infinite resource, and an economy is just an abstract representation of resources. Oil (which has in effect taken the place of gold as the backbone of the economy) is definitely not infinite. Not land. Not water. NOTHING.
Sure, there are resources that are sustainable. Land for farming is an example. Compost, rotate, etc and you can keep using that land forever. The problem is that as growth continues the land has be used harder (less time to restore the nutrients) and can no longer be sustained. You can open up more land to farm, but at some point you ARE going to run out.
Air (and to extent water) seem to be infinite, but in reality are not. The industry growth that you're so fond of can, will, and is poisoning them both and making them unusable.
Yes, by all means. Let's continuing growing so that we can keep and expand our luxurious lifestyles. Let's just keep pushing it, keep selling the idea of growth and that everyone can be rich if they just try hard enough, until everything is used up and there's NOTHING left.
Who's in favor of monopolies? Certainly not me. It's strange that you're twisting what I'm saying into that. Or maybe it's just easier to prop up strawman.
What I am saying is that our "free markets" lead to monopolies and that we must regulate them in order to prevent this. We don't regulate them enough and look what they're doing. And somehow the answer is to stop regulating them?!? Really?
Yea. Sure thing. They're already doing lots of bad stuff. Let's just remove all restrictions - I'm sure they'll behave.
So I'm to take it that the very valid concerns of corruption, which the GAO has already pointed out on numerous occasions or that we've seen in the revolving door policies that have been used to curry favor, are to be ignored?
Not at all. I don't even know how you could infer that from what I said.
Yes the corruption needs to be addressed. But we need to focus on those who are causing the corruption. Those who are corrupted are also complicit, but if we just remove any kind of restrictions we're only rewarding and encouraging those who are the cause of the problem.
Let me point out how this is wrong, and you're just talking in circles by way of analogy:
There are a group of gangs in your neighborhood that are running wild, causing mayhem and extorting money from the community. The gangs are the big Telco's in this example.
These gangs have infiltrated the local cops and by way of bribe and/or coercion have persuaded the cops to leave the gangs alone or only make token arrests with no meaningful punishment. The cops are the CRTC (or FCC in 'Merica).
And your solution is to ... get rid of the cops and/or undo the laws the gangs are violating.
I'm am SO sick of hearing this "free market will sort itself out" argument. The guys who have caused and continue to cause the problems are suddenly just going to start doing the "right thing" if we just let them alone to do what they want? Hardly.
Just because whatever agency has been less than vigilant in reigning in the abuse these giant corps dish out is NO REASON to remove the regulators/regulations. It WILL NOT WORK. They always have acted and always will act solely in their own best interest, public be damned. There's no magical "market force" that will stop them.
Free markets are driven by profit. Profit can be equated to growth. And growth will invariably lead to monopolies.