The Walking Dead isn't available overseas and for some people, it's far more convenient to download the episode to talk about it when it comes out.
Compare this to Dr Who where they decide to wait two weeks for the American episode over the British one?
Guess which group pirates more?
The thing about globalization is that the street moves both ways. Someone in Norway who can't access the show but wants to talk about it has more incentives to download to enjoy and partake in the conversations than giving him $5 access to Netflix, cheaper broadband, and ensuring that ads go to you along with legal services for them.
Piracy has never been a moral issue. It's always been a service issue.
What there is, however, is a "publish or perish" mentality in academia. The idea is that if you don't have a significant body of works published in respected academic journals, it is nigh-impossible to get a tenured position.
There's a severe irony in doing this... The number of tenured positions has dropped immensely while the number of adjuncts has increased in academia. You can be a grad student for quite some time, saddled with debt and still barely make enough to pay your bills.
It's like people are running around in a rat race and don't know how to get out of the maze.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Response to: The Real Michael on Dec 29th, 2013 @ 5:32am
" You can thank the government, Wall Street, tax loopholes, deregulation, et al. for this, as well as shady backroom deals such as TPP which essentially institute fascism."
Ok, but who is financing their fascism?
" On the other hand, socialism is dependent upon social ownership and distribution, as grounded in a philosophical view which in practice never works."
... What? Giving workers their rights would never work?
Have you ever run a business before?
" America is a Constitutional republic, built on capitalism (not to be confused with the crony capitalism being engaged in)."
Actually, Madison wanted a democratic republic and he advocated for it along with Thomas Jefferson. It was supposed to change every 20 years and it works as an experiment.
That said, it needs some serious democratic valves to alleviate the plutocracy that has been instilled for a number of reasons. Or else it leads to the crony capitalism we see (Hint: blaming the government for everything really misses the bigger picture)
The socialist model being presented here is ridiculous on its face.
You still don't know what that word is...
What do you think, money grows on trees?
No, it's not being taxed fairly between the rich and the poor.
If government was working the way it's supposed to, the top 1% would be taxed at least 70%, they'd clamp down on outsourcing, bringing jobs back to our shores where they belong, and corporations wouldn't receive huge tax breaks (e.g. GM) and write-offs (e.g. major record labels).
... Who do you think controls the politics to make more money?
Not only is it confirmation bias, but it just seems like a creationist method of evidence gathering where you find the evidence necessary to confirm your convictions.
For a judge to make such a ruling, particularly in New York, it may be relevant to look at his past to see how he comes to his conclusions.
I know that the NSA is collecting information and maybe this judge has some dirt. But to look at this case and try to point out that it may possibly be legal from just one view of the government is an immense foley and downright scary.
It doesn't ring to a person that is able to understand the separation of church and state. His belief is that the government can do no wrong when it comes to its interactions with the public.
So let's just review copyright as it turns out today:
1) Artists aren't paid based on their work or efforts, but labels are entitled to the money
2) Every collection agency works to say that copyright can pay them, but the screw over the artists.
3) The creativity in copyright comes in the licensing portion where the artist lose more money which the copyright holder gains.
4) This is supposedly a better system over the last 40 years than reducing copyright terms to 0 minutes and having artists decide how to promote themselves based on new avenues of revenue and diverse platforms to express themselves.
The only real theft going on is that of the copyright holder in exploiting the artist and stealing their innovative works.
Wouldn't that mean that people would stop making over $250,000?
Yes, that means a maximum income of $250,000. It would help alleviate some of the income inequality if the rich didn't get disparately richer.
Or they find another way to get extra money without being taxed.
Borrow the money from the rich? That screws you over twice. Investors already have a lot of perks. Now you want them to have more money from the government? The banks already have a lot of that going on. That doesn't make sense.
The US also experimented with it, and saw a dramatic (10-15%) reduction in the workforce. This reduction was primarily in housewives and high-school aged children, however, so it's arguable whether or not it was a bad thing.
Manitoba had the exact same thing occur so they went out of the workforce to raise children. That freed up jobs for teenagers and others. How is having everyone working a good thing when you have no time for family?
It's a seductive solution to a complicated problem.
Seems eerily like people are making the problem more complicated than it has to be. Precedents set seem to be to raise taxes instead of borrowing the money and get the money to help out the poorest and richest with a new way to structure society.
I really don't think we can just wave a magic wand and say "Everyone gets money!" and expect it to just work out, though.
Good thing no one's saying that. And we have history that shows the results.
And it's a non-starter when you start advocating a "modest proposal" like seizing all income over $250k or fixing prices.
Right... Because taxing stocks and bonds, anything over $250,000 so that there's a maximum income, and helping people to find jobs and money to alleviate poverty is a bad idea...
It's not like mincome projects are anything new. Canada had a mincome project in the late 70s which has gotten more popular recently. Manitoba did this and was successful.
Paying for this isn't hard either. You just have to tax income and ensure a maximum income of over $250,000 is taxed at 100%. That means any amount over that is given to the government to redistribute for social services. I doubt highly that people would actually be against such a system so long as it helped everyone.