The amount streaming services pay is well documented as unsustainable....
I keep seeing this phrase tossed about and I would really like to know you mean by it. Unsustainable for what? Unsustainable to retire upon? Unsustainable to live until a new song is written? Unsustainable for your grandchildren to live on?
By your metrics a CD sale is also "unstaianable" too. Quick back-of-the-napkin math says this:
Price of CD = $15.00 Price per song = $1.25 Lifespan of CD = 10 years Estimated plays a year = 25
$1.25 divided by 250 = 0.005 per play
Then consider that a CD is a one time purchase for most. Streaming is now until forever. Then toss in the fact that a purchase from I-Tunes is also an one time purchase for a file that will never degrade like a CD.
Ugh! So much wrong with these statements. I used to work for an insurance company and believe me, the things I saw!
Ahh, that puts your comments into context.
Suffice it to say that no one has an automatic natural right to possess and operate anything that presents a clear and present danger to the public unless it is used properly and safely.
You don't really understand the term "natural rights", do you?
You forget that compulsory insurance laws came about because of the number of vehicle collisions in which vehicles were damaged beyond repair and people were killed.
Not sure about anywhere else, but compulsory insurance laws came about in my state due to heavy lobbying from insurance companies.
It is irresponsible to refuse to purchase insurance for anything that the rest of us end up being liable for by default.
It's not irresponsible, if I have the funds to cover any liability that occurs. Why was this law changed in my state? Because insurance companies didn't get their cut that way.
And as an aside, since you worked in the insurance company, can you explain why my premium increases if a make a claim? Isn't that what I paid for all these years? Why am I charged more if I actually USE the insurance I pay for?
I think our actual disconnect is more in terms of what we consider to be "government" for this discussion. Criminal enterprises are a form of government.
Perhaps criminal enterprise are a form of government in some senses, but I disagree that they would be considered as such when talking about market systems. Unless they are enforcing regulations for the entire market, they are just a player within the market, looking out only for their own interests and not really caring about the health of the market as a whole.
At any rate, I've spent way too much time trying to decipher economics-speak (and close to giving myself a headache over it to boot). I'll just agree to disagree and leave it at that. Thanks for the thread - I'm always happy when a discussion motivates me into studying things outside my comfort zone.
I define a "free market" as one in which people can exchange goods and services without coercion. Whether that coercion comes from an official government agency or not is irrelevant.
Your definition isn't what economists use, so that's where our communication failure lies. Economist use "government or state intervention" in terms of regulations, economic policies, subsidies and things like that which effect the market as a whole. Criminal enterprises in black markets are not interested in such things. Their use of violence in black markets is to enforce their property rights (or to remove your property rights), since what they are doing is illegal and not under the protection of property rights enforced by a government.
My original comment to Violynne still stands. Free market capitalism is the default when governments fall. When the Roman Empire fell, people didn't just sit down in the dirt and die or band together to form a commune. They continued to trade their goods and services like always. The blacksmith still traded his wares for food, raw materials and physical protection.
Yes, exactly. Black markets are not a free markets at all. Demonstrating this is easy: just try posing a competitive threat in someone else's territory.
You are using "free" in different terms then economist do. "Free" in "free market" simply means free from government regulation and/or intervention. I'm not really sure how you are defining "free".
Actually, your demonstration really proves my point. The danger of bodily harm (or worse) in black markets proves that government intervention and property rights (ie: laws) do not exist there. It's a classic free market system and will always exist with or without governments.
Yes, true enough. But that means that the "free market" is like a unicorn: it's entirely mythical.
No, it's not mythical and it does exist, even today. Just look to any black market that's out there. The markets for drugs, weapons, human trafficking, etc. are all examples of free market economies. They exist outside of regulations and without property rights.
It seems to me that the default market in the absence of government would be monopoly or oligopoly.
I'm not really a student of economics, so I could be completely wrong here, but I think the words "monopoly" and "oligopoly" are terms that describe the state of a particular market at a given time and are not really definitions of what kind of market it actually is.
Monopolies can exist in a free market economy, but it's still a free market economy as long as there is no intervention from government. Where it gets a little fuzzy in my mind is when the monopoly is, or becomes the government.
And yes, the biggest problem with a free market economy is that it does promote monopolies and distribute most of the wealth to a few. We operate under a hybrid capitalistic economy that incorporates a few different flavors of capitalism and we still have those same problems.
I still see capitalism as the best choice, regardless. Obviously, feudalism isn't desired and large scale socialism experiments have not proven to be sustainable due to human nature.
Anyways, my main point was that the free market economy is the default without a government. People trade goods with each other at prices that both find to be fair and have done so throughout history.
By its very design, it's a system of class and wealth, and so far, history proves this system never works long term. Ever.
Not really sure what you mean by that statement. Free market capitalism has been around for as long as humans have traded goods and services. Free market capitalism is the default in the absence of a government. Governments fall, but supply and demand remains. The trading of goods and services continues unabated.
You missed my point. In Mike's utopian world, where content is unprotected, many copies would be on YouTube.
As soon as the movie showed up on YouTube it was "unprotected". Where do you think the torrents came from?
And I'm guessing that the 2.5 million YouTube number would be much higher if it wasn't limited to the US. You can basically disregard any piracy numbers from outside the US in this comparison since that's the only choice that was available to them.
I'm one of those who went the "legitimate route." So what? Not everyone is a selfish pirate. We know that. What does that have to do with protecting content?
This is where our philosophies disagree. You seem to think that the public needs to be forced into paying like children or else zero money will be made. I happen to think that's a bunch of hogwash. Most everybody will gladly pay a price they think is fair for a movie as long as it's convenient and available when it's desired. That's a pretty much a proven fact when you consider that Hollywood's bottom lines continue grow despite piracy. I believe that protecting the content actually hinders their sales. One number I would really like to see instead of "sales lost to piracy" is "sales lost to DRM, release windows & unavailability".
How many would rent it for $6 from YouTube when there's tons of free copies available on the same platform?
Show me these free copies on YouTube. I couldn't find any at all. Your question is flawed from the get go.
And like RadioactiveSmurf indicated - at least 2.5 million people choose to go the legitimate route online, even though free versions were available to them. So my answer to your question is "quite a few of them".
I just had a better idea. Instead of a license plate flipping device.
This guy invented a license plate holder that detects a red light camera flash and floods the license plate with light to overexpose the picture. Probably wouldn't work for plate readers since I don't think they need a flash.
You didn't think there was any way to distinguish Aereo from other cloud services
In my opinion, this court attempted to distinguish Dish's service from Aereo, but it didn't really accomplish that.
First, it claims that there's a difference because Dish has a license. I've argued that Aereo's customers also have implied license to over-the-air broadcasts and Aereo was simply assisting them in receiving them. So no go there in my opinion.
Second, it claims that there is a difference because of where the hard drive resides. So we are basically back to the length of the cord argument, which is just plain silly to me.
Third, it claims that because the transmission goes to the customer's home and from there to internet devices it's not a public performance. Aereo's system did the exact same thing only it used OTA broadcast signals which reached the user's home and Aereo's facilities simultaneously.
A few years ago I was a satellite TV installer and worked all over SE Michigan. I've traveled pretty much all of lower Michigan and most of the UP throughout my life.
Sure, there are areas where crime is more prevalent and you need to be a bit more alert, but I wouldn't call them "no go areas" and I've never seen *anywhere* in Michigan that the police are afraid to patrol.
in Michigan a homeless person can live in your house and you can't kick them out. you cant deny them access to the home once they have their belongings there either. you cant stop them from eating your food and you cant stop them from using utilities. if you decide to move into an apartment bc you don't feel safe you must continue paying for utilities or you get charged with who knows what crimes.
Some of that has never been true. Trespassing, home invasion and breaking and entering have been and still are against the law in Michigan. Complete strangers have never been able to enter your occupied property and take it over.
Last year some new laws concerning squatters rights went on the books and now it's much easier to have squatters removed since it made squatting a crime.
You won't understand unless you have kids of your own.
I have kids & grandchildren and I still don't understand the problem. It's not like you can ever shield your kids from swear words in this world. Much better to teach them why such words are inappropriate and shouldn't be used. They're going to hear them all from their classmates anyways.
As a private business, the restaurant should have ejected the trash on their own. That's completely within their rights as a private business.
It's also completely within their rights NOT to do anything about it too.