Re: The problem here is with some people's worls view.
My brother says this ruling is all about more govt. regulation and concentration of power in D,C. He claims that the 332 page regulation won't even be released until after the vote and I did look up that claim from Ajit Pai (http://dailycaller.com/2015/02/06/republican-fcc-commissioner-slams-obamas-332-page-plan-to-regulat e-the-internet/) and the door being opened to tons of new taxes, etc.
2. I agree that the FCC *should* release the rule before the vote, but notice that those calling for it now never did so before, and the FCC has always acted this way. I'd love it if the FCC was more transparent about its rules, but this talking point being raised now is totally disingenuous. Note that Ajit Pai hasn't ever called for this before. And if he's still on the commission when the GOP is in charge, let's see if he still calls for it.
Don't the major labels also partially own Spotify, so payout to the platform also goes to them?
They do, but I don't think it's accurate to claim that the payout to Spotify goes to them. It's very unlikely that Spotify is paying dividends to equity holders at this point. It is certainly possible that, down the line, when Spotify goes public or the labels sell their shares, that they'll get more money -- but selling equity and getting a chunk of the revenue are separate issues.
People often get valuation and revenue mixed up, but they're separate issues.
My observation that seems to irk you is that no one who either writes articles or comments here appears to have any such expertise, and yet despite this manifest lack of expertise many of them, with you in the lead, have not the slightest reluctance to wax poetic on subjects about which you are largely ignorant.
Would you like me to point to the many times when *you* have done that yourself?
Your headline falsely suggested an individual had lied, and yet this falsity seems not to bother you in the least.
What was "false" about it? He said that the lack of availability was "a myth." Yet, it's absolutely true. He lied.
What is it about this site that emboldens people to openly declare they know how best to run the financial end of an industry within which they have zero relevant experience?
Why do you assume zero relevant expertise? That's rather presumptuous of you. Having spent a fair bit of time with some theater owners (mainly independent theater owners, but they face many of the same issues), the concerns and ideas raised in the original comment you replied to are dead on and quite accurate.
It's really something how you almost always insist that only you or your friends possess the relevant knowledge to hold an opinion on anything. It's doubly funny since we've proven you to be flat out wrong nearly every single time.
I sense a pattern: when you feel the need to defend the copyright industries, you simply insist that whoever comments here couldn't possibly understand the complex details and therefore we must be wrong. Yet, you fail to provide any details or data on your own (because, of course, you have none) and so you just insult people.
Here's a thought: perhaps rather than being a pedantic jackass all the time, recognize that, perhaps, there are others in the world who know more than you.
Re: Techdirt continues to be totally ignorant of British government
Mike Masnick, you have no idea about British government, mainly because you have confused the two houses of the British Parliament with the two houses of US government so many times it has become a joke.
I am aware of how the UK government works, thank you.
Now, do you have an actual critique of the facts in the article?
I do not recall reading anything attributed to an official of the MPAA that everything anyone might want is available online, so it is not clear just what you think you are debunking.
It helps to read the article in question where we explain exactly what we're debunking.
My personal experience (US only) is that shortly after theatrical release the vast majority of new films can be found in several well-known and easily accessible locations that do not involve engaging in piracy. Of course there is the downside that one typically has to part with some $$, but those $$ are relatively nominal if you shop with care.
What does that have to do with anything in the post?
I enjoy going to the theater to see a movie- love the big screen and sound.
So no, I have no desire to see theaters go away.
Can you point to where we said theaters were going away? No? If you actually read the story, rather than kneejerking, you'd see that we actually said that there were clear ways that theaters can and should compete successfully.
But, you know, you never actually read what we write. You'll just lie about us. Don't you get tired of it?
If only they could learn to use Google, they could find these things.
Google? You mean the pirate's tool? Can't use that. The MPAA only uses poor, down-trodden key grips who have to log overtime to feed their starving children. They hire them to manually search the internet, as should everyone.
I'll bite. How does pricing restrict supply? To me supply means quantities currently or prospectively available, and that is controlled by a manufacturer.
Two mistakes in your statement here. First, no one said that pricing restricts supply. It's patents that restrict supply.
Second, "supply" and "quantity supplied" are two different things. They are related, but not the same. Quantity supplied is a point on the supply curve. I'm talking about using patents to restrict the supply which artificially inflates the price.
TD does not subscribe to that philosophy, or any philosophy for that matter, or so it appears, that cuts against the grain of what it openly advocates in so many of its stories that it tries to pass off as news versus what they actually comprise, editorial opinion.
From the very beginning we have *always* said that we are an opinion site. That has never changed. Why do you lie?
If you accept this as the reason without question, then you have fallen prey to intellectual laziness.
Of course, what you leave out is that *you* do this same thing all the time on stories about stories that you happen to agree with. You had no problem with DHS seizing websites because they must be infringing. You had no problem with stories about patent trolls because patents are lovely in your demented world. You have no problem with the NSA's lies about surveillance because, surely, they are right.
You are an out and out authoritarian lapdog. Yet you are the one who comes here and pedantically pretends that only you are so wise as to know what's really going on.
And then you want to flat out LIE and pretend we claimed we're not providing an opinion? You're hilarious.
The findings of our model suggest that the increased costs of simeprevir and sofosbuvir are offset by downstream savings from reductions in liver‐related complications and greater numbers of patients achieving SVR.
Economics is not just about the demand side, but the supply side.
The problem with pharma pricing is that it artificially restricts the supply, and then whines when people point that out. Price is driven by supply and demand and when you artificially block supply don't be surprised when people call you out on it.
Let me give you a simple example: were I to cut off all of the oxygen to your lungs, you might be willing to pay me a ridiculous sum of money to let you breathe again. And it would be "worth it" to you given the downstream benefits.
But I think both you and I would agree that's ethically unconscionable. Yet that's exactly what you're supporting here.
I doubt any of the other commenters have studied pharmacoeconomics, because the issue of life-years gained hasn't come up once. Let's put this in context - Gilead's new drug cures Hep C. Cures it. No more wasting away from liver failure (and other related comorbidities) in a hospital, costing taxpayers/private payers hundreds of thousands of dollars over the course of a single patient's illness. As context, in Canada a hospital bed costs $1k a DAY. It's likely higher in the US. So a drug company has come up with a CURE that costs $84k for a full treatment course.
Actually, we discussed this very issue just a few weeks ago. And I still disagree with you. You have your economics wrong.
At the time, Gilead made a massive investment on an unapproved treatment, and they struck oil (so to speak). This product is not a fancy new blender - this will save hundreds of thousands of lives, and in a relative sense will cost the system far less. In my opinion, they deserve the reward for taking on the risk.
"The reward"? A reward maybe, but *not* an excessive reward that will kill others when they could be saved for very little.
Feel free to disagree with me, but if you don't have a basic understanding of how the industry works please read about it first. Things are not always what they seem.
Actually, no. All our works are in the public domain. Lots of sites repost them and can do so perfectly legally. There's no reason to issue takedowns. Why would we waste so much time doing so when we can focus on actually monetizing our work directly?
What is the worry, that someone is going to trick you that they put something into the public domain and then 35 years later terminate the grant and sue you? This is what we're worried about?
I think the much more likely scenario is heirs of the original creator seeking a payday, who don't have the same view on the public domain. Given how many stories we see of greedy heirs, this seems quite likely.