4 ms·

>> an extra tax on storage Who cares about due process and the market, just presume everybody is liable and tax them to guarantee profit to an industry? What a

• lightbyte 10y ago
  >a complete perversion of basic capitalism I'm pretty sure that was the whole point. Capitalism is not a magical faery solution to everything, it obviously was not working in this industry so they are trying someone new.
  • pdkl95 10y ago
    > Capitalism is not a magical faery solution to everything, I completely agree, but the solution to that is not granting guaranteed profits to an industry. They are already granted a monopoly market with copyright. Why should they also get to skip the entire legal system and having to actually produce a product people want and jump straight to profits? We're talking about luxury goods, not healthcare.
    • SomeStupidPoint 10y ago
      If the fund is distributed according to sales, how does any of that apply? They still have to compete for profits to get a share, their sales are just worth a little bit extra to offset the cultural benefit of more freely available music. (Eg, for each dollar they take in, they actually get $1.01.) In the sense you're using "luxury goods", they're still essential to human cultural and psychological well-being, even if not base survival.
      • pedrocr 10y ago
        So why don't they just raise their prices to 1.01 and not take money from people who have no interest in their content?
        • SomeStupidPoint 10y ago
          Because it's a societal level adjustment to an existing market distortion -- ie, adjusting the market incentives to work better with existing laws and regulations. Society's interest in the market for arts isn't to just make money, and adjusting the pay structure as part of balancing competing interests (in this case, mandatory free use) is reasonable. Even people who aren't directly interested in a particular work have an interest in the overarching production of arts.
        • TheSpiceIsLife 10y ago
          It baffles me there is anyone who would argue against this position.
• realusername 10y ago
  Like DRM is not a perversion of basic free market anyway... (and you are mixing capitalism and free market which are not synonyms).
  • dnautics 10y ago
    Assuming circumvention methods aren't prohibited by law, How is DRM a perversion of the free market?
    • fao_ 10y ago
      Under the DCMA copyright act, they are prohibited. What you're saying here is "If the situation were different, how would your argument work".
      • icebraining 10y ago
        DRM exists outside of the US, you know.
• barrkel 10y ago
  You'd have to supplement it with a survey, to find out what how much of what should go where. I think it's a valid alternative model that accommodates a lower transaction cost and higher overall welfare - more people can benefit from consuming art - provided that the income is sufficient to motivate its production. It's certainly not an open and closed case of anarchy; that's just as ridiculous to claim. The Eurail / Interrail multi-day all-Europe train tickets have a similar mechanism. The basic requirement for travel is that you write your journey into the ticket's itinerary list (a multi-page lined space that you fill in manually); at the end, at your option, you send off the ticket to receive some kind of souvenir. Functionally this acts as a survey of which train trips were taken, so that the money from sales of the tickets can be distributed.
• deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]