3 ms·

>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 wa

>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 9y 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 9y 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 9y 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 9y 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 9y ago
      It baffles me there is anyone who would argue against this position.

pdkl95 9y 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 9y 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 9y 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 9y 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 9y ago
    It baffles me there is anyone who would argue against this position.