3 ms·

Such an esteemed organization should refrain from using false statements to support its stance: Movie makers receive most of their revenues from motion-picture

Such an esteemed organization should refrain from using false statements to support its stance: Movie makers receive most of their revenues from motion-picture theatres, not DVD sales. is contradicted by: http://www.allbusiness.com/north-america/united-states-california-metro-areas/525001-1.html http://www.allbusiness.com/north-america/united-states-calif... titled: Digital Verite: studios see more money in DVDs than theaters. And then the article says: Spend a few dollars, get a dozen good songs in your possession, or Spend the next four hours on the Web trying to find those songs performed by some obscure local artists. The answer is obvious. The answer isn't so obvious. First, you don't get 12 good songs, you get one good song and 11 lousy ones. And yes, most would rather go home and type in the lyrics they heard to figure out what the song and artist is, or simply do without than pay $20 to get one good track. This is also not exactly correct: For-profit entrepreneurs are able to take a piece of shareware, add useful features, and sell copies with tech support. And again, a hopeful naivety: Even though you would have the right to call your product Cheerios, grocery stores may refuse to carry your product. Does Mises really think stores care about the consumer? They care about selling stuff. If consumers buy it because it says Cherrios on it, then they'll sell it. Why do grocery stores make their generic brands look so much like the name brands? Because when it has the same color logos and the pills are the same colors and the words look the same, the store makes more profit selling the generics. Overall, poor showing by Mises on this one. This article makes sense only if you side with the consumer. In any society, one must ask, who do we want more of? What do we want more of? Personally, I want more content to consume and I want higher quality content at that. So, to get more of that, we have to reward the producers of content. If we reward the consumers of content, we'll get more consumers. Do we want more consumers? More consumers has led to a consumer society in which we are consuming more than we are producing. The American culture is in decline, because we aren't producing anything the world wants. We need to reward producers more and punish consumers so that Americans will produce more and consume less and rebuild our nation to its previous glory. And this goes for everyone. We have to reward those who produce OSS and proprietary/commercial software. We need to reward the producers of movies and music -- not just the distributors -- the bands. The artists. The actors. The designers. Not just the big studios. We need to reward the writers. The programmers, the creators. Not just the factories. And we definitely don't need to be enabling the consumer to consume even more and destroy the planet even more.

kiba 16y ago
It's created by a Mises.org user on a wiki. Of course, somebody who have an account there should fix the claim and the weak arguments.
kiba 16y ago
More consumers has led to a consumer society in which we are consuming more than we are producing. The American culture is in decline, because we aren't producing anything the world wants. We need to reward producers more and punish consumers so that Americans will produce more and consume less and rebuild our nation to its previous glory. And this goes for everyone. We have to reward those who produce OSS and proprietary/commercial software. We need to reward the producers of movies and music -- not just the distributors -- the bands. The artists. The actors. The designers. Not just the big studios. We need to reward the writers. The programmers, the creators. Not just the factories. And we definitely don't need to be enabling the consumer to consume even more and destroy the planet even more. 3 million MP3s to sniff through is more than enough for my lifetime. If programming services are needed, they will be paid for. On the other hand, I think the article is trying to show people that it's possible for people to make a living without intellectual property, abiet with poor arguments.
- jacksoncarter 16y ago
  The question is, who makes the living and how? Do you want programmers with brains capable of creating software worth buying to be doing tech support? It's a waste of time for programmers like that to be doing tech support -- they should be programming! The truth is that creators in our society do not make money. They sometimes make salaries. Sales people make money. Distributors make money. But the creators very often make almost no money. We need to reward creativity in our nation. We need to reward the people who are clever enough to think of solutions to problems. The consumers are creating problems. We need fewer of those -- both consumers and problems. So I'm not so sure really if it is possible for creators to make money without intellectual property and I definitely do know that without intellectual property it's easy for consumers to get content without paying anything.
  - 16y ago

kiba 16y ago

It's created by a Mises.org user on a wiki. Of course, somebody who have an account there should fix the claim and the weak arguments.

kiba 16y ago

More consumers has led to a consumer society in which we are consuming more than we are producing. The American culture is in decline, because we aren't producing anything the world wants. We need to reward producers more and punish consumers so that Americans will produce more and consume less and rebuild our nation to its previous glory. And this goes for everyone. We have to reward those who produce OSS and proprietary/commercial software. We need to reward the producers of movies and music -- not just the distributors -- the bands. The artists. The actors. The designers. Not just the big studios. We need to reward the writers. The programmers, the creators. Not just the factories. And we definitely don't need to be enabling the consumer to consume even more and destroy the planet even more. 3 million MP3s to sniff through is more than enough for my lifetime. If programming services are needed, they will be paid for. On the other hand, I think the article is trying to show people that it's possible for people to make a living without intellectual property, abiet with poor arguments.

jacksoncarter 16y ago
The question is, who makes the living and how? Do you want programmers with brains capable of creating software worth buying to be doing tech support? It's a waste of time for programmers like that to be doing tech support -- they should be programming! The truth is that creators in our society do not make money. They sometimes make salaries. Sales people make money. Distributors make money. But the creators very often make almost no money. We need to reward creativity in our nation. We need to reward the people who are clever enough to think of solutions to problems. The consumers are creating problems. We need fewer of those -- both consumers and problems. So I'm not so sure really if it is possible for creators to make money without intellectual property and I definitely do know that without intellectual property it's easy for consumers to get content without paying anything.
- 16y ago