3 ms·

I think the copyright lobby is too strong, but it would be a very positive move to change tv/film licensing to mirror radio's royalty model. Let the best servic

I think the copyright lobby is too strong, but it would be a very positive move to change tv/film licensing to mirror radio's royalty model. Let the best service provider win, with a (more or less) complete catalog.

scarface74 7y ago
The “radio royalty model” doesn’t pay singers but does pay writers. Also, it’s only for non on demand music. There is a similar model for programmatic internet streaming like Pandora that doesn’t apply where you get to choose your music like Spotify. Even with that model, the government decides how much is paid and every song costs the same amount. Should studios be forced to license a movie that cost $120 million as one that costs $3 million. Also, in that case should software developers be forced to sell their software at one government regulated price? Why stop there? Why shouldn’t we just let the government set all prices?
- MAGZine 7y ago
  that's a slippery slope fallacy but movies are generally all priced the same and make up the difference in volume. Nobody pays different ticket prices at the box office for blockbusters.
  - scarface74 7y ago
    They charge the distributors more at both the theaters and for streaming. Also, you didn’t answer the question. Are you okay with the government mandating how other products are distributed?
    - MAGZine 7y ago
      like alcohol, pharmaceuticals, weapons, etc? or like copyrighted works, perhaps? Generally I support a free market approach except for where it's been proven that a free market approach alone won't suffice.
      - scarface74 7y ago
        So who gets decide whether the free market works? If you’re okay with Disney not being allowed to sale their own content on their own website, how is that different from a band, author, or software developer selling their own content. Between alcohol, pharmaceuticals, weapons, and copyright, one of those four categories is not like the other. Three of those can actively harm people. If you can’t see the latest Disney movie how you want it won’t do too much lasting harm. Would you also be okay if the government mandated that open source software authors must allow their software on iOS even though some people claim that iOS distribution violates the GPL?
        MAGZine 7y ago
        If you're going to tell me that the matter of intellectual property laws have never hurt or hindered anyone on any matter, I'm going to have to categorically disagree with you.
        scarface74 7y ago
        So not being able to watch TV the way that you want is akin to the damage that guns, drugs, and alcohol can do? You want the government to step in because you can’t watch everything you want on Netflix?

scarface74 7y ago

The “radio royalty model” doesn’t pay singers but does pay writers. Also, it’s only for non on demand music. There is a similar model for programmatic internet streaming like Pandora that doesn’t apply where you get to choose your music like Spotify. Even with that model, the government decides how much is paid and every song costs the same amount. Should studios be forced to license a movie that cost $120 million as one that costs $3 million. Also, in that case should software developers be forced to sell their software at one government regulated price? Why stop there? Why shouldn’t we just let the government set all prices?

MAGZine 7y ago
that's a slippery slope fallacy but movies are generally all priced the same and make up the difference in volume. Nobody pays different ticket prices at the box office for blockbusters.
- scarface74 7y ago
  They charge the distributors more at both the theaters and for streaming. Also, you didn’t answer the question. Are you okay with the government mandating how other products are distributed?
  - MAGZine 7y ago
    like alcohol, pharmaceuticals, weapons, etc? or like copyrighted works, perhaps? Generally I support a free market approach except for where it's been proven that a free market approach alone won't suffice.
    - scarface74 7y ago
      So who gets decide whether the free market works? If you’re okay with Disney not being allowed to sale their own content on their own website, how is that different from a band, author, or software developer selling their own content. Between alcohol, pharmaceuticals, weapons, and copyright, one of those four categories is not like the other. Three of those can actively harm people. If you can’t see the latest Disney movie how you want it won’t do too much lasting harm. Would you also be okay if the government mandated that open source software authors must allow their software on iOS even though some people claim that iOS distribution violates the GPL?
      - MAGZine 7y ago
        If you're going to tell me that the matter of intellectual property laws have never hurt or hindered anyone on any matter, I'm going to have to categorically disagree with you.
        scarface74 7y ago
        So not being able to watch TV the way that you want is akin to the damage that guns, drugs, and alcohol can do? You want the government to step in because you can’t watch everything you want on Netflix?