8 ms·

> I don't really understand why anyone who claims to be a proponent of a free market economy has an issue with a private corporation deciding what type of conte

• jack_pp 5y ago
  Why are you against people freely negotiating deals even if those deals result in reducing availability of content? Does the govt really need to be involved in this?
  • account42 5y ago
    The government is the only reason those people can reduce the availability of information - they are already involved.
  • User23 5y ago
    Consenting to an immoral deal doesn’t make it moral. As for whether or not reducing the availability of information is immoral, that obviously depends on what the information in question is. I’m unfamiliar with Joe Rogan’s work so I have no opinion on this particular case. Edit: Based on the replies I wasn’t sufficiently clear. I don’t believe the Rogan deal is immoral because I have no belief about it’s morality or lack thereof at all. If you insist on a moral judgment that I feel ill-informed to make, then I’ll speculate that the deal probably was moral.
    • mmastrac 5y ago
      How is it immoral? He was paid a significant sum for it. IP is all about limiting information in exchange for money (generally). I'm all in favour of reducing copyright power/length, but outside of mandatory licensing there are very few circumstances where locking IP up would be outside the scope.
    • Jotra7 5y ago
    • kelnos 5y ago
      Even if it was an immoral deal (I'm not convinced), we're not talking about someone who was coerced into a deal due to predatory practices or an exploitative power imbalance. Rogan wanted to give control over his catalog in exchange for heaping gobs of money. He didn't have to do this if he didn't want to (he was already independently wealthy), but he did want to, so he did it, and was not harmed in any way.
• aqme28 5y ago
  > I support the free market as a tool when it delivers on the benefits that it can provide... If problems show up I'm happy to have legislation introduced to tackle those Then that's not the "free market" that you support, just "markets."
  • mipsi 5y ago
    I think its common to call markets without legislation "black markets".
    • dahart 5y ago
      Black markets are markets that break existing legislation, not markets that are free from legislation.
      • tremon 5y ago
        Similarly, free markets are markets that have sufficient safeguards to keep the market free, not markets that are free from legislation. From the oracle[0]: In a free market, the laws and forces of supply and demand are free from any intervention by a government or other authority, and from all forms of economic privilege, monopolies and artificial scarcities From this simple snippet, we can conclude three things: - government and other authorities are only limited to not interfere with supply and demand; enforcing product standards does not make a market non-free - good anti-monopoly legislation is an example of the government working towards the free market, not against it - Anything involving copyright and patents is by definition not a free market [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market
        • dahart 5y ago
          I’d agree with all of that, though I’m squeamish on the very last one. I think copyrights are too long and there are pretty big problems in the patent system, but IP protection does have similar benefits to enforcing product standards. Essentially IP protection is encouraging creation and innovation by preventing someone who didn’t do the work from simply stealing it and profiting without paying the creator. This is certainly over-simplified, but one way of viewing IP protections is that it’s trying to balance multiple freedoms, and that a free market with no regulation at all is not actually free for everyone. Having no protections on product standards is a loss of freedom for consumers. Having no protections on intellectual property is a loss of freedom for creators (and, the thinking goes, would be a net drain on the economy). Here are some hastily googled arguments in favor of viewing IP protection as part of a free market: https://www.aei.org/technology-and-innovation/intellectual-property/free-market-perspective-intellectual-property-rights/ https://www.aei.org/technology-and-innovation/intellectual-p... https://cip2.gmu.edu/2013/11/14/copyright-is-still-essential-to-a-free-market-in-creative-works/ https://cip2.gmu.edu/2013/11/14/copyright-is-still-essential...
• daveFNbuck 5y ago
  > Likewise if the free market is used as a way to reduce the availability of content, I can be against that while still supporting it as a guiding concept. Joe Rogan being on Spotify is entirely about limiting the availability of his podcast. They're paying him to not make his episodes available outside of Spotify.
  • mateuszf 5y ago
    It was his choice to sign that deal though.
    • deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    • behnamoh 5y ago
      For all the talk he gives, it was ultimately a matter of money for him. I respect JR for being genuinely curious about vast number of topics and asking right questions, but he of all people should have known that limiting access to his podcasts will hurt his reputation.
      • beaned 5y ago
        That doesn't seem to be nearly what has happened, though.
      • Damogran6 5y ago
        I disagree. Anoyone that say any decision was only about one thing (in this case, money) doesn’t have a very nuanced view of the world. It could be about fear (of being back at a place where he wanted food) It could be about legacy (he wants to give the money to children, family, whatever) It could be about money (I will have felt I’ve made it when I have a Yacht)…but he seems to be a smarter person than that. It could be about not ever having to work doing anything he doesn’t want to ever again. It could be about distributing is thoughts as far and wide as he can. but just saying it was ‘ultimately a matter of money’ is a non-statement.
• elliekelly 5y ago
  > Likewise if the free market is used as a way to reduce the availability of content, I can be against that while still supporting it as a guiding concept. Are you against the concept of intellectual property as a whole?
• jakelazaroff 5y ago
  So are you saying that you’re against exclusive licenses, even in theory? Say Spotify had signed the same deal with Joe Rogan but not removed any episodes from their own service — still bad?
• mastax 5y ago
  How do you feel about that Wu Tang album that sold to Martin Skreli? Should the government have stopped that sale?
  • TrevorAustin 5y ago
    As a legal matter, no, though copyright terms should be shorter. As a civil society matter, I think we should agree that making a secret album so that it ends up in the hands of a hedge fund criminal is uncool. It’s appropriate and even good for us to say that while that’s something allowed by the rules, we accord it no honor. The tech didn’t exist at the time, but honestly wouldn’t it be better for the world if Wu-Tang had issued a single exclusive NFT of the album, and then made the actual music freely available? I mean maybe not, maybe the songs actually suck, but I would certainly like to hear them.
    • uncletaco 5y ago
      1. This sale was made before NFTs existed. 2. They wanted to sell an album like a piece of physical art. It isn't digital content and there's no digital version of it as far as I know.
    • runarberg 5y ago
      Who are we to dictate how artists distribute their art? If an artist wants to make their art limited even though technology exists to easily distribute it, we cannot make the choice for the artist. Often artists like to make a statement with their art, and how an artwork is received is often as much a part of the statement as the artwork it self (think Marcel Duchamp’s Fountain). Wu-Tang Clan wanted to make a statement with their art and they did, quite successfully to be honest.
      • account42 5y ago
        Who are artists to dictate what we do with information that we posess. If someone wants to make additional copies which takes effectively zero effort, the artis cannot make the choice for us. Often people incorporate art into their culture, and what the original artist intended with the artwork is only a small part of what it becomes. Society thrives by sharing art and has done so long before copyright existed, quite successfully to be honest.
• Proven 5y ago
• desio 5y ago
  Tell me, Mr Anderson. What good is a phone call, if you can't talk?
• asabjorn 5y ago
  In this case your argument has great supporting points as this is driven by blackstone&blackrock capital funds using their assets, music and stock, to do culture war to force Spotify to suppress viewpoints these fund managers find inconvenient for their agenda. That’s not free market. https://youtu.be/tLwVvtL4mTI https://youtu.be/tLwVvtL4mTI These funds subscribe to and push a China style system in the USA, as evidenced by their leading role in pushing ESG. There is little good about this abuse of what’s mostly either pension fund money or fed stimulus money. Blackstone through its Hipnosis subsidiary has spend tons of capital to buy up 50% of Neil Young and much of other music, books and audio book rights https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/cathyolson/2021/10/12/blackstone-invests-1-billion-in-music-copyrights-via-hipgnosis-partnership/amp/ https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/cathyolson... Blackrock, that also destroy single family ownership by buying up homes and is run by the same people, also hold a lot of Spotify stock.
  • edgyquant 5y ago
    You don’t seem to understand what a free market is. It isn’t without rules it just means the barrier to entry is even for all.
    • asabjorn 5y ago
      Blackrock&blackstone are using pension and federal stimulus money to push censorship of people opposing their agenda. Not their own money. They are also pushing a new non-free-market system change, ESG, using other peoples or fed money. Both the way they get they money they bully with and what they push is therefore anti free market.
      • alophawen 5y ago
        Suck it, Notch
    • Znayder 5y ago
      Do you? A 'free market' where governments can and do supply unlimited amounts interest-free money to a hand full of investors and big companies is not a free market at all. Not to mentioned big business in our 'free market' is constantly lobbying for all kinds of government control and protectionism and vice versa. In this system anything can be bought by those who control the money supply by inflating all assets, meaning you can't really own any property. So what we have is neither a free market nor capitalism.
• x86_64Ubuntu 5y ago
  >...Likewise if the free market is used as a way to reduce the availability of content, That's literally the whole premise of things like copyright and patents. You can't just run out and start distributing NFL streams, copies of movies, or Disney labeled memorabilia without the expressed permission of the people who own that content.
  • christophilus 5y ago
    > copyright and patents Which are arguably a government-imposed regulatory capture whose disfunction causes the market to be less free. So, it sounds like the two of you kind of agree?
    • dragonwriter 5y ago
      Copyrights and patents are exactly as much government-imposed regulatory capture as any other legal property rights are.
      • swagasaurus-rex 5y ago
        Before there was courts, it was finders keepers. Imagine the destruction that would cause.
  • computerfriend 5y ago
    That's not very convincing to anyone who doesn't already support your position on copyright.