6 ms·

Going to a concert is a pure luxury. It's like getting excited that Champagne is too expensive - not really a working person's problem, and I'm not sure pure lu

Going to a concert is a pure luxury. It's like getting excited that Champagne is too expensive - not really a working person's problem, and I'm not sure pure luxuries need government intervention in the same way as communication systems do.

f-securus 4y ago
Wow. Attending live music events is a pure luxury that the average person shouldn’t have reasonable access to without being price gouged by an obvious monopoly?
- chrisseaton 4y ago
  The artist's part of the ticket prices already makes them a luxury even if you removed Ticketmaster. If people have some kind of human right to see live music why aren't her tickets cheaper in the first place?
blowski 4y ago
This comment makes me feel uneasy, but I can't work out how to disagree with it. There are some services which are obviously utilities where monopolies are either bad, or must be otherwise regulated. Power, fuel, healthcare, education - all these fit into that. I guess these are services where inefficient pricing has a broader effect on the market. Whereas in luxuries, if the price is too high, then it has no real effect other than the peasants don't get to eat the cake. So my two arguments against your position: 1. Even a monopoly in such a luxury industry is still protected by the law, and so must also be subject to it. Assumedly, as a peasant unable to afford Taylor Swift tickets, I am still not allowed to hack Ticketmaster's servers to get one illegally, or to break into the concert by force even though I'm causing no harm since it's a luxury good. 2. Ticketmaster's profits from its monopoly, if unchecked, allow it to crowd out other parts of the market. It can start to buy local pubs that show music, and extend its monopoly there too. Where do we stop it, and say "that's not a luxury market, so you can't have a monopoly there"?
- chrisseaton 4y ago
  Unreasonable thought experiment - Taylor Swift has a monopoly on her music catalogue. If we removed that monopoly and allowed others to perform and sell it, it'd reduce costs for working people.
  - blowski 4y ago
    That's exactly how copyright was supposed to work, no? It balanced the artist's ability to make money against making their art accessible to everyone by giving them a temporary monopoly. It's modern incarnation is arguably much closer to a permanent monopoly, and I agree - it should be limited.
  - dghlsakjg 4y ago
    She has a monopoly on some of her recordings. (Famously she doesn’t own the rights to her early recordings) But she also doesn’t have a monopoly on other artists performing her music, or making recordings of her songs.
    - chrisseaton 4y ago
      I could cover the entire of her latest album and sell copies? I didn't think copyright allowed for that without permission but maybe I don't know copyright like I thought I did.
      - blowski 4y ago
        After 70 years you can, yes (in copyright's original form). It's why I can do a performance of Mozart or Shakespeare today. Before that, you'd need her permission, and probably share some royalties with her.
      - dghlsakjg 4y ago
        Yup. As mentioned, she doesn’t own the rights to her early albums, so this year she actually re-recorded and released alternate versions of her own music. Cover songs are covered under “compulsory” licenses. You can safely cover an entire album without permission as long as you pay the royalties to the writers. The entire “songbook” genre is basically this. If you want to drill down further there is an entire category of albums which is just people covering “Dark Side of the Moon” Musical copyright is a whole other thing.
biorach 4y ago
Are you saying that working class people can't afford to go to concerts?
- chrisseaton 4y ago
  No lots of working class people save up to go to concerts, or prioritise it over other spending I'm sure.
  - CyberDildonics 4y ago
    Then why did you say this? -> not really a working person's problem
    - chrisseaton 4y ago
      Because not getting to go to see Taylor Swift isn't a 'problem'. Just like not having a diamond isn't a 'problem'. Not being able to access water or not having a way to communicate with your community is a 'problem' for example, so we should protect those things. The right to see Taylor Swift? I'm not so sure it's a good use of precious government resources.
      - CyberDildonics 4y ago
        Then why didn't you just say it isn't a problem? Why specify a "working person's problem" ?
        chrisseaton 4y ago
        …because the discussion is about working people being able to access things? It’s not relevant for people who can pay anything. I think you’re deliberately being confused.
        CyberDildonics 4y ago
        You're saying it isn't a "working person's problem" and that it's not a problem at all, but these are two different things.

f-securus 4y ago

Wow. Attending live music events is a pure luxury that the average person shouldn’t have reasonable access to without being price gouged by an obvious monopoly?

chrisseaton 4y ago
The artist's part of the ticket prices already makes them a luxury even if you removed Ticketmaster. If people have some kind of human right to see live music why aren't her tickets cheaper in the first place?

blowski 4y ago

This comment makes me feel uneasy, but I can't work out how to disagree with it. There are some services which are obviously utilities where monopolies are either bad, or must be otherwise regulated. Power, fuel, healthcare, education - all these fit into that. I guess these are services where inefficient pricing has a broader effect on the market. Whereas in luxuries, if the price is too high, then it has no real effect other than the peasants don't get to eat the cake. So my two arguments against your position: 1. Even a monopoly in such a luxury industry is still protected by the law, and so must also be subject to it. Assumedly, as a peasant unable to afford Taylor Swift tickets, I am still not allowed to hack Ticketmaster's servers to get one illegally, or to break into the concert by force even though I'm causing no harm since it's a luxury good. 2. Ticketmaster's profits from its monopoly, if unchecked, allow it to crowd out other parts of the market. It can start to buy local pubs that show music, and extend its monopoly there too. Where do we stop it, and say "that's not a luxury market, so you can't have a monopoly there"?

chrisseaton 4y ago
Unreasonable thought experiment - Taylor Swift has a monopoly on her music catalogue. If we removed that monopoly and allowed others to perform and sell it, it'd reduce costs for working people.
- blowski 4y ago
  That's exactly how copyright was supposed to work, no? It balanced the artist's ability to make money against making their art accessible to everyone by giving them a temporary monopoly. It's modern incarnation is arguably much closer to a permanent monopoly, and I agree - it should be limited.
- dghlsakjg 4y ago
  She has a monopoly on some of her recordings. (Famously she doesn’t own the rights to her early recordings) But she also doesn’t have a monopoly on other artists performing her music, or making recordings of her songs.
  - chrisseaton 4y ago
    I could cover the entire of her latest album and sell copies? I didn't think copyright allowed for that without permission but maybe I don't know copyright like I thought I did.
    - blowski 4y ago
      After 70 years you can, yes (in copyright's original form). It's why I can do a performance of Mozart or Shakespeare today. Before that, you'd need her permission, and probably share some royalties with her.
    - dghlsakjg 4y ago
      Yup. As mentioned, she doesn’t own the rights to her early albums, so this year she actually re-recorded and released alternate versions of her own music. Cover songs are covered under “compulsory” licenses. You can safely cover an entire album without permission as long as you pay the royalties to the writers. The entire “songbook” genre is basically this. If you want to drill down further there is an entire category of albums which is just people covering “Dark Side of the Moon” Musical copyright is a whole other thing.

biorach 4y ago

Are you saying that working class people can't afford to go to concerts?

chrisseaton 4y ago
No lots of working class people save up to go to concerts, or prioritise it over other spending I'm sure.
- CyberDildonics 4y ago
  Then why did you say this? -> not really a working person's problem
  - chrisseaton 4y ago
    Because not getting to go to see Taylor Swift isn't a 'problem'. Just like not having a diamond isn't a 'problem'. Not being able to access water or not having a way to communicate with your community is a 'problem' for example, so we should protect those things. The right to see Taylor Swift? I'm not so sure it's a good use of precious government resources.
    - CyberDildonics 4y ago
      Then why didn't you just say it isn't a problem? Why specify a "working person's problem" ?
      - chrisseaton 4y ago
        …because the discussion is about working people being able to access things? It’s not relevant for people who can pay anything. I think you’re deliberately being confused.
        CyberDildonics 4y ago
        You're saying it isn't a "working person's problem" and that it's not a problem at all, but these are two different things.