Slashdot Mirror
FTC Staff Discuss a Tax on Electronics To Support the News Business
dptalia links to this piece describing a staff discussion draft from the Federal Trade Commission, writing "The FTC is concerned about the death of the 'news.' Specifically newspapers. Rather than look to how old media models can be adapted to the Internet, they instead suggest taxing consumer electronics to support a huge newspaper bailout. Additionally, they suggest making facts 'proprietary' and allowing news organizations to copyright them."
Note, though, "The good news in all this is that the FTC's bureaucrats try hard to recommend little. They just discuss. And much of what the agency staff ponders are political impossibilities."
This would essentially put the government in charge of choosing which press agencies to sponser... Dangerous precedent...
There's a gorilla from Manilla whose a fella that stinks of vanilla and has salmonella.
Why are we always so concerned with keeping companies in business. We didn't try to artificially keep wagon wheel business alive when cars were invented. This is absurd, if a company can no longer sell something, sell something else, or die off.
Go ahead, "copyright" your investigated information. Good luck suing the hundreds of thousands of blogs and websites that will still link to your info. And besides, if they provide a link to the news company's website as a way to cite a source (just like I do with my own webpage when I post about content I have read elsewhere), what's the problem? You still get credit, you still get the traffic.
Living With a Nerd
I am utterly blown away at hoe often the government is willing to step in and save failing business models. Car companies refusing to evolve, media companies failing to evolve, and more. Last time I checked, we live in a capitalist society where companies that succeed, in one way or another, are rewarded and companies that fail, for whatever reason, are supposed to go out of business. I can understand and be empathetic towards companies that have their business destroyed because of the actions of another, such as fishermen having their livelihoods wiped out because of BP's oil leak. Those businesses deserve some intervention to help them get through the rough time that is no fault of their own. Companies that fail to innovate, however, and end up watching their balance sheets shift more and more downwards? Nah. Sorry. You tried and failed. You don't have a right to be in business, just because. You have to work hard and succeed, just like the rest of us.
Failing businesses should be allowed to fail. Someone will figure out a successful business model and will fill the void or a market that no longer needs to exist (hello buggy whips) will fade into the history books.
It's frightening just how much modern American government has become like the nightmare Statist government in Ayn Rand's novels, constantly meddling with and attempting to control market forces that it and it's members are incapable of understanding or wanting to understand.
Regardless of what you may think of her personally, she was prescient.
Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
Dear Washington,
You're doing it wrong.
Thanks,
Everyone
Seriously what the hell? Stop giving our money to greedy corporations. Want us to buy a house? Spend more on crap? Buy new cars? HOW CAN WE DO THAT WHEN YOU KEEP TAKING OUR $?
OH wait. You'll just take it and give it to corps for free.
Now, I am not a tax hater. I am fine with taxes for things like emergency services, libraries, roads, schools. The difference is those services provide for the public good. Forcing me to hand money over to your buddies at the "too big to fails" is bullshit. You crooked fucks.
No sig for you!!
I mean, it's like totally unfair that PC manufacturers pulled the rug from under the typewriter business. I propose a tax on... let's see... yes! deodorants! and, uhhm, pipe wrenches! to save the typewriter business. And the monk scribes that used to copy books before that horrid man Gutenberg took their jobs away, they deserve some recompense. Let's tax... exotic pets.
Newspapers were subsidized by the Federal government until about 1840 or so, due to the founder's desire to make sure there were plenty of options for people to be well informed.
Link here.
Rhymes that keep their secrets will unfold behind the clouds.There upon the rainbow is the answer to a neverending story
Put a tax on lying.
The automakers, yea they should have bailed them out, the got screwed because the banks screwed with their borrowing money.
The banks, well too big to fail is just full of fail.
No, the automakers are kind of strategic assets and the domino effect from their failure would have pushed the US and the industrialized world into a depression.
It's frightening just how much modern American government has become like the nightmare Statist government in Ayn Rand's novels, constantly meddling with and attempting to control market forces that it and it's members are incapable of understanding or wanting to understand.
Regardless of what you may think of her personally, she was prescient.
Regardless of the merit of this case, don't you think it's just a bit early to come with this magic market libertarian stuff as we are still in the midst of a major financial crisis caused by massive deregulation?
I am not bothered by the fact that you exist; I am seriously concerned, however, that there was one person to mod you insightful...
No, the automakers are kind of strategic assets
No, their plant and equipment are strategic assets. That equipment wouldn't have vanished if GM went out of business. It would have been bought up by more nimble competitors during the Chapter 7 proceedings.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Newspapers aren't, for the most part, loosing money. They're becoming less profitable. Historically, newspapers have enjoyed fantastically high profit margins. Due to a falloff in revenue from shrinking circulation and less interest in print classifieds, those margins have shrunk to being merely moderate.
Back in the days when newspapers were run by private companies or wealthy families most papers probably could have weathered these leaner times, these days most major papers are held by big public media companies. These companies can't tolerate a drop in profits, so they are firing reporters and closing beuros in order to maintain those margins.
What do you mean, "without someone to sell to"? Do you think the demand for automobiles would have disappeared just because GM went under? Ford, Toyota, Honda, etc. would have had to expand their capacity to meet increased demand. The easiest way for them to do that would have been to start purchasing parts from GM's now idled suppliers. There was no reason to bail them out other than as a gift to labor. Look at the way the administration abused the bankruptcy code. The bankruptcy code said that the bondholders were secured creditors and should have been repaid first -- but they got screwed while the unions got most of what they asked for.
Beware the Government that can't even be bothered to follow it's own laws.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
I would much rather see America turn to public funding for public domain news, instead of trying to let businesses copyright facts. One of the best news organizations in the world is funding by a TV license fee.
Here's one clip from the first proposal:
Some stakeholders have proposed amending the Copyright Act to specifically recognize hot news protection. Advocates argue "the copyright act allows parasitic aggregators to 'free ride' on others' substantial journalistic investments," by protecting only expression and not the underlying facts, which are often gathered at great expense...
Hot news advocates are divided, however, on whether federal law should be revised to encourage state law development of hot news doctrine or to provide uniform, statutory federal hot news protection... The likely effects of a more vigorous hot news doctrine are controversial. For example, on eworkshop participant noted that New York's hot news doctrine was important to the AP's efforts to protect its intellectual property, but recognized that any "federalization" of the doctrine would need to be very carefully drafted to avoid unintended costs... Others also have argued that expanded IP protections for the news would be too costly. News organizations and writers, including print, broadcast, op-ed writers, and other commentators, routinely borrow from each other. One panelist suggested that "[m]uch of what is done by newspapers with each other is actually problematic under existing hot news doctrine."
The paper does include a number of possible direct revenue sources from the government as possibilities, such as tax breaks or increasing punding of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. However, it also includes the following:
Representative Waxman noted in remarks to the FTC workshop on December 2, 2009, that those advocating for public funding "need to articulate the scope of such support, in terms of the activities to be supported and the dollars required. They need to respond to the concern that government support of journalism would lead to government control of content. And they need to explain the source of revenues."
Most of the paper goes on like this, presenting different sides of each proposal. Which is to say that unlike what the commentator in the OP states, this isn't so much the FTC dictating that the government deliberately save the news industry in any one particular way, but is more a roundtable discussion about different ways that it might occur. If you disagree with what's discussed, you might want to leave your Congressman a call.
Libertarians somehow believe that private businesses should be stronger than governments but weaker than individuals.
From the millions of people that would have otherwise bought GM automobiles? You can't have such a bad understanding of economics as to believe that GM's demand comes entirely from employees of GM and GM suppliers.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Wrong.
GM deserved to die because it was mismanaged for decades. Their products have been crap for a long time, they haven't made a decent car in decades, and it shows in the sales figures. The only reason they were profitable before was because of the SUV craze. However, GM pissed away this opportunity, and instead of using the temporary windfall from the sale of highly profitable SUVs to build a "rainy day" fund or otherwise make the company strong for the next recession, they were completely caught with their pants down when gas prices rose and then again when the recession hit, killing the SUV craze suddenly. With no more cash cow to abuse, GM had no more money left.
Ford, OTOH, managed to manage their company well enough that they avoided this fate, even though they were profiting off the SUVs alongside GM, and had all the same issues with union work and costs.
So, in the end, instead of Ford being rewarded for their superior business acumen, they got to watch stupid, mismanaged GM get an unearned bailout.
GM should have been allowed to die. It could have been split up and sold off to Ford, Honda, Toyota, and the other automakers. That "vast system of suppliers" should have been able to hang on until then, as they would have been needed to supply these other companies who would now be selling more cars. Any company that can't handle a temporary disruption to their sales has no business staying in business.