Corporations and/or the wealthy do not harm anyone. Those in power do the harm.
If you restrict the legal donations, the money will flow illegally. If you restrict the powers of the elect, why would the money flow?
Example:
I have the power to decide how much turkey to cut for everyone at the table. What I cut is known to all. Johnny openly gives me $5 for the biggest piece, Timmy only has 5 cents. Pass a law capping donations to 5 cents. Johnny now gives me 5 cents openly and gives my brother $15 secretly.
Now, get rid of the 5 cent law but restrict me to only cutting enough turkey to give out equally. If I give Johnny too much, I get booted. So why would Johnny bother trying to bribe me?
Lincoln was the first federal politician to gain unlimited powers. He had to fight a war against independent States who seceeded over his financial abuse.
Capping donations effectively criminalizes large donations, but criminals will still bribe those in power. Donation abuses will continue.
Removing that unlimited power means donations become useless. Even if Wal Mart gives ten billion to a candidate, without unlimited power the candidate has no ability to pander to Wal Mart.
Campaign donations are the ultimate form of free speech. Money does not corrupt a politician; unlimited power to tax, regulate and spend is the problem.
Since campaign finance has been regulated and re-regulated, we've seen a few chilling unintended consequences:
1. Third parties are stifled. 2. Incumbents wield huge powers. 3. Loopholes are created hiding the real flow of money.
Bringing campaign finance laws online will only enforce these consequences. Our Constitution is very clear in restricting our Congress from limiting speech. "No law" means NO LAW."
Even ridiculous rules such as mandated government sponsored matching donations restrict the minority positions from being heard in public media forums. Regulating blogs will do incredible damage.
Remember that Democrats and Republicans are both authoritarian parties intent on wealth redistribution. Neither party restricts the other, they actually both help increase the tax base and takes care of each other's cronies.
If you want the ultimate campaign finance regulation you can do a few simple steps:
1. Repeal all donation restrictions and dismantle the FEC 2. Allow anyone (including foreigners and corporations) to finance any candidate in any amount 3. Restrict politicians to their minimum Constitutional powers, so that money has no effect since they're virtually prevented from helping their donators. 4. Allow any candidate that can get on a ballot to join in any government-funded debate.
Anyone who believes more regulations will help is truly blind to the realities of politics today. A properly restrained government is a government that can do no harm. Today's two parties are joined closely, acquiring that power through money control, a.k.a. Speech control. How you spend your money is the ultimate form of expression.
Copyright is a fairly new idea (several hundred years), but so is publishing duplicate copies.
Access to information is changing our lives faster than any time in the past. People who used to be happy waiting for the trade of information, such as 4 days for a letter to arrive by post, are already accepting instant information. My 65 year old dad is revitalized by this change. My 12 year old sister has almost never stamped a letter.
These changes are yet another unintended consequence of all free market provisions. Once something changes for the better, it is too late to stop it.
I remember 8 years ago when local book stores feared Amazon, but book publishers welcomed them because they saw the short term profits. Why did Amazon succeed? They offered the free market's three qualities that help foster change: increased selection of goods, decreased price, increased speed of transaction.
Usually you'll see just one of those three qualities come into play when the free market shows a revolution. Rarely do we see all three happen.
The unintended consequence should have been foreseen: prices dropped, but the free market wants them to approach zero. Speed increased, but the free market wants them to approach instantly. Quantity of selection improved but the free market wants it to approach 'everything available.'
That Google had the foresight to develop a new provision for published information shows they're attacking a problem that is only a few years away: mass piracy of books. How long will it be until you can videotape the flipping through of a novel and have a PDF of it moments later?
The Author's Guild is no different from the RIAA or MPAA in many aspects. They want to manipulate those who can use force legally (government) to enact regulations that will attempt to halt the changes the free market desires.
Guess what? It can't be done. Now that the wall has toppled, you can't rebuild it. When the common consumer tastes freedom, they'll refuse to eat the poison of tyranny.
I'm known to be Anti-State, and once you think out the consequences of regulating copyright more, you'll realize there isn't any hope. Only by shutting down the host used to spread the information (The Internet, not just Google) can you possibly slow down the change. You can't stop it!
If Google is stopped, you'll see massive freed information on P2P in mere years. If Google is allowed, you're likely to still see massive freed information, but will it come sooner or later?
What can publishers do? They can only adapt. Books alone aren't going to be profit centers, just commodities. Publishers will need value added resources to enhance their bottom line. There will be another 20+ years before paper form is gone. Only a tiny minority will really prefer free PDF's over a $5 paperback.
I'd say POD has to occur. Publishers overprint most books to outstrip demand, in hopes that the book sells like crazy. How about matching supply to demand? How about offering incentives for t ose who buy a legitimate copy? POD can custom print a username/password that lets a reader into a discussion that the author is involved in. Maybe allow legit readers early access to the next book -- even a 2 day lead time seems huge at the water cooler.
There is no stopping this change. It is hard to imagine embracing it. Yet that is the solution.
Exactly. Anyone who sells to "the general market" will see some gain in using government controls to boost their sales in the short term.
Art or products worthy of the "creative" title isn't really a general market product without copyright protections. But finding your niche market can be ore lucrative as an author can sell value added products and services. Yes, this means more work.
I self published a guide that I give out in PDF for free. I request $20 in the last chapter if the reader received benefit of the guide. I get $20 fairly often. I sell hard copy and hope to eventually do a mini tour public engagement at a per head charge (discounts for those who paid).
If I promoted better, I'm sure I could make a healthy 6 figures a year. My laziness holds me back.
Why is portable mini-video in demand at all? The iPod's greatest feature is how little attention it needs. I don't want it bogged down (bigger, worse battery life, more harassment from confused relatives) with more features.
The article notes that the market currently has decided video is unnecessary. I'm sure Apple has dozens of features ready to release IF their test markets rate those features as "amazing" not just "useful."
Haha, read my other posts over the past year, I'm not sure if I've ever been called the voice of reason, but I appreciate that:)
The reality is that the laws of supply and demand are the only laws in a market. Government and big business can TRY to work around those laws, but it is always a temporary solution to hold back industry and consumers.
As technology progresses to more and more people, we'll see fewer and fewer regulations, restrictions, and laws that actually work. As I repeat ad infinitum, the market is created by billions of decisions made every minute. No one can ever put a road block up against those decisions, as others will be working hard to get around the road blocks provided. Even men with big guns and tanks can't stop the flow of information, and the Internet makes that flow a torrent. No pun intended.
The artists are partially customers of the RIAA, but they are also partially the problem. I have personally known a handful of successful artists (musicians, actors, etc) and all of them just wanted to get lazy -- that's what most of us dream about. The truth is, you can only build wealth by constantly working for it. Does Gates or Jobs sit back and enjoy all the fruits of their labor? NO, they constantly work to bear more fruit!
When an artist, be it a book author, a singer, or a movie director, wants to succeed, the only way to do it in a free market is to constantly make your product evolve. Just making a movie, putting on DVD, and selling it shouldn't allow that movie to be worth jack crap in 6 months. Neither with a CD. Touring, promoting the music/book/movie, giving your fans reason to support your NEXT product, that requires time, and with time comes the money.
The Internet is incredible as it dispels so many government instilled monopolies and gives everyone nearly equal ground to promote their product. TV, radio, newspapers, they're all dead until they can catch up with what the billions out there want.
When I was a libertarian I was anti-cages. I then realized that the cages eventually captured their builders because I always found ways to avoid the cages in the first place.
Book signings are worthless as income. I'm talking about a free market future of 'pick my brain' promotion.
My favorite band wasbon a tiny label for 5 years. They toured, allowed fairly open copying of their music, and virtually ignored copyright.
Authors can do the same. I'm paying $200 in November to see my favorite author among 10 others do a live speaking. I can already get his writings for free online. I buy his books to keep him writing, I go to his public speakings to pick his brain.
Lately, all my favorite authors (large and small) have started to promote new income directions: writing clinics, book tours (fee based), and even blogs. Some of these guys are in their 70s.
Book publishing has been a big government licensed monopoly in so many ways. The Internet has fed the public's desire for free information and the public IS willing to pay in other ways -- more direct-to-author ways -- to keep bands, directors and writers in business.
A company I own contracts work for one of the largest paper trimmer companies in the country. They make book trimmers, too.
Lately they've talked about POD being the future. I've personally seen equipment capable of POD paperbacks of 250 pagecounts for under $2 if the machine can make just 1000 books per day.
I personally printed my own 400 page PDF, bound it using hotglue, and reread it over 3 years. 2002 price was $7 plus 10 minutes of labor.
When books can be converted easily and cheaply into an open digital format, and when someone creates an ebook reader that works effortlessly, the nail in the coffin of copyright laws will finally stick.
Music is already in search of a new structure, and the RIAA and recording industry is heading for chaos. The movie world is, too. More laws and regulations will stop nothing, the levee is breeched, freed information is now a tsunami wave, not an easily controlled trickle from a faucet.
I was thinking just yesterday that books are the last straw. The copyright lawyers know this. The politicians must be consciously avoiding talking about it. The book publishers must be meeting in back rooms wondering how to hold on to their previously rigid control.
Supporting Amazon made the publishers richer in the short run but enabled their future downfall. Print-on-demand is cheap enough to let everyone compete on fairly equal footing EXCEPT for promotion. Book stores, radio interviews of authors, best seller lists and other promotional tools have been controlled by the publishing industry.
When the free market has its way, we'll likely see more independent authors touring to sell their books by offering speaks engagements and a 'pick my brain' opportunity, similar to Indie bands and Indie moviemakers. Those guys can make a reasonable living doing reasonable work.
I go to the book store often, but like radio and TV, I don't see much individuality or uniqueness in books. I buy way more self published books (or by small publishers) especially when the authors appeal to me by touring to promote it with speaking engagements.
Just like the bands I love, book promotion will eventually be the right way to sell, when book contents are P2P'd easily. Just like mass music and mass movies.
Open 'piracy' of books en masse will give someone a reason to create a good ebook reader. Until now, its been a chicken-and-egg situation.
Oh, I know google won't pirate anything, but the door opening for free information will likely open wider.
Authors will always find an audience if they work hard enough.
I disagree. My 'punk' roots came from music that triggered a feeling of understanding in the listener. I prefer a live sound over a meticulously mastered sound, and I have little attraction to the solid chord arrangements of pop music.
My real love is the post-hardcore Indie sound. Hard edged guitars, lyrics that I connect with, intense dynamics from the drums and a bass line that mimics free vocals, not melodies.
Radio punk has a huge audience and I'm fine with it. Subculture always attracts mainstream marketing departments and I'm fine with that, too.
I just don't find myself in tune with Chicago and Milwaukee's radio schedules. I've burned my own comps since CD-R drives were nearly $500. My time has always been valuable but my comfort level in the car is worth much more.
I don't hate major labels, radio stations and MTV; they appeal to the broadest audience and they should.
When the RIAA makes life harder for the broad audience, that audience will go elsewhere.
Sure, cracking DRM is initially difficult for non-tech masses, but the competition between various crackers to be #1 leads to better products that are easier to use for the masses.
In the short run, life gets harder with laws and regulations. In the long run, the free market gives us everything back that we want, regardless of controls or rules.
Information wants to be free, correct? Free as in market!
The free/black market fixes all rights destructions by the government and lobbying groups. Most/. commenters agree when they say "it'll only take a few days to crack" or something similar. They're "understanding" something I frequently get modded down for saying: people, a a group, inherently know their basic rights.
The world makes billions of individual decisions every minute. No law or government can stop the whole planet from using their inherent rights. Limitations and regulations are worked around eventually.
As an Anti-State Anti-Law free marketeer, I have to think out laws much harder to find the unintended consequences.
I embrace the slippery slope now. As more laws criminalize what I consider an inherent right, more black market (read free market) provisions are created. You can never stop billions of individuals making billions of choices every minute.
Copyright is ridiculous, but only technology saves us there. If something is worth so much to a producer, don't produce an easy to copy version.
Play your music live only, on private property. Read your stories out loud rather than in book form. Even prescription drugs don't work anymore with the Internet -- IP laws + crazy regulations = no security.
I'm an outcast on/. because I understand the unintended consequences. I also know we can't stop them, so we just need to embrace what we individually love, and if others embrace the same actions as moral, the free market will provide for us.
I'm into the same styles, but the emo bands seem to far outnumber my hardcore, oi, ska and punk. Chicago still has amazing scene, though, with $5-$9 shows 6 nights a week.
No advertising works anymore. I get a better response on myspace, AIM messages, and word of mouth. Even e-mail is dead for advertising.
Our future is going to be bizarre. Nothing makes sense if we t ink of the past. Lucky for me, I'm a free market lover, and the Internet enables the free market to destroy every destructive regulation our government enacts: sales tax, minimum wage, copyright, IP, income tax, even zoning laws lose strength.
I, for one, welcome my free market as my overlord.
I ran tens of thousands of dollars of radio ads this year for my retail stores (focused on 10-22 year olds). Few people heard them.
Why? Radio is dead or dying for most younger people. All my employees under 21 podcast or listen to playlists. The RIAA doesn't really have any idea what they're chasing. Putting a Band-Aid on a corpse is useless.
I'm not fan of music piracy (I used to run a warez pirate BBS 15 years back) anymore. Why? There is nothing worth pirating. The radio doesn't appeal to the market that likes that music. People used to go to concerts, too, but my last concert was $95/ticket for an fairly-unknown electronica band -- the crowd was thin.
Let them DRM everything valuable to them. I'm fine with it! I have no desire to bootleg what I can afford to buy if it pleases me enough. I'll continue to go to $8 Indie bar shows, buy the bands' $10 CDs and $10 T-shirts, and ignore my car radio. My house hasn't had a radio for 10 years.
As it gets harder for consumers to consume, they switch to something easier. I feel bad for record shops and radio ad sales people. The end is coming, but they don't see it.
As for quality, who cares? Radio-friendly music is already fidelity-free from excessive compression, gating, and over mastering. Even my MP3'd music is only 96k, my noise floor in the car and outside that I don't mind the loss of resolution.
Don't hate the RIAA, they're already not a concern. It's like hating VHS Macrovision.
"New services shouldn't be hamstrung by old thinking and outdated regulations."
Right. No regulation can keep up with changing technology. The best thing about new technologies is the providers finding ways around regulations and the monopolies they create.
Neither the Federal Communications Commission nor states will have the power to regulate the "rates, charges, terms, or conditions" of any of the providers unless directed by federal law.
And the laws setting prices will follow. Maybe some "keep logs for terrorism" add-ons, too.
But they're encouraged to provide protections against security threats and theft of their services.
But? So vague, it will allow them to criminalize both action and inaction.
The FCC must convene an inquiry into whether to compel VoIP providers to contribute to the Universal Service Fund,
Ahhhh! Income for our friendly feds.
"pleased to see many of the pro-competitive features of the draft."
Competition will only be reduced to those who can afford lawyers and politicos. Mark my words.
Big broadband providers reserved judgment on the draft's content but were quick to hail its release,
I disagree. I sought out numerous doctors and all the young ones wanted me on drugs without doing ANY extensive tests. It was ridiculous that every single one I consulted with did JACK.
The two older ones I went to (on recommendations of other males my age who experienced the same problem) ran tests, asked me more in depth questions, and realized it was a dietary problem that many Americans and world citizens face: too many fucking carbs.
Face it, look around and you see FAT adults everywhere. They all have doctors. These doctors are happy to prescribe anything they can because they have a monopoly on prescriptions, and most prescriptions require that you come back.
The older doctors I saw noticed the correlation between too many sugars and starches and high blood pressure, triglycerides, and lack of mental focus.
I doubt I'll die at 45 because of what you quoted. I go in every 6 months to get my blood work ups and everything is better than it was when I was 18 (and chomping down every pizza, burger bun, and ice cream I could). Now I live healthier, feel healthier, and the tests prove it.
My wife also has had numerous problems with "prescribe and go" drive thru doctors. She also is using an older doctor who has found better methods of dealing with her asthma, not just drugs.
When government sets the licensing standards, of course the wrong people will get a hold of a license to practice medicine. Why not allow independent licensing boards (as was the case in the past) offer licensing of their doctors? Underwriter's Laboratories does a great job of making sure lamps and toasters are safe, why can't Doctor's Underwriters compete with United Doctors League in licensing their members as "safe?"
A licensing board is only as good as its members. If the board doesn't revoke the license of a member for an error or a crime, the board is useless. Government licensing is much harder to revoke. I've been to my state licensing board (actually had a hearing today regarding a sales tax payment short I made a year ago) and I couldn't believe how easy it was for me to walk out of there with no penalty and no worry. They were so busy with other mundane problems that I just fell through the cracks.
Honestly, do you want the same people that take your driver's license photo be the people that hand out licenses to your doctors? Do you really think good doctors will give up their practices to be the licensing committee with government pay?
Studies by whom? AMA? I hope so. When my wife was in the ER a few months ago, it was all young doctors who were overworked and offered no reasonable opinion as to what was wrong with her. The two doctors we were referred to were even worse (young as well).
I'm sure there are GOOD doctors out there, but if I find a bad one, why isn't it my right to speak out to the world about it?
And the other side of the coin is that one shouldn't have the power to ruin an innocent persons reputation. e.g you're a child molestor! Rape! Rape!
So if I called rapist on you, why would people believe me? Words alone won't skew too many opinions unless they are backed up by more concrete evidence.
Canada. Europe.
Exactly. Some of the worst health care there is. I've been to both, have had friends in both with medical problems, and they're terrible. Add in the fact that "free" health care costs consumers more than free market health care, and you've got a sinking ship. Government's solution to the terrible "free" health care problem: more money!
. If it's never taken to court then no one will know what is smear, and what is legitimate. A blog is no substitute for a court of law (court of slashdot maybe).
Except Tort Reform problems and the high cost of litigation makes it difficult to sue your doctor. I know, I've two friends who had no choice other than to hire ambulance chasers as the real lawyers wanted way too much per hour to even take the case.
I'm not sure if you were being sarcastic, but it IS an interesting correlation.
I hate to keep linking to lewrockwell.com but they do have great opinions that are covered by a lot of facts they point to. It is scary how the AMA is an arm of the government AND a lobbying group. It is scary that Congress limits the amount of doctors that graduate, keeping costs high. It is also scary that doctors are so heavily licensed, keeping natural healing methods at an uphill battle (although I'm not a fan of most natural healing methods).
Really? When I gained 50 pounds at the age of 25, was told by numerous young doctors to get on Lipitor and other drugs for blood pressure and choleserol, and was having bouts of emotional frustration and told to get on an anti-depressent "temporarily" by 5 different doctors, I said no.
My elderly doctor said lower my carbs. I did. 6 months later, problems were all solved. 5 years later they're still fine.
Doctors used to make housecalls. Most won't. Doctors used to see you the moment you walked in the office. Most won't. Mine does.
Keep telling me about these kids who have government subsidized educations and also a great Congress who works extra hard keeping the amount of doctors graduating to a minimum -- helping every doctor charge that much more.
Slashdot Mirror
No, you're not looking at the big picture.
Corporations and/or the wealthy do not harm anyone. Those in power do the harm.
If you restrict the legal donations, the money will flow illegally. If you restrict the powers of the elect, why would the money flow?
Example:
I have the power to decide how much turkey to cut for everyone at the table. What I cut is known to all. Johnny openly gives me $5 for the biggest piece, Timmy only has 5 cents. Pass a law capping donations to 5 cents. Johnny now gives me 5 cents openly and gives my brother $15 secretly.
Now, get rid of the 5 cent law but restrict me to only cutting enough turkey to give out equally. If I give Johnny too much, I get booted. So why would Johnny bother trying to bribe me?
The United States, 1776 to 1861.
h tml
h tml
Lincoln was the first federal politician to gain unlimited powers. He had to fight a war against independent States who seceeded over his financial abuse.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo44.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo16.
Capping donations effectively criminalizes large donations, but criminals will still bribe those in power. Donation abuses will continue.
Removing that unlimited power means donations become useless. Even if Wal Mart gives ten billion to a candidate, without unlimited power the candidate has no ability to pander to Wal Mart.
Pick any link on this page:
0 0%3BL%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.lewrockwell.com%2Flewroc1 a.gif%3BLH%3A93%3BAH%3Acenter%3BAWFID%3A65dad07a46 1e3427%3B&domains=lewrockwell.com&q=campaign+finan ce+&sitesearch=lewrockwell.com
http://www.google.com/custom?sa=Search&cof=LW%3A5
Good examples of Money = Expression
Campaign donations are the ultimate form of free speech. Money does not corrupt a politician; unlimited power to tax, regulate and spend is the problem.
Since campaign finance has been regulated and re-regulated, we've seen a few chilling unintended consequences:
1. Third parties are stifled.
2. Incumbents wield huge powers.
3. Loopholes are created hiding the real flow of money.
Bringing campaign finance laws online will only enforce these consequences. Our Constitution is very clear in restricting our Congress from limiting speech. "No law" means NO LAW."
Even ridiculous rules such as mandated government sponsored matching donations restrict the minority positions from being heard in public media forums. Regulating blogs will do incredible damage.
Remember that Democrats and Republicans are both authoritarian parties intent on wealth redistribution. Neither party restricts the other, they actually both help increase the tax base and takes care of each other's cronies.
If you want the ultimate campaign finance regulation you can do a few simple steps:
1. Repeal all donation restrictions and dismantle the FEC
2. Allow anyone (including foreigners and corporations) to finance any candidate in any amount
3. Restrict politicians to their minimum Constitutional powers, so that money has no effect since they're virtually prevented from helping their donators.
4. Allow any candidate that can get on a ballot to join in any government-funded debate.
Anyone who believes more regulations will help is truly blind to the realities of politics today. A properly restrained government is a government that can do no harm. Today's two parties are joined closely, acquiring that power through money control, a.k.a. Speech control. How you spend your money is the ultimate form of expression.
Copyright is a fairly new idea (several hundred years), but so is publishing duplicate copies.
Access to information is changing our lives faster than any time in the past. People who used to be happy waiting for the trade of information, such as 4 days for a letter to arrive by post, are already accepting instant information. My 65 year old dad is revitalized by this change. My 12 year old sister has almost never stamped a letter.
These changes are yet another unintended consequence of all free market provisions. Once something changes for the better, it is too late to stop it.
I remember 8 years ago when local book stores feared Amazon, but book publishers welcomed them because they saw the short term profits. Why did Amazon succeed? They offered the free market's three qualities that help foster change: increased selection of goods, decreased price, increased speed of transaction.
Usually you'll see just one of those three qualities come into play when the free market shows a revolution. Rarely do we see all three happen.
The unintended consequence should have been foreseen: prices dropped, but the free market wants them to approach zero. Speed increased, but the free market wants them to approach instantly. Quantity of selection improved but the free market wants it to approach 'everything available.'
That Google had the foresight to develop a new provision for published information shows they're attacking a problem that is only a few years away: mass piracy of books. How long will it be until you can videotape the flipping through of a novel and have a PDF of it moments later?
The Author's Guild is no different from the RIAA or MPAA in many aspects. They want to manipulate those who can use force legally (government) to enact regulations that will attempt to halt the changes the free market desires.
Guess what? It can't be done. Now that the wall has toppled, you can't rebuild it. When the common consumer tastes freedom, they'll refuse to eat the poison of tyranny.
I'm known to be Anti-State, and once you think out the consequences of regulating copyright more, you'll realize there isn't any hope. Only by shutting down the host used to spread the information (The Internet, not just Google) can you possibly slow down the change. You can't stop it!
If Google is stopped, you'll see massive freed information on P2P in mere years. If Google is allowed, you're likely to still see massive freed information, but will it come sooner or later?
What can publishers do? They can only adapt. Books alone aren't going to be profit centers, just commodities. Publishers will need value added resources to enhance their bottom line. There will be another 20+ years before paper form is gone. Only a tiny minority will really prefer free PDF's over a $5 paperback.
I'd say POD has to occur. Publishers overprint most books to outstrip demand, in hopes that the book sells like crazy. How about matching supply to demand? How about offering incentives for t ose who buy a legitimate copy? POD can custom print a username/password that lets a reader into a discussion that the author is involved in. Maybe allow legit readers early access to the next book -- even a 2 day lead time seems huge at the water cooler.
There is no stopping this change. It is hard to imagine embracing it. Yet that is the solution.
Exactly. Anyone who sells to "the general market" will see some gain in using government controls to boost their sales in the short term.
Art or products worthy of the "creative" title isn't really a general market product without copyright protections. But finding your niche market can be ore lucrative as an author can sell value added products and services. Yes, this means more work.
I self published a guide that I give out in PDF for free. I request $20 in the last chapter if the reader received benefit of the guide. I get $20 fairly often. I sell hard copy and hope to eventually do a mini tour public engagement at a per head charge (discounts for those who paid).
If I promoted better, I'm sure I could make a healthy 6 figures a year. My laziness holds me back.
Why is portable mini-video in demand at all? The iPod's greatest feature is how little attention it needs. I don't want it bogged down (bigger, worse battery life, more harassment from confused relatives) with more features.
The article notes that the market currently has decided video is unnecessary. I'm sure Apple has dozens of features ready to release IF their test markets rate those features as "amazing" not just "useful."
Haha, read my other posts over the past year, I'm not sure if I've ever been called the voice of reason, but I appreciate that :)
The reality is that the laws of supply and demand are the only laws in a market. Government and big business can TRY to work around those laws, but it is always a temporary solution to hold back industry and consumers.
As technology progresses to more and more people, we'll see fewer and fewer regulations, restrictions, and laws that actually work. As I repeat ad infinitum, the market is created by billions of decisions made every minute. No one can ever put a road block up against those decisions, as others will be working hard to get around the road blocks provided. Even men with big guns and tanks can't stop the flow of information, and the Internet makes that flow a torrent. No pun intended.
The artists are partially customers of the RIAA, but they are also partially the problem. I have personally known a handful of successful artists (musicians, actors, etc) and all of them just wanted to get lazy -- that's what most of us dream about. The truth is, you can only build wealth by constantly working for it. Does Gates or Jobs sit back and enjoy all the fruits of their labor? NO, they constantly work to bear more fruit!
When an artist, be it a book author, a singer, or a movie director, wants to succeed, the only way to do it in a free market is to constantly make your product evolve. Just making a movie, putting on DVD, and selling it shouldn't allow that movie to be worth jack crap in 6 months. Neither with a CD. Touring, promoting the music/book/movie, giving your fans reason to support your NEXT product, that requires time, and with time comes the money.
The Internet is incredible as it dispels so many government instilled monopolies and gives everyone nearly equal ground to promote their product. TV, radio, newspapers, they're all dead until they can catch up with what the billions out there want.
When I was a libertarian I was anti-cages. I then realized that the cages eventually captured their builders because I always found ways to avoid the cages in the first place.
Book signings are worthless as income. I'm talking about a free market future of 'pick my brain' promotion.
My favorite band wasbon a tiny label for 5 years. They toured, allowed fairly open copying of their music, and virtually ignored copyright.
Authors can do the same. I'm paying $200 in November to see my favorite author among 10 others do a live speaking. I can already get his writings for free online. I buy his books to keep him writing, I go to his public speakings to pick his brain.
Lately, all my favorite authors (large and small) have started to promote new income directions: writing clinics, book tours (fee based), and even blogs. Some of these guys are in their 70s.
Book publishing has been a big government licensed monopoly in so many ways. The Internet has fed the public's desire for free information and the public IS willing to pay in other ways -- more direct-to-author ways -- to keep bands, directors and writers in business.
A company I own contracts work for one of the largest paper trimmer companies in the country. They make book trimmers, too.
Lately they've talked about POD being the future. I've personally seen equipment capable of POD paperbacks of 250 pagecounts for under $2 if the machine can make just 1000 books per day.
I personally printed my own 400 page PDF, bound it using hotglue, and reread it over 3 years. 2002 price was $7 plus 10 minutes of labor.
POD will get cheaper as demand grows.
When books can be converted easily and cheaply into an open digital format, and when someone creates an ebook reader that works effortlessly, the nail in the coffin of copyright laws will finally stick.
Music is already in search of a new structure, and the RIAA and recording industry is heading for chaos. The movie world is, too. More laws and regulations will stop nothing, the levee is breeched, freed information is now a tsunami wave, not an easily controlled trickle from a faucet.
I was thinking just yesterday that books are the last straw. The copyright lawyers know this. The politicians must be consciously avoiding talking about it. The book publishers must be meeting in back rooms wondering how to hold on to their previously rigid control.
Supporting Amazon made the publishers richer in the short run but enabled their future downfall. Print-on-demand is cheap enough to let everyone compete on fairly equal footing EXCEPT for promotion. Book stores, radio interviews of authors, best seller lists and other promotional tools have been controlled by the publishing industry.
When the free market has its way, we'll likely see more independent authors touring to sell their books by offering speaks engagements and a 'pick my brain' opportunity, similar to Indie bands and Indie moviemakers. Those guys can make a reasonable living doing reasonable work.
I go to the book store often, but like radio and TV, I don't see much individuality or uniqueness in books. I buy way more self published books (or by small publishers) especially when the authors appeal to me by touring to promote it with speaking engagements.
Just like the bands I love, book promotion will eventually be the right way to sell, when book contents are P2P'd easily. Just like mass music and mass movies.
Open 'piracy' of books en masse will give someone a reason to create a good ebook reader. Until now, its been a chicken-and-egg situation.
Oh, I know google won't pirate anything, but the door opening for free information will likely open wider.
Authors will always find an audience if they work hard enough.
I disagree. My 'punk' roots came from music that triggered a feeling of understanding in the listener. I prefer a live sound over a meticulously mastered sound, and I have little attraction to the solid chord arrangements of pop music.
My real love is the post-hardcore Indie sound. Hard edged guitars, lyrics that I connect with, intense dynamics from the drums and a bass line that mimics free vocals, not melodies.
Radio punk has a huge audience and I'm fine with it. Subculture always attracts mainstream marketing departments and I'm fine with that, too.
I just don't find myself in tune with Chicago and Milwaukee's radio schedules. I've burned my own comps since CD-R drives were nearly $500. My time has always been valuable but my comfort level in the car is worth much more.
I don't hate major labels, radio stations and MTV; they appeal to the broadest audience and they should.
When the RIAA makes life harder for the broad audience, that audience will go elsewhere.
Sure, cracking DRM is initially difficult for non-tech masses, but the competition between various crackers to be #1 leads to better products that are easier to use for the masses.
In the short run, life gets harder with laws and regulations. In the long run, the free market gives us everything back that we want, regardless of controls or rules.
Information wants to be free, correct? Free as in market!
I addressed this in a previous comment.
/. commenters agree when they say "it'll only take a few days to crack" or something similar. They're "understanding" something I frequently get modded down for saying: people, a a group, inherently know their basic rights.
The free/black market fixes all rights destructions by the government and lobbying groups. Most
The world makes billions of individual decisions every minute. No law or government can stop the whole planet from using their inherent rights. Limitations and regulations are worked around eventually.
As an Anti-State Anti-Law free marketeer, I have to think out laws much harder to find the unintended consequences.
/. because I understand the unintended consequences. I also know we can't stop them, so we just need to embrace what we individually love, and if others embrace the same actions as moral, the free market will provide for us.
I embrace the slippery slope now. As more laws criminalize what I consider an inherent right, more black market (read free market) provisions are created. You can never stop billions of individuals making billions of choices every minute.
Copyright is ridiculous, but only technology saves us there. If something is worth so much to a producer, don't produce an easy to copy version.
Play your music live only, on private property. Read your stories out loud rather than in book form. Even prescription drugs don't work anymore with the Internet -- IP laws + crazy regulations = no security.
I'm an outcast on
I'm into the same styles, but the emo bands seem to far outnumber my hardcore, oi, ska and punk. Chicago still has amazing scene, though, with $5-$9 shows 6 nights a week.
No advertising works anymore. I get a better response on myspace, AIM messages, and word of mouth. Even e-mail is dead for advertising.
Our future is going to be bizarre. Nothing makes sense if we t ink of the past. Lucky for me, I'm a free market lover, and the Internet enables the free market to destroy every destructive regulation our government enacts: sales tax, minimum wage, copyright, IP, income tax, even zoning laws lose strength.
I, for one, welcome my free market as my overlord.
I ran tens of thousands of dollars of radio ads this year for my retail stores (focused on 10-22 year olds). Few people heard them.
Why? Radio is dead or dying for most younger people. All my employees under 21 podcast or listen to playlists. The RIAA doesn't really have any idea what they're chasing. Putting a Band-Aid on a corpse is useless.
I'm not fan of music piracy (I used to run a warez pirate BBS 15 years back) anymore. Why? There is nothing worth pirating. The radio doesn't appeal to the market that likes that music. People used to go to concerts, too, but my last concert was $95/ticket for an fairly-unknown electronica band -- the crowd was thin.
Let them DRM everything valuable to them. I'm fine with it! I have no desire to bootleg what I can afford to buy if it pleases me enough. I'll continue to go to $8 Indie bar shows, buy the bands' $10 CDs and $10 T-shirts, and ignore my car radio. My house hasn't had a radio for 10 years.
As it gets harder for consumers to consume, they switch to something easier. I feel bad for record shops and radio ad sales people. The end is coming, but they don't see it.
As for quality, who cares? Radio-friendly music is already fidelity-free from excessive compression, gating, and over mastering. Even my MP3'd music is only 96k, my noise floor in the car and outside that I don't mind the loss of resolution.
Don't hate the RIAA, they're already not a concern. It's like hating VHS Macrovision.
I couldn't read the 77page FA.
"New services shouldn't be hamstrung by old thinking and outdated regulations."
Right. No regulation can keep up with changing technology. The best thing about new technologies is the providers finding ways around regulations and the monopolies they create.
Neither the Federal Communications Commission nor states will have the power to regulate the "rates, charges, terms, or conditions" of any of the providers unless directed by federal law.
And the laws setting prices will follow. Maybe some "keep logs for terrorism" add-ons, too.
But they're encouraged to provide protections against security threats and theft of their services.
But? So vague, it will allow them to criminalize both action and inaction.
The FCC must convene an inquiry into whether to compel VoIP providers to contribute to the Universal Service Fund,
Ahhhh! Income for our friendly feds.
"pleased to see many of the pro-competitive features of the draft."
Competition will only be reduced to those who can afford lawyers and politicos. Mark my words.
Big broadband providers reserved judgment on the draft's content but were quick to hail its release,
Status. Quo. Profit!!!
Nuff said.
I disagree. I sought out numerous doctors and all the young ones wanted me on drugs without doing ANY extensive tests. It was ridiculous that every single one I consulted with did JACK.
The two older ones I went to (on recommendations of other males my age who experienced the same problem) ran tests, asked me more in depth questions, and realized it was a dietary problem that many Americans and world citizens face: too many fucking carbs.
Face it, look around and you see FAT adults everywhere. They all have doctors. These doctors are happy to prescribe anything they can because they have a monopoly on prescriptions, and most prescriptions require that you come back.
The older doctors I saw noticed the correlation between too many sugars and starches and high blood pressure, triglycerides, and lack of mental focus.
I doubt I'll die at 45 because of what you quoted. I go in every 6 months to get my blood work ups and everything is better than it was when I was 18 (and chomping down every pizza, burger bun, and ice cream I could). Now I live healthier, feel healthier, and the tests prove it.
My wife also has had numerous problems with "prescribe and go" drive thru doctors. She also is using an older doctor who has found better methods of dealing with her asthma, not just drugs.
Yes, it is government's fault, partially.
When government sets the licensing standards, of course the wrong people will get a hold of a license to practice medicine. Why not allow independent licensing boards (as was the case in the past) offer licensing of their doctors? Underwriter's Laboratories does a great job of making sure lamps and toasters are safe, why can't Doctor's Underwriters compete with United Doctors League in licensing their members as "safe?"
A licensing board is only as good as its members. If the board doesn't revoke the license of a member for an error or a crime, the board is useless. Government licensing is much harder to revoke. I've been to my state licensing board (actually had a hearing today regarding a sales tax payment short I made a year ago) and I couldn't believe how easy it was for me to walk out of there with no penalty and no worry. They were so busy with other mundane problems that I just fell through the cracks.
Honestly, do you want the same people that take your driver's license photo be the people that hand out licenses to your doctors? Do you really think good doctors will give up their practices to be the licensing committee with government pay?
Studies by whom? AMA? I hope so. When my wife was in the ER a few months ago, it was all young doctors who were overworked and offered no reasonable opinion as to what was wrong with her. The two doctors we were referred to were even worse (young as well).
I'm sure there are GOOD doctors out there, but if I find a bad one, why isn't it my right to speak out to the world about it?
And the other side of the coin is that one shouldn't have the power to ruin an innocent persons reputation. e.g you're a child molestor! Rape! Rape!
So if I called rapist on you, why would people believe me? Words alone won't skew too many opinions unless they are backed up by more concrete evidence.
Canada. Europe.
Exactly. Some of the worst health care there is. I've been to both, have had friends in both with medical problems, and they're terrible. Add in the fact that "free" health care costs consumers more than free market health care, and you've got a sinking ship. Government's solution to the terrible "free" health care problem: more money!
. If it's never taken to court then no one will know what is smear, and what is legitimate. A blog is no substitute for a court of law (court of slashdot maybe).
Except Tort Reform problems and the high cost of litigation makes it difficult to sue your doctor. I know, I've two friends who had no choice other than to hire ambulance chasers as the real lawyers wanted way too much per hour to even take the case.
I'm not sure if you were being sarcastic, but it IS an interesting correlation.
I hate to keep linking to lewrockwell.com but they do have great opinions that are covered by a lot of facts they point to. It is scary how the AMA is an arm of the government AND a lobbying group. It is scary that Congress limits the amount of doctors that graduate, keeping costs high. It is also scary that doctors are so heavily licensed, keeping natural healing methods at an uphill battle (although I'm not a fan of most natural healing methods).
Really? When I gained 50 pounds at the age of 25, was told by numerous young doctors to get on Lipitor and other drugs for blood pressure and choleserol, and was having bouts of emotional frustration and told to get on an anti-depressent "temporarily" by 5 different doctors, I said no.
My elderly doctor said lower my carbs. I did. 6 months later, problems were all solved. 5 years later they're still fine.
Doctors used to make housecalls. Most won't. Doctors used to see you the moment you walked in the office. Most won't. Mine does.
Keep telling me about these kids who have government subsidized educations and also a great Congress who works extra hard keeping the amount of doctors graduating to a minimum -- helping every doctor charge that much more.