Wait, you think the business would bother spending money on fixing the road? *laugh*
If they did, it would just be an excuse to raise tolls.
Let's look at relatively unregulated markets (sure, there are some regulations, but not as many as telcom).
Blockbuster video. For years when they were the only real source, they were expensive, and had outrageous fees. Over time, competition forced them to charge just $1.95 for a new release, and less for an old one.
Wendy's. Even with rampant government inflation causing beef prices to rise, they still manage to sell a $0.99 menu. Competition keeps them inexpensive, with fairly high quality meals presented at that price -- you couldn't make it yourself for that price.
Target. Quality clothing that is stylish, with prices that actually tend to fall over time rather than go up. Great return policy.
These are markets without much regulation -- and they flourish. I know the same would be true in telecom. If it wasn't true, you wouldn't have so much lobbying money spent trying to keep monopolies standing. Monopolies only exist when the State enforces them into existence.
Without some kind of oversight, selling poison-laced toothpaste is a rationally obvious way to make a killing.
That oversight is already provided for in a free market sense by all the various bodies within a given transaction. First, a consumer is "protected" from bad products by the point of sale reseller who carries the goods. Walgreens and CVS won't sell poisoned toothpaste, and if there ever was a toothpaste poisoning problem, you can believe that within 1 hour of the first reported deaths, private firms would start up a testing body to label products as safe. As we have it now, the FDA does a terrible job protecting citizens from faulty products -- government bureaucracies are easy to pay off and control by the wealthy few. Target won't sell lamps that aren't UL-listed and approved, and we didn't need any government intrusion into that testing standard.
Secondly, there is a great level of protection from the choices made of the masses. There is always some level of risk when trying a new product. In order to reduce the consumer's risk, suppliers and manufacturers have to take steps to protect their long term investment by making sure they've reduced that risk through trials and tests. Again, the government is not needed for these steps. If a newcomer enters a market with a product that is risky, there is a high barrier to entry for them to prove themselves. If a longtime company decides they want to lower safety standards, they do so at a huge risk to their investment and long term profit potential. Snake oil salesmen are not the norm in an unregulated market, they're a rarity.
As I've always said -- if the State didn't subsidize the streets through hidden taxes and tariffs, we wouldn't be driving, we'd be flying. I have no doubt that streets would be better maintained privately (via turnpikes, toll roads, and business-paid advertising). At some level, I can understand the need for a government agency to pay for roads, but I don't think it should be the county or up.
I appreciate the free market perspective on the net neutrality debate: the federal government has no Constitutionally-acceptable power to regulate the Internet. Net neutrality is just that: regulation where none is needed.
The biggest concern by geeks and techies is that the superpowers of the web will start restricting bandwidth for competitors' sites and promoting bandwidth for their own sites. Yet who are the superpowers we're worried about? They're the very companies that are subsidized or given monopoly powers by the State.
With a truly competitive marketplace, there should be almost zero concern over the net neutrality issue. Yet the FCC and the local State bodies are at fault for creating this fear for the marketplace -- they've created a mess of bureaucracy and redtape (and regulations and subsidies) that keeps competition out of the mix.
Sure, some techies will say that it is extremely expensive to enter the "last mile" market to provide services, but this is untrue -- if there is a profit to be made, companies will enter the market. In many towns, the last mile providers are given freedom from competition, and without competition, of course there is corruption.
Some techies fear the skies over their homes filled with cables and wires, but this too is a non-issue. In a town two cities over from mine (Libertyville, Illinois), there are 3 wireless providers who have leased tower space to provide very reasonable high speed access at a very low cost. All 3 of the companies battle one another because the village of Libertyville lets the compete -- and the pricing and services have both gotten better. Who complains about their services? Comcast, of course.
My town (Zion, Illinois) doesn't let anyone run a wireless service, let alone multiple providers. We have Comcast, and we have the phone company. Both offer unreasonable service at unreasonable pricing. I've looked into renting tower space, and the village has said NO 3 years in a row. They're concerned for what reason?
Let's stop the net neutrality debate, and bring up the proper debate: let's allow competition in a marketplace that has been "free" from competition for far too long. The cell phone companies are ready to roll out HSDPA as soon as the FCC allows them to (again, a mess of State intervention in a market that could be flourishing). The WiFi locally-owned providers want to roll it out, but the city States don't allow it. There are numerous ISPs who want to roll out very high speed DSL but can't because they're not allow to pull cable to the homes (and many local providers are more than willing to invest in this market).
...I don't see any place for Intelligent Design in public schools, either.
Then again, I don't see any place for public schools when it comes to my (eventual) kids or the kids of the families I financially support. Personally, I'm a fan of Intelligent Design combined with evolutionary and old Earth science, but I would in no way force my opinion on others -- as the public school system does. Evolution? Creationism? Who cares -- if you as a parent don't work to teach your children, don't expect the public school to do a better job, regardless of what they're teaching.
On rare occasions I don't use my HTC Trinity but fall back to a regular cell phone (one that I am very efficient at). My Trinity lets me multitask often (I've even posted here before). I can under paying $600, I've paid even more for a good cell phone. Why? Because if it saves me time, it makes me money. Plain and simple.
If you're not earning a lot (yet?), of course $600 sounds like a lot. So does $50 for a limo from the airport, right? Once your time becomes more valuable, you start to notice how shaving a few seconds often a common daily operation adds up to significant savings over a year.
Look at it this way: If the iPhone works for 18 months, that's only $33.33 a month, or $1.11 a day over its useful life. I use my Trinity over 8 hours per day (3-4 hours talking, 4-5 hours online). If you use the phone that much, what are you paying for it? 15 cents an hour?
I run VIPMinistry.com, a church printing co-op. We own a LOT of printers (way more than the site says). We own inkjets (for CD/DVD prints), lasers (for short run bulletins and flyers), wide format printers (banners and posters) and an offset printer (soon two).
My favorite printers right now are from Xerox (Phaser 7400). I own 3. No retail store carries these or sells toner or consumables. The Xerox is by far the best printer I've used. Service menu lets me reset drum and toner counts, toner cartridges are simple to refill, and Xerox's toner estimation tool is very accurate (it even tells me how much toner+drum was used per job and is very accurate). But Staples/Office Max/Office Depot won't stock their items nor their printers. Probably not enough profit in a machine that only costs a few cents per color page.
The Epson inkjets I use are all CIS-installed. I bought them for $99 with the CIS and the printer refurbished. They kick out hundreds of CDs or DVDs per hour, and I've had no major issues. Retail stores won't sell CIS systems or ink, of course. A new $149 Epson with a CIS pre-installed is worth it for any household with kids or at-home office needs. I had one printer finally croak, and I tossed it. For $99, it wasn't worth even trying to fix it.
The wide format printers I use also don't have local retail disposables (HP DesignJet 5500), even though there are thousands of these in operation in the Midwest. The cartridges are huge (670ml), and I use a third party now and the inks are better than HPs. I think I pay $120 for 670ml of ink. I also use the ancient DesignJet 3800CP which has a ~1000ml ink tank (x4) which go for $120-$150 each.
It isn't just the manufacturers -- the retailers also love the products we hate. I don't buy those products. I don't let me family buy those products.
Monopolies are the "natural" mature state of markets because some asshat sees the opportunity in doing things like, owning the entire supply of some good or coordinating prices and supply with their nearest competitors, or legislating barriers to market.
Ridiculous and proven wrong by many economists and by actual market proofs. First of all, if someone legislates a barrier to a market, then it isn't a free market to begin with, so you can't say that a monopoly comes from a free market, but from a State-regulated one. Monopolies ONLY exist when they're regulated INTO existance. The Enron Fiasco happened because of the State, not because of the market. Even the so-called monopoly of Standard Oil wasn't a monopoly!
Rockefeller would buy competitors and merge them into his company. By becoming more efficient, his prices fell. Then those same competitors would turn around and re-enter the market, competing with Rockefeller with NEWER efficiencies, which he then bought, merged, and lowered prices more. Guess what? Those competitors started new companies, rinse, repeat. When Esso started, oil was 30 cents a gallon (1869). By 1897, it was 0.29 cents per gallon (yes, about 4 gallons per cent!). The only reason Standard Oil was "broken up" was because competition was killing it by 1911 (Associated Oil, Texaco, Gulf, and the hundred other companies), and one competitor that failed in competing had a idiot daughter muckraker who wrote a book-of-lies. Her name was Ida M. Tarbell.
Markets do not create monopolies, in fact the only thing that stops a competitor from competing is THE artificial barrier to compete that we call State regulation. Even if YOU think some market is cost-prohibitive to enter, others will take a risk, en masse, to try to compete if they can. Every market with big complaints is a market with big regulations. Every market with minimal complaints is a market with minimal regulations.
If you try to buy up all the goods of a given market, you will have to have the money to do so, and no individual can. This means other individuals must invest in a company to buy all the raw materials. Once you buy all the raw materials, you need the warehouses to store them (temporarily, because once you've manufactured them, you won't need the warehouses, right?), distribute them to retail, sell them, and wonder what to do once you run out of raw materials. Ain't gonna happ'n.
If you try to collude with competitors, you'll fail because more competition will come into the market. Only States can keep cartels alive and profitable.
It doesn't and it hasn't.
Sure it has. Look at restaurants in the US. They're relatively unregulated, and you get a HUGE choice and selection of foods at various prices and qualities and speeds. That's a relatively unregulated market. Restaurants open and close constantly which is how the market operates to keep efficient and high-demand suppliers in business. Unfortunately, State regulations are slowly killing even the restaurant business.
Look at cell phones. Any single person of any credit score can go out and get a free cell phone with no contract today. Even though the communications back-end is highly regulated, we still have intense competition. Imagine where prices would fall to and service levels would bloom to if regulations were reduced (or removed) in this market?
Look at PCs, another relatively unregulated market. Even with patents and copyright, it is still highly competitive, because of the relatively open market of production and distribution and sales.
100 gold coins takes this guy Li 4 hours to come across. He gets paid $0.30 for it. I pay the end seller $5 for the same 1 hour of coins (25 gold coins). So I'm basically saving myself 1 hour (or more, if Li is extra-efficient) for the low cost of $5. Sounds like a winning situation for me.
As for Li, it sounds like a good place to start also. It's a new market, and in all new markets people have to work for peas (or less) to until the market breaks open. We might see Li running his own show in 5 years (or we may not).
Until then, he gets to work indoors, on a computer, smoke as much as he wants (try that in the US!), and learn a skill that some may consider mundane, but shows a helluva lot of marketability with a longterm and bright future. Now it sounds like a win-win situation.
Apple, just like Microsoft, is a BUISNESS. Buisnesses are about profit. That's it.
and
ALL buisnesses are in it for the money. Welcome to reality, bud.
That's a pretty close-minded view that I believe many slashdotters share, but it is also completely wrong. Businesses are not "in it" for "the money" or just "for (financial) profit." Neither are consumers. No one enters a trade agreement without considering their own gain. A phone company has no reason to sell you a phone if they're not going to gain SOMETHING out of the deal. It isn't always money. AT&T may give away a few hundred phones to the likes of Paris Hilton and Brad Pitt in exchange for a non-financial profit from these parties.
You, the "consumer," also are not going to make a trade if you don't get a gain. If you buy the iPhone, it will be for some personal gain -- you can call that a profit. I use my HTC Trinity because it gives me a few different forms of profit: it works well, so my customers are happy (financial gain). It handles my daily business and personal tasks efficiently, so I get a time-savings profit. I paid $600 for it, but I have gained significantly in terms of finances, time and uniqueness. I made a "profit," or I would not have purchased the phone from HTC. HTC gained a profit, in terms of finances.
The market is all about mutual profits by both parties -- not just one party gaining and the other party losing. When that happens, we call it government.
*Every* phone that is not a prepaid phone requires a contract, and nearly all of them have draconian cancellation fees
I bought my HTC Trinity P3600 last year from a reseller with no contract ($600, though). I added it to my T-Mobile business plan with no long term commitment. There is no contract to cancel if I decide to jump carriers. I have no desire to subsidize my phone's initial cost by giving in to 2 year agreements.
He did forget that since businesses haven't been paying their fair share of the tax burden they've got tons of money to spend on lobbyists.
Totally ridiculous assertion. Illinois businesses pay a higher share of total state and local taxes than businesses in the neighboring states of Indiana, Kentucky, Missouri, Iowa and Wisconsin:
I run a few businesses in Illinois, and Wisconsin is looking MIGHTY good right now if Blag passes any more business tax legislation. With a horrible zoning situation in most cities, coupled with horrific business regulations at the county and state level, Illinois will quickly lose the small-to-medium sized businesses that operate on a national level.
1941 and they were already considering a permanent home for the "War" department. In a country where the army was not to be a standing army and it was to be all-volunteer? Typical.
Here's a idea to get rid of the Empire quickly: pass a Constitutional amendment that no military troops can be paid or reimbursed, ever. This way, the only reason why men will go to war is a real one -- real fear that their families, friends and properties may see harm.
I have no doubt that Google (do no evil?) already does this. I have some friends who have been banned from the AdSense network because they clicked their own ads (big no-no), but not from their own network. Laptops from other networks in the same region (say, Chicago). Google's ads definitely send back SOMETHING to Google -- maybe screen resolution + browser version + operation system + who knows what. No one really knows what it shared (someone should trace the traffic), but Google knows more than they're sharing. Heck, their Google search tells you how many times you recently visited a searched site (I log in via gmail, though).
It isn't that hard, and it won't be that hard to deflect if you're privacy crazy. I'd say this is mostly un-news, because privacy geeks will work around it, and those who don't work around it will get some benefit from targetted ads, better compensated search opportunities, and who knows what else.
But, to be honest, we all know that a truly free society isn't free at all. You have to have some rules for life to continue. This may be one of them.
I disagree. A free society is one where all citizens are equally free from legal force that gives power to some and takes power away from others, without their express consent (ie, a contract). In a free society, you and I can contract to limit each other -- but the State can not unless we individually tell them that they can. Also, a free society is one where an individual can make any decision they want, as long as they do not directly harm the physical property or body of another individual. Speech can not do physical harm, so speech can not be criminal, no matter how repulsive it is. The effect of the speech could be a physical reaction, but if that physical reaction is performed by a person other than the speech giver, the speech giver has not caused harm.
People will visit their library more. They'll go walk at the park with friends more. So while I think it's good to fight for our rights, the result wouldn't be that bad. "Burn the land, boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me..." We'll find plenty other things to occupy ourselves with. Who cares about AACS and movies and stuff when you can find something else just as, if not more entertaining, for half the price?
Entertainment has more to do with time preference decisions than just saving "money" doing something that might seem entertaining. Someone who is very busy and who has a high hourly-value to the market may want a quick relief of "getting away from reality" and may be more than happy to pay $150 per person to see an Opera. Someone who is not so busy, and may not command a high hourly-value to the market may be more entertained reading a book, which could take hours or days or weeks. It all boils down to how you (and the market) value yourself.
Personally, I see nothing wrong with paying $20+ to buy a movie -- if I can use it the way I want to. I prefer to live in a tiny home so that I do not have to pay for extra unused space. This means I have no room for the clutter of physical movies (DVDs, VHS, etc). Instead, I have a great Media Center PC (yes, Microsoft), and I have 1TB of movies and TV shows available to watch based on my mood. This is considered illegal, even though I have paid for all the movies and shows I watched. I also used my own time/labor to put those movies/TV shows on that PC. I've harmed no one physically, so the law is unjust and ridiculous. Provide me with a process to reimburse the authors/distributors/producers of a given content, and also allow me to put that content into a system that works with my life, and I will pay AND continue to be a customer. I don't believe in NOT reimbursing those actively involved in the creation of content. I have no desire to pay for the lawyers, DRM researchers, or those who lobby the State to use force against me to uphold their monopoly.
...The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers.
Actually, as I said yesterday, ignore these threats. Go out and blog. Understand that freedom of speech is NOT a government-granted freedom, it is an inherent one that all people of all citizenship must understand. The U.S. Constitution's (Bill of Rights) 1st Amendment does not say "You are free to speak," it says that Congress shall make NO LAW restricting the freedom of speech -- NO law. Discussing encryption mechanisms is free speech, and Congress shall not abridge that. As for patents and trademark and the rest, as long as you do not mimic the mechanism in your own hardware or software, you're fine, Constitutionally. As long as you do not quote verbatim the actual code used to create this mechanism, you're not violating copyright. The DMCA is unconstitional, and regardless of what Congress, the Supreme Court, the President, or any company says, it is non-binding in terms of the moral realization that Congress, and honestly no State organization, can prevent you from freely airing your opinions. You are free to talk, but no one has to listen.
From yesterday's post I made about "legal recommendations for bloggers," go out and blog. Say what you want to say. There are more of us than there are of them -- not only can they not afford to go after everyone, they can not afford to go after even a small percentage. Let some bloggers get caught, and all it will do is show other people that non-violent actions should not be criminalized or penalized.
AACS, your days are numbered. Your salaries will end. Your powers will be diminished. It won't be because of competition from another company (that you are likely in bed with, in terms of promoting the abuse of State power), it will be because millions upon millions of people will ignore you, and all you do, in trying to revoke our inherent (and in my opinion, God-given) right to speak freely amongst ourselves.
There are massive difference between something being done in a limited regard on a small scale catering to a supportive market and it begin done at a large scale.
True, but the article was about blogging, and MOST bloggers will only reach a limited supportive market.
All someone needs to do is subscribe to all popular writers then republish the content on a website for free, maybe giving credit if they are generous. Heck, soon someone would make a firefox extension that automatically goes to a free version when a subscription only page is reached.
Again, true, but the person who republishes content has to spend their time to do so -- what is that time/labor worth in the market, even if it might be considered "theft"? The online porn industry thrives on people republishing content to try to get leeches to subscribe -- even the pirates who steal the whole site help the industry because the pirates have to constantly work to get the content out there. As it is, the porn industry can greatly reflect what will eventually happen to other content industries.
Even if you're not W2, let's say you're a writer. Unless your book is damn popular you will need to write books at a steady pace or your income will dry out, books don't continue to sell well indefinably. Even when they do unless you have income from many books with new ones being written to offset the decrease from older ones you won't continue to make money.
Which is why I personally am anti-book. I'm slowly starting to write on a "chapter" basis -- release a newsletter that allows readers to continue to want more in the next month, and also respond to the readers' questions and comments and criticisms in future editions. One of the profit-powers of my old mailed newsletters was that I only responded to subscribers' questions -- if non-subscribers asked me questions, I answered them to subscribers, and I let the question-asker know that they could ask for a copy of the future edition, or subscribe for direct contact. For me, this gives my "leech" readers a reason to subscribe. I'm working on a science-fiction novel, and I plan to actually provide my paid readers with a Q&A on character development outside of the novel in the form of custom side-stories based on ideas I've formulated combined with questions paid readers have on those characters or side notes. The opportunity to profit is endless -- instead of a one-time cost to buy my book (which will be freely available in e-book fashion), my readers can look to more of the story by providing me with an income up-front to continue writing.
This lets those who can't afford my writing (or don't want to pay) the ability to get the new stories electronically, whereas those who buy my works will get a nice printed copy. Note: I own a print-on-demand system through my co-op VIPMinistry.com, so I can print individual copies of a paperback book with a color cover for less than $3 a copy. Sell it for $20 with a year of free printed side updates, or $10 for the one-off, while also releasing it freely for people to read on the PC or print at their own cost (likely more expensive than my POD system would cost them to pay for).
Not. Who uses RSS when I have Google News that I have customized for my interests.
From its beginning I have always criticized RSS for only including a short blurb and a link. I would rather have the whole article in an RSS feed. I dont, and so I dont.
I use RSS feeds FROM Google News to inform me of news updates on topics I follow. I actually have about 500 RSS feeds subscribed to from Google News alone. I have a top 50 topics that never get purged, I have 250 or so topics that get purged every other day, and the rest are purged hourly, automagically.
Just curious, what is your opinion on people who get income from bonds, stocks, annuities, and (since I suspect you have an easy out for those three) appreciation of gold? Aren't those also "do it once and reap benefits for 70+ years" type tricks?
For me, money and time are the same thing, and don't differ at all. Money is merely a storage of time that can be redeemed to save you time in the future. Instead of mowing your own lawn (let's say it would take you 1 hour), you can redeem stored time (money) to have someone else do it that is more efficient. You might trade 1/10th of an hour of stored time to save yourself 1 hour now.
If you expend your time today ("working"), you may hope to acquire some stored time ("money") to redeem later. If you expend some of your stored time today ("invest money"), you should hope to benefit with a gain, but you may also face a loss -- risk. For MOST people who invest, they don't see their net gains as losses, but many do. Over time, inflation of the money supply is one of the biggest reasons for gains in value in stocks, bonds and yes, even gold. I don't look at the dollar value of my gold savings, I only look at the weight. If gold goes from $650 an ounce to $1300 an ounce, I don't look at it is as a profit, especially if consumer prices have doubled in the same time. If my stock investment doubles in net value, I also have to look to see if consumer prices have gone up at the same time. Often times, stocks increasing in value have not necessarily met with inflation's devaluation of your investments. The only investment I'd personally risk is one that pays dividends annually in excess of inflation and the tax burden. This is why I have zero stocks, bonds or pension accounts:)
I _do_ believe in investments, though, but I keep those investments close to home (my own businesses, or shares in local businesses that I have a hand in watching over and profiting from). I "demand" that my risk is offset by a realistic profit beyond inflation + taxes (funny how government is the reason that both have to be added to the equation). Is my investment worthy of a return? Why is taking my gold and loaning it to someone different than my writing a book and hoping to regain money on that investment? The difference is that writing a book is an investment of a set amount of time (the time to write the book), and the waiting for income is generally NOT an investment in time (OK, there is marketign). Investing in a business means an ongoing loss of the use of my stored time ("money"), which is an ongoing investment.
It's apparently always been a pain in the backside to make a living as an author, short of selling yourself out basically. Why would I subscribe to something when I can get the same content for free (or with less ads) from 100+ different websites within 10 minutes of it coming out? All those websites really need to cover is the cost of hosting not the cost of creation so they will always win in terms of price.
Currently, there is no market incentive, paying an author happens for two reasons: to avoid breaking the law, or altruism to support the author. That being said, I have years of experience with print newsletters I wrote and published, and I always told my subscribers to freely copy the newsletter for friends or family. Guess what happened? Friends and family subscribed for the express reason that they wanted to get a copy to read rather than wait for a copy or search for one.
My public blogs are free, my private e-newsletters are not, even though I allow people to forward them to others (and many do). My reader base increases still, even though I freely let people share all my writings, even republish them as their own.
Huh? I'm sure that 99% of professionals artists would laugh at you as they work continuously just like everyone else.
If you mean W2 employees, I'll agree! If you can't sell your own labor yourself as a contractor, go get a job and you'll do fine and can basically ignore the whole issue of who owns your finished work. Yet those who want to be contractors will quickly have to find ways to be rehired. In the coming years, we'll see EXTREME competition from African and Asian workers who will be able to produce art cheaper, faster and actually better than the Western "protected" workers. Look at the Chinese-knock-offs of the Stratovarius violins -- they're amazing pieces of work and they're cheap. Look at the Chinese-industry of oil painters -- cheap but exceptionally talented. I've already seen some web designs and some print designs that have come out of Indian "sweat shops" and they're really high quality, and really cheap. Soon enough copyright will be meaningless for "artists" -- you'll have to sell other features of yourself to regain future work.
Actually, I do. *please mod interesting, please mod informative*
I was being a tad bit obnoxious here, but my point stands -- e-mail notification of updates for any site will slowly go the way of the do-do (or the animated GIF, if you will). I've even introduced my luddite father to RSS feeds, and he uses them now that he knows to look for them. More bloggers (and any site that updates regularly) should be moving to promote RSS feeds over e-mail notifications or updates.
Note, I didn't say that my (arguably huge) desire justifies enforcement of a right to it; I'm just saying that you should not equate the good of the information, with the good of excluding access that information, and that you should be able to justify why all rights must be articulable in terms of physical objects if you want to use "infinite supply" arguments like that.
You're right, but I'm guessing this justification for copyright will slowly diminish over time as more people move to the label of "publisher" rather than just "reader." As more people start creating content, those who utilize copyright to protect their monopoly in a given market will find that copyright inhibits them, rather than produces a profit for them. Copyright is the great un-equalizer -- it protects "one-time work" rather than the ongoing labor that most other markets require for consistent long-term income. In the long run, the lack of copyright will help more people earn an income -- bands will make their money touring rather than sitting in a studio for a few weeks. Writers will make their money on subscriptions (and advertising) for those who appreciate the writing, rather than writing a book once and hoping it sells enough over years (and is quickly outdated). Artists will make their money producing content for the other two groups, or for industry that requires unique creations to attract attention. Income is an ongoing process of laboring, not a "do it once and reap benefits for 70+ years."
I do appreciate your insight, and I will work to better explain the market of supply and demand:)
As a blogger (on hiatus) who could be considered "professional" (meaning part of my income comes from my blogging or my business helping businesses blog), I am glad that the anarchy of the blogging market is quickly making many of these laws impossible to enforce. For those who know my opinions, I am anti-copyright, anti-trademark, anti-patent; basic anti-intellectual property of any kind. I believe in real assets that have finite supply, not intellectual assets that can have near infinite supply.
Here's why most of this is unimportant, based on the sheer volume of blogging and the growth rate it will see from now until forever:
1. Whether to Disclose Paid Posts
A blogger who doesn't disclose paid posts will be called out on it and lose their customer base. The FTC should have nothing to do with this -- it happens naturally already.
2. Is Deep Linking Legal
The sheer volume of bloggers who deep-link is overwhelming. If someone "catches you" and thinks you are breaking a law, the cost to fight it is excessive. Instead of hitting you with a lawsuit, you'll get a cease and desist, at which point you can remove the link after you've profited from it. Each deep-link probably has a different "owner/author," so let them manage their own inept use of force.
3. The Legal Use of Images and Thumbnails
see #2 -- Cease & Desist before lawsuit.
4. Laws that Protect You From Stolen Content
Those who try to protect their content from getting "stolen" will find themselves losing market share to those who freely allow re-distribution. All my writings are instantly public domain, because it helps my business by bringing my words to a larger audience. I even allow people to redistribute "as their own" with no reference to me. Why? It still increases the marketbase, and eventually that increases my audience potential. As to the law, see #2 and #3.
5. Domain Name Trademark Issues
I rely more on Google, Yahoo and Microsoft searches than on people knowing my domain name. Some of my most profitable blogs have the absolute worst domain names with impossible to remember subdomains. They're popular because of "StumbleUpon" and have good ranking in the search engines. I care little about the domain name, and am just as likely to register gobbledy-gook names.
6. Handling Private Data About Your Readers
Simple solution -- keep nothing. I don't need to know anything more about my readers than their IP address (to see if they're returning) and maybe some simple info that their browser gives me info on (operating system, web browser version, etc). The rest is worthless to me, I don't resell data, nor would I want to spend the time doing so.
7. Who Owns User-Developed Content and Can You Delete It
Who cares? Like #2, if a user posts something and asks me to delete it (like a cease and desist), I will. Big deal.
8. The Duty to Monitor Your Blog Comments, and Liability
Again, if someone has a problem with what I write, or what someone else writes, I'll nuke the problem topic if I feel I am lawsuit-worthy. The cost to go after millions of writers is enormous, and probably worthless.
9. Basic Tax Law Issues in Blogging
I received a big 1099-C from three advertisers bases, and tossed it in the pile with my other 1099-C for my accountant. Deal with it. Also keep receipts for EVERYTHING you buy that is blogger-based (laptop, internet connection, web hosting, etc). Offset it.
10. Limited Liability Laws and Incorporating
That's semi-ridiculous -- if you do ANYTHING for money, incorporate as a S-corp. Don't do anything on your own, otherwise your tax incentives are lost. I've never been a W9 employee, because it reduces my ability to provide tax write-offs and deductions.
11. Spam Laws and Which Unsolicited Emails are Legal
Who uses e-mail anymore? RSS is what matters. Don't e-mail anyone, let them sub
your plan is great in theory, however in the real world perfectly healthy people get sick and require hospital care which would chew up your $10,000 in the first week. this is what health insurance is for.
Which is what I advocate -- health insurance, with a $10,000 deductible (and max annual out-of-pocket payout). You save $10,000, you're covered for that real emergency. My AAPS doctor is never more than $25 a visit, and he does home visits. He also will never accept medicare or medicaid, so he is under no obligation to overcharge me. He prefer cash payments up front, and I even tip him. AAPS doctors are the way to go for non-major health needs.
your only 1/2 right about the state breaking the health care system. believe it or not, their ARE things where free markets do not work, and health care is one of them. reason being that health care doesn't deal in money, it deals in peoples health which is priceless. all the typical measures used in a free market don't apply to health care. the only way to fix health care is to find a way where making money comes 2nd to treating peoples problems.
Actually, the free market of health care DID work, it was all the new regulations added on top of the free market that destroyed the market's ability to perservere during problem streaks. I also disagree that peoples' healths is priceless -- if it was, people would spend any amount of time or money to stay healthy. When I look at teenagers in the US, I see that isn't the case -- they're more likely to be fat than skinny. When I look at retired folk, I see the same problem. People who don't care for their health in the first place can not consider their health priceless.
The majority of health problems in America can be pointed to the fact that the State has destroyed personal responsibility to prevent health issues. Heart disease is greatly worsened by being fat. Many cancers are related to lifestyle choices, including eating and the lack of intelligent decisions in other consumptions. Don't think for a minute that I think my life is not priceless, but I also prove that by eating healthy, exercising, and making wise decisions in putting my money into future concerns rather than spending it today.
If you don't, why should I pay for you? If you live an unhealthy lifestyle, you've already shown me that your life is NOT priceless because you don't care about the future.
The biggest impediment to a great health care system is, and will always be, regulation. Regulation comes from one monster: the State.
The US had the greatest healthcare system in the world. Then the U.S. Federal State decided to start destroying it, piece by piece, through regulation. After the HMO Act of 1973, healthcare quickly degraded. Instead of removing the regulations, the State decided to make new ones, creating more aggressive monopoly powers (see: AMA), making costs go up (by providing tax relief for corporations and not individuals), and then tossing new entitlements into the system (medicare, medicaid, VA, etc) that made everyone's prices go up.
What's the old adage about insurance? Invite all your friends to dinner, and most will have burgers instead of steak. Agree to split the bill equally, and a few will order steak, but pay less for their share. Eventually, everyone will want steak, and they'll wonder why no one can afford dinner. It is no different with State-forced health care, and State-regulated healthcare.
To fix healthcare, start by dumping your AMA doctors. Ask your doctor if they are affiliated with the AMA, and if they are, walk. Find a great AAPS doctor, and pay them cash (they are MUCH cheaper paying cash than most deductibles with insurance). Start saving a nice nest egg, and then start increasing your deductible as high as you can -- $10,000 or more once your nest egg gets there. Insurance is for detrimental emergencies, not to check out that cough or find out why your nose is running.
Then, lose weight. Watch your carbs (starches and sugars). You'll have little need likely for doctors once you are healthy.
Finally, go the self-employment route. It works, once you have a big savings account, a high deductible, and are truly healthy because you're not another fat American. By being self employed, you can walk away from the monstrosity that is called "employer-sponsored health care." What a farce.
It isn't the market that made healthcare bad, it isn't corruption or greed -- it is your very government, trying to fix mistakes that the State of past generations has slowly caused. Don't spew garbage about the U.K. either, I have a few ex-patriate friends living there who has mentioned how terrible it is.
Live by the sword, die by the sword.
on
The End for Vonage?
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Patent infringement is NEARLY always about one big guy versus another big guy -- or a big guy versus a little guy. How often do patents actually help individuals rather than mega-conglomerates? Even if you have a small business with various patents, can you afford to protect them in court?
Vonage lived by the sword -- they themeselves believed in patents. While I feel this judgment is counter-market, it doesn't cause as much damage as patents do in general. The idea that someone can monopolize the thoughts, motions or creations of another individual is ridiculous, especially in the multitude of patents we all know are ridiculous.
So be it. Whenever anyone who uses patents loses a patent war, they get what they deserve. I feel no pain for Vonage, nor anyone who decides to base their businesses on forcing other businesses not to compete in a certain way.
Rest in pieces, Vonage. Maybe Verizon will be next.
Slashdot Mirror
Wait, you think the business would bother spending money on fixing the road?
*laugh*
If they did, it would just be an excuse to raise tolls.
Let's look at relatively unregulated markets (sure, there are some regulations, but not as many as telcom).
Blockbuster video. For years when they were the only real source, they were expensive, and had outrageous fees. Over time, competition forced them to charge just $1.95 for a new release, and less for an old one.
Wendy's. Even with rampant government inflation causing beef prices to rise, they still manage to sell a $0.99 menu. Competition keeps them inexpensive, with fairly high quality meals presented at that price -- you couldn't make it yourself for that price.
Target. Quality clothing that is stylish, with prices that actually tend to fall over time rather than go up. Great return policy.
These are markets without much regulation -- and they flourish. I know the same would be true in telecom. If it wasn't true, you wouldn't have so much lobbying money spent trying to keep monopolies standing. Monopolies only exist when the State enforces them into existence.
Without some kind of oversight, selling poison-laced toothpaste is a rationally obvious way to make a killing.
That oversight is already provided for in a free market sense by all the various bodies within a given transaction. First, a consumer is "protected" from bad products by the point of sale reseller who carries the goods. Walgreens and CVS won't sell poisoned toothpaste, and if there ever was a toothpaste poisoning problem, you can believe that within 1 hour of the first reported deaths, private firms would start up a testing body to label products as safe. As we have it now, the FDA does a terrible job protecting citizens from faulty products -- government bureaucracies are easy to pay off and control by the wealthy few. Target won't sell lamps that aren't UL-listed and approved, and we didn't need any government intrusion into that testing standard.
Secondly, there is a great level of protection from the choices made of the masses. There is always some level of risk when trying a new product. In order to reduce the consumer's risk, suppliers and manufacturers have to take steps to protect their long term investment by making sure they've reduced that risk through trials and tests. Again, the government is not needed for these steps. If a newcomer enters a market with a product that is risky, there is a high barrier to entry for them to prove themselves. If a longtime company decides they want to lower safety standards, they do so at a huge risk to their investment and long term profit potential. Snake oil salesmen are not the norm in an unregulated market, they're a rarity.
As I've always said -- if the State didn't subsidize the streets through hidden taxes and tariffs, we wouldn't be driving, we'd be flying. I have no doubt that streets would be better maintained privately (via turnpikes, toll roads, and business-paid advertising). At some level, I can understand the need for a government agency to pay for roads, but I don't think it should be the county or up.
I appreciate the free market perspective on the net neutrality debate: the federal government has no Constitutionally-acceptable power to regulate the Internet. Net neutrality is just that: regulation where none is needed.
The biggest concern by geeks and techies is that the superpowers of the web will start restricting bandwidth for competitors' sites and promoting bandwidth for their own sites. Yet who are the superpowers we're worried about? They're the very companies that are subsidized or given monopoly powers by the State.
With a truly competitive marketplace, there should be almost zero concern over the net neutrality issue. Yet the FCC and the local State bodies are at fault for creating this fear for the marketplace -- they've created a mess of bureaucracy and redtape (and regulations and subsidies) that keeps competition out of the mix.
Sure, some techies will say that it is extremely expensive to enter the "last mile" market to provide services, but this is untrue -- if there is a profit to be made, companies will enter the market. In many towns, the last mile providers are given freedom from competition, and without competition, of course there is corruption.
Some techies fear the skies over their homes filled with cables and wires, but this too is a non-issue. In a town two cities over from mine (Libertyville, Illinois), there are 3 wireless providers who have leased tower space to provide very reasonable high speed access at a very low cost. All 3 of the companies battle one another because the village of Libertyville lets the compete -- and the pricing and services have both gotten better. Who complains about their services? Comcast, of course.
My town (Zion, Illinois) doesn't let anyone run a wireless service, let alone multiple providers. We have Comcast, and we have the phone company. Both offer unreasonable service at unreasonable pricing. I've looked into renting tower space, and the village has said NO 3 years in a row. They're concerned for what reason?
Let's stop the net neutrality debate, and bring up the proper debate: let's allow competition in a marketplace that has been "free" from competition for far too long. The cell phone companies are ready to roll out HSDPA as soon as the FCC allows them to (again, a mess of State intervention in a market that could be flourishing). The WiFi locally-owned providers want to roll it out, but the city States don't allow it. There are numerous ISPs who want to roll out very high speed DSL but can't because they're not allow to pull cable to the homes (and many local providers are more than willing to invest in this market).
...I don't see any place for Intelligent Design in public schools, either.
Then again, I don't see any place for public schools when it comes to my (eventual) kids or the kids of the families I financially support. Personally, I'm a fan of Intelligent Design combined with evolutionary and old Earth science, but I would in no way force my opinion on others -- as the public school system does. Evolution? Creationism? Who cares -- if you as a parent don't work to teach your children, don't expect the public school to do a better job, regardless of what they're teaching.
On rare occasions I don't use my HTC Trinity but fall back to a regular cell phone (one that I am very efficient at). My Trinity lets me multitask often (I've even posted here before). I can under paying $600, I've paid even more for a good cell phone. Why? Because if it saves me time, it makes me money. Plain and simple.
If you're not earning a lot (yet?), of course $600 sounds like a lot. So does $50 for a limo from the airport, right? Once your time becomes more valuable, you start to notice how shaving a few seconds often a common daily operation adds up to significant savings over a year.
Look at it this way: If the iPhone works for 18 months, that's only $33.33 a month, or $1.11 a day over its useful life. I use my Trinity over 8 hours per day (3-4 hours talking, 4-5 hours online). If you use the phone that much, what are you paying for it? 15 cents an hour?
I run VIPMinistry.com, a church printing co-op. We own a LOT of printers (way more than the site says). We own inkjets (for CD/DVD prints), lasers (for short run bulletins and flyers), wide format printers (banners and posters) and an offset printer (soon two).
My favorite printers right now are from Xerox (Phaser 7400). I own 3. No retail store carries these or sells toner or consumables. The Xerox is by far the best printer I've used. Service menu lets me reset drum and toner counts, toner cartridges are simple to refill, and Xerox's toner estimation tool is very accurate (it even tells me how much toner+drum was used per job and is very accurate). But Staples/Office Max/Office Depot won't stock their items nor their printers. Probably not enough profit in a machine that only costs a few cents per color page.
The Epson inkjets I use are all CIS-installed. I bought them for $99 with the CIS and the printer refurbished. They kick out hundreds of CDs or DVDs per hour, and I've had no major issues. Retail stores won't sell CIS systems or ink, of course. A new $149 Epson with a CIS pre-installed is worth it for any household with kids or at-home office needs. I had one printer finally croak, and I tossed it. For $99, it wasn't worth even trying to fix it.
The wide format printers I use also don't have local retail disposables (HP DesignJet 5500), even though there are thousands of these in operation in the Midwest. The cartridges are huge (670ml), and I use a third party now and the inks are better than HPs. I think I pay $120 for 670ml of ink. I also use the ancient DesignJet 3800CP which has a ~1000ml ink tank (x4) which go for $120-$150 each.
It isn't just the manufacturers -- the retailers also love the products we hate. I don't buy those products. I don't let me family buy those products.
Monopolies are the "natural" mature state of markets because some asshat sees the opportunity in doing things like, owning the entire supply of some good or coordinating prices and supply with their nearest competitors, or legislating barriers to market.
Ridiculous and proven wrong by many economists and by actual market proofs. First of all, if someone legislates a barrier to a market, then it isn't a free market to begin with, so you can't say that a monopoly comes from a free market, but from a State-regulated one. Monopolies ONLY exist when they're regulated INTO existance. The Enron Fiasco happened because of the State, not because of the market. Even the so-called monopoly of Standard Oil wasn't a monopoly!
Rockefeller would buy competitors and merge them into his company. By becoming more efficient, his prices fell. Then those same competitors would turn around and re-enter the market, competing with Rockefeller with NEWER efficiencies, which he then bought, merged, and lowered prices more. Guess what? Those competitors started new companies, rinse, repeat. When Esso started, oil was 30 cents a gallon (1869). By 1897, it was 0.29 cents per gallon (yes, about 4 gallons per cent!). The only reason Standard Oil was "broken up" was because competition was killing it by 1911 (Associated Oil, Texaco, Gulf, and the hundred other companies), and one competitor that failed in competing had a idiot daughter muckraker who wrote a book-of-lies. Her name was Ida M. Tarbell.
Markets do not create monopolies, in fact the only thing that stops a competitor from competing is THE artificial barrier to compete that we call State regulation. Even if YOU think some market is cost-prohibitive to enter, others will take a risk, en masse, to try to compete if they can. Every market with big complaints is a market with big regulations. Every market with minimal complaints is a market with minimal regulations.
If you try to buy up all the goods of a given market, you will have to have the money to do so, and no individual can. This means other individuals must invest in a company to buy all the raw materials. Once you buy all the raw materials, you need the warehouses to store them (temporarily, because once you've manufactured them, you won't need the warehouses, right?), distribute them to retail, sell them, and wonder what to do once you run out of raw materials. Ain't gonna happ'n.
If you try to collude with competitors, you'll fail because more competition will come into the market. Only States can keep cartels alive and profitable.
It doesn't and it hasn't.
Sure it has. Look at restaurants in the US. They're relatively unregulated, and you get a HUGE choice and selection of foods at various prices and qualities and speeds. That's a relatively unregulated market. Restaurants open and close constantly which is how the market operates to keep efficient and high-demand suppliers in business. Unfortunately, State regulations are slowly killing even the restaurant business.
Look at cell phones. Any single person of any credit score can go out and get a free cell phone with no contract today. Even though the communications back-end is highly regulated, we still have intense competition. Imagine where prices would fall to and service levels would bloom to if regulations were reduced (or removed) in this market?
Look at PCs, another relatively unregulated market. Even with patents and copyright, it is still highly competitive, because of the relatively open market of production and distribution and sales.
100 gold coins takes this guy Li 4 hours to come across. He gets paid $0.30 for it. I pay the end seller $5 for the same 1 hour of coins (25 gold coins). So I'm basically saving myself 1 hour (or more, if Li is extra-efficient) for the low cost of $5. Sounds like a winning situation for me.
As for Li, it sounds like a good place to start also. It's a new market, and in all new markets people have to work for peas (or less) to until the market breaks open. We might see Li running his own show in 5 years (or we may not).
Until then, he gets to work indoors, on a computer, smoke as much as he wants (try that in the US!), and learn a skill that some may consider mundane, but shows a helluva lot of marketability with a longterm and bright future. Now it sounds like a win-win situation.
Apple, just like Microsoft, is a BUISNESS. Buisnesses are about profit. That's it.
and
ALL buisnesses are in it for the money. Welcome to reality, bud.
That's a pretty close-minded view that I believe many slashdotters share, but it is also completely wrong. Businesses are not "in it" for "the money" or just "for (financial) profit." Neither are consumers. No one enters a trade agreement without considering their own gain. A phone company has no reason to sell you a phone if they're not going to gain SOMETHING out of the deal. It isn't always money. AT&T may give away a few hundred phones to the likes of Paris Hilton and Brad Pitt in exchange for a non-financial profit from these parties.
You, the "consumer," also are not going to make a trade if you don't get a gain. If you buy the iPhone, it will be for some personal gain -- you can call that a profit. I use my HTC Trinity because it gives me a few different forms of profit: it works well, so my customers are happy (financial gain). It handles my daily business and personal tasks efficiently, so I get a time-savings profit. I paid $600 for it, but I have gained significantly in terms of finances, time and uniqueness. I made a "profit," or I would not have purchased the phone from HTC. HTC gained a profit, in terms of finances.
The market is all about mutual profits by both parties -- not just one party gaining and the other party losing. When that happens, we call it government.
*Every* phone that is not a prepaid phone requires a contract, and nearly all of them have draconian cancellation fees
I bought my HTC Trinity P3600 last year from a reseller with no contract ($600, though). I added it to my T-Mobile business plan with no long term commitment. There is no contract to cancel if I decide to jump carriers. I have no desire to subsidize my phone's initial cost by giving in to 2 year agreements.
He did forget that since businesses haven't been paying their fair share of the tax burden they've got tons of money to spend on lobbyists.
Totally ridiculous assertion. Illinois businesses pay a higher share of total state and local taxes than businesses in the
neighboring states of Indiana, Kentucky, Missouri, Iowa and Wisconsin:
Link (PDF warning)
I run a few businesses in Illinois, and Wisconsin is looking MIGHTY good right now if Blag passes any more business tax legislation. With a horrible zoning situation in most cities, coupled with horrific business regulations at the county and state level, Illinois will quickly lose the small-to-medium sized businesses that operate on a national level.
1941 and they were already considering a permanent home for the "War" department. In a country where the army was not to be a standing army and it was to be all-volunteer? Typical.
Here's a idea to get rid of the Empire quickly: pass a Constitutional amendment that no military troops can be paid or reimbursed, ever. This way, the only reason why men will go to war is a real one -- real fear that their families, friends and properties may see harm.
Good article, by the way.
I have no doubt that Google (do no evil?) already does this. I have some friends who have been banned from the AdSense network because they clicked their own ads (big no-no), but not from their own network. Laptops from other networks in the same region (say, Chicago). Google's ads definitely send back SOMETHING to Google -- maybe screen resolution + browser version + operation system + who knows what. No one really knows what it shared (someone should trace the traffic), but Google knows more than they're sharing. Heck, their Google search tells you how many times you recently visited a searched site (I log in via gmail, though).
It isn't that hard, and it won't be that hard to deflect if you're privacy crazy. I'd say this is mostly un-news, because privacy geeks will work around it, and those who don't work around it will get some benefit from targetted ads, better compensated search opportunities, and who knows what else.
But, to be honest, we all know that a truly free society isn't free at all. You have to have some rules for life to continue. This may be one of them.
I disagree. A free society is one where all citizens are equally free from legal force that gives power to some and takes power away from others, without their express consent (ie, a contract). In a free society, you and I can contract to limit each other -- but the State can not unless we individually tell them that they can. Also, a free society is one where an individual can make any decision they want, as long as they do not directly harm the physical property or body of another individual. Speech can not do physical harm, so speech can not be criminal, no matter how repulsive it is. The effect of the speech could be a physical reaction, but if that physical reaction is performed by a person other than the speech giver, the speech giver has not caused harm.
People will visit their library more. They'll go walk at the park with friends more. So while I think it's good to fight for our rights, the result wouldn't be that bad. "Burn the land, boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me..." We'll find plenty other things to occupy ourselves with. Who cares about AACS and movies and stuff when you can find something else just as, if not more entertaining, for half the price?
Entertainment has more to do with time preference decisions than just saving "money" doing something that might seem entertaining. Someone who is very busy and who has a high hourly-value to the market may want a quick relief of "getting away from reality" and may be more than happy to pay $150 per person to see an Opera. Someone who is not so busy, and may not command a high hourly-value to the market may be more entertained reading a book, which could take hours or days or weeks. It all boils down to how you (and the market) value yourself.
Personally, I see nothing wrong with paying $20+ to buy a movie -- if I can use it the way I want to. I prefer to live in a tiny home so that I do not have to pay for extra unused space. This means I have no room for the clutter of physical movies (DVDs, VHS, etc). Instead, I have a great Media Center PC (yes, Microsoft), and I have 1TB of movies and TV shows available to watch based on my mood. This is considered illegal, even though I have paid for all the movies and shows I watched. I also used my own time/labor to put those movies/TV shows on that PC. I've harmed no one physically, so the law is unjust and ridiculous. Provide me with a process to reimburse the authors/distributors/producers of a given content, and also allow me to put that content into a system that works with my life, and I will pay AND continue to be a customer. I don't believe in NOT reimbursing those actively involved in the creation of content. I have no desire to pay for the lawyers, DRM researchers, or those who lobby the State to use force against me to uphold their monopoly.
Actually, as I said yesterday, ignore these threats. Go out and blog. Understand that freedom of speech is NOT a government-granted freedom, it is an inherent one that all people of all citizenship must understand. The U.S. Constitution's (Bill of Rights) 1st Amendment does not say "You are free to speak," it says that Congress shall make NO LAW restricting the freedom of speech -- NO law. Discussing encryption mechanisms is free speech, and Congress shall not abridge that. As for patents and trademark and the rest, as long as you do not mimic the mechanism in your own hardware or software, you're fine, Constitutionally. As long as you do not quote verbatim the actual code used to create this mechanism, you're not violating copyright. The DMCA is unconstitional, and regardless of what Congress, the Supreme Court, the President, or any company says, it is non-binding in terms of the moral realization that Congress, and honestly no State organization, can prevent you from freely airing your opinions. You are free to talk, but no one has to listen.
From yesterday's post I made about "legal recommendations for bloggers," go out and blog. Say what you want to say. There are more of us than there are of them -- not only can they not afford to go after everyone, they can not afford to go after even a small percentage. Let some bloggers get caught, and all it will do is show other people that non-violent actions should not be criminalized or penalized.
AACS, your days are numbered. Your salaries will end. Your powers will be diminished. It won't be because of competition from another company (that you are likely in bed with, in terms of promoting the abuse of State power), it will be because millions upon millions of people will ignore you, and all you do, in trying to revoke our inherent (and in my opinion, God-given) right to speak freely amongst ourselves.
There are massive difference between something being done in a limited regard on a small scale catering to a supportive market and it begin done at a large scale.
True, but the article was about blogging, and MOST bloggers will only reach a limited supportive market.
All someone needs to do is subscribe to all popular writers then republish the content on a website for free, maybe giving credit if they are generous. Heck, soon someone would make a firefox extension that automatically goes to a free version when a subscription only page is reached.
Again, true, but the person who republishes content has to spend their time to do so -- what is that time/labor worth in the market, even if it might be considered "theft"? The online porn industry thrives on people republishing content to try to get leeches to subscribe -- even the pirates who steal the whole site help the industry because the pirates have to constantly work to get the content out there. As it is, the porn industry can greatly reflect what will eventually happen to other content industries.
Even if you're not W2, let's say you're a writer. Unless your book is damn popular you will need to write books at a steady pace or your income will dry out, books don't continue to sell well indefinably. Even when they do unless you have income from many books with new ones being written to offset the decrease from older ones you won't continue to make money.
Which is why I personally am anti-book. I'm slowly starting to write on a "chapter" basis -- release a newsletter that allows readers to continue to want more in the next month, and also respond to the readers' questions and comments and criticisms in future editions. One of the profit-powers of my old mailed newsletters was that I only responded to subscribers' questions -- if non-subscribers asked me questions, I answered them to subscribers, and I let the question-asker know that they could ask for a copy of the future edition, or subscribe for direct contact. For me, this gives my "leech" readers a reason to subscribe. I'm working on a science-fiction novel, and I plan to actually provide my paid readers with a Q&A on character development outside of the novel in the form of custom side-stories based on ideas I've formulated combined with questions paid readers have on those characters or side notes. The opportunity to profit is endless -- instead of a one-time cost to buy my book (which will be freely available in e-book fashion), my readers can look to more of the story by providing me with an income up-front to continue writing.
This lets those who can't afford my writing (or don't want to pay) the ability to get the new stories electronically, whereas those who buy my works will get a nice printed copy. Note: I own a print-on-demand system through my co-op VIPMinistry.com, so I can print individual copies of a paperback book with a color cover for less than $3 a copy. Sell it for $20 with a year of free printed side updates, or $10 for the one-off, while also releasing it freely for people to read on the PC or print at their own cost (likely more expensive than my POD system would cost them to pay for).
Not. Who uses RSS when I have Google News that I have customized for my interests.
From its beginning I have always criticized RSS for only including a short blurb and a link. I would rather have the whole article in an RSS feed. I dont, and so I dont.
I use RSS feeds FROM Google News to inform me of news updates on topics I follow. I actually have about 500 RSS feeds subscribed to from Google News alone. I have a top 50 topics that never get purged, I have 250 or so topics that get purged every other day, and the rest are purged hourly, automagically.
Just curious, what is your opinion on people who get income from bonds, stocks, annuities, and (since I suspect you have an easy out for those three) appreciation of gold? Aren't those also "do it once and reap benefits for 70+ years" type tricks?
:)
For me, money and time are the same thing, and don't differ at all. Money is merely a storage of time that can be redeemed to save you time in the future. Instead of mowing your own lawn (let's say it would take you 1 hour), you can redeem stored time (money) to have someone else do it that is more efficient. You might trade 1/10th of an hour of stored time to save yourself 1 hour now.
If you expend your time today ("working"), you may hope to acquire some stored time ("money") to redeem later. If you expend some of your stored time today ("invest money"), you should hope to benefit with a gain, but you may also face a loss -- risk. For MOST people who invest, they don't see their net gains as losses, but many do. Over time, inflation of the money supply is one of the biggest reasons for gains in value in stocks, bonds and yes, even gold. I don't look at the dollar value of my gold savings, I only look at the weight. If gold goes from $650 an ounce to $1300 an ounce, I don't look at it is as a profit, especially if consumer prices have doubled in the same time. If my stock investment doubles in net value, I also have to look to see if consumer prices have gone up at the same time. Often times, stocks increasing in value have not necessarily met with inflation's devaluation of your investments. The only investment I'd personally risk is one that pays dividends annually in excess of inflation and the tax burden. This is why I have zero stocks, bonds or pension accounts
I _do_ believe in investments, though, but I keep those investments close to home (my own businesses, or shares in local businesses that I have a hand in watching over and profiting from). I "demand" that my risk is offset by a realistic profit beyond inflation + taxes (funny how government is the reason that both have to be added to the equation). Is my investment worthy of a return? Why is taking my gold and loaning it to someone different than my writing a book and hoping to regain money on that investment? The difference is that writing a book is an investment of a set amount of time (the time to write the book), and the waiting for income is generally NOT an investment in time (OK, there is marketign). Investing in a business means an ongoing loss of the use of my stored time ("money"), which is an ongoing investment.
It's apparently always been a pain in the backside to make a living as an author, short of selling yourself out basically. Why would I subscribe to something when I can get the same content for free (or with less ads) from 100+ different websites within 10 minutes of it coming out? All those websites really need to cover is the cost of hosting not the cost of creation so they will always win in terms of price.
Currently, there is no market incentive, paying an author happens for two reasons: to avoid breaking the law, or altruism to support the author. That being said, I have years of experience with print newsletters I wrote and published, and I always told my subscribers to freely copy the newsletter for friends or family. Guess what happened? Friends and family subscribed for the express reason that they wanted to get a copy to read rather than wait for a copy or search for one.
My public blogs are free, my private e-newsletters are not, even though I allow people to forward them to others (and many do). My reader base increases still, even though I freely let people share all my writings, even republish them as their own.
Huh? I'm sure that 99% of professionals artists would laugh at you as they work continuously just like everyone else.
If you mean W2 employees, I'll agree! If you can't sell your own labor yourself as a contractor, go get a job and you'll do fine and can basically ignore the whole issue of who owns your finished work. Yet those who want to be contractors will quickly have to find ways to be rehired. In the coming years, we'll see EXTREME competition from African and Asian workers who will be able to produce art cheaper, faster and actually better than the Western "protected" workers. Look at the Chinese-knock-offs of the Stratovarius violins -- they're amazing pieces of work and they're cheap. Look at the Chinese-industry of oil painters -- cheap but exceptionally talented. I've already seen some web designs and some print designs that have come out of Indian "sweat shops" and they're really high quality, and really cheap. Soon enough copyright will be meaningless for "artists" -- you'll have to sell other features of yourself to regain future work.
Actually, I do. *please mod interesting, please mod informative*
:)
I was being a tad bit obnoxious here, but my point stands -- e-mail notification of updates for any site will slowly go the way of the do-do (or the animated GIF, if you will). I've even introduced my luddite father to RSS feeds, and he uses them now that he knows to look for them. More bloggers (and any site that updates regularly) should be moving to promote RSS feeds over e-mail notifications or updates.
Note, I didn't say that my (arguably huge) desire justifies enforcement of a right to it; I'm just saying that you should not equate the good of the information, with the good of excluding access that information, and that you should be able to justify why all rights must be articulable in terms of physical objects if you want to use "infinite supply" arguments like that.
You're right, but I'm guessing this justification for copyright will slowly diminish over time as more people move to the label of "publisher" rather than just "reader." As more people start creating content, those who utilize copyright to protect their monopoly in a given market will find that copyright inhibits them, rather than produces a profit for them. Copyright is the great un-equalizer -- it protects "one-time work" rather than the ongoing labor that most other markets require for consistent long-term income. In the long run, the lack of copyright will help more people earn an income -- bands will make their money touring rather than sitting in a studio for a few weeks. Writers will make their money on subscriptions (and advertising) for those who appreciate the writing, rather than writing a book once and hoping it sells enough over years (and is quickly outdated). Artists will make their money producing content for the other two groups, or for industry that requires unique creations to attract attention. Income is an ongoing process of laboring, not a "do it once and reap benefits for 70+ years."
I do appreciate your insight, and I will work to better explain the market of supply and demand
As a blogger (on hiatus) who could be considered "professional" (meaning part of my income comes from my blogging or my business helping businesses blog), I am glad that the anarchy of the blogging market is quickly making many of these laws impossible to enforce. For those who know my opinions, I am anti-copyright, anti-trademark, anti-patent; basic anti-intellectual property of any kind. I believe in real assets that have finite supply, not intellectual assets that can have near infinite supply.
Here's why most of this is unimportant, based on the sheer volume of blogging and the growth rate it will see from now until forever:
1. Whether to Disclose Paid Posts
A blogger who doesn't disclose paid posts will be called out on it and lose their customer base. The FTC should have nothing to do with this -- it happens naturally already.
2. Is Deep Linking Legal
The sheer volume of bloggers who deep-link is overwhelming. If someone "catches you" and thinks you are breaking a law, the cost to fight it is excessive. Instead of hitting you with a lawsuit, you'll get a cease and desist, at which point you can remove the link after you've profited from it. Each deep-link probably has a different "owner/author," so let them manage their own inept use of force.
3. The Legal Use of Images and Thumbnails
see #2 -- Cease & Desist before lawsuit.
4. Laws that Protect You From Stolen Content
Those who try to protect their content from getting "stolen" will find themselves losing market share to those who freely allow re-distribution. All my writings are instantly public domain, because it helps my business by bringing my words to a larger audience. I even allow people to redistribute "as their own" with no reference to me. Why? It still increases the marketbase, and eventually that increases my audience potential. As to the law, see #2 and #3.
5. Domain Name Trademark Issues
I rely more on Google, Yahoo and Microsoft searches than on people knowing my domain name. Some of my most profitable blogs have the absolute worst domain names with impossible to remember subdomains. They're popular because of "StumbleUpon" and have good ranking in the search engines. I care little about the domain name, and am just as likely to register gobbledy-gook names.
6. Handling Private Data About Your Readers
Simple solution -- keep nothing. I don't need to know anything more about my readers than their IP address (to see if they're returning) and maybe some simple info that their browser gives me info on (operating system, web browser version, etc). The rest is worthless to me, I don't resell data, nor would I want to spend the time doing so.
7. Who Owns User-Developed Content and Can You Delete It
Who cares? Like #2, if a user posts something and asks me to delete it (like a cease and desist), I will. Big deal.
8. The Duty to Monitor Your Blog Comments, and Liability
Again, if someone has a problem with what I write, or what someone else writes, I'll nuke the problem topic if I feel I am lawsuit-worthy. The cost to go after millions of writers is enormous, and probably worthless.
9. Basic Tax Law Issues in Blogging
I received a big 1099-C from three advertisers bases, and tossed it in the pile with my other 1099-C for my accountant. Deal with it. Also keep receipts for EVERYTHING you buy that is blogger-based (laptop, internet connection, web hosting, etc). Offset it.
10. Limited Liability Laws and Incorporating
That's semi-ridiculous -- if you do ANYTHING for money, incorporate as a S-corp. Don't do anything on your own, otherwise your tax incentives are lost. I've never been a W9 employee, because it reduces my ability to provide tax write-offs and deductions.
11. Spam Laws and Which Unsolicited Emails are Legal
Who uses e-mail anymore? RSS is what matters. Don't e-mail anyone, let them sub
your plan is great in theory, however in the real world perfectly healthy people get sick and require hospital care which would chew up your $10,000 in the first week. this is what health insurance is for.
Which is what I advocate -- health insurance, with a $10,000 deductible (and max annual out-of-pocket payout). You save $10,000, you're covered for that real emergency. My AAPS doctor is never more than $25 a visit, and he does home visits. He also will never accept medicare or medicaid, so he is under no obligation to overcharge me. He prefer cash payments up front, and I even tip him. AAPS doctors are the way to go for non-major health needs.
your only 1/2 right about the state breaking the health care system. believe it or not, their ARE things where free markets do not work, and health care is one of them. reason being that health care doesn't deal in money, it deals in peoples health which is priceless. all the typical measures used in a free market don't apply to health care. the only way to fix health care is to find a way where making money comes 2nd to treating peoples problems.
Actually, the free market of health care DID work, it was all the new regulations added on top of the free market that destroyed the market's ability to perservere during problem streaks. I also disagree that peoples' healths is priceless -- if it was, people would spend any amount of time or money to stay healthy. When I look at teenagers in the US, I see that isn't the case -- they're more likely to be fat than skinny. When I look at retired folk, I see the same problem. People who don't care for their health in the first place can not consider their health priceless.
The majority of health problems in America can be pointed to the fact that the State has destroyed personal responsibility to prevent health issues. Heart disease is greatly worsened by being fat. Many cancers are related to lifestyle choices, including eating and the lack of intelligent decisions in other consumptions. Don't think for a minute that I think my life is not priceless, but I also prove that by eating healthy, exercising, and making wise decisions in putting my money into future concerns rather than spending it today.
If you don't, why should I pay for you? If you live an unhealthy lifestyle, you've already shown me that your life is NOT priceless because you don't care about the future.
The biggest impediment to a great health care system is, and will always be, regulation. Regulation comes from one monster: the State.
The US had the greatest healthcare system in the world. Then the U.S. Federal State decided to start destroying it, piece by piece, through regulation. After the HMO Act of 1973, healthcare quickly degraded. Instead of removing the regulations, the State decided to make new ones, creating more aggressive monopoly powers (see: AMA), making costs go up (by providing tax relief for corporations and not individuals), and then tossing new entitlements into the system (medicare, medicaid, VA, etc) that made everyone's prices go up.
What's the old adage about insurance? Invite all your friends to dinner, and most will have burgers instead of steak. Agree to split the bill equally, and a few will order steak, but pay less for their share. Eventually, everyone will want steak, and they'll wonder why no one can afford dinner. It is no different with State-forced health care, and State-regulated healthcare.
To fix healthcare, start by dumping your AMA doctors. Ask your doctor if they are affiliated with the AMA, and if they are, walk. Find a great AAPS doctor, and pay them cash (they are MUCH cheaper paying cash than most deductibles with insurance). Start saving a nice nest egg, and then start increasing your deductible as high as you can -- $10,000 or more once your nest egg gets there. Insurance is for detrimental emergencies, not to check out that cough or find out why your nose is running.
Then, lose weight. Watch your carbs (starches and sugars). You'll have little need likely for doctors once you are healthy.
Finally, go the self-employment route. It works, once you have a big savings account, a high deductible, and are truly healthy because you're not another fat American. By being self employed, you can walk away from the monstrosity that is called "employer-sponsored health care." What a farce.
It isn't the market that made healthcare bad, it isn't corruption or greed -- it is your very government, trying to fix mistakes that the State of past generations has slowly caused. Don't spew garbage about the U.K. either, I have a few ex-patriate friends living there who has mentioned how terrible it is.
Links to good info:
Lowering the Cost of Health Care, Dr. Ron Paul
Free Market Medicine, Dr. Ron Paul
Subsidizing Sickness, Llewellyn Rockwell
Patent infringement is NEARLY always about one big guy versus another big guy -- or a big guy versus a little guy. How often do patents actually help individuals rather than mega-conglomerates? Even if you have a small business with various patents, can you afford to protect them in court?
Vonage lived by the sword -- they themeselves believed in patents. While I feel this judgment is counter-market, it doesn't cause as much damage as patents do in general. The idea that someone can monopolize the thoughts, motions or creations of another individual is ridiculous, especially in the multitude of patents we all know are ridiculous.
So be it. Whenever anyone who uses patents loses a patent war, they get what they deserve. I feel no pain for Vonage, nor anyone who decides to base their businesses on forcing other businesses not to compete in a certain way.
Rest in pieces, Vonage. Maybe Verizon will be next.