Yeap, I think we nailed the socialist vs. liberal issue.
Many worthwhile things aren't profitable and many profitable things aren't worthwhile.
At the fundamental level I agree with you on the premise you justify with your van Gogh example. However, idealism falls down in practice. Even though he never saw a relative dime for his work, van Gogh still painted, didn't he?
The problem with "worthwhile" is that it's extremely subjective. How much would you have paid for a contemporary van Gogh, had you not known how they would appreciate in value?
Why would I want niche channels that I like to fail? How would that benefit me?
It's simple: if you don't want the niche channel to fail, give it financial support! Buy a subscription, make a donation, etc. I'm not suggesting you follow the mainstream at all, I'm suggesting you follow your own tastes and back them up with your wallet. However, your advocacy of the bundling model suggests that you want the mainstream to follow your tastes by supporting the channels you don't want to fail without any specific cost to yourself!
People will pay for their favorite high-quality channels...and just not be willing to pay for yet another channel, even if it is good quality.
OK, so you're saying that people will have a heirarchy of channels, and they'll only pay for the ones at the top (the ones they watch regularly), even though they're all good quality? I believe your fundamental argument is that there might exist a channel that is van Gogh good, but somehow people will be unwilling to pay for it and it will just go away. This argument relies on the assumption that there will be both widespread recognition of the quality programming on a channel, but equally widespread refusal to purchase that channel. That still boils down to people not willing to pay for quality.
Why is something automatically "low quality" just because they have a small target audience?
I didn't say niche channels were automatically low quality simply because they had a small target audience. I said they were low quality if the target audience wasn't willing to support them. There is a huge difference there.
Using your drug argument, suppose there there was a cure for herpes (which affects a very small percentage of the population). What possible reason would cause people not to want to pay for it? They thought they should be entitled to get it for free? The cure was worse than the disease? The former applies to your argument that there exists some things of value to only a small percentage that all of society should pay for. The latter implies that the drug actually is of low quality.
All of cable will become pablum, with no edgy, high-quality, niche channels because they can't survive economically. If you own a niche channel, then you will have to tightly control production costs because you don't have the ad revenue and viewer revenue to support higher costs.
The entire thrust of my argument is that the current system of bundling supports channels that may, due to their subject matter (not quality), not have a large enough audience to support them in an a la carte market.
Your argument is still fundamentally based on the premise that edgy, high-quality, niche channels can't survive because people won't pay for them directly. If that is the case, why do those channels exist now? Are you arguing that advertisers support them because they recognize the value of the programming even though there is an insignificant viewer base? Are you arguing that content providers are shoehorning "societally worthwhile" programming into otherwise worthless channel lineups out of guilt or selfless altruism? Are you arguing that consumers demand to have these channels, but will only accept them if they come as a package with the channels they really want so they can pretend to themselves that they're not actually paying for them, even if that package comes with a bunch
Not entirely true. An executive without innate oratory skills and limited ability to think on his feet or understand all facets of the business at hand (be it government or private business) would be well-advised to use speech writers.
However, if he does possess all of these skills (i.e. is a natural leader), he would be well-advised to make use of them. Not only will his employees appreciate the honesty and ability, but clients, constituents, etc. will, too. Everyone responds better to candid PR than to packaged and polished lip service. Packaged PR carries a lower standard of truth.
A leader should always be held accountable for consequences. Some situations may call for delegation, but overall that leader must be intimately familiar with his domain. That's what management and leadership are all about, and that's why they get paid the big bucks.
No, the parent was using "liberal" in the sense of believing that government regulation of rates and terms is often needed to protect consumers. I know, because I wrote the parent to your post.
Fair enough. Typically socialism and liberalism in the sense that you are using it are synonymous, so there seemed to be a bit of a logical disconnect in saying that the two were at odds with each other. I still think the liberal economic view applies from the standpoint of the consumer. Under the current model programming is very socialized and the a la carte proposal is a very free-market concept.
No, that was not my argument. My argument was two-fold:
1. That many vertical market channels (i.e., those aimed at special interest markets) will have a hard time attracting enough viewers to be profitable. Even if you get 100% of the market of people who play harps, it's not enough to sustain "The Harp Channel."
If it's not profitable, it disappears. I fail to see how I'm misinterpreting this argument.
2. That high-quality channels which are only viewed occasionally by a given consumer will not be picked up by that consumer as part of his rental package. Someone might watch a show on "Animal Planet" every few months, but he won't pay for that channel if it's a la carte.
Again, I interpreted your argument as saying that people will not be willing to pay for quality. I don't see how that is at odds with what you're saying here.
It's in the interest of stations in the a la carte model to seek out the largest market of paying viewers. If you run a channel that caters to thimble collectors, you won't have enough of an audience to pay your costs or to attract advertisers. What's so confusing about that?
This is an overly simplistic view. Content providers will go where the money is. That's not always about the size of the audience, it's about the market.
If you run a channel that caters to Ferrari collectors (arguably just as small a demographic as thimble collectors) you not only have a large advertising coffer to tap, but you have a target audience with plenty of disposable income. Hence, you can charge more for it.
If you're running a channel about thimble collection, your production costs will be much lower than the HBO's and NBC's of the world. Thus, you can charge much less for it, and/or get by on lower revenues.
There will still be advertising-driven crap (an extreme case being QVC - pure advertising), which could allow many channels to be distributed for free. Network retransmissions would probably be free as well (after all, you can get them for free with an antenna as it stands).
However, prevailing market forces should level the playing field and reward quality with high subscription rates as well as allowing competition to drive down prices and raise overall quality. Obviously a channel producer would like to cater to the broadest market possible, but not at the expense of the bottom line. With the a la carte model, more realistic market factors will also enter the calculations. Channels that perform well are those that strike a good balance between quality, production cost, size of the target audience, targeted advertising, and subscription pricing. These factors are constricted or inflated by the current model.
There are many niche market channels... Many viewers who now subsidize those channels with package deals would no longer do so under the a la carte scheme being discussed. Then we would see if "World Harvest Television" and "TechTV" have enough paying viewers to keep them afloat.
My argument was not that we don't have a wide variety of niche market channels, but that there is no competition within those niches. Within the "geek" space, there is no channel that competes with TechTV, so we get a kind of general catch-all programming style which is neither focused nor very high quality. Under the a la carte system, TechTV may not get the subscription support it ne
Communism does not preclude fair election. Communism is just socialism in the extreme. There are plenty of contemporary democratic socialist countries. At the same time, democracy (traditionally the "enemy" of communism due to Cold War propaganda) is not immune to corruption, either. It wouldn't be hard to argue that the "politician for sale" lobby problem is not evidence of corruption in the United States.
The problem with "pure" communism (the reason why it doesn't pan out in reality) is that it doesn't provide personal incentives to produce - all production is seized and redistributed by the state. Similarly, there are incentives only to demonsrate need in order to obtain an undue portion of the redistribution. Under such a system, the dishonest are rewarded by not having to work according to ability and obtaining more than fair share of "need". The honest are punished.
Even the U.S. has adopted many socialist programs (Medicare, Social Security, welfare, public education), but it's difficult to determine where the balance between socialism and pure capitalism lies. Allowing the market free rein implies that there is no such thing as a public good, which is difficult to argue.
The more power in the central government, the more corruption, no matter what form of government it is. This is one of the reasons our founding fathers intended to limit the power of the fed, a lesson that not even the current Republican party seems to have taken to heart.
I wouldn't consider the PRC to be particularly communist at this point. The party line at the moment is basically "shut up and we'll let you get rich". This leads to strange dichotomies where they wish to censor satellite broadcasts, but are making truckloads of the satellite industry.
The younger generations are beginning to be raised on capitalism and American consumerist "culture". It's unclear what that will mean for the political future of the PRC, but fascism and unrestrained capitalism aren't entirely at odds with each other.
Some other posts on this topic have mentioned the threat of the PRC to US global dominance. This is especially true in the economic realm as China has vast production capability while at the same time a relatively low standard of living. That gives the PRC tremendous economic clout.
One of the scariest things about Google, IMO is the amount of information they can collect by storing content locally using cookies without needing any kind of registration. Nothing more invasive than not filling out a huge form on a Web site I most commonly visit, especially when they collect way more information than is actually needed.
I can't seem to find the source or author of the original quote, but it's most commonly two wolves deciding with the sheep on dinner. However, this quote only confuses the argument. The proposal is only about voting for channels in the sense that we "vote" with our wallets.
In case it wasn't obvious, the parent is using 'liberal' in the sense in which it applies to economic theory, which in this case means laissez-faire. While the cable-provider market has been monopolized and thus isn't subject to free market forces, content providers may still have a chance to compete before the Rupert Murdochs of the world own them all. This a la carte proposal is still very relevant.
The parent argues that a la carte cable plans subject us to the risk of LCD "reality crapfest" programming, where National Geographic and other quality programming will disappear. His argument is that people are willing to pay for crap and not for quality. I think this is taking a fairly dim view of how people spend their money, but it also ignores the cause of the crap-fest mentality.
The reason the LCD crapfest exists is because of the LCD mentality of advertisers. It is in the best interest of program directors to seek out the LCD "crap" so as to provide the largest market for advertisers. If you take away the strict advertising model, you can no longer assume that the LCD crap will continue to dominate. Under the current model, it is not the viewers paying for the content (except in the sense that we pay with our time and brain cells).
We already have a partial implementation of the a la carte system to use as a model. It has already been proven that people are willing to pay for the HBOs and SHOwtimes of the market because it is quality, ad-free content. If we break out of the package model completely, I predict that the crap will actually be marginalized and the channels which stand for quality (or porn) will rise to the top.
Similarly, we don't really have much choice in niche markets (TechTV or bust). Allowing a subscriber to choose between several providers in a niche will increase competition and increase standards across the board.
There is a non-trivial barrier-to-entry to provide content, but it is much much lower than that required when the infrastructure (cable, satellite, broadcast) is already in place and is hospitable to competition.
Oops, not Alaska, Illinois. I must have subconsciously pulled the AK off of the Oak in Oak Street. In any case, this is still not the correct Howard Dean.
Only two Howard Deans made contributions, neither from Vermont.
Mod parent down. Dean has publicly pledged his support for Kerry. The Howard Dean referenced by that link is the president of a company called Dean Foods in Alaska! One would have to be pretty oblivious not to know that the Howard Dean that was running for president not only lives in Vermont, but is the governor!
I must admit you have a talent for this! You turned a totally negative meaning into positive one just by adding context. Good job!
Hmm, maybe I should get myself a job in marketing! Truthfully, I don't believe the original meaning of the quote was altered at all the way that it was cited in the article, but it certainly pays to be vigilant, and brook no aggression (been playing too much Civ II).
'I want to make sure (a user) can't get through... an online experience without hitting a Microsoft ad.'
Actually, though Timothy did not correct the submission of the anonymous reader, the quote appears exactly that way at the end of the article, including parentheses and the ellipsis. I want to know what was elided in that sentence. What if the original quote had been:
'I want to make sure (a user) can't get through a search engine and still not find what he is looking for. You have services like Google which provide AdWords on every search, but not necessarily guaranteeing the content users are looking for. I think users would enjoy using a search function as a part of an online experience without hitting a Microsoft ad.'
But here I am questioning journalistic integrity on slashdot. I must be new here.
I found myself amazed that this comment got modded to funny. Then I started to think about our international readership, and started wondering if global opinion about us has sunk so low that they find humor in our misfortune. Of course, we are responsible for that low opinion ourselves.
That's an interesting point. But why would we need a tax to accomplish this? If an author is interested in being contacted to allow negotiation for limited-use rights to his work, he will find some way to make it happen. More likely, he will already be actively pursuing a publisher in order to attempt to profit from his own ideas. If not, that's why a the copyright term limit must exist. In the worst case, if an author cannot be found (or does not want to be found), one can simply wait until the work enters the public domain. Forced registration simply allows an author to be harassed even when he does not wish to be found.
I would support an argument for a national copyright registry, which would be paid for by those registering copyrights. Presumably, one would only register one's ideas if one was expecting to be contacted for use of those ideas, and by extension to eventually profit from them. However, this is separate from an unlimited copyright provision. Even if one does not wish to register, one's copyright should still be guaranteed.
In the case where an author publishes an idea, but does not wish to be found, I would argue that that author does not plan to profit from his own ideas. I agree that there should be provisions for an author to release his work with the restrictions that it may be reused, but not for the purposes of profit. I can't envision any other reason why an author would publish under copyright if he does not intend to profit or simply prevent someone else from profiting.
That's a fair definition, but how do you know in advance how useful your ideas are? How do you know which ideas are worth paying the tax to register and how many are you willing just to throw out there with no protection for yourself? Or worse yet, what's your motivation for publishing your ideas if you're not sure how valuable they are going to be? The tax introduces a threshold below which society says "don't bother publishing", and that threshold may be perceived differently by different authors.
You say that the value of ideas is measured by the number of people using them. But that value can't be measured until after an idea is published. How can you assign a tax to something that by your definition does not yet have a value attached?
If the gov't is protecting a certain economic segment of our society without charging that segment specifically then it is contributing monetary funds to that segment. It's the same as corporate tax breaks. It is a subsidy.
I understand your point. However, there is a big difference between the forms of government protection you are using for your argument than the protections provided by copyright law.
When the government taxes gasoline to provide the revenue to fund public transportation infrastructure, it takes funds from the beneficiaries and directs them into the creation of roads. Roads are not free.
When the government taxes copyright, what service is it providing? Writing a law into a book? In order to take advantage of copyright law, a copyright holder still has to provide his own funds to initiate litigation against copyright violators.
In the context of the gas tax/transportation example, if the act of driving on roads produced more tax revenue (via interstate commerce tariffs, etc.) than the roads themselves cost to maintain and produce, would you still advocate a gas tax so we aren't "subsidizing" motorists?
As I argued before, the only cost incurred by the goverment is the potential for increased case load in the judicial system. And as I argued before, I believe that this cost incurred by society for "subsidizing" content creators is outweighed by the benefit society gains from the ideas, art, etc. produced by this group. Unfortunately the value of ideas is difficult to quantify, but it appears that our difference of opinion lies in how valuable we perceive ideas to be.
I don't ever want to give any private company the power to levy fines or to determine punishment. That's why we have a gov't. That is only for the gov't set up by its citezens to do. I'll re-state for you: You pay for the police to protect your life and your property. You should also pay for this kind of protection.
I wasn't suggesting that the private company be empowered to usurp the role of the judicial branch, simply that a private system is more efficient and economical for tracking and pursuing copyright interests. However, since I don't believe that content creators should be responsible for registration fees, I consider this a moot point.
It's interesting that you make the point that we pay (through taxes) for the government to protect our life and property. Why should we pay a separate fee in order for the government to protect our intellectual property?
Looking for gov't freebies, are we? It's not free to the tax payer. It's just another form of welfare, every bit as bad as tobacco subsidies.
Unconditional copyright isn't the same thing as a tobacco subsidy. Tobacco subsidies involve direct monetary contribution of tax funds to tobacco growers. By calling unconditional copyright "welfare", you are saying that government directly contributes monetary funds to content creators each time a work is published. If I argued to abolish the tax on gasoline (as I am arguing to abolish the tax on copyright), would you accuse me of promoting "motorist welfare"?
I will make your argument for you, since you seem to be struggling with it. The direct cost of unconditional copyright to the taxpayer is incurred when the judicial system is forced to hear an increased number of copyright infringement cases due to the lowered barrier-to-entry of publishing copyrightable content and the greater funds available to pursue those copyright interests. I can't speculate as to what this cost would be, but the majority of litigation these days is a financial burden on plaintiffs and defendants, not the judicial system itself. The societal cost is far outweighed by the benefits of increased incentive to publish IMHO.
I applaud your crusade against welfare in all its forms, but be careful how you define welfare.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeap, I think we nailed the socialist vs. liberal issue.
Many worthwhile things aren't profitable and many profitable things aren't worthwhile.
At the fundamental level I agree with you on the premise you justify with your van Gogh example. However, idealism falls down in practice. Even though he never saw a relative dime for his work, van Gogh still painted, didn't he?
The problem with "worthwhile" is that it's extremely subjective. How much would you have paid for a contemporary van Gogh, had you not known how they would appreciate in value?
Why would I want niche channels that I like to fail? How would that benefit me?
It's simple: if you don't want the niche channel to fail, give it financial support! Buy a subscription, make a donation, etc. I'm not suggesting you follow the mainstream at all, I'm suggesting you follow your own tastes and back them up with your wallet. However, your advocacy of the bundling model suggests that you want the mainstream to follow your tastes by supporting the channels you don't want to fail without any specific cost to yourself!
People will pay for their favorite high-quality channels...and just not be willing to pay for yet another channel, even if it is good quality.
OK, so you're saying that people will have a heirarchy of channels, and they'll only pay for the ones at the top (the ones they watch regularly), even though they're all good quality? I believe your fundamental argument is that there might exist a channel that is van Gogh good, but somehow people will be unwilling to pay for it and it will just go away. This argument relies on the assumption that there will be both widespread recognition of the quality programming on a channel, but equally widespread refusal to purchase that channel. That still boils down to people not willing to pay for quality.
Why is something automatically "low quality" just because they have a small target audience?
I didn't say niche channels were automatically low quality simply because they had a small target audience. I said they were low quality if the target audience wasn't willing to support them. There is a huge difference there.
Using your drug argument, suppose there there was a cure for herpes (which affects a very small percentage of the population). What possible reason would cause people not to want to pay for it? They thought they should be entitled to get it for free? The cure was worse than the disease? The former applies to your argument that there exists some things of value to only a small percentage that all of society should pay for. The latter implies that the drug actually is of low quality.
All of cable will become pablum, with no edgy, high-quality, niche channels because they can't survive economically. If you own a niche channel, then you will have to tightly control production costs because you don't have the ad revenue and viewer revenue to support higher costs.
The entire thrust of my argument is that the current system of bundling supports channels that may, due to their subject matter (not quality), not have a large enough audience to support them in an a la carte market.
Your argument is still fundamentally based on the premise that edgy, high-quality, niche channels can't survive because people won't pay for them directly. If that is the case, why do those channels exist now? Are you arguing that advertisers support them because they recognize the value of the programming even though there is an insignificant viewer base? Are you arguing that content providers are shoehorning "societally worthwhile" programming into otherwise worthless channel lineups out of guilt or selfless altruism? Are you arguing that consumers demand to have these channels, but will only accept them if they come as a package with the channels they really want so they can pretend to themselves that they're not actually paying for them, even if that package comes with a bunch
This article title reminds me of this poll. How many here actually deduced the content of the article correctly from the title?
Not entirely true. An executive without innate oratory skills and limited ability to think on his feet or understand all facets of the business at hand (be it government or private business) would be well-advised to use speech writers.
However, if he does possess all of these skills (i.e. is a natural leader), he would be well-advised to make use of them. Not only will his employees appreciate the honesty and ability, but clients, constituents, etc. will, too. Everyone responds better to candid PR than to packaged and polished lip service. Packaged PR carries a lower standard of truth.
A leader should always be held accountable for consequences. Some situations may call for delegation, but overall that leader must be intimately familiar with his domain. That's what management and leadership are all about, and that's why they get paid the big bucks.
No, the parent was using "liberal" in the sense of believing that government regulation of rates and terms is often needed to protect consumers. I know, because I wrote the parent to your post.
Fair enough. Typically socialism and liberalism in the sense that you are using it are synonymous, so there seemed to be a bit of a logical disconnect in saying that the two were at odds with each other. I still think the liberal economic view applies from the standpoint of the consumer. Under the current model programming is very socialized and the a la carte proposal is a very free-market concept.
No, that was not my argument. My argument was two-fold:
1. That many vertical market channels (i.e., those aimed at special interest markets) will have a hard time attracting enough viewers to be profitable. Even if you get 100% of the market of people who play harps, it's not enough to sustain "The Harp Channel."
If it's not profitable, it disappears. I fail to see how I'm misinterpreting this argument.
2. That high-quality channels which are only viewed occasionally by a given consumer will not be picked up by that consumer as part of his rental package. Someone might watch a show on "Animal Planet" every few months, but he won't pay for that channel if it's a la carte.
Again, I interpreted your argument as saying that people will not be willing to pay for quality. I don't see how that is at odds with what you're saying here.
It's in the interest of stations in the a la carte model to seek out the largest market of paying viewers. If you run a channel that caters to thimble collectors, you won't have enough of an audience to pay your costs or to attract advertisers. What's so confusing about that?
This is an overly simplistic view. Content providers will go where the money is. That's not always about the size of the audience, it's about the market.
If you run a channel that caters to Ferrari collectors (arguably just as small a demographic as thimble collectors) you not only have a large advertising coffer to tap, but you have a target audience with plenty of disposable income. Hence, you can charge more for it.
If you're running a channel about thimble collection, your production costs will be much lower than the HBO's and NBC's of the world. Thus, you can charge much less for it, and/or get by on lower revenues.
There will still be advertising-driven crap (an extreme case being QVC - pure advertising), which could allow many channels to be distributed for free. Network retransmissions would probably be free as well (after all, you can get them for free with an antenna as it stands).
However, prevailing market forces should level the playing field and reward quality with high subscription rates as well as allowing competition to drive down prices and raise overall quality. Obviously a channel producer would like to cater to the broadest market possible, but not at the expense of the bottom line. With the a la carte model, more realistic market factors will also enter the calculations. Channels that perform well are those that strike a good balance between quality, production cost, size of the target audience, targeted advertising, and subscription pricing. These factors are constricted or inflated by the current model.
There are many niche market channels...
Many viewers who now subsidize those channels with package deals would no longer do so under the a la carte scheme being discussed. Then we would see if "World Harvest Television" and "TechTV" have enough paying viewers to keep them afloat.
My argument was not that we don't have a wide variety of niche market channels, but that there is no competition within those niches. Within the "geek" space, there is no channel that competes with TechTV, so we get a kind of general catch-all programming style which is neither focused nor very high quality. Under the a la carte system, TechTV may not get the subscription support it ne
Communism does not preclude fair election. Communism is just socialism in the extreme. There are plenty of contemporary democratic socialist countries. At the same time, democracy (traditionally the "enemy" of communism due to Cold War propaganda) is not immune to corruption, either. It wouldn't be hard to argue that the "politician for sale" lobby problem is not evidence of corruption in the United States.
The problem with "pure" communism (the reason why it doesn't pan out in reality) is that it doesn't provide personal incentives to produce - all production is seized and redistributed by the state. Similarly, there are incentives only to demonsrate need in order to obtain an undue portion of the redistribution. Under such a system, the dishonest are rewarded by not having to work according to ability and obtaining more than fair share of "need". The honest are punished.
Even the U.S. has adopted many socialist programs (Medicare, Social Security, welfare, public education), but it's difficult to determine where the balance between socialism and pure capitalism lies. Allowing the market free rein implies that there is no such thing as a public good, which is difficult to argue.
The more power in the central government, the more corruption, no matter what form of government it is. This is one of the reasons our founding fathers intended to limit the power of the fed, a lesson that not even the current Republican party seems to have taken to heart.
I wouldn't consider the PRC to be particularly communist at this point. The party line at the moment is basically "shut up and we'll let you get rich". This leads to strange dichotomies where they wish to censor satellite broadcasts, but are making truckloads of the satellite industry.
The younger generations are beginning to be raised on capitalism and American consumerist "culture". It's unclear what that will mean for the political future of the PRC, but fascism and unrestrained capitalism aren't entirely at odds with each other.
Some other posts on this topic have mentioned the threat of the PRC to US global dominance. This is especially true in the economic realm as China has vast production capability while at the same time a relatively low standard of living. That gives the PRC tremendous economic clout.
Yet another case for the +1, Sacriligious mod.
One of the scariest things about Google, IMO is the amount of information they can collect by storing content locally using cookies without needing any kind of registration. Nothing more invasive than not filling out a huge form on a Web site I most commonly visit, especially when they collect way more information than is actually needed.
http://www.google-watch.org/bigbro.html
I'm not a typical tin-foil hatter, but it does pay to be aware of what's going on behind the scenes.
Oh yeah,
Google rocks!
Thank God - not another facial gone wrong.
Otherwise we might have been referring to this as the "Google Bukkake Incident".
Well, after all, someone could forget to feed the pigeons.
I can't seem to find the source or author of the original quote, but it's most commonly two wolves deciding with the sheep on dinner. However, this quote only confuses the argument. The proposal is only about voting for channels in the sense that we "vote" with our wallets.
In case it wasn't obvious, the parent is using 'liberal' in the sense in which it applies to economic theory, which in this case means laissez-faire. While the cable-provider market has been monopolized and thus isn't subject to free market forces, content providers may still have a chance to compete before the Rupert Murdochs of the world own them all. This a la carte proposal is still very relevant.
The parent argues that a la carte cable plans subject us to the risk of LCD "reality crapfest" programming, where National Geographic and other quality programming will disappear. His argument is that people are willing to pay for crap and not for quality. I think this is taking a fairly dim view of how people spend their money, but it also ignores the cause of the crap-fest mentality.
The reason the LCD crapfest exists is because of the LCD mentality of advertisers. It is in the best interest of program directors to seek out the LCD "crap" so as to provide the largest market for advertisers. If you take away the strict advertising model, you can no longer assume that the LCD crap will continue to dominate. Under the current model, it is not the viewers paying for the content (except in the sense that we pay with our time and brain cells).
We already have a partial implementation of the a la carte system to use as a model. It has already been proven that people are willing to pay for the HBOs and SHOwtimes of the market because it is quality, ad-free content. If we break out of the package model completely, I predict that the crap will actually be marginalized and the channels which stand for quality (or porn) will rise to the top.
Similarly, we don't really have much choice in niche markets (TechTV or bust). Allowing a subscriber to choose between several providers in a niche will increase competition and increase standards across the board.
There is a non-trivial barrier-to-entry to provide content, but it is much much lower than that required when the infrastructure (cable, satellite, broadcast) is already in place and is hospitable to competition.
Oops, not Alaska, Illinois. I must have subconsciously pulled the AK off of the Oak in Oak Street. In any case, this is still not the correct Howard Dean.
Only two Howard Deans made contributions, neither from Vermont.
Mod parent down. Dean has publicly pledged his support for Kerry. The Howard Dean referenced by that link is the president of a company called Dean Foods in Alaska! One would have to be pretty oblivious not to know that the Howard Dean that was running for president not only lives in Vermont, but is the governor!
I must admit you have a talent for this! You turned a totally negative meaning into positive one just by adding context. Good job!
Hmm, maybe I should get myself a job in marketing! Truthfully, I don't believe the original meaning of the quote was altered at all the way that it was cited in the article, but it certainly pays to be vigilant, and brook no aggression (been playing too much Civ II).
'I want to make sure (a user) can't get through ... an online experience without hitting a Microsoft ad.'
Actually, though Timothy did not correct the submission of the anonymous reader, the quote appears exactly that way at the end of the article, including parentheses and the ellipsis. I want to know what was elided in that sentence. What if the original quote had been:
'I want to make sure (a user) can't get through a search engine and still not find what he is looking for. You have services like Google which provide AdWords on every search, but not necessarily guaranteeing the content users are looking for. I think users would enjoy using a search function as a part of an online experience without hitting a Microsoft ad.'
But here I am questioning journalistic integrity on slashdot. I must be new here.
I found myself amazed that this comment got modded to funny. Then I started to think about our international readership, and started wondering if global opinion about us has sunk so low that they find humor in our misfortune. Of course, we are responsible for that low opinion ourselves.
Quiet, you fool! Do you want to ruin it for us?
The least they could have done is made it a 976 number as a compromise.
Attention humor-impaired mods: driving while "on a cellphone" is illegal in New York. I hope this doesn't have to be explained any further.
but let's take a look at all the causes
You must be new here.
WalMart is selling Britney? Now there's a gimmick that would actually get me to shop there.
That's an interesting point. But why would we need a tax to accomplish this? If an author is interested in being contacted to allow negotiation for limited-use rights to his work, he will find some way to make it happen. More likely, he will already be actively pursuing a publisher in order to attempt to profit from his own ideas. If not, that's why a the copyright term limit must exist. In the worst case, if an author cannot be found (or does not want to be found), one can simply wait until the work enters the public domain. Forced registration simply allows an author to be harassed even when he does not wish to be found.
I would support an argument for a national copyright registry, which would be paid for by those registering copyrights. Presumably, one would only register one's ideas if one was expecting to be contacted for use of those ideas, and by extension to eventually profit from them. However, this is separate from an unlimited copyright provision. Even if one does not wish to register, one's copyright should still be guaranteed.
In the case where an author publishes an idea, but does not wish to be found, I would argue that that author does not plan to profit from his own ideas. I agree that there should be provisions for an author to release his work with the restrictions that it may be reused, but not for the purposes of profit. I can't envision any other reason why an author would publish under copyright if he does not intend to profit or simply prevent someone else from profiting.
That's a fair definition, but how do you know in advance how useful your ideas are? How do you know which ideas are worth paying the tax to register and how many are you willing just to throw out there with no protection for yourself? Or worse yet, what's your motivation for publishing your ideas if you're not sure how valuable they are going to be? The tax introduces a threshold below which society says "don't bother publishing", and that threshold may be perceived differently by different authors.
You say that the value of ideas is measured by the number of people using them. But that value can't be measured until after an idea is published. How can you assign a tax to something that by your definition does not yet have a value attached?
If the gov't is protecting a certain economic segment of our society without charging that segment specifically then it is contributing monetary funds to that segment. It's the same as corporate tax breaks. It is a subsidy.
I understand your point. However, there is a big difference between the forms of government protection you are using for your argument than the protections provided by copyright law.
When the government taxes gasoline to provide the revenue to fund public transportation infrastructure, it takes funds from the beneficiaries and directs them into the creation of roads. Roads are not free.
When the government taxes copyright, what service is it providing? Writing a law into a book? In order to take advantage of copyright law, a copyright holder still has to provide his own funds to initiate litigation against copyright violators.
In the context of the gas tax/transportation example, if the act of driving on roads produced more tax revenue (via interstate commerce tariffs, etc.) than the roads themselves cost to maintain and produce, would you still advocate a gas tax so we aren't "subsidizing" motorists?
As I argued before, the only cost incurred by the goverment is the potential for increased case load in the judicial system. And as I argued before, I believe that this cost incurred by society for "subsidizing" content creators is outweighed by the benefit society gains from the ideas, art, etc. produced by this group. Unfortunately the value of ideas is difficult to quantify, but it appears that our difference of opinion lies in how valuable we perceive ideas to be.
I don't ever want to give any private company the power to levy fines or to determine punishment. That's why we have a gov't. That is only for the gov't set up by its citezens to do. I'll re-state for you: You pay for the police to protect your life and your property. You should also pay for this kind of protection.
I wasn't suggesting that the private company be empowered to usurp the role of the judicial branch, simply that a private system is more efficient and economical for tracking and pursuing copyright interests. However, since I don't believe that content creators should be responsible for registration fees, I consider this a moot point.
It's interesting that you make the point that we pay (through taxes) for the government to protect our life and property. Why should we pay a separate fee in order for the government to protect our intellectual property?
Looking for gov't freebies, are we? It's not free to the tax payer. It's just another form of welfare, every bit as bad as tobacco subsidies.
Unconditional copyright isn't the same thing as a tobacco subsidy. Tobacco subsidies involve direct monetary contribution of tax funds to tobacco growers. By calling unconditional copyright "welfare", you are saying that government directly contributes monetary funds to content creators each time a work is published. If I argued to abolish the tax on gasoline (as I am arguing to abolish the tax on copyright), would you accuse me of promoting "motorist welfare"?
I will make your argument for you, since you seem to be struggling with it. The direct cost of unconditional copyright to the taxpayer is incurred when the judicial system is forced to hear an increased number of copyright infringement cases due to the lowered barrier-to-entry of publishing copyrightable content and the greater funds available to pursue those copyright interests. I can't speculate as to what this cost would be, but the majority of litigation these days is a financial burden on plaintiffs and defendants, not the judicial system itself. The societal cost is far outweighed by the benefits of increased incentive to publish IMHO.
I applaud your crusade against welfare in all its forms, but be careful how you define welfare.