IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » History, Literature, and the Arts
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 24th March 2021, 08:11 AM   #41
lomiller
Penultimate Amazing
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 11,479
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Exactly. The continuance of mutually profitable economy and commerce is probably the most important thing legislators should be thinking about.
The problem is music, and intellectual property in general is that it takes the form of a government granted monopoly. This isn't that much different from the Government grated monopoly that created the British East India Company. This is probabaly why authors of the US constitution though it deserved specific mention in the constitution. Such monopolies inherently violate the economic freedom that was being outlined in the rest of the constitution, so their existence would require a written exception.

Because they are a government created monopoly it's impossible to avoid some government involvement. Since the original goal with these monopolies was to promote science and the arts, they don't need to be a licence to print money. They don't need to make artists ultra-rich just provide rank and file artists the ability to make a living.
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"
lomiller is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th March 2021, 08:27 AM   #42
lomiller
Penultimate Amazing
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 11,479
Originally Posted by Lplus View Post
I was thinking it sounded far more Socialist than Fascist. Note that Airfix snipped my comment about a Nationalised Streaming Service.
Socialism would be if the songs were directly produced\distributed by the government. Without a nationalized streaming service there is nothing particularly socialist about it.

While there is no specific fascist economic system there are some common characteristics. The main one would be preferential treatment to companies (and in this case artists) who helped back the governments political and economic goals while hindering those who refuse. This could be the case, but isn't necessarily so it's not explicitly fascist either.

It does have an element of a command economy, but this is to some degree inevitable because it's a government sponsored monopoly. Even doing nothing to limit the power of that monopoly is a direct government action governing how wealth gets distributed.
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"
lomiller is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th March 2021, 08:54 AM   #43
zooterkin
Nitpicking dilettante
Administrator
 
zooterkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Berkshire, mostly
Posts: 48,830
Originally Posted by Matthew Best View Post
Spotify have tried to answer some of their critics, and reveal and explain some of their figures:

https://loudandclear.byspotify.com/

One interesting stat - if your song has 1 million streams, all that means is that it has made it into the top 550,000 songs on Spotify. So although 1 million streams sounds like a lot, it's really not. There may well be literally hundreds of thousands of songs with that many streams that you or I have never heard, or heard OF.
The figure I heard is that there are 60,000 songs added each day.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.Bertrand Russell
Zooterkin is correct Darat
Nerd! Hokulele
Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232
Ezekiel 23:20
zooterkin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th March 2021, 09:00 AM   #44
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 97,771
Originally Posted by Matthew Best View Post
Since it's the real issue, perhaps you could expand?
Sorry missed this.

The way “disrupters” are funded should be illegal. Companies should not be able to run other companies into the ground by way of running at a loss of billions over years This covers the likes of Spotify, Amazon, Uber and so on.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th March 2021, 10:43 AM   #45
Matthew Best
Philosopher
 
Matthew Best's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Leicester Square, London
Posts: 8,439
Originally Posted by zooterkin View Post
The figure I heard is that there are 60,000 songs added each day.
That's probably true - but how many of them will ever get a million streams?
Matthew Best is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th March 2021, 10:55 AM   #46
lomiller
Penultimate Amazing
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 11,479
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Sorry missed this.

The way “disrupters” are funded should be illegal. Companies should not be able to run other companies into the ground by way of running at a loss of billions over years This covers the likes of Spotify, Amazon, Uber and so on.
Rapidly growing companies frequently lose money due to the cost of building new infrastructure. This doesn't mean they were selling at a loss. If cash flows are positive and the value of their physical assets is going up a company can be prospering even if it needs to tap into capital markets to finance it's growth.
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"
lomiller is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » History, Literature, and the Arts

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:45 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.