Is there any reason why you wouldn’t just move to different seats after you found the theatre 1/2 empty?
1 Like
The confusingly-named Neoliberalism isn’t any kind of “liberalism” in the traditional senses of “liberal arts” or “bleeding-heart pinko liberal.” Neoliberalism says that money should be free to do whatever, unfettered by regulation or taxes.
3 Likes
All home computers need to be sealed black boxes with always-on internet connections. The home network should be wired to multiple home cameras for easy reporting back to the corporations providing us our entertainment and corporate-sponsored food. I’m with you all the way on this, let’s go!
1 Like
Surely then, it would jump or slide off?
Cool. Thanks. I hear ya.
It’s all about the difference between facts and truths!!
The refernce is not to democratic politics, but to the ideas of classical liberalism, which pertain more to economic structures not to left of center politics. A libertarian who argues that the government should not regulate the economy at all (such as Milton Friedman or Ayn Rand) are making a classical liberal argument, that we’d probably call “neo-liberalism”. It’s the small government argument, not the social justice argument that usually is linked to democratic politics:
2 Likes
I think we could even further refine this–the recording industry is not the entirety of the music industry, but is just one (I think, arguably, the dominant) segment of a set of complex industries. if you’re interested in how the modern recording industry emerged, check out David Suisman’s book:
http://davidsuisman.net/?page_id=35
But I think you’re right on the money to differentiate different culture industries.
I don’t know what percentage are legit. I’m sure most of them are, but I think it’s also true there should be a more effective and/or timely way to file counter-notices.
It is a little curious that a lot of people here are saying that these copyright-dependent industries should adapt to the changing times instead of living off of legacy models, yet I suspect that a good number of the people saying this are also anti-globalization, anti-neoliberalism, etc. Because if the argument is that the world has changed and you have to adapt to the new reality, then things like outsourcing, global supply chains, and the like are also part of this changed world we live in.
Well, that presupposes that we have no control over what that new reality is, and how to shape it. Those processes can be beneficial or detrimental same as anything else. It depends on context, and the effects that they have. I get what you’re saying, but it depends, same as everything else, innit?
While China may traditionally be a huge center of piracy, it’s a lot less so than it was 2-3 years ago. The main (government controlled) YouTube clones used to have an organised menu of most major US tv shows and movies and it was very difficult to find anything legal even if you wanted it. In a very short time they switched to a ppv system for tv shows and movies on youku and blocked most other sources. Even the street sellers became a bit more scarce, at least for a while. At the same time western movies seemed to have more of a presence in cinemas, so people would often go there rather than buying a poor early copy. It was pretty typical for Chinese crackdowns: initially gather lots of information on illegal activity without doing anything about it, then shut it all down at once.
I’m not surprised that this has led to increased profits for Hollywood, but I don’t think it follows that piracy has no real effect on revenue or that anti-piracy initiatives are counter-productive; rather the opposite, in this case. Of course this was the first year of China deciding that they were against piracy, so it’s too early to make long-term predictions of the effect.
If you want to know what neoliberalism really is, read this quote from Tyler Cowen:
"The rise of intelligent machines will spawn new ideologies along with the new economy it is creating. Think of it as a kind of digital social Darwinism, with clear winners and losers: Those with the talent and skills to work seamlessly with technology and compete in the global marketplace are increasingly rewarded, while those whose jobs can just as easily be done by foreigners, robots or a few thousand lines of code suffer accordingly.
…
We will move from a society based on the pretense that everyone is given a decent standard of living to one in which people are expected to fend for themselves. I imagine a world in which, say, 10 to 15 percent of the citizenry (or more, in due time) is extremely wealthy and has fantastically comfortable and stimulating lives, equivalent to those of current-day millionaires, albeit with better health care.
Much of the rest of the country will have stagnant or maybe even falling wages in dollar terms, but they will also have a lot more opportunities for cheap fun and cheap education. Many of these people will live quite well—especially those who have the discipline to benefit from all the free or nearly free services that modern technology makes available. Others will fall by the wayside."
And these from noted neoliberal Richard Posner:
“The dichotomy between acquisitive crimes and crimes of passion is overstated. Acquisitive crimes bypass explicit markets; crimes of passion often bypass implicit markets – for example, in friendship, love, respect – that are the subject of a growing economic literature illustrated by Becker’s work on the family. Less obviously, crimes of passion often bypass explicit markets too. Id. at 1197”
…
“As with my earlier discussion of crimes of passion, it is important not to take too narrow a view of market alternatives. Supposing it to be true that some rapists would not get as much pleasure from consensual sex, it does not follow that there are no other avenues of satisfaction open to them. It may be that instead of furtively stalking women they can obtain satisfactions from productive activities, that is, activities in which other people are compensated and thus derive benefits. This is an additional reason to think that the total wealth of society would be increased if rape could be completely repressed at a reasonable cost.”
Neoliberals see the world ONLY in terms of money. There is no greater ideal, moral or ethic. NONE. Frankly it a disease, or the result of a diseased mind. And it is much loved by the very wealthy because it justifies all of their awfulness and cruelty and injustice. In short, all the things that got them where they are.
1 Like
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
