Looking around here, I'm not sure what negative sentiment you're referring to, but... :)
That said, I think the answer to your puzzlement is pretty simple: every situation is different.
For example, I don't much sympathize with taxi medallion monopolies. While I understand how they evolved, today it's clear that the existing taxi business model needed to be disrupted in order to improve the consumer experience. But that disruption has happened because of companies essentially violating existing regulations on taxi services.
On the other hand, I look at a business like GS, which generated its revenues by selling subscriptions to a service that dispensed content it did not produce, without compensating artists for the privilege, and I see nothing more than free riding on the backs of people who did the work to produce that content.
Of course, there's an ironic counterpoint here: were it not for the Groovesharks of the world, it's possible demand would never have been generated that now supports legal alternatives (in the same way that I'd claim music piracy is one of the reasons the iPod was ever brought to market).
> which generated its revenues by selling subscriptions to a service that dispensed content it did not produce, without compensating artists for the privilege, and I see nothing more than free riding on the backs of people who did the work to produce that content.
Would you have a problem with it if they gave it away for free (and didn't have to worry about covering their operating costs, via a hypothetical deus ex machina?)
> today it's clear that the existing taxi business model needed to be disrupted in order to improve the consumer experience.
I very strongly disagree with this premise, though perhaps that's getting into a different debate.
> Looking around here, I'm not sure what negative sentiment you're referring to
I wasn't referring just to the comments on here, FWIW.
Would you have a problem with it if they gave it away for free (and didn't have to worry about covering their operating costs, via a deus ex machina?)
That's a good question... I honestly don't know!
I'd definitely have less of a problem with it... which is, I realize, pretty dumb as that doesn't alleviate the harm to the artists.
About the only intellectual justification I can come up with is that, as a free service, it's easier to position something like that as a way to discover artists. I think, by selling a subscription, their customers would be more likely to view their consumption as legitimate, and so wouldn't feel compelled to later turn around and buy the music they were listening to.
But again, that's my intellectualizing a position I can't honestly explain.
> I'd definitely have less of a problem with it... which is, I realize, pretty dumb as that doesn't alleviate the harm to the artists.
> About the only intellectual justification I can come up with is that, as a free service, it's easier to position something like that as a way to discover artists. I think, by selling a subscription, their customers would be more likely to view their consumption as legitimate, and so wouldn't feel compelled to later turn around and buy the music they were listening to.
Well, think of it this way: that's exactly what public libraries already do - their funding comes from tax dollars, so they don't need to turn an operating profit
Actually, public libraries are arguably worse, because tax revenues tax not just the consumers, but the artists themselves. Not only do they give artists' work away for free to consumers, but artists are actually forced to pay for others to access their work for free!
Yeah, but when it comes to libraries there's a public-good element to their activities, as they provide access to those materials for those who otherwise may not be able to afford them.
In addition, a library, as a source of physical copies, can't lend and re-lend the same content over and over. Which is why, of course, ebook lending programs at libraries are often limited to a certain number of copies... there's an attempt to apply that same restriction to digital content.
Lastly, the lending is always time-limited, unlike digital services.
> Yeah, but when it comes to libraries there's a public-good element to their activities, as they provide access to those materials for those who otherwise may not be able to afford them.
How is that any different from free services like Grooveshark, The Pirate Bay, Napster, etc.?
But.. they have access to libraries with computers... More seriously, most of the world doesn't have easy access to libraries like US or some other developed countries while they do have access to decent internet.
You might be surprised how many poor do have computer/internet access. Different regions look different, even within the U.S., and there are many different modalities of living amongst the poor.
There are laws that protect taxi companies and laws that protect music companies. For whatever reason you sympathize more with the disruption of one vs the other.
> Do you understand how compulsory licensing works? Do you really believe no indie artist has ever collected royalties on their music?
Yes, I do understand how licensing works. The RIAA collects royalties on all music, whether or not the artist is signed to one of their labels[0].
Then, the artist has to register with the RIAA (technically, SoundExchange) to get paid, and if the RIAA is in a good mood, they may decide to pay the artist. Or they may decide to keep some or all of the money they collected on behalf of the artist[1].
Again, this applies not just to artists who are signed to a major label, but to independent artists who have no association with the RIAA whatsoever.
Meanwhile, the RIAA files lawsuits on the grounds that the artists (read: the RIAA) is losing money due to filesharing, and when they receive a settlement, they pay literally none of that money to the artists they claimed were harmed, and instead spend that money on... more lawsuits[2].
> The RIAA collects royalties on all music, whether or not the artist is signed to one of their labels[0].
Whenever there's an inflammatory post like this on the Internet that implies obvious injustice, it behooves us to do a little more research. As with most such articles posted around here, there's always another side of the story. A collection of comments from Slashdot, of all places, that explains this:
That said, I think the answer to your puzzlement is pretty simple: every situation is different.
For example, I don't much sympathize with taxi medallion monopolies. While I understand how they evolved, today it's clear that the existing taxi business model needed to be disrupted in order to improve the consumer experience. But that disruption has happened because of companies essentially violating existing regulations on taxi services.
On the other hand, I look at a business like GS, which generated its revenues by selling subscriptions to a service that dispensed content it did not produce, without compensating artists for the privilege, and I see nothing more than free riding on the backs of people who did the work to produce that content.
Of course, there's an ironic counterpoint here: were it not for the Groovesharks of the world, it's possible demand would never have been generated that now supports legal alternatives (in the same way that I'd claim music piracy is one of the reasons the iPod was ever brought to market).
Tricky. :)