In the realm of stupid socialism, Frenchies subsidize music purchases

[Nessus]

French subsidy for music downloads gets EU nod
BRUSSELS (Reuters) – The government of France's strategy to combat illegal music downloads by contributing to the amount young people pay for them won European Union (EU) approval and praise for promoting cultural diversity.

Under the scheme, French residents who purchase a card to download music from subscription-based website platforms, will only pay half the cost of a 50-euro credit included in the card, with the French government paying the rest.

The scheme, which will benefit 12-to-25-year-olds, is expected to last two years, with consumers limited to one card a year. It will cost France 25 million euros ($34.65 million) annually based on its sales estimate of a million cards.

The European Commission, the EU competition watchdog, said on Tuesday that the benefits of the French plan outweighed any potential anti-competitive effects.

"We welcome initiatives ... to increase the availability of music online at a lower price for consumers and through legal distribution channels," EU Competition Commissioner Joaquin Almunia said in a statement.

"The scheme will contribute to preserving pluralism and cultural diversity in the online music industry," the commission said, adding it would also help economic development.

In return for the state aid, website operators will be required to cut the price of music, extend the duration of subscriptions, and contribute to the cost of advertising the card. Their benefit will be capped at 5 million euros each.

Rampant illegal music downloading has eroded legitimate digital and physical sales, with even Apple's iTunes and Spotify failing to counter the damage.

If OG has posted this in one of the megathreads, I don't care

Who on Earth thought this was a good idea? What the fuck, France, you want the EU to subsidize your shitty farmers but then you spend your tax euros on funding sociopathic record companies?

[Ominous Gamer]

I was planning to put that in the WTF thread, but it was lunch time

Sounds like the French version of the RIAA/MPAA lobbyists actually got one of their crazy ideas passed this time. Reminds me of the CD tax the canadians pay, or the ISP tax the music industry keeps demanding. Guess since its coming from the government funds people weren't as offended until after the fact?

[Nessus]

I'm sure the people are pleased as punch, this is just completely asinine and will be used as a firebrand for the "socialism is wastefully evil" gobbledygook we must apparently perpetually struggle against

[LittleFuzzy]

I read the article and laughed. Then I realized it wasn't an Onion piece, but something real.

[Illusions]

I'm sure the people are pleased as punch, this is just completely asinine and will be used as a firebrand for the "socialism is wastefully evil" gobbledygook we must apparently perpetually struggle against

I see this as a very good argument for not strictly letting the markets freely do everything, since allowing them to do so results in them making the very logical, yet horrible, choice to attempt to exploit the government for their own gain.

[Loki]

Instead we should let the government decide which groups can and cannot exploit it (the inevitable consequence of your solution).

[Steely Glint]

I see this as a very good argument for not strictly letting the markets freely do everything, since allowing them to do so results in them making the very logical, yet horrible, choice to attempt to exploit the government for their own gain.

Am I reading this wrong, or did you just say that we should regulate markets in order to stop them from lobbying the government to regulate markets to their advantage?

[Illusions]

Am I reading this wrong, or did you just say that we should regulate markets in order to stop them from lobbying the government to regulate markets to their advantage?

No I was implying that we should disallow things like corporate personhood, expansive corporate lobbying of politicians, extensive donations to polticians by corporations, etc. and that this ruling here is a good example of what happens when the prior is allowed to happen...

[Loki]

So you want the government to decide which actors are and are not allowed to lobby it?

[Dreadnaught]

Hilarious.

But do you think the industry really lobbied hard for this? The overall amount is pretty small on an industry-scale. And I doubt it will sell very well; if the target is hardcore music pirates, I don't think giving them a coupon will do that much. At best, this is like cash-for-clunkers in music form.

[Steely Glint]

So you want the government to decide which actors are and are not allowed to lobby it?

So you're in favor of corporate bribery of politicians?

[Nessus]

Hilarious.

But do you think the industry really lobbied hard for this? The overall amount is pretty small on an industry-scale. And I doubt it will sell very well; if the target is hardcore music pirates, I don't think giving them a coupon will do that much. At best, this is like cash-for-clunkers in music form.

No, I didn't put on my tin-foil hat. I'm just acknowledging that, horror of horrors, some of the things I, an ostensibly scientific person, endorse have negative out-liers such as this semi-crony-corporate-socialist-scheme. It doesn't benefit the corporations that much, but it is a perfect aperitif for the side you seem to be championing.

[Steely Glint]

Hilarious.

But do you think the industry really lobbied hard for this? The overall amount is pretty small on an industry-scale. And I doubt it will sell very well; if the target is hardcore music pirates, I don't think giving them a coupon will do that much. At best, this is like cash-for-clunkers in music form.

So, you're saying we should accept widespread piracy?

No, I didn't put on my tin-foil hat. I'm just acknowledging that, horror of horrors, some of the things I, an ostensibly scientific person, endorse have negative out-liers such as this semi-crony-corporate-socialist-scheme. It doesn't benefit the corporations that much, but it is a perfect aperitif for the side you seem to be championing.

So, you're saying it's scientific to advocate a system with obvious drawbacks?

[Illusions]

So you want the government to decide which actors are and are not allowed to lobby it?

Are they speaking as a private citizen, or are they speaking as a representative for a corporation, or speaking as themselves as a service/corporate entity (ie. are they speaking as John Smith or John Smith - Actor, Writer, Director, For Hire)...?

I'd also say part of the product of what government does is telling people what they can or cannot do. What do we want? People not dying because drunk people are operating motor vehicles and driving them into other people or solid objects! Why do we want this? Because people dying for preventable reasons is usually considered a bad thing! How do we try to stop this? Well they tell people they can't drive drunk.

...this is of course one example, I am not trying to conflate people driving drunk with lobbying the government, but to point out that pulling the "Do you want the government telling people what do / deciding what people do?" argument is pretty ridiculous since this is pretty much how every government has operated since the dawn or time, and will likely operate until the last person alive finishes drawing breath under the watchful eye of the second to last person left alive governing them.

Hilarious.

But do you think the industry really lobbied hard for this?

This in particular? Not likely. Something like this...quite possibly...

[Loki]

So you're in favor of corporate bribery of politicians?

By "bribery", do you mean political contributions? If so, are you against billionaires "bribing" politicians? How about unions?

Are they speaking as a private citizen, or are they speaking as a representative for a corporation, or speaking as themselves as a service/corporate entity (ie. are they speaking as John Smith or John Smith - Actor, Writer, Director, For Hire)...?

And the point of this semantic argument is what? The obvious effect would be that the corporations would just have their top executives give the money in their personal capacity. Are you going to investigate each such donation to see whether the corporation required it? And see questions to Steely.

As for your drunk driving example, an equivalent to your logic would be to have the government decide which organizations are allowed to make ads supporting/opposing drunk driving campaigns and which are not.

[Being]

...would just have their top executives give the money in their personal capacity. Are you going to investigate each such donation to see whether the corporation required it?

I'd like to see it endorsed by the board of directors, wouldn't you?

[Nessus]

So, you're saying it's scientific to advocate a system with obvious drawbacks?

I'm not sure. Probably not, but I think that's because I'm not convinced scientific reasoning alone should reign over societal design (human experimentation isn't any less scientific than other animal experimentation but I wouldn't wanna do it myself); did you read the pensions are pestilent performance in the mass transit thread?

[Khendraja'aro]

By "bribery", do you mean political contributions? If so, are you against billionaires "bribing" politicians? How about unions?

There should be an upper limit to contributions, only natural persons can contribute and all contributions have to be public. Done.

I'm always astounded when newspaper announce that "xxx is pulling out of the presidential race because he has no money anymore."

[Illusions]

By "bribery", do you mean political contributions? If so, are you against billionaires "bribing" politicians? How about unions?

Whether or not a person is capable of being elected should not be determined by the amount of money they have or are given, but by the merits of their platform.

And the point of this semantic argument is what? The obvious effect would be that the corporations would just have their top executives give the money in their personal capacity. Are you going to investigate each such donation to see whether the corporation required it?

Are you actually trying to argue that something should not be made criminal or unlawful because it would be tedious to investigate and punish people who break a law? Because that also seems like an argument that could be used for not investigating theft, fraud, embezzlement, or any number of other crimes that would be numerous or tedious to investigate.

As for your drunk driving example, an equivalent to your logic would be to have the government decide which organizations are allowed to make ads supporting/opposing drunk driving campaigns and which are not.

No, it would not be equivalent, additionally equivalence wasn't the point of that example. The point was exactly what I outlined, government telling people what to do is how they operate, this was to illustrate that your counterpoint to my original argument consisted entirely of trying to imply that the government telling people what to do or deciding what they can do is bad.

[Loki]

Do you want to actually answer my question? You seem to be against all political contributions. Is that the case?

[Illusions]

Do you want to actually answer my question? You seem to be against all political contributions. Is that the case?

Indecisive as I haven't extensively looked at all the pros and cons of it, but it seems that only individuals who can vote in an election should be allowed to donate towards it, this would exclude corporations from donating as they are not an entity that can vote.

[Being]

... corporations ... are not an entity that can vote.

But they have the right to influence the vote even if it means goinig against the best interests of the majority of the people that make up the corporation.

[Loki]

Indecisive as I haven't extensively looked at all the pros and cons of it, but it seems that only individuals who can vote in an election should be allowed to donate towards it, this would exclude corporations from donating as they are not an entity that can vote.

You seemed to suggest billionaires shouldn't be able to contribute. Why is a corporation any worse than a rich person anyway? Do corporations not have interests?

[Illusions]

You seemed to suggest billionaires shouldn't be able to contribute.

I never suggested any such thing.

Why is a corporation any worse than a rich person anyway? Do corporations not have interests?

No, a corporation does not have interests. Its not alive. The people who own and operate that corporation may have interests related to it, but a corporation itself is not a living breathing thing entitled to a vote, it is not a person. If Person A contributes money to a political campaign, and then Corporation A, owned by Person A, contributes money to a political campaign, Person A is simply donating twice for his own personal interests, just one time its behind the mask of Corporation A. I'd assume when most people refer to the interests of Google, Amazon, Walmart, AT&T, etc. they are referring to the interests of the collective group of people who control said corporations' operations and not some anthropomorphic entity. Those people can donate their own money if they want, just like any citizen could, the corporation cannot.

[Lewkowski]

Those people can donate their own money if they want, just like any citizen could, the corporation cannot.

Why? As you outlined a corporation is just the interests of a group of people. How is that different from a union? A PAC? A interest group (like MADD).

[Illusions]

Why? As you outlined a corporation is just the interests of a group of people. How is that different from a union? A PAC? A interest group (like MADD).

Its not. Which is why I wouldn't approve of them giving money either.

[Lewkowski]

Its not. Which is why I wouldn't approve of them giving money either.

So in that case would you support the argument that until Unions, PACs, interest groups are also outlawed from giving money, corporations shouldn't be specifically targeted?

[Illusions]

So in that case would you support the argument that until Unions, PACs, interest groups are also outlawed from giving money, corporations shouldn't be specifically targeted?

So lets say we lived in some alternate reality where embezzlement, fraud, and graft were not yet outlawed, would you support the argument that until they were also outlawed, theft shouldn't be specifically targeted? You seem to live in some strange state of mind that if other people or groups can behave in a manner that is detrimental to society that its only fair to let everyone or every group behave in the same detrimental way, as if fairness was the goal, and was something good, instead of trying to better the operation of society in steps.

[Lewkowski]

So lets say we lived in some alternate reality where embezzlement, fraud, and graft were not yet outlawed, would you support the argument that until they were also outlawed, theft shouldn't be specifically targeted? You seem to live in some strange state of mind that if other people or groups can behave in a manner that is detrimental to society that its only fair to let everyone or every group behave in the same detrimental way, as if fairness was the goal, and was something good, instead of trying to better the operation of society in steps.

I didn't say I supported it I asked if you would support it. To be clear my position is that there should be no limits on the most sacred form of speech there is - political speech.

[Illusions]

I didn't say I supported it I asked if you would support it.

It was implied that I wouldn't support the case you were making. Otherwise I wouldn't have outlined why it was a bad idea.

To be clear my position is that there should be no limits on the most sacred form of speech there is - political speech.

Excellent. However you have to understand that giving people money is not speech or a protected form of expression, and rights are inherent to people, not non-living entities like corporations, unions, or groups, and it would be best not to confuse laws, which can apply to both people and things, with rights, which apply to people. I could also fully take this into the realm of the ridiculous to illustrate a point by suggesting that someone should lobby the government on the part of a large boulder, or donate money to a politician for the boulder, as there really aren't any arguments or points you could make as to why a corporation should be allowed to do these things, and a boulder should not.

If anyone is interested, you can help get the boulder's voice heard in Washington. Just make sure to mention it when you write your Congressman or Senator to tell them that you're firmly against erosion, and strip mining, as they are all threats to the continued existence and interests of the boulder.