[klagermkii]

> I don't really understand why anyone who claims to be a proponent of a free market economy has an issue with a private corporation deciding what type of content they want to broadcast.

I don't think this is some irreconcilable gotcha. I support the free market as a tool when it delivers on the benefits that it can provide. Those are increasing choice and decreasing costs through increased competition and commoditization. If problems show up I'm happy to have legislation introduced to tackle those, such as not allowing food with known toxins to be sold.

It's like any tool. I support cars when they're used to deliver on the benefits that they can provide; getting people from point A to point B, and giving them the freedom to move between arbitrary locations. When they're used to run pedestrians over then I don't support that usage, and I will support legislation that limits the use of the tool in that manner.

Likewise if the free market is used as a way to reduce the availability of content, I can be against that while still supporting it as a guiding concept.

[daveFNbuck]

> Likewise if the free market is used as a way to reduce the availability of content, I can be against that while still supporting it as a guiding concept.

Joe Rogan being on Spotify is entirely about limiting the availability of his podcast. They're paying him to not make his episodes available outside of Spotify.

[mateuszf]

It was his choice to sign that deal though.

[behnamoh]

For all the talk he gives, it was ultimately a matter of money for him. I respect JR for being genuinely curious about vast number of topics and asking right questions, but he of all people should have known that limiting access to his podcasts will hurt his reputation.

[revnode]

> it was ultimately a matter of money for him

Not necessarily. He could have seen the writing on the wall with Google/YouTube and wanted a platform where he would not be censored ... and may have miscalculated.

[briHass]

I agree. He's said similar things before on his podcast, and I have little reason to not believe him.

People seem to forget that he had an ownership stake in the UFC, which sold for over 4 billion dollars. Also, an ownership stake in Onnit (cofounder), which sold for untold millions to Unilever. $100MM is a lot of money, but he was very, very wealthy before that deal. It's not like he was scraping by on Ramen noodles before Spotify came along.

[sangnoir]

When in the history of mankind was anyone ever too rich to want more?[1] The hedonic treadmill doesn't top-out at 6 or 7 digits.

1. Also "I signed a 100M deal" can be about more than just the money

[beaned]

That doesn't seem to be nearly what has happened, though.

[Damogran6]

I disagree. Anoyone that say any decision was only about one thing (in this case, money) doesn’t have a very nuanced view of the world.

It could be about fear (of being back at a place where he wanted food) It could be about legacy (he wants to give the money to children, family, whatever) It could be about money (I will have felt I’ve made it when I have a Yacht)…but he seems to be a smarter person than that. It could be about not ever having to work doing anything he doesn’t want to ever again. It could be about distributing is thoughts as far and wide as he can.

but just saying it was ‘ultimately a matter of money’ is a non-statement.

[dantheman]

He's independently wealthy, he talks about his fear factor money on the show all the time. He talks about how he is free to do what he wants.

Spotify made him a tremendous offer.

[jack_pp]

Why are you against people freely negotiating deals even if those deals result in reducing availability of content? Does the govt really need to be involved in this?

[account42]

The government is the only reason those people can reduce the availability of information - they are already involved.

[User23]

Consenting to an immoral deal doesn’t make it moral.

As for whether or not reducing the availability of information is immoral, that obviously depends on what the information in question is. I’m unfamiliar with Joe Rogan’s work so I have no opinion on this particular case.

Edit: Based on the replies I wasn’t sufficiently clear. I don’t believe the Rogan deal is immoral because I have no belief about it’s morality or lack thereof at all. If you insist on a moral judgment that I feel ill-informed to make, then I’ll speculate that the deal probably was moral.

[mmastrac]

How is it immoral? He was paid a significant sum for it. IP is all about limiting information in exchange for money (generally).

I'm all in favour of reducing copyright power/length, but outside of mandatory licensing there are very few circumstances where locking IP up would be outside the scope.

[kelnos]

Even if it was an immoral deal (I'm not convinced), we're not talking about someone who was coerced into a deal due to predatory practices or an exploitative power imbalance.

Rogan wanted to give control over his catalog in exchange for heaping gobs of money. He didn't have to do this if he didn't want to (he was already independently wealthy), but he did want to, so he did it, and was not harmed in any way.

[x86_64Ubuntu]

>...Likewise if the free market is used as a way to reduce the availability of content,

That's literally the whole premise of things like copyright and patents. You can't just run out and start distributing NFL streams, copies of movies, or Disney labeled memorabilia without the expressed permission of the people who own that content.

[christophilus]

> copyright and patents

Which are arguably a government-imposed regulatory capture whose disfunction causes the market to be less free. So, it sounds like the two of you kind of agree?

[dragonwriter]

Copyrights and patents are exactly as much government-imposed regulatory capture as any other legal property rights are.

[swagasaurus-rex]

Before there was courts, it was finders keepers.

Imagine the destruction that would cause.

[computerfriend]

That's not very convincing to anyone who doesn't already support your position on copyright.

[aqme28]

> I support the free market as a tool when it delivers on the benefits that it can provide... If problems show up I'm happy to have legislation introduced to tackle those

Then that's not the "free market" that you support, just "markets."

[tharne]

That's a silly statement and likely purposely obtuse. Practically any reasonable person talking about a free market does not typically mean a market with precisely zero laws governing it.

[joshspankit]

Then it’s a good opportunity to either officially set the new definition of “free market”, or stop using it altogether. “When we say X we all really mean Y” actually works against us long-term because there are plenty of people who don’t know that and some of those are the ones making the laws.

[tharne]

Language is organic, words and phrases take their meaning based on a social consensus derived from how they're routinely used, not because some person or group bestows a meaning from on high. The whole “When we say X we all really mean Y” is how practically all language works. When I say, "I'm so hungry I could eat a horse", no one in their right mind actually thinks that I could or would eat an entire horse, instead, everyone will correctly take the phrase to mean that I am very hungry.

[joshspankit]

Agreed yes, and I regularly argue that by pointing people to the definition of 'literally'.

To clarify my argument, I mean for those reading this post to either push for that change in the dictionary (the usual way: by being more clear on their definition when sing it and encouraging others to use their definition and do the same), or to stop muddying the waters (and possibly use an updated term).

[mipsi]

I think its common to call markets without legislation "black markets".

[dahart]

Black markets are markets that break existing legislation, not markets that are free from legislation.

[tremon]

Similarly, free markets are markets that have sufficient safeguards to keep the market free, not markets that are free from legislation. From the oracle[0]:

In a free market, the laws and forces of supply and demand are free from any intervention by a government or other authority, and from all forms of economic privilege, monopolies and artificial scarcities

From this simple snippet, we can conclude three things:

- government and other authorities are only limited to not interfere with supply and demand; enforcing product standards does not make a market non-free

- good anti-monopoly legislation is an example of the government working towards the free market, not against it

- Anything involving copyright and patents is by definition not a free market

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market

[dahart]

I’d agree with all of that, though I’m squeamish on the very last one. I think copyrights are too long and there are pretty big problems in the patent system, but IP protection does have similar benefits to enforcing product standards.

Essentially IP protection is encouraging creation and innovation by preventing someone who didn’t do the work from simply stealing it and profiting without paying the creator. This is certainly over-simplified, but one way of viewing IP protections is that it’s trying to balance multiple freedoms, and that a free market with no regulation at all is not actually free for everyone. Having no protections on product standards is a loss of freedom for consumers. Having no protections on intellectual property is a loss of freedom for creators (and, the thinking goes, would be a net drain on the economy).

Here are some hastily googled arguments in favor of viewing IP protection as part of a free market:

https://www.aei.org/technology-and-innovation/intellectual-p...

https://cip2.gmu.edu/2013/11/14/copyright-is-still-essential...

[mipsi]

That would imply the existence of legal "black markets".

[dahart]

> That would imply the existence of legal “black markets”.

Why’s that? I don’t follow. How does black markets being defined as illegal imply there are legal ones?

BTW, don’t take my word for it, just look it up.

“A black market, underground economy or shadow economy is a clandestine market or series of transactions that has some aspect of illegality or is characterized by some form of noncompliant behavior with an institutional set of rules. If the rule defines the set of goods and services whose production and distribution is prohibited by law, non-compliance with the rule constitutes a black market trade since the transaction itself is illegal.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_market

[mipsi]

> Black markets are markets that break existing legislation, not markets that are free from legislation.

Your statement "black markets are not markets without legislation" logically implies such existence. I regard legislation as a governmental act and in my opinion you stretched its meaning to an informal agreement between market participants.

But, if you meant legislation as some kind of unwritten law, that breaks state laws, i would fully agree.

[jakelazaroff]

So are you saying that you’re against exclusive licenses, even in theory? Say Spotify had signed the same deal with Joe Rogan but not removed any episodes from their own service — still bad?

[mastax]

How do you feel about that Wu Tang album that sold to Martin Skreli? Should the government have stopped that sale?

[TrevorAustin]

As a legal matter, no, though copyright terms should be shorter.

As a civil society matter, I think we should agree that making a secret album so that it ends up in the hands of a hedge fund criminal is uncool. It’s appropriate and even good for us to say that while that’s something allowed by the rules, we accord it no honor.

The tech didn’t exist at the time, but honestly wouldn’t it be better for the world if Wu-Tang had issued a single exclusive NFT of the album, and then made the actual music freely available?

I mean maybe not, maybe the songs actually suck, but I would certainly like to hear them.

[runarberg]

Who are we to dictate how artists distribute their art? If an artist wants to make their art limited even though technology exists to easily distribute it, we cannot make the choice for the artist.

Often artists like to make a statement with their art, and how an artwork is received is often as much a part of the statement as the artwork it self (think Marcel Duchamp’s Fountain). Wu-Tang Clan wanted to make a statement with their art and they did, quite successfully to be honest.

[account42]

Who are artists to dictate what we do with information that we posess. If someone wants to make additional copies which takes effectively zero effort, the artis cannot make the choice for us.

Often people incorporate art into their culture, and what the original artist intended with the artwork is only a small part of what it becomes. Society thrives by sharing art and has done so long before copyright existed, quite successfully to be honest.

[runarberg]

I don’t think this was this simple. This might be true of folk artists (and it still is), but a lot of artists were sponsored either by the religious institution or by patronage. I personally favor state sponsored artists and I do think that our taxes should go into supporting artists way more then they currently do.

However as it stands our current economy does mandate that artists make a living for them self, and while we still live in a world of 40 hour per week minimum wage where most people have little energy and time to work on art/hobby in spare time, artists selling their art with artificial scarcity follows logically.

All that being said, this is not what we were talking about with the Wu-Tang Clan record. Their piece was a unique piece that works as a commentary on how the rest of musicians distribute their art. I look at this more like a fine art piece (or even performance art piece) then music. A lot of fine artists incorporate music with their art pieces and nobody expects them to distribute it digitally (though many do). This is kind of like the reverse of that.

Finally, by allowing our artists this freedom of distribution, we get nice things, including a diverse and healthy art world.

[account42]

> However as it stands our current economy does mandate that artists make a living for them self

It does not mandate that they need to make their living from a particular business model. You already mentioned patronage as a method of funding for art - crowdfunding is one natural extension of that. Performance also does not rely on artifical scarcity. Demand for new art does not rely on artificial scarcity. There is also nothing saying that artists need to make their living from their art - and in fact this is not something most artists can do even with society being burdened with artificial scarcity.

> and while we still live in a world of 40 hour per week minimum wage where most people have little energy and time to work on art/hobby in spare time

I don't think the 40 hour work week is something that should be reinforced in any way at all. If society can have people working full-time on art then there is no real need to keep this outdated model where everyone needs to dedicate a majority of their waking time to survival.

> artists selling their art with artificial scarcity follows logically.

An economy built around articial scarcity reinforces a need for artificial scarcity? Maybe, but not an argument for anything.

> All that being said, this is not what we were talking about with the Wu-Tang Clan record. Their piece was a unique piece that works as a commentary on how the rest of musicians distribute their art. I look at this more like a fine art piece (or even performance art piece) then music. A lot of fine artists incorporate music with their art pieces and nobody expects them to distribute it digitally (though many do). This is kind of like the reverse of that.

I have nothing against an artist only distributing their work to a single person if they want to do that for whatever reason - but I don't think that society should then help them in any way in ensuring that that art stays with only that recipient once it leaves their hands.

> Finally, by allowing our artists this freedom of distribution, we get nice things, including a diverse and healthy art world.

Hahaha no. We get art that is optimized for profitability which tends to work against diversity while almost all transformative creative endeavours are prevented - except when copyright is ignored, as it is with most UGC, game mods mods, youtube videos etc. where it is mostly the platforms profiting off that art and not the artists.

[uncletaco]

1. This sale was made before NFTs existed.

2. They wanted to sell an album like a piece of physical art. It isn't digital content and there's no digital version of it as far as I know.

[ineedasername]

if Wu-Tang had issued a single exclusive NFT of the album, and then made the actual music freely available?

I think that is probably not what Skreli wanted. The entire point seemed to be that no one else would get to hear the music. Otherwise, there's really not much difference between a single person owning the NFT or the gold master with the mp3 being freely distributed.

[kelnos]

Do you feel the same way about painters or sculptors who sell their work to private collectors?

[elliekelly]

> Likewise if the free market is used as a way to reduce the availability of content, I can be against that while still supporting it as a guiding concept.

Are you against the concept of intellectual property as a whole?

[asabjorn]

In this case your argument has great supporting points as this is driven by blackstone&blackrock capital funds using their assets, music and stock, to do culture war to force Spotify to suppress viewpoints these fund managers find inconvenient for their agenda. That’s not free market.

https://youtu.be/tLwVvtL4mTI

These funds subscribe to and push a China style system in the USA, as evidenced by their leading role in pushing ESG. There is little good about this abuse of what’s mostly either pension fund money or fed stimulus money.

Blackstone through its Hipnosis subsidiary has spend tons of capital to buy up 50% of Neil Young and much of other music, books and audio book rights

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/cathyolson...

Blackrock, that also destroy single family ownership by buying up homes and is run by the same people, also hold a lot of Spotify stock.

[edgyquant]

You don’t seem to understand what a free market is. It isn’t without rules it just means the barrier to entry is even for all.

[asabjorn]

Blackrock&blackstone are using pension and federal stimulus money to push censorship of people opposing their agenda. Not their own money. They are also pushing a new non-free-market system change, ESG, using other peoples or fed money.

Both the way they get they money they bully with and what they push is therefore anti free market.

[alophawen]

Suck it, Notch

[Znayder]

Do you? A 'free market' where governments can and do supply unlimited amounts interest-free money to a hand full of investors and big companies is not a free market at all. Not to mentioned big business in our 'free market' is constantly lobbying for all kinds of government control and protectionism and vice versa.

In this system anything can be bought by those who control the money supply by inflating all assets, meaning you can't really own any property. So what we have is neither a free market nor capitalism.

[desio]

Tell me, Mr Anderson. What good is a phone call, if you can't talk?