Spotify faces a 1.6 BILLION DOLLAR copyright lawsuit

[dizmo]

1 hour ago, HalGameGuru said:

Kiosks in McDonalds were not an issue of automation, but one of minimum wage. 

 

I constantly wonder what people think is being made by all this automation if no one has jobs to BUY the stuff being made? Economics is self equalizing if allowed to operate. Any attempt to shoehorn it one direction or another will cause more headaches than it fixes. A universal basic income is a wonderful thought. And for some it would be wholly workable. For others it won't be. There can be no single fix because there is no single issue. UBI may be one cog in a future economy but we shouldn't be trying to force it or expecting an apocalypse when things advance differently than we want.

I don't agree, but interesting points.

[Derangel]

4 hours ago, 2Buck said:

Am I the only one who buys CDs and rips them? Y'know, to actually support bands I like? Hello? Anyone? shit

Sometimes. I buy digital a lot too.

[suicidalfranco]

18 hours ago, 2Buck said:

Am I the only one who buys CDs and rips them? Y'know, to actually support bands I like? Hello? Anyone? shit

only for Linkin Park... and won't even be able do that any more T-T

[Imabigmac]

On 1/4/2018 at 8:39 PM, AluminiumTech said:

Kk. Spotify, you do you.

 

The ungrateful people at Spotify are still not respecting their paying customers as much as they should be.

 

I am among the paying customers and I can tell you that I wouldn't be surprised if an artist gets paid 2-3x more money from Spotify per PAYING customer than a regular AD Supported customer.

 

Spotify barely pays shit to artists when they do get paid. And frankly it's cos Consumers don't want to pay how much artists should really be paid.

 

In a perfect world, you would owe money to the artist and Spotify every time you listen to a song. And then at the end of the month you'd be billed for how much you listened to. The pay per play would increase a fair amount to provide reasonable salaries to artists. And Spotify would take a small cut from each play.

I pay for it too, and I would probably pay twice as much max. if I had to go back to the old ways I don't think I would listen to as much music at all or it would be youtube based (which is not much better than Spotify when it comes to $$/listen). 

The trouble is finding what that per play cost would be - its very difficult thing and far from perfect world. Too much and people will torrent or not listen as much. Thus the market for music decreases and the music labels still loose. The numbers aren't lying for past number of years thanks to streaming more music is being listened to, but just as easily as that trend started it can be stopped.

Personally I think Spotify should kill free listening or put a cap on the number of songs one can stream for free - Getting people to pay is important, but not too much. 

 

Its a tough time, the old school way of business doesn't like other companies making all the money from something that they were simply to old to see. If Universal for example made a streaming service they wouldn't have an issue with streaming and money going to artists... They could care less, as long as they are in control of the rights and have the all the money. But because the streaming market is so competitive they don't stand a chance. They could buy their into the market, but then their other large music companies would sue them to for not paying enough to their artists. (And a company like universal would never to do this because they are all working together to prevent or hold back streaming) 

 

I think if the market option reduces there will be the ability for the remaining streaming companies to operate and pay artists more - but right they are fighting free users, huge competition and the music labels. Spotifiy, Apple music, maybe pandora?, Google (youtube/music) will remain. 

You can draw a lot similarities from the movie streaming market, only the key difference is that they started to make their own content - its baffled me why Spotifiy hasn't done this yet either, seems like a great win-win for them.

[mr moose]

On 1/6/2018 at 2:35 PM, dizmo said:

 

Eventually there won't be jobs for everyone. It's inevitable. That's what universal wage tries to come to terms with.

 

That's what they were concerned with during the 18th century, then again in the 19th century,  it was quite a big fear in the 20th century and now we are in the 21st century and we still have that same fear.   Many historians agree the industrial revolution and railway network was the single biggest change to society, even bigger than the Internet (railway includes the telegraph).  With that revolution came automation and lower wages/longer hours in some cases.  However, the reality is that quality of life is always going up (faster in countries with minimum wage) and nothing seems to be effecting unemployment rates on such long scales.  

[dizmo]

6 minutes ago, mr moose said:

That's what they were concerned with during the 18th century, then again in the 19th century,  it was quite a big fear in the 20th century and now we are in the 21st century and we still have that same fear.   Many historians agree the industrial revolution and railway network was the single biggest change to society, even bigger than the Internet (railway includes the telegraph).  With that revolution came automation and lower wages/longer hours in some cases.  However, the reality is that quality of life is always going up (faster in countries with minimum wage) and nothing seems to be effecting unemployment rates on such long scales.  

The only difference is the speed at which things are automating, and the population levels which are (naturally) exponentially increasing. In the 1800s there was 1 billion people worldwide. Early 1900s? 2 billion. By 1960 we were at 3. 2000, 6. 2011, 7. Combine that with automation, and it's not a great picture.

[mr moose]

3 minutes ago, dizmo said:

The only difference is the speed at which things are automating, and the population levels which are (naturally) exponentially increasing. In the 1800s there was 1 billion people worldwide. Early 1900s? 2 billion. By 1960 we were at 3. 2000, 6. 2011, 7. Combine that with automation, and it's not a great picture.

Automation/technology is keeping pace with population growth.   They are both exponential. 

 

EDIT: although I should clarify the industrial revolution was one large bang, (a bit like the internet).   All I am really saying is there isn't much to worry about so long as we ensure we have good employment laws and health care systems. 

[Sniperfox47]

5 hours ago, mr moose said:

Automation/technology is keeping pace with population growth.   They are both exponential. 

 

EDIT: although I should clarify the industrial revolution was one large bang, (a bit like the internet).   All I am really saying is there isn't much to worry about so long as we ensure we have good employment laws and health care systems. 

You're missing something key here. All of those revolutions didn't remove jobs. They merely shifted jobs to more skilled positions. The AI revolution isn't doing that. It's straight up replacing jobs. What are the most skilled positions you can think of?

 

Doctors and surgeons? Coming soon to a hospital near you, IBM Watson powered surgery robots and medical diagnostic AI that are better at their jobs than any trained human...

 

Programmers? Already Google has neural nets that can build neural nets better than their engineers who design neural nets...

 

Creative work like music? There are already a number of neural nets designed that write their own music and do their own digital paintings. Combined with robotics and language processing and they can bring in physical artwork and lyrics.

 

This revolution isn't shifting jobs. It's straight up eliminating them. And while AI isn't going to replace everything today or tomorrow, laws take time to be replaced. It's time to buckle in and think of our future.

[mr moose]

9 hours ago, Sniperfox47 said:

You're missing something key here. All of those revolutions didn't remove jobs. They merely shifted jobs to more skilled positions. The AI revolution isn't doing that. It's straight up replacing jobs. What are the most skilled positions you can think of?

 

Doctors and surgeons? Coming soon to a hospital near you, IBM Watson powered surgery robots and medical diagnostic AI that are better at their jobs than any trained human...

 

Programmers? Already Google has neural nets that can build neural nets better than their engineers who design neural nets...

 

Creative work like music? There are already a number of neural nets designed that write their own music and do their own digital paintings. Combined with robotics and language processing and they can bring in physical artwork and lyrics.

 

This revolution isn't shifting jobs. It's straight up eliminating them. And while AI isn't going to replace everything today or tomorrow, laws take time to be replaced. It's time to buckle in and think of our future.

 

The industrial revolution had a huge impact on employment (not just shifting but size as well).  Spinning mills only employed more people because there was more demand for the product (they employed more less skilled people as jobs did not typically move to more skilled areas), one unskilled person using an Arkright water frame could supply enough cotton for 30 weavers as opposed to the 8 skilled spinners  required to supply 1 weaver previously.   Automated sheers and lapping wiped out the job completely.  And that is only one industry.   Migration to skilled work forces didn't really occur until after the second world war and that was over the period of about 4 decades. The industrial revolution certainly eliminated jobs. Many studies and reports have been made addressing said problems and yet we still are scared of them.

 

https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwip4rb93MbYAhWHmZQKHUf8D8YQFggpMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Feconomics.mit.edu%2Ffiles%2F11563&usg=AOvVaw1IW_zP9LKDVNDB5q1qhzaP

 

This is a good article (hosted by MIT) that delves into it all.    I particularly urge you to read the closing statements if nothing else (I know it's long)

 

Quote

I recall the observations of economist,
computer scientist, and Nobel laureate Herbert Simon (1966), who wrote
at the time of the automation anxiety of the 1960s: “Insofar as they are economic
problems at all, the world’s problems in this generation and the next are problems
of scarcity, not of intolerable abundance. The bogeyman of automation consumes
worrying capacity that should be saved for real problems . . .” A half century on,
I believe the evidence favors Simon’s view.

TL:DR automation will cause an abundance of wealth and no one earning it.  The problem is distributing said wealth without a job structure to determine who's earnt it.

Solve that and humanity has a fantastic future in front of it with automation.

[TheSilverNiko]

How could they not see this coming? There is no way this just came out of the blue. No legal team or what?