[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[mipsi]

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

[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.

[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.

[desio]

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