Mike Masnick

• 

  • Mike Masnick  Hey Fred, Like many of the other commenters here, often the trick to resetting involves one of the following: music, a great movie, family time, exercise or watching a baseball game. But, generally it depends on what's really causing the funk. In general, though, I've found that purposely trying to hit the reset button doesn't work. The reset always comes accidentally... when I'm doing something else. So, my recommendation: just do something different than usual, and don't think of it as trying to hit the reset button. Just think of it as trying some new experiences, and eventually the reset comes automatically... when you least expect it.
  • • 3 weeks ago
    •   Hitting The Reset Button
    •   A VC
  • • 1 point
    • 0 replies

  

  • Michael Masnick  Actually, it's not just in the Valley... and it's not new either. There's an organization that's been around for years called Community Voice Mail (http://www.cvm.org/) that gives free voicemail to the homeless around the country...
  • • 2 months ago
    •   Homeless voicemail: Only in the Valley
    •   Mathew's comments
  •   mathewi  Thanks, Mike. Found out about CVM after I wrote the post. Do you think it's a good idea? On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 1:43 AM, Disqus
  • • 1 point
    • 1 reply

  

  • Michael Masnick  "Can you point me to anywhere in which Paul Romer specifically addressed Music Sharing?" He has not directly addressed music sharing. I was simply addressing the question of whether the basic ideas concerning how the economics of nonrivalrous goods work. "I understand how his ideas could be interpreted to be in favor of music sharing (if you consider music sharing an "idea" as opposed to a "thing") but that isn't a given from what I've read so far." Hmm. Romer is rather clear in defining his goods in specific terms: nonrivalrous and non-excludable. That applies to both ideas and music, so I don't see it as being a question of interpretation, but one of fact.
  • • 3 months ago
    •   How not to think about music, Part XVII
    •   Mathew's comments
  • • 1 point
    • 0 replies

  

  • Michael Masnick  "(the idea that you don't understand why a person would think its out there to give away a product for free is dishonest)" I wasn't commenting on that. I was commenting on your suggestion that price = MC being an "out there" suggestion. "I would be interested in the book you mentioned if you can give me a title. I looked on Amazon and only found one book by him and it was from '95" It hasn't been released yet, though, staying true to his feelings on this subject, he has put the entire work on his website for downloading: http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/general/intellectual/againstfinal.htm
  • • 3 months ago
    •   How not to think about music, Part XVII
    •   Mathew's comments
  •   Tom  Thanks for the link!
  • • 1 point
    • 1 reply

  

  • Michael Masnick  "it's the idea that people don't have the right to distribute things they create in the way they see fit and that society somehow has the right to claim that information for themselves. That's straight out of Marx." Then you've misread my argument -- and I apologize if it wasn't clear. I never said that creators don't have the right to distribute in the manner they prefer, and I've certainly never said that people have the right to claim information for themselves. If you think that's what I've said, you are incorrect. I would ask that you point out what I said that gave you that false impression. My argument has always been that the *creator* of content will be better off if he or she learns to embrace these economics. And that's not a "far out theory." There's plenty of economic support behind it. "On the topic of marginal cost, it is accepted theory that end costs fall with marginal costs but not that a marginal cost that falls to zero will in turn create an end cost of zero." Huh? So it's accepted theory that price falls to marginal cost except when it's not? Can you explain why $0 is somehow different than any other price?
  • • 3 months ago
    •   How not to think about music, Part XVII
    •   Mathew's comments
  •   Tom  Well, on the marxist theory this goes back to something that Matthew had said to me in an ealrier thread so I apologize if I implied that you were the source of it. I don't have any problem wih artists submitting to this kind of business model (and as I said above I don't necessarily know that it is wrong) my problem stems from the idea that they should be forced to simply because there is no way to control piracy. On the 0 point all I can say is in every school of thought be in physics, natural science or economics there are special states at which the laws that otherwise apply no longer make sense. In Physics its the speed of light and in mathematics its when you get to 0. Why is it that you can divide by any other number? Beyond that I would say that just logically your argument doesn't follow as being necessarily true. The cost of goods are always above their marginal cost even though they tend to fall in line. So if the marginal cost falls to zero that doesn't mean that the price does. Again, my argument coming into this thread wasn't to say "you're wrong and he's right" but to say "he's not a fool for disagreeing with you" No matter how much you argue this no one side is going to come out as completely right which is why its so important for each side to show respect for the other.
  • • 1 point
    • 1 reply

  

  • Michael Masnick  No worries on the attribution. It's not a big deal, but figured I'd point it out. Tim deserves plenty of recognition for the stuff he does write, though. :) While here in Edinburgh, one of the lectures I gave was on the economics of the digital era, and at some point I'll need to write about the reactions. I was somewhat shocked that the students (mostly grad students in either "informatics" or business) seemed to agree. Not much dissent. Best part, folks seemed most interested in figuring out how to use it to their advantage. Neat. So, it appears that people are recognizing these basic economic principles make sense and can be used in a positive manner. Maybe then I can finally shut up about it. :)
  • • 3 months ago
    •   How not to think about music, Part XVII
    •   Mathew's comments
  •   mathewi  I guess maybe they've gotten to that point where zero is just a number, and they don't really understand what all the fuss is about :-)
  • • 1 point
    • 1 reply

  

  • Michael Masnick  Hey Mathew, mentioned this on Twitter, but just letting you know that the analysis was mine, rather than Tim's -- though, as I said, I think Tim would have said something quite similar. As for Tom's comment here, there are actually plenty of well respected economists who support the theories we talk about, which aren't even remotely close to "Marxist". One of the recent Nobel prize winners in economics has come to similar conclusions, and future Nobel prize winner Paul Romer also has come to similar conclusions. David Levine, who is also a well respected economist has written an entire book on the subject. And that's just the advanced stuff. It's somewhat stunning to hear Tom say that respected economists don't support the theory that price = marginal cost. That's a pretty early chapter in any intro to econ book. So, I'm not sure why Tom would suggest that it's "out there" to think that price gets driven to marginal cost.
  • • 3 months ago
    •   How not to think about music, Part XVII
    •   Mathew's comments
  •   Tom  Well, the last sentance makes it a little hard to take you seriously (the idea that you don't understand why a person would think its out there to give away a product for free is dishonest) but I would be interested in the book you mentioned if you can give me a title. I looked on Amazon and only found one book by him and it was from '95
  •   mathewi  Sorry, Mike -- not sure why I thought it was Tim's piece. I can only assume I was reading one of his just before that, and got them mixed up. My apologies. And I didn't see the Twitter message for some reason. I'm glad you jumped in to respond to Tom as well. I'm not sure where he's coming from, but it's nice to get some confirmation that I'm not just out in left field, economically-speaking.
  • • 1 point
    • 2 replies

  

  • Mike Masnick  Hi Fred, Working on a post to put on Techdirt that highlights & discusses much of the research... hope to finish it tonight or tomorrow morning... Mike
  • • 5 months ago
    •   Thinking About Non-Competes
    •   A VC
  • • 1 point
    • 0 replies

  

  • Mike Masnick  Hi Fred... I usually agree with you, but on this one I think you're wrong. I've been working on a research project for nearly a year now, and as a part of it, went through a tremendous amount of research on the impact of non-competes. There is fairly compelling research (mostly done in the past ten years) on the differences in economic growth among tech companies in Boston vs. Silicon Valley -- and the *key* factor that shows why N. Cal succeeded where Boston petered out was the existence of non-competes. It's almost scary how strong the evidence is concerning how important the lack of non-competes is... I've been meaning to write up a more detailed look at the issue, and this may convince me to get my act together to do so... In the meantime, it actually makes for a really strong parallel to questions about DRM. DRM restrictions don't work and tend to only hold back the recording industry. Non-competes are effectively DRM on employees. They don't do what they're supposed to do and then end up only restricting what people want to do and what's necessary to grow a market. Both seems to make sense in the short-term for a company trying to block what others are doing, but in the long term, both are dangerous strategies that limit the potential of a market. Mike
  • • 5 months ago
    •   Thinking About Non-Competes
    •   A VC
  •   fredwilson  Can you share that research with us? It's just hard to believe that one factor, particulalry non competes, is the difference in the two regions Fred
  • • 1 point
    • 1 reply

  

  • Mike Masnick  Jordan writes: "The "macro/public interest" argument you provide, i.e that the non-compete clause is a significant barrier to startups and innovation, seems hard to prove." That's not true at all. There have been a series of economic studies in the last decade comparing the rise of Silicon Valley as compared to Boston (and one also compares both to Detroit, which didn't allow non-competes and then changed the law to allow them). The result? Over and over again, the lack of non-competes is the single largest factor in allowing Silicon Valley's success to happen, while Route 128 did not. Ping me if you want references on the studies or just use Google. I know of at least 4 studies on the topic.
  • • 5 months ago
    •   [bijansabet.com] the personal tumblelog of Bijan Sabet
    •   BijanBlog
  •   bijan  It would be great if you could provide any links. I have some too but more info is always good. Thanks.
  • • 1 point
    • 1 reply