I have a bad feeling about this(raganwald.posterous.com)
raganwald.posterous.com
I have a bad feeling about this
http://raganwald.posterous.com/i-have-a-bad-feeling-about-this
30 comments
Every business likes to buy from perfect competition and sell as a monopoly. This keeps input prices low and output prices high. This model is so profitable that companies bribe politicians to maintain it. Donating to a SuperPAC is more cost effective than R and D and has anshoeter payback.
I see 2 ways of fighting this:
1) Civil disobedience - Pirate everything and share while willingly accepting the consequences. 2) Shine lights on the evil doers. Support wiki leaks. Publicize. Organize voting drives.
I have bills to pay so I support number two. Great social change requires number 1.
I see 2 ways of fighting this:
1) Civil disobedience - Pirate everything and share while willingly accepting the consequences. 2) Shine lights on the evil doers. Support wiki leaks. Publicize. Organize voting drives.
I have bills to pay so I support number two. Great social change requires number 1.
> Great social change requires number 1.
Movie studios and the recording industry can, at best, delay the inevitable. Artificial scarcities are against the laws of thermodynamics.
Of all the money these industries make, only the tiniest fraction of it goes to the people who actually produced the good. Most of it is inefficiently applied in side operations such as promoting sales, manufacturing the physical support for the art, moving and storing it and selling it. All these operations can be reduced to a download and, perhaps, a payment.
Movie studios and the recording industry can, at best, delay the inevitable. Artificial scarcities are against the laws of thermodynamics.
Of all the money these industries make, only the tiniest fraction of it goes to the people who actually produced the good. Most of it is inefficiently applied in side operations such as promoting sales, manufacturing the physical support for the art, moving and storing it and selling it. All these operations can be reduced to a download and, perhaps, a payment.
Fair points though the Internet delivery model won't make advertising or sales promortion go away. More efficient, yes, but not gone.
Any quantitative change of a couple orders of magnitude brings along a qualitative change.
On a tangential note, I'm wary of relying on the job creation argument to validate new technology. The reason being that new technology can kill jobs. Particularly as programmers, one of our main goals is to automate things that previously required warm bodies. I don't feel guilty about this because I would never want to do those jobs, but on the same token, not everyone wants to be a programmer. And in the long term if we ever achieve AI then we're on the path to making programmers obsolete as well, which is a bit scary on a personal level (though I'm not really worried about this happening in my lifetime). At a societal level this is not necessarily good or bad, it's just the direction we are currently moving in. I do worry that our biology is not well-suited to an automated environment, but there's nothing to do but confront the problem when we come to it I guess.
> And in the long term if we ever achieve AI then we're on the path to making programmers obsolete as well ... At a societal level this is not necessarily good or bad, it's just the direction we are currently moving in.
I agree and I'd like to provoke further discussion on a related matter. (Please note that I haven't yet decided whether or not I agree with the following two statements.)
1. Jobs don't matter as much in a GMI[1] system.
2. Working doesn't have to be the focus of one's life.
I'd appreciate it if someone were to play devil's advocate.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guaranteed_minimum_income
I agree and I'd like to provoke further discussion on a related matter. (Please note that I haven't yet decided whether or not I agree with the following two statements.)
1. Jobs don't matter as much in a GMI[1] system.
2. Working doesn't have to be the focus of one's life.
I'd appreciate it if someone were to play devil's advocate.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guaranteed_minimum_income
Although there are some jobs that are killed, there are some jobs that are created. The nett jobs is an interesting metric.
Some jobs should be killed. Thanks to technological innovation, less people don't have to work in fields collecting food. More people can work indoors etc.
Some jobs should be killed. Thanks to technological innovation, less people don't have to work in fields collecting food. More people can work indoors etc.
Good story, but the only sense in which the heroes are sure to win is that whoever wins will be deemed the heroes.
I have a bad feeling too...but for different reasons. I fear society just doesn't give a damn anymore. I fear all our warnings will steadily fall on deaf ears and we will eventually become ostracized into oblivion. I fear humanity will embrace a system which pushes profits before people, ego over empathy, and lust above love. I fear elitists will eliminate innovation and erase the integrity of the internet and information. I fear for our future, but I have some hope in knowing their future fears us. Game on.
To continue the Star Wars analogy, the great thing about technological advancement is that as sooner or later some unknown farm boy shows up out of nowhere and bulls-eyes the fucking exhaust port and then, sha-boom, everything changes. And the powers that be never see it coming.
Now please excuse me, I have a movie to watch.
Now please excuse me, I have a movie to watch.
This is a beautiful, haunting essay brimming with sobering insights:
"At every point in the last forty years, wealth, health, and happiness in our economy have been built on the freedom to disrupt the entrenched powers, not the preservation of their rent-seeking monopolies."
"At every point in the last forty years, wealth, health, and happiness in our economy have been built on the freedom to disrupt the entrenched powers, not the preservation of their rent-seeking monopolies."
Excellent article, but I found this paragraph unclear:
"
And that’s just how they run politics. If you want to create the future, the possibility of successfully navigating a patent minefield is approximately 3,720 to 1. And I noticed earlier, the electoral motivator has been damaged. It's impossible to go to political innovation speed.
"
[deleted]
"If you want to create the future, the possibility of successfully navigating a patent minefield is approximately 3,720 to 1."
>> ... recall playing with punch cards in the 1960s ...
And I recall still using/seeing them in the early 1980s here in UK!
They were still heavily used at that time in the Market Research industry for recording data entry (of surveys). In fact the term punching is still used in the industry to this day in reference to data entry.
And I recall still using/seeing them in the early 1980s here in UK!
They were still heavily used at that time in the Market Research industry for recording data entry (of surveys). In fact the term punching is still used in the industry to this day in reference to data entry.
They still are used, but just in a digital form. We interface with some unnamed software that requires you to recode data into 80 columns, 12 possible values per word (encoded as 12 usable bits within 2 8-bit bytes -- and only one bit can be set per word).
That turns some fixed-width layout into 80-column groups, with e.g. the requirement that the last 2 columns contain the card number, and the first 4 some record ID.
There isn't even any meta-data for that file, so someone out there must be sitting connected to a mainframe and punching in what card 1, position 5-7 contains US State ID or somesuch, before running the cards.
That turns some fixed-width layout into 80-column groups, with e.g. the requirement that the last 2 columns contain the card number, and the first 4 some record ID.
There isn't even any meta-data for that file, so someone out there must be sitting connected to a mainframe and punching in what card 1, position 5-7 contains US State ID or somesuch, before running the cards.
In the Market Research industry (here) this is still pretty much the de-facto standard for sending digital data between agencies!
This continues to remain unchanged by time because the leading Market Research tool [1] still prefers to use data with 80 columns, 12 multiple values per col (0-9, & and -) with optional multi cards (card numbers can be in any columns and any length).
[1] Software is called Quantum. Originally developed in the 1970s !
This continues to remain unchanged by time because the leading Market Research tool [1] still prefers to use data with 80 columns, 12 multiple values per col (0-9, & and -) with optional multi cards (card numbers can be in any columns and any length).
[1] Software is called Quantum. Originally developed in the 1970s !
But the focus is rarely on the inventors themselves. This is the hardest job of all! Consumers tend to get what they want, and eat what they're given. If we're not supporting "starving artists" what's the point in having a more open copyright regime?
Update: This is now the newest post in the Uncensored ebook (http://leanpub.com/uncensored) which we are producing to benefit the EFF. Thanks Reg!
There's also the problem that IP law is premised on what amounts to folk psychology.
I hate this kind of titles, unclear about what you're going to read, it looks like Reddit but without the fun.
It's always curious when someone rails about a big government and its encroachment on freedom. Then in the same statement, talks about the use of big government to target specific companies to damage them instead.
As though you can really have your cake and eat it too when it comes to a big government. Big enough to break up AT&T, regulate IBM and Intel and Microsoft - big enough to take your freedom, silence your speech, regulate your Internet. Good luck getting something that big and power hungry to not keep getting bigger and more powerful and eventually wiping out your liberty. You give a government system $7 trillion dollars to spend regulating and growing itself, what do you think is going to happen? They're just going to be selectively hands off? You think you can negotiate with that?
As though you can really have your cake and eat it too when it comes to a big government. Big enough to break up AT&T, regulate IBM and Intel and Microsoft - big enough to take your freedom, silence your speech, regulate your Internet. Good luck getting something that big and power hungry to not keep getting bigger and more powerful and eventually wiping out your liberty. You give a government system $7 trillion dollars to spend regulating and growing itself, what do you think is going to happen? They're just going to be selectively hands off? You think you can negotiate with that?
There's nothing about the size of the government that limits or enhances it's power to act in the best interest of its citizenry. (You've thrown a red herring in there.) What we clearly see is that government's determination that it's simply more efficient to deal with significant (read corporate) power structures than feebly citizenly ones. This is where the limit comes from.
So perhaps I'm wrong: Perhaps a larger government is more able to engage with diverse and fine-grained interests while a small government is more likely to be trapped leveraging corporate power.
So perhaps I'm wrong: Perhaps a larger government is more able to engage with diverse and fine-grained interests while a small government is more likely to be trapped leveraging corporate power.
Bingo; IBM and Microsoft aren't the ones holding the gun.
We just need to elect the right (See: my) people, silly.
You are wrong and I am 'insulted.' My name is C3pio- the
descendant of the famous - infamous Chinese poet. My model
is chinese-american, duty lifetime 55+, similar environment.
Of course, I have worked for wall street, nuke plants and dot com or dot boombs, but aint rich.
1.on the final rocketship ride the robot sacrifices himself in the position of 'rear gunner.' The death star is stopped.
2.diverse, strange discussion is helpful. 3.Confucious saying I meet three class of persons: one I learn from as role model one I learn as ANTI-model, to avoid his bad character one I learn from to be amused and just happy - that is C3Pio
4.of course, my character is resurrected in the MATRIX
5.unlike the droids that lack COURAGE, COURAGE is the universal PROTOCOL. Call it faith, hope, being a small bit player on the SHAKESPEAREAN stage of life.
Shame on you! Without your early pathetic experiences with phone MODEMS and secretly reading '2600' and MEETING CAPTAIN CRUNCH at the germany rave you would not be the DROID...errror MAN or human that you are.
My the BUDDHA be with you! and may you be re-incarnated as a small insect flying droid. One that takes down the preadator drones. The battle of empire continues.
afterword: thats to my Czech cousins. RUR - Rossum's Universal Robots. Many think C3pio is talking in modem. WRONG again. He talks in protocol-hybrid-neo-Czech.
Of course, I have worked for wall street, nuke plants and dot com or dot boombs, but aint rich.
1.on the final rocketship ride the robot sacrifices himself in the position of 'rear gunner.' The death star is stopped.
2.diverse, strange discussion is helpful. 3.Confucious saying I meet three class of persons: one I learn from as role model one I learn as ANTI-model, to avoid his bad character one I learn from to be amused and just happy - that is C3Pio
4.of course, my character is resurrected in the MATRIX
5.unlike the droids that lack COURAGE, COURAGE is the universal PROTOCOL. Call it faith, hope, being a small bit player on the SHAKESPEAREAN stage of life.
Shame on you! Without your early pathetic experiences with phone MODEMS and secretly reading '2600' and MEETING CAPTAIN CRUNCH at the germany rave you would not be the DROID...errror MAN or human that you are.
My the BUDDHA be with you! and may you be re-incarnated as a small insect flying droid. One that takes down the preadator drones. The battle of empire continues.
afterword: thats to my Czech cousins. RUR - Rossum's Universal Robots. Many think C3pio is talking in modem. WRONG again. He talks in protocol-hybrid-neo-Czech.
[deleted]
Sadly, I'm more incline to think we're at the beginning of Act II.
This, very much so.
"At every point in the last forty years, wealth, health, and happiness in our economy has been built on the freedom to disrupt the entrenched powers, not the preservation of their rent-seeking monopolies."
I would extrapolate this to progress in free societies at any given point in history.
Oddly, this evokes a strange feeling of comfort in the inevitability of disruption.
"At every point in the last forty years, wealth, health, and happiness in our economy has been built on the freedom to disrupt the entrenched powers, not the preservation of their rent-seeking monopolies."
I would extrapolate this to progress in free societies at any given point in history.
Oddly, this evokes a strange feeling of comfort in the inevitability of disruption.
Great post. But, like all good rebels, I do believe that the cooler heads will prevail and that we will not have to surrender.
For the past year, I have been touting that the future of business is benevolence. We are too smart and too savvy to be able to carry on indefinitely in a malevolent way.
Google started it with the whole don't be evil philosophy and whether or not they are still following it, is largely irrelevant. It is, however, infectious. Facebook is following suit and (I hope) it won't be long before we all realize that the doze of benevolence will get you far. And by that I don't mean philantropy.
1) Don't charge people more than you have to. Make money, by all means, even get rich, but don't overcharge just bacause you don't have a lot of competition.
2) Pay your employees well and create positive work environments. Happy people remain working hard and make you more money at a nice and organic rate.
3) Loyalty is no longer a virtue of an employee. It is a privilege earned by an employer. Don't be a DB and expect people to stick around and work hard for your just cause you are putting bread on their families tables. That worked in the 50's. Get on with the program.
4) Share the profits with your employees, share the innovation with your customers and don't be afraid to try new things even if they appear to hurt your bottom line. You will never know until you try it.
5) Vote for a party that will better the world, not the one that will serve your selfish desires (I intentionally did not use a word needs here. (This is where I will exit on this one.)
I could go on. Perhaps I am naive in my thinking, but something (my gut) tells me that if we are in Act III, the good will win in the end. Doesn't it always?
It's either that, or this rebel will need all the force I can get.
For the past year, I have been touting that the future of business is benevolence. We are too smart and too savvy to be able to carry on indefinitely in a malevolent way.
Google started it with the whole don't be evil philosophy and whether or not they are still following it, is largely irrelevant. It is, however, infectious. Facebook is following suit and (I hope) it won't be long before we all realize that the doze of benevolence will get you far. And by that I don't mean philantropy.
1) Don't charge people more than you have to. Make money, by all means, even get rich, but don't overcharge just bacause you don't have a lot of competition.
2) Pay your employees well and create positive work environments. Happy people remain working hard and make you more money at a nice and organic rate.
3) Loyalty is no longer a virtue of an employee. It is a privilege earned by an employer. Don't be a DB and expect people to stick around and work hard for your just cause you are putting bread on their families tables. That worked in the 50's. Get on with the program.
4) Share the profits with your employees, share the innovation with your customers and don't be afraid to try new things even if they appear to hurt your bottom line. You will never know until you try it.
5) Vote for a party that will better the world, not the one that will serve your selfish desires (I intentionally did not use a word needs here. (This is where I will exit on this one.)
I could go on. Perhaps I am naive in my thinking, but something (my gut) tells me that if we are in Act III, the good will win in the end. Doesn't it always?
It's either that, or this rebel will need all the force I can get.
> Vote for a party that will better the world, not the one that will serve your selfish desires
Good luck finding one of those.
More generally, it's like this. You can argue all day about "good" and "evil", but what people respond to are incentives.
If you have a system in which businesses which do good and not evil are the businesses that thrive, then people will create businesses which do good. If your economic system rewards "evil" practices, that's what you're going to get.
If you allow these "evil" companies to continue to re-design the system to reward patent trolling, snuffing out competitors with lawsuits, spying on Internet users, etc etc etc etc etc, then -- you will get a system in which the more that a company does these things, the more they thrive.
If your political system allows companies that thrive to pay to bend the rules of the game in their favor, then they will not only continue to thrive but actively accelerate their success, to the detriment of the rest of the world.
Good luck finding one of those.
More generally, it's like this. You can argue all day about "good" and "evil", but what people respond to are incentives.
If you have a system in which businesses which do good and not evil are the businesses that thrive, then people will create businesses which do good. If your economic system rewards "evil" practices, that's what you're going to get.
If you allow these "evil" companies to continue to re-design the system to reward patent trolling, snuffing out competitors with lawsuits, spying on Internet users, etc etc etc etc etc, then -- you will get a system in which the more that a company does these things, the more they thrive.
If your political system allows companies that thrive to pay to bend the rules of the game in their favor, then they will not only continue to thrive but actively accelerate their success, to the detriment of the rest of the world.
> More generally, it's like this. You can argue all day about "good" and "evil", but what people respond to are incentives.
100% agree, but incentives and benevolence are not necessarily exclusive of each other.
An acquaitance wrote a trillogy. She posted all three books on Amazon for a standard price of 4.99 per e-book. She worked hard on this trillogy and deemed that it was a fair price. She sold ~10 copies of each book a month and generated revenue of $150.00 a month.
Then she made the first book free and dropped the price of second two books to $2.99 each (minimum Amazon will allow). The next month she sold 10,000 copies of second and third book generating a revenue of $60,000.
Had she stuck to her guns that she should get paid a fair price for all three books, she would still be the starving artist indefinitely.
Benevolence will not come from a political system or from the top down. I believe that it will come from the ground up. Because the revolution (much like the rebels) are not organized, but they will hopefully sway the trends for the better.
100% agree, but incentives and benevolence are not necessarily exclusive of each other.
An acquaitance wrote a trillogy. She posted all three books on Amazon for a standard price of 4.99 per e-book. She worked hard on this trillogy and deemed that it was a fair price. She sold ~10 copies of each book a month and generated revenue of $150.00 a month.
Then she made the first book free and dropped the price of second two books to $2.99 each (minimum Amazon will allow). The next month she sold 10,000 copies of second and third book generating a revenue of $60,000.
Had she stuck to her guns that she should get paid a fair price for all three books, she would still be the starving artist indefinitely.
Benevolence will not come from a political system or from the top down. I believe that it will come from the ground up. Because the revolution (much like the rebels) are not organized, but they will hopefully sway the trends for the better.
I agree to a point, but I'm not so sure about this.
> Benevolence will not come from a political system or from the top down.
Here, you seem to be implying that incentives and benevolence are exclusive. The political (and economic) system can be set up so that it rewards benevolence, or it can punish benevolence. To get more benevolence, I think we must also work on changing the rules to encourage it. (As well as voting with our wallets for benevolent companies/authors/etc.)
> Benevolence will not come from a political system or from the top down.
Here, you seem to be implying that incentives and benevolence are exclusive. The political (and economic) system can be set up so that it rewards benevolence, or it can punish benevolence. To get more benevolence, I think we must also work on changing the rules to encourage it. (As well as voting with our wallets for benevolent companies/authors/etc.)
> I think we must also work on changing the rules to encourage it.
You hit the nail on the head here. What I meant by not come from the top down, I meant that it will come incrementally from the people who will reward it with their support. It cannot be ordered, it has to be desired, recognized and rewarded.
You hit the nail on the head here. What I meant by not come from the top down, I meant that it will come incrementally from the people who will reward it with their support. It cannot be ordered, it has to be desired, recognized and rewarded.
don't overcharge just bacause you don't have a lot of competition.
But that partly encourages new competitors. If a market is dominated by a good product at a good price, it's harder to compete than if it is grossly overpriced.
But that partly encourages new competitors. If a market is dominated by a good product at a good price, it's harder to compete than if it is grossly overpriced.
So imagine how far ahead a company would be if they were first with a fairly priced product.
I believe that this is why price is not a competitive advantage and you need more substance to beat out your competition.
I believe that this is why price is not a competitive advantage and you need more substance to beat out your competition.
[deleted]
I think things like a serious implementation of the Laws of Identity (http://www.ipc.on.ca/images/Resources/PrivacybyDesign%20Book...) are one of the missing pieces in giving back control to the people.
It's funny because the biggest players lately (Zynga, Facebook, Google etc) are building up these walled gardens like a bunch of wannabe imperialists.
Who exactly is leading the Rebel forces?
It's funny because the biggest players lately (Zynga, Facebook, Google etc) are building up these walled gardens like a bunch of wannabe imperialists.
Who exactly is leading the Rebel forces?
Mozilla has good creds as a stalwart member of the Rebel Alliance and the work on https://browserid.org/ does in fact lay some of the needed groundwork for a changing the ground of debate when it comes to identity on the internet.
That said. Corruption, like rust, never sleeps; and we must be careful to not fall to the lure of the dark side ourselves.
That said. Corruption, like rust, never sleeps; and we must be careful to not fall to the lure of the dark side ourselves.
The relationship between the Empire, I mean, Google and Mozilla is disturbing the force.
Reminds me of the Confederacy from the prequels.
Oh yeah, those are forbidden.
Regardless, the Republic and Confederacy were both toys of the Emperor, so I guess Google and Firefox...
Ok I'll just leave.
Star Wars should be public domain though (the original 3 movies). Fuck infinite copyright.
Oh yeah, those are forbidden.
Regardless, the Republic and Confederacy were both toys of the Emperor, so I guess Google and Firefox...
Ok I'll just leave.
Star Wars should be public domain though (the original 3 movies). Fuck infinite copyright.
I have to disagree here. George Lucas is still alive, and he wrote it.
Why should copyright be tied to the life of the author (serious question)? When I discuss copyright with friends I typically argue for a fixed copyright term regardless of when the author dies. What are the arguments to the contrary?
What is that paper talking about? I'm sorry but aren't all these things already in place? You can generate your own certificate, you can have them issued by certificate authorities... you can sign up with facebook, you can have your own domain from a registrar, you can have your own email address, etc.
At the end of the day, who really cares about your unified identity? Only advertisers, and even they don't really care about ALL the aspects of what you do. Everyone just needs to see the relevant "user" that you have on their particular network. While YOU need to have a secure and private machine that gives control over your data verifies others' access to it, by relying on their identity relative to you. That's all.
The only really important part of identity is that the account should not be transferable to one or more unauthorized users. Authorization should ideally be granted by both sides. "What you know" is transferrable, which is why "who you are" or "what you have" is often better. If you lose "what you have", you can invalidate that account, and transfer your identity to another one, with the permission of the identity issuer.
At the end of the day, who really cares about your unified identity? Only advertisers, and even they don't really care about ALL the aspects of what you do. Everyone just needs to see the relevant "user" that you have on their particular network. While YOU need to have a secure and private machine that gives control over your data verifies others' access to it, by relying on their identity relative to you. That's all.
The only really important part of identity is that the account should not be transferable to one or more unauthorized users. Authorization should ideally be granted by both sides. "What you know" is transferrable, which is why "who you are" or "what you have" is often better. If you lose "what you have", you can invalidate that account, and transfer your identity to another one, with the permission of the identity issuer.
Don't worry. Once China and India have a sufficient manufacturing, services and consumer base, I fully expect them to formally declare IP to be a nonsense and an impediment to growth.
Not sure about China. They do avoid IP rules but for purposes of bringing things under Chinese companies. Once these companies have enough value to protect in their IP (regardless of how they came to have it), they tend to look to their government for protection.
Software patents are already not valid in India. So no patent on implementing one-click buying. On the other hand, no protection for mpeg family of protocols either.
Exactly. GOod luck enforcing IP rules in China. Your only choice is to out-innovate, not out-sue
Actually your more likely choice is to copy (http://blog.foundrs.com/2012/01/02/apple-vs-samsung-the-trol...). We won't be necessarily better off in a world with no IP protection.
It's fascinating to imagine what the tech world might look like with no (or radically different) IP laws. I doubt it would be anywhere near as simple as the blog author makes out.
That was precisely the US's stance a while back. Funny how things change.
This artical is dead on. With this as motivation, we should all be more like Stallman and un-marginalize his point of view. His point of view is also mostly dead on, and always has been ... We can not let the mighty few rule the majority, it is not the way the internet was envisioned to be, and we should fight for it to remain as envisioned.
In response to tnicola, $10 a month, max, if I do not get that much out of an internet service, it should be free. Unlike Stallman, I do believe in a bit of capitalism, but a majority of freedom.
In response to tnicola, $10 a month, max, if I do not get that much out of an internet service, it should be free. Unlike Stallman, I do believe in a bit of capitalism, but a majority of freedom.
And if I lived in the US, where my daily internet activity would be considered a felony, I would consider it a grave injustice that I had to pay more than companies' cost +10% for the internet service.
As it stands, I don't pay for the TV service, so I have no problem paying going rates. (I'll let you deduct the rest and plead the 5th).
As it stands, I don't pay for the TV service, so I have no problem paying going rates. (I'll let you deduct the rest and plead the 5th).
I have only one question.
Who are the ewoks in this analogy?
Who are the ewoks in this analogy?
Anonymous? o.0 I've always seen them as being "script kiddies" but they are always able to do more than I thought. Who knew they could free one of them from a drug cartel?
Thinking back to the collapse of SOPA/PIPA, perhaps the everyday user of the Internet? Largely ignored by the "evil empire", until the sheer magnitude of their numbers outweighed their simple techniques (phone calls, faxes, letters to legislators) and proved overwhelming. That might be a bit of a stretch -- but in this case, I think it's warranted :)
The BBC commissioned a study [1] that claims the Charles Dicken's brand brings in about £280m/year to the UK's economy. This from a public domain "brand". Meanwhile companies like Disney lobby for perpetual copyright to protect their own interest at the cost of all the lost opportunities that will never exist.
I don't understand how politicians in the free enterprise countries, especially American republicans with their distaste of market regulation, could consider extremely long copyright protection to be a net benefit to the market/country. Is Disney going to stop producing movies if their copyright was only 20 years? Drug companies only receive 20 years protection and their products are ridiculously expensive to produce yet they're still very viable businesses.
I wish we could turn the argument against long copyrights to be one of the damage they do to the economy.
[1] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-16914367
I don't understand how politicians in the free enterprise countries, especially American republicans with their distaste of market regulation, could consider extremely long copyright protection to be a net benefit to the market/country. Is Disney going to stop producing movies if their copyright was only 20 years? Drug companies only receive 20 years protection and their products are ridiculously expensive to produce yet they're still very viable businesses.
I wish we could turn the argument against long copyrights to be one of the damage they do to the economy.
[1] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-16914367
>The BBC commissioned a study that claims the Charles Dicken's brand brings in about £280m/year to the UK's economy.
But who cares how much it "brings in" ? Why is money the sole metric of wealth. How much value does open source provide - take linux for eg. which is used in pretty much every aspect of computing these days - from cell phones to super computers - how much value has it provided to the consumers and allowed developers/researchers/manufacturers to produce ? Apply that to every major opensource software effort, things like IDE's, servers, programming languages/compilers. If you were granted a monopoly (like some software companies are, eg. Microsoft with Android patents) would it allow you to make money ? Sure. Would it create extra value ? Nope. This is why stressing revenue, GDP and all other metrics is loosing perspective, they are a useful tool/indicator of the economy but the goal is providing value to the consumers. Screw the producers it's their job to figure out how to capitalize on their business model. Government should never protect the producer. Will the demand go away if you eliminate the IP laws ? No. So the producers will have to figure out how to create new business models that work in a new environment. You probably want to have transition phase, but instead we are doubling down on IP protection, it's getting ridiculous.
But who cares how much it "brings in" ? Why is money the sole metric of wealth. How much value does open source provide - take linux for eg. which is used in pretty much every aspect of computing these days - from cell phones to super computers - how much value has it provided to the consumers and allowed developers/researchers/manufacturers to produce ? Apply that to every major opensource software effort, things like IDE's, servers, programming languages/compilers. If you were granted a monopoly (like some software companies are, eg. Microsoft with Android patents) would it allow you to make money ? Sure. Would it create extra value ? Nope. This is why stressing revenue, GDP and all other metrics is loosing perspective, they are a useful tool/indicator of the economy but the goal is providing value to the consumers. Screw the producers it's their job to figure out how to capitalize on their business model. Government should never protect the producer. Will the demand go away if you eliminate the IP laws ? No. So the producers will have to figure out how to create new business models that work in a new environment. You probably want to have transition phase, but instead we are doubling down on IP protection, it's getting ridiculous.
"Why is money the sole metric of wealth. How much value does open source provide - take linux for eg. which is used in pretty much every aspect of computing these days - from cell phones to super computers - how much value has it provided to the consumers and allowed developers/researchers/manufacturers to produce ?"
What unit would you use to measure the value it provides, if not money?
"Apply that to every major opensource software effort, things like IDE's, servers, programming languages/compilers. If you were granted a monopoly (like some software companies are, eg. Microsoft with Android patents) would it allow you to make money ? Sure. Would it create extra value ? Nope. "
I don't understand the point you're making. Obviously somebody thinks Microsoft's Android patents are valuable, or they wouldn't pay to use them. What do you mean by "would it create extra value?"
"Government should never protect the producer."
At least we agree on something...
"Will the demand go away if you eliminate the IP laws ? No. So the producers will have to figure out how to create new business models that work in a new environment. "
That makes no sense. Demand existing isn't enough for something to spring into existence. You make it sound like other people slaving away to create music, movies, and software is your birth right or something.
What unit would you use to measure the value it provides, if not money?
"Apply that to every major opensource software effort, things like IDE's, servers, programming languages/compilers. If you were granted a monopoly (like some software companies are, eg. Microsoft with Android patents) would it allow you to make money ? Sure. Would it create extra value ? Nope. "
I don't understand the point you're making. Obviously somebody thinks Microsoft's Android patents are valuable, or they wouldn't pay to use them. What do you mean by "would it create extra value?"
"Government should never protect the producer."
At least we agree on something...
"Will the demand go away if you eliminate the IP laws ? No. So the producers will have to figure out how to create new business models that work in a new environment. "
That makes no sense. Demand existing isn't enough for something to spring into existence. You make it sound like other people slaving away to create music, movies, and software is your birth right or something.
>What unit would you use to measure the value it provides, if not money?
I'm against quantifying it at all because, while useful, price is a very limited metric. There are numerous cases where you can increase the transaction sum and achieve 0 value increase, eg. monopolistic pricing in a market with inelastic demand or bad investing (destroying capital) or externalities, etc.
>I don't understand the point you're making. Obviously somebody thinks Microsoft's Android patents are valuable, or they wouldn't pay to use them. What do you mean by "would it create extra value?"
Nobody is "using them", in fact nobody knows what patents are in question, all that's known is that Microsoft forced different Android manufacturers to pay up for Linux kernel or they take them to court. That's textbook rent seeking. It's likely that Linux devs arrived at the solution independently (since IIRC it's unknown what patents are in question), or would have done so - so you can't make the point that without granting Microsoft a monopoly you wouldn't have Linux kernel.
>That makes no sense. Demand existing isn't enough for something to spring into existence. You make it sound like other people slaving away to create music, movies, and software is your birth right or something.
People choose to share their creations, once it's copied the copy is no longer their property. They can do whatever they want with their property but knowledge is a non-rivalrous non-excludable good (without infringing on excludable property of others) and creating artificial scarcities to sustain someones business model is ridiculous. Software can translate nicely to a no IP environment by SaaS, NDAs and open-source development financed by consulting. There are various routes for other industries, and many more can be created. I'm not sure about things like pharmaceuticals and maybe other industries have different conditions that would lead to catastrophic results, but that doesn't apply to software and entertainment, bankrupting Disney and Microsoft != bankrupting a company with 10 years of R&D in cancer treatment research.
I'm against quantifying it at all because, while useful, price is a very limited metric. There are numerous cases where you can increase the transaction sum and achieve 0 value increase, eg. monopolistic pricing in a market with inelastic demand or bad investing (destroying capital) or externalities, etc.
>I don't understand the point you're making. Obviously somebody thinks Microsoft's Android patents are valuable, or they wouldn't pay to use them. What do you mean by "would it create extra value?"
Nobody is "using them", in fact nobody knows what patents are in question, all that's known is that Microsoft forced different Android manufacturers to pay up for Linux kernel or they take them to court. That's textbook rent seeking. It's likely that Linux devs arrived at the solution independently (since IIRC it's unknown what patents are in question), or would have done so - so you can't make the point that without granting Microsoft a monopoly you wouldn't have Linux kernel.
>That makes no sense. Demand existing isn't enough for something to spring into existence. You make it sound like other people slaving away to create music, movies, and software is your birth right or something.
People choose to share their creations, once it's copied the copy is no longer their property. They can do whatever they want with their property but knowledge is a non-rivalrous non-excludable good (without infringing on excludable property of others) and creating artificial scarcities to sustain someones business model is ridiculous. Software can translate nicely to a no IP environment by SaaS, NDAs and open-source development financed by consulting. There are various routes for other industries, and many more can be created. I'm not sure about things like pharmaceuticals and maybe other industries have different conditions that would lead to catastrophic results, but that doesn't apply to software and entertainment, bankrupting Disney and Microsoft != bankrupting a company with 10 years of R&D in cancer treatment research.
creating artificial scarcities to sustain someones business model is ridiculous
I read your words, but all I hear you saying is "I want free media".
Do you fundamentally disbelieve in the concept of paying someone for the use/enjoyment of IP they produced?
I read your words, but all I hear you saying is "I want free media".
Do you fundamentally disbelieve in the concept of paying someone for the use/enjoyment of IP they produced?
I read your words, but all I hear is "I want to use the police and courts to demand income in perpetuity because I thought up something somebody thought was clever once."
"I don't think you should restrict sharing" is not the same thing as "I don't think you deserve to be paid". Find a business model that isn't based on prohibiting what everyone's mother has encouraged them to do since they were toddlers.
Sharing is good. Information flow is good. Impeding either of those things impedes human progress. Creation is also good, but modern technology proves it can be encouraged and compensated without strong arming society as a whole.
"I don't think you should restrict sharing" is not the same thing as "I don't think you deserve to be paid". Find a business model that isn't based on prohibiting what everyone's mother has encouraged them to do since they were toddlers.
Sharing is good. Information flow is good. Impeding either of those things impedes human progress. Creation is also good, but modern technology proves it can be encouraged and compensated without strong arming society as a whole.
It sounds to me like you are arguing for the abolishment of patents, copyright, et al?
Also, for the record, I am not a music/movie/etc artist, and I do not hold IP.
Also, for the record, I am not a music/movie/etc artist, and I do not hold IP.
It's a very valid and reasonable stance to be against all forms of copyright, patents or similar forms of "intellectual property". In my opinion, they are among the worst mistakes in the history of mankind.
>I read your words, but all I hear you saying is "I want free media".
All the media I consume nowdays is free, news, learning resources, youtube vids etc. Apart from going to cinema (but even that started to suck), and music from local bands that I pay for to support the artist. So nope, I don't want any media.
>Do you fundamentally disbelieve in the concept of paying someone for the use/enjoyment of IP they produced?
Do you pay for broadcast TV program or radio ? They are funded by advertising. Same thing with software, I don't mind paying for it, but if you expect people not to copy it - keep it on a private server and expose it as a service, or find some other model.
All the media I consume nowdays is free, news, learning resources, youtube vids etc. Apart from going to cinema (but even that started to suck), and music from local bands that I pay for to support the artist. So nope, I don't want any media.
>Do you fundamentally disbelieve in the concept of paying someone for the use/enjoyment of IP they produced?
Do you pay for broadcast TV program or radio ? They are funded by advertising. Same thing with software, I don't mind paying for it, but if you expect people not to copy it - keep it on a private server and expose it as a service, or find some other model.
Yeah, as an independent, 'starving' artist myself, I take exception to all this happy talk about making information free. It's already hard enough to make a living off of music, or any art, and I'm no fan of the monopolies, but it's incredibly obnoxious when I hear all this stuff about just give all of your work away for free with no path to eventual prosperity, and how "It's the producers problem, why don't they make a new business model". As for the monopolies, that's what they've done with litigation and IP protection measures, albeit more and more draconian ones...
So, you do realize that the information is free to duplicate, right? And that there is no way of ensuring you get paid for rent on a resource you can't control the duplication of--at least without causing massive headaches for everyone else?
Dude, sell tickets to shows, sell merch at shows, don't perform unless paid before hand.
If all else fails, consider that maybe you don't have a product worth buying, and then improve or leave.
Dude, sell tickets to shows, sell merch at shows, don't perform unless paid before hand.
If all else fails, consider that maybe you don't have a product worth buying, and then improve or leave.
> If all else fails, consider that maybe you don't have a product worth buying, and then improve or leave.
This point bears repeating. As a musician, like it or not, you're an entrepreneur. You can outsource your marketing and collections to a third party in exchange for a percentage of profit (or even in exchange for an advance on anticipated profits), but it doesn't make you any less of a businessperson.
Everyone reading Hacker News knows the statistics when it comes to startup success. Why would the music industry (or any artistic endeavor) be any different in this regard?
Make something people want, at a price they're willing to pay.
This point bears repeating. As a musician, like it or not, you're an entrepreneur. You can outsource your marketing and collections to a third party in exchange for a percentage of profit (or even in exchange for an advance on anticipated profits), but it doesn't make you any less of a businessperson.
Everyone reading Hacker News knows the statistics when it comes to startup success. Why would the music industry (or any artistic endeavor) be any different in this regard?
Make something people want, at a price they're willing to pay.
"Everyone reading Hacker News knows the statistics when it comes to startup success. Why would the music industry (or any artistic endeavor) be any different in this regard?"
This is the failed model that leads to the kind of monopolies all too well known to artists like myself.. It's sure not the American model for entrepreneurship. This hits "business" business model is for the fucking birds, and this line "If all else fails, consider that maybe you don't have a product worth buying, and then improve or leave." is bullshit. Ask Mozart, Van Gogh, Stephen Foster and lots of other great artists who died penniless.
"As a musician, like it or not, you're an entrepreneur"
Sorry, I know this and I like it. And as an entrepreneur, what I hate about about the hits business model that started in music, and is making its rounds to software is that it's not a very healthy one -- it's a winner take all, zero sum game, ans it's naive to not understand that most successful business models cannot run this way. Yesterday music, today movies, tomorrow software.
TL;DR thank you so much for the lecture, hacker bro. When it comes to: "Make something people want, at a price they're willing to pay."
This is the failed model that leads to the kind of monopolies all too well known to artists like myself.. It's sure not the American model for entrepreneurship. This hits "business" business model is for the fucking birds, and this line "If all else fails, consider that maybe you don't have a product worth buying, and then improve or leave." is bullshit. Ask Mozart, Van Gogh, Stephen Foster and lots of other great artists who died penniless.
"As a musician, like it or not, you're an entrepreneur"
Sorry, I know this and I like it. And as an entrepreneur, what I hate about about the hits business model that started in music, and is making its rounds to software is that it's not a very healthy one -- it's a winner take all, zero sum game, ans it's naive to not understand that most successful business models cannot run this way. Yesterday music, today movies, tomorrow software.
TL;DR thank you so much for the lecture, hacker bro. When it comes to: "Make something people want, at a price they're willing to pay."
/rant starts
> Why would the music industry (or any artistic endeavor) be any different in this regard?
"why would" indicates you did not think about it but you just want to fit the arguments to your position. Answer is: why should it? Like everyone here on HN you should know that softwareland is not only filled with startups but that there are infinitely more ways to run a software company. Same with music. It's not about being Michael Jackson or starving poor.
I have seen all kind of spoiled brat arguments of entitled hard drive owners seen coming along here and they are in the end just that: sense of entitlement and "i want" spelled out in different forms.
Foremost I read it from the snarky tone with which BS "tips" are given like "sell you underwear", "if people don't pay just f* off" ... I was even reading from people who think that artists principally have no rights on their creations, others were going pseudo philosophical with "the bits of my hard drive are free", (Oh yes physical property is still sacred, can someone tell me why?).
And then to witness the shit storm breaking loose if a company uses designs of 37 signal. Then the wannabe startups come out of their holes, they already see their ios-apps floating around in freedom and not generating money anymore.
Here it is: If a content creator creates something it's at his will to decide what happens to it, if it's free, it's free. If he wants to be attributed or paid, then it be so. All else is not at your discretion. Running away with a 1TB hard drive full of downloaded content and then screaming "it's good for your resume" is just an insult. Not more.
This has got nothing to do with entrepreneurship. Apparently music motivates people to buy gadgets for several 100 bucks to have it 24/7, so let them take the free stuff, let them pay for the stuff with a price tag.
To paraphrase: consider it a product worth buying and pay or just leave.
As an aside: I do not make and do not intend to make money from music anymore and always have profited from very liberal use of copyright laws. But when I played copyrighted material I always made note of it and paid dues where applicable. Why is this such a difficult concept for the elite hanging out here? And why this kind of annoyed lecturing?
/rant ends.
"why would" indicates you did not think about it but you just want to fit the arguments to your position. Answer is: why should it? Like everyone here on HN you should know that softwareland is not only filled with startups but that there are infinitely more ways to run a software company. Same with music. It's not about being Michael Jackson or starving poor.
I have seen all kind of spoiled brat arguments of entitled hard drive owners seen coming along here and they are in the end just that: sense of entitlement and "i want" spelled out in different forms.
Foremost I read it from the snarky tone with which BS "tips" are given like "sell you underwear", "if people don't pay just f* off" ... I was even reading from people who think that artists principally have no rights on their creations, others were going pseudo philosophical with "the bits of my hard drive are free", (Oh yes physical property is still sacred, can someone tell me why?).
And then to witness the shit storm breaking loose if a company uses designs of 37 signal. Then the wannabe startups come out of their holes, they already see their ios-apps floating around in freedom and not generating money anymore.
Here it is: If a content creator creates something it's at his will to decide what happens to it, if it's free, it's free. If he wants to be attributed or paid, then it be so. All else is not at your discretion. Running away with a 1TB hard drive full of downloaded content and then screaming "it's good for your resume" is just an insult. Not more.
This has got nothing to do with entrepreneurship. Apparently music motivates people to buy gadgets for several 100 bucks to have it 24/7, so let them take the free stuff, let them pay for the stuff with a price tag.
To paraphrase: consider it a product worth buying and pay or just leave.
As an aside: I do not make and do not intend to make money from music anymore and always have profited from very liberal use of copyright laws. But when I played copyrighted material I always made note of it and paid dues where applicable. Why is this such a difficult concept for the elite hanging out here? And why this kind of annoyed lecturing?
/rant ends.
You're an ass. No, it's not FREE to duplicate. It costs money to duplicate and distribute licensed copies of other people's work. And it's not information, it's art. The massive headache you feel is called honor. You're from a culture that now calls stealing liberty. Brave new world, indeed.
Dude, sell tickets to shows, sell merch at shows, don't perform unless paid before hand.
You're an ass.
If all else fails, consider that maybe you don't have a product worth buying, and then improve or leave.
You're an ass.
Dude, sell tickets to shows, sell merch at shows, don't perform unless paid before hand.
You're an ass.
If all else fails, consider that maybe you don't have a product worth buying, and then improve or leave.
You're an ass.
"No, it's not FREE to duplicate."
cp ShohamsGreatestFlames.txt ShohamsGreatestFlames2.txt
Man, that was really really cheap. Free even.
"It costs money to duplicate and distribute licensed copies of other people's work."
Notice that I didn't say anything about licensed copies of other people's work. Duplication--the raw act as shown above--of digital data is effectively free.
Your profits derive from your ability to control the scarcity of your product, right? If a publisher licensed your music and stood next to you at your shows handing out your album for free, you'd be boned, right?
The fact here is that these people can and will make duplicates of your work, and there is nothing you can do to stop them. It's not costing them enough not to, and anything you do to increase that cost--pushing for rediculous prison terms, making blank CDs have a big tax, forcing ISPs to limit service, etc.--hurts society far more than your loss hurts you.
"And it's not information, it's art."
To my capture card in the studio, to my sound board mixing analog signals, to my microphone receiving vibrations in the air, reading a phonebook and playing a song are functionally equivalent. To the hard disk, the bytes look the same. Metadata about "art" or "not art" is lost in the medium.
There may be a great philosophical difference between art and information, there may be a moral difference about how one ought be treated as opposed to the other--but there is no practical difference, and getting paid is about getting practical.
cp ShohamsGreatestFlames.txt ShohamsGreatestFlames2.txt
Man, that was really really cheap. Free even.
"It costs money to duplicate and distribute licensed copies of other people's work."
Notice that I didn't say anything about licensed copies of other people's work. Duplication--the raw act as shown above--of digital data is effectively free.
Your profits derive from your ability to control the scarcity of your product, right? If a publisher licensed your music and stood next to you at your shows handing out your album for free, you'd be boned, right?
The fact here is that these people can and will make duplicates of your work, and there is nothing you can do to stop them. It's not costing them enough not to, and anything you do to increase that cost--pushing for rediculous prison terms, making blank CDs have a big tax, forcing ISPs to limit service, etc.--hurts society far more than your loss hurts you.
"And it's not information, it's art."
To my capture card in the studio, to my sound board mixing analog signals, to my microphone receiving vibrations in the air, reading a phonebook and playing a song are functionally equivalent. To the hard disk, the bytes look the same. Metadata about "art" or "not art" is lost in the medium.
There may be a great philosophical difference between art and information, there may be a moral difference about how one ought be treated as opposed to the other--but there is no practical difference, and getting paid is about getting practical.
If all else fails, consider that maybe you don't have a product worth buying, and then improve or leave.
I think you shouldn't write this off as "you're an ass". It's rough to hear "you likely won't get full payment for the product itself because it can be pirated", but that is the curse of massive amounts of processing power, digital information, and storage space. It doesn't mean you can't be successful, it just means that traditional cash cows such as prints/CD sales are harder get. You used to be able to record a song once, and sell that song indefinitely. Milk the cash cow. Now, in a world where you could potentially (but not likely) make zero due to piracy, you can't rest on your laurels with an awesome work. It's strange, and like I said in a different post, not unlike software, but in the end, you can fight the whole internet and increasing technology or adapt (or die).
I think you shouldn't write this off as "you're an ass". It's rough to hear "you likely won't get full payment for the product itself because it can be pirated", but that is the curse of massive amounts of processing power, digital information, and storage space. It doesn't mean you can't be successful, it just means that traditional cash cows such as prints/CD sales are harder get. You used to be able to record a song once, and sell that song indefinitely. Milk the cash cow. Now, in a world where you could potentially (but not likely) make zero due to piracy, you can't rest on your laurels with an awesome work. It's strange, and like I said in a different post, not unlike software, but in the end, you can fight the whole internet and increasing technology or adapt (or die).
>Do you pay for broadcast TV program or radio ? They are funded by advertising.
Actually, in the UK, we do pay for it (BBC broadcasts, at least) through a TV license.
Actually, in the UK, we do pay for it (BBC broadcasts, at least) through a TV license.
But you have private channels that are funded by advertising ?
Yes, pretty much everything other than BBC.
That's a great idea! Provide funding for movies solely with advertising! I'm sure that will result in no conflicts of interest that will severely compromise artistic vision and reduce people to no better than buying machines. </sarcasm>
I'm all for free flow of information and such, and the abolition of software patents and other substantial types of patent reform, but this kind of naive radicalism against all IP protection dilutes any reasonable demands for patent reforms and makes any activism look like a joke.
When you make a movie you can fund it and distribute it as you please. But it's extremely selfish and arrogant to want to benefit from other people's expensive endeavors, for which they are requesting a small fee to view, and give jack shit in return. By viewing the material you are admitting that there is at least some potential value in it, but by refusing to pay for it you are basically saying the movie studios and artists and writers and others can go ahead and close shop already, because you don't consider their business model viable and refuse to contribute anything.
I agree nice entitlement complex you have going there.
I'm all for free flow of information and such, and the abolition of software patents and other substantial types of patent reform, but this kind of naive radicalism against all IP protection dilutes any reasonable demands for patent reforms and makes any activism look like a joke.
When you make a movie you can fund it and distribute it as you please. But it's extremely selfish and arrogant to want to benefit from other people's expensive endeavors, for which they are requesting a small fee to view, and give jack shit in return. By viewing the material you are admitting that there is at least some potential value in it, but by refusing to pay for it you are basically saying the movie studios and artists and writers and others can go ahead and close shop already, because you don't consider their business model viable and refuse to contribute anything.
I agree nice entitlement complex you have going there.
Cinema is a nice way to exclude people from your property. You can mandate no-camera and tighten the security for releases.
I have no entitlement complex, as I've said already I don't mind paying for cinema tickets and I don't even use other commercial media. If you're referring to focusing only on consumers and ignoring what's "fair" for the producer, they you are right, but also fail to understand the point of a market system - consumers are entitled, the whole system is designed to satisfy their needs, producers are meant to fight each other to do so and get the best results for the least amount of money. So yes starving artists - you don't have rights that trump the rights of the consumer.
I have no entitlement complex, as I've said already I don't mind paying for cinema tickets and I don't even use other commercial media. If you're referring to focusing only on consumers and ignoring what's "fair" for the producer, they you are right, but also fail to understand the point of a market system - consumers are entitled, the whole system is designed to satisfy their needs, producers are meant to fight each other to do so and get the best results for the least amount of money. So yes starving artists - you don't have rights that trump the rights of the consumer.
>I'm against quantifying it at all because, while useful, price is a very limited metric. There are numerous cases where you can increase the transaction sum and achieve 0 value increase, eg. monopolistic pricing in a market with inelastic demand or bad investing (destroying capital) or externalities, etc.
I'm pretty confused as to how you first define that you don't want to quantify it but then one sentence later make a quantitative declaration ("achieve 0 value increase..."). How does this work?
I'm pretty confused as to how you first define that you don't want to quantify it but then one sentence later make a quantitative declaration ("achieve 0 value increase..."). How does this work?
Zero means nothing, absence of extra value, that can be established on qualitative grounds - but true it doesn't have to be strictly 0 it just means there is no proportional value added.
> knowledge is a non-rivalrous non-excludable good
You sound like you know what you're talking about here. What you're claiming is that digital media is a public good. I can live with that definition. It's certainly non-rival, and in practice is fairly non-excludable.
You then go on to claim that companies should just find a way to survive without copyright. The problem with this approach is that the creation of these public goods will be far below the social optimum without some sort of market interventions [1].
I definitely don't think that aggressive copyright law is the correct way to address the free rider problem. However, I think that it's shortsighted to create a necessarily inefficient market. It makes sense that companies like Disney want longer copyright, as that's how they capture the positive externalites of their work, and are able to keep producing it. Someone who is politically savvy and trying to solve this problem would look through possible solutions to the free-rider problem [2] and use them to formulate a way that producers and consumers can both benefit from relaxed copyright laws.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good#The_free_rider_prob...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good#Possible_solutions
You sound like you know what you're talking about here. What you're claiming is that digital media is a public good. I can live with that definition. It's certainly non-rival, and in practice is fairly non-excludable.
You then go on to claim that companies should just find a way to survive without copyright. The problem with this approach is that the creation of these public goods will be far below the social optimum without some sort of market interventions [1].
I definitely don't think that aggressive copyright law is the correct way to address the free rider problem. However, I think that it's shortsighted to create a necessarily inefficient market. It makes sense that companies like Disney want longer copyright, as that's how they capture the positive externalites of their work, and are able to keep producing it. Someone who is politically savvy and trying to solve this problem would look through possible solutions to the free-rider problem [2] and use them to formulate a way that producers and consumers can both benefit from relaxed copyright laws.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good#The_free_rider_prob...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good#Possible_solutions
Copyright is monopoly protection granted on your works by the demos on the assumption of that work becoming freely available to the public domain in a reasonable time.
If your work is not going to enter the public domain then there's no contract - the state then is enforcing a monopoly against the interests of the people.
Disney can make a profit of 100s of millions on a movie within a few years. They don't need anything like as much as 20 years.
They will of course retain their trademarks, and I think this is only right in a realistic IP environment.
>relaxed copyright laws //
Relaxation general means less strict or less firmly applied. This suggests an assumption that the state should grant a monopoly - there should be no such assumption but instead the application of a strict limited time contract in accordance with the original purposes of the law.
If your work is not going to enter the public domain then there's no contract - the state then is enforcing a monopoly against the interests of the people.
Disney can make a profit of 100s of millions on a movie within a few years. They don't need anything like as much as 20 years.
They will of course retain their trademarks, and I think this is only right in a realistic IP environment.
>relaxed copyright laws //
Relaxation general means less strict or less firmly applied. This suggests an assumption that the state should grant a monopoly - there should be no such assumption but instead the application of a strict limited time contract in accordance with the original purposes of the law.
> This suggests an assumption that the state should grant a monopoly.
That wasn't my intention. I wanted to emphasize that it already has. I think the state should work to ensure the creation of public goods and I think that they should relax copyright laws.
I'd love to read a rigorous analysis of this idea:
> Disney can make a profit of 100s of millions on a movie within a few years. They don't need anything like as much as 20 years. > They will of course retain their trademarks, and I think this is only right in a realistic IP environment.
That wasn't my intention. I wanted to emphasize that it already has. I think the state should work to ensure the creation of public goods and I think that they should relax copyright laws.
I'd love to read a rigorous analysis of this idea:
> Disney can make a profit of 100s of millions on a movie within a few years. They don't need anything like as much as 20 years. > They will of course retain their trademarks, and I think this is only right in a realistic IP environment.
I would prefer to approach it as public good that is protected against market failure in few selective cases. I don't like that approach but it's an improvement over treating knowledge as private property/granting legal monopolies.
"Government should never protect the producer."
At least we agree on something...
What is this madness??? I'm no Supply sider, but government does should and always will support producers. The question to me is only whether or not they'll just support monopolistic ones, or small ones and startups as well...
At least we agree on something...
What is this madness??? I'm no Supply sider, but government does should and always will support producers. The question to me is only whether or not they'll just support monopolistic ones, or small ones and startups as well...
Does value need a standard or a measure? No.
Value is a different thing to different people.
Money is not required for value to exist.
There should be no intellectual property. There should be fair reward for positive contributions to society. Reward not protect. Provide an incentive rather than a pay off.
At the moment, society is based on money not value. It's founded on providing as little value for as much money as possible.
Value is a different thing to different people.
Money is not required for value to exist.
There should be no intellectual property. There should be fair reward for positive contributions to society. Reward not protect. Provide an incentive rather than a pay off.
At the moment, society is based on money not value. It's founded on providing as little value for as much money as possible.
* Does value need a standard or a measure? No.
Value is a different thing to different people.*
So... yes, then? I mean, that's the whole point of money: allowing different people to express their preferences in a way that allows comparison. You don't need money to know whether you prefer apples or ice cream, but you do need to express your preferences in some way that lets stores know whether to stock more types of apple or more types of ice cream, and price is just the simplest way.
Value is a different thing to different people.*
So... yes, then? I mean, that's the whole point of money: allowing different people to express their preferences in a way that allows comparison. You don't need money to know whether you prefer apples or ice cream, but you do need to express your preferences in some way that lets stores know whether to stock more types of apple or more types of ice cream, and price is just the simplest way.
> There should be fair reward for positive contributions to society.
That's hand waving. Specify how you propose to achieve this.
That's hand waving. Specify how you propose to achieve this.
That depends on how the person wishes to be rewarded (within reason) hence my previous comment about how "value" differs per person.
At a concrete, legal level, suppose that I as a software developer wish to be paid in money for my time working on software, and not on client projects, what do you propose? And if I write books?
What is the legal framework you are proposing that would ensure that I would be paid a "fair" price for my work? What if my work is brilliant and millions love it? What if it's shit, and no one would pay me a dime for it? Who judges?
What is the legal framework you are proposing that would ensure that I would be paid a "fair" price for my work? What if my work is brilliant and millions love it? What if it's shit, and no one would pay me a dime for it? Who judges?
Remove money from the picture entirely and ask yourself what you'd like to recieve in exchange for your work.
If there is not a "fair value" then it probably shouldn't be being done. If it's for personal interest, don't expect a fair value for it.
People expect and somehow manage to get money at the moment for shit which is the problem.
When you put something on the free market, you are opening it to opinion and other people deciding the value. Think carefully first.
If there is not a "fair value" then it probably shouldn't be being done. If it's for personal interest, don't expect a fair value for it.
People expect and somehow manage to get money at the moment for shit which is the problem.
When you put something on the free market, you are opening it to opinion and other people deciding the value. Think carefully first.
"Remove money from the picture entirely and ask yourself what you'd like to recieve in exchange for your work."
Yeah no. We want money so that we have the fluidity of choosing a candy bar one day and a vacation another. Besides, you can't have someone offer you fractions of a vacation for your work. Is it truly that difficult to see where barter systems fail?
Besides, you are putting too much faith in the "fair value" idea. First off, when you want something and you barter with someone, a common technique is to disparage the quality of the item you desire. Why? To convince someone else that it isn't worth as much, that a "fair value" is less than that. Then, take the example of a mom-and-pop shop making jams and jellies. They probably have a lot of pride in their work and the price reflects their feelings of craftsmanship. They say, "Look at how good it is! How fresh, how pure!" -- they are trying to convince you that it is worth more than you initially appraised it at.
It's a conflict of interest -- it is in the best interest of the consumer to pay as low as he can, and it is in the best interest of the producer to get as much as he can. One seeks to minimize losses, the other, maximize profits.
Ever heard of donation-based bagel shops? You pay "what you think it is worth". Some people drop $5, others drop $0.01 because they want food and don't really want to pay for it. Even being glared at (social pressure) isn't enough to stop them.
The moral of the story is that people suck and asking them to "be fair" is a hilariously misguided way of getting revenue.
"When you put something on the free market, you are opening it to opinion and other people deciding the value. Think carefully first."
Yes, they can decide on a value, and so can the producer. If the values match or can be negotiated, you have an exchange. If they don't, then there is no exchange. Eco 101?
Yeah no. We want money so that we have the fluidity of choosing a candy bar one day and a vacation another. Besides, you can't have someone offer you fractions of a vacation for your work. Is it truly that difficult to see where barter systems fail?
Besides, you are putting too much faith in the "fair value" idea. First off, when you want something and you barter with someone, a common technique is to disparage the quality of the item you desire. Why? To convince someone else that it isn't worth as much, that a "fair value" is less than that. Then, take the example of a mom-and-pop shop making jams and jellies. They probably have a lot of pride in their work and the price reflects their feelings of craftsmanship. They say, "Look at how good it is! How fresh, how pure!" -- they are trying to convince you that it is worth more than you initially appraised it at.
It's a conflict of interest -- it is in the best interest of the consumer to pay as low as he can, and it is in the best interest of the producer to get as much as he can. One seeks to minimize losses, the other, maximize profits.
Ever heard of donation-based bagel shops? You pay "what you think it is worth". Some people drop $5, others drop $0.01 because they want food and don't really want to pay for it. Even being glared at (social pressure) isn't enough to stop them.
The moral of the story is that people suck and asking them to "be fair" is a hilariously misguided way of getting revenue.
"When you put something on the free market, you are opening it to opinion and other people deciding the value. Think carefully first."
Yes, they can decide on a value, and so can the producer. If the values match or can be negotiated, you have an exchange. If they don't, then there is no exchange. Eco 101?
I want the things I can exchange money for: food, housing, gadgets, bicycles, cars, stuff for my family, vacations, and so on.
Edit: I'll add the most important one, too: time. I like my job, I like coding, but I also like to do things like ride my bike, spend time with my kids, and so on. The more money I have, the more I can choose to do those things (simplifying a lot).
Edit: I'll add the most important one, too: time. I like my job, I like coding, but I also like to do things like ride my bike, spend time with my kids, and so on. The more money I have, the more I can choose to do those things (simplifying a lot).
You have missed a bit there. The less responsibility you have, the more time you have. You are paying to lose some of your artificial responsibility. Cut some of the middle-man out (money) and some real responsibility and the net effect is the same. Less things, less ownership, less dependency.
Why is money the sole metric of wealth. How much value does open source provide
Why are feet and miles the metric of distance, can't we just have near and far?
More seriously: value has to have a common unit of exchange. The grocery store clerk isn't going to give you your shopping for free because you happened to write some piece of software he isn't even aware of. Money allows value to be stored and transferred. Anything else is just warm fuzzies.
Why are feet and miles the metric of distance, can't we just have near and far?
More seriously: value has to have a common unit of exchange. The grocery store clerk isn't going to give you your shopping for free because you happened to write some piece of software he isn't even aware of. Money allows value to be stored and transferred. Anything else is just warm fuzzies.
You're confusing use-value (the intrinsic value of something) with exchange-value (what the thing can be exchanged for - aka price).
Much of mainstream economics reduces the broad philosophical concept of value to the narrow economic concept of exchange-value or price.
And it's not warm and fuzzy: what's the "value" of an unpolluted atmosphere? What's the value of good health? These things generally defy attempts to be priced (though what attempts have been made are risible), yet are fundamental - perhaps even more so than money - to a decent human existence.
Much of mainstream economics reduces the broad philosophical concept of value to the narrow economic concept of exchange-value or price.
And it's not warm and fuzzy: what's the "value" of an unpolluted atmosphere? What's the value of good health? These things generally defy attempts to be priced (though what attempts have been made are risible), yet are fundamental - perhaps even more so than money - to a decent human existence.
In no way is the value of an unpolluted atmosphere or good health some abstract concept. They have a value. The point of putting a dollar figure on it is for comparison purposes.
You may disagree with the value placed on these things, or perhaps value them differently than "the average", but don't assume that their value can't be calculated.
You may disagree with the value placed on these things, or perhaps value them differently than "the average", but don't assume that their value can't be calculated.
Economists and policy makers don't know how to calculate the monetary value of a clean atmosphere, nor do they know who should pay for it or how. So when making decisions they quietly assume the value is zero. We would be better off if they assumed the value was infinite.
There are plenty of ways to calculate the value of a clean atmosphere, though I agree that a good calculation is difficult, and the question of who should pay for it and how isn't easy either (but more of an ethics-politics question than the value itself).
I disagree that we'd be better off if they assumed the value was infinite. Under that calculus, anything that might possibly impact the atmosphere would be banned: things like energy generation of nearly any form, which most reasonable people would agree is of positive benefit.
There is a value to it, that value is hard to calculate, but unfortunately, 0 is much closer to the real value than infinity.
I disagree that we'd be better off if they assumed the value was infinite. Under that calculus, anything that might possibly impact the atmosphere would be banned: things like energy generation of nearly any form, which most reasonable people would agree is of positive benefit.
There is a value to it, that value is hard to calculate, but unfortunately, 0 is much closer to the real value than infinity.
> Why are feet and miles the metric of distance.
Sorry to be glib, but as someone who lives with a sane system of units and measurements, I can't help but point out the irony of your statement.
Sorry to be glib, but as someone who lives with a sane system of units and measurements, I can't help but point out the irony of your statement.
I'm in England, but assumed I was replying to an American.
But that's not the same thing, value is by definition subjective, and price does not express my valuation or your valuation of the items traded, it just expresses the intersection of supply/demand curve. Value provided by antibiotics is enormous and yet antibiotics are cheap. If we created a law saying that I have a legal monopoly on all antibiotics sales for the next 20 years, the price of antibiotics would go up but it's value/utility wouldn't have to change - we don't need to quantify that statement to evaluate it. It's still very high on your marginal utility list, so you pay more. And the GDP was "increased" (assuming the money spent was from savings/loan that wouldn't be spent in the time measured otherwise) but you aren't any richer, only the producer is, and he got rewarded for monopolistic pricing. Profit is a good incentive when the producer corrected the resource allocation to take capital to a more productive use under the market rules, but it can be perverted if you don't have competition putting pressure, have rent seeking or don't account for negative externalities.
"Screw the producers" With all respect to you as a person, fuck that. I'm an independent artist and I don't want to be screwed. Consumers tend to get what they want and eat what they're told to. It's small, independent businesses and artists who shape, have shaped, and will always shape the world that you live. you're welcome.
"It's small, independent businesses and artists who shape, have shaped, and will always shape the world that you live."
General Electric, Du Pont, Mobil, AT&T, Sun, Oracle, Microsoft, and Google certainly have been overshadowed by the powerful snowflakes of the world!
General Electric, Du Pont, Mobil, AT&T, Sun, Oracle, Microsoft, and Google certainly have been overshadowed by the powerful snowflakes of the world!
All of which started out as tiny businesses. And it's true most businesses that are successful are NOT internationally renowned. There are hundreds of millions of small businesses worldwide that keep it turning, friend.
The supply chain is much more diverse and interesting than you think, and most growth comes from new starts that will become <250K a year top line revenue corporations. These are the kinds of businesses who buy licensed copies of Office for instance, adwords, and adsense ads as well...
The supply chain is much more diverse and interesting than you think, and most growth comes from new starts that will become <250K a year top line revenue corporations. These are the kinds of businesses who buy licensed copies of Office for instance, adwords, and adsense ads as well...
Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, Netscape, Coca-Cola, Wal-Mart, Dow Chemical (lol), Monsanto (lol), Pilgrim's Corp (lol)
EDIT: You didn't say shaped "for the better". :\
EDIT: You didn't say shaped "for the better". :\
It's kind of myopic, there's a hundred million + small businesses worldwide, these guys may be on top of the food chain (this week), but remember, the bigger they are, the harder they fall...
Agreed that consumers can be sheep. Here's the problem though: the (BIG) producers are using various means inaccessible to smaller ones to change laws. And not in small way. And not in a way that benefits consumers.
People who get uptight about independent artists having their works digitally copied probably don't realize that this is a good thing. It means they are popular, it means people desire them, it means there is a market just waiting for you. Maybe it is time for a live performance, a tour, a gig, an exhibition, etc.
People seem to be so obsessed with selling copies of our work that perhaps they are forgetting what it meant to be an artist before easy, direct, reasonably faithful, copying was even "a thing".
Digital art, like code, is too easily copied to be controlled. As a programmer, I've come to terms with this. That doesn't mean that I won't ever make money, it just means that I'd make less than if there was a DRM system for everything that criminalized all of my users (note: users, not customers). And I'm OK with this. Perhaps this not OK with everyone (from the RIAA to the self-important programmer/artist), but I see fighting "pirates" as counterproductive and a waste of resources.
I work as a programmer full time. I get paid to do in-house company development. We don't sell any software, we sell physical products. I get paid for my expertise and for my ability to fix issues immediately.
I work as an open sourcer whenever-time. My work is free. Not "GPL", not "BSD". Free. As in, go, take it. No copyright asserted. Public domain where exists. WTFPL. Companies can steal my work and make it their own. They can modify it and resell it if they choose. It's financial suicide, right? It is, until you realize that programming is a skill that has to be paid for. Companies can steal and modify code IF AND ONLY IF they have someone to modify it. That means they are paying someone to modify the code. That means a programmer is still getting paid. The question is -- why can't that be me? Maybe I need to advertise myself as being the person you SHOULD hire instead of diverting company resources on acquiring an in-house person who is vaguely familiar with my code. What if they need a fix NOW, not 3 weeks from when I plan to release the next version for them to steal? They can escalate the priority with $$$. There are too many ways to monetize this.
This leaves me in an interesting position then. I'm the creator, and I'm getting paid for my services and my knowledge. I'm not getting ANYTHING for my product. Easy conclusion: if your only value is your product, and your product is free (or can, via Copy/Paste, be made free), then you are worthless.
If you're an artist, you have it even easier. Music will pretty much always sound better live, pictures of sculptures will never do them justice, a video of a play will never be the same as a live performance where you can see and smell the sweat, and seeing the paint on a framed, rough canvas will never be the same as 1000 DPI print.
In a way, this digital revolution has expanded art's ability to spread (unwillingly or not) but has also put a spotlight on novel ways of collecting payment for art and taken things back to a more traditional role. Like it or not, it is the result of the ability to digitize information. Make your peace with this system; anything else is just creating problems.
People who get uptight about independent artists having their works digitally copied probably don't realize that this is a good thing. It means they are popular, it means people desire them, it means there is a market just waiting for you. Maybe it is time for a live performance, a tour, a gig, an exhibition, etc.
People seem to be so obsessed with selling copies of our work that perhaps they are forgetting what it meant to be an artist before easy, direct, reasonably faithful, copying was even "a thing".
Digital art, like code, is too easily copied to be controlled. As a programmer, I've come to terms with this. That doesn't mean that I won't ever make money, it just means that I'd make less than if there was a DRM system for everything that criminalized all of my users (note: users, not customers). And I'm OK with this. Perhaps this not OK with everyone (from the RIAA to the self-important programmer/artist), but I see fighting "pirates" as counterproductive and a waste of resources.
I work as a programmer full time. I get paid to do in-house company development. We don't sell any software, we sell physical products. I get paid for my expertise and for my ability to fix issues immediately.
I work as an open sourcer whenever-time. My work is free. Not "GPL", not "BSD". Free. As in, go, take it. No copyright asserted. Public domain where exists. WTFPL. Companies can steal my work and make it their own. They can modify it and resell it if they choose. It's financial suicide, right? It is, until you realize that programming is a skill that has to be paid for. Companies can steal and modify code IF AND ONLY IF they have someone to modify it. That means they are paying someone to modify the code. That means a programmer is still getting paid. The question is -- why can't that be me? Maybe I need to advertise myself as being the person you SHOULD hire instead of diverting company resources on acquiring an in-house person who is vaguely familiar with my code. What if they need a fix NOW, not 3 weeks from when I plan to release the next version for them to steal? They can escalate the priority with $$$. There are too many ways to monetize this.
This leaves me in an interesting position then. I'm the creator, and I'm getting paid for my services and my knowledge. I'm not getting ANYTHING for my product. Easy conclusion: if your only value is your product, and your product is free (or can, via Copy/Paste, be made free), then you are worthless.
If you're an artist, you have it even easier. Music will pretty much always sound better live, pictures of sculptures will never do them justice, a video of a play will never be the same as a live performance where you can see and smell the sweat, and seeing the paint on a framed, rough canvas will never be the same as 1000 DPI print.
In a way, this digital revolution has expanded art's ability to spread (unwillingly or not) but has also put a spotlight on novel ways of collecting payment for art and taken things back to a more traditional role. Like it or not, it is the result of the ability to digitize information. Make your peace with this system; anything else is just creating problems.
What I didn't like specifically was "screw the producers". I'm optimistic about the future of my craft, for sure, but I'm not on the happy talk information is free bandwagon, I'm just not. If I mark a tune as CC, so be it, otherwise it's All rights reserved. I don't encourage piracy, even if it's 'good for me', and that's a traditional system worth making peace with, called an honor system.
I don't think the "pure piracy" model will ever come to pass, but I don't see piracy going away either. The people who seek to eliminate piracy can only do so with modest efficacy by resorting to systems that severely limit freedom and have the implicit assumption that the user is a potential criminal instead of a patron. I respect copyrights the best I can, and I don't see copyright laws disappearing, I'm simply stating that I wouldn't rely on today's model of business for tomorrow when there are clear cracks and a lot of legal question marks and civil disobedience. If nothing else, assume piracy will happen and diversify (i.e. don't risk house and home on CD/print sales).
Trust me, plenty of people thought Red Hat was crazy for "selling" Linux when you could just download the source and compile it yourself. Heh, turns out that building 10,000 packages using a 233 MHz CPU takes a few days, and isn't nearly as convenient as an autoupdate service that works on a whole network of PCs.
Trust me, plenty of people thought Red Hat was crazy for "selling" Linux when you could just download the source and compile it yourself. Heh, turns out that building 10,000 packages using a 233 MHz CPU takes a few days, and isn't nearly as convenient as an autoupdate service that works on a whole network of PCs.
Because the people who (#)&#(#^^&% write Linux need money for things like houses, cars, food, health care, school, and so on. That's why money counts.
As opposed to people who produce food, or oil, or anything else ? But giving them artificial monopolies is bad - right ?
People who wrote Linux found a model that works without forcing other people to pay for it. They do rely on copyright to prevent "free riders" but even without it the financial model is the same, eg. FreeBSD, or any other non copy-left licensed opensource project that has a commercial story. It turns out that without software, hardware is pretty much useless, so even if you can't profit on software directly, you can expect things like OS development to be driven by hardware manufacturers.
Money they could earn if they had monopolies on OS kernels would be extremely higher - but market isn't about creating profit for the producers - it's about creating value for the consumer, and consumer would get the value even if he didn't pay for it - so they are getting screwed by rent seeking.
People who wrote Linux found a model that works without forcing other people to pay for it. They do rely on copyright to prevent "free riders" but even without it the financial model is the same, eg. FreeBSD, or any other non copy-left licensed opensource project that has a commercial story. It turns out that without software, hardware is pretty much useless, so even if you can't profit on software directly, you can expect things like OS development to be driven by hardware manufacturers.
Money they could earn if they had monopolies on OS kernels would be extremely higher - but market isn't about creating profit for the producers - it's about creating value for the consumer, and consumer would get the value even if he didn't pay for it - so they are getting screwed by rent seeking.
> But giving them artificial monopolies is bad - right ?
No, not in and of itself. It's a messy compromise. Things like software patents are pretty much just bad. Copyright, in a limited form, seems to be good. Patents on things like medicines can be good in that they pay for research. All of them should be more limited than they currently are, most likely.
Linux works, but who's to say it's 'optimal'? Given the huge amount of value it creates, I think relatively little filters back into the development of the system.
> consumer would get the value even if he didn't pay for it
If no one pays for it, the consumer will not get the value because the developer will have to do something else to make money, and will therefore not produce the code. Luckily, in the case of Linux, some money is funneled back into development, so it's not impossible, it's just much, much more complex than with "intellectual property".
No, not in and of itself. It's a messy compromise. Things like software patents are pretty much just bad. Copyright, in a limited form, seems to be good. Patents on things like medicines can be good in that they pay for research. All of them should be more limited than they currently are, most likely.
Linux works, but who's to say it's 'optimal'? Given the huge amount of value it creates, I think relatively little filters back into the development of the system.
> consumer would get the value even if he didn't pay for it
If no one pays for it, the consumer will not get the value because the developer will have to do something else to make money, and will therefore not produce the code. Luckily, in the case of Linux, some money is funneled back into development, so it's not impossible, it's just much, much more complex than with "intellectual property".
>Linux works, but who's to say it's 'optimal'? Given the huge amount of value it creates, I think relatively little filters back into the development of the system.
And that's the crux of the problem. You seem to think that it's optimal if it puts money in to developers pocket. I'm saying it's optimal it provides more value for less cost to the consumer. Market is about consumers not about producers.
>If no one pays for it, the consumer will not get the value because the developer will have to do something else to make money, and will therefore not produce the code.
Where did I say nobody pays for it ?
If you want to develop software and charge for it you're still left with different options, you can deploy with contracts/NDA style to the Oracle type market, you can sell software as a service and keep the source private (you can do this even with games by streaming them), or you can do ad-based apps like Zynga and mobile guys, you have major copying in that space and very little copyright enforcement - it sucks for the developers but it works for the consumers. And there's doing on demand stuff, where the customers pay in advanced, and can subsequently opensource it to distribute costs of maintenance or even split the costs by forming alliances (I've seen this in energy sector where three big companies decided to standardize and share some data exchange software), regular consulting/maintenance approach, etc. And there are probably many other ways to make money without IP.
Demand still exists, you just need to find a way to profit from that demand without IP.
All I'm trying to say is that intellectual property is a legal monopoly on non-rivalrous non-excludable good, it violates the nature of innovation (incremental improvement and copying are essential) and copying as creating new value for free instead of stealing.
And that's the crux of the problem. You seem to think that it's optimal if it puts money in to developers pocket. I'm saying it's optimal it provides more value for less cost to the consumer. Market is about consumers not about producers.
>If no one pays for it, the consumer will not get the value because the developer will have to do something else to make money, and will therefore not produce the code.
Where did I say nobody pays for it ?
If you want to develop software and charge for it you're still left with different options, you can deploy with contracts/NDA style to the Oracle type market, you can sell software as a service and keep the source private (you can do this even with games by streaming them), or you can do ad-based apps like Zynga and mobile guys, you have major copying in that space and very little copyright enforcement - it sucks for the developers but it works for the consumers. And there's doing on demand stuff, where the customers pay in advanced, and can subsequently opensource it to distribute costs of maintenance or even split the costs by forming alliances (I've seen this in energy sector where three big companies decided to standardize and share some data exchange software), regular consulting/maintenance approach, etc. And there are probably many other ways to make money without IP.
Demand still exists, you just need to find a way to profit from that demand without IP.
All I'm trying to say is that intellectual property is a legal monopoly on non-rivalrous non-excludable good, it violates the nature of innovation (incremental improvement and copying are essential) and copying as creating new value for free instead of stealing.
> You seem to think that it's optimal if it puts money in to developers pocket.
No, I'm saying that if no money flows to developers, it's suboptimal because consumers lose out too.
It has to be a balance, and IP has been a pretty good, if imperfect, way of achieving that balance.
That's not to say I don't think IP needs an overhaul. I do, however, think that IP is part of the solution and not just 'bad'.
No, I'm saying that if no money flows to developers, it's suboptimal because consumers lose out too.
It has to be a balance, and IP has been a pretty good, if imperfect, way of achieving that balance.
That's not to say I don't think IP needs an overhaul. I do, however, think that IP is part of the solution and not just 'bad'.
>No, I'm saying that if no money flows to developers, it's suboptimal because consumers lose out too.
But that's my point, Linux/Android, and by extension most of opensource, work mostly outside of IP protections and are able to match closed source and compete. I see no reason why Google wouldn't be able to use it's business model without IP. So even now it works, without IP the entire industry would be forced to restructure.
Again - the demand doesn't disappear - you just need to find new ways of satisfying it while making a profit. Just because it's not obvious and would cost a lot of companies their business doesn't mean it's a bad thing. Apple is sitting on billions of dollars in cash on hand and protecting "multitouch". Apple's profit is largely due to it's IP monopoly, if knockoffs and iterative improvements were allowed under different brands Apple's competitive edge after the first mover advantage wears off (and seeing how long it takes phones to hit the market with Android for eg. it's a significant window of opportunity) would be efficient production, more innovation and marketing, all of which create extra value to the consumer. So they would be forced to invest in product more aggressively, margins would shrink without innovation - you would have a more competitive market. Production would have to be restructured to even further protect trade secrets (which would screw cheap China manufacturers because they can't be trusted with IP sensitive jobs if they can sell knockoffs). Conversely they would need less to protect from legal threats.
But that's my point, Linux/Android, and by extension most of opensource, work mostly outside of IP protections and are able to match closed source and compete. I see no reason why Google wouldn't be able to use it's business model without IP. So even now it works, without IP the entire industry would be forced to restructure.
Again - the demand doesn't disappear - you just need to find new ways of satisfying it while making a profit. Just because it's not obvious and would cost a lot of companies their business doesn't mean it's a bad thing. Apple is sitting on billions of dollars in cash on hand and protecting "multitouch". Apple's profit is largely due to it's IP monopoly, if knockoffs and iterative improvements were allowed under different brands Apple's competitive edge after the first mover advantage wears off (and seeing how long it takes phones to hit the market with Android for eg. it's a significant window of opportunity) would be efficient production, more innovation and marketing, all of which create extra value to the consumer. So they would be forced to invest in product more aggressively, margins would shrink without innovation - you would have a more competitive market. Production would have to be restructured to even further protect trade secrets (which would screw cheap China manufacturers because they can't be trusted with IP sensitive jobs if they can sell knockoffs). Conversely they would need less to protect from legal threats.
Open source is wonderful, provides a great deal of value, and it definitely works well. For some things. It seems to work quite well when the 'currency' of exchange is patches/bug reports/feedback and that sort of thing.
It seems to be a tougher proposition for more 'end user' types of things. OpenOffice, if you recall, was created as a proprietary project, and only later open sourced, just as one example.
What your examples point to is a world where IP producers are forced to cozy up to someone who actually controls a scarce resource in order to benefit, rather than do so on their own.
(I do agree, BTW, that software patents suck and are not good, and destroy value).
(Also, BTW, "it's" means "it is").
It seems to be a tougher proposition for more 'end user' types of things. OpenOffice, if you recall, was created as a proprietary project, and only later open sourced, just as one example.
What your examples point to is a world where IP producers are forced to cozy up to someone who actually controls a scarce resource in order to benefit, rather than do so on their own.
(I do agree, BTW, that software patents suck and are not good, and destroy value).
(Also, BTW, "it's" means "it is").
I think you raise a very good point with "how much value does open source provide", but this question:
"Why is money the sole metric of wealth."
is a) ungrammatical and b) basically a tautology. money is the sole metric of wealth because wealth, quantified, is money.
not trying to detract from the point you raise, just getting a bit OCD about logic and grammar.
"Why is money the sole metric of wealth."
is a) ungrammatical and b) basically a tautology. money is the sole metric of wealth because wealth, quantified, is money.
not trying to detract from the point you raise, just getting a bit OCD about logic and grammar.
Sorry, English isn't my first language. I'm against focusing on quantifiable wealth exclusively. Eg. reading HN is worth something to me but I didn't pay any money to do it so it's worthless ? Price is only a reflection of market exchange values, it doesn't account for actual value to the consumers. Eg. food is extremely valuable but is also cheap.
Price/money is useful but the goal is to create value for consumers, not to suck them dry :) Profit is a market signal/reward for producers but that doesn't mean that it's == to value created for consumer (see my reply above about monopolies, externalities, etc.)
Price/money is useful but the goal is to create value for consumers, not to suck them dry :) Profit is a market signal/reward for producers but that doesn't mean that it's == to value created for consumer (see my reply above about monopolies, externalities, etc.)
good read. I would love Paul to change this part:
"A startup is a small company that takes on a hard technical problem."
"A startup is a small company that takes on a hard technical problem."
for me, discretionary time is real wealth
Arguing against money as a unit of value seems utterly silly to me.
The monetary value of "discretionary time" is the amount of money you could have made if you did something else instead.
The monetary value of "discretionary time" is the amount of money you could have made if you did something else instead.
I have to disagree with you. The price of something is a function of supply and demand; monetary value is determined through price discovery in a market. But not all things are traded, nor are supply and demand perfectly elastic. You will get distorted prices for things through lack of markets and market inefficiencies.
More specifically, you can't always do something else revenue-generating instead, and nor would you want to. What's the value of spending time with your children? Can you see how some people would not accept any amount of money to displace all of that time, whereas some others may would (in cases of paid-for adoption / slavery)?
I think your outlook is lacking in a specific economic concept: utility.
More specifically, you can't always do something else revenue-generating instead, and nor would you want to. What's the value of spending time with your children? Can you see how some people would not accept any amount of money to displace all of that time, whereas some others may would (in cases of paid-for adoption / slavery)?
I think your outlook is lacking in a specific economic concept: utility.
You're kind of missing the point.
Obviously, you can't be doing something revenue generating all the time. But for determining the value, that's the way it's done.
When you choose to hang out with your kids, you choose that over everything else you could have done. One of the things you could have done is earn money. You decided to give that up, so the monetary cost of doing what you did instead is the money you could have earned but didn't.
The market value of your time is, assuming you have a job or charge a consulting fee or whatever, is already determined.
Obviously, you can't be doing something revenue generating all the time. But for determining the value, that's the way it's done.
When you choose to hang out with your kids, you choose that over everything else you could have done. One of the things you could have done is earn money. You decided to give that up, so the monetary cost of doing what you did instead is the money you could have earned but didn't.
The market value of your time is, assuming you have a job or charge a consulting fee or whatever, is already determined.
The market value of anything has two sides - supply and demand.
If there is no price level at which a transaction will take place because the supply side values the utility of the commodity higher than any amount of money the demand side offers, then you cannot price it in terms of money.
What's the value of the Mona Lisa? You can't just go off and find some other painting(s), look at those prices, and come up with a number. The only way you can discover its market price is by testing the market: i.e. putting it up for sale and inviting bids.
A person's time is not substitutable; one hour in the morning is not equivalent to one hour in the middle of the night; and 24 hours of it every day is not equivalent to 24 times the price of 1 hour of it. It's not fungible. This limits your ability to put a monetary price on it.
If there is no price level at which a transaction will take place because the supply side values the utility of the commodity higher than any amount of money the demand side offers, then you cannot price it in terms of money.
What's the value of the Mona Lisa? You can't just go off and find some other painting(s), look at those prices, and come up with a number. The only way you can discover its market price is by testing the market: i.e. putting it up for sale and inviting bids.
A person's time is not substitutable; one hour in the morning is not equivalent to one hour in the middle of the night; and 24 hours of it every day is not equivalent to 24 times the price of 1 hour of it. It's not fungible. This limits your ability to put a monetary price on it.
Value is not the same thing as wealth.
The stated goal of copyright protection in the United States is to "...promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts".
Given Disney's fierce protection of ancient copyrights and attempts to have their length endlessly extended AND the importance Disney places on their old properties... would a shorter copyright term in fact meet this goal better by forcing Disney to produce new characters and new series? There is little "progress" in endlessly hashing out Mickey Mouse, so if he were forced in to the public domain Disney would be forced to create new characters to keep making money.
Disney is just the example I am using to illustrate the point, this train of thought applies to most film studios. Long copyright terms are making it more desirable to keep squeezing your old work over creating something new.
Given Disney's fierce protection of ancient copyrights and attempts to have their length endlessly extended AND the importance Disney places on their old properties... would a shorter copyright term in fact meet this goal better by forcing Disney to produce new characters and new series? There is little "progress" in endlessly hashing out Mickey Mouse, so if he were forced in to the public domain Disney would be forced to create new characters to keep making money.
Disney is just the example I am using to illustrate the point, this train of thought applies to most film studios. Long copyright terms are making it more desirable to keep squeezing your old work over creating something new.
Actually, disney makes very poor use of the characters that they keep rehashing. If mickey mouse was freed, we'd see tens of thousands of creative works every year based on him, instead of the handful we're getting now.
The value to society of leaving disney the ownership of mckey mouse is a net negative. More people would make more money on a freed mickey mouse.
The value to society of leaving disney the ownership of mckey mouse is a net negative. More people would make more money on a freed mickey mouse.
Your mistake is thinking about brands like Charles Dickens and Disney. Of course they make money, and of course they would continue producing work if copyright was only 20 years.
What you have to think about is the author who is not famous, but who makes his living off of selling books. Not the millionaires, the ones with a regular salary. They often sell old stories to short-story collections, for example, for a few thousand dollars. If this happens often enough, they can continue the life of book-writing. If not, we'll have less authors.
At the end of the day, if less money goes into writing books, we're going to lose some authors who won't be able to afford writing. Some great authors will also never be discovered, because they couldn't afford to keep writing for long enough.
It's a balance, and I'm not saying that the balance is right at the moment. But it's very disingenuous to say "Disney will still make movies", because they're not the only ones around.
Note: I talk about books, but the same is true for indie bands, indie software developers, etc.
What you have to think about is the author who is not famous, but who makes his living off of selling books. Not the millionaires, the ones with a regular salary. They often sell old stories to short-story collections, for example, for a few thousand dollars. If this happens often enough, they can continue the life of book-writing. If not, we'll have less authors.
At the end of the day, if less money goes into writing books, we're going to lose some authors who won't be able to afford writing. Some great authors will also never be discovered, because they couldn't afford to keep writing for long enough.
It's a balance, and I'm not saying that the balance is right at the moment. But it's very disingenuous to say "Disney will still make movies", because they're not the only ones around.
Note: I talk about books, but the same is true for indie bands, indie software developers, etc.
Do you really think it makes difference for a poor unknown author, whether he has exclusive rights for his book for 20 or 70 years? He can still sell his book after 20 years, after all. And regular people are not evil for the sake of it, if they want to buy a book, they would prefer to buy it from author, than from some opressive company.
BTW new economy makes it easy to extract value from the long tail. How much does author earn on each book? 10 % of final price? Probably less.
With if he self-publish an e-book, he can earn 100% of the price. Think about price difference for customer. Would you be more eager to buy book that is 1/10 the price? Would you be more eager to buy 21 years old book from author, or from some huge distributor?
Cutting out the middle man is the way to support more content producers with the same amount of customers. Copyright protects distributors, not producers.
Is it better for you to sell 10000 e-books, and know that for each book sold 10 more were pirated, or to sell 1000 e-books, and know nobody pirates them? I'd prefer the former.
BTW new economy makes it easy to extract value from the long tail. How much does author earn on each book? 10 % of final price? Probably less.
With if he self-publish an e-book, he can earn 100% of the price. Think about price difference for customer. Would you be more eager to buy book that is 1/10 the price? Would you be more eager to buy 21 years old book from author, or from some huge distributor?
Cutting out the middle man is the way to support more content producers with the same amount of customers. Copyright protects distributors, not producers.
Is it better for you to sell 10000 e-books, and know that for each book sold 10 more were pirated, or to sell 1000 e-books, and know nobody pirates them? I'd prefer the former.
> 10 % of final price? Probably less
The only two people I know personally who have published books make more money from the amazon affiliate link on their blog/website to their book than they get from the publisher. I think it's standard to get 10% of the net per book which works out to between 0% and 5% of final price depending on the publisher.
The only two people I know personally who have published books make more money from the amazon affiliate link on their blog/website to their book than they get from the publisher. I think it's standard to get 10% of the net per book which works out to between 0% and 5% of final price depending on the publisher.
No. I don't buy it. This is exactly the sob story that's served up to us by corporations like Disney and conglomerates like the RIAA. People create art for reasons other than making money. We're never going to end up with a world that's devoid of musicians, artists or authors.
However we could plausibly find ourselves living in a world without these multinational corporations.
However we could plausibly find ourselves living in a world without these multinational corporations.
It's not a sob story. It's basic logic. You haven't refuted anything I've said, except for claiming that the story is one given by the likes of Disney and the RIAA, which is irrelevant and untrue.
The only valid argument you've said is that people create art for reasons other than making money. Which is of course partially true. But obviously, to a lesser extent. I'm sure many people on HN would still program without getting paid for it, but there should be no doubt in a reasonable person's mind that overall less good software will be created, and many of those individual people, artists though they are, will create less software because of lack of time due to having a day job.
The only valid argument you've said is that people create art for reasons other than making money. Which is of course partially true. But obviously, to a lesser extent. I'm sure many people on HN would still program without getting paid for it, but there should be no doubt in a reasonable person's mind that overall less good software will be created, and many of those individual people, artists though they are, will create less software because of lack of time due to having a day job.
The absolute overwhelming majority of software produced is not affected by copyright, since it's never distributed, it's only used internally in companies.
There is also a large amount of BSD-style licensed software out there, that won't go away if copyright goes away, because it's already free.
Of course a part of the software industry is about producing proprietary software for sale, but that's a small part of the industry as a whole, and I'm sure some of those companies can find ways to survive in a world without software copyright.
So a small part of the programming workforce might be out of jobs, and an even smaller part of those might then in turn not be creating good software, so the total amount of good software produced might go down. But that's a lot of mights and ifs and buts. Perhaps the opposite is true, perhaps removing software copyright might lead to more good software being created, since everyone is free to re-use and re-mix and build upon all existing software, not just that which is currently OSS-licensed?
There is also a large amount of BSD-style licensed software out there, that won't go away if copyright goes away, because it's already free.
Of course a part of the software industry is about producing proprietary software for sale, but that's a small part of the industry as a whole, and I'm sure some of those companies can find ways to survive in a world without software copyright.
So a small part of the programming workforce might be out of jobs, and an even smaller part of those might then in turn not be creating good software, so the total amount of good software produced might go down. But that's a lot of mights and ifs and buts. Perhaps the opposite is true, perhaps removing software copyright might lead to more good software being created, since everyone is free to re-use and re-mix and build upon all existing software, not just that which is currently OSS-licensed?
>not affected by copyright, since it's never distributed //
Copyright is automatic at the point of creation for a work that qualifies under the Berne Convention; it does not have a distribution requirement.
>a large amount of BSD-style licensed software out there, that won't go away if copyright goes away //
Actually it will. All open-source licenses rely on the person applying the license to hold the copyright, copyright is what gives them the right to demand that the license terms be adhered too.
Personally I would not like to see copyright disappear completely as I think this would be a disaster for those creating 'works'. A reasonable term is what's required IMO; possibly with an extended term of moral rights.
Copyright is automatic at the point of creation for a work that qualifies under the Berne Convention; it does not have a distribution requirement.
>a large amount of BSD-style licensed software out there, that won't go away if copyright goes away //
Actually it will. All open-source licenses rely on the person applying the license to hold the copyright, copyright is what gives them the right to demand that the license terms be adhered too.
Personally I would not like to see copyright disappear completely as I think this would be a disaster for those creating 'works'. A reasonable term is what's required IMO; possibly with an extended term of moral rights.
yeah right because without copyright we wouldn't have shakespeare etc. ... oh wait ... copyright didn't even exist back then?! also i feel sorry for you that you think money is the prime motivating factor for creative work. ever heard of the starving artist?
Shakespeare of course is a classic example of someone remixing the works of others.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakespeare%27s_plays#Source_ma...
http://www.shakespeare-w.com/english/shakespeare/source.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakespeare%27s_plays#Source_ma...
http://www.shakespeare-w.com/english/shakespeare/source.html
You are muddling the issue. You are confusing the current system of editors, publishers, printers, promoters, salesmen with literary content production.
Authors can distribute their works in electronic form, even sell them in such ways, with much lower overhead than ever possible. With that, authors who would never be published because they would never be commercially successful can publish now. If nothing else, with this advancement of technology, we should see an unprecedented boom in the diversity of published literature.
And it all happens independent of copyright restrictions. Is a copyright that lasts well beyond the lifetime of your descendants that much a powerful incentive to write and publish?
Authors can distribute their works in electronic form, even sell them in such ways, with much lower overhead than ever possible. With that, authors who would never be published because they would never be commercially successful can publish now. If nothing else, with this advancement of technology, we should see an unprecedented boom in the diversity of published literature.
And it all happens independent of copyright restrictions. Is a copyright that lasts well beyond the lifetime of your descendants that much a powerful incentive to write and publish?
However, even with copyright we still undoubtedly lose talented authors due to them being unable to make enough money from book publishing. Same goes for software development, musicians etc.
You have merely stated your opinion as fact, and not provided anything that can back it up. The current proliferation of content producers (for want of a better word) can be just as easily put down to the larger audience granted by the web.
You have merely stated your opinion as fact, and not provided anything that can back it up. The current proliferation of content producers (for want of a better word) can be just as easily put down to the larger audience granted by the web.
That's an excellent point.
My point was "less money goes into book in general -> we'll have less books".
You're right that there are other factors at play here, which are all intermingled. For example:
* It's easier to produce content now, bringing down costs.
* It's easier to reach a wide audience. Both because of the internet, and because people have more time to spend on content.
* Technological changes may make many new ways of making money, etc, and in general just change things.
...
Still, at the end of the day, an author has to sit down and write for 1000s of hours to make a book, and to do this over and over again to make a good book. If people can't make money from this pursuit, less people will be able to do it. Maybe in a few decades, there'll be other ways to get compensation for these pursuits that has nothing to do with copyright. I still think the mistake is to think only of the Disney's of the world without considering the tiny indie studios, the small-time authors, who barely manage to get by today. They must be a part of this conversation as well.
My point was "less money goes into book in general -> we'll have less books".
You're right that there are other factors at play here, which are all intermingled. For example:
* It's easier to produce content now, bringing down costs.
* It's easier to reach a wide audience. Both because of the internet, and because people have more time to spend on content.
* Technological changes may make many new ways of making money, etc, and in general just change things.
...
Still, at the end of the day, an author has to sit down and write for 1000s of hours to make a book, and to do this over and over again to make a good book. If people can't make money from this pursuit, less people will be able to do it. Maybe in a few decades, there'll be other ways to get compensation for these pursuits that has nothing to do with copyright. I still think the mistake is to think only of the Disney's of the world without considering the tiny indie studios, the small-time authors, who barely manage to get by today. They must be a part of this conversation as well.
"Less money into books -> less books" seems like "demand goes down -> supply goes down" and fits my unsophisticated understanding of economics. It's not necessarily clear that reduced copyright -> less money into books.
Authors have managed to produce novels while holding down demanding full time jobs (or in at least one bestsellers case, still in full time education) at the same time. It is not necessarily the case that the only way books get made is full time writing.
You could also argue that the reduction in books from reduced copyright would be balanced by an increase in currently unwriteable "remixes" of existing works. Copyright could be, for example, the only thing holding back an explosion of people making enough to live on publishing fan-fiction. Who speaks for them?
There's still scope for a sweeping reduction, in the States at least. Reducing the duration from "Year of Authors death + 70 years" down to, just "Authors death", for example, clearly couldn't lead to any given author producing fewer books.
I absolutely agree that if there is a forum on the scope and duration of IP, small-money authors should be represented. It doesn't seem like that will be happening any time soon though.
Authors have managed to produce novels while holding down demanding full time jobs (or in at least one bestsellers case, still in full time education) at the same time. It is not necessarily the case that the only way books get made is full time writing.
You could also argue that the reduction in books from reduced copyright would be balanced by an increase in currently unwriteable "remixes" of existing works. Copyright could be, for example, the only thing holding back an explosion of people making enough to live on publishing fan-fiction. Who speaks for them?
There's still scope for a sweeping reduction, in the States at least. Reducing the duration from "Year of Authors death + 70 years" down to, just "Authors death", for example, clearly couldn't lead to any given author producing fewer books.
I absolutely agree that if there is a forum on the scope and duration of IP, small-money authors should be represented. It doesn't seem like that will be happening any time soon though.
Lots of great points.
One minor nitpick: "Reducing the duration from "Year of Authors death + 70 years" down to, just "Authors death", for example, clearly couldn't lead to any given author producing fewer books."
You can't know that. Lots of make money specifically to leave to children, and for many others it plays a significant role.
I agree about all the other points - there is a lot of unknown in this field. I'm just not crazy about people saying "let's scrap this at least partially working system, and replace it with something I just made up". I'm especially not crazy if they don't even demonstrate a basic understanding of the issues.
One minor nitpick: "Reducing the duration from "Year of Authors death + 70 years" down to, just "Authors death", for example, clearly couldn't lead to any given author producing fewer books."
You can't know that. Lots of make money specifically to leave to children, and for many others it plays a significant role.
I agree about all the other points - there is a lot of unknown in this field. I'm just not crazy about people saying "let's scrap this at least partially working system, and replace it with something I just made up". I'm especially not crazy if they don't even demonstrate a basic understanding of the issues.
This is precisely the argument I had with a musician friend of mine: he was arguing that he wanted to leave an income to his kids in the form of his catalogue. My argument was that it was his responsibility to convert the catalogue into cash during his lifetime, so that he didn't have to rely on the current copyright scheme being enforced in perpetuity. He could then leave that cash to them as part of his estate in the usual fashion.
He was slightly more swayed by the moral argument: his children had done no work for this income, so why should they be preferred over the rest of society in benefiting from his creative output?
He was slightly more swayed by the moral argument: his children had done no work for this income, so why should they be preferred over the rest of society in benefiting from his creative output?
You're too kind, missing the drive to provide for the next generation is more than a minor nit.
A tempting response is "So something like min(20years, authors remaining lifespan)" but that could leave early work (often less commercially successful) with an expectation of a longer copyright duration than later work.
A fixed period risks letting copyright lapse in an authors lifetime, which is certainly offputting to anyone who, for example, dislikes fan-fiction. So we move towards "authors remaining lifespan + rough average lifespan" as a compromise.
Seems reasonable, although I find one way to increase my understanding of any issue is exactly this kind of discussion.
A tempting response is "So something like min(20years, authors remaining lifespan)" but that could leave early work (often less commercially successful) with an expectation of a longer copyright duration than later work.
A fixed period risks letting copyright lapse in an authors lifetime, which is certainly offputting to anyone who, for example, dislikes fan-fiction. So we move towards "authors remaining lifespan + rough average lifespan" as a compromise.
Seems reasonable, although I find one way to increase my understanding of any issue is exactly this kind of discussion.
I don't think your considering enough variables here. At face value, assuming all other things are equal, you are correct. But all other things are not equal.
I'm far more likely to give my money to the individual artist or collective group of artists for a piece of work than I am a 'Disney'. The Louis CK situation is a great example of this dynamic en-mass.
People DO appreciate artists, people ARE willing to pay artists for their work. People are NOT willing to pay ridiculously top heavy, bureaucratic corporations that do nothing but get in the way of the purchaser experiencing the work of artists.
I'm far more likely to give my money to the individual artist or collective group of artists for a piece of work than I am a 'Disney'. The Louis CK situation is a great example of this dynamic en-mass.
People DO appreciate artists, people ARE willing to pay artists for their work. People are NOT willing to pay ridiculously top heavy, bureaucratic corporations that do nothing but get in the way of the purchaser experiencing the work of artists.
Maybe the answer is that we should have fewer authors who can survive on their back-catalogue. Sure, some great authors would never be discovered, but by the same argument we'd get back those mediocre authors who would otherwise have been brilliant engineers or doctors if they hadn't been able to satisfice themselves into a career which neither truly benefits them nor society.
Or to move even further away from the idea of driven genius - who would bother to do things like create audiobooks, if they weren't afforded copyright protection?
You need look no further than primetime TV in the US. ABC and NBC both have shows based on Grimm's Fairy Tales - Once Upon a Time and Grimm. Both shows are doing well in the ratings and have the public domain works of Grimm to thank for it.
Not to mention vast swathes of the Disney canon is ripped whole-cloth from folk stories.
I don't think that anyone who has seriously thought about / read up on the issue considers long copyrights to be of net benefit to society.
This indicates a deeper issue. However, which deeper issue it indicates is a subject of much controversy.
This indicates a deeper issue. However, which deeper issue it indicates is a subject of much controversy.
>I don't understand how politicians in the free enterprise countries, especially American republicans with their distaste of market regulation, could consider extremely long copyright protection to be a net benefit to the market/country.
Copyright doesn't just protect entertainment content - it protects enlightening content, as well. Science and technology are the real industry markets that will 'benefit' from these copyright laws going through - Disney is just the soft glove over the iron fist that will make it 'acceptable' to the general populace to maintain control over information that can be used to disrupt existing technocratic class cultures.
Copyright doesn't just protect entertainment content - it protects enlightening content, as well. Science and technology are the real industry markets that will 'benefit' from these copyright laws going through - Disney is just the soft glove over the iron fist that will make it 'acceptable' to the general populace to maintain control over information that can be used to disrupt existing technocratic class cultures.
> American republicans with their distaste of market regulation
Don't confuse constituents with politicians. Politicians esp at national level want whatever their corporate campaign donors desire. They are all for regulation that benefits their "friends".
Don't confuse constituents with politicians. Politicians esp at national level want whatever their corporate campaign donors desire. They are all for regulation that benefits their "friends".
TL;DR: As I enter my twilight years, I know that Star Wars will continue to comfort me long into my dotage.
raganwald: 50's nothing, get back in the game.
America: The Cold War is over. There is no Death Star to blow up. You can't fight for freedom anymore. You can only create it.
---
To be clear: I don't mean to ridicule the point of the post. Bad laws are bad. But the status quo cannot last forever. It is a peculiar feature of the current discourse around IP law that it is the so-called entrenched interests (e.g. holders of large copyright portfolios) that are disrupting us and the way of life we hold to be normal, natural and good. It is our failure as a populace to get over the shininess of our new technological toys and actively build the futures we want, that allows these people to portray us as reckless children in need of a firm hand.
Hackers are, by definition, exempt from this generalisation. We know the world is messy. We like it that way. We want what doesn't exist yet, so we make it. Vague appeals to stale, simplistic and belligerent pop culture allegory should be beneath us.
raganwald: 50's nothing, get back in the game.
America: The Cold War is over. There is no Death Star to blow up. You can't fight for freedom anymore. You can only create it.
---
To be clear: I don't mean to ridicule the point of the post. Bad laws are bad. But the status quo cannot last forever. It is a peculiar feature of the current discourse around IP law that it is the so-called entrenched interests (e.g. holders of large copyright portfolios) that are disrupting us and the way of life we hold to be normal, natural and good. It is our failure as a populace to get over the shininess of our new technological toys and actively build the futures we want, that allows these people to portray us as reckless children in need of a firm hand.
Hackers are, by definition, exempt from this generalisation. We know the world is messy. We like it that way. We want what doesn't exist yet, so we make it. Vague appeals to stale, simplistic and belligerent pop culture allegory should be beneath us.
That's a nice horse you have.
Feel free to say something that could actually be responded to whenever you get bored with trolling.
Well, editing as response to a child comment makes this comment a useless space.
Cheater :(.
Cheater :(.
Sorry, but this post is based on a false notion that intellectual property is a beneficial crutch propping up only corporations and piggybacks on the idea that destruction of entrenched interests is always regenerative. That second point is likely so - but the battle isn't about finding new corporate captains to pay creative individuals - it's about how not to pay creative individuals.
I find the irony very sad that we are supposed to move from an industrial to a post-industrial knowledge-based economy - one presumably underpinned by the ability and right of individuals to monetize their knowledge . . . but people have had their free lunch and prefer it instead, perhaps as some salve.
I've said it 1000 times - if you don't like how corporations conduct their business, set something up yourself and if you have a better solution, you'll eventually find yourself a real market. The willy-nilly urge to destroy intellectual property rights for individuals and corporations alike is nothing more than a selfish catharsis - without any sense - neither common-sense, nor business-sense, nor a sense of history. When you take power away, it hurts the weakest first and the strongest last - all the while preserving the existing power structure. That's not a smart solution for anything.
I find the irony very sad that we are supposed to move from an industrial to a post-industrial knowledge-based economy - one presumably underpinned by the ability and right of individuals to monetize their knowledge . . . but people have had their free lunch and prefer it instead, perhaps as some salve.
I've said it 1000 times - if you don't like how corporations conduct their business, set something up yourself and if you have a better solution, you'll eventually find yourself a real market. The willy-nilly urge to destroy intellectual property rights for individuals and corporations alike is nothing more than a selfish catharsis - without any sense - neither common-sense, nor business-sense, nor a sense of history. When you take power away, it hurts the weakest first and the strongest last - all the while preserving the existing power structure. That's not a smart solution for anything.
When corporations conduct their business by lobbying for their business model to be legally protected, trying to compete with them in the market is bringing a knife to a gunfight.
Agreed.
But in my conception of copyright reform there is a separation of copyright ownership law vs. legal protection of instances of when that copyright is monetized. The weakness in current copyright law isn't that it exists at all, it's that rights that properly benefit the individual transfer wholesale to the entity able to bring the idea to market. This needn't be the case. And a fix has beautiful consequences that align well with the major needs of the players involved. Though it would take agreement between both public, corporations, and government alike, the prime mover for such a parallel opt-in copyright system would be the individual themselves - which means such a system is both incremental and possible.
But in my conception of copyright reform there is a separation of copyright ownership law vs. legal protection of instances of when that copyright is monetized. The weakness in current copyright law isn't that it exists at all, it's that rights that properly benefit the individual transfer wholesale to the entity able to bring the idea to market. This needn't be the case. And a fix has beautiful consequences that align well with the major needs of the players involved. Though it would take agreement between both public, corporations, and government alike, the prime mover for such a parallel opt-in copyright system would be the individual themselves - which means such a system is both incremental and possible.
Enough with the cowardly and anonymous down-votes. If you've something wrong with what I've written, presumably you have a point to make of your own. Otherwise you are just confirming my point that people don't like any ripple in the construction of their own reality.
I suspect that people view your sentiment as sufficiently--forgive me--old-fashioned and out of touch as to be not worth redressing seriously. (Though to be fair, I don't really like HN's downvote culture either. I didn't downvote you.)
The main reason I'm posting is to direct you to some irony in your phrase "people don't like any ripple in the construction of their own reality." While it might apply to silent downvoters, it also applies to people who haven't realized the futility and cost of holding onto copyright as a legal concept.
The main reason I'm posting is to direct you to some irony in your phrase "people don't like any ripple in the construction of their own reality." While it might apply to silent downvoters, it also applies to people who haven't realized the futility and cost of holding onto copyright as a legal concept.
I appreciate your sentiments - I really do. From my perspective, the inability of people to involve themselves in discussion both prevents them knowing me and also finding a better solution. My views on copyright are far more nuanced and forward-thinking than the rants against copyright that fill 20% of HN on any given day.
Hum. Well, now I'm on the downvote train. So it goes. Perhaps people view my post as sufficiently idealistic and radical as to be not worth serious redress. ;)
You're saying that we should play by the rules. Part of the game, though, is that we can change the rules.
Intellectual property is more or less dead. This is not a willy-nilly urge, nor a selfish catharsis. It's the outcome of a generation growing up with instant access to their culture, and once such freedom is granted it is not easily revoked.
Intellectual property is more or less dead. This is not a willy-nilly urge, nor a selfish catharsis. It's the outcome of a generation growing up with instant access to their culture, and once such freedom is granted it is not easily revoked.
Go ahead - look through all my comments I've written on IP. When you know what I am saying, you'll know I am not saying one should play by the rules - I never have in my life, that's for sure.
And yes - the current urge is selfish - as you point out it grows out of having taken a freedom - not having worked to be 'granted' anything - and then had that freedom 'revoked'.
There is always a greater good. I am 100% for us building one that benefits us as individuals rather than corporate entities. But the desire to wipe out IP does nothing to put economic power into the hands of creative individuals - what it empowers by a much greater factor is consumption. Last I checked we had enough of that as it was - and this is empty-calorie consumption that flows upward to the new corporate entities that can withstand the pennies to be made on it. It will never devolve power to the individual level.
A better system of IP exists - I have several detailed ideas of how it would function - and it basically revolves around treating the work of corporations differently from that of the individuals - separating ownership and monetization. A system built like this could work as an opt-in model to gradually replace current copyright - but it NEVER will without consumers playing by the much fairer rules. Yes - there are still rules - no system works without them.
If one can't meet the most basic burden of civil society by playing a game, however new, by mutually accepted rules, then there is no recourse - is there? And one can't, won't and shouldn't be taken seriously as a partner for change.
And yes - the current urge is selfish - as you point out it grows out of having taken a freedom - not having worked to be 'granted' anything - and then had that freedom 'revoked'.
There is always a greater good. I am 100% for us building one that benefits us as individuals rather than corporate entities. But the desire to wipe out IP does nothing to put economic power into the hands of creative individuals - what it empowers by a much greater factor is consumption. Last I checked we had enough of that as it was - and this is empty-calorie consumption that flows upward to the new corporate entities that can withstand the pennies to be made on it. It will never devolve power to the individual level.
A better system of IP exists - I have several detailed ideas of how it would function - and it basically revolves around treating the work of corporations differently from that of the individuals - separating ownership and monetization. A system built like this could work as an opt-in model to gradually replace current copyright - but it NEVER will without consumers playing by the much fairer rules. Yes - there are still rules - no system works without them.
If one can't meet the most basic burden of civil society by playing a game, however new, by mutually accepted rules, then there is no recourse - is there? And one can't, won't and shouldn't be taken seriously as a partner for change.
>And yes - the current urge is selfish - as you point out it grows out of having taken a freedom - not having worked to be 'granted' anything - and then had that freedom 'revoked'.
I suppose that is accurate as far as it goes, but labeling that "selfish" seems to be a point of view connotation rather than a necessary one. That is to say, whether or not a thing is a right or an overzealous demand is in the eye of the beholder.
And I unequivocally support the right of people to their culture, and I'm part of a world where that culture is increasingly free.
>But the desire to wipe out IP does nothing to put economic power into the hands of creative individuals
_Exactly._ It removes economic concern from the art. No more rock stars selected and groomed by the establishment; instead hard-working touring musicians.
The fear that seems to drive any continuation of copyright seems to be that artists will stop making art. The fear that seems to drive patents is similar; that our engineers will stop building things.
You can never stop humans from constructing beautiful things! It's in our nature!
I as an artist and an engineer _don't want my output to be property._
I suppose that is accurate as far as it goes, but labeling that "selfish" seems to be a point of view connotation rather than a necessary one. That is to say, whether or not a thing is a right or an overzealous demand is in the eye of the beholder.
And I unequivocally support the right of people to their culture, and I'm part of a world where that culture is increasingly free.
>But the desire to wipe out IP does nothing to put economic power into the hands of creative individuals
_Exactly._ It removes economic concern from the art. No more rock stars selected and groomed by the establishment; instead hard-working touring musicians.
The fear that seems to drive any continuation of copyright seems to be that artists will stop making art. The fear that seems to drive patents is similar; that our engineers will stop building things.
You can never stop humans from constructing beautiful things! It's in our nature!
I as an artist and an engineer _don't want my output to be property._
In my eyes, your take on things is very far from the live-and-let-live stance that you appear to want to adopt. It's more like social engineering.
You continue to be free to do your art for free and without concern for profit; in no way does someone else doing their art for profit affect your ability to make your choice. So what gives you the right to champion something that 'removes economic concern from the art'? How does your desire not to have your output be property - totally your choice - square with your desire to deny choice to others?
Another point oft-heard is that 'people won't stop making art' - which is a selfish, parasitic argument if I have every heard one. For years I worked producing independent musicians - you might not pay for art that you experience, but I assure you someone does - there is no free lunch.
I have seen indie musicians burn tens of thousands trying to monetize their art; have seen marriages and relationships end - and careers end. My point here isn't about piracy - a much more important point is for consumers to respect the work that goes into the content they consume. The art you consume 'freely' may appeal to your idealistic side, as though you are removing commerce from art - but all you are actually doing is turning a blind eye to the cost. There is always someone paying a price so that you might have it for 'free'.
Once upon a time, people grew their own foods, hunted them - people worked with their hands -people had an intrinsic sense of the burden of production. I think one bad side-effect of the internet is that it has removed people so far from the means of production that they are incapable of appreciating the work that goes into what appears in front of them.
I am not trying to be too pejorative, but it really is like a child who is used to just stating their urge - whether for food, drink, or sleep - and having a benevolent force [parents] provide those things on-demand.
We have fair-trade products from a to z and yet the work of artists isn't worth .01. Really??
You continue to be free to do your art for free and without concern for profit; in no way does someone else doing their art for profit affect your ability to make your choice. So what gives you the right to champion something that 'removes economic concern from the art'? How does your desire not to have your output be property - totally your choice - square with your desire to deny choice to others?
Another point oft-heard is that 'people won't stop making art' - which is a selfish, parasitic argument if I have every heard one. For years I worked producing independent musicians - you might not pay for art that you experience, but I assure you someone does - there is no free lunch.
I have seen indie musicians burn tens of thousands trying to monetize their art; have seen marriages and relationships end - and careers end. My point here isn't about piracy - a much more important point is for consumers to respect the work that goes into the content they consume. The art you consume 'freely' may appeal to your idealistic side, as though you are removing commerce from art - but all you are actually doing is turning a blind eye to the cost. There is always someone paying a price so that you might have it for 'free'.
Once upon a time, people grew their own foods, hunted them - people worked with their hands -people had an intrinsic sense of the burden of production. I think one bad side-effect of the internet is that it has removed people so far from the means of production that they are incapable of appreciating the work that goes into what appears in front of them.
I am not trying to be too pejorative, but it really is like a child who is used to just stating their urge - whether for food, drink, or sleep - and having a benevolent force [parents] provide those things on-demand.
We have fair-trade products from a to z and yet the work of artists isn't worth .01. Really??
>In my eyes, your take on things is very far from the live-and-let-live stance that you appear to want to adopt.
That's because I want to kill. I want to throw away copyright, I want those musicians that sign up to work with greedy suits--not to cast aspersion on your (former?) line of work which seems to be good-faith and productive--to have to find other ways to express themselves, I want the systems that were _once_ our best effort at promoting artistic expression to die.
I want these things dead because after they're dead the absurd but somehow sometimes true accusations of "selling out" won't have any weight.
I _actually don't care_ that people will lose jobs because copyright is dead.
>I think one bad side-effect of the internet is that it has removed people so far from the means of production that they are incapable of appreciating the work that goes into what appears in front of them.
I think this is the most insightful sentence of your post. It attacks the central barrier to removing copyright with a few swift words.
Thus I think it important to describe the manner in which I find that it misses the mark. The Internet is bringing people into contact with the arts of gardening, cooking, woodworking, electronics as never before.
Absurdly the disconnect between production of food and appreciation for food has grown _so large_ that food production is looked at as an art--that is, just another mode of human expression!
And I couldn't be happier about that. Appreciation of art is the act of appreciating the work that goes into it.
---
The problem, of course, is that our economic woes _far_ overshadow our cultural ones. You speak from the side of "There is no free lunch," and we may well be on a course where that is alarmingly and devastatingly true. If the Euro collapses, if America can't afford to keep its carrier fleet's Pax Americana running, it may turn out that the debate over copyright was not important at all.
That's because I want to kill. I want to throw away copyright, I want those musicians that sign up to work with greedy suits--not to cast aspersion on your (former?) line of work which seems to be good-faith and productive--to have to find other ways to express themselves, I want the systems that were _once_ our best effort at promoting artistic expression to die.
I want these things dead because after they're dead the absurd but somehow sometimes true accusations of "selling out" won't have any weight.
I _actually don't care_ that people will lose jobs because copyright is dead.
>I think one bad side-effect of the internet is that it has removed people so far from the means of production that they are incapable of appreciating the work that goes into what appears in front of them.
I think this is the most insightful sentence of your post. It attacks the central barrier to removing copyright with a few swift words.
Thus I think it important to describe the manner in which I find that it misses the mark. The Internet is bringing people into contact with the arts of gardening, cooking, woodworking, electronics as never before.
Absurdly the disconnect between production of food and appreciation for food has grown _so large_ that food production is looked at as an art--that is, just another mode of human expression!
And I couldn't be happier about that. Appreciation of art is the act of appreciating the work that goes into it.
---
The problem, of course, is that our economic woes _far_ overshadow our cultural ones. You speak from the side of "There is no free lunch," and we may well be on a course where that is alarmingly and devastatingly true. If the Euro collapses, if America can't afford to keep its carrier fleet's Pax Americana running, it may turn out that the debate over copyright was not important at all.
This is a test post to see if HN auto-downvotes old threads.
Edit: Huh. Well, someone downvoted that post ridiculously fast I guess.
Edit: Huh. Well, someone downvoted that post ridiculously fast I guess.
> Intellectual property is more or less dead.
> culture
IP is a huge game, but culture is a tiny speck on the landscape of it. Try selling Äpple computers or Nyke shoes on the street of any Western-ish country, and don't even get me started on patents.
> culture
IP is a huge game, but culture is a tiny speck on the landscape of it. Try selling Äpple computers or Nyke shoes on the street of any Western-ish country, and don't even get me started on patents.
> More jobs and businesses have been created by the decline of IBM than lost in Armonk.
Actually, IBM and its mainframes/midrange have continued to prosper along with all of the newer growth markets in business computing. That's not just a correction about IBM, it's fundamental to noticing that job growth in these sectors was not "created by the decline of" anything. It was created by a huge expansion in the total amount of computing value that businesses found needs to consume in the marketplace.
When zero-sum your ideology is, 900 years-old you will not reach.
And not stray too far OT, but this is what I dislike about the "kill hollywood" meme. There isn't anything inherently hollywood-killing about the project of expanding the meaning of media production and delivery to include new (and great!) films that aren't produced by traditional studios...and there probably shouldn't be.
Actually, IBM and its mainframes/midrange have continued to prosper along with all of the newer growth markets in business computing. That's not just a correction about IBM, it's fundamental to noticing that job growth in these sectors was not "created by the decline of" anything. It was created by a huge expansion in the total amount of computing value that businesses found needs to consume in the marketplace.
When zero-sum your ideology is, 900 years-old you will not reach.
And not stray too far OT, but this is what I dislike about the "kill hollywood" meme. There isn't anything inherently hollywood-killing about the project of expanding the meaning of media production and delivery to include new (and great!) films that aren't produced by traditional studios...and there probably shouldn't be.
...that as we enjoy great advantages from the inventions of others, we should be glad of an opportunity to serve others by any invention of ours, and this we should do freely and generously. - Ben Franklin
The only one that I think is different is the development of the mobile phone and tablet computers. These are devices that are sold with locks on them and legislation that discourages tampering. I don't think we've seen this kind of thing happen before and it sets a bad precedent. I've got a Kindle and I don't really believe that I own it -- Amazon can remotely remove content from it and brick it if they wanted to. I've got a phone that that has the capability to spy on me. If I modify any of these devices to serve my interests I risk "bricking" them and voiding any warranties that they came with.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but afaik that's a first for us.