Copyrights and Free market

[Victor Danilchenko]

A fascinating story (http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2003/1/29/12540/2722) at K5 (http://www.kuro5hin.org) about the economics of intellectual property; something to think about for those who oppose music sharing and somesuch.

The gist of the sotry is that illegal music copying is an inescapable economic necessity under our current setup; that all moral considerations aside, it's driven by simple supply and demand, and we can do about as much about it as we could about the law of gravity.

Note that this discussion does not imply that copyright laws -- when seen as a compact between the society and the content creators -- are pointless. Lifting copyright laws would indeed deprive the content creators and inventors of a chance to benefit, and thus largely deprive society of their creations and inventions.

The point here, IMO, is that the copyright laws and patents were originally set up not to protect the author/inventor against Joe Sixpack, but to protect them against companies with large resources who would benefit from the creation/invention without having paid the upfront cost of creating or inventing. If the copyright laws would guard against industrial mass production and leave individual consumers alone, the "black market" -- music sharing, really, and somesuch -- would still exist, but it would be greatly diminished, because the content industry would have to lower their artifically inflated prices to compete, instead of pursuing legal and legislative "solutions".

In short, one way or another, the content industry in its current state will die, there is no escaping that simple fact; but its death can be a birthing pyre of the new content industry which provides much more competitive access to its content, and the new laws which don't criminalize people for simply following the laws of economics.

This SO reminds me of the drug war situation...

I don't really want to get involved in this debate, but everyone keeps making the same mistake in these analyses:

If you stop paying the musicians, in a couple of generations (or less) there will be none. This is not a "moral issue". This is a simple fact, also based on simple supply and demand. No profession could survive if its practitioners were forced to work for free.

Tear the industry down, absolutely. Make it cheap and easy to get music on the net, definitely. Trashcan the labels, I'll help you squeeze them in there. But in the end, whatever new framework we build, musicians must be compensated or guess what, folks, the music will quit flowing. To think otherwise is pure wishful thinking.

You think all the music out there is bad NOW? Wait until some people get their way and it's all created by unpaid amateurs.

The tone of these discussions bothers me. Its as if we are eager to justify free music under any circumstances whatsoever, even claiming musicians should make it for free if that's what it takes. To me, this is unbelievably short-sighted, and unbelievably self-serving.

[iain]

Originally posted by sundog
I don't really want to get involved in this debate, but everyone keeps making the same mistake in these analyses:

If you stop paying the musicians, in a couple of generations (or less) there will be none. This is not a "moral issue". This is a simple fact, also based on simple supply and demand. No profession could survive if its practitioners were forced to work for free. I'm very happy to pay musicians if, for example, I see them at a live concert. I know this will make me sound like a sad old fart, but I actually wouldn't object to a situation where record companies didn't exist like they do now.

Good musicians could still make a very good living touring. There would be less incentive for anyone to create crappy boy bands and girl bands who exist only to make huge profits for the record companies (who screw them with the contracts every time).

And a band's popularity might once more be related in some way to how good they are, not just how much the record company put into the marketing budget.

[Victor Danilchenko]

sundog

I don't really want to get involved in this debate, but everyone keeps making the same mistake in these analyses:No, you are ignoring the points made to address the issues you raise.

If you stop paying the musicians, in a couple of generations (or less) there will be none. This is not a "moral issue". This is a simple fact, also based on simple supply and demand. No profession could survive if its practitioners were forced to work for free.This is almost true, but ignores two facts. First, most musicians make neglible $$ from their copyrighted creations, and most money from concerts and other gigs. Secondly, if CDs cost $2, there would be boatloads of people still buying CDs -- it's simply the issue of concenience and quality. I would rather pay $2 for a CD than spend an hour downloading the songs. I would rather spend an hour downloading the songs than pay $20 for a CD. As the author of the above article points out, music sharing is not really free for people, there's the issue of time and convenience.

What you as a content creator need to be protected from, is not grassroot content sharing, but industrial mass-produced copyright violation. This is the point i am making -- that copyrights should leave individuals alone, and only forbid unauthorized copies in commercial context.

Tear the industry down, absolutely. Make it cheap and easy to get music on the net, definitely. Trashcan the labels, I'll help you squeeze them in there. But in the end, whatever new framework we build, musicians must be compensated or guess what, folks, the music will quit flowing. To think otherwise is pure wishful thinking.Musicians would be comepnsated even if they could never sell a single CD. Book authors would still sell books even if all the book texts would be available on-line.

You think all the music out there is bad NOW? Wait until some people get their way and it's all created by unpaid amateurs.Why do you keep bringing up the "unpaid amateur" strawman? Nobody is contending that we should have zero compensation for the musicians.

The tone of these discussions bothers me. Its as if we are eager to justify free music under any circumstances whatsoever, even claiming musicians should make it for free if that's what it takes.Who suggested that?

To me, this is unbelievably short-sighted, and unbelievably self-serving.And to me, your position is unbelievably myopic. You are ignoring the real situation, instead fighting against the "musicians wouldn't get paid" strawman.

Originally posted by iain


Good musicians could still make a very good living touring.


This is why I don't want to get into this debate. This attitude absolutely enrages me. What do YOU do for a living? May I redefine what you do in a way that benefits me? This is incredibly arrogant.

You know NOTHING about music or how it's produced. Ask any traveling musician how much writing gets done on tour - virtually NONE.

I'll make you a deal - I won't presume to know how your profession could be improved, and you quit trying to re-define "musician".

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
sundog

No, you are ignoring the points made to address the issues you raise.


You misunderstand and overcomplicate my position. I'll bail out of the discussion now... but in a few years, I really hope I don't have to say "I told you so"!

Read Iain's comments - this is the attitude I am really objecting to. You seem to think I'm arguing against file sharing - I'm not. I'm arguing against totally free file sharing and the amazing devaluation of the musician that seems to be going on in order to justify free music.

Now on with the discussion, without me. :)

[iain]

Originally posted by sundog


This is why I don't want to get into this debate. This attitude absolutely enrages me. What do YOU do for a living? May I redefine what you do in a way that benefits me? This is incredibly arrogant.

You know NOTHING about music or how it's produced. Ask any traveling musician how much writing gets done on tour - virtually NONE.

I'll make you a deal - I won't presume to know how your profession could be improved, and you quit trying to re-define "musician". I apologize deeply for having an opinion on this topic ;) I do feel that as a consumer of music I am entitled to that much; and I encourage you to correct any factual errors I make or educate me where your knowledge is greater than mine.

I'm in the IT industry and I think its entirely valid for consumers of IT (including you if you like) to criticise the industry where you think it is failing and even suggest ways it could be improved. There are no shortage of failings and opinions in that area.

Now, explain to me why not being able to write music whilst on tour means that musicians can't make a living that way? In addition to touring, I'm assuming that musicians can still sell CDs etc. to those who want to buy them - which includes me as I still prefer CDs to mp3s - and that other sources of income (e.g. royalties from radio plays) will still be there.

[CJW]

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
What you as a content creator need to be protected from, is not grassroot content sharing, but industrial mass-produced copyright violation.

Isn't that what file sharing is?

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
Musicians would be comepnsated even if they could never sell a single CD

How would I, as a non-performing songwriter be compensated?

Chris

Originally posted by iain
I apologize deeply for having an opinion on this topic ;) I do feel that as a consumer of music I am entitled to that much; and I encourage you to correct any factual errors I make or educate me where your knowledge is greater than mine.

I'm in the IT industry and I think its entirely valid for consumers of IT (including you if you like) to criticise the industry where you think it is failing and even suggest ways it could be improved. There are no shortage of failings and opinions in that area.

Now, explain to me why not being able to write music whilst on tour means that musicians can't make a living that way? In addition to touring, I'm assuming that musicians can still sell CDs etc. to those who want to buy them - which includes me as I still prefer CDs to mp3s - and that other sources of income (e.g. royalties from radio plays) will still be there.

Who do you think will write all this free music you want, if all the musicians are busy on the road performing?

Your comments about IT are not to the point. You aren't offering suggestions on how to improve the profession - you want to completely redefine it, turn it upside down. What would you say to a bunch of suits who came in and told you how IT ought to work, regardless of their lack of knowledge? Who told you that they thought it was in everyone's best interests if you from now on moved from town to town every few days and did your programming on the plane? Would you accept some know-nothing outsider who wanted to turn your life upside down?

Ignorance and arrogance such as this is totally disheartening to me. This could be the end of music as a profession, period.

[iain]

Originally posted by sundog


Who do you think will write all this free music you want, if all the musicians are busy on the road performing?Hang on here. I haven't suggested that musicians should have touring as their sole source of income.

Currently CDs sell for around $20 a time of which the artist gets a pretty small chunk. I was suggesting a situation where the big record companies can no longer get enough profit to survive. There are then lots of ways musicians can continue to make money.

For example :
1. Touring
2. Royalties for radio plays
3. Selling CDs (maybe through smaller or independent record companies which don't have the overheads and so take a smaller chunk of money, so the CDs are reasonably priced).
4. Paid internet download sites

So where is the musician losing out?

[Victor Danilchenko]

CJW

Isn't that what file sharing is?No. File sharing is nothing like industrial-grade copyright violation, with unauthorized CDs being pressed by the companies taking advantage of the economics of scale.

In case you didn't know, we have Fair Use provisions in part because copyrights were specifically set up to guard against unscrupulous book publishing companies, not against people sharing books.

How would I, as a non-performing songwriter be compensated?Maybe you can't. Or maybe by the bands who want to use your songs -- they cut you in for the share of the proceeds. Nobody guarantees you a right to profit, you know. Some business models, and some modes of employment inevitably vanish with technological and social progress. I don't know if the non-performing songwriters will go away -- I doubt it -- but what I am sure of that is music, and good music, won't vanish if individual music sharing is made legal.

Originally posted by iain
Hang on here. I haven't suggested that musicians should have touring as their sole source of income.


For example :
1. Touring
2. Royalties for radio plays
3. Selling CDs (maybe through smaller or independent record companies which don't have the overheads and so take a smaller chunk of money, so the CDs are reasonably priced).
4. Paid internet download sites

So where is the musician losing out?


Well, that's a little different from what you said the first time. You misunderstood me, as I think Victor might have. ALL I am saying is that SOMEHOW there has to be an incentive for people to create new music - a monetary incentive - or this Brave New World will never fly, to mix a couple of metaphors.

[Victor Danilchenko]

sundog

Your comments about IT are not to the point. You aren't offering suggestions on how to improve the profession - you want to completely redefine it, turn it upside down.So fscking what? it was redefined a mere couple of decades ago by the emergence of the content induistry; it could use being redefined again, and it will be redefined countless times. Deal with it.

Who told you that they thought it was in everyone's best interests if you from now on moved from town to town every few days and did your programming on the plane? Would you accept some know-nothing outsider who wanted to turn your life upside down?No; but i would accept facts of economics and the social reality doing so. You are not guaranteed to have the world work the way you wish it to work.

Ignorance and arrogance such as this is totally disheartening to me. This could be the end of music as a profession, period.Oh, PUH-LEEZE. Like there was no music before the modern content industry, or for that matter before copyrights existed.

Dude, get some fscking perspective on history and progress, will you?.. Even if your economic model will go away -- which it won't, because I am sure you don't make much money off of CD sales -- that doesn't mean that the music will go away. it certainly doesn't mean thatthe society is obligated to provide you a chance to use your economic model to make money, even if that economic model is malfunctioning.

You know what pisses me off? people who think that the world has to twist itself to conform to their personal wishes and expectations.

[Victor Danilchenko]

sundog

Well, that's a little different from what you said the first time. You misunderstood me, as I think Victor might have. ALL I am saying is that SOMEHOW there has to be an incentive for people to create new music - a monetary incentive - or this Brave New World will never fly, to mix a couple of metaphors.And you were told numerous times that nobody suggested revenue-free future for musicians; but you keep hammering on that ridicuouls strawman.

[iain]

Originally posted by sundog



Well, that's a little different from what you said the first time. You misunderstood me, as I think Victor might have. ALL I am saying is that SOMEHOW there has to be an incentive for people to create new music - a monetary incentive - or this Brave New World will never fly, to mix a couple of metaphors. I apologise for a lack of clarity in my earlier post. I agree that musicians both need and deserve a monetary incentive.

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
CJW


Maybe you can't. Or maybe by the bands who want to use your songs -- they cut you in for the share of the proceeds. Nobody guarantees you a right to profit, you know.

Victor - I think you underestimate how much of the music you hear is written by people who don't perform. Your new paradigm must include them somehow, or by a simple syllogism the quality of music will suffer greatly.

Surely you are not saying that a song that people want to use to make money themselves, is itself valueless?

You strike me as far too intelligent to fall into the trap of oversimplification.

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
sundog

And you were told numerous times that nobody suggested revenue-free future for musicians; but you keep hammering on that ridicuouls strawman.

Victor, if you were as calm as you are intelligent, it would be a pleasure discussing this with you, but as you aren't, it's not. :(

On the contrary, I hear over and over how musicians should simply write music for free. It may be off-topic - if so I apologize - but it is being said. If not by you, then I am pleased.

Originally posted by iain
I apologise for a lack of clarity in my earlier post. I agree that musicians both need and deserve a monetary incentive.

And I apologize for being more strident than I like to be. This issue hits close to home.

Thanks for a good discussion. :)

[CJW]

Victor - I think you underestimate how much of the music you hear is written by people who don't perform. Your new paradigm must include them somehow, or by a simple syllogism the quality of music will suffer greatly.

My point. Lieber & Stoller, Holland Dozier Holland, the famed Brill Building songwriters. I'm pretty sure they didn't do much touring and they're responsibvle for a heckuva lot of music - and music that made history. Cyndi Lauper didn't write "Girl's Just Want to Have Fun", Robert Hazzard did. And can't remember the last time I saw him on tour.

When a single file sharer can store more song files on one computer than the entire catalog of some small labels - I think the practice has moved beyond "grass roots".

Chris

[CJW]

Victor - I think you underestimate how much of the music you hear is written by people who don't perform. Your new paradigm must include them somehow, or by a simple syllogism the quality of music will suffer greatly.

My point. Lieber & Stoller, Holland Dozier Holland, the famed Brill Building songwriters. I'm pretty sure they didn't do much touring and they're responsibvle for a heckuva lot of music - and music that made history. Cyndi Lauper didn't write "Girl's Just Want to Have Fun", Robert Hazzard did. And can't remember the last time I saw him on tour.

When a single file sharer can store more song files on one computer than the entire catalog of some small labels - I think the practice has moved beyond "grass roots".

Chris

[CJW]

How would I, as a non-performing songwriter be compensated?[/QUOTE

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko

Maybe you can't.

Well that would genuinely suck.


Or maybe by the bands who want to use your songs -- they cut you in for the share of the proceeds. Nobody guarantees you a right to profit, you know. Some business models, and some modes of employment inevitably vanish with technological and social progress. I don't know if the non-performing songwriters will go away -- I doubt it -- but what I am sure of that is music, and good music, won't vanish if individual music sharing is made legal.

Since I am one, I certainly hope that non-performing songwriters can find a future in a world that includes unrestricted file sharing.

[Victor Danilchenko]

sundog

Victor - I think you underestimate how much of the music you hear is written by people who don't perform. Your new paradigm must include them somehow, or by a simple syllogism the quality of music will suffer greatly.i don't think so. I think the curent situation is largely a factor of the very content industry we are talking about. in USSR for example, the arguably best russian-language songs ever were written, sang, and accompanied by one man, Vladimir Vysotky; and I can think of a dozen of his songs that unquestionably beat almost everything in the English-speaking world, especially lyrics-wise. This is because USSR had a strong tradiction of so-called "bardic songs". it's simply a cultural difference -- you don't get lower quality, you get difference.

Hell, good example right there. USSR was terrible about letting musicians perform, they had to be approved by the state first; without performing, they could hardly make money. Vysotsky sang in the kitchens and livingrooms, and his tapes were on almost every tape deck in the country. He made almost no money off of his music during his life, he supported himself by acting in movies and theater (did I mention that he was a really powerful actor, too?) In the best Western tradition, he died from a drug overdose.

So even if music as it is now will die, that doesn't mean that music will die; just as death of individual farming at the hands of the mechanical loom in England wasn't the death of farming, or the death of culture. It was change; painful and difficult, but progress usually is.

before you jump, i am not saying that this is how things should be or will be; they shouldn't, and they won't. My point is that even if things were this way, there would still be great music out there (I am not even sure why I am arguing this, because I don't claim that musicians should, or will, work for free).

Surely you are not saying that a song that people want to use to make money themselves, is itself valueless?No. This why I repeatedly said that copyrights, when understood as a social compact designed to encourage creastivity, are a good thing. This is why I repeatedly said that there would be numerous other ways for the creators to make money, than by having the government force a replication monopoly on the population. The creators could proviude consumers with a service -- cheap, high-quality product; they would have exclusive right to create the product commercially. legal individual copying wouldn't kill that revenue stream, much less th erevenues from concerts and merchandise and somesuch.

Victor, if you were as calm as you are intelligent, it would be a pleasure discussing this with you, but as you aren't, it's not.Sorry. I tend to have a rather short fuse. Believe me, though, you haven't seen a tiny fraction what what "short fuse" means. I have been on rather good behavior, only snapping a little, and only once.

Besides, it is true that you keep attacking this strawman of unpaid musicians.

[Victor Danilchenko]

CJW

Well that would genuinely suck.Being a farmer in England during 18th century genuinely sucked due to the use of mechanical loom prompting farm takeovers for grazing grounds. That's where luddites originated...

Since I am one, I certainly hope that non-performing songwriters can find a future in a world that includes unrestricted file sharing.So do I; but if it doesn't, that's still not a valid reason to maintain the current situation.

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
sundog
Sorry. I tend to have a rather short fuse. Believe me, though, you haven't seen a tiny fraction what what "short fuse" means. I have been on rather good behavior, only snapping a little, and only once.

Besides, it is true that you keep attacking this strawman of unpaid musicians.

Once again we'll agree to disagree. :) I'll quit punching that "strawman" after one more punch:

I find your position that a songwriter who writes a popular song is not necessarily entitled to compensation, to be inconsistent with your assertion that no one is saying musicians shouldn't be compensated. There is no logical difference between a musician who writes a pop song and a songwriter who does. You can't logically argue that one is entitled to compensation and the other isn't.

No apology necessary, I do it myself sometimes. But cool reasoning is always far more impressive than hot temper. I feel that when I lose my temper, I've damaged my credibility.

Now I WILL shut up, I promise. But try to realize this is a vast area and simple solutions are shortsighted at best. For instance, you may be willing to live in a world without songwriters, but I'm not.

[Ladewig]

VD, I can see why you are upset. I read your original post too quickly and like some others misunderstood your position. I have gone back to read it more carefully and find myself disagreeing with some of the starting assumptions.

RIAA vs. MP3 vs. Adam Smith (Politics) by ghjm
Wed Jan 29th, 2003 at 02:38:34 PM EST

Most of the arguments around the RIAA-vs-MP3 deIn the RIAA-vs-MP3/Napster/Kazaa/Etc situation, the RIAA represents a small cartel of producers who are currently selling their goods (music CDs) at approximately ten times their marginal cost of production. They are doing this by producing only enough quantity of units to satisfy the demands of those consumers willing to pay $15 to $20 per CD. In a free market, larger quantities of CDs would be produced to satisfy the demand of all consumers willing to pay more than the marginal cost of production ($1.50 to $2.00).

Music is not fungible. The free market being proposed here allows new entrants to produce CDs featuring the music of performers that have signed contracts with specific record companies. These companies may be making large profits, but they are also spending money on marketing and promotion. If new entrants simply bootlegged the music and sold it at a lower price, they would have the advantage of someone else paying the marketing costs to create or improve demand.

Furthermore, I need to see more information about the fixed and marginal costs before I accept those numbers as evidence. I suspect that describing the marginal costs calculated for a specific album from a specific performer overlook such overhead costs of creating and distributing music that does not sell well. Not every band is profitable and the CD companies have the right to charge more for the popular products in order to cover the costs of unprofitable products.

The gist of the story is that illegal music copying is an inescapable economic necessity under our current setup; that all moral considerations aside, it's driven by simple supply and demand, and we can do about as much about it as we could about the law of gravity.

This music copying may be an inescapable outcome, but it is not an inescapable economic necessity. It is not necessary for people to have access to overpriced music. As for "all moral considerations aside," those words always bother me. Yes, we may never be able to eliminate illegal music copying, but we can never eliminate bicycle theft either - that doesn't mean we should legalize small-scale bike theft.

In short, one way or another, the content industry in its current state will die, there is no escaping that simple fact; but its death can be a birthing pyre of the new content industry which provides much more competitive access to its content, and the new laws which don't criminalize people for simply following the laws of economics.

This SO reminds me of the drug war situation...

This does not remind me of the drug war situation. I believe that outlawing soft drugs causes more harm to society that legalizing them. I do not believe that oulawing small-scale copying of copywritten works harms society more than legalizing it.

Some industries require some level of government intervention because the laws of economics cannot be fully applied For instance, when entry costs are prohibitive, monopolies and oligopolies can arise. Anti-trust laws are necessary. Similarly, when technological advances jeopardize intellectual property rights, government intervention is necessary.

If you own something unique, you can bring it to the marketplace with a price that is lower than, equal to, or higher than your cost. That's your right. The market will respond according to the economic laws, but just because some buy it at a price above what I value the product at, does not justify my stealing that product. And it certainly does not justify my stealing it and selling it.

[Ove]

As a musician i just wan't to correct a slight error:

My point. Lieber & Stoller, Holland Dozier Holland, the famed Brill Building songwriters. I'm pretty sure they didn't do much touring and they're responsibvle for a heckuva lot of music - and music that made history. Cyndi Lauper didn't write "Girl's Just Want to Have Fun", Robert Hazzard did. And can't remember the last time I saw him on tour.

Do you think anybody can perform Leiber/Stoller music live FREE? Have you never heard about KODA? Every time we play live we have to pay royalities to the composer. Every time the song is played in the radio/on TV there's royalities to the composer.

If i take one of Denmarks most successfull bands they spend app. 6 months pr year touring and the rest at home practising/recording/writing. I have off course never seen their accounts but i'll bet the majority of their income is from the 50+ concerts they give, true they made platinum with their last CD but still.

What p****** me off as a musician is the parasite like behaviour of the record companies and i see much of the debate nowadays as them feeling the ground crumble beneath them. AND i we could loose those Stock-Aitken-Waterman type groups who never performs live (they can't) well, i can live with that.;)

[Drooper]

I just want to refer back to the original post and put some economic theory behind this.

First of all, in the context in which this issue is being debated there are TWO very important areas of economics that are of relevance. Furthmore, there is a additional twist to add, which makes this more interesting, but doesn't change the major result.

Victor only addresses one of these areas, so his conclusions are necessarily incomplete in some areas and just wrong in others.

First of all, the general underlying economic reason behind patents and copyright is as victor has stated. It provides inventors or authors with a temporary monopoly over their output, in order to give them an opportunity to recoup their investment (e.g. research and development costs, or the grind and inspiration used in writing a song or a novel). Without such a sancitoned monopoly other producers could simply poach the output without bearing any of the cost of development.

The result is as Sundog has outlined. Fewer and fewer songwriters would invest time and effort in writing. In other examples, drug companies would not invest the massive amount that they presently do trying to find new drugs. Innovation would be badly hampered in all areas.


Now we come to the second areas, that Victor does not address at all. It is the area of "public goods". Try and dispell any preconceptions. For an economist, a public good is something that exhibits certain attributes. Most important among these is:

- non-rival consumption (i.e. an extra person can consume the good, without reducing the amount availble to other. Think lighthouses, and uncongested road, television transmission)

- non-excludability (you cannot stop someone consuming the good. Again, think lighthouses, television etc. N.B. with increased technology more and more things are becoming excludable where they were not before)

If a good exhibits these two qualities, a free market for it will collapse. The reason is because, non-rival consumption ensures that there is zero marginal cost of production, so compeititon will dirve the price down below a level that makes any sense to invest in its production. Non-excudability means people can "free ride" and pay nothing, because anybody given legal choice of paying sometinhg or nothing will choose nothing. So producers will be giving away most of what they make or produce for free. They won't keep doing this for long.

It is in this area that copyright is important in the arts. Music and novels etc are non-rival in consumption. Also, in the absence or legal barriers these things are non-excludable (as Napster showed). So copyright is the legal barrier which prevents the collapse in the market for these types of goods. In this instance, it is protecting the existance of the market against the consumers, not other producers. This is the BIG point that Victor misses. The alternative policy solution in these areas (public goods) is nationalisiation. But I don't think anybody wants a public monopoly of music, movies and books, do they? I think regulation in the form of copyright works better.

In summary: copyright and patent is prescribed by economists to:

1) prevent the collapse in markets for new products and innovation (mostly acts as protection against rival producers unconstrained natural instincts). As a result we keep getting new things and have rising incomes.

2) prevent the collapse of markets for non-rival and non-excludable goods (mostly acts as protection against consumers unconstrained natural instincts), As a result, we have a vibrant market for music, books etc. and this also increase our incomes.


Due to the incredibly long and boring nature of this post I will add the "twist" I mentioned in a fresh post.

[Drooper]

Now for anybondy interested or still awake. The twist that I mentioned in the post above.


The twist comes from the area of "network economics".

As a bit of theoretical background, this concerns goods or services that exhibit increasing returns to scale (IRTS). IRTS means that the value of market sizes N is greater than the market value of two separate markets of size N/2. Commonc textbook examples include telephones , railways.


Now we need to talk about the reasons this (ITRS) occurs. In the most visible cases, it tends to be inherent in the nature of the technology. For example, as a telephone network increases it number of subscribers, the number of possible connection increase exponentially. And since the value for the consumer is derived form the potential number of connection, so the market value increases exponentially.


However, there is another way to get network effects and ITRS. This comes from "positive externalities". There are some goods where the act of consumption will bestow a benefit on others. A good example is education. If I go to school and I am able to read and write, this is of immense benefit to anybody who wants to communicate with me.

When you do the algebra on these types of goods, it turns out that you can get ITRS for these also. Books and music could be seen to have this quality sometimes. You might equate this to the word of mouth effect.


If this is the case, then a producer of such things should susidise sales initially to build up the size of the market and then capture the higher returns that result. This is assuming of course that they can prevent rampant free riding as mentioned in my previous post.

In the real world these wouold translate into a band, for instance, pressing a CD, but simultaneanously making it available for free download over the internet. More people would take it for free, building the network effect (i.e. word of mouth effect). This would lead to sales that would far exceed what might have been raised without the give away.


The practical hurdles that need to be adddressed are the free rider problems. Although many people would still be likely to buy the CD, because we have prven to still be very tactile consumers, the number of free riders would probably be too high. However, there are ways to work around this. For example, release only half the album over the internet and provide the full thing for $15.99 on CD only, give valued bonus material on the CD copy etc.

The same theory applieds to books. Give it away over the interent in electronic form. Then make a stylish hardcopy available in bookstores.

Note that this would not be the best thing to do for an established "blockbuster" writer or performer, because they have already established these network effects over time.

Also note, that this is NOT a justification for the abandonment of copyright. The justification (in fact need) for copyright still stands, but there are different ways that copyright can be employed at the discretion of its owner.

[Drooper]

Originally posted by Ove
What p****** me off as a musician is the parasite like behaviour of the record companies and i see much of the debate nowadays as them feeling the ground crumble beneath them.

Maybe you are just overestimating your contribution to the value chain as an unknown musician.

[iain]

Thanks Drooper - I found your posts informative (and I'm still awake - just).

[Ove]

Maybe you are just overestimating your contribution to the value chain as an unknown musician.

Not at all, i know i (only)have a niche to fill and are quite happy to keep it that way. ;)

[Victor Danilchenko]

Drooper

If a good exhibits these two qualities, a free market for it will collapse.i didn't ignore this point. I didn't address it explicitly, but I did address it.

First of all, I repeatedly said that music as a public good -- copied information -- is only one of many sources of compensation for the musicians, and in fact it's a rather minor source. This is the point you ignored in your treatment of copyrightable works as a public good. this point applies to various degrees to different types of content, but it does apply.

Secondly, copied music isn't truly a "public good" in this sense, because there are inevitable small costs associated with it -- personal costs of time and effort (unlike the air or a lighthouse). Thus free market for copied music is possible, just not at the current magnitude of price range.

The second point applies to patents far more. In fact, your entire argument basically ignores patents altogether -- patents would be perfectly fine even if nobody forbade individual consumers to implement them.

It is in this area that copyright is important in the arts. Music and novels etc are non-rival in consumption. Also, in the absence or legal barriers these things are non-excludable (as Napster showed). So copyright is the legal barrier which prevents the collapse in the market for these types of goods.First of all , you are talking about only a certain type of good -- the copied music, the MP3s; not about all the other -- far more important -- sources of compensation ofr musicians. Secondly, free market is possible simply because the music distributors would provide an important service -- the convenient and inexpensive packaging. Think bottled water, dude.

This is where my suggestion comes in -- that copyright laws should control not individual copying, but commercial, industrial-grade copying. This will give the author a monopoly on the abovementioned distribution services, while also promoting the public good by allowing people to benefit from the copyrighted works for free, if they are willing to forego the convenience of market packaging.

In this instance, it is protecting the existance of the market against the consumers, not other producers. This is the BIG point that Victor misses.No, I don't miss it -- I don't think the market should be protected against consumers, and I explicitly said so.

Don't ascribe ignorance to me where the reality is a difference of opinion, dude. I hate that.

I think regulation in the form of copyright works better.In case you haven't noticed, I expliclty said that cpoyrights and patents should exist; I simply said that they should be changed to their older form, where they were designed to protect the author or inventor from being taken advantage of by industry competitors, rather than by consumers.

[Victor Danilchenko]

Ladewig

Music is not fungible.Music is somewhat fungible.

Furthermore, I need to see more information about the fixed and marginal costs before I accept those numbers as evidence. I suspect that describing the marginal costs calculated for a specific album from a specific performer overlook such overhead costs of creating and distributing music that does not sell well. Not every band is profitable and the CD companies have the right to charge more for the popular products in order to cover the costs of unprofitable products.of CD companies may end up going under; or cutting out the entire media machine that dcreates demand. Nobody ever guarantees to any company that their business models' functionality would be forever protected by law.

Yes, we may never be able to eliminate illegal music copying, but we can never eliminate bicycle theft either - that doesn't mean we should legalize small-scale bike theft. No, it doesn't -- and here comes in the critical difference between property, and creations/inventions. The purpose of the copyright and patent laws is not to protect property, it's to promote public good. As such, any restrictions imposed serve one ultimate purpose only -- promoting public good. As such, the ethical status of theft is not at all similar to the ethical status of unauthorized copying.

This does not remind me of the drug war situation. I believe that outlawing soft drugs causes more harm to society that legalizing them. I do not believe that oulawing small-scale copying of copywritten works harms society more than legalizing it.I do. It would constrain cultural progreess, which is a social harm. Remember, copyrights and ptents exist oto promote public good, and public good is served by people having access to creations and inventions. Therefore, any restrictions on such access are merely necessary evils in order to stimulate further inventions and content creation.

Any scheme that will still promote content creation or invention while broadening social benefit derived therefrom, is in accordance with the constitutional mandate for copyrights and patents.

Some industries require some level of government intervention because the laws of economics cannot be fully applied For instance, when entry costs are prohibitive, monopolies and oligopolies can arise. Anti-trust laws are necessary. Similarly, when technological advances jeopardize intellectual property rights, government intervention is necessary.No, they are not., You are treating IP right as a given -- but they are not, they are just means to the end, that end being the promotion of the state of the arts and sciences. Government should intervene only if technological progress threatens the public good due to the said improved state of the arts and sciences, not merely when hitherto-extant IP rights and infringed upon.

If you own something unique, you can bring it to the marketplace with a price that is lower than, equal to, or higher than your cost. That's your right. The market will respond according to the economic laws, but just because some buy it at a price above what I value the product at, does not justify my stealing that product. And it certainly does not justify my stealing it and selling it.<in a tired voice> Creations and inventions are not property, copyright/patent violations are not theft, the copyright/patent laws exist to promote public good, you do not have an inherent right to control what other people do with your creation or invention, such a right exists only to encourage you to create/invent more.

[Drooper]

Victor, I don't know where to start.

Stolen copyright material is a relatively small phenomenon because it is illegal. Evidence: Napster's closure.


Music in this day and age (as a stream of digital data, availble in elctronic form, easily transmitted around the world consmer to consumer) has the characteristics I stated that are those of a classic public good. When I download an MP3 over the web, the marginal cost is so small it is essentially zero. It is also non-excludable without legal protection.


Because you once again fail to understand the economics of this (no you did not originally include this in your analysis, nor have you subsequently shown an understanding of it), you fail to understand that allowing free trading of music by consumers would lead to complete market failure.


Copyright is here to stay because it forms an important economic function. It prevents complete market failure.

[Victor Danilchenko]

Drooper

Music in this day and age (as a stream of digital data, availble in elctronic form, easily transmitted around the world consmer to consumer) has the characteristics I stated that are those of a classic public good. When I download an MP3 over the web, the marginal cost is so small it is essentially zero.And then you want the entire album by that band, and then you want to take it with you and play it in the car, etc. You can do it all yourself, but it's often more convenient to simply pay $2 for a CD, with a nice jacket and nice insert and the songs arranged just so -- and ghuess what? the copyright holder would be the monopolistic source of such material.

Water is a public good, and household water filters and cheap and plentiful. We still have bottled water, and it's great market in fact. Think about that while you are dreaming up nightmarish scenarion of mnarket collapse.

you fail to understand that allowing free trading of music by consumers would lead to complete market failure.it would lead to failure of the market as it exists now; that, and only that. I have shown why it would neither destroy music, nor even eliminate commercial opportunities in packaging it.

Copyright is here to stayFSCK, dude, how many times do I have to say that I agree we need fscking copyright laws?!. Who the hell are you talking to -- me, or some strawman?!.

because it forms an important economic function.Indeed. I am arguing not for abolishing of copyright, but for changing it.

[Drooper]

[banging head against wall]

[Graham]

Originally posted by Drooper


(snip)

Copyright is here to stay because it forms an important economic function. It prevents complete market failure.

Drooper,

I think I understand your posts above and the points you are making. You write very clear and informative posts.

However, what objection do you have to Victor's suggestion that copyright should not be abandoned but should be restricted to its initial intention, to whit protection of the author's rights solely rather than those of the music corporations? (forgive me, Victor, if that is not actually what you are suggesting?) Or are you saying that would not be economically viable because of the reverse of IRTS?

Thanks,

Graham-not-an-expert-in-economics

[Drooper]

Copyright prevents (or more accurately makes illegal) the unauthorised replication and distribution of music, literature etc.


Who owns the coyright is an issue between the creator and the publisher.

And I read Victor as saying that people like you and I should not be prevented from replecating and sharing music files with other people.

My contention is that this is the very type of problem that copyright prevents in order to ensure that a market for these things exists.

VIctor is the type of person I have encoutnered many times before. He has brushed up against some economics in some way, but his knowledge is sparse and riddled with misconceptions commonly held by people in general (and perpetuated by the media).

[Ladewig]

posted by Victor Danilchenko
No, it doesn't -- and here comes in the critical difference between property, and creations/inventions. The purpose of the copyright and patent laws is not to protect property, it's to promote public good.

Ah, I see now. Yes, you argument is valid if one starts with that original assumption, but I have a hard time accepting that assumption. Would you provide some support for the idea that intellectual property is not protected property?

[Victor Danilchenko]

Drooper

And I read Victor as saying that people like you and I should not be prevented from replecating and sharing music files with other people.that is correct.

My contention is that this is the very type of problem that copyright prevents in order to ensure that a market for these things exists.No, copyright was never about that (until DMCA) -- it was always about preventing business competitors from taking advantage of the author/inventor. This is the scheme I am defending -- protect author/inventor not from individual consumers but from buiness competitors taking advantage of them.

VIctor is the type of person I have encoutnered many times before. He has brushed up against some economics in some way, but his knowledge is sparse and riddled with misconceptions commonly held by people in general (and perpetuated by the media).I do not claim to be an economist, or to be able to comment on general economic issues (in fact, theoretical knowledge of economics is probably the only real hole in my education); but copyrights and patents are one matter I have investigated in some depth, and here, I do know what I am talking about.

[Victor Danilchenko]

Ladewig

Ah, I see now. Yes, you argument is valid if one starts with that original assumption, but I have a hard time accepting that assumption. Would you provide some support for the idea that intellectual property is not protected property?See? This is what I meant about the ideological coup committed by the content industry.

US Constitution, Section 8 (http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html):The Congress shall have Power ... To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and DiscoveriesThe power to write copyright and patent lasws is constitutionally granted to Congress for the explicit purpose of promoting theprogress of the arts and sciences.

[Drooper]

Forget what it was oringally intended for. When copyright was devised computers didn't exist, digital encoding and electronic transmission weren't even imagined.

However:

Copyright today acts to prevent t a market failure arising from consumer copying and distributing material (not making single copy for personal use). This has been upheld in courts around the world.

[Graham]

Originally posted by Drooper
Copyright prevents (or more accurately makes illegal) the unauthorised replication and distribution of music, literature etc.

Who owns the coyright is an issue between the creator and the publisher.

And I read Victor as saying that people like you and I should not be prevented from replecating and sharing music files with other people.

My contention is that this is the very type of problem that copyright prevents in order to ensure that a market for these things exists.

So really, it's up to musicians to stop selling their copyrights to big corporations.

Assuming that could ever actually happen, Victor, would you then be content to leave copyright laws as they are and to have services such as Napster shut down?

[Victor Danilchenko]

Graham

Assuming that could ever actually happen, Victor, would you then be content to leave copyright laws as they are and to have services such as Napster shut down?No. As I said in my own words, I don't think the copyright and patent holders should be shielded by the law from individuals' copying and implementing, but from industrial copying and replication by business competitors.

[Drooper]

Originally posted by Graham


So really, it's up to musicians to stop selling their copyrights to big corporations.

It's a free world and musicians tend to do this. Copyright has value for the publisher, not the musician, since it grants the right to commercially exploit the music (which is what the publisher does, not the musician. The musician gets royalties in return.


Originally posted by Graham
Assuming that could ever actually happen, Victor, would you then be content to leave copyright laws as they are and to have services such as Napster shut down?

No, I think you'll find that Victor reckons Napster should have been allowed to continue on its merry way.

[Graham]

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
Graham

No. As I said in my own words, I don't think the copyright and patent holders should be shielded by the law from individuals' copying and implementing, but from industrial copying and replication by business competitors.

BUT but but but, IF we got rid of the corporations, there would be no need for industrial copying and all distribution woul dbe on an individual to individual basis.

I think you said that you do not want to deny musicians the right to profit from there own work. In the new-corporationless-world, copyright just designates who is entitled to profit.

No?

[Victor Danilchenko]

Drooper

Forget what it was oringally intended for. When copyright was devised computers didn't exist, digital encoding and electronic transmission weren't even imagined.Now you finally get to the only point is the whole debate that's really worth contending.

Consider this, however: libraries effectively turned books into a public good, but they didn't kill publishing industry.

Anyway, the point -- the point is that while Founding Fathers couldn't have imagined the digital revolution, the intent behind copyright and patent laws is clear -- it's not to protect market for its own sake, but to promote cultural progress; that should be the guiding idea in this debate. Thus, even if music market fails (which i don't think it will) while music lives, the intent of the Constitution and the good of society will be served. The market in copyrighted materials is just a mean to the end. If the society is served better by musicians getting their compensation primarily through live acts and merchandise sales, then copyright in its current form has no business existing any longer.

Besides, as I pointed out numerous times, digital revolution will not kill the music market, but change it -- just as libraries didn't kill book publishing industry, just as indoor plumbing didn't kill bottled water industry, just as video didn't kill Hollywood (even though movie industry screamed loudly that VHS would be the death of movies).

Copyright today acts to prevent t a market failure arising from consumer copying and distributing material (not making single copy for personal use). This has been upheld in courts around the world.Indeed. The RIAA lobby and its relatives became aware of the problems presented by digital revolution, long before individual consumers became aware of the benefits presented to them by it. With any luck, within a few years we will see a groundswell of popular opinion demanding the reversal of the recent legal developments (such as DMCA and the Mickey Mouse Copyright Act) which actually retard the cultural progress.

[Graham]

Originally posted by Drooper


It's a free world and musicians tend to do this. Copyright has value for the publisher, not the musician, since it grants the right to commercially exploit the music (which is what the publisher does, not the musician. The musician gets royalties in return.



If a proper method of distribution was in place, could musicians not profit from copyright just as easily as publishers?

[Victor Danilchenko]

Graham

BUT but but but, IF we got rid of the corporations, there would be no need for industrial copying and all distribution woul dbe on an individual to individual basis.Huh? What are you talking about? Who said anything about getting rid of corporations? I said that copyright holder should have monopoly on industrial production and distribution of copyrighted material. The copyright holder canbe a corporation, it's just that instead of getting to forbid everyone to copy, they would only have that right with regard other business entities.

I have no problem with a musician selling their copyright to a company, or forming a distribution partnership -- they would still get the benefit of copyright protection. i am simply saying that copying restrictions shouldn't extend to individuals; but it would still take a business entity to distribute content on a wide basis at low a price, and the copyright holders would have complete control of this sort of distribution.

[Victor Danilchenko]

Drooper

No, I think you'll find that Victor reckons Napster should have been allowed to continue on its merry way.Indeed. And in fact there are indications that Napster actually increased CD sales, even at the current exorbitant prices. people still want the convenient packaging, even if they can get the music itself with only a minimal investment of effort.

[Graham]

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
Graham

Huh? What are you talking about? Who said anything about getting rid of corporations? I said that copyright holder should have monopoly on industrial production and distribution of copyrighted material. The copyright holder canbe a corporation, it's just that instead of getting to forbid everyone to copy, they would only have that right with regard other business entities.

I have no problem with a musician selling their copyright to a company, or forming a distribution partnership -- they would still get the benefit of copyright protection. i am simply saying that copying restrictions shouldn't extend to individuals; but it would still take a business entity to distribute content on a wide basis at low a price, and the copyright holders would have complete control of this sort of distribution.

But if distribution amongst individuals is freely permitted, won't the value of copyrights be drastically reduced? As technology advances (internet connections get quicker, computers become integrated with stereos, etc) sharing of music can only become easier and more effective. In light of that, don't you think that the value of any copyright will eventually diminish to zero?

I think you make a valid analogy with VCRs and the movie industry, though. Do you have any references for that?

[Victor Danilchenko]

Graham

But if distribution amongst individuals is freely permitted, won't the value of copyrights be drastically reduced?it will be. i can't see CDs being sold in such a world for more than $5 each, probably less. There will still be market for it, though, and thus an additional way (besides concerts and merchandise and somesuch) for musicians to get revenue.

As technology advances (internet connections get quicker, computers become integrated with stereos, etc) sharing of music can only become easier and more effective. In light of that, don't you think that the value of any copyright will eventually diminish to zero?No. There is still the question of convenience. You still need to actually go and download a song; and if you want to take it with you, you will need to arrange for it to be replicated to the appropriate medium. There will still be a convenience cost associated with downloading music -- and this is what the copyright holders would be able to monopolistically provide: convenient packaging.

I think you make a valid analogy with VCRs and the movie industry, though. Do you have any references for that?Well, I don't have any reference on teh stink Hollywood raised when VHS came out -- but it happened in the early 80s I believe; but the fact that VHS ended up being a boon for the movie industry is self-evident.

[Graham]

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
Graham

it will be. i can't see CDs being sold in such a world for more than $5 each, probably less. There will still be market for it, though, and thus an additional way (besides concerts and merchandise and somesuch) for musicians to get revenue.

No. There is still the question of convenience. You still need to actually go and download a song; and if you want to take it with you, you will need to arrange for it to be replicated to the appropriate medium. There will still be a convenience cost associated with downloading music -- and this is what the copyright holders would be able to monopolistically provide: convenient packaging.

Well, I don't have any reference on teh stink Hollywood raised when VHS came out -- but it happened in the early 80s I believe; but the fact that VHS ended up being a boon for the movie industry is self-evident.

Unfortunately (read: fortunately, very very fortunately) it's past five pm and therefore long past time for me to go home.

I would think that before technology advances much further, it will be less convenient and not more so to go down to the shops, queue at the till, pay for your purchase and wait until you get home to try it out than it will be to obtain music over the internet (or whatever its descendent might be).

Taht said, its the weekend, have a good one and I look forward to continuing this discussion on Monday, if you're willing.

Graham

[Occasional Chemist]

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
Well, I don't have any reference on teh stink Hollywood raised when VHS came out -- but it happened in the early 80s I believe; but the fact that VHS ended up being a boon for the movie industry is self-evident. [/B]

Are you referring to Universal suing Sony over the VCR?

Quick blurb from the middle of here (http://www.business2.com/articles/mag/print/0,1643,13849,00.html) :

the 1984 case of Sony v. Universal Studios. In 1976, Universal sued Sony for infringement of copyright for a little-known technology called Betamax. The case took years to decide and eventually landed in the Supreme Court. In the end, Sony won.


Yeah, the VCR killed the movie industry, all right. :)

[shanek]

What no one seems to realize here is that it's the free market that's been abrogated by a multicorporate cartel that's managed to buy several Congressmen and a few Senators. So now Congress has been passing godawful laws like the DMCA as a favor, but it's resulted in this reaction. Many performers, like They Might Be Giants, have jumped on the mp3 bandwagon and have very successfully incorporated it into a winning business model. The major labels might be forced to do so as well if it weren't for the idea that they could just get Congress to pass a law against it.

Music file sharing, by increasing the popularity of many bands who ordinarily wouldn't get the exposure, gives back more than it takes. Poll after poll shows that the vast majority of music downloaders buy the music based on something they've downloaded. If there really were a free market in action here, the industry would have embraced it a long time ago.

[Victor Danilchenko]

shanek

Music file sharing, by increasing the popularity of many bands who ordinarily wouldn't get the exposure, gives back more than it takes. Poll after poll shows that the vast majority of music downloaders buy the music based on something they've downloaded.that in fact was exactly the main explanation given for the fact I mentioned baove -- that CD sales increased as Napster became popular.

[Ladewig]

U.S. Constitution
The Congress shall have Power ... To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries
------------------------------------------------------------------------
V. Danilchenko
The power to write copyright and patent lasws is constitutionally granted to Congress for the explicit purpose of promoting the progress of the arts and sciences.

Doesn't individual copying go against the phrase "exclusive right"? It doesn't say exclusive right for business purposes or for commercial sale. It says exclusive right.

Do you consider inventions in the same category as music? Software? Photographs?

What about music or artistic works produced in foreign countries? Those countries have laws (much more specific than the U.S. Constitution) protecting the intellectual property of their citizens. If our government condones small-scale copying of these works, should we expect their governments to recognize the exclusive rights of U.S. citizens.

[Solitaire]

Originally posted by Drooper
Stolen copyright material is a relatively small phenomenon because it is illegal.
Evidence: Napster's closure.

There are countless Napster clones. But that's very tiny compared to the massive sharing of tapes
and albums that has been around since the 1970's. If anything the amount of sharing of music has
probably remained nearly the same since the early 1980's - close to saturation. After all, there are
many more things in life than just music.

Music in this day and age (as a stream of digital data, available in electronic form, easily transmitted
around the world consumer to consumer) has the characteristics I stated that are those of a classic
public good. When I download an MP3 over the web, the marginal cost is so small it is essentially
zero. It is also non-excludable without legal protection.

You don't even need the web. Within the digits of pi exist many copies of every work produced
by mankind throughout all time in digital form. All you have to do is let a quantum computer do
the calculations and wait. Who was it that said, "There Ain't No Such Thing As Talent?" Well, he was right, anyway.

Because you once again fail to understand the economics of this (no you did not originally
include this in your analysis, nor have you subsequently shown an understanding of it), you
fail to understand that allowing free trading of music by consumers would lead to complete
market failure.

It cannot. You do not understand the nature of the market. If libraries exist why do bookstores exist.
All you need do is wait and borrow. If people always will go for the lowest price? Why have I found
the same pack of batteries selling for seven dollars, five dollars, and three dollars. If they were rational,
it be like the price of gasoline where the prices never vary more than ten percent. Heck, if what you
say is true, then advertising always fails.

Copyright is here to stay because it forms an important economic function.
It prevents complete market failure.

Yes and no. It prevents others from stealing sales you might have otherwise captured.
If someone goes to a pirate and offers money for the product, that counts as a lost sale,
but only for the amount offered by the consumer. If the consumer copies the material no
sale has been lost. The consumer has not offered any money for it therefore it has no value.
You can't count chickens that haven't hatched as the saying goes.

The model you offer that if people can download music for free they will not buy albums
appears true to the mind. But I have learned repeatedly over the years, what appears clear
to the mind does not appear in reality. The model assumes that everyone has the same
thoughts and actions - and they don't. It assumes, no fans, no collectors, no desire to support
the artist, etcetera. In other words, it's a bizarre and goes against my observations of human nature.

[Victor Danilchenko]

Ladewig

Doesn't individual copying go against the phrase "exclusive right"? It doesn't say exclusive right for business purposes or for commercial sale. It says exclusive right.That depends simply on what that "right" is interpreted to mean, as rights are social constructs. It has already been interpreted to not forbid "fair use", which is copying for personal use, excerpting, and parody.

Do you consider inventions in the same category as music? Software? Photographs?Similar. Software and photographs are copyrightable, inventions are patentable. patents forbid not copying (in fact, the whole point of patents is to put the knowledge of the invention into the public domain) but the implementation -- actual building of the device in question. As such, patents are absolutely not threatened by the current situation.

What about music or artistic works produced in foreign countries? Those countries have laws (much more specific than the U.S. Constitution) protecting the intellectual property of their citizens.US has specific laws too. the Constitution simply defined the congressional mandate to make copyright and patent laws -- the purpose thereof.

Anyway, what about foreign countries? There are jurisdictional differences already -- Russia for example requires that any published copyrighted work have available means to make personal backup, which law is in direct conflict with american DMCA. So what? I would hope that the entire world would realize that ultimately, what matters most is the progress of society, and that bad copyright and patent laws impede such progress.

No, the point about jurisdictional differences is a red herring.

[Victor Danilchenko]

Graham

I would think that before technology advances much further, it will be less convenient and not more so to go down to the shops, queue at the till, pay for your purchase and wait until you get home to try it out than it will be to obtain music over the internet (or whatever its descendent might be).Not yet -- not given the convenience of the resulting package. This might change in the future (say, when cars are equipped with wireless network as a standard feature); but technological progress cuts both ways. If that happens and finally kills CD sales, the technological progress might allow the companies to instead provide an adaptive listen-on-demand service -- the software would learn your listening habits and judge your mood biometrically, and suggest the music that you might like the best at the moment. For example.

Even if market in music eventually fails due to personal copying, there is an important point to remember: legislature can't save it. You can no more stem music sharing by criminalizing it, than youo can stop drug abuse by criminalizing it. Unless the laws get a lot more draconian (and if you wonder where that may lead, read "The Right to Read: A Dystopian Short Story (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html)" by Richard Stallman -- the scary part is that most of those laws are already in effect or have been proposed, in USA).

The simple economics dictates that the music sharing exist and flourish, regardless of whether it's legal or illegal. Just as with drug wars, the main effect of criminalizing individual copying will be to turn the entire population into criminals -- or to turn US into the police state; neither of which is a viable option. You can't fight reality, and expect to win.

[Ladewig]

quote:
Ladewig: Doesn't individual copying go against the phrase "exclusive right"? It doesn't say exclusive right for business purposes or for commercial sale. It says exclusive right.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
V.D.: That depends simply on what that "right" is interpreted to mean, as rights are social constructs. It has already been interpreted to not forbid "fair use", which is copying for personal use, excerpting, and parody.

If it depends on the interpretation, then I interpret it differently. The word "exclusive" is what leads me to the corporate interpretation.

"Fair use" does not include copying the entire work for personal use unless one has already purchased the material. The law allows that type of copying for back-up purposes or for multi-use purposes if only one copy can be used at a time .



Ladewig: What about music or artistic works produced in foreign countries? Those countries have laws (much more specific than the U.S. Constitution) protecting the intellectual property of their citizens.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
V.D.: US has specific laws too. the Constitution simply defined the congressional mandate to make copyright and patent laws -- the purpose thereof.

Anyway, what about foreign countries? There are jurisdictional differences already -- Russia for example requires that any published copyrighted work have available means to make personal backup, which law is in direct conflict with american DMCA. So what? I would hope that the entire world would realize that ultimately, what matters most is the progress of society, and that bad copyright and patent laws impede such progress.

My point was that if the U.S. relaxes its laws to the level that you suggest, then producers of copywritable material in foreign countries will become rather upset if their material is "legally" copied by USAians. They may become upset enough to encourage their governments to put pressure on the U.S. just as the U.S. places pressure on countries like China.

I agree that DCMA restrictions are clearly bad copywrite law; but standard copywrite laws are appropriate and are consistent with the constitution.