BSA Whines That People Need To Pay More Attention To Its Overhyped Claims
from the oh,-poor-you... dept
With all the talk of file sharing online, all of the attention on whining industries overhyping their losses seems to go towards the movie and music industries. Well, now the proprietary software industry has had enough. The BSA, famous for pumping up their "loss" numbers beyond any reasonable value, is complaining that no one gives their "piracy" claims enough respect. Maybe that's because any thinking person quickly realizes they're bogus? For example, the article mentions how the BSA claims that cutting software "piracy" by 30% would add $400 billion towards economic growth, and create 1.5 million jobs. Of course, this assumes that everyone using a copied piece of software would turn around and pay for it - something that is incredibly unlikely. Most would simply get by without the software - which could have the opposite effect on the economy. Right now, companies using the software they copied are becoming more efficient and productive, generating more income for economic growth. If that rug is pulled out from under them, it could do more to harm economic growth than to help it. However, the BSA doesn't like to talk about that side of the story. The article also (thank you!) finally takes issue with someone who claims this is "piracy" pointing out that with file sharing no one is getting directly hurt. No one is missing anything.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Copyright infringement and you
The Jeffersonian notion of intellectual property passing from one person to the next without diminishing either is a fallacy born of applying a physical intuition to a non-physical construct -- an idea.
Consider: I'm Stephen King, having just finished typing my latest book into my computer. I send an email-attached copy to a friend for proof reading. Perhaps I was even paranoid and encrypted the traffic, ensuring it wouldn't fall into the "wrong" hands. She shares it (intentionally or not) via a popular P2P file sharing service and it spreads like wildfire.
Question: am I, Stephen King, missing anything? Have I been directly hurt?
After all, I still have my copy of the file. I'm free to send it off to a publisher, to share it in electronic form, or to ROT13 it, if I so choose. I have every freedom associated with ownership of the file.
What I have lost, obviously, is not physical possession, but rather the possibility of profiting from my work, or at least of profiting as much as I might have if the P2P trading hadn't happened.
I'm not saying that the BSA isn't loony-tunes... it is. And your analysis of companies that would suffer or fail if non-licensed copying of software were stopped is absolutely right.
But it's not as simple an issue as you suggest and the popular belief that no one gets hurt is one reason why the BSA and RIAA exist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Copyright infringement and you
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Copyright infringement and you
Remember, the creator of a work doesn't (despite what the intellectual property folks claim) determine the price of a good. The market does. No one has the right to profit from their work. They need to take into account the market they are dealing with - and if that market includes free copies - that's something they need to contend with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Copyright infringement and you
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Copyright infringement and you
I don't think that's news to anyone... however, the issue is more complex than that. My point is, simply, that even if you wanted to stop these activities, you're not going to be able to. In fact, you're likely to waste much more money chasing after solutions than you would have actually "lost". Thus, I'm trying to explain to any "intellectual property" protection people that learning to deal with the marketplace is a much better solution than fighting market forces.
I think they would be pleasantly surprised if they took a chance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Copyright infringement and you
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Copyright infringement and you
In response to the claim that nothing is lost when IP is copied I would say profit creator of the IP is lost. This means real honest to goodness dollars are lost.
My overriding question is if you do not wish to pay for IP why expect to benefit from it? If you don�t buy it why do you expect the right to use it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Copyright infringement and you
Only initially. Once a good is out in the marketplace, the market sets the price. If you build a chair and sell it to me, if I then give it away for free, will you claim I stole from you?
You have the right to try to profit from your work. That's VERY different from the right to profit from your work by setting artificially high prices.
If the market is valuing your work - on its own - at zero, that tells you you're in the wrong business, if you're trying to sell it.
In response to the claim that nothing is lost when IP is copied I would say profit creator of the IP is lost. This means real honest to goodness dollars are lost.
That's simplified reasoning. Nothing is actually lost at all. It just means the conditions of the marketplace are different than the creator expected. It is up to the creator (or some business entity related to the creator, such as a publisher) to determine a better business model.
If they're smart they'll realize that a marketplace where there's free copying and free distribution means that they've created a FREE promotional item, and will look to take advantage of that.
My overriding question is if you do not wish to pay for IP why expect to benefit from it? If you don�t buy it why do you expect the right to use it?
You're confusing things again. I never said I wouldn't pay for IP. My argument simply is that, in many cases, the market is clearly valuing the good at it's competitive rate - it's marginal cost of zero. In those cases, it is the responsibility of the producer to come up with a different business model. They have no right to have the government (or some organization) force a price that is above the marketrate, just to give them a profit.
However, if someone doesn't want to give out their intellectual property in such a system that is entirely their business. My argument is that it's actually to their benefit to embrace this model, and realize that using their intellectual property for FREE promotional material stands to benefit them much more than trying to hawk their information at above marketrates.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Copyright infringement and you
I will not claim you stole from me because I sold you a physical object. The terms of that sale give you ownership of that object, you can do whatever you want with it. You do however loose use of the chair when you give it away or sell it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Copyright infringement and you
Why do you keep making other people's points for them? ;)
The difference is clearly situated in the distinction between the physical and the non-physical.
If you had a Star Trek-style replicator, bought my chair, replicated it, and gave away the replicated copies, then you're pretty clearly undermining my ability to profit from my future work of creating other chairs. Why would anyone want to pay $200, $100, $50, or even $5 dollars for my creation when they can have one for free?
The computer-as-digital-copier is tantamount to a replicator. The network just provides the distribution medium.
Generally a large portion of the market will always choose free/cut-rate over any higher price, no matter how reasonable. Therefore, any argument rooted in the notion that the market is "setting" the zero price point is outlandish.
Everybody wants something for free -- but that simple desire doesn't mean that zero effort or zero resources have to go into the creation, promotion, and distribution of that something.
Your argument lands us in a world where the market is defined not by the highest or average price people are willing to pay, but rather by the lowest price someone is willing to pay, and that will always tend toward zero, thereby destroying the entire incentive basis for production -- that's not an IP issue -- that's simple market forces.
The supply/demand a.k.a. market model is predicated on scarcity -- scarcity of resources, of production, of effort, etc.. You've set out a policy (copy any thing any time) that smashes that fundamental basis, but doesn't offer any replacement foundation.
How would you distribute wealth or have an accounting for effort expended (which money is) in a world where nobody is willing to pay anything for anything?
Keep in mind, Mike, that I'm generally on your side -- I just don't find your arguments persuasive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Copyright infringement and you
When there's no scarcity, then the marginal cost of producing a new good is zero. And, your economics will tell you that, in a competitive market, when the marginal cost is zero, the price will fall to zero.
Voila. Efficient economics.
I don't understand why people think that economics no longer applies when the marginal cost is zero.
Anyway, this is not a "philosophy". This is what's happpening. Economics isn't about what I'd like to happen... it's about what IS happening. The only reason I'm discussing this, is because producers of content need to learn how to deal with it - and not deny that it is happening.
So, the point is that in this world where we DO have a replicator for some goods, and the marginal cost is zero, the price is being driven towards zero. That's a market condition. You, as the producer, now has the responsibility to figure out how to make a profit off of a non-scarce good. Again, there are ways, but they clearly shouldn't involve charging directly for them. You can try, but you'll fail. That's my point...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Copyright infringement and you
In the limit, the individual whose grey cells contribute to such a creative effort must be kept alive and at least reasonably happy. There are absolute lower-bound costs associated with doing that -- food and water (which are scarce), housing (scarce), and some reasonable level of intellectual stimulation (education, travel, entertainment, etc).
Until and unless you can produce a matter-replicator a la Star Trek, the marginal cost of production can never be sufficiently near zero to warrant zero compensation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Copyright infringement and you
That's a philosophical point, and the exact point of disagreement that divides people on this issue.
If you're a follower of Lockean philosophy, you believe that people do in fact have a right to profit from their work. The notion goes something like this.
- A person in a desert, alone
- finds a piece of wood
- and crafts it into a bucket
Certainly, the thinking goes, no one has a greater claim to the bucket thus crafted.Bringing this back to IP, the Lockean argument asks, where could a person be more alone or more in the presence of raw materials than when one is crafting an idea in one's own head? Does such a person have less of a claim of ownership to and right-to-prosper from an idea thus crafted than to the bucket?
Your answer seems to be a resounding YES -- that they have no right-to-prosper from the idea.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]