Yet Another Study Shows That Weaker Copyright Benefits Everyone
from the good-news dept
Economists Felix Oberholzer-Gee and Koleman Strumpf have written some previous papers on this subject, but they've just come out with a new working paper on how weaker copyright protection benefits society (pdf file). Michael Geist has an excellent overview and summary of the paper. To understand the key points made by the paper, you need to understand the purpose of copyright -- something that many people are confused about. It's always been about creating incentives to create new works. Copyright maximalists and defenders of strengthening copyright laws always suggest that without copyright, there would be much less creative output, because there would be much less incentive to create. History has shown that to be false. If you look back at the age when all creative output had to be registered to be covered by copyright, studies showed that only a very small fraction of content creators even bothered, because copyright wasn't the incentive. It's only now, when copyright is automatic, that people seem to think that copyright is somehow necessary.But the paper shows why this isn't true, and highlights a few points that we've made repeatedly over the years. Even if there are fewer "album" sales, more people are creating more music than ever before in history, and more people are making some money from the production of music -- even if it's not from album sales directly:
Overall production figures for the creative industries appear to be consistent with this view that file sharing has not discouraged artists and publishers. While album sales have generally fallen since 2000, the number of albums being created has exploded. In 2000, 35,516 albums were released. Seven years later, 79,695 albums (including 25,159 digital albums) were published (Nielsen SoundScan, 2008). Even if file sharing were the reason that sales have fallen, the new technology does not appear to have exacted a toll on the quantity of music produced....So the idea that file sharing has somehow damaged creative output is simply not supported by the numbers. At the same time, the paper also makes the other point that we've made: that as infinite goods spread more widely, it only tends to increase the ability to make money from other scarce complements. After going through a few different studies, the paper notes:
Similar trends can be seen in other creative industries. For example, the worldwide number of feature films produced each year has increased from 3,807 in 2003 to 4,989 in 2007 (Screen Digest, 2004 and 2008). Countries where film piracy is rampant have typically increased production. This is true in South Korea (80 to 124), India (877 to 1164), and China (140 to 402). During this period, U.S. feature film production has increased from 459 feature films in 2003 to 590 in 2007 (MPAA, 2007).
As these results show, income from the sale of complements can more than compensate artists for any harm that file sharing might do to their primary activity. We are not aware of empirical work that has looked at these effects in industries other than music. But the potential of complements to provide ancillary income is certainly not unique to the music industry. In film, for instance, the International Licensing Industry Merchandisers' Association (LIMA) estimates that Hollywood derives $16 billion annually from sales of entertainment merchandise, a figure that exceeds the value of ticket sales (Film Encyclopedia, 2008).This looks like another great addition to the literature on the overall economic impact of "file sharing" and copyright. How much do you want to bet Congress will ignore it?
The role of complements makes it necessary to adopt a broad view of markets when considering the impact of file sharing on the creative industries. Unfortunately, the popular press -- and a good number of policy experts -- often evaluate file sharing looking at a single product market. Analyzing trends in CD sales, for example, they conclude that piracy has wrecked havoc on the music business. This view confuses value creation and value capture. Record companies may find it more difficult to profitably sell CDs, but the broader industry is in a far better position. In fact, it is easy to make an argument that the business has grown considerably. Figure 7 shows spending on CDs, concerts and iPods. The decline in music sales -- they fell by 15% from 1997 to 2007 -- is the focus of much discussion. However, adding in concerts alone shows the industry has grown by 5% over this period. If we also consider the sale of iPods as a revenue stream, the industry is now 66% larger than in 1997.... Technological change will often lead to changes in relative prices and shifts in business opportunities. Focusing exclusively on traditional streams of revenue to arrive at a sense of how new technology changes welfare will typically be misleading.
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
Filed Under: copyright, economy, felix oberholzer-gee, incentives, koleman strumph, output
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
A nice cover page
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A nice cover page
When a politician is given a choice of, "I can be right, or I can be wealthy", I think we all know which they opt for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: A nice cover page
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Not an anti-copyright example. This is copyright at work here. Copyright protects those who own the product so that they control and profit from the merchandising.
Without copyright, a film company invests $100 million in a movie, and as soon as it's out are competing for DVD sales with people who invested $0 in the movie, but bought and copied the DVD, and competing with people who invested $0 in the movie, but are making products related to it. And they not only have to be a little better than the competition, but a lot better because, for them to make a profit, they first have to make $100 million to pay for the production of the movie.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Welcome to capitalism, my friend.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The article did not say "no copyright." It said "weaker copyright."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
exactly
No you can't included sales of ipods, because the content creators don't make ipods and Apple does not produce music or movies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: exactly
No you can't included sales of ipods, because the content creators don't make ipods and Apple does not produce music or movies.
Huh? So what? You're defining the market incorrectly.
We're looking at the overall economic impact of entertainment. And that's grown massively. If the determination is societal/economic benefit, then you absolutely must include the iPod because even if one part of the industry shrinks, if another one grows much greater because of that, it's a *net benefit*.
Your argument is like saying "well, you can't count automobiles in the market for transportation, because they're different than horses."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You're painting a board stroke
This is not just about the overall entertainment, not all entertainment evolves file sharing.
Breeders of horses provide a means of transportation but they are not part of the automobile industry, there is a difference. We don't talk about them when we are talking about the problems of the automobile industry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: exactly
iPod is a delivery mechanism, just as LPs, CDs, cassettes, etc. The fact that it is also a player is simply a perk.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sadly a lot.
Thanks for the find Mike.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Some honesty, please
Even if there are fewer "album" sales, more people are creating more music than ever before in history...
Gee, could this be because music is much cheaper to make than it used to be? That would have nothing to do with copyright or the lack thereof.
more people are making some money from the production of music
That is a very misleading stat. Part of the beauty of artists being able to profit from their work is that when there's a demand for an artists work, they can make a career out of creating that art, and therefor (without the "day job") have more time to create the art. Also, they have more money to invest in that art (hire a producer, a horn section, whatever). But when you say that more people are making some money, that included many, many, band who are making only a few dollars here and there. Add it all together, and it looks like a lot of money, but to each band that now has an extra $50 to work with, the money is inconsequential. It's not enough to invest into the music in any meaningful way, and not enough to make career musicians out of anyone. A more meaningful stat would be how file sharing affects the top 1% (or whatever percentage of musicians have historically made a living off of music) of musicians. Do they have more or less money to invest in music creation. Can they still create music as a full time job?
Similar trends can be seen in other creative industries. For example, the worldwide number of feature films produced each year has increased from 3,807 in 2003 to 4,989 in 2007
Again, digital technology has made films cheaper to produce.
So the idea that file sharing has somehow damaged creative output is simply not supported by the numbers.
A big part of that has to do with the cost of creation coming down. Many of these products being created are from people who, before the costs of creation and distribution got so low, would never have had the opportunity to create their product because no one was willing to invest in it. This has nothing to do with the copyright issue at all.
And I know quality is subjective, but we've all seen "works of art" created in this environment that are horrible and there's no market for because nobody wants it, but yet this can be included in "more people creating" whatever.
Since I don't want to post a bunch of bad music and youtube links, I'll take my example from the publishing industry now that it costs almost nothing to self publish. The book by Aaron Rayburn received the following reviews on amazon:
I took one for the team, so the rest of you would NEVER have to be subjected to this beast. I beg you, don't let my selflessness be for nothing. Heed my warning. This is the worst book ever written....
Okay, I know it doesn't seem THAT bad from the plot. But I haven't begun quoting yet. Mark Twain said, "The difference between the right word and the almost right word is the difference between lightning and the lightning bug."
Rayburn wasn't even close.
"Spiers's eyes popped extraneously from their sockets, as his face turned from a deep red to a sickly purple."
"Extraneous" means "irrelevant." I don't think that's what he meant. At least, I hope not.
Here's my favorite:
"The lamp's glow was very weak compared to the blue glow emancipating from the basement."
Emanating, Rayburn, EMANATING. When will people learn never to trust their SpellCheck without verifying it's the word they meant??? There are, in total, 11 instances of Rayburn using the wrong word....
Okay, one more.
"It infiltrated his lungs, filling them with a kind of innovativeness he had never felt before."
Is society better off because this book was written? Probably not. Point is the total number of music/movies/whatever created is a misleading stat.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Some honesty, please
I believe Mike has posted numerous stories about how file sharing actually helped ALL sizes of bands/musicians/artist. Your statement here is completely ignoring any of those stories with are factual.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Some honesty, please
No, I believe he's posted examples of specific bands who have been helped. That's completely than a study of the music industry or movies that show the overall affect of file sharing. You'd need a much larger sample of artists to prove anything conclusively.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Some honesty, please
What I think you're asking for is, at the very least, some specific examples of where file sharing has hurt specific artists.
Your call for a systematic study of the issue is essentially unachievable as the only sources of the systematic data are biased against file-sharing and will NEVER provide the data to an objective third party.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Some honesty, please
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Some honesty, please
Good Morning to you,I am interested in immediate purchase of your item,but
before i proceed on this transaction i will like to ask some question as
follow. i can only raise cashier check or money order for the payment of
your item so i will like to know if the item is still available and also if
is in good condition?Please your answer on this, will enable me to issue
your payment to you asap
1. Do you accept a ( Cashier Check / Money Order)as a mode of payment?
2. What is the firm price of the item?
3. Will you let a shipping company to come to your house for the pick up of
the item?
4. Do get back to me with your contact info where you want the payment to
address to
5. I will like you to contact me to my personal email address which
is(peter_bruce14@yahoo.com)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Some honesty, please
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Some honesty, please
Would you care to post some examples of the rule?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Some honesty, please
Yes, it's everybody who is not giving away their movie or music for free.
Try to follow along. When there is a story of a major band giving away their music for free, it is a story because it is the exception. Most major bands are not doing this. Able to follow that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Some honesty, please
And if it's more or less, how much more or less are they making?
Is it 2% or 75%? Or, alternatively, have they seen a drastic change in their lifestyle?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Some honesty, please
Answer: word-of-mouth
Susequently, how much does word-of-mouth advertising cost:
Answer: nothing
"Free" and "no cost" are synonymous. So, while I would agree that, in music, it's not the best, giving away free copies of music is a FANTASTIC way to advertise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Some honesty, please
It would be a culture shock, and I imagine the short term attrition of that company would be immense, but, in an odd way, is very curious. But until it happens, the headbanging will continue, eh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Some honesty, please
It would be a culture shock, and I imagine the short term attrition of that company would be immense, but, in an odd way, is very curious. But until it happens, the headbanging will continue, eh?
Exactly. Both sides of the issue can debate all they want, but unless these business models get tested on major scale, it's all just theory. Which is fine, it's perfectly legitimate to argue theory, just don't present it as fact.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Some honesty, please
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Some honesty, please
That, or some company will try it little by little. Give a small portion away for free. If their revenues go up, give a little more away, and so on, until they either:
1. Reach a point where they are giving away all digital content for free and are making more money than ever, thus proving Mike's theory, or
2. Reach a point where the profits lost by not charging for digital content are not being made up in other areas, thus disproving Mike's theory and learning what the threshold is for how much content to give away for free and how much to charge for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Some honesty, please
Even if we swallow Mike's (somewhat misleading) theory as god's own words, there is a simple problem: At some point, even scarce goods would become too common to be useful and to actually sell for any real price.
Ever seen a promotion for something and realized you have just seen it too much? You know, like the lead up to the last couple of star wars movies where it seemed that even the toilet paper in public restrooms had a star wars ad on it? Every toy store was selling toys, every fast food chain seemed to have a tie in? At some point, all that "stuff" loses it's value.
Put another way, if music sales are 10 billion a year (last numbers I saw, 2007), and t shirts are $10 each, that means that artists worldwide would have to shift an extra 1 BILLION t-shirts a year to keep things in balance.
Possible? Perhaps. But obviously, 1 billion extra garments in a year would put heavy pressure on the garment retail industry, which would likely respond with lower prices (and maybe even band logo shirts, not paying the bands, because hey, we tossed copyright and trademarks and patents out the window to get here).
Sorry, but overall, the report is flawed because it doesn't look at alternate explainations for what is going on, rather, it attempts to make the data fit a preconceived conclusion, and that is never a good way to find the truth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Some honesty, please
I agree with everything you just wrote. The reason for me giving to options is to acknowledge that both sides are just theory - even though many people (Mike) think there solution is a proven fact.
My personal opinion is that scarce goods will not replace what could be made by sale of digital content in all content driven industries. I'm willing to listen to the other side, I just take exception when the data is deliberately misleading.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Some honesty, please
Are t-shirts the only scarcity you can think of? I hope you're not managing creative folk, cuz they be in trouble with you as their manager.
Come on, stretch your imagination and your creativity...think of products that can augment revenues...
You complain about Mike's theories and then you present a stream of consciousness "this is what I think will happen." Do you see how that's just not going to cut it?
The markets have and continue to change...that's reality, not theory...if those selling products in them don't change and don't take some risks, then I have no sympathy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Some honesty, please
Good Morning to you,I am interested in immediate purchase of your item,but
before i proceed on this transaction i will like to ask some question as
follow. i can only raise cashier check or money order for the payment of
your item so i will like to know if the item is still available and also if
is in good condition?Please your answer on this, will enable me to issue
your payment to you asap
1. Do you accept a ( Cashier Check / Money Order)as a mode of payment?
2. What is the firm price of the item?
3. Will you let a shipping company to come to your house for the pick up of
the item?
4. Do get back to me with your contact info where you want the payment to
address to
5. I will like you to contact me to my personal email address which
is(peter_bruce14@yahoo.com)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Some honesty, please
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Some honesty, please
Total creative output is not a misleading stat when you are talking about a law intended to INCREASE TOTAL CREATIVE OUTPUT. If the law's intention was to ensure only "good" things get created, your point would be accurate. Thank the stars that's not the case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Some honesty, please
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Some honesty, please
It completely helps demonstrate why copyright is no longer needed at all as an incentive for artists to create.
A large point you make about several industries is how the cost to produce has come down, which has led to a lot more artists.
Thank you for helping to prove another part of the overall point we are trying to make for why copyright is no longer needed as an incentive. (The decrease in cost has been mentioned before on Techdirt)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Some honesty, please
It completely helps demonstrate why copyright is no longer needed at all as an incentive for artists to create.
A large point you make about several industries is how the cost to produce has come down, which has led to a lot more artists.
Missed the entire point. Because the cost of production and distribution is down, there will e a lot more creation, sure, from anyone who wants to make a CD. Copyright makes no difference for people when there's no demand for their product. But lets talk about products people actually want. If copyright helps these artists make money, it certainly does provide an incentive by letting them continue to create and giving them money to invest in their creations.
The other issue is, even for those artists who are making little or no money, copyright is still an incentive because of the possibility to make money. Most bands don't make much money, but every band is trying too. Just look at the number of bands selling CDs through CD Baby.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Some honesty, please
Copyright is not meant to guarantee income. Nobody is entitled to earn money. Anybody who thinks they are can shovel it elsewhere.
The real artists don't do it for the money. If they are doing it just for money, all it means is that they are greedy. If I couldn't make a living as a programmer, I would still do it on the side because I enjoy it.
And it is also worth mentioning that your point that copyright is an incentive because of the possibility to make money, while wrong since copyright guarantees no such thing, is still moot because plenty of artists make money without copyright. You are still left with not needing copyright at all.
Please recall that there was countless content creation before copyright ever existed for the past couple hundred years. And some of that music from before copyright, even today, I quite enjoy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Some honesty, please
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Some honesty, please
Of course it isn't a guarantee - but it is a guarantee that NOBODY ELSE MAKES MONEY OFF IT EITHER, at least not without you getting a cut of the action.
There is no guarantee that you will ever make anything from something you create. It's just right that the creator has control over their creation, not any lazy ass person who just feels like ripping it off.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Some honesty, please
So why is stuff like private copying of songs bad? Nobody else is making any money off of it. If anything it just makes more people more likely to know about artists and then go and buy stuff or go to concerts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Some honesty, please
Today, the artists get the exposure on the web, get the same revenue as before: zero, but without the studio gatekeeper blocking their access to their possible fans.
A lot more artists are getting a little income, while the small number of record companies are getting wacked big time. But no one buys a record label; we buy the work of the artist, and the best way to buy that artist's work is fresh, in concert.
Of course, Ticketmaster has done a lot to lock up those avenues and acts as the new gatekeeper. But that is another day's battle.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Some honesty, please
Good Morning to you,I am interested in immediate purchase of your item,but
before i proceed on this transaction i will like to ask some question as
follow. i can only raise cashier check or money order for the payment of
your item so i will like to know if the item is still available and also if
is in good condition?Please your answer on this, will enable me to issue
your payment to you asap
1. Do you accept a ( Cashier Check / Money Order)as a mode of payment?
2. What is the firm price of the item?
3. Will you let a shipping company to come to your house for the pick up of
the item?
4. Do get back to me with your contact info where you want the payment to
address to
5. I will like you to contact me to my personal email address which
is(anny_bruce2000@yahoo.com)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why do they ignore it?
Oh well such is life. Thanks for sharing!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
IT'S "WREAK"!!!
Yes, I know that the quote is taken from the excerpt. However, I'm simply pointing out an EXTREMELY common misuse of the word "wreck". If someone were to "wreck havoc", they would be, in effect, STOPPING said havoc from happening.
The correct use of the phrase in question is:
"WREAK HAVOC"
WREAK: verb (used with object) 1. to inflict or execute (punishment, vengeance, etc.): They wreaked havoc on the enemy.
/soapbox
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: IT'S "WREAK"!!!
"Yes, I know that the quote is taken from the excerpt."
This is a common misuse of the word "quote". The correct word would have been quotation, which is a known. Quote is a verb and is something you do, not something that is.
/your soapbox
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: IT'S "WREAK"!!!
Dammit, noun. Got it before you did.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: IT'S "WREAK"!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: IT'S "WREAK"!!!
Good Morning to you,I am interested in immediate purchase of your item,but
before i proceed on this transaction i will like to ask some question as
follow. i can only raise cashier check or money order for the payment of
your item so i will like to know if the item is still available and also if
is in good condition?Please your answer on this, will enable me to issue
your payment to you asap
1. Do you accept a ( Cashier Check / Money Order)as a mode of payment?
2. What is the firm price of the item?
3. Will you let a shipping company to come to your house for the pick up of
the item?
4. Do get back to me with your contact info where you want the payment to
address to
5. I will like you to contact me to my personal email address which
is(peter_bruce14@yahoo.com)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: IT'S "WREAK"!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Weak Copyright Does Not Benefit Everyone
Maybe in the long run, weaker copyright would benefit them, but they aren't willing to let us find out.
They would say, "Society be damned. We needs our copyrights to survive."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: IT'S "WREAK"!!!
The "did" is superfluous. "Got it before you." would be perfectly acceptable and more concise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: IT'S "WREAK"!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: IT'S "WREAK"!!!
Good Morning to you,I am interested in immediate purchase of your item,but
before i proceed on this transaction i will like to ask some question as
follow. i can only raise cashier check or money order for the payment of
your item so i will like to know if the item is still available and also if
is in good condition?Please your answer on this, will enable me to issue
your payment to you asap
1. Do you accept a ( Cashier Check / Money Order)as a mode of payment?
2. What is the firm price of the item?
3. Will you let a shipping company to come to your house for the pick up of
the item?
4. Do get back to me with your contact info where you want the payment to
address to
5. I will like you to contact me to my personal email address which
is(peter_bruce14@yahoo.com)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Downloading then buying
I love movies and have a collection numbering over 1200. I do download these same movies because I don't have the knowledge to turn my DVDs into .AVI or DiVX which my Home theatre system can play from the computer. If the MPAA or other companies would include a copy, I know it will never happen, with the movie then I would never download. I would simply be patient and wait for the DVD and simply copy it to my media machine and watch.
BTW, I haven't notced anyone talking about how I make apurchase of a DVD then a couple months later out comes another with more content; wait a year then out comes another with even more additional content and I get no credit or even partial credit for making a previous purchase.
what I do now is wait after downloading; till some company sells a "previous viewed" version for a quarter of what it sells for new. I simply got tird of buying new then they coming out with even different versions; just a slap for forking out extra money for being first and paying more and gettting less than others.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Downloading then buying
I think that sort of thing has become the norm, lately, and most people realize it, too. I wonder if there is some sort of relationship between this and DVD sales. That would be interesting to know.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Every major band I have looked for on MySpace has had a page with free music streaming from it.
Lots and lots of successful bands also have pages at Last FM. Again, free music streaming.
Free Music, major bands.
Able to follow that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Geeze people, try to follow along.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If the MP3 format was 'copy written' and controlled by one entity - there's pretty much no possibility that it would be - by far - the most predominant format for music out there.
Same could be said for the format CD's and DVD's use.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Formats like this are common language, like driving on one side of the road and not the other. There is a need, and if MP3 was patent and not an open public format, then another one would have come along.
Not really an issue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You pay for water don't you?
Why?
You could... dig a well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Look at the reverse. In places like California where water is scarce, the price of tap water is higher, and subject to many restrictions. If those restrictions became severe enough, there would be a market for much more expensive water. Not just people paying for bottled water, but an actual real shortage would cause the price of clean water to spike.
Conversely, if someone discovered a way to turn rainfall into drinking water for free, and convert all your "greywater" back into drinking water for nothing, the market for water would disappear.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yet, Coca-Cola and Pepsi make a mint on their bottled water, along with at least 10 other companies.
I suspect quality and convenience have a lot to do with that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not About Copyright
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not About Copyright
Come on Mike, admit that the study is full of it, disassociate yourself from it, and perhaps even kill the thread. It's a crock.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not About Copyright
I think you're missing the point. We've long argued that the explosion in content creation is due to the cheaper means of production... but also the cheaper means of PROMOTION and DISTRIBUTION.
So, yes, copyright very much comes into play.
But the end question is very much about copyright: is it needed to encourage production? The results of this study pretty clearly call that into question. The idea that file sharing has destroyed the incentives of musicians? Totally in question.
So where's the "harm"? There is none.
The only "harm" is in choosing a bad business model. That's a marketing issue, not a legal one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Not About Copyright
Seriously? Copyright also protects the scarce items that are associated with the content musicians, filmakers, and other content creators create. So even if this study called the need of copyright in question (which, as the post you are responding to points out, it does not), filesharing is still just one small part of all of the copyright issue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Not About Copyright
Seriously? Copyright also protects the scarce items that are associated with the content musicians, filmakers, and other content creators create. So even if this study called the need of copyright in question (which, as the post you are responding to points out, it does not), filesharing is still just one small part of all of the copyright issue.
No, copyright does not protect the scarce goods. It may protect the use of certain things associated with the scarce goods, but the scarce goods themselves are quite different. A cup is not protected by copyright. What's on the cup may be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Not About Copyright
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Not About Copyright
consider what some of the content creators have to say:
Debate of on the pros and cons of being content creators and running a website
Artist are going to create art because that's what they love. I know musicians that don't care about making money from music because the have day jobs. But if you want record companies to continue to invest in artist, then their copyrights needs to be protected. Using music as loss leader is not a novel idea. And I think we're going to see more records labels being bought by companies that sell other type of tangible goods. Your favorite artist endorsing jeans, burritos and cars more than ever before.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Not About Copyright
So where's the "harm"? There is none."
This is the biggest logical jump possible. How does it go from "totally in question" to "none"?
Mike, right now you are looking at a market that is mostly still buying shiny plastic discs and itunes downloads. There is still plenty of money in the system. But if and when that stops, the entire financial dynamics of the situations changes.
Get rid of the record labels. Get rid of the fees, the fees collection companies, the licensing, artist rights, copyright, and all that other stuff, and what is left to make someone want to write and record a new song, except for perhaps the sheer pleasure of doing it? What you are proposing is to drop billions and billions of dollars that right now go to make the system work, to pay the song writers, to pay the artists, to pay for recording, and replace it with... well, nothing. Oh wait, no, a bunch of "artistes" plunking out tunes on their guitars in coffee shops.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yes, I understand. Sadly, the statement that you made wasn't nuanced at all. What you wrote was:
"Yes, it's everybody who is not giving away their movie or music for free.
Try to follow along. When there is a story of a major band giving away their music for free, it is a story because it is the exception. Most major bands are not doing this. Able to follow that?"
I don't see anything about whole albums in this statement. No, you made a fatuous unqualified generalization and were rude while you were doing it. You were called on it and were rude again.
Here's a thought: maybe, when people can't follow your train of thought, it isn't because they are slow, it's because you are inarticulate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Nope. Wrong. Sorry. I have never been clear in saying that at all.
SHOULD is a moral statement. I'm not making a moral statement. I'm talking about economics. I'm saying it *will* be free eventually. That's where the market is heading. It's just basic economics.
Given that, I suggest that content producers are better off taking strategies that recognize (and even embrace) that to their benefit.
Understanding that difference is important.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hmmm...
Then why haven't we seen a reduction in prices for any media? everything else goes down, things that offer far more value... but ... CD's still cost the same, DVD's still cost the same.. movie ticket prices are going up...
Where's the value for us? all I see is greed...
I download, I also own over 1,000 CD's AND DVD's.. (legit copies, all of them.. not to mention band shirts and such) ... I'm obviously hurting the industry, how dare I try before I buy.. given that just about every other type of sale AND contract offers a refund/cancellation period... these industries do not... I'm not in the habit of buying shit... if I buy something shit I expect to be able to return it... but with movies and music I'm not allowed to do so... so... either I download... or I just don't buy at all...
As far as I'm concerned, the RIAA, MPAA, their ilk globally and their defenders... can go suck on a ruptured and inflamed hemorrhoid whilst being jacked off and fingered by the worlds fattest man in a sauna...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why Pay at all?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Understanding Soundscan data
There were additions of retailers and distributors to the Soundscan data that were not previously included in Soundscan sample. The authors of this paper may not have known this. The addition of CD Baby alone would have added 20,000-35,000 albums each year - albums that very likely were already being produced, but simply overlooked since they were not included in major retailer inventory.
The inclusion of "indie" music was a very important shift in the Soundscan sample. The industry suddenly became very aware of a large sample of music that was being produced, but was not being sold in a major retailer (the source of earlier soundscan data).
Arguing that there are social benefits to the free flow of copyrighted stuff is spot on. This benefit of copyright is why we historically just transfer value, and don't lock up files.
This supply-side argument has a bump however (imho), in the form of these additions to the Soundscan sample.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Patents
Patents terms, on the other hand, are 20 years. 20 years of patent protection is enough to convince a company to invest millions into research & development. Pharmaceutical companies regular spend 100s of millions of dollars developing a drug. If 20 years of protection is enough to incentivize that kind of investment in patent creation, 20 years should be enough to convince some artist to write a song or write a book or paint a picture. It should be enough to invest even the millions it costs to make some movies.
The current balance is waaaay off.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yes, piracy is rampant; it has virtually destroyed the sales of legit CDs and DVDs, and at one point (late 90s) even threatened to wipe out the industry as theater attendances fell to a record low - a great many theaters were even converted into shopping malls.
But theaters underwent a makeover to become swanky and now the moviegoing experience is much better, and people are willing to pay a lot more for the experience. Companies are now back to focusing on revenues from theaters and have given up on curbing the CD/DVD piracy menace (which is now extended to the Net; virtually every new movie available either on Youtube or sharing sites like Megavideo and Rapidshare).
Indians are a TV and movie addicted people, so another major source of revenue is television rights. TV channels scramble to bag the rights of the latest releases.
But the biggest moneyspinner is the Indian diaspora scattered all over the world, which is willing to pay good money to watch the latest movies. This translates into lucrative international TV and DVD rights. (An example is a Tamil film called Sivaji starring Rajinikant, which stayed to the top 10 in the UK for a few weeks and was the biggest grosser in history in Malaysia.)
So, while lax copyright enforcement in the case of CDs and DVDs causes (minor) losses to moviemakers, it is strong copyright law that ensures returns through theater attendances, TV rights and international rights.
An explosion in satellite channless, the rise in diaspora revenues, not to mention the opaque nature of the industry (becomes convenient way of laundering ill-gotten wealth), have led to an overall increase in content. It has not beeen dented by piracy, but at the same time has been aided by copyright! Paradoxical, as I said!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yes, piracy is rampant; it has virtually destroyed the sales of legit CDs and DVDs, and at one point (late 90s) even threatened to wipe out the industry as theater attendances fell to a record low - a great many theaters were even converted into shopping malls.
But theaters underwent a makeover to become swanky and now the moviegoing experience is much better, and people are willing to pay a lot more for the experience. Companies are now back to focusing on revenues from theaters and have given up on curbing the CD/DVD piracy menace (which is now extended to the Net; virtually every new movie available either on Youtube or sharing sites like Megavideo and Rapidshare).
Indians are a TV and movie addicted people, so another major source of revenue is television rights. TV channels scramble to bag the rights of the latest releases.
But the biggest moneyspinner is the Indian diaspora scattered all over the world, which is willing to pay good money to watch the latest movies. This translates into lucrative international TV and DVD rights. (An example is a Tamil film called Sivaji starring Rajinikant, which stayed to the top 10 in the UK for a few weeks and was the biggest grosser in history in Malaysia.)
So, while lax copyright enforcement in the case of CDs and DVDs causes (minor) losses to moviemakers, it is strong copyright law that ensures returns through theater attendances, TV rights and international rights.
An explosion in satellite channless, the rise in diaspora revenues, not to mention the opaque nature of the industry (becomes convenient way of laundering ill-gotten wealth), have led to an overall increase in content. It has not beeen dented by piracy, but at the same time has been aided by copyright! Paradoxical, as I said!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Riiight
Wanting to get paid means you're greedy? So you don't mind if your salary is reduced to zero then? I'll get in touch with your company right away, they'll be delighted with the cost saving, I'm sure.
I note how all these people who are, in essence, arguing that others should work for nothing are not, themselves, quite prepared to take that step.
The other point is that the anti-copyright argument always rests on the ability to sell items that are not copyable ("complements") rather than selling the item that is the primary source of value (which can't be sold because it's copyable and we cannot or do not want to enforce copyright). The flaw in this scheme is obvious. In a world where more and more goods are likely to be digitalised, you cannot charge for the item itself (meaning that the market price will be unrelated its value), but only for "complements". If these complements do not exist, the value of the item cannot be extracted from the consumer. If they do exist, their value will determine the market price. This is, at the least, a clear market distortion. There is, one assumes, some sort of relationship between the popularity of a band's music and, say, its t-shirt sales. The same could be said for concerts, but this conveniently ignores that fact that many great bands of the recording era made their best music in the studio, when they had stopped touring (anyone remember The Beatles?). But what about books? Once copyright on books is being systematically flouted and it is no longer possible to charge for them, what complements are authors supposed to sell? T-shirts? Autographs? There is a reason why, even today, many books are not available in electronic format, and that reason is piracy. If publishers are smart, they will continue to restrict digital availability of their works to closed devices such the Kindle. This is a clear cost imposed on us by piracy.
One last point. If it is true that artists will happily work for nothing, what is the point of the elaborate "complements" defence? If those who oppose copyright feel sure that we will continue to get the books, movies and music we want without paying for it, why not just say so? Say it out loud: authors, musicians and moviemakers should work for nothing, or scratch around for "complements". Then we can have an honest debate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's all about you
[ link to this | view in chronology ]