Morality, Non-Zero Sum Games, Externalities & Why Someone Profiting Off Of Your Work Isn't A Bad Thing
from the diving-into-the-deep-end dept
In the discussion following my recent post about ex-RIAA boss Hilary Rosen's comments about my article highlighting all of the problems with SOPA and PIPA, Ms. Rosen was kind enough to stop by and attempt to clarify her position:...my response was "Think analog" not as in analog policy vs digital policy but think of the real world we live in and the ethical issues we face every day. My point was that I can be pissed that the GAP doesn't have an outfit that is as stylish or fit as well as I want. And I can think that they arent serving their customer when they give me ugly clothes that dont fit well. ie: their busiess model sucks. But I don't think that gives me the right to take any of their clothes without paying just because I am an unhappy customer. That was my ONLY point. Do I think that the content industry has moved way too slowly in putting their content online? Absolutely. Do I think they could have been and should be more innovative? of course. But I also know that these are huge ships turning around in creeks and however easy the answers seem to you , they are often really hard. When people screw up their business, their sales go down. That has happened in the entertainment business. They are paying a price for their pace of change. BUT, there is also stealing. Pure old simple unethical stealing. Call it whatever you want - the march of technology - the inevitable cost of innovation, etc. To the writer or songwriter who makes their money on SALES, it is stealing. (Even if they might be thinking about making their money another way.) And while I love the dialog by for and about consumers and fans on these issues, I have no patience for big companies like Google who not only throw huge sums of money out there buying professors and economists and think tanks to kill any effort at copyright protection, they make a fortune on search advertising for those same illegal products.While we appreciate Rosen stopping by and joining in the discussion, the responses highlighted the myriad problems with this statement, going beyond both the tortured, nonsensical analogy (who steals something from a store that doesn't have what they want, or who steals clothes they don't like because they don't like them?) and the ridiculous "it's theft!" claims. If you want to read the full thread or discuss her specific points, I urge you to go to that thread and continue the conversation there.
So, your first sentence was right, I have long been willing to shine an unattractive searchlight at my old compatriots when they deserve it But I have no patience for the finger pointing and nastiness of the so called tech fans in this debate. Thank god I don't have to care so much anymore.
The whole exchange got me thinking about some bigger issues though. Rosen's comments reminded me so much of my experiences at various recording industry events, where they pay basic lip service to things like "we have to adapt" and "we have to stop blaming customers," but then immediately flips to "but piracy must be stamped out first!" never recognizing that these two things are at odds. And what it boils down to is a mixture of a psychological issue and a confusion over economics.
First, Rosen's response, like many others, falls back on facile and inaccurate "morality" claims. This is usually a sign of a very weak structural framework to an argument. When you can't explain why, you resort to "well, it's just wrong." But, as we've explained for years, the "morality" aspect of an economic decision only comes into play when there's a decision to be made about who will be worse off. That's all morals really are about. If move x harms person y, is it "right" to do that? Folks like Rosen and many SOPA/PIPA supporters see what's happening online and it looks exactly like the previous sentence: "If downloading music harms musicians/songwriters, it's clearly not right to do that."
But that misunderstands the wider economic implications of what's happening. Let's put it another way to make this clear: If selling automobiles harms the makers of buggy whips, is it "right" to do that? I think most everyone would claim that it's fine. This is innovation in process. Thus, the simple statement, "If move x harms person y, that's immoral," seems way too simplistic. Let's expand it out further. What if, in our buggy whip hypothetical, the rise of the automobile forces the buggy whip maker to change their business model... such that they no longer make buggy whips, but steering wheels. The classical lover of buggy whips may find this upsetting -- and the buggy whip maker may complain, "but buggy whips are my product, I'm not in the steering wheel business." But the market doesn't care. In this situation, the morality question is more complex: "If move x harms person y in the short term... but opens up much greater opportunity for them to do better by accessing a much larger market, is it right?" Suddenly, the moral issue is pretty straightforward. There's no moral question at all. The market has changed, and as long as the whip maker comes along for the ride, the opportunity is there to be better off. It may be a challenge, but it's hardly a moral issue.
Rather than confront this, the people who insist this must be a moral issue, back up their claims with a secondary claim to make it seem like a moral issue: "someone else is profiting off my work, and that's unfair." In many cases, the "someone" they point to is "Google." This is mostly a correlation vs. causation error. People see that Google is massively successful, and the timing correlates well with the decline in the record labels. So they assume that Google must be "taking" money from the labels. This is quite inaccurate and shows a lack of knowledge about a variety of subjects, beyond the fact that correlation is not necessarily causation. In the thread with Rosen, I point out that the claims that Google "profits" from infringement are widely overblown. Google makes money from clicks, and infringers aren't hanging around these sites clicking on ads.
But the bigger issue is this relative morality issue of "If someone else benefits from my work without paying, that's unfair." But, again, this is way too simplistic and not reflective of reality. People benefit from the work of others for free all the time. In economics, it's known as an externality. Tragically (and potentially because of the name), people think that externalities are rare. They're not. They happen all the time. Every day, people benefit freely from the work of others without paying. As the saying goes, we all "stand on the shoulder's of giants." So much of what we value today comes from advancements in the past, which we benefit from, without paying those who created them. And yet, no one thinks this is bad.
The real question is if whether you can take it a step further and recognize that the economy is not a zero-sum game, in which one party loses when the other benefits. This is often difficult to understand, but put simply: in a zero-sum market, someone paying you $10 means I lose those $10. In such a scenario it may be reasonable to worry about someone else profiting, because it really does mean you lose. But in a non-zero sum market, with externalities, the market can expand. If every time you get paid $10, I now have the opportunity to make $100, that's clearly a better deal. But, let's make it a little more complex. In the zero sum game, every time you get $10, it's at my expense. But what if the other option in that world is that every time I raise my hand, you get $10 and I get just $1. That's still a much better deal for me to take than the one where I lose money. In this case, I might not make as much as you -- even if I'm doing the work, but is that morally wrong? We're both better off under this scenario. You're better off because you make more money. And I'm better off because I'm making more money... just not as much as you.
But, for whatever reason -- psychology, economic ignorance, etc, -- many people react poorly to this, claiming that it's a moral problem. I, personally, have trouble seeing how a situation in which everyone is better off results in any sort of moral dilemma, since we never reach that crucial moral question of "who gets harmed?" Because no one has to get harmed. But here's the kicker: no one has to get harmed if they adapt. And it's the adaption part that freaks people out and makes them want to cling to something clearer, even if it makes them worse off in the long run.
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: economics, externalities, morality, non zero sum, profit, zero sum
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Dear RIAA and MPAA
I am sorry you are drowning, please accept this anvil as a gift.
Signed the Internet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Peace and Love
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Peace and Love
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Peace and Love
Please send your payment for your use of our patent in your product.
/amiclose?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Zero sum game
As I said yesterday on Google+, if I buy Futurama season 6 instead of South Park season 15, is South Park losing money? Am I an immoral asshole for watching South Park, but not paying? No, it means I'm broke and can't afford both.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Zero sum game
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Zero sum game
Good, not great.
Spoken with conviction.
Keep practicing.
Also, you got my vote for 'funny'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Zero sum game
I am criminal scum! Somebody lock me up! Call the police!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Zero sum game
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Zero sum game
My point was that the amount of money they claim are losses would equal thousands of dollars for every person. I don't have that kind of money. Vary few people do. The losses that they claim, this "theft" that you keep going back to, is a giant crock of shit.
When a company is claiming that they're losing hundreds of millions of dollars every year that says one thing to me: they want more money from me, from everybody then we already have, and they will use any means to get it. That sounds like attempted theft and extortion to me (the actual definitions).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Zero sum game
If I download the same MP3 from a torrent tracker, I have stolen no service, because the only people participating in the transfer (i.e. the service providers, the other seeders) have willingly offered this service at no cost to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Zero sum game
Why stop at "theft"? Why not call it murder, molestation, terrorism, or blasphemy? None of these are infringement either, but maybe the will help your lost cause because they sound bad?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Zero sum game
There are no one going to stores to steal physical plastic discs, there is nobody forcing anyone to stand in front of a camera, write or sing.
That monopoly is over.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Zero sum game
Wow, I never thought about like that before. Thanks for clearing that up for me. So logically.... That means that if you buy a CD, you can only listen to it once? Because every time you listen to it after the first is like sneaking into a concert and listening for free. Right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Zero sum game
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Zero sum game
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Zero sum game
You would be better served in learning to give customers what they want - reasonably priced content that is easily accessible and free of limitations, restrictions, warnings, and DRM. However, as doing so would jeopardize the gatekeeper position of your superiors and those you support, I find it unlikely that you will attempt this.
Also, you have yet to cite any empirical, non-entertainment industry evidence to support your claims. Do so or admit you are incorrect. There are no other options.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Zero sum game
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Zero sum game
Well, he is half human.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is an invalid statement given these "huge ships" are making NO effort to "turn around", but are attempting to force the rest of us to dig a deeper channel to take their boats where they want them to go.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
New FBI Warnings
I look forward to the new FBI warnings:
Maybe then they can shift the arguments somewhat:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: New FBI Warnings
Trying to explain to an obtuse and/or brainwashed opponent that infringing is not theft is futile and counterproductive. I have not seen anyone who admitted that he was wrong. Inability to change one's opinion under an overwhelming argument is a sign of either low IQ or insecurity. Or both.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: New FBI Warnings
And insanity, as they keep trying to do the same things over and over again and expect different results, which is the very definition of insanity. How many times are you (MAFIAA) going to buy the same law over and over again before you realize that you're fighting a losing battle and only pissing off the few customers you have left.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: New FBI Warnings
Is it rape to have forced sexual intercourse with a rubber copy of some model?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Another bad example, now about GAP!
No, and in digital world it's not stealing, it's copying. The "something" you copy does not magically disappear from the original place. The clothes in GAP would! All those supposed troubles with GAP though still give you a right to buy something at GAP store and, guess what?, IMPROVE THEM! Add something to the clothes, remove something, redesign, change color, whatever!
On the other hand, when you buy in digital world, guess what you get? No, not the real goods! Just a license to use them in a manufacturer's approved fashion (pun intended). You try to change anything with the song, book, movie - and you're infringing!
So, please don't think analog (world) in digital world, it's not that easily applicable!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Another bad example, now about GAP!
Ergo, to copy!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Another bad example, now about GAP!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Another bad example, now about GAP!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Another bad example, now about GAP!
And I don't think recording concerts is illegal in general, although it may be against the rules of the venue (i.e. the people who own the actual property in the scenario).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Another bad example, now about GAP!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Another bad example, now about GAP!
I don't see anybody complaining that restaurants copy recipes from other restaurants do you?
I don't see people complaining that they don't have to pay Ford or Yamaha for the veihcules they use to make a living.
Do filmakers pay roaylties to Sony for using their hard work to make their living?
Do musicians pay royalties to Yamaha for the instruments they use to make a living?
Nope, so copying should not be a problem at all, and as proved it also create the very market artists depend on for a living, because if that was not true why give music for free over the radio and even pay for radios to give it away more often?
If you can't sell anything you shouldn't be the one making money you should be the one working for the people who do understand what the market needs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Another bad example, now about GAP!
Ad if that Company fails the DRM will not work anymore so you have a useless file.
And comparing this to stealing is wrong.If it was stealing then they should go after the thief not the whole Internet.
Stop SOPA/PIPA NOW
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Another bad example, now about GAP!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
.and I get somebody to make one
..that fits
...it's not illegal
....it's NOT theft
I will then have pirated a copy and nobody will care.
Look at the latest royal wedding dress and how quickly that was copied.
The clothes industry was a really lousy example for her to choose really.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Since I have a license to view/listen, I can download?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Buggy whip manufactures lost sales because no one wanted their product (buggy whips), they could have changed what they manufacture, but they didn't. The world still wants the products of the the content industry (books, music, movies, video games), in fact even more now than at any other time in history - people cannot get enough content.
If the market for media had diminished because something new came along, say holographic environment experiences or something like that then your analogy would be accurate. As it stands now you just sound like you're quoting your undergrad marketing professor - which I have a feeling you are.
Frankly I think it's time the large media companies opened their own content delivery businesses on the internet. Put their entire catalog on line at a decent price in a ubiquitous format (MP4 for example). They wouldn't even need the legacy tech companies (Apple, Amazon, Netflix, etc..) then, they would have direct sales to customers. As you have said in the past, get rid of the middlemen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That would be crazy on their part. Offer all their content for an affordable price in a reasonable format? Crazy!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The market for this "total" product is rapidly diminishing. The new "total" product the market demands includes quick, easy, digital distribution without hassle. If they can't produce this product to the satisfaction of consumers, they will lose business to those who can (in this case, the pirate sites). Instead of recognizing this fact, they try their damndest to make their total product less appetizing to consumers with draconian DRM, unskippable previews, and insulting FBI warnings.
As someone who doesn't believe in intellectual property and has no problem copying content, let me say that even the pirate sites are not the pinnacle of service. The price is right and the DRM is nonexistent, sure, but torrents are frequently of poor quality, not audio synced correctly, don't play at all, and sometimes include malware. There is still room for competition here from content creators and publishers, as I think Steam and Netflix (if the content industry doesn't strangle it to death) show quite clearly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The "externality" point is very interesting though. I hadn't really thought about that before. If I write a book about my favourite music then sell the book, I am profiting from the music, but I'm not harming the makers of the music. Morally fine.
If I write an ad-funded blog post about my favourite music and include links to infringing copies of that music - that seems to me to be morally wrong.
The Google situation is slightly different: if you search for music and only find infringing links, you could compare it to the blog situation above; they are profiting from advertising and linking to illegal copies. At the same time, the content owners can provide legal links and as for the infringing links to be taken down. If only legal links show up when you search Google, you would have to say the service they are providing to the content owners is a valuable one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What is it that people want from buggy whip manufacturers and their associated industries (eg cart manufacturers and horse breeders)? They want a more efficient mode of transportation.
Now here comes Ford with his new automobile. This new invention provides that service people want, transportation, is a more efficient package. It goes faster, has lower maintenance costs and is affordable. People love it.
This shift from one form of transportation to another is part of a thriving market and economy.
Now back to the content industries. People want the content. This is what is analogous to the transportation. In this scenario, the content is being offered on one format (eg cd and dvd). Along comes this new format (digital distribution) and suddenly the market shift goes from cds and dvds to digital files. So what happens? The buggy whip manufacturers (labels and studios) are trying to outlaw cars (digital files and distribution).
Trying to fight market shifts is futile as any historian will tell you. The only thing for legacy industries to do is adapt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Transportation = Content
Buggy Whip Manufacturers = Record Labels
New Fast Cars = Digital Files
Everyone wants Transportation(content). Increasingly people want New Fast Cars (digital). If the Buggy Whip makers don't make the New Fast Cars, they're going to suffer. Cool. Nice analogy...
The problem with this is that it doesn't take into account that the Buggy Whip Manufacturers own the transportation. It's not like there's competition from new car manufacturers making different cars. It's like they're cloning the Buggy Whips and selling them with new body kits.
The analogy shows the Buggy Whip Manufacturers need to adapt but it misses out the point that companies selling new cars without their permission are morally wrong, because they aren't theirs to sell.
Anyway, sorry. The accuracy of the analogy isn't the point of the article and I'm probably just being picky here. =]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Ultimately what people are after is the content. Frankly I don't care if it comes in the form of streaming content from Amazon, downloaded content from Apple, or some other variant. I have made digital purchases of movies from both. I get frustrated with Netflix (yes I have an account there as well) because the quality can suffer if my bandwidth is saturated and their selection is horrible, they have a bunch of movies I have no interest in seeing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The Supreme Court has ruled that infringement is not theft.
Unless you can provide actual empirical data not backed by the legacy entertainment industry, your argument is invalid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The "product" of the gatekeepers...
The product of the artists is what the people want, not the "product" of the now-useless intermediaries of the content industry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The "product" of the gatekeepers...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The "product" of the gatekeepers...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The "product" of the gatekeepers...
Content owner will be no more, people who place their future on shake foundations don't deserve anything.
People who try to create monopolies on ideas deserve even less.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No. They are buggy whip makers.
THAT is the product.
It's the delivery mechanism and not the content. Oddly enough, this is a direct result of content industries themselves concentrating on the spinny disk rather than the data that was encoded on it.
I can take what the industry is willing to give me and "make my own". The problem with that is that it's still a lot of work and has a dubious legal position despite the fact that I PAID.
It's much easier and simpler just to get it from someone else rather than doing the work yourself. Being free is just a bonus.
Give your competitors a clear advantage and of course people will flock to them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No. They are buggy whip makers.
It's the delivery mechanism and not the content."
EXACTLY! I've paid for a year long Megaupload account before. IT gave me a delivery mechanism to a ton of content and I was happy with the service (although truth to tell, download speeds do vary for some reason). I don't like paying for individual files. I'd rather pay for access to a ton of content. Gets more bang for my buck.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I don't think Mike's point has ever been to get rid of the middlemen. Besides which, those "large media companies" you're talking about ARE the middlemen. And your description of Apple, Amazon, and Netflix as "legacy tech companies" is... interesting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pot calling the kettle black?
Wow, so it is Google that is making up facts and figures and not RIAA and the MPAA? I think not. The industry's stats on piracy are what is an outright lie.
Also, this constant attack of Google and others is tiring. Nobody in their right mind is pissed at Google for making money off user links. They have no way to know what is legit and what isn't so what are they suppose to do; provide ads and search for free to everyone for fear of making money on a few bad links? They aren't a charity, they are a business.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Pot calling the kettle black?
What am I missing? Google points to bad stuff for free. Follow free pointer and take down bad stuff. Leave the rest of the Internet alone. Hey, go get started now......
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Pot calling the kettle black?
What you're missing is that they figure it's easier to get laws passed that make Google do that for them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
great article
I would say that regarding your statement:
"But, for whatever reason -- psychology, economic ignorance, etc, -- many people react poorly to this, claiming that it's a moral problem."
The above comes from a sense of entitlement. Whether it be content creators, middleman managers/labels, writers, etc. all feel a certain sense of entitlement when it comes to what they believe they are owed for their work. Anything that threatens their maximum amount of what they believe they are entitled to receive in payment for their creative works makes them inaccurately label such an action as "stealing" (i.e., "You are 'taking away my money' that you owe me by not paying me for my creative service!").
This sense of entitlement does not work well with virtual / infinite goods as such goods are indeed the basis of non-zero-sum markets as the creative markets do exist within.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: great article
You can't have it both ways, you can't bitch because they don't offer content digitally and then claim it should be free because it is digital. That's absurd!
They aren't charging you for the digital file, but for the experience of watching/listening. When you go to a concert you aren't buying a phsyical chair, you're paying for the experience of watching the performers. When you leave you have no physical good.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: great article
That's not true. I always steal the chair for my memorabilia collection.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: great article
Hmm... if that was the case, then why don't they create a digital registry, allow people to download the file on whatever device they want at whatever time they want?
The RIAA has already spoken out against this, claiming that CD's and DVD's should be just like any other good, and if you break your CD you should go out and buy a new one. (I think the argument was, "If you break a glass, you have to buy a new one. Why should a CD be any different?) In other words, they want the best of both worlds: a physical good which can break/wear out, and intellectual goods which cannot legally be copied.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: great article
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: great article
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: great article
Not quite. It's legal to make back-ups of either. What is illegal via the DMCA is the "circumvention of technological measures used to protect copyrighted works" (CSS) which effectively makes backing up a DVD illegal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: great article
Chronno is right though -- I believe the lawyers said during the Steven Howell trial (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,319276,00.html) that space-shifting and copying CDs were against the law. They were wrong, but they said it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: great article
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: great article
That is real work, that people would pay and nobody can steal it and I use the term steal it loosely here.
I won't be paying you for singing your song? I won't be paying you because I'm imitating you.
Absurd is someone else doing the real work i.e. playing for a crowd and having to pay another dude that does nothing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: great article
Rationally, the person would always offer $1, and the offer of a dollar would always be accepted. But people will normally reject the 90%/10% split because they feel cheated. That's what we're seeing here. If someone else is making money from their stuff, even if they end up with more money than they would have without it, they feel cheated and want to reject the deal.
It's a psychology problem, and it's because people aren't rational.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: great article
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Because only valley girls shop for clothes! Oh wait, you're trolling. Nicely done!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Clothing analogy is flawed too
Let's say a fair market price compared to other retailers would be $100. Unfortunately, Gap has decided that the outfit should be sold as part of a collection and you have to buy the whole collection at a cost of $1200 to get the one outfit. Also, once you buy the collection, it can only be worn in the United States. If you leave the country, you cannot wear the outfit. Finally, you must remain the sole owner of the outfit until the day of it's destruction. You can't give it to a friend, you can't sell it on eBay, you can't sell it in a thrift or consignment shop and you can't donate it to charity.
Given all those conditions, if you saw the outfit on a rack labelled "free" at a tag sale, are you telling us you wouldn't pick it up? Somehow I doubt it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Clothing analogy is flawed too
Wait wait wait. Sole owner? You don't own anything, at least not in the MPAA/RIAA's world. What you pay for is the valuable opportunity to bend over and take it up the arse, and hopefully if they felt the ride was good enough, they'd oh so graciously allow you to watch the movie/listen to the music/read the book/play the game.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Clothing analogy is flawed too
Additionally:
You cannot mix outfits from collection.
You cannot wear outfit where more than 12 people were to see you at once, including at the weir.
You cannot wear outfit to work, including horse stables, if public has access.
You cannot attempt to repair or renew any part of collection(No knees, buttons or butts).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I see what you are saying here and I would have to agree - up to a point.
Would the analogy be better if we used buggy manufacturers? You might rebut with "But, that is still a product that nobody wanted after the automobile came along" and that would be true. But, what you might be missing is what the actual business buggy makers were in. They were not simply in the buggy making business, they were in the personal transport device making business and something better came along and displaced them.
Yes, people want the content, but the legacy gatekeepers need to figure out what business they are actually in and it's not selling containers to hold content anymore.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This a response to Anonymous Coward, Dec 1st, 2011 @ 10:28am.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
No, not really. The recording industry has always been about selling the container until recently. Prior to the VCR the movie industry was too (sorta), their "container" was the movie theater. Post-VCR was definitely about selling the container.
But, still, you might be missing the even bigger picture. What both are selling is entertainment and they are competing for my time now, along with my dollars. New competition has emerged recently that they never even thought about - 200 some odd channels on my TV, video games, social networking and even the internet itself is vying for my time now. It used be a choice between going to the movies, listening to an album or watching 1 of the 3 or 4 channels on TV. Now the are literally hundreds (if not thousands) of different choices out there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Kids don't watch TV anymore.
The RIAA now has to compete with $1 video games and $5 movies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Kids don't watch TV anymore.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
As a publisher, it used to make sense to have a hand in the creation of content because publishing was expensive, and you as a venture wanting to make a profit want to maximise your chances of that happening, so you select which content you'd prefer to distribute (or actively bid for certain content that you thing will do well). Nowadays, Youtube and its ilk shows how those 2 aspects have now completely separated - there is little need to be selective about what you'll publish or directly influence it for the best chances of commercial success as the likes of WB, Paramount & co do.
Die Hard has been out for years. The content hasn't changed significantly, so why would I not be happy with a VHS version? Because the container changed and improved. Selling me convenience and quality is just as much of part of their business as content is, if not more so (considering most publishing businesses are typically pitched to by others who have already made the show/film/music/etc).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Content is a net, with which you go to get what you really want the fish.
If the content help sell plastic discs or T-Shirts(that by the way offer better margins) it doesn't really matter it does not even matter if others are using the same exact thing as you are, in that case it will come down to the ability of oneself to charm others which should not be hard for "entertainers" that supposedly do that for a living already.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The typical dig is calling the record labels out for sell shiny plastics discs. What that ignores is that they aren't selling the disc, but what is on it. The have gone from wax to plastic to vinyl to tape and onto the evil shiny plastic discs, and they still sell the same product: music.
The buggy whip thing gets everyone looking at the delivery method, and attempts to abstract the idea of the true product. It's a nice way for thos who are apologist for piracy to avoid dealing with reality, and to keep you looking at delivery method rather than the actual product.
It's not an MP3 file, it's a song. It's not a shiny disc, it's a collection of songs. As soon as you remember that and keep it front and center, you won't fall for the apologist party line.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Supply and demand dictate price.
Demand is there but it is also easy and cheap to supply.
Where is this reflected in price?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I'm not sure you understand the analogy. The point of it is that the market changed because of new technology, and some buggy whip makers failed to adapt. In this case, the market changed because of new technology, and some music labels have failed to adapt. That is not to say they've done nothing at all to adapt, but the moves in the right direction have been too little and probably too late, accompanied by a lot of mistakes too.
It's not an MP3 file, it's a song. It's not a shiny disc, it's a collection of songs. As soon as you remember that and keep it front and center, you won't fall for the apologist party line.
The "party line" around here is that in order to succeed, they have to understand that a song is no longer difficult or expensive to distribute, so they will have an increasingly difficult time charging monopoly rents on the distribution of songs. That's true whether they do it on discs or electronically. The problem is, distribution is where they're still focused.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If I had a hammer
Now as an exercise in "legacy content" thinking, substitute song writer for hammer head maker, composer for hammer handle maker, band for nail maker, and lumber maker for producer, and you begin to see how silly this whole argument gets.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Morality" has no place in this discussion
Rosen is, ultimately, talking about law. Morality has even less purchase there. While I disagree that copyright infringement is "theft" (it plainly isn't), it is presently illegal. She is absolutely right about that. Those of us who believe in the rule of law should not knowingly or willingly break it, unless we must. I am not so creative as to conceive a circumstance where serious injury to body or property could only be prevented by downloading a DVD rip of Avatar. Thus, I do not do it.
As to the morality of copyright infringement - it must be noted that copyright itself is a new-ish concept, and for much of its life it referred to the right of sovereign governments to censor critical writing. Copyright as a monopoly on a particular expression did not exist until shortly before the US Constitution was drafted. Copyright on sound recordings did not exist in the US until the early 70s. The concept of there being a right to infringe is brand new, so the idea that it might be immoral to infringe it is also very recent. I believe that it is likely the result of a very successful PR campaign by the best PR engineers in the world, with whom Rosen used to work.
In the abstract, it is strange to conceive that it would be immoral to undermine a monopolist's advantage in order to inject competition into the marketplace, increasing the incentives to improve quality and reduce prices, even if illegal to do so. One rarely hears of the noble monopolist, beset by evil competitive forces but upholding the principles of price discrimination and profit maximization in an unfriendly marketplace.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Morality" has no place in this discussion
"Those of us who believe in the rule of law should not knowingly or willingly break it, unless we must."
For a protest against a law to have any meaning, you have to be willing to break that law.
If gathering in the streets to protest openly against your government is illegal, you won't change that law by staying seated in front of the TV.
A lot of things that used to be illegal are now legal because we (generally) know better.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Don't you realize how many people would lose their jobs if you made your own clothes? You should be ashamed of yourself...
Also, no home cooking (think of the caterers!), no car driving (think of the bus drivers!), no riding the bus (think of the car manufacturers!), no drinking water from the tap (think of the soda manufacturers!), no singing in the shower (think of the musicians!), no electronic music (think of the musical instrument manufacturers!), etc, ad nauseum....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
now i am going to give you an example of the non-zero sum power of sharing. i agree so completely with stephen t. stone's post from the previous article, that i am going to "steal" it and repost it here. an obvious case of me infringing on his work, and yet we are both better off for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is Getting Old
supposedly one of the more enlightened bulbs that ever shone in the RIAA
sign, then the recording industry is truly doomed.
The people who say, "It's not alright to steal a thirty-cent pack of gum" should
be forced to repeat the question, "Is it okay to make a copy of a thirty-cent pack
of gum?" several hundred thousand times until they get this most basic point.
The bottom line is, the recording industry has no fundamental right to dictate
what machines people may own or how they may use them. If new machines have
come along which make selling recordings difficult, the only sane course of
action is to figure out how to make the purchae of recordings more attractive.
At the absolute MOST, if you can't figure out how to make money from recordings,
then STOP RELEASING recordings! The government and the rest of the world do not
owe you a living based on your insistance on the clueless use of antiquated
technology.
The recording industry (and I include the DVD arm of the movie industry here)
have been given this great crutch by the government called "copyright". And not
only have they been viciously bludgeoning everyone with this crutch for decades,
but they have gone back to the government numerous times, insisting that the
crutch is not strong enough to keep them in business.
Their shrill insistence on entitlement is really starting to get irritating.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Starting?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This is Getting Old
be forced to repeat the question, "Is it okay to make a copy of a thirty-cent pack
of gum?" several hundred thousand times until they get this most basic point.
----
The problem with this is Wrigley's will sue the hell out of the author for copyright infringement because they have a reputation to maintain. Considering the "several hundred thousand times" plus the unjust potential of penalty assigned, no one would be foolish enough to try.
Just steal the gum. It's cheaper.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This is Getting Old
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This is Getting Old
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: This is Getting Old
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: This is Getting Old
And to be absolutely clear, Tanya Andersen doesn't count.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This is Getting Old
Do you compensate car manufacturers? do you compensate musical instrument manufacturers?
I doubt you do, they too make a service and you don't pay for it every single time do you? do you have to share your income with them?
So why is that if somebody buys a DVD and builds a service on top of that should he/she/it need to pay you or anybody something?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This is Getting Old
Say what you want, think what you want at the end of the day I want to see you try to put that into practice, I want to see you enforce that crap you spout.
I'm ready for a fight, if you believe I should pay a bum that doesn't show up to entertain me but wants the money anyways you are wrong, if you believe I should pay a bum that doesn't do the work but want to get paid for mine you are wrong.
Anyone should be free to buy something and use it to make money not just the parasites you call "content owners", anyone should be able to sing anything they like and don't have to pay some bum that claims he wrote it or is the original performer, anybody should be able to buy a DVD and rent it or resell it without having to pay some bum that claims he produced it, if Ford was to do that you would get upset probably. I don't see farmers having to pay royalties to the manufacturers of their tools do you?
So why do so bum that call himself "content owner" should be paid for no work? and worse still have the ability to stop others from working?
Screw that, everybody should stop paying right now and pirate everything, it is not that difficult and entails little to no risk and I very much doubt it would change in the near future.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Way too long
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Way too long
You're right. Mike should apologize to you for challenging your tiny attention span.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Way too long
Plus, you just defeated your own point. If you don't have time to read an article, you certainly don't have time to then comment on it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's copying, "not stealing".
The mental disconnect with creative works come from the fact that it can be easily copied.
I could do the same thing with the clothes at the Gap. I could take their designs and adapt them to my needs.
THAT is what is happening with pirates.
The industry needs to get that into their thick skulls and get out of this 1500s mentality. It only hurts them.
Sooner or later, a real competitor will emerge and they will have no recourse because it will be a replacement rather than someone that's just copying their stuff. They will be finally done and they will have no one to blame but themselves (they won't of course).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's copying, "not stealing".
Maybe we can compare it to being a peeping tom secretly looking at a prostitute. The peeping tom gets his kicks; it doesn't cost the prostitute anything; it's not a lost sale because he was never going to pay for sex with her anyway. (he's not interested in the physical product) It is a violation of her rights but it's not costing her anything and maybe she should adapt her business model.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It's copying, "not stealing".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Effortless copying and transmission of digital data is a fact of life, like sunlight. Some people would profit if they went away, but the rest of the world would be infinitely worse off.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Copying does not equal theft
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fw-MFeR8Frw
"If I steal your bicycle, you have to take the bus. But if I just copy it, there's one for each of us!"
Theft: 1 - 1 = 0
Copying: 1 + 1 = 2
That's pretty simple mathematics, right there, that anyone should understand.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]