If you have something infinitely replicable, that you can use to improve the lives of others, why would you NOT share? It literally costs you nothing to make somebody else's life better.
Or, essentially, stamping your feet and saying "I did all this work, now where's my money?"
I don't know where you're getting your information, but if "sites, networks, ISPs and telecoms" are exploiting your music, that's a lot of people hearing about it. Your challenge as an entrepreneur is to give all of those people reasons to buy - not try and build a new world that's more favorable to your business plan.
I don't know of anyone making choices to share or not share "in the name of intellectual property." Those choices are made in the name of commerce.
My original article links to a discussion of AIDS, where drug companies would rather defend their exclusive right to charge ridiculously high prices than sell in a competitive marketplace. There was also one here on TechDirt not too long ago having to do with flu. They do research, hoard the information, and use patents to ensure that nobody else can independently do the same thing. IP is the means they use to do this.
The information doesn't help anybody innovate, since when people in needy countries try to do similar things, they are derided as "pirates" and prevented from proceeding.
I think the big deal has less to do with the software itself than with how high-profile it is. My guess is that a site like what would rather not give legal guns additional reason to hunt them down for "leaking secret law enforcement software."
I'm a little late to this discussion but what compelled me to write this article initially wasn't entertainment industries, but biomedical ones. It's in the second paragraph Mike quotes. Companies in "First World" countries spend money developing lifesaving information, much of it with public funding, and then...sit on it. We see time and time again cases where the myth of "intellectual property" is used as a fig leaf to hide behind when coldly refusing to help others.
Sharing something infinitely replicable has a minimal cost. It's one thing to ask somebody to donate money, time, essentially "scarce stuff." But something infinite? Information, as Mike says again and again here, is not implementation. Is it not better to let needy countries try to do what they can with valuable information (at the very least) than clutch tenuously at information and declare "I don't want this shared?"
In this thought experiment, I think that once information is released to the world (one might say "published"), the creator doesn't have the ability or the right to say what gets done with it. While he may not want to share lifesaving information with the world, could you blame somebody who worked for him for doing the same?
What we see across the filesharing community is a bunch of people sharing something that they have with others. It costs nothing to replicate, so why not? Why artificially prevent somebody from enjoying something just because the original creator has some idea that he should be able to control it forever?
Well said Kyle. You also touched on something I think is very important - the need for the artist to tailor their reasons to buy to their specific audience. It's all part of the new ability to connect directly with fans. It's now simple to figure out what kinds of unique things your fans would pay for, and sell that directly to them - all while allowing the digital copies of your work to roam the internet for free.
Good grief, do we really have to go over this every single time?
-Cory Doctorow releases his books for free online. This builds up a lot of interest in his books and many people end up buying them (or buying his latest as soon as it comes out), as evidenced by his sales. By releasing his books for free, volunteers are able to translate the book into whatever language they wish, spreading his fan base across far more than the English-speaking world. He gets money to do book readings and for speaking engagements.
-Neil Gaiman has American Gods online for free, and he and other authors have seen interest in both the specific book and themselves as artists increase.
-Autographed books are not about resale value, they're about personal value. Neil Gaiman will sign a personal message in a book to any of his fans - of course, doing this involves them buying the book. Now the fan (who may have originally read the book online) has a small personal connection to their favorite author.
It's the "divide by zero" thinking again. If people would just stop panicking and start thinking of innovative ways to do business they'd be making money instead of losing it.
What's the most shameful to me is how incredibly easy it is for their lobby to write and pass legislation. It'd be nice if the "representatives" ran with a price tag to let voters know how much they'd have to raise to get actual representation.
Nice. So, like the Elsevier gang, The Economist wants to hold back any potential research discoveries for the sake of scraping a few dollars from somebody's already tight research budget? Fail.
Yet another example of the short-sighted "economics" I've come to expect from anybody still trading content on physical media.
How about this: any digital video can be uploaded to YouTube, any "damage" is minimal and any benefit is maximal, so leave well enough alone.
Seriously though, I'm so sick of this legal BS when the whole thing is so painfully irrelevant. Taking "infringing" content off of YouTube only inconveniences everybody on their way to getting the same content from somewhere else. You'd think after nearly a decade of this monoliths like Viacom would have figured it out.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The first is not always the best...
It seems to me that if patents were a driver in that situation at all it was because there was no alternative. People stumbled upon better designs not because they were looking for better designs, but because they wanted to make a noninfringing machine.
Why is it so hard to conceive of giving people the opportunity to build a better engine/mousetrap/whatever by looking at the previous design and fixing what is broken, rather than forcing them to build something entirely new from scratch?
Any innovation "driven" by patents is because the patent acts as a dam forcing ideas to flow around the patent. To me it just makes sense to let ideas flow as they will, rather than supporting a legacy system to allow people to put tollbooths on ideas for fleeting short-term monetary gain.
The way the diesel example would play out today is that the patent would be granted not for the diesel engine, but for making a combustion engine that uses diesel fuel. That company would build a mediocre engine and spend the rest of the time finding tinkerers ranging from other companies to MIT students and slapping them with lawsuits for infringing their patent.
Furthermore, any gas station that wanted to sell fuel for said engine would need to pay them a portion of their profits.
Maybe all of this is a bit of a stretch, but it seems to me that in today's digital age, everything builds upon other things. Patents do nothing but hinder innovation across the board, and the high-def DVD scheme is a great example. Everybody wanted to be the de facto standard so they could make the big bucks on licensing, yet the whole search for the next physical media format completely ignored the fact that physical media is rapidly losing ground.
It might not be so obvious to people who look at patents on machines, but one glance over all of the lawsuits being filed in East Texas says to me that patents are nothing but innovation-killers. The most basic of ideas are being patented by companies who do nothing with them - the only purpose is to wait until another company does something vaguely similar and becomes successful so they can head to court and try and make cash for nothing.
On the post: The Moral Argument In Favor Of File Sharing?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: If You Want To Make Money As A Musician You Need To Be A Musical Entrepreneur
Re: Re: Don't waste your time with a2f2a
I don't know where you're getting your information, but if "sites, networks, ISPs and telecoms" are exploiting your music, that's a lot of people hearing about it. Your challenge as an entrepreneur is to give all of those people reasons to buy - not try and build a new world that's more favorable to your business plan.
On the post: The Moral Argument In Favor Of File Sharing?
Re: The morality of copying: a simple Kantian evaluation
On the post: The Moral Argument In Favor Of File Sharing?
Re: Re:
On the post: The Moral Argument In Favor Of File Sharing?
Re: Re:
On the post: Microsoft's COFEE Computer Forensic Tools Leaked
On the post: The Moral Argument In Favor Of File Sharing?
Sharing something infinitely replicable has a minimal cost. It's one thing to ask somebody to donate money, time, essentially "scarce stuff." But something infinite? Information, as Mike says again and again here, is not implementation. Is it not better to let needy countries try to do what they can with valuable information (at the very least) than clutch tenuously at information and declare "I don't want this shared?"
In this thought experiment, I think that once information is released to the world (one might say "published"), the creator doesn't have the ability or the right to say what gets done with it. While he may not want to share lifesaving information with the world, could you blame somebody who worked for him for doing the same?
What we see across the filesharing community is a bunch of people sharing something that they have with others. It costs nothing to replicate, so why not? Why artificially prevent somebody from enjoying something just because the original creator has some idea that he should be able to control it forever?
On the post: The Moral Argument In Favor Of File Sharing?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Keep it Simple, Stupid
On the post: Judge Lets Gene Patent Lawsuit Move Forward
Re: Re: Re: Re: Sweet for SCotUS
On the post: Making The 'Significant Objects' Project... Even More Significant
Re:
On the post: The Debate Is Not Free vs. Paid
Re:
On the post: The Debate Is Not Free vs. Paid
Re: Re: Re:
-Cory Doctorow releases his books for free online. This builds up a lot of interest in his books and many people end up buying them (or buying his latest as soon as it comes out), as evidenced by his sales. By releasing his books for free, volunteers are able to translate the book into whatever language they wish, spreading his fan base across far more than the English-speaking world. He gets money to do book readings and for speaking engagements.
-Neil Gaiman has American Gods online for free, and he and other authors have seen interest in both the specific book and themselves as artists increase.
-Autographed books are not about resale value, they're about personal value. Neil Gaiman will sign a personal message in a book to any of his fans - of course, doing this involves them buying the book. Now the fan (who may have originally read the book online) has a small personal connection to their favorite author.
It's the "divide by zero" thinking again. If people would just stop panicking and start thinking of innovative ways to do business they'd be making money instead of losing it.
On the post: Why Would The Copyright Lobby Be Concerned About An Anti-Spam Bill?
On the post: Senate Judiciary Committee Approves RIAA Bailout Radio Tax
On the post: Fake Car Noises Being Added To Many New Cars... May Be Required Soon
On the post: The Economist Brings Back Its Paywall... Perhaps It Should Hire An Economist
Re: Research
Yet another example of the short-sighted "economics" I've come to expect from anybody still trading content on physical media.
On the post: YouTube Smoking Guns? What Constitutes Actual Knowledge?
Here's a thought
Seriously though, I'm so sick of this legal BS when the whole thing is so painfully irrelevant. Taking "infringing" content off of YouTube only inconveniences everybody on their way to getting the same content from somewhere else. You'd think after nearly a decade of this monoliths like Viacom would have figured it out.
On the post: Lobbyists As The New Celebrities? Cheering On Those Who Abuse The System
Re: disgusting
On the post: What Kind Of Innovation Do Patents Encourage?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The first is not always the best...
Why is it so hard to conceive of giving people the opportunity to build a better engine/mousetrap/whatever by looking at the previous design and fixing what is broken, rather than forcing them to build something entirely new from scratch?
Any innovation "driven" by patents is because the patent acts as a dam forcing ideas to flow around the patent. To me it just makes sense to let ideas flow as they will, rather than supporting a legacy system to allow people to put tollbooths on ideas for fleeting short-term monetary gain.
On the post: What Kind Of Innovation Do Patents Encourage?
Furthermore, any gas station that wanted to sell fuel for said engine would need to pay them a portion of their profits.
Maybe all of this is a bit of a stretch, but it seems to me that in today's digital age, everything builds upon other things. Patents do nothing but hinder innovation across the board, and the high-def DVD scheme is a great example. Everybody wanted to be the de facto standard so they could make the big bucks on licensing, yet the whole search for the next physical media format completely ignored the fact that physical media is rapidly losing ground.
It might not be so obvious to people who look at patents on machines, but one glance over all of the lawsuits being filed in East Texas says to me that patents are nothing but innovation-killers. The most basic of ideas are being patented by companies who do nothing with them - the only purpose is to wait until another company does something vaguely similar and becomes successful so they can head to court and try and make cash for nothing.
Next >>