This is an interesting attempt. Aside from the problems or potential problems other commentors have already pointed out (pre-existing legends, original publish dates that that would indicate expiration of copyrights at the time of Shakespeare's writing), there is a problem with the premise that copyrights stunt creativity as an blanket statement. I can agree that aspects of copyright - most specifically the term - and IP laws as presently applied may hinder creative entry in certain cases and circumstances. But as a general statement, I think it's absurd on its face. The premise underlying the Shakespearean study is only valid at the macro level if it can be shown that the pace, breadth and depth of human inventiveness and creativity has SLOWED since the advent of modern copyrights. That is clearly not the case. As a matter of fact, the amount of creation has accelerated dramatically as the means to create (printing, education, communications, technology) have become more easily obtained.
I agree that we have gone past the point of fairness and equity for the content creator in a number of cases/industries and that reform is needed. But trying to somehow demonstrate the badness of our current era by making a stretched-at-best case on a 400 year old example, when the macro-economic and cultural evidence is entirely to the contrary is pretty tough to take.
Additionally, using the example someone who is arguably history's most successful playwright to say that "Shakespeare didn't rely on copyright to earn a living" is yet another example of the use of exceptionalism to try to define a rule. Most authors don't have wealthy benefactors, their own performance company or a trust fund to rest on. Before folks flame, I agree that singling our certain of the creative arts for royalty entitlements and not others is very problematic...don't deny that. But saying that "gosh, the world's greatest playwright didn't need copyrights to make a living in an era where support for the arts was done in an entirely different way" hardly creates economic or fiscal constructs that are applicable to most involved in the pursuit today.
Mike, this is one of those cases where you split hairs to seem right. As I said above, the novelty thing is not new, and I gave two ancient examples. So, clearly, I *know* that there are plenty of novelty merchandising (or other value-add....maybe services, a portion to charity, "free" software or content downloads, etc) ideas to work with. Why is this even a point? As for it being "insulting" well, maybe if you're personalizing a dispassionate discussion about business "models" but that's something most of us try to stay away from. Not trying to be patronizing, but seriously, it's odd where you go sometimes.
And the whole infinite good thing is really shaky, though I know it's been discussed endlessly here and, yes, I've read those discussions. My contention is that the good remains scarce. Let's assume there is still only one version of Lenon's "Imagine" that anyone wants, for example. That is the good. It never becomes infinite as there is only one recording of that one song that has the characteristics that the marketplace remembers and desires. This is not the Platonic Ideal of the song "Imagine" that can be replicated in many different forms (musack version, Mannheim Steamroller version, a version using the MIDI barks of dogs, etc) and still be identified as "Imagine." It is, in fact, THE "Imagine." Only one. Scarce. And legal copies of that good remain certainly something far less than infinite. That some people using some technology have made (presently illegal) copies of the single, scarce recording of that song does NOT mean that the good itself is ubiquitous, much less "infinite." It does mean that it is being distributed in a way (largely illegal) that makes it more easily available at least to more affluent populations with access to the necessary technology. Saying it is ubiquitously or infinitely available would imply that most members of the marketplace (global music consumers) have the unfettered means to obtain a copy of this scarce, original song in a format which is of reasonable quality and can be played locally. (I would also tack on the nuance that for it to be truly infinite, the means of distribution and instantiations of that song that are received by the consumer need to be legal, else it's just trafficking which will always be something less than ubiquitous.) All that said, the fact is that MOST music consumers DON'T have unfettered, easy access to obtain this one scarce song. Do "most" of the world's music consumers - from Africa to the Americas, including all social classes who present spend some money on music - have unfettered access to this song? Doubtful. So, not only is the song scarce by its very nature - there can be only one, to quote Highlander - but the "infinite" distribution that may be available at some point in the future of humanity once technology is truly ubiquitous (not just affluent populations in technologically advanced nations) is hardly here now. And what is here is often (mostly?) illegal. Infinite good, why that's just "insulting." :-)
Mike, in good faith, I WILL go back and re-read some of your archives. I think sometimes your contentions are so nuanced, fractional and so circumstantial that they are difficult to make consistent overtime without being truly immersed in your world. Also, keep in mind that TechDirt includes not only your postings, but the often supportive comments of your readers and minions. So even if you have, in fact, been consistent, the overall corpus of TechDirt may not be so. In my reading of TechDirt over the last few months, I have yet to see an actual business model described in full, in detail. Admittedly, I can't read everything, so I suppose I could have missed it. Full definition of market, target segments, production and distribution lines, expected outcomes (backed by market research), assessment of sustainability, impacts of competition and alternates, globalization and legal issues, etc, etc. All of that needs to be addressed or it boils down - once again - to just point-in-time neat-o ideas that might work under a specific circumstance for a limited time. What is most often provided are examples of gimmicks (like this) or point-in-time snapshots, with rearely any follow-up over time. I think you'd do a lot better to flesh these things out...my mind is absolutely open as I think you have a lot of good points, just not well founded and often counter to tons and tons of history (what I'd call reality, but that's not fair).
But just in the above, there are several potential inconsistencies. You write "I'm saying A LOT more people are making A LOT MORE MONEY than before." So more people are making livings than under the old model, or just making some money? Then you say "the ENTIRE industry impacted by music is making a LOT MORE MONEY." So is the compensation metric based on the individuals in the industry or the entire industry? This goes back to the collectivist theme that has crept up bigtime over the last few days in commentary surrounding some of these posts. This collectivism seems to intimate that if more people make some money, then some kind of societal good is achieved and all is well. Are you a zero summer that believes that making more people make some money is inherently better than allowing some people to make some money and some people to make a lot? I don't think you are, but some of your verbiage can definitely swing the interpretation that way. Just curious.
And as I recall the study you referenced the other day had several framing problems that were debated. Hope I'm thinking of the same one. It's only definitive and clear if one accepts your a priories.
All that said, I do sincerely appreciate the forum, Mike.
What is "many?" And, to the themes of longevity and scalability, I agree that this approach will probably boost sales of this album as a one-time shot. Given the relative novelty and unusual press, it will be extremely difficult to objectively measure what portion of sales were driven by press and novelty, versus those who wanted the t-shirt, versus those that wanted the t-shirt + album, versus those that just wanted the music.
But for what I suspect is the vaaaaaaaaaaaaaast majority of buyers, who just want the music, what happens when the t-shirt (or other merchandise) gimmick is commonplace and receives no press beyond the producer's marketing budget? Basically, the merchandise aspect ceases to be a factor. I contend that it probably isn't much of a factor now absent the novelty.
And this is not new, even in the bricks and mortar sense...were sales of Steve Martin's record breaking album in the late 70's enhanced because he included a "so long and thanks for the fishes" color glossy with the record, a novelty I still have? Doubtful. How about Styx laser-etching their Paradise Theater record? Doubtful. Merchandise novelties are nothing new...the difference is you used to get the physical media, too.
In the end, the t-shirt for most buyers settles back to just being a proxy for a little plastic disk. The desired "thing" is still a clean, legal copy of the music.
And remember, music is not an infinite good, just a scarce good infinitely distributed.
Okay, AC. I'm not going to address the quotes that you created that didn't come from me and don't relate to anything I said.
Your comment that the "new modles are better for everyone except those invested in the old modles." How so, and how do you know? The VAST majority of the world economy legally trafficking in content still uses the "old modle" quite successfully. You further say that "better business modles that can get more people more money without the need to copyright's baggage." Really? I've read a lot on these boards just in the last few days that the new models get "some money to a lot of people." So which is it? And also, the WHOLE industry needs to be included, not just the artist. Do the "new models" really incorporate all those participating in the industry in this beneficence? If it doesn't, then is it really a comprehensive model.
As for your other comment that "If I write financial software I get paid once, even if a thousand banks use that software for sixty years" well, it all depends. In most cases, the owner of the rights is your employer, not you. And I'm guessing you were not the sole author anyway. Just as a jungle writer who is an employee of an ad firm might not receive an individual copyright on collective work. Or it may be a forced/shared copyright as is often down on patents. The copyright owner (whether a business, individual or collection of individuals) can then license it to other businesses (or give it away!). Int he case of software, they can charge maintenance on it, or do a SaaS rental scheme. So, while you don't get a royalty payment, the business gets that or an equivalent, which benefits you in the form of a paycheck. If you are an independent software author, you have a lot of options as to how to get paid, including some that can get you on-going payments.
Today, content producers have lots of options. It is worrisome that *some* of the new models actually provide content producers fewer options as to how they choose to manage their creations.
The question isn't whether the content producer HAS the right, it's whether they or their agents take steps to ASSERT the right. There are a lot of content producers that let a lot of uses slide for economic, publicity, political or personal reasons. The only problem is that a failure to assert rights might cause problems if the content producer tries to assert rights on down the line in circumstances which are substantially similar to ones they let slide previously.
Why should creating for "creations sake" be the ultimate goal, @ThatGuy? Why shouldn't the desire for compensation be perfectly valid and legitimate? Why does it matter? The compensation and recognition motive certainly has done well for the last few hundred years of human content production. Even with that, lots of things are done "just because" or without a strong probability of generating income, but so what? Are we now judging the motives of content producers are part of an alleged business equation? Wow... I guess this really is about societal re-engineering and not business.
Again, I ask, is this about business and IP or is it about value judgments some people want to make about enough being enough? I get the sense that some out there want to use copyright reform to limit/punish/restrict the lifetime earning potential of the most successful content producers, in the erroneous belief that that this somehow frees up income that can go to a greater number of less successful/popular/known producers. This isn't a zero sum game, gang. King Crimson's success isn't at the expense of El Debarge, and Joe Satriani and COldplay can BOTH make a ton of money off of that sound-alike song. Yes there are competitive forces at play, clone bands, rips offs, etc., but there is plenty of cash and elasticity under the present IP sytem and content production industries to support and allow great fiscal success to those producing content which is most heavily desired and consumed, while getting "some money" to much less popular/desired producers.
Sorry, I don't see this as a zero sum game. I can see your point if you believe that this is really a wealth redistribution effort and every artist deserves to get a piece.
I'm getting increasingly confused/concerned that all the blathering about a new "business model" actually isn't about business at all, but about income re-engineering. Is the point of all this really to get some money into as many hands as possible? That isn't about business, that's about a politico-economic worldview. Is this about the content creator and the creator's relationship with consumers, or is this about a societal remake?
There is a big difference between saying that a content creator has some (reasonable) rights and ownership of their creation which they can assert if they choose to, and saying that no one can have any rights to what they produce. Yes, it's an example using the polar extremes, but I *think* that today any artist has the choice NOT to assert their rights, though it takes some wrangling to do so. A few choose not to, most choose to assert them because there are demonstrable financial and ethical (control) benefits to the artist in doing so.
So, if the (pieces of thoughts that are at TechDirt called a) model is so beneficial to the CONTENT PRODUCER, we should see hoards of them choosing not to assert their rights and calling off the lawyers. But we haven't. And we likely won't. Because the long-term benefit to the individual content producer and across all content producers is theoretical and unprotected at best, demonstrably not there over time and at scale, at worst. We also have to consider that the needs (fiscal, marketing, distribution, advertising, etc) of the new or emerging content producer are likely and often different than the established one. Does one "model" fit all...perhaps not.
Mike, the question isn't "why WOULDN'T that scale" it's "why HASN'T it scaled?" You regularly make comments intimating that this stuff is so damn obvious...yet it is not obvious enough to actually have been successful on any scale over any length of time. I contend that many aspects of your various business models (really statements about pieces and fractions of what might be one day woven into an actual holistic business models) go against demonstrated human nature...pride in what one creates, a desire to use one's works to get ahead financially, etc. The number of counter-intuitive assumptions that play in here is head-spinning.
The major piece that is regularly ignored is that COMPENSATION and RECOGNITION are primary motivators for creation. If content in the global economy were ever to reach the "infinite goods" state that TechDirt followers talk about, and if everyone were actually to be able to claim any work as their own simply because it has entered their mind and been somehow transformed, therefore, into their own individualized product as many of the philospher-kings have argued on these very boards, then not only do content creators cease to make any kind of reliable income from their works, but it becomes more and more difficult to actually figure out who created what in the first instance, thus eliminating both MAJOR motivators for content creation: compensation and recognition.
Some will argue that "real artist" will always keep on creating for the love of it, maaaaaaaaaaan. And that's true. They do today, as well, so it is a completely superfluous point that holds constant regardless of model.
The bottom line question is the right for a creator (artists, engineers, programmers, etc) to OWN what they create. TechDirt increasingly seems to be saying "no," much of the rest of the world says, "YES!"
And finally, your comment "More people are MAKING MORE MONEY from music than EVER BEFORE in history. How is that not scaling?" This is a very interesting statement to make. Firstly, I would correct that to a more accurate "possibly a few more people are making SOME money from music than ever before." I assume you're talking about artists only, since there are surely a whole lotta people involved in production, distribution and bricks-and-mortar sales of music who are starting to see their numbers and income dwindle lately. Any fair view of this MUST include the whole industry, not just the artists. Secondly, this very statement contradicts your breathless claims day after day that every little and big legal content rights protection is hampering or stifling content production and creativity. I AGREE with you, Mike, that over the last 100 years - with ever increasing copyright and IP protections - there has been an EXPLOSION in human creativity, content and idea creation and distribution. Totally agree. So tell us again what all the badness and stifling is that you're seeing?
To reiterate my stance for anyone about to flame, I do think copyright and IP needs to be reforms, nipped and tucked, re-balanced. But not because of all this infinite goods, collectivist ownership of not only ideas but actual unique content, and blathering of fractional economic and business thoughts while constantly insisting that the are "models." Reform is needed in order to clarify and make more reasonable for the consumer what they can and cannot do, incorporate new and different means of distribution, and rethink the length of protections, adopting something more akin to a patent length than multiple lifetimes. That said, Mike, I agree with you: creativity and distribution of content is exploding and it's great. More artists than ever have the opportunity to use the rights to works that they have created to become successful and independent, taking care of their families and communities with time and fiscal resources. Copyright helps protect their blood, sweat and tears toward those extremely noble and positive ends. Or, they can blow their cash on drugs and hookers, dying in a pool of their own vomit. They're choice.
More likely it's because the US (or companies somehow HQ'd or with substantial presence in the US) produce a substantial majority of the software and content that bad guys want to get or hack. And, umm, also....there are those pesky remainders of the Cold War that still kinda make the US a target for a lot of former or current "unfriendly" countries. I think those are the simplest explanations, which are usually the most likely ones to be true.
So content created by non-real artists is less important/worthy of consideration than content created by "real artists." I don't get the point about real artists and greedy non-real artists. You note that "plenty of [presumably "real"] artists make money without copyright." What is "plenty?" Is it 10% of all "real" artists, 2%, 1%, 0.000000000000002%? I'm guessing something close to the latter. Will that approach scale? No one seems to know how to make it scale and there are a lot of attempts to ignore the scaling issue. All very interesting, though, in a collectivist theoretical kinda way.
As Mike wrote: "anecdotal and a single data point." I agree that it's great that Hegemon13 and probably some others pay after the fact. But will this be a sustainable model for even just this one band over some longer term (1 year, 5 years)? And will it scale to an entire global industry? There are plenty of one-off examples of the success of this or similar approach. And that are as many or more examples of failure, especially when looked at over time, beyond just the single newsworthy event. But what never gets answered is how this will scale and how this will create a self-sustaining economy that provides not only subsistence to members of that economy, but true economic success and independence. The whole notion that in the new paradigm "a lot of people make *some* money" doesn't really sound like a thriving economic vehicle.
I agree that this is really not about copyright at all, but is just data related to a decrease and cost and increase in the ease of distribution of electronic media. They are interpreting the data through a copyright prism, but the simpler explanation is ease and access to means of creation and distribution.
I agree that the way this story is presented above is slanted and incomplete. As others have said, this was about the blogger, who had become known through investigative journalism, trying to block the paper from publishing his name. The judge didn't unmask him...the paper did. The judge protected the right of the Times to publish. Additionally, in terms of the intimation made that somehow the police force sought retribution against him, the judge noted that "the blogger had known he risked disciplinary action if his employers found out one of its officers was communicating to the public in such a way." So, he apparently knew what he was doing would get him in trouble if discovered. he can't really complain much about that.
Some commentary has said, basically, "but he was doing a public good, providing insight into operations not normally available." Maybe so. In other articles like that in the Times ( http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/the_web/article6509677.ece ) there is mention that he provided thinly veiled details of cases on which he worked, some of them sex crimes against kids with perhaps certain requirements for confidentiality, that were readily traced back to the actual prosecutions. This adds a different spin on things and explains why the Times was so interested in him to begin with. Maybe not such the do-gooder after all. I don't know.
Bottom line is that anyone who wants to be anonymous and remain so needs to be very careful to avoid being traceable. In this case, it wasn't about government unmasking him, it was about another private entity doing research and finding out who he was - presumably - using proper and legal means. And if we're talking freedom of speech, I agree that people should be able to be anonymous. But I also agree that others who discover their identity have the right to publish that information, so long as it is not slanderous, libelous, and doesn't violate other identity protection laws which might apply (in the US, there are lots of laws protecting the identities of victims of sexual assault, identities of minors and such).
Thank you, AC, for putting this so succinctly. My whole point is that transitioning people from the "general public" state to the "in-the-know" state is troublesome. It remains to be seen whether this movement - globally - can make that leap. For the moment, I agree that the use of the Pirate Party name is a good for those in-the-know (being ironic, counter-cultural), but it may limit the growth to a mass movement unless it is accompanied by concerted efforts to education the general public.
My comments (as I said on this thread and the one prior) are NOT exclusively or even specifically about the Pirate Party or Sweden, nor did I say a "large percentage." As for data, I've said that my take is this is self-evident. Not trying to fool anyone. I don't think it's a major leap to relate Free Stuffers and the organized copyright/IP reform movement, especially when viewing through the eyes of a decent percentage of voters who don't (yet) view these as top-line critical issues. Of course it will vary from country to country, and issue nuance to issue nuance.
Predictable. I'm not dissing anyone, nor do I feel self-righteous toward anyone in this story. As I explicitly said, just because some folks are purely interested in free stuff, it doesn't change the importance and materiality of the legal and privacy issues at hand.
If by "benefit from the huge flux of value that modern technology offers them" you mean the ability to download copyrighted material, often taking pains to conceal the activity because they Free Stuffer knows that said activity is illegal or potentially illegal under existing copyright and IP protection laws, then yes. There is, of course, a difference between "illegal" and your word of choice, "immoral." And I never said those Free Stuffers would be OPPOSED to reforms that benefit their habits and desires...I said the opposite, that they are supporting efforts like the Pirate Party and other efforts globally. This creates a liability for earnest, issue-focused political movements because they have the albatross of these perceived illegal and actually illegal activities dangling around their public relations neck as they try to talk about broader rights issues.
I'm not dissing anyone's position, political view or desire for free stuff - whatever the motivation. I'm just pointing out that the nature and origin of the various beasts here may have created some perception and sustainability problems that might need to be factored in by these movements, especially when it comes to understanding both the goodness and badness surrounding decisions like naming a political effort "The Pirate Party." Would the casual voter/observer (not a politically aware activist type) view that name as politically incorrect irony showing the folly of antiquated IP laws, or will they be more likely to associate it with people who want Free Stuff, as the media has been displaying from time to time going back to Napster days? I argue that for the vast constituency (again, not specifically in Sweden, but generally) it is the latter. This, therefore, changes the educational, outreach and sustainability approaches for such parties and political groups. It does not mean that anyone's opinion or approach is illegitmate or "immoral."
On the post: Would King Lear Ever Have Been Written If Copyright Law Existed?
The Premise is Problematic
I agree that we have gone past the point of fairness and equity for the content creator in a number of cases/industries and that reform is needed. But trying to somehow demonstrate the badness of our current era by making a stretched-at-best case on a 400 year old example, when the macro-economic and cultural evidence is entirely to the contrary is pretty tough to take.
Additionally, using the example someone who is arguably history's most successful playwright to say that "Shakespeare didn't rely on copyright to earn a living" is yet another example of the use of exceptionalism to try to define a rule. Most authors don't have wealthy benefactors, their own performance company or a trust fund to rest on. Before folks flame, I agree that singling our certain of the creative arts for royalty entitlements and not others is very problematic...don't deny that. But saying that "gosh, the world's greatest playwright didn't need copyrights to make a living in an era where support for the arts was done in an entirely different way" hardly creates economic or fiscal constructs that are applicable to most involved in the pursuit today.
On the post: Mos Def Tries T-Shirt As An Album Business Model
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And the whole infinite good thing is really shaky, though I know it's been discussed endlessly here and, yes, I've read those discussions. My contention is that the good remains scarce. Let's assume there is still only one version of Lenon's "Imagine" that anyone wants, for example. That is the good. It never becomes infinite as there is only one recording of that one song that has the characteristics that the marketplace remembers and desires. This is not the Platonic Ideal of the song "Imagine" that can be replicated in many different forms (musack version, Mannheim Steamroller version, a version using the MIDI barks of dogs, etc) and still be identified as "Imagine." It is, in fact, THE "Imagine." Only one. Scarce. And legal copies of that good remain certainly something far less than infinite. That some people using some technology have made (presently illegal) copies of the single, scarce recording of that song does NOT mean that the good itself is ubiquitous, much less "infinite." It does mean that it is being distributed in a way (largely illegal) that makes it more easily available at least to more affluent populations with access to the necessary technology. Saying it is ubiquitously or infinitely available would imply that most members of the marketplace (global music consumers) have the unfettered means to obtain a copy of this scarce, original song in a format which is of reasonable quality and can be played locally. (I would also tack on the nuance that for it to be truly infinite, the means of distribution and instantiations of that song that are received by the consumer need to be legal, else it's just trafficking which will always be something less than ubiquitous.) All that said, the fact is that MOST music consumers DON'T have unfettered, easy access to obtain this one scarce song. Do "most" of the world's music consumers - from Africa to the Americas, including all social classes who present spend some money on music - have unfettered access to this song? Doubtful. So, not only is the song scarce by its very nature - there can be only one, to quote Highlander - but the "infinite" distribution that may be available at some point in the future of humanity once technology is truly ubiquitous (not just affluent populations in technologically advanced nations) is hardly here now. And what is here is often (mostly?) illegal. Infinite good, why that's just "insulting." :-)
On the post: Popular Band Claims Music Is Better Because Of Piracy
Re: Re: Re: Re: Scale and Sustainability
But just in the above, there are several potential inconsistencies. You write "I'm saying A LOT more people are making A LOT MORE MONEY than before." So more people are making livings than under the old model, or just making some money? Then you say "the ENTIRE industry impacted by music is making a LOT MORE MONEY." So is the compensation metric based on the individuals in the industry or the entire industry? This goes back to the collectivist theme that has crept up bigtime over the last few days in commentary surrounding some of these posts. This collectivism seems to intimate that if more people make some money, then some kind of societal good is achieved and all is well. Are you a zero summer that believes that making more people make some money is inherently better than allowing some people to make some money and some people to make a lot? I don't think you are, but some of your verbiage can definitely swing the interpretation that way. Just curious.
And as I recall the study you referenced the other day had several framing problems that were debated. Hope I'm thinking of the same one. It's only definitive and clear if one accepts your a priories.
All that said, I do sincerely appreciate the forum, Mike.
On the post: Mos Def Tries T-Shirt As An Album Business Model
Re: Re: Re: Re:
But for what I suspect is the vaaaaaaaaaaaaaast majority of buyers, who just want the music, what happens when the t-shirt (or other merchandise) gimmick is commonplace and receives no press beyond the producer's marketing budget? Basically, the merchandise aspect ceases to be a factor. I contend that it probably isn't much of a factor now absent the novelty.
And this is not new, even in the bricks and mortar sense...were sales of Steve Martin's record breaking album in the late 70's enhanced because he included a "so long and thanks for the fishes" color glossy with the record, a novelty I still have? Doubtful. How about Styx laser-etching their Paradise Theater record? Doubtful. Merchandise novelties are nothing new...the difference is you used to get the physical media, too.
In the end, the t-shirt for most buyers settles back to just being a proxy for a little plastic disk. The desired "thing" is still a clean, legal copy of the music.
And remember, music is not an infinite good, just a scarce good infinitely distributed.
On the post: Is It Really So Bad If Music Is Used In A Way The Musician Doesn't Like?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Not Your Choice
On the post: Is It Really So Bad If Music Is Used In A Way The Musician Doesn't Like?
Re: Re: Re: Re: music as an asset
Your comment that the "new modles are better for everyone except those invested in the old modles." How so, and how do you know? The VAST majority of the world economy legally trafficking in content still uses the "old modle" quite successfully. You further say that "better business modles that can get more people more money without the need to copyright's baggage." Really? I've read a lot on these boards just in the last few days that the new models get "some money to a lot of people." So which is it? And also, the WHOLE industry needs to be included, not just the artist. Do the "new models" really incorporate all those participating in the industry in this beneficence? If it doesn't, then is it really a comprehensive model.
As for your other comment that "If I write financial software I get paid once, even if a thousand banks use that software for sixty years" well, it all depends. In most cases, the owner of the rights is your employer, not you. And I'm guessing you were not the sole author anyway. Just as a jungle writer who is an employee of an ad firm might not receive an individual copyright on collective work. Or it may be a forced/shared copyright as is often down on patents. The copyright owner (whether a business, individual or collection of individuals) can then license it to other businesses (or give it away!). Int he case of software, they can charge maintenance on it, or do a SaaS rental scheme. So, while you don't get a royalty payment, the business gets that or an equivalent, which benefits you in the form of a paycheck. If you are an independent software author, you have a lot of options as to how to get paid, including some that can get you on-going payments.
Today, content producers have lots of options. It is worrisome that *some* of the new models actually provide content producers fewer options as to how they choose to manage their creations.
On the post: Is It Really So Bad If Music Is Used In A Way The Musician Doesn't Like?
Re: Re: In The End
On the post: Is It Really So Bad If Music Is Used In A Way The Musician Doesn't Like?
Re: Re: Not Your Choice
On the post: Is It Really So Bad If Music Is Used In A Way The Musician Doesn't Like?
Re: In The End
On the post: Is It Really So Bad If Music Is Used In A Way The Musician Doesn't Like?
Re: Re: music as an asset
On the post: Popular Band Claims Music Is Better Because Of Piracy
Re: Re: Scale and Sustainability
I'm getting increasingly confused/concerned that all the blathering about a new "business model" actually isn't about business at all, but about income re-engineering. Is the point of all this really to get some money into as many hands as possible? That isn't about business, that's about a politico-economic worldview. Is this about the content creator and the creator's relationship with consumers, or is this about a societal remake?
There is a big difference between saying that a content creator has some (reasonable) rights and ownership of their creation which they can assert if they choose to, and saying that no one can have any rights to what they produce. Yes, it's an example using the polar extremes, but I *think* that today any artist has the choice NOT to assert their rights, though it takes some wrangling to do so. A few choose not to, most choose to assert them because there are demonstrable financial and ethical (control) benefits to the artist in doing so.
So, if the (pieces of thoughts that are at TechDirt called a) model is so beneficial to the CONTENT PRODUCER, we should see hoards of them choosing not to assert their rights and calling off the lawyers. But we haven't. And we likely won't. Because the long-term benefit to the individual content producer and across all content producers is theoretical and unprotected at best, demonstrably not there over time and at scale, at worst. We also have to consider that the needs (fiscal, marketing, distribution, advertising, etc) of the new or emerging content producer are likely and often different than the established one. Does one "model" fit all...perhaps not.
On the post: Popular Band Claims Music Is Better Because Of Piracy
Re: Re: Scale and Sustainability
The major piece that is regularly ignored is that COMPENSATION and RECOGNITION are primary motivators for creation. If content in the global economy were ever to reach the "infinite goods" state that TechDirt followers talk about, and if everyone were actually to be able to claim any work as their own simply because it has entered their mind and been somehow transformed, therefore, into their own individualized product as many of the philospher-kings have argued on these very boards, then not only do content creators cease to make any kind of reliable income from their works, but it becomes more and more difficult to actually figure out who created what in the first instance, thus eliminating both MAJOR motivators for content creation: compensation and recognition.
Some will argue that "real artist" will always keep on creating for the love of it, maaaaaaaaaaan. And that's true. They do today, as well, so it is a completely superfluous point that holds constant regardless of model.
The bottom line question is the right for a creator (artists, engineers, programmers, etc) to OWN what they create. TechDirt increasingly seems to be saying "no," much of the rest of the world says, "YES!"
And finally, your comment "More people are MAKING MORE MONEY from music than EVER BEFORE in history. How is that not scaling?" This is a very interesting statement to make. Firstly, I would correct that to a more accurate "possibly a few more people are making SOME money from music than ever before." I assume you're talking about artists only, since there are surely a whole lotta people involved in production, distribution and bricks-and-mortar sales of music who are starting to see their numbers and income dwindle lately. Any fair view of this MUST include the whole industry, not just the artists. Secondly, this very statement contradicts your breathless claims day after day that every little and big legal content rights protection is hampering or stifling content production and creativity. I AGREE with you, Mike, that over the last 100 years - with ever increasing copyright and IP protections - there has been an EXPLOSION in human creativity, content and idea creation and distribution. Totally agree. So tell us again what all the badness and stifling is that you're seeing?
To reiterate my stance for anyone about to flame, I do think copyright and IP needs to be reforms, nipped and tucked, re-balanced. But not because of all this infinite goods, collectivist ownership of not only ideas but actual unique content, and blathering of fractional economic and business thoughts while constantly insisting that the are "models." Reform is needed in order to clarify and make more reasonable for the consumer what they can and cannot do, incorporate new and different means of distribution, and rethink the length of protections, adopting something more akin to a patent length than multiple lifetimes. That said, Mike, I agree with you: creativity and distribution of content is exploding and it's great. More artists than ever have the opportunity to use the rights to works that they have created to become successful and independent, taking care of their families and communities with time and fiscal resources. Copyright helps protect their blood, sweat and tears toward those extremely noble and positive ends. Or, they can blow their cash on drugs and hookers, dying in a pool of their own vomit. They're choice.
On the post: A Look At The DMCA's Chilling Effects On Security Research
Re:
On the post: Yet Another Study Shows That Weaker Copyright Benefits Everyone
Re: Re: Re: Re: Some honesty, please
On the post: Popular Band Claims Music Is Better Because Of Piracy
Scale and Sustainability
On the post: Yet Another Study Shows That Weaker Copyright Benefits Everyone
Not About Copyright
On the post: UK Court Says No Right To Being An Anonymous Blogger
Other Issues, Too
Some commentary has said, basically, "but he was doing a public good, providing insight into operations not normally available." Maybe so. In other articles like that in the Times ( http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/the_web/article6509677.ece ) there is mention that he provided thinly veiled details of cases on which he worked, some of them sex crimes against kids with perhaps certain requirements for confidentiality, that were readily traced back to the actual prosecutions. This adds a different spin on things and explains why the Times was so interested in him to begin with. Maybe not such the do-gooder after all. I don't know.
Bottom line is that anyone who wants to be anonymous and remain so needs to be very careful to avoid being traceable. In this case, it wasn't about government unmasking him, it was about another private entity doing research and finding out who he was - presumably - using proper and legal means. And if we're talking freedom of speech, I agree that people should be able to be anonymous. But I also agree that others who discover their identity have the right to publish that information, so long as it is not slanderous, libelous, and doesn't violate other identity protection laws which might apply (in the US, there are lots of laws protecting the identities of victims of sexual assault, identities of minors and such).
On the post: Understanding The Pirate Party
Re: SImple Definitions
On the post: Understanding The Pirate Party
Re: Re: Re: Freestuffers my ass.
On the post: Understanding The Pirate Party
Re: Freestuffers my ass.
If by "benefit from the huge flux of value that modern technology offers them" you mean the ability to download copyrighted material, often taking pains to conceal the activity because they Free Stuffer knows that said activity is illegal or potentially illegal under existing copyright and IP protection laws, then yes. There is, of course, a difference between "illegal" and your word of choice, "immoral." And I never said those Free Stuffers would be OPPOSED to reforms that benefit their habits and desires...I said the opposite, that they are supporting efforts like the Pirate Party and other efforts globally. This creates a liability for earnest, issue-focused political movements because they have the albatross of these perceived illegal and actually illegal activities dangling around their public relations neck as they try to talk about broader rights issues.
I'm not dissing anyone's position, political view or desire for free stuff - whatever the motivation. I'm just pointing out that the nature and origin of the various beasts here may have created some perception and sustainability problems that might need to be factored in by these movements, especially when it comes to understanding both the goodness and badness surrounding decisions like naming a political effort "The Pirate Party." Would the casual voter/observer (not a politically aware activist type) view that name as politically incorrect irony showing the folly of antiquated IP laws, or will they be more likely to associate it with people who want Free Stuff, as the media has been displaying from time to time going back to Napster days? I argue that for the vast constituency (again, not specifically in Sweden, but generally) it is the latter. This, therefore, changes the educational, outreach and sustainability approaches for such parties and political groups. It does not mean that anyone's opinion or approach is illegitmate or "immoral."
Next >>