I don't know what world do you live in, but in my planet people have already thought over these questions and put in place laws to protect content creators. In your utopian world the burden of proof may be on the creator, but not in the real world. That's why civil society ALREADY HAS limitations on who can do what with someone's content.
I think Sailor was just going through an exercise of rethinking copyright laws.
That would be as absurd as stating that all photographers should pay Canon or Nikon royalty for every picture they take. See, lawnmowers are tools; once you buy one you don't owe the company anything anymore. However, you don't have the right to commercially exploit their technology or brand name for profit by making knockoffs.
Software is a tool covered by copyright. Tools aren't exempt, it's just a difference between intellectual property and real property.
Intellectual properties and products are not necessarily one and the same.
That was the point of the examples you bring up, to highlight the differences.
Royalties and licensing has been a large part of many industries. It's not a new concept, at all.
I never said royalties are new. Just that royalties aren't the stuff of natural rights. Royalties are "not a given" and not material for a bill of rights.
It's also not such a cut-and-dry issue.
Exactly. None of the rights ASCAP asserts are cut-and-dry at all. How can they put them in something called a bill of rights?
I can't help but wonder, if someone chose to somehow make money using the techdirt.com moniker I think the registered owner of techdirt *might* have a thing or two to say about it.
You wouldn't be the first to make this mistake. This has been answered many times. Here's a recent example:
But I also said that the point is that if music listeners don't care about the differences between copy and original, then the creator starts losing. That's what happens with music and other types of content, not websites. Specially when their value doesn't come from the content alone.
The analogy still works for music. There may be no difference between the copy and original of any particular audio recording, but there's no difference between the original and a copy of any post on Techdirt either.
However, Techdirt and good musicians both have the ability to continue to produce quality material in the future.
Also, in the same way that a "scarce good" such as the community here is not copyable, neither is an artist copyable. A cover band won't provide the same experience as the real band.
The creator only loses if they limit themselves to selling a copyable product.
I disagree. Are you saying all software should be free? That there should be no proprietary software?
The point of my comment was to reference the free software / open source community as an example of these ideas working in practice. Namely, free software licenses put no restrictions on commercial reuse. The non-commercial restriction makes software non-free. The success of copyleft culture isn't predicated on restricting people from doing things which are commercially valuable without paying the creators, rather it's based on freedom.
If free (libre) software is better for developers and better for users, why make non-free software? I believe it's better, but that's a longer conversation I'm sure. I think it makes more sense to convince companies and developers to use/produce free software, rather than forcing them too, however. Same goes with artists and free licenses. Change people's hearts and minds, show them everyone is better off, show them the opportunity to grow their market, etc.
Google merely directs users to content. Why should they be required to pay site owners anything?
Sometimes Google reproduces some of that content, and it certain profits off it. (Have you been following the Belgium newspaper story?) I don't think Google should owe website owners money, but you asked, "why should someone be allowed to do something commercially valuable with my content without compensating me financially?" Isn't that exactly what Google does? We both think this should be allowed.
What is the incentive to try another business model when the current one works fine?
Because business models based on copyright aren't working fine in the face of digital technology. If a business isn't yet heavily impacted by digital technology, then it may be alright in the short turn to rely on copyright. However, growing your market and preparing for the future both seem like good arguments for trying business models based on the economics of abundance.
A good business always tries to improve, no?
MAY be able! That's the operative word.
I used the word "may" because the author also needs a business model and a plan in place to capitalize on the benefit. With the proper business model and a good product, an author will derive benefit.
What I'm asking is how it will benefit an author if copyright goes. I see more harm than gain.
If copyright goes, or becomes less excessive, an author would benefit in the big picture. It's not necessary about short financial gains ("direct, monetary"), but in the long-run. Sure, cash helps. But building a name and reputation is more valuable, because you can monetize that and build a career on that. If an author writes good books, he/she would benefit from having them widely read. The difference is that monetization would come through content creation (e.g. commissioned works, fund-and-release model) or other scarcities (the book signings, speaker engagements, etc), rather than necessarily through the distribution of copies (though, that's still a possibility for some income).
Ultimately, authors would benefit from having a wider market to monetize. I see more opportunities than harm. I only see harm for those who rely on copyright when it fails and ceases to make sense (e.g. RIAA/MPAA).
To be honest, I'm no huge fan of the CBC, even though I sympathize with them on this one particular issue (they created the value of the song, even if they were stupid to not buy it out earlier).
The whole CTV thing... I just find that amusing, that's all. I have no sympathies either way. I think Moore has a point, but I also agree that the CTV will make good use of the song.
This was one of the most challenging things for me, as I was looking into the best license to choose for my music. To choose a Creative Commons license that allows for commercial use is to waive one's ability to collect royalties. From all my exposure to the songwriter circles of the music business, royalties seem to always be the focus. When I tell other songwriters I've waived my right to collect royalties, they think I'm crazy. :)
Blurry only in the case of new age media like blogs. Not in the case of traditional media like music, movies, books, etc.
Not true. What if a non-profit is selling a CD? They're making a profit in the activity, even though the purpose of the organization isn't to make a profit. Is that commercial use? Isn't that at least a little blurry?
Also, most copying takes place through digital technology anyways, so new media isn't some niche, it's the focus of the whole debate.
Seems pretty clear to me. If I buy a book or DVD, I clearly have every right to read or watch it or share it, but I have no right to exploit it for commercial gain, as in make copies for resale or make money through unauthorized public exhibition. What's so "not clear cut" about that?
What if the book or DVD is an instructional piece related to your career? Watching the DVD could be out of personal interest, or for commercial gain. What if you share it with a co-worker, who's also a friend and in the same business. Personal use or commercial gain?
Also, who can you share it with before it becomes an unauthorized exhibition? A spouse or family member? Living in the same house, or another house? What if you live with a friend? What about friends you don't live with? How does the law distinguish between your friends and a stranger? What if you're simply listening within earshot of others?
The distinctions of public versus private and non-commercial versus commercial don't seem at all clear cut to me.
Simply because the creator won't get paid. Why should someone be allowed to do something commercially valuable with my content without compensating me financially?
Going back to the post, should Google owe website owners cash because it does something commercially valuable with their content? Do you think the same should apply to ideas in general, or just to content?
I think someone should be allowed to do something commercially valuable with content without having to compensate the creators because everyone would be better off for it -- creators included -- because of the freedom and positive externalities and overall benefit to society of being able to make use of creative works. The free software community is a microcosmic example of this working in practice.
Google merely directs to content; it doesn't produce any original content.
That's the point. Google uses other people's content and it doesn't pay them. Should it be required to?
"Having someone else do something commercial with content is a good way to help increase the value of that content, which is likely to flow back to the original creator anyway."
Likely? I would say highly unlikely.
I'd say it depends whether you've got a business model in place to take advantage of those positive externalities or not. If you're ignoring them, sure, it may not be likely.
If I don't have to pay an author to publish his work, why would I bother to send some benefit his way?
You don't need to do it directly. If you don't pay to publish his work, but you and others publish it, the author may be able to derive benefit from the work being more widely published (e.g. speaking engagements, in store appearances, more sales based on higher interest, more interest in funding future works, etc.).
The benefit doesn't have to be direct or monetary. It doesn't need to be actively "sent."
Even if some others benefit? No problem with that, but there is a big problem when everyone else benefits except the creator.
The problem would likely a business model problem in a case such as that, hence all the talk about the economics of abundance around here.
A less efficient process that assures the creator his reward, or a more efficient processs that strips him of financial incentive?
How effective is copyright as a financial incentive? Works were produced before copyright, and works are produced despite copyright. Is the value of the incentive at all worth the inefficiencies created? I'd argue it's quite an unbalanced trade off.
When there's no copyright, where's the question of counterfeiting? I don't understand.
Counterfeiting isn't about producing copies of an original work, it's about passing off some other work as the original. It's about deception. Copyright isn't necessary for counterfeiting to occur, and I'm not sure that it even has anything to do with counterfeiting to begin with.
Right now the system works fine. And unlike musicians, authors are not under any threat of falling book sales, which means the free model is only an option, not a compulsion.
Wait five or ten years ish. And, it's not like there isn't controversy over copyright with books. Look at the lawsuits J. K. Rowling has been fighting. I'm sure there are some other examples.
You can afford to say that because your line of business is not affected by the absence of copyright.
His line of business or his business model? What line of business would you say Techdirt is in? There are lots of tech companies clamouring for increased copyright protections (e.g. Business Software Alliance) and lots of journalists lamenting the "devaluation" of their work.
Techdirt has a business model that isn't predicated on copyright by choice. It's not because of the line of business, it's because of smart business models.
1) CC makes a distinction between non-commercial and commercial use, and it's blurry as hell. Is it about the use or the user? What about the blog with ads, and other scenarios Mike mentioned? Plus, some argue that the NC permission culture doesn't work.
2) Mike also wrote, companies that pick up business models that turn the free rider problem into a benefit won't have much of an issue.
Smart business models can help a creator to benefit from those externalities, turn them into positives, rather than snuff them out with legal claims.
It'll be interesting to see how CTV tries to use the song. I mean, they say they're going to use it for NHL broadcasts and for the Winter Olympics in Vancouver in 2010, but their spin is that they have saved a cultural icon.
On the other hand, Scott Moore wonders out loud in several interviews why a competitor would possibly want to air what's essentially an advertisement for their program.
The song has been associated with Hockey Night in Canada for 39 years... will CTV actually be able to "preserve" it while breaking that association?
Someone wrote about that here, but if you listen to the audio clip, Scott Moore isn't interested in dragging this out into some nasty legal battle, he'd rather focus on the positive aspects of the program. And good on him for that, I think.
Though, note that CTV is making a new arrangement/recording of the song.
Hockey is pretty huge in Canada and $500CAD a show is peanuts for what that song meant to us Canadians.
Who made the song valuable? The CBC or Dolores? My argument is that the song wouldn't mean anything to us Canadians or be worth $3 million to CTV if it weren't for the CBC licensing it for 39 years. Yet, the CBC has absolutely no legal leg to stand on in our system, despite the fact that they made the song what it is.
Where did I say that mass information equals mass wisdom in the article? I called myself stupid. I just said that the stupidity is independent of the Internet.
A great many laws are not based on natural rights. Does that mean we should do away with them? I disagree.
We're not in disagreement. I don't think laws should be done away with simply because they're not based on natural rights. I'm just making the point that we have the option to do away with those laws, because they're not based on natural rights.
It's not like a law about freedom of speech or freedom of religion or something.
In other words, there's nothing immoral about a copyright-less world, and nothing morally superior about a world with copyright. We should examine the system based on its merits and see whether or not it provides any real benefit or harm to society. But copyright law is not a law that claims to uphold some sort of moral standard or natural rights.
In China and India, copyright counts for nothing. Everyone's ripping off anything they fancy, with no one to stop them. Is that ok?
It might not be ok insofar as it's unfair with different laws in different places of the world, but, if you agree that copyright is not based on natural rights, what basis do you have to call that immoral?
I guess it depends on what you mean by "ripping off."
As for public domain, it kicks into effect ONLY after the lifetime of the content creator.
Copyright initially lasted for 14 years in the U.S. (if I remember correctly). Nothing in the constitution says it should last for the lifetime of the creator. It was extended to the lifetime of the creator later on in its history, and many extensions to copyright are the result of the entertainment industry lobby more so than anything else.
First of all, such extension is abuse of the public domain. Second, even if I accept your argument (which I don't, based on copyright history), how do you account for copyright lasting beyond the lifetime of the creator? You must agree that the public domain is being abused in some way, at least.
Of course it is an artifical system, like many manmade systems, and a good one, a necessary system, because human nature tends towards exploitation. Everyone wants to maximise their profits.
Why is it good or necessary? You realize that the copyright system allows and promotes exploitation by an artist by granting them a monopoly on their works, right? Are monopolies necessarily good? Are monopolies necessary? Monopolies can be abused too, you know.
How do we know there are better business models? Are they proven? Do they work for everyone?
No we're back to the content of the post! :) Those are exactly the sorts of questions that Techdirt looks at on a regular basis. Trent Reznor's path to embracing new business models is a perfect example.
The existing model answers all the above in the affirmative, which is why content creators have such a hard time figuring out the free model.
Not necessarily. Is copyright working for everyone now? Has copyright been proven to work in a digital landscape? I'd say that digital technology has largely "broken" copyright. Sure, there may be a way to "fix" it, but I'm skeptical for a variety of reasons. A lot of people are having a hard time figuring out the copyright-based models in the face of digital technology, so I don't think it's fair to say that copyright-works-for-everyone-and-new-business-models-dont.
Plus, how many other industries have a one size fits all business model? Usually, business are responsible for figuring out how to make a profit. Business exists in a free market. We don't need a system for every type of businesses. Good businesses can figure out what's profitable, and they have more freedom to innovate when not constrained by unnecessary and broken systems.
A digital file and air are similar insofar as they are abundant goods.
I'm not saying content creation is abundant, that requires an artist's scarce time and talent. I'm not saying a song (i.e. the composition) is abundant, because that requires content creation. (It's abundant in a different way, insofar as it's an idea, but that's another conversation...) What is abundant (i.e. like air) is the digital embodiment of an audio recording.
Like you've agreed, a song's "copies are abundant, no doubt." That's essentially what I'm saying. The composition isn't abundant. At least, not in the same way... It's the digital embodiment of an audio recording that's abundant.
No, a digital embodiment of an audio recording isn't naturally occurring like air, so, of course, in that way they're dissimilar. I didn't deny that. I said they're similar insofar as they're abundant. Sure, there are lots of ways in which they're different.
I guess you're trying to suggest that people shouldn't have to pay for air because it didn't take someone's time and effort to create? We pay for other natural resources though. The main reason we don't pay for air is because it's supply is infinite and because there's no work to be done to use it. The same is true of digital content (i.e. digital embodiment... ); it's supply is infinite and there's essentially no work involved in using it (reproducing it).
Yes, there's work involved in producing it. That's a great scarcity to monetize. But, in the sense of reproducing a digital file, the similarities to air are instructive when it comes to understanding supply and demand.
Carr certainly has some valid points, like many of those you highlighted and expanded on. It just doesn't add up to the conclusion he's trying to make, which is what my focus was on.
He's "haunted," worried that "own intelligence that [may] flatten into artificial intelligence." He calls it "unsettling" that Google is apparently replacing our intelligence with artificial intelligence, when that's not what's happening at all.
I think he has many interesting observations about how we ingest information in various mediums, especially on the Internet, but the article is premised on these observations being somehow "unsettling."
I think they're interesting, but I don't see where the problem is. I don't understand how this "makes us stupid" or is something to be concerned about or "haunted" by. Especially, considering that few people would make similar corollary claims about analog technologies (which Carr does admit on page four, when he tells us we "should be skeptical of [his] skepticism" for that very reason).
Asay may not be "blaming the medium for making him stupid" directly, but by building on an article titled "Is Google making us stupid?" he is making it implicitly. Asay suggests that using a service like Twitter has implications beyond the medium. He writes:
We really don't want to think like Google. We don't want to speak like Twitter. We don't want to converse like e-mail. And yet we increasingly do, as the Internet reshapes the world in its image.
My point is that using Twitter doesn't make us speak like Twitter. We may "tweet" (hate that word), but on Twitter. Take the "txt spk" theme at Techdirt for example. Shortened SMS messages don't make kids stupid or impair their ability to write prose, and 140 character message on Twitter don't make its users stupid or unable to read books.
Sure, "the nature of the medium encourages a particular way of ingesting information" but I don't believe it necessarily spreads beyond the medium (or "makes us stupid"). When in Rome, do as the Romans do... When on Twitter, you ingest information in a certain way. Yes, that is very different from the sustained study of a particular work. But how does ingesting information on Twitter impair your ability to study a particular work in depth off-line or on some other medium?
Twitter isn't for in-depth study. That doesn't mean it impairs our ability to study in-depth.
Asay's observation has no real connection to the "makes us stupid" thesis because neither Asay or Carr can explain how skimming on one medium impairs one's ability to study in-depth on another (or on the same, for that matter).
I did not know the Vatican had a web page, although I should have assumed.
The Vatican actually has a very comprehensive web page.
There's an entertaining interview I found from Robert Scoble back in the fall with Sister Judith Zoeblein, the nun responsible for the Vatican's website. She's asked questions about Second Life (ha.ha. get it?) and "which operating system God uses." People are shocked to see a nun in I.T., nevermind actually giving a talk at a tech conference (they caught her in the hall during the conference).
I specifically said that it's not about selling enjoyment.
Ethan Kaplan, the VP of Tech at Warner Bros. Records, made the same distinction a few weeks ago in a keynote talk he gave at the Mesh Conference in Toronto, though using different words. He made the distinction between artifact and experience, saying that Warner Bros. is moving away from their limited view of just the artifact towards being in the business of the music "experience" in general.
Don't get so hung up over the word "enjoyment." Maybe there's a better word. Could be "experience"? (e.g. the buggy experience is really one of transportation, not of necessarily riding in a buggy).
The fundamental point is that the market should not be defined by the product but by the benefit. The music business isn't simply about selling plastic embodiments of songs. It's about the real benefit that music provides people and that they're willing to pay for.
Whether you call the benefit "enjoyment surrounding music" or "the experience surrounding music" or something else isn't really important to the basic point. What those phrases are trying to encapsulate is the benefit of music, rather than simply the product.
Agree? Maybe you have another suggesting to describe it?
On the post: What If Copyright Only Applied To Commercial Use?
Re: Off the mark
I think Sailor was just going through an exercise of rethinking copyright laws.
That would be as absurd as stating that all photographers should pay Canon or Nikon royalty for every picture they take. See, lawnmowers are tools; once you buy one you don't owe the company anything anymore. However, you don't have the right to commercially exploit their technology or brand name for profit by making knockoffs.
Software is a tool covered by copyright. Tools aren't exempt, it's just a difference between intellectual property and real property.
On the post: ASCAP's Bill Of Wrongs
Re: Bill of Wrongs / Intellectual Property
That was the point of the examples you bring up, to highlight the differences.
Royalties and licensing has been a large part of many industries. It's not a new concept, at all.
I never said royalties are new. Just that royalties aren't the stuff of natural rights. Royalties are "not a given" and not material for a bill of rights.
It's also not such a cut-and-dry issue.
Exactly. None of the rights ASCAP asserts are cut-and-dry at all. How can they put them in something called a bill of rights?
I can't help but wonder, if someone chose to somehow make money using the techdirt.com moniker I think the registered owner of techdirt *might* have a thing or two to say about it.
You wouldn't be the first to make this mistake. This has been answered many times. Here's a recent example:
http://www.techdirt.com/article.php?sid=20070412/183135#c612
On the post: Scott Adams' Pointy Haired Views On Copyright
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: DirtyTech
The analogy still works for music. There may be no difference between the copy and original of any particular audio recording, but there's no difference between the original and a copy of any post on Techdirt either.
However, Techdirt and good musicians both have the ability to continue to produce quality material in the future.
Also, in the same way that a "scarce good" such as the community here is not copyable, neither is an artist copyable. A cover band won't provide the same experience as the real band.
The creator only loses if they limit themselves to selling a copyable product.
On the post: What If Copyright Only Applied To Commercial Use?
Re: Thanks Blaise
The point of my comment was to reference the free software / open source community as an example of these ideas working in practice. Namely, free software licenses put no restrictions on commercial reuse. The non-commercial restriction makes software non-free. The success of copyleft culture isn't predicated on restricting people from doing things which are commercially valuable without paying the creators, rather it's based on freedom.
If free (libre) software is better for developers and better for users, why make non-free software? I believe it's better, but that's a longer conversation I'm sure. I think it makes more sense to convince companies and developers to use/produce free software, rather than forcing them too, however. Same goes with artists and free licenses. Change people's hearts and minds, show them everyone is better off, show them the opportunity to grow their market, etc.
Google merely directs users to content. Why should they be required to pay site owners anything?
Sometimes Google reproduces some of that content, and it certain profits off it. (Have you been following the Belgium newspaper story?) I don't think Google should owe website owners money, but you asked, "why should someone be allowed to do something commercially valuable with my content without compensating me financially?" Isn't that exactly what Google does? We both think this should be allowed.
What is the incentive to try another business model when the current one works fine?
Because business models based on copyright aren't working fine in the face of digital technology. If a business isn't yet heavily impacted by digital technology, then it may be alright in the short turn to rely on copyright. However, growing your market and preparing for the future both seem like good arguments for trying business models based on the economics of abundance.
A good business always tries to improve, no?
MAY be able! That's the operative word.
I used the word "may" because the author also needs a business model and a plan in place to capitalize on the benefit. With the proper business model and a good product, an author will derive benefit.
What I'm asking is how it will benefit an author if copyright goes. I see more harm than gain.
If copyright goes, or becomes less excessive, an author would benefit in the big picture. It's not necessary about short financial gains ("direct, monetary"), but in the long-run. Sure, cash helps. But building a name and reputation is more valuable, because you can monetize that and build a career on that. If an author writes good books, he/she would benefit from having them widely read. The difference is that monetization would come through content creation (e.g. commissioned works, fund-and-release model) or other scarcities (the book signings, speaker engagements, etc), rather than necessarily through the distribution of copies (though, that's still a possibility for some income).
Ultimately, authors would benefit from having a wider market to monetize. I see more opportunities than harm. I only see harm for those who rely on copyright when it fails and ceases to make sense (e.g. RIAA/MPAA).
On the post: CBC Held To Ransom Over Hockey Theme Song
Re: facts of the matter
1. $1 million was impossible for them to accept?
2. Do you owe Madeleine royalties for reproducing the post? ;)
On the post: CBC Held To Ransom Over Hockey Theme Song
Re: Re: Re: An aside... (hook, line and sinker)
To be honest, I'm no huge fan of the CBC, even though I sympathize with them on this one particular issue (they created the value of the song, even if they were stupid to not buy it out earlier).
The whole CTV thing... I just find that amusing, that's all. I have no sympathies either way. I think Moore has a point, but I also agree that the CTV will make good use of the song.
On the post: Rewriting Copyright History, The Elitist Way: Compare File Sharers To 9/11 Terrorists
Re: Re:
On the post: What If Copyright Only Applied To Commercial Use?
Music Royalties
On the post: What If Copyright Only Applied To Commercial Use?
Re: Here we go again
Blurry only in the case of new age media like blogs. Not in the case of traditional media like music, movies, books, etc.
Not true. What if a non-profit is selling a CD? They're making a profit in the activity, even though the purpose of the organization isn't to make a profit. Is that commercial use? Isn't that at least a little blurry?
Also, most copying takes place through digital technology anyways, so new media isn't some niche, it's the focus of the whole debate.
Seems pretty clear to me. If I buy a book or DVD, I clearly have every right to read or watch it or share it, but I have no right to exploit it for commercial gain, as in make copies for resale or make money through unauthorized public exhibition. What's so "not clear cut" about that?
What if the book or DVD is an instructional piece related to your career? Watching the DVD could be out of personal interest, or for commercial gain. What if you share it with a co-worker, who's also a friend and in the same business. Personal use or commercial gain?
Also, who can you share it with before it becomes an unauthorized exhibition? A spouse or family member? Living in the same house, or another house? What if you live with a friend? What about friends you don't live with? How does the law distinguish between your friends and a stranger? What if you're simply listening within earshot of others?
The distinctions of public versus private and non-commercial versus commercial don't seem at all clear cut to me.
Simply because the creator won't get paid. Why should someone be allowed to do something commercially valuable with my content without compensating me financially?
Going back to the post, should Google owe website owners cash because it does something commercially valuable with their content? Do you think the same should apply to ideas in general, or just to content?
I think someone should be allowed to do something commercially valuable with content without having to compensate the creators because everyone would be better off for it -- creators included -- because of the freedom and positive externalities and overall benefit to society of being able to make use of creative works. The free software community is a microcosmic example of this working in practice.
Google merely directs to content; it doesn't produce any original content.
That's the point. Google uses other people's content and it doesn't pay them. Should it be required to?
"Having someone else do something commercial with content is a good way to help increase the value of that content, which is likely to flow back to the original creator anyway."
Likely? I would say highly unlikely.
I'd say it depends whether you've got a business model in place to take advantage of those positive externalities or not. If you're ignoring them, sure, it may not be likely.
If I don't have to pay an author to publish his work, why would I bother to send some benefit his way?
You don't need to do it directly. If you don't pay to publish his work, but you and others publish it, the author may be able to derive benefit from the work being more widely published (e.g. speaking engagements, in store appearances, more sales based on higher interest, more interest in funding future works, etc.).
The benefit doesn't have to be direct or monetary. It doesn't need to be actively "sent."
Even if some others benefit? No problem with that, but there is a big problem when everyone else benefits except the creator.
The problem would likely a business model problem in a case such as that, hence all the talk about the economics of abundance around here.
A less efficient process that assures the creator his reward, or a more efficient processs that strips him of financial incentive?
How effective is copyright as a financial incentive? Works were produced before copyright, and works are produced despite copyright. Is the value of the incentive at all worth the inefficiencies created? I'd argue it's quite an unbalanced trade off.
When there's no copyright, where's the question of counterfeiting? I don't understand.
Counterfeiting isn't about producing copies of an original work, it's about passing off some other work as the original. It's about deception. Copyright isn't necessary for counterfeiting to occur, and I'm not sure that it even has anything to do with counterfeiting to begin with.
Right now the system works fine. And unlike musicians, authors are not under any threat of falling book sales, which means the free model is only an option, not a compulsion.
Wait five or ten years ish. And, it's not like there isn't controversy over copyright with books. Look at the lawsuits J. K. Rowling has been fighting. I'm sure there are some other examples.
You can afford to say that because your line of business is not affected by the absence of copyright.
His line of business or his business model? What line of business would you say Techdirt is in? There are lots of tech companies clamouring for increased copyright protections (e.g. Business Software Alliance) and lots of journalists lamenting the "devaluation" of their work.
Techdirt has a business model that isn't predicated on copyright by choice. It's not because of the line of business, it's because of smart business models.
On the post: What If Copyright Only Applied To Commercial Use?
Re: CC and Human Nature
2) Mike also wrote, companies that pick up business models that turn the free rider problem into a benefit won't have much of an issue.
Smart business models can help a creator to benefit from those externalities, turn them into positives, rather than snuff them out with legal claims.
On the post: CBC Held To Ransom Over Hockey Theme Song
Re: An aside...
On the other hand, Scott Moore wonders out loud in several interviews why a competitor would possibly want to air what's essentially an advertisement for their program.
The song has been associated with Hockey Night in Canada for 39 years... will CTV actually be able to "preserve" it while breaking that association?
This should be entertaining.
On the post: CBC Held To Ransom Over Hockey Theme Song
Re: Trademark
Though, note that CTV is making a new arrangement/recording of the song.
On the post: CBC Held To Ransom Over Hockey Theme Song
Re: I'm Canadian and I disagree
Hockey is pretty huge in Canada and $500CAD a show is peanuts for what that song meant to us Canadians.
Who made the song valuable? The CBC or Dolores? My argument is that the song wouldn't mean anything to us Canadians or be worth $3 million to CTV if it weren't for the CBC licensing it for 39 years. Yet, the CBC has absolutely no legal leg to stand on in our system, despite the fact that they made the song what it is.
On the post: There's Stupidity Somewhere Here, But It's Not Coming From Google...
Re:
On the post: Trent Reznor's Path To Accepting And Embracing New Business Models
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
We're not in disagreement. I don't think laws should be done away with simply because they're not based on natural rights. I'm just making the point that we have the option to do away with those laws, because they're not based on natural rights.
It's not like a law about freedom of speech or freedom of religion or something.
In other words, there's nothing immoral about a copyright-less world, and nothing morally superior about a world with copyright. We should examine the system based on its merits and see whether or not it provides any real benefit or harm to society. But copyright law is not a law that claims to uphold some sort of moral standard or natural rights.
In China and India, copyright counts for nothing. Everyone's ripping off anything they fancy, with no one to stop them. Is that ok?
It might not be ok insofar as it's unfair with different laws in different places of the world, but, if you agree that copyright is not based on natural rights, what basis do you have to call that immoral?
I guess it depends on what you mean by "ripping off."
As for public domain, it kicks into effect ONLY after the lifetime of the content creator.
Copyright initially lasted for 14 years in the U.S. (if I remember correctly). Nothing in the constitution says it should last for the lifetime of the creator. It was extended to the lifetime of the creator later on in its history, and many extensions to copyright are the result of the entertainment industry lobby more so than anything else.
First of all, such extension is abuse of the public domain. Second, even if I accept your argument (which I don't, based on copyright history), how do you account for copyright lasting beyond the lifetime of the creator? You must agree that the public domain is being abused in some way, at least.
Of course it is an artifical system, like many manmade systems, and a good one, a necessary system, because human nature tends towards exploitation. Everyone wants to maximise their profits.
Why is it good or necessary? You realize that the copyright system allows and promotes exploitation by an artist by granting them a monopoly on their works, right? Are monopolies necessarily good? Are monopolies necessary? Monopolies can be abused too, you know.
How do we know there are better business models? Are they proven? Do they work for everyone?
No we're back to the content of the post! :) Those are exactly the sorts of questions that Techdirt looks at on a regular basis. Trent Reznor's path to embracing new business models is a perfect example.
The existing model answers all the above in the affirmative, which is why content creators have such a hard time figuring out the free model.
Not necessarily. Is copyright working for everyone now? Has copyright been proven to work in a digital landscape? I'd say that digital technology has largely "broken" copyright. Sure, there may be a way to "fix" it, but I'm skeptical for a variety of reasons. A lot of people are having a hard time figuring out the copyright-based models in the face of digital technology, so I don't think it's fair to say that copyright-works-for-everyone-and-new-business-models-dont.
Plus, how many other industries have a one size fits all business model? Usually, business are responsible for figuring out how to make a profit. Business exists in a free market. We don't need a system for every type of businesses. Good businesses can figure out what's profitable, and they have more freedom to innovate when not constrained by unnecessary and broken systems.
On the post: Trent Reznor's Path To Accepting And Embracing New Business Models
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
A digital file and air are similar insofar as they are abundant goods.
I'm not saying content creation is abundant, that requires an artist's scarce time and talent. I'm not saying a song (i.e. the composition) is abundant, because that requires content creation. (It's abundant in a different way, insofar as it's an idea, but that's another conversation...) What is abundant (i.e. like air) is the digital embodiment of an audio recording.
Like you've agreed, a song's "copies are abundant, no doubt." That's essentially what I'm saying. The composition isn't abundant. At least, not in the same way... It's the digital embodiment of an audio recording that's abundant.
No, a digital embodiment of an audio recording isn't naturally occurring like air, so, of course, in that way they're dissimilar. I didn't deny that. I said they're similar insofar as they're abundant. Sure, there are lots of ways in which they're different.
I guess you're trying to suggest that people shouldn't have to pay for air because it didn't take someone's time and effort to create? We pay for other natural resources though. The main reason we don't pay for air is because it's supply is infinite and because there's no work to be done to use it. The same is true of digital content (i.e. digital embodiment... ); it's supply is infinite and there's essentially no work involved in using it (reproducing it).
Yes, there's work involved in producing it. That's a great scarcity to monetize. But, in the sense of reproducing a digital file, the similarities to air are instructive when it comes to understanding supply and demand.
On the post: There's Stupidity Somewhere Here, But It's Not Coming From Google...
Re: Filtering and switching
He's "haunted," worried that "own intelligence that [may] flatten into artificial intelligence." He calls it "unsettling" that Google is apparently replacing our intelligence with artificial intelligence, when that's not what's happening at all.
I think he has many interesting observations about how we ingest information in various mediums, especially on the Internet, but the article is premised on these observations being somehow "unsettling."
I think they're interesting, but I don't see where the problem is. I don't understand how this "makes us stupid" or is something to be concerned about or "haunted" by. Especially, considering that few people would make similar corollary claims about analog technologies (which Carr does admit on page four, when he tells us we "should be skeptical of [his] skepticism" for that very reason).
On the post: There's Stupidity Somewhere Here, But It's Not Coming From Google...
Re: Um...
We really don't want to think like Google. We don't want to speak like Twitter. We don't want to converse like e-mail. And yet we increasingly do, as the Internet reshapes the world in its image.
My point is that using Twitter doesn't make us speak like Twitter. We may "tweet" (hate that word), but on Twitter. Take the "txt spk" theme at Techdirt for example. Shortened SMS messages don't make kids stupid or impair their ability to write prose, and 140 character message on Twitter don't make its users stupid or unable to read books.
Sure, "the nature of the medium encourages a particular way of ingesting information" but I don't believe it necessarily spreads beyond the medium (or "makes us stupid"). When in Rome, do as the Romans do... When on Twitter, you ingest information in a certain way. Yes, that is very different from the sustained study of a particular work. But how does ingesting information on Twitter impair your ability to study a particular work in depth off-line or on some other medium?
Twitter isn't for in-depth study. That doesn't mean it impairs our ability to study in-depth.
Asay's observation has no real connection to the "makes us stupid" thesis because neither Asay or Carr can explain how skimming on one medium impairs one's ability to study in-depth on another (or on the same, for that matter).
On the post: There's Stupidity Somewhere Here, But It's Not Coming From Google...
Re: eh?
It has the tone of Mike.
I'll take that as a compliment. :)
I did not know the Vatican had a web page, although I should have assumed.
The Vatican actually has a very comprehensive web page.
There's an entertaining interview I found from Robert Scoble back in the fall with Sister Judith Zoeblein, the nun responsible for the Vatican's website. She's asked questions about Second Life (ha.ha. get it?) and "which operating system God uses." People are shocked to see a nun in I.T., nevermind actually giving a talk at a tech conference (they caught her in the hall during the conference).
Interview with Sister Judith Zoebelein
On the post: Trent Reznor's Path To Accepting And Embracing New Business Models
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I specifically said that it's not about selling enjoyment.
Ethan Kaplan, the VP of Tech at Warner Bros. Records, made the same distinction a few weeks ago in a keynote talk he gave at the Mesh Conference in Toronto, though using different words. He made the distinction between artifact and experience, saying that Warner Bros. is moving away from their limited view of just the artifact towards being in the business of the music "experience" in general.
Don't get so hung up over the word "enjoyment." Maybe there's a better word. Could be "experience"? (e.g. the buggy experience is really one of transportation, not of necessarily riding in a buggy).
The fundamental point is that the market should not be defined by the product but by the benefit. The music business isn't simply about selling plastic embodiments of songs. It's about the real benefit that music provides people and that they're willing to pay for.
Whether you call the benefit "enjoyment surrounding music" or "the experience surrounding music" or something else isn't really important to the basic point. What those phrases are trying to encapsulate is the benefit of music, rather than simply the product.
Agree? Maybe you have another suggesting to describe it?
Next >>