Are you one of those who think people shouldn't get paid for something they did 10 years ago?
I don't think people shouldn't get paid for things they've done in the past, but I also don't think it's a given. It's not a right.
It may work well in some scenarios, as copyright may have allowed for in centuries past. But it's not necessary, especially if there are better systems.
More importantly, I was highlighting your logical fallacy when you said: "That would be like your boss saying to you: I loved the work you did yesterday, and it's really helped us around here, but I'm not going to pay you for it."
Royalties don't compensate you for doing work, but for other people making use of that work. Which is why "making money from anything you do is not a right." If you're making money from royalties, you have to make something that people actually want to use. I think that was part of Jake's point.
But there's morality at play here, Mike. Why do you choose to ignore it?
What's the moral issue? Copyright infringement is immoral insofar as it's illegal - that's it. Copyright law is not based on natural law or any sort of natural rights. Otherwise, how would you account for the public domain?
In other words, copyright is an artificial system intended to provide economic incentives to "content creators" to encourage them to produce more works for the good of society.
It has nothing to do with protecting any natural rights of creators. This is obvious in reading the U.S. constitution, or in the simple observation that copyright protection expires.
The only additional "moral" issues are ensuring that artists have a way to make a living, because we want them to be able to produce art. If there are better business models that don't depend on copyright, what's immoral about that?
They are similar insofar as they are both abundant goods.
The point is not to suggest that quality content is as ubiquitous as air, or something like that. You're jumping to conclusions.
The point is simply to make a distinction between price and value. Oxygen is extremely valuable - we need it to live - but we don't pay for it because its in abundant supply.
The air example is simply to demonstrate that price and value are not the same.
You say two things:
- content is a scarce good that can be sold
- digital copies of content are infinite goods that cannot be sold
I don't think that's accurate.
First, it's not that content is a scarce good (it's not if it's digital), but that content creation is a scarce good. More specifically, the creator's time and ability are scarce goods. A good songwriter's ability to write good songs is valuable because it's scarce, so selling that ability makes perfect sense (e.g. writing a song for a film).
Second, it's not that digital copies can't be sold. Mike doesn't say that. It's just that the price of digital copies will naturally approach zero because the marginal cost of reproduction is zero. You can still sell copies, but you need to provide some sort of added benefit to get people to pay more than the marginal cost. For example, Reznor offered high quality audio files and accompanying scarce goods. Radiohead monetized patronage.
But, if we say that all content will become digitized, how are we not saying: content, once digitized, is an infinite good that cannot be sold.
1. Infinite goods can be sold if you provide some sort of perceived benefit.
2. Better yet, infinite goods can be leverage to add value to scarce goods which you're selling. In taking advantage of the ease in which digital music can spread, NIN have grown their fan base (i.e. market) immensely, adding value to all the scarce goods surrounding their brand (limited deluxe edition packages, concert tickets, etc.)
3. Content creation is still a scarcity, because a creator's time and skills are scarcities which can be sold or otherwise monetized (e.g. commission works, fund and release).
Musicians don't sell or create "enjoyment," they create music, from which some people may derive enjoyment.
The business isn't limited to creating music, it's in monetizing the enjoyment surrounding music, whether that's writing new songs, selling copies of the music, giving performances, creating an online community for fans, giving fan club members privileged access, etc....
The music business isn't simply about the artifact or product produced (e.g. a CD), but about monetizing the experience surrounding music.
It's not that you "sell enjoyment," it's that you sell things which people enjoy because of music. That doesn't have to be an artifact containing music, the possibilities are much more broad.
I can't speak for Jake, but you may be jumping to conclusions. Jake said, money was a "secondary consideration," not that it wasn't considered, but simply that it wasn't the primary motivating factor.
This is what makes a business successful. Yes, a business. Money is considered, and considered pretty important if it's considered second, but what's considered first is giving the customer what he/she wants. In other words, building the type of relationship that is healthy for financial success. The type of situation where the customer wants to give you money.
It's the same reason why Google and Apple are winning. Google didn't focus on making money first, it focused on making a good search engine that people would want to use. Then, Google sure as hell made money. Also, Apple makes computers that people want to use, that many people love to use. Their focus is the user experience first. Their primary focus is on adoption
Focusing on the art first doesn't mean than money isn't a consideration, but by taking monetization into account after focusing on adoption (i.e. treating your customers right and getting them genuinely interested), you'll set yourself up to be in a much better financial situation.
I don't think that's "naive and insulting idealism" at all. It's smart business.
I'm still bothered by this. Why do I have to produce "other," physical products in order to have sales?
Physical products aren't the only scarce goods. Your time is also a commonly sold scarce good. Examples of selling your time/presence as a scarce good are performances or commissioned work.
In the example of a writer being paid to create new work (e.g. songwriter/composer commissioned to write a song/score for a movie), the scarce good is directly tied to creating content.
Scarce goods aren't necessarily "something other than the content itself."
For sure. I've always been mildly interested in NIN, mainly because of Trent Reznor's association with some artists I really like (e.g. the Tapeworm project, with Danny Lohner and Maynard James Keenan - I'm a huge fan of A Perfect Circle and Tool), but I'd never gotten to know much NIN.
Now that The Slip and Ghosts have been made available at no cost, I've been listening to NIN quite a bit and have been really getting into some of their songs. I almost bought tickets to the Toronto show on their tour.
Though I haven't paid anything yet (but I'm planning to go back and get Ghosts II-IV), it seems like NIN has gained another real fan they otherwise may not have had.
I think we're largely in agreement, but a few comments...
If you're talking about the real life economics of any business model (old or new), then you have to factor that in. Songwriters get paid the way we do for the same reason superstar athletes get paid those huge amounts of cash: there are very few people who can compete at that level.
Without getting into a hardest-profession-in-the-world Fame-style debate over who's more replaceable... you're confusing royalties and salaries. No one here is claiming that songwriters shouldn't get paid, or paid well for that matter. Rather, the point is that having an artificial monopoly over one's work and getting paid royalties for work that was done in the past is something that is up for debate (i.e. "not a given") rather than a "right" that us songwriters and composers have.
If you are a songwriter, you are usually signed to an exclusive publishing deal.
Two comments: 1) this isn't really a bill of rights for songwriters and composers, it's a bill of rights for their publishers; 2) just because that's the case now doesn't mean that it will always be the case, as this discussion is largely about not ignoring other business models.
It seems like you're suggesting that these royalties are necessary because "the songwriter is frequently the last one in the musical food chain to get paid" and "for the other inconveniences he or she must endure to make a living in that field." Doesn't that seem a little inefficient? Asserting the "rights" in the bill would be an affirmation of the current status quo.
Again, even though that's the way things are run now, that doesn't make it content for a bill of rights.
Don't pick on us. We aren't the real problem here. If people (bloggers, judges, politicians and the general public as a whole) would do the research and not assume, that would be clear.
No one is suggesting that songwriters are a problem. (I am a songwriter and I work for songwriters.) This "bill of rights," however, is filled with problems.
I do not think it should be a problem to make a copy of a cd and give to a couple close friends, but I do however think that it should not be distributed freely online to complete strangers.
How does the law determine the difference between a friend and a stranger? Are there people you know who are not your friends, or does everyone you know count as a friend? What about "MySpace" type friends, do those count? See how this gets complicated quickly?
Everything breaks down the moment you start thinking about how this would be implemented, enforced or even defined.
If you would write a book or design some new tech device, would you want people to distribute it freely? If you manufacture something expecting to be paid for all the time and energy that you invested and someone would take it say thank you and walk away without paying for it, How would you feel?
Books and electronic devices aren't the same. With a book, yes, I'd want people to spread it freely and I'd be interested in a business model that uses that to my advantage. An electronic device, on the other hand, costs money to copy, so I probably wouldn't give too many away for free myself. But anyone has the right to redistribute it at no cost (e.g. if you buy an iPhone, you can give it away for free).
Also, click through the link about confusing salaries and royalties in the post. There's a difference between being paid to do work (e.g. a salary) and being paid for work you've already done in the past (e.g. a royalty).
You're confusing infinite and scarce goods, distribution and redistribution, royalties and salaries...
it doesn't say copyright has been diminished it only says certain groups and or ppl are trying to diminish it.
True, though Steve's objection still stands in the sense that there are so many forces working to expand copyright as well. The entertainment industry has been quite successful at this over the past several decades.
Dan, Mike, Lawrence and Paul have pretty much covered everything. I just have a couple thoughts to add.
The problem is you keep treating music like a physical piece of property.
That's the point, in a way, but the purpose is to highlight the difference: "those who insist that copyright is the same as real property break their own rule by also insisting that they retain perpetual rights to the good, even after it's been sold."
You can't complain that music is being treated like physical property one second and use the example of a bank robber the next.
More importantly, ASCAP claims to be putting forth a "Bill of Rights." In it, they assert all sorts of arbitrary intellectual property claims. My point is that "this is not a given," that it's hardly the substance from which to derive inalienable rights. The "rights" granted by specific intellectual property laws are very different from natural rights (the kind you'd expect in such a document); there's nothing natural about intellectual property.
Stop associating the songwriters with maniacal freaks.
As Mike already pointed out, I am a songwriter and I work for songwriters, practically on a daily basis. There are many songwriters who understand the current landscape, which is why I fully support the seventh "right" in the bill, so that those songwriters have the freedom to distance themselves from groups like ASCAP and the freedom to flock to groups like the Canadian Music Creators Coalition.
"Well, we don't often have computers with us in the room and a signature is required even after it is printed off, which actually takes longer but more importantly, prescriptions are often written on duplicate paper to prevent fraud and so the computer systems would have to have a record that could be absolutely locked so that the tracking and duplication are easily seen."
I'm sure similar laws and policies would apply in Canada and at UofT regarding a disabled student (maybe for non-English speakers... might have a harder time with that battle).
I didn't fight him over it because a) I didn't know enough about "intellectual property" law at the time, and b) I don't record lectures myself.
One of my profs at the University of Toronto took a similar stance, which drove me nuts. There wasn't a lot that materialized from it (i.e. no accusations or anything), but he told us on the first day that he didn't want his lectures being recorded because he "had to protect [his] intellectual property."
He was teaching us MUS110, Western Music History. This was the most vague and introductory of courses. We covered nearly a millennium in 13 weeks, basically reading out of an overpriced textbook.
I couldn't believe it.
We were paying him to teach us this stuff. There was virtually no individual thought in the presentation of it. No one was in a rush to sell bootlegged copies of Prof. Johnston's lectures on the street. No one was rushing to see if they had surfaced on file sharing networks that afternoon. Yet, he was putting up barriers for students in his class.
It's beyond me what he thought he was protecting himself from...
The Patriot Act is an issue at the University of Toronto (UofT) as well, where I am a student. UofT has an email policy that all correspondence between staff and students is supposed to be done between @utoronto.ca email addresses. Students and professors are supposed to use their university addresses, as opposed to personal address (like a gmail or hotmail address).
In my Software Engineering class last term, my prof discussed the Patriot Act's effect on this policy. There are some privacy laws in Ontario that affect data stored in jurisdictions with weaker privacy laws (such as the US, because of the Patriot Act). More importantly though, in terms of relevancy, he asked the class how many students were from out of the country. Half the class raised their hands. Many international students are from countries that the US might not have great relations with either.
As a Canadian, it is a concern when it comes to storing student information, or even storing client information at my business. I work at an I.T. consulting company, and we have a web host which we use for a wide variety of clients. Currently, that hose is in the US, but we're in the process of migrating to a Canadian host, largely because of the privacy implications of the Patriot Act. We want to be able to tell our clients that they are protected by Ontario privacy laws, rather than warn them of the implications of the Patriot Act.
Plus, to make the analogy more complete with shoplifting, this proposal would be like charging people for walking into the store because of shoplifting, regardless of whether or not they buy anything.
I've come to realize that the main reason why Facebook has been so hesitant to take down the walls is that they're afraid of the privacy and security implications. Things are a bit better off, in terms of privacy settings and the like, because Facebook has such a tight control on things. It'll be interesting to see if they can open up their system in a positive way (e.g. data portability and such buzz words) without losing their grip on privacy and security issues.
On the post: Trent Reznor's Path To Accepting And Embracing New Business Models
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: True Art
I don't think people shouldn't get paid for things they've done in the past, but I also don't think it's a given. It's not a right.
It may work well in some scenarios, as copyright may have allowed for in centuries past. But it's not necessary, especially if there are better systems.
More importantly, I was highlighting your logical fallacy when you said: "That would be like your boss saying to you: I loved the work you did yesterday, and it's really helped us around here, but I'm not going to pay you for it."
Royalties don't compensate you for doing work, but for other people making use of that work. Which is why "making money from anything you do is not a right." If you're making money from royalties, you have to make something that people actually want to use. I think that was part of Jake's point.
On the post: Trent Reznor's Path To Accepting And Embracing New Business Models
Re: Re: Re:
What's the moral issue? Copyright infringement is immoral insofar as it's illegal - that's it. Copyright law is not based on natural law or any sort of natural rights. Otherwise, how would you account for the public domain?
In other words, copyright is an artificial system intended to provide economic incentives to "content creators" to encourage them to produce more works for the good of society.
It has nothing to do with protecting any natural rights of creators. This is obvious in reading the U.S. constitution, or in the simple observation that copyright protection expires.
The only additional "moral" issues are ensuring that artists have a way to make a living, because we want them to be able to produce art. If there are better business models that don't depend on copyright, what's immoral about that?
What moral issues are you concerned with?
On the post: Trent Reznor's Path To Accepting And Embracing New Business Models
Re: Re: Re: Re:
They are similar insofar as they are both abundant goods.
The point is not to suggest that quality content is as ubiquitous as air, or something like that. You're jumping to conclusions.
The point is simply to make a distinction between price and value. Oxygen is extremely valuable - we need it to live - but we don't pay for it because its in abundant supply.
The air example is simply to demonstrate that price and value are not the same.
On the post: Trent Reznor's Path To Accepting And Embracing New Business Models
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
- content is a scarce good that can be sold
- digital copies of content are infinite goods that cannot be sold
I don't think that's accurate.
First, it's not that content is a scarce good (it's not if it's digital), but that content creation is a scarce good. More specifically, the creator's time and ability are scarce goods. A good songwriter's ability to write good songs is valuable because it's scarce, so selling that ability makes perfect sense (e.g. writing a song for a film).
Second, it's not that digital copies can't be sold. Mike doesn't say that. It's just that the price of digital copies will naturally approach zero because the marginal cost of reproduction is zero. You can still sell copies, but you need to provide some sort of added benefit to get people to pay more than the marginal cost. For example, Reznor offered high quality audio files and accompanying scarce goods. Radiohead monetized patronage.
But, if we say that all content will become digitized, how are we not saying: content, once digitized, is an infinite good that cannot be sold.
1. Infinite goods can be sold if you provide some sort of perceived benefit.
2. Better yet, infinite goods can be leverage to add value to scarce goods which you're selling. In taking advantage of the ease in which digital music can spread, NIN have grown their fan base (i.e. market) immensely, adding value to all the scarce goods surrounding their brand (limited deluxe edition packages, concert tickets, etc.)
3. Content creation is still a scarcity, because a creator's time and skills are scarcities which can be sold or otherwise monetized (e.g. commission works, fund and release).
Musicians don't sell or create "enjoyment," they create music, from which some people may derive enjoyment.
The business isn't limited to creating music, it's in monetizing the enjoyment surrounding music, whether that's writing new songs, selling copies of the music, giving performances, creating an online community for fans, giving fan club members privileged access, etc....
The music business isn't simply about the artifact or product produced (e.g. a CD), but about monetizing the experience surrounding music.
It's not that you "sell enjoyment," it's that you sell things which people enjoy because of music. That doesn't have to be an artifact containing music, the possibilities are much more broad.
On the post: Trent Reznor's Path To Accepting And Embracing New Business Models
Re: Re: Re: True Art
There's a difference between getting paid to do work and getting paid for work you've already done.
Not many people get paid for work they've done in the past.
On the post: Trent Reznor's Path To Accepting And Embracing New Business Models
Re:
I can't speak for Jake, but you may be jumping to conclusions. Jake said, money was a "secondary consideration," not that it wasn't considered, but simply that it wasn't the primary motivating factor.
This is what makes a business successful. Yes, a business. Money is considered, and considered pretty important if it's considered second, but what's considered first is giving the customer what he/she wants. In other words, building the type of relationship that is healthy for financial success. The type of situation where the customer wants to give you money.
I wrote about this here: Why Trent Reznor is Winning.
It's the same reason why Google and Apple are winning. Google didn't focus on making money first, it focused on making a good search engine that people would want to use. Then, Google sure as hell made money. Also, Apple makes computers that people want to use, that many people love to use. Their focus is the user experience first. Their primary focus is on adoption
Focusing on the art first doesn't mean than money isn't a consideration, but by taking monetization into account after focusing on adoption (i.e. treating your customers right and getting them genuinely interested), you'll set yourself up to be in a much better financial situation.
I don't think that's "naive and insulting idealism" at all. It's smart business.
On the post: Trent Reznor's Path To Accepting And Embracing New Business Models
Re: Re: Re:
I'm still bothered by this. Why do I have to produce "other," physical products in order to have sales?
Physical products aren't the only scarce goods. Your time is also a commonly sold scarce good. Examples of selling your time/presence as a scarce good are performances or commissioned work.
In the example of a writer being paid to create new work (e.g. songwriter/composer commissioned to write a song/score for a movie), the scarce good is directly tied to creating content.
Scarce goods aren't necessarily "something other than the content itself."
On the post: Trent Reznor's Path To Accepting And Embracing New Business Models
Re: Slip
For sure. I've always been mildly interested in NIN, mainly because of Trent Reznor's association with some artists I really like (e.g. the Tapeworm project, with Danny Lohner and Maynard James Keenan - I'm a huge fan of A Perfect Circle and Tool), but I'd never gotten to know much NIN.
Now that The Slip and Ghosts have been made available at no cost, I've been listening to NIN quite a bit and have been really getting into some of their songs. I almost bought tickets to the Toronto show on their tour.
Though I haven't paid anything yet (but I'm planning to go back and get Ghosts II-IV), it seems like NIN has gained another real fan they otherwise may not have had.
On the post: Pro-Copyright Strawmen Won't Protect You From Real Economics
Re: Examples of thriving free music?
On the post: ASCAP's Bill Of Wrongs
Re: Re: Re: Rights
If you're talking about the real life economics of any business model (old or new), then you have to factor that in. Songwriters get paid the way we do for the same reason superstar athletes get paid those huge amounts of cash: there are very few people who can compete at that level.
Without getting into a hardest-profession-in-the-world Fame-style debate over who's more replaceable... you're confusing royalties and salaries. No one here is claiming that songwriters shouldn't get paid, or paid well for that matter. Rather, the point is that having an artificial monopoly over one's work and getting paid royalties for work that was done in the past is something that is up for debate (i.e. "not a given") rather than a "right" that us songwriters and composers have.
If you are a songwriter, you are usually signed to an exclusive publishing deal.
Two comments: 1) this isn't really a bill of rights for songwriters and composers, it's a bill of rights for their publishers; 2) just because that's the case now doesn't mean that it will always be the case, as this discussion is largely about not ignoring other business models.
It seems like you're suggesting that these royalties are necessary because "the songwriter is frequently the last one in the musical food chain to get paid" and "for the other inconveniences he or she must endure to make a living in that field." Doesn't that seem a little inefficient? Asserting the "rights" in the bill would be an affirmation of the current status quo.
Again, even though that's the way things are run now, that doesn't make it content for a bill of rights.
Don't pick on us. We aren't the real problem here. If people (bloggers, judges, politicians and the general public as a whole) would do the research and not assume, that would be clear.
No one is suggesting that songwriters are a problem. (I am a songwriter and I work for songwriters.) This "bill of rights," however, is filled with problems.
On the post: ASCAP's Bill Of Wrongs
Re: ASCAP is right.
How does the law determine the difference between a friend and a stranger? Are there people you know who are not your friends, or does everyone you know count as a friend? What about "MySpace" type friends, do those count? See how this gets complicated quickly?
Everything breaks down the moment you start thinking about how this would be implemented, enforced or even defined.
If you would write a book or design some new tech device, would you want people to distribute it freely? If you manufacture something expecting to be paid for all the time and energy that you invested and someone would take it say thank you and walk away without paying for it, How would you feel?
Books and electronic devices aren't the same. With a book, yes, I'd want people to spread it freely and I'd be interested in a business model that uses that to my advantage. An electronic device, on the other hand, costs money to copy, so I probably wouldn't give too many away for free myself. But anyone has the right to redistribute it at no cost (e.g. if you buy an iPhone, you can give it away for free).
Also, click through the link about confusing salaries and royalties in the post. There's a difference between being paid to do work (e.g. a salary) and being paid for work you've already done in the past (e.g. a royalty).
You're confusing infinite and scarce goods, distribution and redistribution, royalties and salaries...
On the post: ASCAP's Bill Of Wrongs
Re: Re: Bill of Extortion
True, though Steve's objection still stands in the sense that there are so many forces working to expand copyright as well. The entertainment industry has been quite successful at this over the past several decades.
On the post: ASCAP's Bill Of Wrongs
Re: Rights
Dan, Mike, Lawrence and Paul have pretty much covered everything. I just have a couple thoughts to add.
The problem is you keep treating music like a physical piece of property.
That's the point, in a way, but the purpose is to highlight the difference: "those who insist that copyright is the same as real property break their own rule by also insisting that they retain perpetual rights to the good, even after it's been sold."
You can't complain that music is being treated like physical property one second and use the example of a bank robber the next.
More importantly, ASCAP claims to be putting forth a "Bill of Rights." In it, they assert all sorts of arbitrary intellectual property claims. My point is that "this is not a given," that it's hardly the substance from which to derive inalienable rights. The "rights" granted by specific intellectual property laws are very different from natural rights (the kind you'd expect in such a document); there's nothing natural about intellectual property.
Stop associating the songwriters with maniacal freaks.
As Mike already pointed out, I am a songwriter and I work for songwriters, practically on a daily basis. There are many songwriters who understand the current landscape, which is why I fully support the seventh "right" in the bill, so that those songwriters have the freedom to distance themselves from groups like ASCAP and the freedom to flock to groups like the Canadian Music Creators Coalition.
On the post: Reputation Is A Scarce Good... As Metallica Is Learning
Re: Re: Re: Ima Fish
http://www.google.ca/search?q=define%3Anoun
On the post: Why Do Doctors Still Write Prescriptions (Illegibly) When They Can Type Them?
Response from a doctor I know
On the post: Are College Lectures Covered By Copyright?
Re: Re: Can't stand this
I didn't fight him over it because a) I didn't know enough about "intellectual property" law at the time, and b) I don't record lectures myself.
Damn, it was obnoxious though.
On the post: Are College Lectures Covered By Copyright?
Can't stand this
He was teaching us MUS110, Western Music History. This was the most vague and introductory of courses. We covered nearly a millennium in 13 weeks, basically reading out of an overpriced textbook.
I couldn't believe it.
We were paying him to teach us this stuff. There was virtually no individual thought in the presentation of it. No one was in a rush to sell bootlegged copies of Prof. Johnston's lectures on the street. No one was rushing to see if they had surfaced on file sharing networks that afternoon. Yet, he was putting up barriers for students in his class.
It's beyond me what he thought he was protecting himself from...
On the post: Will The Patriot Act Cost Google Business?
Concerns at the University of Toronto as well
In my Software Engineering class last term, my prof discussed the Patriot Act's effect on this policy. There are some privacy laws in Ontario that affect data stored in jurisdictions with weaker privacy laws (such as the US, because of the Patriot Act). More importantly though, in terms of relevancy, he asked the class how many students were from out of the country. Half the class raised their hands. Many international students are from countries that the US might not have great relations with either.
As a Canadian, it is a concern when it comes to storing student information, or even storing client information at my business. I work at an I.T. consulting company, and we have a web host which we use for a wide variety of clients. Currently, that hose is in the US, but we're in the process of migrating to a Canadian host, largely because of the privacy implications of the Patriot Act. We want to be able to tell our clients that they are protected by Ontario privacy laws, rather than warn them of the implications of the Patriot Act.
On the post: RIAA Now Open To 'You Must Be A Criminal' Tax On ISP Fees
Re: Re: You pay a similar tax in regular stores
On the post: If Facebook's Platform Is A Strategic Mistake, It's In Facing The Wrong Direction
Re: tough to balance
I've come to realize that the main reason why Facebook has been so hesitant to take down the walls is that they're afraid of the privacy and security implications. Things are a bit better off, in terms of privacy settings and the like, because Facebook has such a tight control on things. It'll be interesting to see if they can open up their system in a positive way (e.g. data portability and such buzz words) without losing their grip on privacy and security issues.
Next >>