"If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we...":
(a) Speak
(b) Eat
(c) Kiss
(d) Perform oral sex
(e) Get them pierced, like all the damn kids do nowadays
(h) Bully the damn kids on social media sites
(f) All of the above
(g) All of the above at the same time
I'm not aware of any economist who models copyright who doesn't agree that copyright does in fact provide incentives. The notion that it doesn't seems stupid to me.
Then reality must seem stupid to you.
The evidence is that copyright protection decreases productivity. For example, see this TED talk by Johanna Blakely, on how a lack of copyright is one of the driving forces behind the U.S. fashion industry: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zL2FOrx41N0
And, in situations where direct comparisons can be made, copyright comes out the loser. Take, for example, database rights. The EU has them, the U.S. doesn't. Which one produces more? The U.S., of course: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080907/1642432187.shtml
But the stuff that has real market value is the stuff that tends to utilize a copyright business model.
Strictly speaking, there isn't a "copyright business model." There is a business model, and there is the copyright monopoly - which is granted, universally, by law.
But there is no evidence that the latter causes the former. If that were the case, then output would drop in the face of rampant piracy. In fact, the opposite is true.
Since the Napster era, the number of albums released by major labels has nearly doubled. And, similar output is seen with motion pictures from major studios (not "home videos taken on someone's camera").
The very idea that creation of the same works would not happen without copyright, is the notion that should seem stupid to you.
In any case, this is only half of the question. Certainly the public benefits from the creation and dissemination of works. But even if copyright did incentivize this, the question is whether this benefit outweighs the detriments to society caused by copyright. That is, whether the public benefits more from a new pop song, or from "the free flow of ideas, information, and commerce" (as Sony v. Universal put it).
The goal is to balance dissemination with authors' rights.
No. The goal is to balance competing interests in the public good. One is the public benefit that results because of this monopoly, the other is the public detriment that results because of this monopoly. Authors' "rights" have nothing to do with it.
You can take away authors' rights to maximize dissemination, but then you've taken away the incentive for authors to produce the works in the first place.
That only matters if authors would not produce more works, and if publishers would not disseminate them in the first place, if copyright did not exist.
Certainly, that's not true, at least regarding of our current copyright laws. It would only be true if our current copyright laws encouraged the dissemination of new works, or of works currently under copyright. Looking at the data, neither is true.
If copyright was all that the theory supposed it was, then there would be no "orphaned works" issue - because there would be no "orphaned works" in the first place. The theory says that the copyright monopoly grants an incentive to continue publishing copyrighted works. If copyright worked as intended, no works would be "orphaned." They would all still be in print, motivated by the monopoly on distribution and copying that is granted by the government.
Not only that, but out of print works would be a rarity. Companies would be incentivized, via copyright laws, to keep works in print for as long as possible, to take advantage of their monopoly.
But neither situation is true. Most of history's copyrighted works are out of print (due to unpopularity), therefore unavailable to the public. This applies even to copyrighted works from twenty years ago. If they were in the public domain, every interested party would be able to restore them, either for profit or for personal interests; as of now, they're legally prevented from doing so.
And it's not like the public gets greater access to "new" art forms in return. With longer copyright protection, publishers are encouraged by the government to sit on their haunches and promote artworks that have been around for ages, but are still under copyright. They are actually discouraged from producing new works - because those new works might "cannibalize" their profits from older, still profitable, works, that are still under control due to copyright laws.
Nowhere is this better seen than in the music industry. Think about how many commercial radio stations are "classic rock" stations. Hell, even the "alternative" stations play absolutely nothing that isn't introduced to the station by a major label.
Now consider what would happen if copyright only lasted the original length of 14 years. Suddenly, all those "classic" songs would not be protected by a government-granted monopoly on those songs to major label music publishers. They would do everything in their power to promote artists that were "newer," hence still under copyright. How long do you think "classic rock" stations would last under that copyright regime?
Furthermore, how much money do you think labels would spend on "new music," if they knew that they wouldn't be able to rely on catalog artists?
Make no mistake about it. The copyright monopoly is not the cause of artistic creation. It opposes artistic creation. It is a detriment to the arts, and to society. It does nothing but remove the incentive of publishers to publish new works, and of artists to become anything more than "one-hit wonders."
Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not an abolitionist. I realize that some protection is good for both authors and society. But I realize that the ultimate beneficiary must be the public, and that "author's rights" must be good for every member of the public, whether "author" or not.
And I recognize that the current copyright regime has been acting against that, and that it has been for a very, very long time.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Where's The Research? These Guys Are A Foreign Business
The consumer could sue someone if they were damaged, but a business could sue if their "reputation" was damaged.
I've never heard anyone say that an open market means that companies have a right to control their "reputation."
The thing that comes closest to that would be libel or slander laws. Do you think that Ron Paul could sue the owners of that site, and win? I certainly don't.
As an aside, many libertarians don't believe there should be laws against libel or slander at all. For example, Murray Rothbard:
Does Smith have the right to disseminate false information about Jones? In short, should "libel" and "slander" be illegal in the free society?
And yet, once again, how can they be? Smith has a property right to the ideas or opinions in his own head; he also has a property right to print anything he wants and disseminate it. He has a property right to say that Jones is a "thief" even if he knows it to be false, and to print and sell that statement. The counter-view, and the current basis for holding libel and slander (especially of false statements) to be illegal is that every man has a "property right" in his own reputation, that Smith's falsehoods damage that reputation, and that therefore Smith's libels are invasions of Jones's property right in his reputation and should be illegal. Yet, again, on closer analysis this is a fallacious view. For everyone, as we have stated, owns his own body; he has a property right in his own head and person. But since every man owns his own mind, he cannot therefore own the minds of anyone else. And yet Jones's "reputation" is neither a physical entity nor is it something contained within or on his own person. Jones's "reputation" is purely a function of the subjective attitudes and beliefs about him contained in the minds of other people. But since these are beliefs in the minds of others, Jones can in no way legitimately own or control them. Jones can have no property right in the beliefs and minds of other people.
Now, that doesn't apply to Ron Paul - he certainly thinks people should be able to sue for libel - but it's something to think about, at the very least.
Re: Re: Re: Where's The Research? These Guys Are A Foreign Business
You are NOT allowed to copy someone else's brand and ride on their good reputation.
In a free market - one unhindered by government regulation - then you certainly are.
The libertarian solution to consumer protection is not government regulation, but an unregulated market. At least, that what libertarian Ron Paul thinks:
So-called consumer protection agencies give people a false sense of security, so they are less diligent in ensuring the goods and services they buy are safe. Furthermore, these agencies have a history of allowing dangerous products on the market while restricting consumers' access to safe products. This is partially explained by the phenomenon of the regulatory capture, where bureaucrats at an agency become more concerned with protecting the interest of the industry they supposedly regulate than the interest of the public they supposedly serve.
In a free society, manufacturers would be held liable for any and all damages caused by their product; this, combined with the desire to earn repeat business by maintaining a positive reputation with consumers, would provide them with an incentive to ensure their products are safe.
So, if there is "consumer confusion," Ron Paul's solution would not be trademark law, but holding the company using the mark responsible for the damage caused by that confusion.
So, if using someone else's brand actually did result in consumer confusion, then the consumer should be able to sue the brand user for fraud. The brand originator would have no say in the matter whatsoever.
Instead, we have a government-granted monopoly on a "mark used in trade." Exactly what Ron Paul is arguing against.
Yes, and those pre-sales have historically been tied to advance commitments from Hollywood studio distributors. The foreign market has always taken advantage of the promotion from the North American market. And with the death of those distributors in 2008, the foreign market collapsed. I'll have more to say about this in a minute...
Syfy's old business model was to give producers $1.75 million and all rights other than Syfy's exhibition. The producer had to raise the remainder of the budget. Depending on the project, maybe another million. Guess what? It collapsed because they could no longer raise the money. The reason (justified or not) was piracy.
And, if that reason was not at all justified?
I've actually found nobody at Syfy who has ever cited piracy as the reason for their decisions, but perhaps you can enlighten me.
Dollars to donuts says it's not piracy, but "shrinking DVD sales" or some such, which has nothing to do with piracy, and everything to do with consumers migrating to streaming content. (Even Netflix is getting rid of their DVD offerings, even as streaming is growing.)
But back to my original point:
Of course, by keeping those distributors in power through government-enforced monopoly rights, copyright worsens that problem.
This is the only problem that you've cited. Indie filmmakers were absolutely dependent upon the major studio distribution arms that made deals with them. This situation was created by, and is exacerbated by, the monopoly on distribution that is created by the government-granted monopoly called copyright.
Indie filmmakers, like indie musicians ten years ago, are relegated to feeding at the trough of multinational media conglomerates. And if they fail, through their obstinate refusal to cater to paying customers, everyone else suffers. Since their paying customers just are pirates, this seems apropos.
Thank goodness for platforms like Vodo or Kickstarter, which are able to fund projects without the horrible business model failings that characterize the current copyright industries. Admittedly, they're still in their infancy, and have a long way to go. But they're a step in the right direction.
Few indy films have distribution deals before principle photography begins.
And unless you were one of those films, you likely wouldn't get a loan from a bank. It didn't necessarily have to be a full-fledged distribution deal, but it did have to be some sort of advance commitment, or at least some proof of pre-sales in the domestic market.
Thats a huge problem for indy films. Banks won't touch them because they think they'll be pirated which will erode their value in various markets.
I somehow doubt that piracy is the reason banks won't loan indie filmmakers money. In fact, it's far more likely that the reason is because they believe the indie films won't be picked up by a major distributor.
Of course, by keeping those distributors in power through government-enforced monopoly rights, copyright worsens that problem. It's the same with indie musicians: copyright has resulted in the major label system, which is vastly more harmful than file sharing is. To the degree that copyright keeps the major labels in power, it harms indie artists.
Oh, sorry, meant to end with the shoplifting comparison.
Suppose that your grocery store had a guard posted at every exit to the store. To leave, you had to unpack your grocery bags, and show your receipt to the guard, who would then check it against every single item in your bags.
I suspect you wouldn't be a good customer for very long.
I agree with that. But I'm a very good customer of my local grocer. Do you think that should mean anything if I occasionally shoplift there too?
First of all, piracy is nothing like shoplifting. Aside from the obvious differences between theft and infringement, you'd be punished far, far less for shoplifting than you would be for piracy.
But I digress. The issue is whether the implementation of anti-piracy laws, also has the effect of driving away those pirates from your product. For example, someone cut off from the Internet under HADOPI also wouldn't be able to download tracks from iTunes.
A bigger problem, of course, is when copyright holders call pirates "thieves," or "cheapskates," or "freetards." Nothing like name-calling to attract customers to your business. Plus, as Dave Allen said in his rebuttal to David Lowery, "the music industry is most likely the only industry to ever, ever, sue its own customers."
That's not even considering the effects enforcement has on innovation, free speech or an open Internet, none of which seem to bother corporate rights holders one iota.
You are trying to make the same stale argument as the AA's- that each stolen item represents a lost sale.
Except, in the very next paragraph, he makes exactly the opposite argument. But never mind.
I maintain that the proliferation of piracy undermines the expansion of legitimate distribution.
There's absolutely no evidence that this is true. For one thing, it goes against the entire theory of free market economics: that competition drives innovation.
For another thing, it goes against the history of digital music distribution. There's no question that Napster was the impetus for creating digital services. (Those services were so awful, however, that nobody used them, and are now the subject of an anti-trust lawsuit.) If it weren't for file sharing, there's no way that the major labels would have even thought about doing deals with iTunes or Spotify.
I offered the examples to counter the oft-mention contention that infringers wouldn't necessarily be buyers.
In fact, every reputable study ever commissioned has found that those that pirate music, buy much more music, legally, than those that do not.
So, no, an infringer won't necessarily be a customer. That much is certainly true. But if you take action against infringers, then you're also taking action against those who are currently your best customers.
The problem with these laws is that they will really only affect those who wouldn't have bought the album anyway. They likely don't affect the ones who are the best customers. The latter are more hardcore pirates than the former, and will find some technical way to continue infringing.
The site is a for profit web page designed to sell Ron Paul paraphernalia, for the benefit and profit of the domain name owners. It's not and never has been a site devoted to anything but selling t-shirts and bumper stickers for profit.
Even a casual glance at that site shows this isn't true.
Whether they sell paraphernalia or not, they have a TON of info up there: articles on the issues, links to Ron Paul's books on Amazon, embedded YouTube video endorsements (and original music) from supporters, straw poll results, a petition to get Paul to run for President in 2016, and so forth. All with comments, Facebook integration, etc.
Whether they make money or not, it's pretty clear that the site is populated with grassroots supporters, and run by advocates.
Yeah, vehemently lying about how he refuses to discuss certain things about what he believes personally on multiple unrelated stories is so arrogant and angry.
did she do any research as to the nature of this site?
Well, Mike has stated (repeatedly) that he wants copyright laws that will maximize the benefit to the public.
Since that is, in fact, copyright's purpose, he obviously has more respect for copyright than Buhl does. Or his detractors (like whoever average_joe is pretending to be this week). Or, for that matter, the people who wrote the current copyright statutes.
This is proper and will actually assure that textbooks don't rise to unaffordable prices in third world countries
The only reason textbook prices don't rise to unaffordable prices, is because then nobody could afford them, and they wouldn't buy them.
If Wiley could raise its prices in India, they would have already. They know that if they do, they will simply lose the Indian market to an Indian publisher, whose prices will more accurately reflect the equilibrium price in the open market.
So, it's far more likely that Wiley (and others) will lower their prices in the U.S. to reflect the growing competition from Indian versions.
Publishers already know this. The high prices of U.S. textbooks has nothing to do with a free market; they are priced so high because they have a captive market. U.S. students pay ridiculous prices because they have to in order to take a course.
And publishers have already started moving to models where first sale (even of legal U.S. copies) isn't possible. The trend nowadays is to put a significant amount of the course material (problem sets, appendices, etc.) online. Access to these materials requires an access code - one that can't be resold. The publisher then pressures the college to require these online materials; and the colleges (already under pressure to make classrooms "digital-friendly") often comply. This is especially prevalent with community colleges - meaning they're disproportionately exploiting the very sectors of college society who can least afford it.
I know this first-hand. Because of this, I have three editions of the same calculus textbook, for which I paid hundreds of dollars each, and can't resell to anyone.
Civil seizure has been on the books for many years
...as has Ft. Wayne v. Indiana, CDT v. Pappert, and a whole slew of other rulings that say the ex parte seizure of speech-related goods is unconstitutional. They apply less to trademark infringement sites, but they certainly are relevant regarding the copyright seizures (Rojadirecta, Dajaz1, etc).
On the post: Bizarre 'Attribution' Troll Bullies Twitter Users Into Compliance With Baseless Legal Threats
(a) Speak
(b) Eat
(c) Kiss
(d) Perform oral sex
(e) Get them pierced, like all the damn kids do nowadays
(h) Bully the damn kids on social media sites
(f) All of the above
(g) All of the above at the same time
Unfortunately, Shaun chose (a).
On the post: New Research: Extending Copyright Massively Increases Prices, Limits Dissemination Of Knowledge
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Then reality must seem stupid to you.
The evidence is that copyright protection decreases productivity. For example, see this TED talk by Johanna Blakely, on how a lack of copyright is one of the driving forces behind the U.S. fashion industry:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zL2FOrx41N0
And, in situations where direct comparisons can be made, copyright comes out the loser. Take, for example, database rights. The EU has them, the U.S. doesn't. Which one produces more? The U.S., of course:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080907/1642432187.shtml
But the stuff that has real market value is the stuff that tends to utilize a copyright business model.
Strictly speaking, there isn't a "copyright business model." There is a business model, and there is the copyright monopoly - which is granted, universally, by law.
But there is no evidence that the latter causes the former. If that were the case, then output would drop in the face of rampant piracy. In fact, the opposite is true.
Since the Napster era, the number of albums released by major labels has nearly doubled. And, similar output is seen with motion pictures from major studios (not "home videos taken on someone's camera").
The very idea that creation of the same works would not happen without copyright, is the notion that should seem stupid to you.
In any case, this is only half of the question. Certainly the public benefits from the creation and dissemination of works. But even if copyright did incentivize this, the question is whether this benefit outweighs the detriments to society caused by copyright. That is, whether the public benefits more from a new pop song, or from "the free flow of ideas, information, and commerce" (as Sony v. Universal put it).
On the post: New Research: Extending Copyright Massively Increases Prices, Limits Dissemination Of Knowledge
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Almost certainly it doesn't. The vast, vast majority of people create for reasons that have nothing to do with copyright - nor, for that matter, with making money.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110221/12161313191/amount-content-created-spite-copyright -is-staggering.shtml
http://www.techdirt.com/blog/entrepreneurs/articles/20100305/1907278449.shtml
On the post: New Research: Extending Copyright Massively Increases Prices, Limits Dissemination Of Knowledge
Re:
No. The goal is to balance competing interests in the public good. One is the public benefit that results because of this monopoly, the other is the public detriment that results because of this monopoly. Authors' "rights" have nothing to do with it.
You can take away authors' rights to maximize dissemination, but then you've taken away the incentive for authors to produce the works in the first place.
That only matters if authors would not produce more works, and if publishers would not disseminate them in the first place, if copyright did not exist.
Certainly, that's not true, at least regarding of our current copyright laws. It would only be true if our current copyright laws encouraged the dissemination of new works, or of works currently under copyright. Looking at the data, neither is true.
If copyright was all that the theory supposed it was, then there would be no "orphaned works" issue - because there would be no "orphaned works" in the first place. The theory says that the copyright monopoly grants an incentive to continue publishing copyrighted works. If copyright worked as intended, no works would be "orphaned." They would all still be in print, motivated by the monopoly on distribution and copying that is granted by the government.
Not only that, but out of print works would be a rarity. Companies would be incentivized, via copyright laws, to keep works in print for as long as possible, to take advantage of their monopoly.
But neither situation is true. Most of history's copyrighted works are out of print (due to unpopularity), therefore unavailable to the public. This applies even to copyrighted works from twenty years ago. If they were in the public domain, every interested party would be able to restore them, either for profit or for personal interests; as of now, they're legally prevented from doing so.
And it's not like the public gets greater access to "new" art forms in return. With longer copyright protection, publishers are encouraged by the government to sit on their haunches and promote artworks that have been around for ages, but are still under copyright. They are actually discouraged from producing new works - because those new works might "cannibalize" their profits from older, still profitable, works, that are still under control due to copyright laws.
Nowhere is this better seen than in the music industry. Think about how many commercial radio stations are "classic rock" stations. Hell, even the "alternative" stations play absolutely nothing that isn't introduced to the station by a major label.
Now consider what would happen if copyright only lasted the original length of 14 years. Suddenly, all those "classic" songs would not be protected by a government-granted monopoly on those songs to major label music publishers. They would do everything in their power to promote artists that were "newer," hence still under copyright. How long do you think "classic rock" stations would last under that copyright regime?
Furthermore, how much money do you think labels would spend on "new music," if they knew that they wouldn't be able to rely on catalog artists?
Make no mistake about it. The copyright monopoly is not the cause of artistic creation. It opposes artistic creation. It is a detriment to the arts, and to society. It does nothing but remove the incentive of publishers to publish new works, and of artists to become anything more than "one-hit wonders."
Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not an abolitionist. I realize that some protection is good for both authors and society. But I realize that the ultimate beneficiary must be the public, and that "author's rights" must be good for every member of the public, whether "author" or not.
And I recognize that the current copyright regime has been acting against that, and that it has been for a very, very long time.
On the post: Ron Paul, UN Hater, Asks UN To Take RonPaul.com Forcefully From Ron Paul's Biggest Supporters
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Where's The Research? These Guys Are A Foreign Business
I've never heard anyone say that an open market means that companies have a right to control their "reputation."
The thing that comes closest to that would be libel or slander laws. Do you think that Ron Paul could sue the owners of that site, and win? I certainly don't.
As an aside, many libertarians don't believe there should be laws against libel or slander at all. For example, Murray Rothbard:
Now, that doesn't apply to Ron Paul - he certainly thinks people should be able to sue for libel - but it's something to think about, at the very least.
On the post: Ron Paul, UN Hater, Asks UN To Take RonPaul.com Forcefully From Ron Paul's Biggest Supporters
Re: Re: Re: Where's The Research? These Guys Are A Foreign Business
In a free market - one unhindered by government regulation - then you certainly are.
The libertarian solution to consumer protection is not government regulation, but an unregulated market. At least, that what libertarian Ron Paul thinks:
So, if there is "consumer confusion," Ron Paul's solution would not be trademark law, but holding the company using the mark responsible for the damage caused by that confusion.
So, if using someone else's brand actually did result in consumer confusion, then the consumer should be able to sue the brand user for fraud. The brand originator would have no say in the matter whatsoever.
Instead, we have a government-granted monopoly on a "mark used in trade." Exactly what Ron Paul is arguing against.
On the post: Three Strikes May Decrease File Sharing, But If Sales Keep Dropping, Who Cares?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
In case it wasn't clear, which it wasn't, "they" = "multinational media conglomerates." Not indie filmmakers.
On the post: Three Strikes May Decrease File Sharing, But If Sales Keep Dropping, Who Cares?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, and those pre-sales have historically been tied to advance commitments from Hollywood studio distributors. The foreign market has always taken advantage of the promotion from the North American market. And with the death of those distributors in 2008, the foreign market collapsed. I'll have more to say about this in a minute...
Syfy's old business model was to give producers $1.75 million and all rights other than Syfy's exhibition. The producer had to raise the remainder of the budget. Depending on the project, maybe another million. Guess what? It collapsed because they could no longer raise the money. The reason (justified or not) was piracy.
And, if that reason was not at all justified?
I've actually found nobody at Syfy who has ever cited piracy as the reason for their decisions, but perhaps you can enlighten me.
Dollars to donuts says it's not piracy, but "shrinking DVD sales" or some such, which has nothing to do with piracy, and everything to do with consumers migrating to streaming content. (Even Netflix is getting rid of their DVD offerings, even as streaming is growing.)
But back to my original point:
Of course, by keeping those distributors in power through government-enforced monopoly rights, copyright worsens that problem.
This is the only problem that you've cited. Indie filmmakers were absolutely dependent upon the major studio distribution arms that made deals with them. This situation was created by, and is exacerbated by, the monopoly on distribution that is created by the government-granted monopoly called copyright.
Indie filmmakers, like indie musicians ten years ago, are relegated to feeding at the trough of multinational media conglomerates. And if they fail, through their obstinate refusal to cater to paying customers, everyone else suffers. Since their paying customers just are pirates, this seems apropos.
Thank goodness for platforms like Vodo or Kickstarter, which are able to fund projects without the horrible business model failings that characterize the current copyright industries. Admittedly, they're still in their infancy, and have a long way to go. But they're a step in the right direction.
On the post: Three Strikes May Decrease File Sharing, But If Sales Keep Dropping, Who Cares?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And unless you were one of those films, you likely wouldn't get a loan from a bank. It didn't necessarily have to be a full-fledged distribution deal, but it did have to be some sort of advance commitment, or at least some proof of pre-sales in the domestic market.
On the post: Three Strikes May Decrease File Sharing, But If Sales Keep Dropping, Who Cares?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I somehow doubt that piracy is the reason banks won't loan indie filmmakers money. In fact, it's far more likely that the reason is because they believe the indie films won't be picked up by a major distributor.
Of course, by keeping those distributors in power through government-enforced monopoly rights, copyright worsens that problem. It's the same with indie musicians: copyright has resulted in the major label system, which is vastly more harmful than file sharing is. To the degree that copyright keeps the major labels in power, it harms indie artists.
On the post: Three Strikes May Decrease File Sharing, But If Sales Keep Dropping, Who Cares?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Never been to either. Now, I never will...
On the post: Three Strikes May Decrease File Sharing, But If Sales Keep Dropping, Who Cares?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Suppose that your grocery store had a guard posted at every exit to the store. To leave, you had to unpack your grocery bags, and show your receipt to the guard, who would then check it against every single item in your bags.
I suspect you wouldn't be a good customer for very long.
On the post: Three Strikes May Decrease File Sharing, But If Sales Keep Dropping, Who Cares?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
First of all, piracy is nothing like shoplifting. Aside from the obvious differences between theft and infringement, you'd be punished far, far less for shoplifting than you would be for piracy.
But I digress. The issue is whether the implementation of anti-piracy laws, also has the effect of driving away those pirates from your product. For example, someone cut off from the Internet under HADOPI also wouldn't be able to download tracks from iTunes.
A bigger problem, of course, is when copyright holders call pirates "thieves," or "cheapskates," or "freetards." Nothing like name-calling to attract customers to your business. Plus, as Dave Allen said in his rebuttal to David Lowery, "the music industry is most likely the only industry to ever, ever, sue its own customers."
That's not even considering the effects enforcement has on innovation, free speech or an open Internet, none of which seem to bother corporate rights holders one iota.
On the post: Three Strikes May Decrease File Sharing, But If Sales Keep Dropping, Who Cares?
Re: Re: Re:
Except, in the very next paragraph, he makes exactly the opposite argument. But never mind.
I maintain that the proliferation of piracy undermines the expansion of legitimate distribution.
There's absolutely no evidence that this is true. For one thing, it goes against the entire theory of free market economics: that competition drives innovation.
For another thing, it goes against the history of digital music distribution. There's no question that Napster was the impetus for creating digital services. (Those services were so awful, however, that nobody used them, and are now the subject of an anti-trust lawsuit.) If it weren't for file sharing, there's no way that the major labels would have even thought about doing deals with iTunes or Spotify.
In fact, the biggest obstacle to digital music services is, without any doubt, the major labels themselves.
On the post: Three Strikes May Decrease File Sharing, But If Sales Keep Dropping, Who Cares?
Re: Re: Re:
In fact, every reputable study ever commissioned has found that those that pirate music, buy much more music, legally, than those that do not.
So, no, an infringer won't necessarily be a customer. That much is certainly true. But if you take action against infringers, then you're also taking action against those who are currently your best customers.
The problem with these laws is that they will really only affect those who wouldn't have bought the album anyway. They likely don't affect the ones who are the best customers. The latter are more hardcore pirates than the former, and will find some technical way to continue infringing.
On the post: Ron Paul, UN Hater, Asks UN To Take RonPaul.com Forcefully From Ron Paul's Biggest Supporters
Re:
Even a casual glance at that site shows this isn't true.
Whether they sell paraphernalia or not, they have a TON of info up there: articles on the issues, links to Ron Paul's books on Amazon, embedded YouTube video endorsements (and original music) from supporters, straw poll results, a petition to get Paul to run for President in 2016, and so forth. All with comments, Facebook integration, etc.
Whether they make money or not, it's pretty clear that the site is populated with grassroots supporters, and run by advocates.
On the post: Teri Buhl Responds To Our Story; Still Confused About The Internet And The Law
Re: Re: Re:
FTFY.
On the post: Teri Buhl Responds To Our Story; Still Confused About The Internet And The Law
Re:
Well, Mike has stated (repeatedly) that he wants copyright laws that will maximize the benefit to the public.
Since that is, in fact, copyright's purpose, he obviously has more respect for copyright than Buhl does. Or his detractors (like whoever average_joe is pretending to be this week). Or, for that matter, the people who wrote the current copyright statutes.
On the post: Chris Sprigman's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
Re: Re: Re: Re: Odd?
The only reason textbook prices don't rise to unaffordable prices, is because then nobody could afford them, and they wouldn't buy them.
If Wiley could raise its prices in India, they would have already. They know that if they do, they will simply lose the Indian market to an Indian publisher, whose prices will more accurately reflect the equilibrium price in the open market.
So, it's far more likely that Wiley (and others) will lower their prices in the U.S. to reflect the growing competition from Indian versions.
Publishers already know this. The high prices of U.S. textbooks has nothing to do with a free market; they are priced so high because they have a captive market. U.S. students pay ridiculous prices because they have to in order to take a course.
And publishers have already started moving to models where first sale (even of legal U.S. copies) isn't possible. The trend nowadays is to put a significant amount of the course material (problem sets, appendices, etc.) online. Access to these materials requires an access code - one that can't be resold. The publisher then pressures the college to require these online materials; and the colleges (already under pressure to make classrooms "digital-friendly") often comply. This is especially prevalent with community colleges - meaning they're disproportionately exploiting the very sectors of college society who can least afford it.
I know this first-hand. Because of this, I have three editions of the same calculus textbook, for which I paid hundreds of dollars each, and can't resell to anyone.
On the post: Chris Sprigman's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
Re: Re: Re:
...as has Ft. Wayne v. Indiana, CDT v. Pappert, and a whole slew of other rulings that say the ex parte seizure of speech-related goods is unconstitutional. They apply less to trademark infringement sites, but they certainly are relevant regarding the copyright seizures (Rojadirecta, Dajaz1, etc).
Next >>