Given how much the executives at the RIAA are paid, I guess it doesn’t make sense for them to actually read something about the views of the people they attack before they attack them. Or so it would seem from this piece by Neil Turkewitz.
-
Archives
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- May 2011
- March 2011
- November 2010
- October 2010
- August 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
- December 2005
- November 2005
- October 2005
- September 2005
- August 2005
- July 2005
- June 2005
- May 2005
- April 2005
- March 2005
- February 2005
- January 2005
- December 2004
- November 2004
- October 2004
- September 2004
- August 2004
- July 2004
- June 2004
- May 2004
- October 2003
- September 2003
- August 2003
- July 2003
- June 2003
- May 2003
- April 2003
- March 2003
- January 2003
- December 2002
- November 2002
- October 2002
- September 2002
- August 2002
-
Meta
I think you and the EFF should listen to what he is saying very carefully. It is a wide spread perception that the copyleft crowd is just interested in free music.
Your message needs to be more focused and a little less radical if we’re going to win this fight.
On the other hand, maybe you and the EFF really do believe that anyone should be able to do anything with any IP as they see fit. Honestly, it’s hard to tell with all the crap floating around.
I’m obviously preaching to the choir here, but it again seems that one of the issues we’re facing here is the typical economist-minded interpretation of the word “free” — a la “gratis” — being confused with “free” — a la “libre”.
It’s crucial to note to people this distinction. It’s not unlike or unrelated to the distinction between legal, constitutional, governmentally-enforced “marriage” and the Church-blessed and performed form of “marriage”.
Turkewitz spends the article talking about “free” and always substituting the word “cheap”. This conflation causes serious problems in the discourse, and allows him to come across as having addressed the issue (that is, freedom to use acquired materials) and constantly overlaying the image of some teen using Napster.
I talk about it like this to my friends: Windows is not gratis, and it is not libre. I cannot buy it and do anything substantial to what makes Windows work. SuSE Linux is also not gratis; I paid $39 to receive my copy. However, I can drop in a new kernel, for example. My liberty of use for SuSE’s product is substantially higher. Yet they still maintain copyright and source code use over a few elements of their system (I’m not sure if this is still true, and I’ve moved to Ubuntu anyhow). It serves to make the point that liberty of use does not sacrifice the ability to charge a fee for what you have to offer.
Furthermore, the idea that copyright and consumer’s interests are not diametrically opposed turns into a real straw man. No, I don’t think anyone here would argue that copyright of a reasonable duration is somehow against consumer’s interest. Indeed, Larry writes in his books about how it is clear the assurance of the ability to make a profit off a novel invention is indeed what has driven innovation in our economy. However, there is a line, and Turkewitz and people of his ilk seem completely oblivious (or perhaps acutely aware, if we’re going to paint them a sinister bunch) to the danger this sort of autoerotic asphyxiation poses to the “art” they purport to love and defend, and to the system of innovation we have thus far enjoyed in the history of the United States and industrialized culture.
I think tankko’s comment makes it clear that the biggest problem is the obfuscation of the “libre” community’s message by the copyright brigade. There is a serious lack of awareness on what the core issues are, and I’d say that more than being unaware,Neil Turkewitz is being very smart (diabolical may be too harsh a word) in completely messing up the argument to make it appear like all people are interested in is free music and movies.
I think that in some ways, we are at where the F/OSS movement was a few years back. To reach critical mass, we need even more of the creative community on our side. If a few more people manage to sell music despite having less restrictive licenses, this could get interesting.
The underlying hypothesis furnished by Bro. Turkewitz and practically everybody is: “…society’s primary interest is in ensuring the production and distribution of original materials so that there exists something to access. This goal is achieved via copyright protection.”
This is also the doublethink used to justify the pharmaceutical giants’ pretense that they’re primary funders/sources of research when they are in fact marketing machines who spend more advertising useless pills than Budweiser spends hawking beer!
Invention/research/creativity are the results of cohabitation with one’s muses. People do these things because they are people not because of royalty cheques and such. The greedheads who contend that those who actually create the oxymoronically-titled “Intellectual Property” are driven by the motives implied by the supposed positive reinforcements of copyright/trademark/patent nonsense.
I wonder if the cave paintings were signed?
Love.
It is sad (but perhaps entirely predictable) that the position that Professor Lessig has sought to elucidate clearly in _Free Culture_ is so deliberately distorted. It would be difficult for anyone capable of any kind of reading comprehension to read Free Culture and walk away with the impression that Professor Lessig was “anti-copyright”. Congress grants authors and inventors copyrights and patents to promote development of the progress of science and useful arts, and that is clearly a great benefit to society as a whole. But this was never intended, nor does it serve a useful purpose for these monopolies to be extended long beyond the death of their inventors and authors.
I suppose that Mr. Turkewitz believes that he can win this argument by merely fabricating false claims about what his opponents believe. But when Turkewitz says:
I can’t help but wonder how he thinks that Lessig would disagree.
Congratulations! Attacked by Microsoft AND the RIAA! What an honor.
If you get Orrin Hatch to declare you a public menace, you have the hat trick.
What is interesting is that no one in the RIAA (or anywhere else in the management wing of the culture factory) is addressing one of the strongest critiques of intellectual property: Vertical Integration and General Media Consolidation. According to Fischer in ‘Promises to Keep’, we could be looking at as few as 3 record companies controlling well over %90 of the market.
Forget arguements over what ‘free’ means and how to increase the public domain. Using IP rights (which are monopolies) to leverage smaller companies is a huge problem. IP monopolies begat corporate monopolies. It shouldn’t surprise anyone that exclusive control over the goods leads to exclusive control over how they are distributed. This isn’t even how the traditional copyright scheme was meant to work.
One last pot-shot – Mr RIAA Executive seems to imply that foreign markets are being injured by lack of copyright protection. I find this strange considering that any country that is a net IP importer should pirate their hearts out. Individuals can cross borders to secure copyrights on particular works, and the country can protect it’s own, but pirating is good for their economy. If a third (or 2nd) world country has no real opportunity to export their IP, they might as well let the populous bootleg because it is free money. Take the Chinese approach – public denounce it, but never do anything about it. It is a fantastic way to level the playing field for their companies by saving them money on software and education.
Who started this game? Obviously, I’m talking about us. Now that we export (our #1 export), we’re all about strong IP. Even the French had their moral rights doctrine spring up once they started an export market for their intellectual property – it wasn’t as rooted in tradition as they claim.
Yep, you might as well bootleg, it’s the best way to get your country up to speed. You can always join the Berne Convention later…
chuck smith:I’m obviously preaching to the choir here, but it again seems that one of the issues we’re facing here is the typical economist-minded interpretation of the word “free” — a la “gratis” — being confused with “free” — a la “libre”.
chuck smith don’t forget about us non-singing infidels.
first we think tankko’s point is well taken. while you may understand the distinction, many others do not. turkewitz’s piece – if indeed, as professor lessig suggests, it is based on ignornace of the free speech position – is a typical example.
second, it seems undeniable the “free as in free speech” crowd shares the streets with a large number of “free as in free beer” revolutionaries. while free beer is a great lubricant to free speech this association undermines many of the legitimate and important arguments the “free speech” side is trying to make.
frankly, it is not at all clear to us that “free speech” advocates do not greedily share the mob’s ambition for free beer.
when have you distanced yourself from P2P downloaders? when have you agreed with the RIAA on anything? if indeed there is a difference between free speech and free beer, you should not always find yourselves on opposite sides of the briefs.
you are judged by the company you keep as welll as by the company you avoid.
While it would be much fun to Fisk this article, I think it would be more helpful to determine if Turkewitz truly believes this is Lessig’s position, or if he is simply distorting the issue in an effort to make a straw man argument that’s easy to attack.
If it’s the straw man, which I believe it is, it would be fun to see Lessig “modify” his position, and become moderate in the ways Turkewitz describes.
“Why you’re right, Turkewitz, ‘the public interest in copyright is not limited to the notion of fair use or the public domain, but rather extends to the entire system of copyright.’ The public’s interest extends to the various burdens placed on it through the law, and what people should reasonably expect to be able to do. You’re also right to say that ‘the public certainly has an interest in securing cheap access to copyrighted materials.’ The current system of fair use grants access if approved by not-so-cheap attorneys. And I can’t figure out why copyright protection should be extended on existing works, since, as you say, ‘society’s primary interest is in ensuring the production and distribution of original materials‘!”
Further, Lessig draws upon the sympathetic environment for considering expressive/transformative uses (i.e. employing the doctrine of “fair use” for purposes of reporting, commentary, satire, parody or the production of new creative works), but applies them to consumptive uses.
DUDE! All information, and indeed all media (let’s skip patents for the moment), must, by definition, be consumed sensationally (seeing, hearing, etc.) before it can be expressed or transformed. And the creators of the product are expressing and transforming what came before. It’s ALL RELATED, numnutz!
The problem with cultural commons is that they do not have a basic premise which should be sacrosanct:
the creator has fundamental rights over her creation.
From there, they should argue that creative commons is a way to increase the power of the creator, not reduce it. Rational self interest is the fountainhead, so to speak, of all human progress. Creative Commons should be a healthy extension of the power of rational self interest.
Stay on that message and you will prevail. Dangerously drift towards remarks about ‘the public good’ and Turkewitz will be able make his case, no matter how inaccurate it might be.
I don’t mean to disrespect blaze’s comment, but I feel talk about “rational self interest” and other Any Randian theories are very out of place, particularly for this topic of the public interest. What is good for one person, is not necessarily good for the community. I think discussing the public good is vital and a populist viewpoint should always be at the forefront of public policy.
A current example where the interest of one actually hurts the community: Fishermen actually have an incentive to overfish. Because the more fish they have, even if they can’t sell it, the less their competitors have. So this is where the government should step in and institute laws that help society over the self interest of the fishermen. In the end it actually helps the fishermen too because overfishing will eliminate their business in the future.
I earned a bachelors degree in Economics, and the invisible hand being always the goal has many counter examples.
Alex, interesting point. I’ll concede that tragedies of the commons do happen, and that (in your example) fishermen may have an incentive to overfish, although I would also point out that fishermen have a great disincentive to not overfish (protecting their long-term future).
It’s kind of like how land owners may have an incentive to build polluting manufacturing plants on their land (turning their land into radioactive slag) because of short-term returns, but also have a strong disincentive to do the exact same thing (namely, the worthlessness of radioactive slag).
In some cases, the people involved act “correctly” (such as the property owners), and in other cases they don’t (such as the fishermen — we have enough examples of poaching endangered species to know enough people make the worng choice on this one). In the cases that they don’t it makes perfect sense for the government to get involved.
It is fine to talk about Public Goods problems and the problems of common ownership, but don’t forget that information can be reproduced without delpleting the original. The market for the original might be reduced, but not the information itself. There is no real property concept that compares to this and it changes how you must look at copyright.
Copyright is a regulatory scheme. Oddly, this puts libertarians against each other. Epstein is a libertarian who sees copyright as being functionally identical to private property rights, and, like nearly all libertarians, assumes that the best outcome for society is leaving it out of the control of government. What most people around the EFF table realize is that information behaves differently than real property (or chattels) and that our current system of copyright is a regulation by the government designed to provide economic incentives. Eric Raymond, also a libertarian and certainly in league with the EFF, believes that some, if not all, IP is an unjustified government regulation. (I’m not going to try and settle the debate over which side is right or whether the answer lies in the middle)
Of course the problem is that intellectual property is a Public Good which creates incentive problems. Libertarian or not, you have to realize that unless you provide incentives certain public goods simply won’t get made resulting in waste. Think about lighthouses – Not enough incentive for each individual boater to build one, but collectively all boaters would be a lot better off with it’s presence. There are a few different ways to solve the problem, many of which involve the government. However, if you are given financial incentives to build lighthouses, even for many years at a time, you are never going to confuse that incentive with a real property right!
And that’s what Epstein (out of confusion, or Ayn Rand – which is like confusion) and the RIAA (out of rent-seeking business interests) have done. They confuse regulatory incentives to solve a public goods problem with real property. I should mention that I take a purely economic view of real property, as being the most efficient way of organizing the world, not as a natural right. If you want to take a natural rights view then you can justify real property and intellectual property equally, albeit through different rationale.
rob rickner:It is fine to talk about Public Goods problems and the problems of common ownership, but don’t forget that information can be reproduced without delpleting the original. The market for the original might be reduced, but not the information itself. There is no real property concept that compares to this and it changes how you must look at copyright.
mr. rickner this may change how YOU look at copyright, but is does not materially change the basic economic fundamentals.
the issue is the market power of property ownership: be it that strip of land between you and the beach, or the owner of the copyright to a song you enjoy listening to. they having it and you wanting it is the basis from which all else flows.
as a material good, a copyrighted digital recording is no doubt inexhaustable, but as a fungible asset it is far from non-rivalous.
in this light, blaze’s observation cannot be dissmissed out of hand.
that being said, alex’s response that the invisible hand has counter-examples is absolutely correct and this is the point we tried to make earlier: unless you approach this from the basis that the creator is THE fundamental stake holder, you efforts on behalf of the “public interest” become nothing but a land grab.
balancing the public’s interest from this point of view would be a noble cause. the way professor lessig and the EFF approach the problem – as “commons-ists” – is not.
in our humble opinions.
To the blind mice: You’ve confused a lot of things here. First I’m talking about intellectual property not the chattels or physical objects intellectual property is affixed to. IP transcends the object it is attached to and even behaves differently when attached (the first sale doctrine). Books aren’t cheap to produce, however we allow them monopoly power. Did it ever occur to you that without copyright (not my overall position, just an example), many publishers would publish the same books driving the costs down. This wouldn’t be a good state of affairs and books do this naturally any because they compete against each other even if they are not perfect substitutes. However, that would be Adam Smith’s market in respect to books.
Second – The only reason that as an asset Intellectual Property is rivalous is because we treat the right to reproduce it as property. If we didn’t have copyright, then the contents of a book would not be property and could be copied at will by anyone willing to bear the expense of doing so (with the internet, that cost has become functionally zero). They aren’t property until we treat it like property and allow that right to be bought and sold (even mortgaged!)
You’ve put the cart before the horse. Adam Smith was right about how private property, which is inherently excludeable and rivalous, is more efficient than a state system (marx). However, until the law makes it rivalous, IP is inherently non-rivalous. So saying that because the law treats IP like property justifies treating it like property because now that it’s rivalous this is the only efficient way to deal with it, is nuts. Of course the market takes over once we treat it like property, but that can’t be confused with the rationale behind treating it like property which is different from why we treat real property as property.
So, when was the last time you went to Chinatown (NYC) and bought a bootlegged copy of Nebraska?
Evolution of an enemy:
I really like Rob Rickner’s comment on China and other countries who are net importers of IP. I believe this was part of the message, but I wanted to be sure it got out there:
When Chinese steal database software from Oracle, at most it’s having a tiny impact on Oracle, because the company may not have been able to afford the licenses anyway (especially since the Oracle model is based on the number of processors ($40k each) and the number of people ($800 each, min of 25 per processor), so using lower cost computers and lots of people could make it impossible to license the software and stay in business). Who really gets hurt are American producers who have to pay for the software, because they enter the market at a cost disadvantage. Microsoft also sells a very cheap version of Windows there, because they know that the revenue they get from that is better than what they’d get if they only had their good product used free by anyone who wants to use it.
In this case, it should be the unions crying out for IP protections in China, rather than the software companies. In fact, I’ve read economic studies that explain that pirating of software by students and others who have great future potential actually helps software companies, because it creates users that know how to use their products and will license the products when they are able (because software companies realize it only makes sense to go after large companies who can afford to license the IP being used).
Note: I work in the license contracts department at Oracle, so I may be biased, but I really do think American producers are hurt by Oracle’s IP rights being abused in China more than Oracle is being hurt. Our technical support is so valuable and vital that any company that started out stealing our software will probably license it once they become larger and profitable, but by then it’s too late for American producers.
You’ve confused a lot of things here. First I’m talking about intellectual property not the chattels or physical objects intellectual property is affixed to.
mr. rickner, it is you who are placing the cart (the free beer swilling public interest) in front of the horse (the artist and creator.)
a non-rivalous asset is one which can be shared among many without reducing the value to any individual. on the side of the consumer, freely sharing a ditigal recording among many does not reduce the value to any individual consumer, but it completely destroys the value with respect to the creator.
consider thomas jefferson’s famous line that using the light from his taper to light the candles of others does not reduce his light. well, if the light from his taper allows him to occupy a position in the market for the production of light, lighting another’s candle creates a competitor and diminishes the value of the light from his taper.
of course the light consuming public might benefit in the short term from this, but with no incentive to invest in making more wax candles, soon everyone is left in darkness.
similary from the creator’s perspective, copyright creates the artificial scarcity that confers upon her market power and provides her the incentives to produce creative works. (it does not make her more creative per se, it provides her the incentive to bear the cost of sharing her creativity with the public.)
Books aren’t cheap to produce, however we allow them monopoly power. Did it ever occur to you that without copyright (not my overall position, just an example), many publishers would publish the same books driving the costs down. This wouldn’t be a good state of affairs and books do this naturally any because they compete against each other even if they are not perfect substitutes. However, that would be Adam Smith’s market in respect to books.
well from the greedy eyes of the consumer this is true, but from the perspective of the author, it is not.
Second – The only reason that as an asset Intellectual Property is rivalous is because we treat the right to reproduce it as property. If we didn’t have copyright, then the contents of a book would not be property and could be copied at will by anyone willing to bear the expense of doing so (with the internet, that cost has become functionally zero). They aren’t property until we treat it like property and allow that right to be bought and sold (even mortgaged!)
percisely and again from the author’s perspective treating the asset of her original creation as property is what gives her market power and provides her the incentive to produce.
However, until the law makes it rivalous, IP is inherently non-rivalous. So saying that because the law treats IP like property justifies treating it like property because now that it’s rivalous this is the only efficient way to deal with it, is nuts.
the asset, mr. ricker, is the original work, not the IP. IP is not inhertently rivalous, it is the mechanism by which the asset can be made non-rivalous.
Of course the market takes over once we treat it like property, but that can’t be confused with the rationale behind treating it like property which is different from why we treat real property as property.
mr. rickner, the entire rationale for IP is to allow the asset of an original artistic work to be subject to market forces. that is why we treat intellectual property as real property.
So, when was the last time you went to Chinatown (NYC) and bought a bootlegged copy of Nebraska?
never. as fans of the mr. springsteen – a champion of the working man – we would no sooner deprive a working man of his lawful compensation for our enjoyment of his work then we would see him forced to work in the steel mill for free.
the problem with commons-ists is that you look at this only from the narrow, short-term perspective of the consuming public – hence the marxist solution to confiscate private property on behalf of the “public good.” consider that once you have confiscated all private property for the good of the commons, there will remain no incentive for artists and authors to produce more.
as in soviet russia, when everything was free, there was nothing on the shelves.
based on this history, what makes you believe that an IP free world would result in anything else?
I think one of the most important points made in *Free Culture* was that, like the piano roll and the VCR, P2P file-sharing is *good* for business.
We live in a society that is much richer in intellectual property than any society before it. We consume ketchup sold by licensed characters. Customers make *their own* commercials for products that they like (see this Wired article . We play games with product placements in them. Thirty years ago, these things would have been unimaginable.
In another thirty years, given free (in the sense of libre) technological innovation, we will live in a culture even richer in media and intellectual property. Any piece of music or art or poetry, will be available any time we want. Amazing synesthetic combinations of new art forms previously impossible will evolve.
Don’t you think *somebody* can think of a way to make money off of that?
I think it is short-sighted and foolish of the RIAA not to sit down around the mahogany conference table and discuss this problem like business people.
Their current business model is broken. Need for their venture capital services is drying up as artists can hedge risk by contacting their customers directly and sell their own products, because costs of creating a “record” are just not what they used to be. Their product is not a premium product, but a commodity or worse. This is a serious issue to be discussed in business meetings, not legislated away.
Their current business model is broken. It is easier to find their product for free than to buy it. File-sharing is convenient, inexpensive, and more useful than getting in the car and driving to the music store, or downloading from Itunes and hassling around if you need to put the files on (gasp!) more than a few computers for your personal use.
Hmm…
What do businesses do when their model is broken?
Perhaps they should find another way to make money! Perhaps they should use new ways to handle copyrighted material, by concentrating on marketing and management, which is their strength, or by selling people tangible things they really want, like more personal contact with artists and tangible goods that keep fans in contact with artists. How about weekly conference calls with the band? How about giving away the music and selling physical objects related to the music?
This is a business problem, and needs to be addressed as such. People do not want to steal, if they have a better alternative. Right now, file-sharing is simply the best way to get music.
Make a better way, RIAA, and your customers will use it.
People do not want to steal, if they have a better alternative. Right now, file-sharing is simply the best way to get music.
jessica, right now, file “sharing” is stealing.
if you think stealing is the way to effect social change, then you have nothing to contribute to this debate.
There does seem to be some misunderstanding of Lessig’s position. To my knowledge, Lessig has never advocated repealing copyright — it’s something of a Constitutional right, after all. Lessig simply wants to limit copyright’s reach and scope.
A discussion about this shouldn’t be a discussion between copyright or not, but between the present level of copyright, and other potential levels.
To use the real estate example, it’s as if Lessig has asked a city to reconsider the a that permits pedestrians to walk on somebody else’s property if there is no sidewalk. Lessig has suggested that the current city law only permits pedestrians to walk on the very edge of the road, and this is dangerous to both the walker and passing cars.
In our example, the RIAA starts campaign to tell the world that Lessig has proposed that the city invalidate all deeds in the city, and seize all the land, and charge people rent for living in their own houses. The RIAA thenc ontinues to propose laws that make it a crime to even smell the flowers planted on somebody’s property without permission.
The homeowners start a battle between having strong property rights, or no property rights at all.
Bravo, three blind mice, for dismissing Jessica’s point on semantic grounds, rather than addressing the substance of her argument.
Like your sniping response, Turkewitz’s article smacks of the age-old tactic, used to great success of late in the political arena, of seizing upon a chance phrase in the opponent’s discourse and using it to paint them as out of touch with the mainstream/reality/common sense. That is a much easier tactic to adopt than to attempt a rigorous, nuanced response to their position.
Unfortunately for Mr. Turkewitz, the consistuency he claims to be defending (the artists, that is, which gets you a lot more sympathy than giant multinational media conglomerates) is not nearly so clear on matters of “free” music in even the most extreme “free beer” sense. A recent Pew Internet and American Life Project poll indicates that musicians are deeply divided over whether file-sharing is good (43%) or bad (47%) for artists. In any case, a majority (60%) feel that the RIAA’s recent campaign of suing file-sharers won’t benefit them.
As an infrequent poster, let me first say I’m honored to have posted something troll-worthy 🙂 And as also seems to be custom around these parts, in the interest of open discussion, I will post a reply to the points I find most relevant.
To TBM:
First, I agree with you that the relationships between libre and gratis are not well-definied, and I agree that it would behoove the community to begin to establish more clearly how the two interact; why open-source code, for example, need not be profitless, and why refusing to allow technology to restrict consumers’ fair-use rights need not hurt sales.
The reason I generally shy away from using the free-speech / free-beer dichotomy is because it imposes a metaphor that ends up being highly confusing. It least to false comparisions, as you mentioned when you pointed out that free beer is a social lubricant. I have to agree, getting drunk and talking a lot go hand in hand, but I think you also highlight the limited utility of the free-as-in-beer metaphor by extending it beyond its useful reference.
We didn’t come here do discuss semantics and cognitive pysch, though 🙂
I think you’re still misinterpret “the mob” as you put it, and their intentions with regards to openly-available or freely-distributable materials. While I have no doubt you are here alluding to the widespread use of peer-to-peer file sharing programs to distribute copyrighted materials, I think it is also worth pointing out that no substantive, causative relationship has been established between P2P software use and declining CD sales or consumer spending on music or movies. Reports that have been published, especially when sponsored by RIAA or MPAA, lead one to believe such a relationship may exist, or even goes so far as to make the false conclusion that such a relationship exists, but it really hasn’t been established in any credible way.
RIAA changed gold record certifications many years ago to 500,000 copies, revised down from 1,000,000 and implemented the platinum-level recognition at sales of 1,000,000. This allows new, promising acts who have a modestly successful release to attain a higher level of recognition with key industry insiders. The new level of certification at a half-million in sales especially elevates the attention up-and-coming acts receive at radio. If nothing else, it’s another chance at name-dropping for new acts. I do think that’s positively benefitted radio playlists in the time since, despite all the other mayhem that’s gone on to screw the radio industry up 🙂
I don’t need to distance myself from P2P downloaders. They’re not doing anything wrong, necessarily. Some things you can do with a gun, or with a computer, or with a bottle of wine, or with a can of Lysol disinfectant spray are illegal. That does not make purchasing, posessing, or using any of them (given the right credentials).
And just for the record, I don’t use P2P programs.
I expect RIAA to allow me to maintain my fair-use rights over the materials I buy. The fact that they have used new technology exclusively as a way to make a better and more perfect control over how I can use my purchases is an affront to me.
The fact that DVDs are CSS encrypted and region-coded is marginally offensive. I cannot, for example, take my DVDs and play them on a player from another region. The fact that I must necessarily violate US law in order to view my legally-purchased DVDs on my legally-obtained Linux-based computer system is outrageous.
The fact that RIAA has authorized a system through which I can download music from them, but that music comes with strings attached which ensure they have more control than ever before over my use of that music is the reason I do not buy music online. It is silly, backwards, and against the whole idea of innovation for them to only allow expansion of new technology if and only if it allows the powers that be more control. We wouldn’t have a broadcasting industry ta all if that were historically the case. Radio would never have taken off, and God only knows what that would’ve done to the development of the television.
Finally, in my earlier post, I even gave an explicit example of a situation in which I paid cash for libre software. I don’t know why you insist on furthering the notion that libre and gratis are necessarily the same.
Also, I would suggest do some research into the sales growth forecasts for Linux-based servers in the next 5 years. The growth expectations are phenomenal — yet the software that runs the server is (mostly) libre. And they’re talking about throwing around billions of dollars in the server market for it. Here is a case where the libre elements make a huge value-added component to an overall product. If nothing else, a billion dollars is of an order of magnitude that even the RIAA should pay attention.
While I appreciate the crticial eye with which you monitor the message boards here, I wish you, too, would apply that same critical eye to both sides of the issue. It would certainly lead to insight that would benefit everyone here.
TBM: mr. rickner, it is you who are placing the cart (the free beer swilling public interest) in front of the horse (the artist and creator.)
No, I’m not. Never once have I ever supported the complete repeal of copyright. Sometimes I compare our system now with a system without copyright in order to understand how copyright regulates speech – but not to abolish it. I do care about artists, and creators. Three points you seem to have missed in your oversimplification.
1 – Increasing the scope of copyright makes it more expensive for creators in the future. Fair-use is not practical for most – look at Whe Wind Done Gone and Mattell cases. Furthermore, some great social criticism is not yet included in the doctrine. See fenslerfilms. Yes, I care about artists.
2 – Anyone who really cares about artists should be looking at contract law, not copyright. If you want to protect artists, you should help protect them from slavery contracts and feeble royalty payments. I guess you don’t care about artists that much after all.
3 – Many copyright activists, such as myself, encourage voluntarily opting out of the copyright scheme. The creative commons is not generated by force. Yes, some do advocate eliminating the copyright system, but they are few and far between. You can’t use their arguements to critique ours.
TBM: freely sharing a ditigal recording among many does not reduce the value to any individual consumer, but it completely destroys the value with respect to the creator.
Freely sharing the music does not effect the value to the creator at all, it reduces the incentive to create. The value of a book will never change no matter who does what to it. Is Hamlet less valuable today? No. The author’s incentives come from the right to demand money when their work is reproduced. This does not change the work’s value at all. The legal right to an incentive is very different from a traditional property right. Simply because we confer this right on any fixed creative work so that it can be traded in the market does not change its value, only the price we pay for it. (Yes, price and value are not the same thing).
TBM: the problem with commons-ists is that you look at this only from the narrow, short-term perspective of the consuming public – hence the marxist solution to confiscate private property on behalf of the “public good.” consider that once you have confiscated all private property for the good of the commons, there will remain no incentive for artists and authors to produce more.
The same root word, yes. The same concept, not even close. Short term? No! Exactly how is capping the copyright term at roughly 75 years short term? Everytime the publishers go to congress to extend the life of their copyrights, they parade the artists before them. Copyright exists because the public needs to extend a privilege to creators which gives them an incentive to produce creative works. That just plain isn’t private property.
Did Bell have a takings clause arguement when they were de-regulated? No, the public giveth and the public taketh away. If copyright was a property right, then every artist who lost protection for failure to follow copyright’s pre-1989 formalities would be able to sue the government for reasonable compensation for their loss. (The takings clause) Sounds ridiculous, right?
The commons is about having enough information (as in free speech) available to the public. Copyright helps with this. Too much copyright becomes counter-productive. It increases costs to creators which in the end results in less creative work. Most of the time copyright works pretty well. Sometimes it limits free speech and sometimes it makes new works needlessly expensive. You, my friend, need to at least read Judge Posner’s work. It explains this in detail. If you’ve already read it – read it more closely.
We’re not communists, we’re democrats interested in free speech and widely distributed knowledge. Exactly how is that a problem?
“Our system of copyright rests upon the correct understanding that the public has an interest in copyright protection as a mechanism for promoting the development of the arts and sciences. “
So, in the great debate of “What came first: Ideas or Protection of Ideas” he’s saying ideas didn’t flourish until we had IP? If Og had a copyright on his paintings of bison which lasted 90 years, where would we be today? Would Ug be able to communicate ideas back to his tribe? Would culture have developed?
Let’s slip down the slope a bit.
If hieroglyphs had been copyrighted by their creators, how would Egypt have managed to last 5000 years? That’s only 50 generations of copyrights under today’s rules. Do you figure 50 generations of ideas is enough to transforma culture from mud huts to the Great Pyramids?
Look at the histories of the great cultures. Point out the ones with restrictive copyright laws. For that matter, look at how they handled IP in general. Now tell me again how the only way we’ll ever have any creative individuals, great works of art, or enjoyable music to hear is through restrictive copyright protection laws.
** William Loughborough writes:
I wonder if the cave paintings were signed? **
Obviously you made the comment in jest but I think it illustrates a point that needs to be made quite effectively.
Whoever drew a cave painting ought to have ownership of whatever value that created with it (ideally whether they signed it or not). Some might argue they also ought to have some residual right of profit from future cave paintings of subsidiary artists that share similarity with the original.
The problem arises when that cave painter becomes so disassociated from reality as to think he has ownership of the color blue because he used it or of the idea of making paintings generally. The current copyright reich has gone so far upfield of the creative content itself that they may as well be trying to claim possession of the musical scale or the note C sharp.
From this layman’s point of view too much of the counter-argument is about why their creative work should not be so fully protected and not enough of the counter-argument is about drawing stark lines around what exactly should be within or without the scope of an artist’s protection.
Claiming Napster was not meant to proliferate piracy is analagous (as Lessig asutely pointed out) to Colt claming they have no idea what the guns they produce are being used for. I have no more respect for Lessig than I do for Colt when either of them use that false logic to support their views.
Claiming on the other hand that sampling (in creative non Vanilla Ice ways) or making mashups or doing anything else that results in a creative piece wholly different from its predecessor even if they share a common point of reference would be a much more compelling argument.
Copyright, should be about the set of sticks in the bundle as they are, being compared to another set of sticks… not about all sticks that could have been bundled or the similarity of any two particular sticks from one bundle to another that dont create a whole of any true similarity.
Even the cave painters would have been sentient enough to appreciate that much.
Jonathan: Thanks for your comment about Three Blind Mice. I am *not* advocating stealing. I am saying that people *are* stealing, and will grow to do so on a larger and larger scale because the fundamentals of the current distribution system no longer work. The RIAA, in my opinion, needs to work *with* this reality, not against it.
I think that Lessig has made a very good start that is polite and courteous to existing rights holders. Were his suggestions to be enacted, the revolution in innovation would be able to work its magic even more effectively, and the often unconscionable results of the RIAAs juggernaut would slowly disappear. (Suing grandparents because their grandkids downloaded music without their knowledge? Suing people without naming them? What is that?)
Does anyone have a response to my arguments here? Maybe I’m missing something.
after reading through this fine thread, my laymen head spins.
We need more KISS here, thats right – Keep It Simple, Stupid!
All rethorical and semantical hairsplitting will not help to reach our common goal of “promoting the progress of science and the useful arts”.
Why don’t we start with a simple goal that is reachable, instead of trying to fight all battles – related as they may be – at once?
More pragmatism than principle, please!
I’m talking about a copyright registry. All other issues, the length of copyright, the question of sampling etc. could be taken at a later stage. We should fight to get this registry back – require registration in exchange for continued protection of the few works from e.g. 1923 that still have commercial value today.
And then sit back and watch what google, teenagers and everybody else can do to works from 1923 that are not in this registry.
How naive is it to hope that with this under the belt, the public at large, Congress, and maybe even the RIAA would ‘get it’?
I agree with the KISS principle. Once things become too complicated, they have a tendency to lose any semblence of usefulness…