4 ms·

You are correct to point out I didn't explain or qualify why I think copyright law is stupid. I wrongly assumed I was preaching to the converted. Let me waive m

by lyudmil 17y ago

You are correct to point out I didn't explain or qualify why I think copyright law is stupid. I wrongly assumed I was preaching to the converted. Let me waive my hands a little and try to provide a motivation without going into too much detail. In general, copyright protections are government-granted monopolies. This creates a number of economic inefficiencies. One example is distribution - instead of money and labor being spent to distribute recorded music and movies, all of this could be done for free over the Internet. Of course, there must be mechanisms by which people who create content get compensated for their work. Copyright rarely works well in this regard (I think you said it did it "imperfectly"). The truth is most musicians make most of their money through touring, advertising deals, etc. Therefore, they would benefit from a wider distribution of their work, which copyright law impedes. There are people working on alternative models whose work you could read if you want to look for ways around these kinds of paradoxes. The big obstacle to implementing more progressive policies are the hugely powerful private content providers, so framing the issue as YouTube's billionaire owners versus the independent artist is disingenuous. Regardless whether you agree with what I've said above, what cannot be denied is that individuals are still able to download all the pirated content they want very easily. Therefore, copyright law's greatest flaw is that it has been demonstrated not to work. Reforming or scrapping it would allow the market to adapt and move to a more sane model, which would benefit both the consumer and the content generator rather than the content "owner" and the content distributor.

seertaak 17y ago
> In general, copyright protections are government-granted monopolies. All property rights secured by anything other than private physical force are 'government granted'. Can I hear some outrage over the government granted monopoly that allows me to sleep in my flat at night without fear that someone stronger than me (not difficult!) will come and kick me out? No, I didn't think so :) > One example is distribution - instead of money and labor being spent to distribute recorded music and movies, all of this could be done for free over the Internet. I log into Spotify or iTunes and download the music over the internet; zero physical distribution cost. I pay for the intellectual property -- where is the inefficiency? Also, remember that distribution is only one aspect of the the music business. You're totally ignoring promotion, which requires both effort and money. Money which is only available if the intellectual property is monetizable, namely through copyright protections. There is no other way. > The truth is most musicians make most of their money through touring, advertising deals, etc. That is only true now precisely because of rampant piracy. It wasn't true in the 80s, when e.g. Michael Jackson sold 100MM+ copies of Thriller at $20 a pop. Or in the early noughties when Coldplay records would sell 25MM records -- their latest record sold 2MM copies. Touring and merchandise are really only lucrative for very few lucky and largely legacy acts -- pick up a copy of Music Week, look at the concert gross tables and see for yourself. > There are people working on alternative models whose work you could read if you want to look for ways around these kinds of paradoxes. With due respect, I think these people are producing nothing more than hot air. If they are so sure about their new eldorado business models, then let them put their money where their mouth is, and invest in creating Music Industry 2.0. I, for one, wouldn't invest a dime in such ventures. > hugely powerful private content providers I think you overestimate their power -- after all, we've had ten years of rampant piracy, haven't we? With all their power, they haven't been able to do anything to stop it. Meanwhile, in China, authorities have absolutely managed to control the dissemination of content and information, so it's clearly technically feasible. (Not that I'm advocating a China-style system of control and censorship, of course!) > Therefore, copyright law's greatest flaw is that it has been demonstrated not to work. The only reason it hasn't worked is because there hasn't been any enforcement! I would have thought that's the whole point of this article and this thread -- holding those that profiteer from flagrant violation of the law accountable. Holding the Chad Hurleys of the world accountable. Confiscating their ill-gotten gains would send a powerful message to those who would use a cavalier attitude to copyright holders in order to allow their site to grow and in turn make millions from it. In order for the law to be respected, it needs to be enforced. And in order for the law to be enforced requires political will. And this, sadly, has been in short supply, although the recent developments (e.g. Obama's endorsement of ACTA, Three-strikes rule in France, Lord Mandelson's Digital Millenium Copyright Act, etc.) are encouraging. I apologize if I sound combative -- I talk like a content creator and you appear to talk like a consumer (it's similar to the hearing disputes between creditors and debtors -- they seem to talk past each other). However, I think in the long run, the content creators will prevail, because the simple truth is that we're right. Having your personal skin fully in it has a way of sharpening your wit and galvanizing your motivation, you see.

by lyudmil 17y ago

seertaak 17y ago

> In general, copyright protections are government-granted monopolies. All property rights secured by anything other than private physical force are 'government granted'. Can I hear some outrage over the government granted monopoly that allows me to sleep in my flat at night without fear that someone stronger than me (not difficult!) will come and kick me out? No, I didn't think so :) > One example is distribution - instead of money and labor being spent to distribute recorded music and movies, all of this could be done for free over the Internet. I log into Spotify or iTunes and download the music over the internet; zero physical distribution cost. I pay for the intellectual property -- where is the inefficiency? Also, remember that distribution is only one aspect of the the music business. You're totally ignoring promotion, which requires both effort and money. Money which is only available if the intellectual property is monetizable, namely through copyright protections. There is no other way. > The truth is most musicians make most of their money through touring, advertising deals, etc. That is only true now precisely because of rampant piracy. It wasn't true in the 80s, when e.g. Michael Jackson sold 100MM+ copies of Thriller at $20 a pop. Or in the early noughties when Coldplay records would sell 25MM records -- their latest record sold 2MM copies. Touring and merchandise are really only lucrative for very few lucky and largely legacy acts -- pick up a copy of Music Week, look at the concert gross tables and see for yourself. > There are people working on alternative models whose work you could read if you want to look for ways around these kinds of paradoxes. With due respect, I think these people are producing nothing more than hot air. If they are so sure about their new eldorado business models, then let them put their money where their mouth is, and invest in creating Music Industry 2.0. I, for one, wouldn't invest a dime in such ventures. > hugely powerful private content providers I think you overestimate their power -- after all, we've had ten years of rampant piracy, haven't we? With all their power, they haven't been able to do anything to stop it. Meanwhile, in China, authorities have absolutely managed to control the dissemination of content and information, so it's clearly technically feasible. (Not that I'm advocating a China-style system of control and censorship, of course!) > Therefore, copyright law's greatest flaw is that it has been demonstrated not to work. The only reason it hasn't worked is because there hasn't been any enforcement! I would have thought that's the whole point of this article and this thread -- holding those that profiteer from flagrant violation of the law accountable. Holding the Chad Hurleys of the world accountable. Confiscating their ill-gotten gains would send a powerful message to those who would use a cavalier attitude to copyright holders in order to allow their site to grow and in turn make millions from it. In order for the law to be respected, it needs to be enforced. And in order for the law to be enforced requires political will. And this, sadly, has been in short supply, although the recent developments (e.g. Obama's endorsement of ACTA, Three-strikes rule in France, Lord Mandelson's Digital Millenium Copyright Act, etc.) are encouraging. I apologize if I sound combative -- I talk like a content creator and you appear to talk like a consumer (it's similar to the hearing disputes between creditors and debtors -- they seem to talk past each other). However, I think in the long run, the content creators will prevail, because the simple truth is that we're right. Having your personal skin fully in it has a way of sharpening your wit and galvanizing your motivation, you see.