7 ms·

I've just read this in "Against intellectual monopoly" page 296 ( http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/general/intellectual/againstfinal.htm http://levine.sscnet.ucla.

by wazoox 16y ago

I've just read this in "Against intellectual monopoly" page 296 ( http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/general/intellectual/againstfinal.htm http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/general/intellectual/againstfi... ) : Social norms are not a topic in which we are especially expert. Still, it is a relevant topic: property rights are never enforced only by the law-and-order system, or even by costly private monitoring of other people's behavior. Broadly accepted and well functioning property rights systems rest also, one is tempted to write "primarily," on a commonly shared sense of morality. Then it quotes another economist, Eric Rasmusen : Video rental stores and libraries, of course, reduce originator profits and hurt innovation, but that is a utilitarian concern. What is of more ethical concern is that whenever, for example, someone borrows a book from the public library instead of buying a book, he has deprived the author of the fruits of his labor and participated in reducing the author's power to control his self- expression. Thus, if it is immoral to violate a book's copyright, so too it would seem to be immoral to use public libraries. Libraries are not illegal, but the law's injustice would be no reason for a moral person to do unjust things. The existence of children's sections would be particularly heinous, as encouraging children to steal. To entirely deter copying would require a norm inflicting a considerable amount of guilt on copiers, since legal enforcement of copying by individuals is so difficult. To partially deter it would be undesirable for two reasons. First, it would generate a large amount of disutility while failing to deter the target misbehavior. Second, it would reduce the effectiveness of guilt in other situations, by pushing so many people over the threshold of being moral reprobates. At the same time, the benefit from deterring copying by individuals, the increased incentive for creation of new products, is relatively small. I thus conclude that people _should_not_feel_guilty_about_copying_.

davidw 16y ago
So what do they propose to avoid the underproduction of "information goods"?
- cabalamat 16y ago
  I can't speak for them; my viewpoint is that since information goods are non rivalrous and non excludable, they are likely to be underproduced, and therefore it makes sense to fund them from public subsidy. But how to channel taxes to produce the information goods people want? My proposal is to set up a series of "Content Compensation Funds" and taxpayers get to choose which fund their taxes go to -- http://cabalamat.wordpress.com/2009/01/27/a-broadband-tax-for-the-uk/ http://cabalamat.wordpress.com/2009/01/27/a-broadband-tax-fo...
  - davidw 16y ago
    > and therefore it makes sense to fund them from public subsidy. Woah, that's just one way of ensuring that they are produced: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good#Possible_solutions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good#Possible_solutions I am no free-market fundamentalist, but I think the idea of the government sticking its nose into the production of books, movies, music and software to that degree is not entirely to my liking. It also has a number of practical issues: someone could happily snarf down zillion-dollar blockbuster movies, yet dedicate all their taxes to some indie musician they like. At least it has some semblance of a market to it, rather than simply having the Minister of Information Goods who decides who gets what, but I'm not convinced it's as good as a "real" market.
    - ZeroGravitas 16y ago
      That's funny because, imho, patents and copyrights are "the government sticking its nose into the production of books, movies, music and software to a degree that is not entirely to my liking". They also have a number of practical issues e.g. investment in minor, yet patentable, variations on drugs rather than more fundamental research on non-patentable innovations or lobbying to extend copyright terms funded by those receiving the money from copyrights. I'm not convinced it's as good as a "real" market.
      - davidw 16y ago
        Yeah, like I said elsewhere, the current system has problems - some of them serious - but I have yet to see anything that makes a lot of sense as a replacement. And yes, it's not a 100% "real" market, and thus the quotes - I didn't realize I'd need to spell it out. I thought it's obvious to anyone who studies this stuff that IP is only "property" due to laws and regulations, rather than some natural state of rivalrousness and excludability, like an automobile. My best guess is that reconfiguring the current compromise in favor of consumers, rather than some producers (copyright extensions, etc...) might be the best course of action, but I am not convinced 100% of anything.
rdtsc 16y ago
> well functioning property rights systems rest also, one is tempted to write "primarily," on a commonly shared sense of morality. I feel that is true of most general laws -- for example basic law and order is hinged on a collective sense of morality. If 80% of the population decided all of the sudden to riot, break windows, and flip over cars, there are just not enough policemen to keep the peace. But it just so happens that most people do not find that behavior acceptable and would actually step in to help enforce the peace. When it comes to information products, I think it is very simple (and this just my uneducated feeling) -- individuals see it as copying not stealing. They copy a product, but the owner still has the original. In their minds there is a huge difference between that and walking into an individual's backyard and taking a shovel from the shed. Now I know it is a copyright issue and each stolen copy is potentially a lost sale, but I am just highlighting how I think the majority thinks about it.
- wazoox 16y ago
  > Now I know it is a copyright issue and each stolen copy is potentially a lost sale [...] This has been debunken countless times. I think there isn't anyone but the RIAA to still pretend this.
  - kenjackson 16y ago
    Really, this has been debunked? If I can get something at a cheaper cost (whether by stealing or some legal mechanism) then I won't get it from another mechanism. For example, I used to rent seasons of shows on DVD (and on some rare occassion bought boxed sets from Costco). Haven't done that in years. Just wait for Netflix. Now Netflix isn't stealing, BUT if bit torrents just became completely legal right now, I'd probably cancel my Netflix subscription. I'm not saying that every "stolen" copy is a lost sale, but it does sound like the potential qualifier is pretty accurate.
    - jokermatt999 16y ago
      I think the reason to the strong reaction against the term "potential lost sale" is because this is often used by the *IAA to then massively overstate the losses from piracy. It has the potential to be a lost sale, but the question is how likely was that person to buy the product if an illegal version had not existed? For example, without piracy, many of my friends (young twenties/teens, so we grew up with piracy) wouldn't have the same taste in music or movies without piracy because we simply would have never found a lot of the stuff we now greatly enjoy. The chances they would have purchased a good deal of their favorite media without piracy existing are utterly minuscule, and to say it's a possible lost sale somewhat glosses over the details, although it is technically correct. That's not to say all piracy would never be purchased, but I think that's the case for a lot of piracy. This is just my personal opinion, but I believe I've seen more statistics that point this way than.

by wazoox 16y ago

davidw 16y ago

So what do they propose to avoid the underproduction of "information goods"?

cabalamat 16y ago
I can't speak for them; my viewpoint is that since information goods are non rivalrous and non excludable, they are likely to be underproduced, and therefore it makes sense to fund them from public subsidy. But how to channel taxes to produce the information goods people want? My proposal is to set up a series of "Content Compensation Funds" and taxpayers get to choose which fund their taxes go to -- http://cabalamat.wordpress.com/2009/01/27/a-broadband-tax-for-the-uk/ http://cabalamat.wordpress.com/2009/01/27/a-broadband-tax-fo...
- davidw 16y ago
  > and therefore it makes sense to fund them from public subsidy. Woah, that's just one way of ensuring that they are produced: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good#Possible_solutions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good#Possible_solutions I am no free-market fundamentalist, but I think the idea of the government sticking its nose into the production of books, movies, music and software to that degree is not entirely to my liking. It also has a number of practical issues: someone could happily snarf down zillion-dollar blockbuster movies, yet dedicate all their taxes to some indie musician they like. At least it has some semblance of a market to it, rather than simply having the Minister of Information Goods who decides who gets what, but I'm not convinced it's as good as a "real" market.
  - ZeroGravitas 16y ago
    That's funny because, imho, patents and copyrights are "the government sticking its nose into the production of books, movies, music and software to a degree that is not entirely to my liking". They also have a number of practical issues e.g. investment in minor, yet patentable, variations on drugs rather than more fundamental research on non-patentable innovations or lobbying to extend copyright terms funded by those receiving the money from copyrights. I'm not convinced it's as good as a "real" market.
    - davidw 16y ago
      Yeah, like I said elsewhere, the current system has problems - some of them serious - but I have yet to see anything that makes a lot of sense as a replacement. And yes, it's not a 100% "real" market, and thus the quotes - I didn't realize I'd need to spell it out. I thought it's obvious to anyone who studies this stuff that IP is only "property" due to laws and regulations, rather than some natural state of rivalrousness and excludability, like an automobile. My best guess is that reconfiguring the current compromise in favor of consumers, rather than some producers (copyright extensions, etc...) might be the best course of action, but I am not convinced 100% of anything.

rdtsc 16y ago

> well functioning property rights systems rest also, one is tempted to write "primarily," on a commonly shared sense of morality. I feel that is true of most general laws -- for example basic law and order is hinged on a collective sense of morality. If 80% of the population decided all of the sudden to riot, break windows, and flip over cars, there are just not enough policemen to keep the peace. But it just so happens that most people do not find that behavior acceptable and would actually step in to help enforce the peace. When it comes to information products, I think it is very simple (and this just my uneducated feeling) -- individuals see it as copying not stealing. They copy a product, but the owner still has the original. In their minds there is a huge difference between that and walking into an individual's backyard and taking a shovel from the shed. Now I know it is a copyright issue and each stolen copy is potentially a lost sale, but I am just highlighting how I think the majority thinks about it.

wazoox 16y ago
> Now I know it is a copyright issue and each stolen copy is potentially a lost sale [...] This has been debunken countless times. I think there isn't anyone but the RIAA to still pretend this.
- kenjackson 16y ago
  Really, this has been debunked? If I can get something at a cheaper cost (whether by stealing or some legal mechanism) then I won't get it from another mechanism. For example, I used to rent seasons of shows on DVD (and on some rare occassion bought boxed sets from Costco). Haven't done that in years. Just wait for Netflix. Now Netflix isn't stealing, BUT if bit torrents just became completely legal right now, I'd probably cancel my Netflix subscription. I'm not saying that every "stolen" copy is a lost sale, but it does sound like the potential qualifier is pretty accurate.
  - jokermatt999 16y ago
    I think the reason to the strong reaction against the term "potential lost sale" is because this is often used by the *IAA to then massively overstate the losses from piracy. It has the potential to be a lost sale, but the question is how likely was that person to buy the product if an illegal version had not existed? For example, without piracy, many of my friends (young twenties/teens, so we grew up with piracy) wouldn't have the same taste in music or movies without piracy because we simply would have never found a lot of the stuff we now greatly enjoy. The chances they would have purchased a good deal of their favorite media without piracy existing are utterly minuscule, and to say it's a possible lost sale somewhat glosses over the details, although it is technically correct. That's not to say all piracy would never be purchased, but I think that's the case for a lot of piracy. This is just my personal opinion, but I believe I've seen more statistics that point this way than.