4 ms·

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

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.
    - ZeroGravitas 16y ago
      It is obvious that IP only exists thanks to governments, that's why it's odd to be complaining about Government intervention when all that is being proposed is a different kind of government intervention to correct market failures. I copied the "quotes" on real because it applies to both solutions, in both cases you're creating some kind of market with the hope that it functions better than no market at all, or any alternative market. The problem (or at least part of it) is that people, even those that have thought about it for a while, are too quick to accept the current IP mess as natural, unchangeable, morally correct and real, when it is none of those things.
      - davidw 16y ago
        I think the sort of IP market that existed prior to fast broadband and easily reproducible goods is a lot closer to a functioning market than wonky systems where all users of broadband are taxed and can 'spend' their taxes on things they don't consume, completely out of proportion to their actual costs to produce. I'm not saying public subsidies should be off the table, just that this proposal and others I've seen don't seem to be as good as reforming the current system.
        neutronicus 16y ago
        I think the type of market before IP protection when authors published serially and collected advances (e.g. Dostoyevsky, Dickens) was closer to a functioning market than the current system where authors, programmers, and pharmaceutical companies shoot their whole wads into the market and hope for a return on their sunk costs rather than attempting to actually sell their labor.
- chopsueyar 16y ago
  Hey, I like the Mighty Boosh!
- cabalamat 16y ago
  > 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. If a person thinks the level of production of zillion-dollar movies is OK, but that there should be more indie musicians, that would be a sensible thing for them to do. If lots of people think like that, then the sorts of information goods they like will become better-funded, and information goods that few people like will become less well funded, which is surely a feature rather than a bug. The purpose of an economy is to make things people want; I believe my solution achieves that. Of course, I don't think it's the only way information goods will be funded, or necessarily even the largest one. I think the Coasian solution -- where people group together to commission a work -- is attractive, and will become increasingly important as the internet reduces transaction costs.

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.
  - ZeroGravitas 16y ago
    It is obvious that IP only exists thanks to governments, that's why it's odd to be complaining about Government intervention when all that is being proposed is a different kind of government intervention to correct market failures. I copied the "quotes" on real because it applies to both solutions, in both cases you're creating some kind of market with the hope that it functions better than no market at all, or any alternative market. The problem (or at least part of it) is that people, even those that have thought about it for a while, are too quick to accept the current IP mess as natural, unchangeable, morally correct and real, when it is none of those things.
    - davidw 16y ago
      I think the sort of IP market that existed prior to fast broadband and easily reproducible goods is a lot closer to a functioning market than wonky systems where all users of broadband are taxed and can 'spend' their taxes on things they don't consume, completely out of proportion to their actual costs to produce. I'm not saying public subsidies should be off the table, just that this proposal and others I've seen don't seem to be as good as reforming the current system.
      - neutronicus 16y ago
        I think the type of market before IP protection when authors published serially and collected advances (e.g. Dostoyevsky, Dickens) was closer to a functioning market than the current system where authors, programmers, and pharmaceutical companies shoot their whole wads into the market and hope for a return on their sunk costs rather than attempting to actually sell their labor.
chopsueyar 16y ago
Hey, I like the Mighty Boosh!
cabalamat 16y ago
> 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. If a person thinks the level of production of zillion-dollar movies is OK, but that there should be more indie musicians, that would be a sensible thing for them to do. If lots of people think like that, then the sorts of information goods they like will become better-funded, and information goods that few people like will become less well funded, which is surely a feature rather than a bug. The purpose of an economy is to make things people want; I believe my solution achieves that. Of course, I don't think it's the only way information goods will be funded, or necessarily even the largest one. I think the Coasian solution -- where people group together to commission a work -- is attractive, and will become increasingly important as the internet reduces transaction costs.