7 ms·

Piracy is not a problem; SOPA is not a solution

97 points by macco 15y ago

wnoise 15y ago
I say this as a copyright minimalist: the comparison to used bookstores is a bit disingenuous, for two reasons. The fact that used bookstores exist, and that you can sell old books means that a new book is worth not just the value derived from reading it, but also the price you can get from selling it when you are done. In theory this reflected in a slightly higher initial price of purchase. (Not all readers will sell, of course, but some will, and the ability to do so should matter on the margin.) The used book is also a substitute for a new book. Buying a used book increases the price, driving people who would buy the used version to buy the new one instead and at equilibrium raises the prices for the new version as well. In theory, of course.
- AlisdairO 15y ago
  Not just that, but only one person can have the book at any one time - unlike our current piracy system where one copy can spawn effectively infinite sub-copies. This means that when a given number of people want to read a book (and particularly if they want to read it in some relatively short period after the book's release), you need to have a substantial number of new book sales to support all those people. This isn't a requirement with modern-day piracy.
- rrreese 15y ago
  Also note that a secondhand book isn't a perfect substitute for a new books. Some people don't want to own second hand books, and many people don't want to give secondhand items as gifts. On the other hand second hand books often get resold several times. When I was a student and bought secondhand books regularly it wasn't unusual to buy a book that already had several second hand book stores stamps on the first page, a book that I would end up selling myself at a later time.
TomOfTTB 15y ago
Well first his metaphor doesn't really hold weight. Selling a Used Book is a one-to-one transaction in which the receiver is getting a less than perfect copy. Putting an e-book on a p2p network is a one-to-many transaction that transmits a perfect copy each time. But that doesn't necessarily invalidate his overall point. As far as his larger point is concerned I don't think I can say he's right or wrong. What I can say is he's not really looking at the deeper issues. The real issue behind piracy is societal values. Those who advocate this opinion are basically saying people only have the right to profit from their creations to recover their costs. Beyond that the content belongs to society. That's the only justification for piracy (since you're arguing the cost of distribution is so low the user doesn't need to be compensated for it) You can dress that up with arguments about fans loving artists and giving them additional revenue streams but since those additional revenue streams are separate transactions that may or may not occur you can't use them as justification for not paying an artist initially for his/her creation. Beyond that there's the issue of choice. Even if all the pro-piracy arguments are true there will be some artists who simply don't want their work pirated. Even if it's irrational (look at artists like AC/DC who still refuse to sell their music digitally). By imposing piracy on those artists you're again saying their art belongs to society once created. So that brings us back to the question of societal values. Do we as a society believe content should belong to the entire society upon creation or does it belong to the creator who can choose to distribute it in the way they see fit (even if that means handing it over to a record company or some other corporate entity)?
- narag 15y ago
  The real issue behind piracy is societal values. I disagree. Every time the discussion is going that way, I feel we're hopelessly lost. There is very little Ethics debate on the industry behaviour: suing their customers, exploiting authors, and lobbying for draconian laws instead of using new business models. Hey, they are companies, they're just looking for their shareholders' interest! That's legitimate! It seems Ethics only apply to consumers. Call to ethics is the last refuge of inapplicable laws.
earbitscom 15y ago
I still don't understand this mindset. If one author wants to make the "new market" work for them by giving things away or taking donations, they can do that. If that's the market you like to shop in, then donate or take freely. But if another author wants you to pay a specific price for their work when you want a copy, and you don't like the price, then you let them know that by not getting a copy. If your reason for not paying is because you don't like their publisher, then you let them know by not getting a copy. Lo and behold, the market will work itself out. Where does the mindset come from that you're still entitled to those things you're not willing to pay for? Or that your right to have them is more important than the rights of the people who made them? This is to say nothing about overreaching solutions - this guy is saying who cares about the particular solution, any one of them will require me to pay for things I want!
- TomOfTTB 15y ago
  I don’t want to give a false impression. I don’t advocate this mindset. But from a historical perspective it isn’t that hard to understand. The history of mankind has always been a process of vacillating between societies motivated by self-profit and societies that attempt to live communally. Right now the world has shifted more towards self-profit because we’re still living in the shadow of the Soviet Union’s collapse (the largest communal society ever attempted). But that doesn’t mean the idea of communal living has gone away completely. What the USSR proved more than anything is a society needs self-profit motivation in order to get people to put in the effort to excel. There were no startups in the USSR because no one was willing to put a large amount of effort into something that would eventually be owned by the government. But in that context artistic expression takes on a different bent because it is something most artists feel compelled to put effort into even without a profit motivation. So the question becomes “if something costs almost nothing to produce and the creator is compelled to create it without a profit motivation should it then be communal?”
  - NSMeta 15y ago
    | There were no startups in the USSR because no one was willing to put a large amount of effort into something that would eventually be owned by the government. While this is correct, people were prohibited to start their own enterprises in the first place. Hence it's not the lack of profits that stopped the people - it's the fear of getting punished by the government. In my humble opinion, Soviet Union did not prove that society needs self-profit motivation, not in terms of accumulating wealth. What it did prove is that the State will sooner or later collapse(because of the class war) when it threatens, oppresses and all the power is situated in the hands of a few people at the top.
_rknLA 15y ago
You're also missing the part where someone had to purchase the book new in order for it to arrive at the used book store. Now, I understand that even a used book can be sold back to a used book store, so the cycle might happen a few times, but in most cases, someone had to purchase that book new before selling it to the bookstore. TomOfTTB's point about societal values is a good one if people who pirate content are actually trying to morally justify their actions, but I'm not really convinced that they are. I do think, though, that if the industries backing SOPA put as many resources as they have towards suing customers and lobbying congress towards making new products and innovating the technology in their respective spaces that there actually wouldn't be a problem. But then, I still firmly believe that the reason people pirate content is because it's easier and more convenient than the "store" options. (DRM, transferability, etc)
darrikmazey 15y ago
In so much of this discussion, people seem to get distracted arguing whether pirating media is morally reprehensible or not. This is irrelevant to whether SOPA is a good solution to the alleged problem. I perceive two separate debates: whether piracy is a "problem" and whether SOPA solves that "problem." SOPA is simply an industry of middlemen asking a heavier hand to come down and reinforce a business model the market has allowed to decline. Whether that is because customers demand better options and are not being satisfied or not is largely immaterial. The so-called act of piracy is already illegal, and what is being asked for is not legal recourse for this (that already exists) but a course of action immune from repudiation and challenge. It is a unilateral action without oversight or representation, and for this reason it is contrary to the foundation of the Constitution. Typically, the more egregious offenses carry the stiffest penalties, but all allow for some sort of defense and reasonable trial. If society has deemed that this is a more serious offense than previously evaluated, legislation increasing the penalty can be enacted, but legislation removing one's ability to defend oneself prior to punishment being enacted is unthinkable. Private entities are being legislatively appointed to enforce public law, and this is unacceptable. It is a conflict of interest, as the public has no means to remove from "office" those serving the public in this manner. In all other aspects of public law, one has a vote somewhere in the chain to reconcile abuse of power. We can not vote on a private company whose enforcement of the law becomes corrupt, save economically, and economically our vote is severely disadvantaged.
yason 15y ago
Producing and distributing content ought to be decoupled. Distributors don't create content and content creators don't know how to work distribution. Ideally, I pay the author for the book, album, movie or software and he'll then let me get my copy wherever I deem it's best available in the format I need it.
Erwin 15y ago
Let's pretend that some terrible remote exploit appears tomorrow, that allows anyone to get out the complete source of every SaaS server side app, which is the most prevalent setup here at HN startups. No harm is done to the server, no private user data escapes. No significant extra resources are used on copying the data. What was previously impervious to copyright infringement, can now be easily copied. Illegal of course, but so is copyright infringement according to current laws. You were just planning on selling the company for $5 million. But now, an exact copy is available on a site outside of your legal reach. They are able to do everything you do. Will your potential buyer still offer you $5 million? Would you say that your pirate wasn't going to buy your company anyway and couldn't afford it, so he does you no harm? Your product was proprietary and hoarding data of users, he claims to be open and free. He claims that you are your code and ideas should belong to everyone, and you already got enough money from your first $2 million investment; asking for more would be greedy. To me it seems that the only difference is that cracking a SaaS app is generally not technically possible, while removing the DRM on an installed app and then redistributing it is easy.
- zerostar07 15y ago
  This is already happening. Making a copy of a website is quite easy. Sure there are plenty of copycats of facebook out there, yet none is a threat. It happens a lot with games, apps etc too. Entertainment Content producers are not worried that someone will take their work and reuse it for their benefit, rather that they just don't pay for it. The real problem is not piracy (let's face it, even if SOPA passes, there are tons of ways to circumvent it). They need to realize that a) the actual value of their content has dropped due to technical advances and commoditization b) there is no better legal alternative to piracy in many cases (esp. if you live outside the US/UK). People want to pay for content; there is just no easy way. Heck, I believe that even if they invented a "virtual ticket" that allowed you to watch a movie no matter which way you obtained it, people would buy. p.s. speaking of piracy, here's a pirated copy of the parent post: http://instablogg.com/Du-dhKh http://instablogg.com/Du-dhKh
- loup-vaillant 15y ago
  You've just demonstrated that our society is insane (at least in this case). If we were not crazy, what harm could such a copy possibly do ? None. You effectively (though unwillingly) donated your knowledge to the world. You deserve even more than if you kept your code secret. But. By "donating", you lost leverage. You can no longer threaten people with not giving them what they want if they don't pay you. This is by the way the problem with basically everything: making something abundant will add actual value, while at the same time destroying market value. It is most visible with Free Software, (vs Proprietary Software), but applies to anything. Say for instance that we could copy food the way we copy software. Conclusion: our society in general (and the market in particular), is very poor at valuing things in the face of abundance. Somehow it needs scarcity. Paraphrasing In Time, "For a few to be wealthy, many must starve". I don't have a solution, but this is nuts.
bitwize 15y ago
IT DOESN'T MATTER. It doesn't matter how shitty the major labels treat musicians, or whether they get paid or not. To a musician, signing with a major label means you've "made it". If your shit gets leaked out there onto the internet, major labels will lose interest in you. They won't put up the money to promote you and won't sign you if you are perceived as a risk. There goes your career. There goes your opportunity to make a living off your music. Every small-time musician I've talked to has expressed favor for stronger copyright controls, both in the form of legislation and technical measures like DRM. I bet the band you see playing gigs in your local dive bar are all SOPA supporters. If it means the difference between where they are now and playing the Hollywood Bowl, they'll support it.
- wazoox 15y ago
  These guys never signed with a label. Back in the 90s two of my successive bands signed with labels. In one case, the label boss simply wanted to make sure that our album won't interfere with "his artists" by keeping us under control, printing just the minimum number of CDs and making dead sure that they were almost impossible to get, anywhere. Small time musicians playing gigs don't give a shit about copyright, and their practice, consisting most of the time of playing covers of well-known songs, contradicts what they'd say on it anyway: did they bought the scores? do they pay whatever ASCAP would want them to pay?
- cechner 15y ago
  > If your shit gets leaked out there onto the internet, major labels will lose interest in you I really don't think that becoming popular on the Internet would make you less appealing to a label. (I hope I'm not mangling your intended meaning too much.) > Every small-time musician I've talked to has expressed favor for stronger copyright controls I know many 'small time musicians' and not one of them is in favour of stronger copyright controls. In fact they spend a lot of their time trying to get their names out by any means possible. This is one of the main things MySpace is still used for, I believe - the free distribution of indy music. Music LABELS on the other hand, love controlling distribution because that's pretty much the main thing they do. They also love to make people think that the musicians beholden to them think this way as well. edit to add disclaimer: I don't know anyone who is signed to a label.
ecaradec 15y ago
The copyright issue is at an edge of what allows the the market to work. Until the internet, maximizing profit and maximizing value was more or less the same thing. That's not true anymore : when I copy something I'm actually creating value while destroying profit. The only way to do maintain profit is to create scarcity and define prices artificially as the most people would pay for it. The ability to create copy of things at no cost is a kind of a miracle when you look at it. The issue is that the market doesn't seem to work well with limitless resources. Totally fixing piracy would require a market that can work for unlimited resources, but we have nothing of that kind yet ; it could be something like wuffies (Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom ). Read it if you want to experiment what a society with limitless resources could look like. Not saying that this is the solution still.
- davidw 15y ago
  This is a well-defined problem in economics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good
- cechner 15y ago
  This so succinctly describes the problem that I created an account just to upvote you. These laws are essentially fabricating scarcity - the medium has /solved/ the distribution problem, so of course anyone with an interest in monopolising distribution would try to stymie it. This reminds me tangentially of software developers - especially iOS devs (of which I am one) - who get upset when their apps are cloned. It only seems unfair to those devs because they refuse to evolve with the available technology. You just don't make profits in the same way anymore. You want to take advantage of simple free distribution, but of course you don't want it to be TOO free! I will now go out and buy that book...
- snowwrestler 15y ago
  Creating digital copies is not free. It requires computing resources, connectivity, and electricity, all of which we pay for. I don't think the issue of digital copying is as revolutionary as we all like to think it is. I think we can look at it as another step on the long trek of using automation to reduce content production costs--a trek which began with the advent of the printing press. That was when the legal concept of copyright originated--which, for historical context, was the time of Newton. If you had a printing press back then, the cost of reproduction was reduced essentially to the commodity costs of paper and ink, plus the time to configure the copying. Fast forward to today. If you have a computer, the cost of reproduction has now been reduced to the commodity costs of electricity, fractional hard drive cost, and bandwidth, plus the time to configure the copy. Granted, those costs are way, way lower than a printing press 300 years ago. But to me at least that seems like a matter of degree than some fundamental difference.

97 points by macco 15y ago

I say this as a copyright minimalist: the comparison to used bookstores is a bit disingenuous, for two reasons. The fact that used bookstores exist, and that you can sell old books means that a new book is worth not just the value derived from reading it, but also the price you can get from selling it when you are done. In theory this reflected in a slightly higher initial price of purchase. (Not all readers will sell, of course, but some will, and the ability to do so should matter on the margin.) The used book is also a substitute for a new book. Buying a used book increases the price, driving people who would buy the used version to buy the new one instead and at equilibrium raises the prices for the new version as well. In theory, of course.

AlisdairO 15y ago
Not just that, but only one person can have the book at any one time - unlike our current piracy system where one copy can spawn effectively infinite sub-copies. This means that when a given number of people want to read a book (and particularly if they want to read it in some relatively short period after the book's release), you need to have a substantial number of new book sales to support all those people. This isn't a requirement with modern-day piracy.
rrreese 15y ago
Also note that a secondhand book isn't a perfect substitute for a new books. Some people don't want to own second hand books, and many people don't want to give secondhand items as gifts. On the other hand second hand books often get resold several times. When I was a student and bought secondhand books regularly it wasn't unusual to buy a book that already had several second hand book stores stamps on the first page, a book that I would end up selling myself at a later time.

TomOfTTB 15y ago

Well first his metaphor doesn't really hold weight. Selling a Used Book is a one-to-one transaction in which the receiver is getting a less than perfect copy. Putting an e-book on a p2p network is a one-to-many transaction that transmits a perfect copy each time. But that doesn't necessarily invalidate his overall point. As far as his larger point is concerned I don't think I can say he's right or wrong. What I can say is he's not really looking at the deeper issues. The real issue behind piracy is societal values. Those who advocate this opinion are basically saying people only have the right to profit from their creations to recover their costs. Beyond that the content belongs to society. That's the only justification for piracy (since you're arguing the cost of distribution is so low the user doesn't need to be compensated for it) You can dress that up with arguments about fans loving artists and giving them additional revenue streams but since those additional revenue streams are separate transactions that may or may not occur you can't use them as justification for not paying an artist initially for his/her creation. Beyond that there's the issue of choice. Even if all the pro-piracy arguments are true there will be some artists who simply don't want their work pirated. Even if it's irrational (look at artists like AC/DC who still refuse to sell their music digitally). By imposing piracy on those artists you're again saying their art belongs to society once created. So that brings us back to the question of societal values. Do we as a society believe content should belong to the entire society upon creation or does it belong to the creator who can choose to distribute it in the way they see fit (even if that means handing it over to a record company or some other corporate entity)?

narag 15y ago
The real issue behind piracy is societal values. I disagree. Every time the discussion is going that way, I feel we're hopelessly lost. There is very little Ethics debate on the industry behaviour: suing their customers, exploiting authors, and lobbying for draconian laws instead of using new business models. Hey, they are companies, they're just looking for their shareholders' interest! That's legitimate! It seems Ethics only apply to consumers. Call to ethics is the last refuge of inapplicable laws.

earbitscom 15y ago

I still don't understand this mindset. If one author wants to make the "new market" work for them by giving things away or taking donations, they can do that. If that's the market you like to shop in, then donate or take freely. But if another author wants you to pay a specific price for their work when you want a copy, and you don't like the price, then you let them know that by not getting a copy. If your reason for not paying is because you don't like their publisher, then you let them know by not getting a copy. Lo and behold, the market will work itself out. Where does the mindset come from that you're still entitled to those things you're not willing to pay for? Or that your right to have them is more important than the rights of the people who made them? This is to say nothing about overreaching solutions - this guy is saying who cares about the particular solution, any one of them will require me to pay for things I want!

TomOfTTB 15y ago
I don’t want to give a false impression. I don’t advocate this mindset. But from a historical perspective it isn’t that hard to understand. The history of mankind has always been a process of vacillating between societies motivated by self-profit and societies that attempt to live communally. Right now the world has shifted more towards self-profit because we’re still living in the shadow of the Soviet Union’s collapse (the largest communal society ever attempted). But that doesn’t mean the idea of communal living has gone away completely. What the USSR proved more than anything is a society needs self-profit motivation in order to get people to put in the effort to excel. There were no startups in the USSR because no one was willing to put a large amount of effort into something that would eventually be owned by the government. But in that context artistic expression takes on a different bent because it is something most artists feel compelled to put effort into even without a profit motivation. So the question becomes “if something costs almost nothing to produce and the creator is compelled to create it without a profit motivation should it then be communal?”
- NSMeta 15y ago
  | There were no startups in the USSR because no one was willing to put a large amount of effort into something that would eventually be owned by the government. While this is correct, people were prohibited to start their own enterprises in the first place. Hence it's not the lack of profits that stopped the people - it's the fear of getting punished by the government. In my humble opinion, Soviet Union did not prove that society needs self-profit motivation, not in terms of accumulating wealth. What it did prove is that the State will sooner or later collapse(because of the class war) when it threatens, oppresses and all the power is situated in the hands of a few people at the top.

_rknLA 15y ago

You're also missing the part where someone had to purchase the book new in order for it to arrive at the used book store. Now, I understand that even a used book can be sold back to a used book store, so the cycle might happen a few times, but in most cases, someone had to purchase that book new before selling it to the bookstore. TomOfTTB's point about societal values is a good one if people who pirate content are actually trying to morally justify their actions, but I'm not really convinced that they are. I do think, though, that if the industries backing SOPA put as many resources as they have towards suing customers and lobbying congress towards making new products and innovating the technology in their respective spaces that there actually wouldn't be a problem. But then, I still firmly believe that the reason people pirate content is because it's easier and more convenient than the "store" options. (DRM, transferability, etc)

darrikmazey 15y ago

In so much of this discussion, people seem to get distracted arguing whether pirating media is morally reprehensible or not. This is irrelevant to whether SOPA is a good solution to the alleged problem. I perceive two separate debates: whether piracy is a "problem" and whether SOPA solves that "problem." SOPA is simply an industry of middlemen asking a heavier hand to come down and reinforce a business model the market has allowed to decline. Whether that is because customers demand better options and are not being satisfied or not is largely immaterial. The so-called act of piracy is already illegal, and what is being asked for is not legal recourse for this (that already exists) but a course of action immune from repudiation and challenge. It is a unilateral action without oversight or representation, and for this reason it is contrary to the foundation of the Constitution. Typically, the more egregious offenses carry the stiffest penalties, but all allow for some sort of defense and reasonable trial. If society has deemed that this is a more serious offense than previously evaluated, legislation increasing the penalty can be enacted, but legislation removing one's ability to defend oneself prior to punishment being enacted is unthinkable. Private entities are being legislatively appointed to enforce public law, and this is unacceptable. It is a conflict of interest, as the public has no means to remove from "office" those serving the public in this manner. In all other aspects of public law, one has a vote somewhere in the chain to reconcile abuse of power. We can not vote on a private company whose enforcement of the law becomes corrupt, save economically, and economically our vote is severely disadvantaged.

yason 15y ago

Producing and distributing content ought to be decoupled. Distributors don't create content and content creators don't know how to work distribution. Ideally, I pay the author for the book, album, movie or software and he'll then let me get my copy wherever I deem it's best available in the format I need it.

Erwin 15y ago

Let's pretend that some terrible remote exploit appears tomorrow, that allows anyone to get out the complete source of every SaaS server side app, which is the most prevalent setup here at HN startups. No harm is done to the server, no private user data escapes. No significant extra resources are used on copying the data. What was previously impervious to copyright infringement, can now be easily copied. Illegal of course, but so is copyright infringement according to current laws. You were just planning on selling the company for $5 million. But now, an exact copy is available on a site outside of your legal reach. They are able to do everything you do. Will your potential buyer still offer you $5 million? Would you say that your pirate wasn't going to buy your company anyway and couldn't afford it, so he does you no harm? Your product was proprietary and hoarding data of users, he claims to be open and free. He claims that you are your code and ideas should belong to everyone, and you already got enough money from your first $2 million investment; asking for more would be greedy. To me it seems that the only difference is that cracking a SaaS app is generally not technically possible, while removing the DRM on an installed app and then redistributing it is easy.

zerostar07 15y ago
This is already happening. Making a copy of a website is quite easy. Sure there are plenty of copycats of facebook out there, yet none is a threat. It happens a lot with games, apps etc too. Entertainment Content producers are not worried that someone will take their work and reuse it for their benefit, rather that they just don't pay for it. The real problem is not piracy (let's face it, even if SOPA passes, there are tons of ways to circumvent it). They need to realize that a) the actual value of their content has dropped due to technical advances and commoditization b) there is no better legal alternative to piracy in many cases (esp. if you live outside the US/UK). People want to pay for content; there is just no easy way. Heck, I believe that even if they invented a "virtual ticket" that allowed you to watch a movie no matter which way you obtained it, people would buy. p.s. speaking of piracy, here's a pirated copy of the parent post: http://instablogg.com/Du-dhKh http://instablogg.com/Du-dhKh
loup-vaillant 15y ago
You've just demonstrated that our society is insane (at least in this case). If we were not crazy, what harm could such a copy possibly do ? None. You effectively (though unwillingly) donated your knowledge to the world. You deserve even more than if you kept your code secret. But. By "donating", you lost leverage. You can no longer threaten people with not giving them what they want if they don't pay you. This is by the way the problem with basically everything: making something abundant will add actual value, while at the same time destroying market value. It is most visible with Free Software, (vs Proprietary Software), but applies to anything. Say for instance that we could copy food the way we copy software. Conclusion: our society in general (and the market in particular), is very poor at valuing things in the face of abundance. Somehow it needs scarcity. Paraphrasing In Time, "For a few to be wealthy, many must starve". I don't have a solution, but this is nuts.

bitwize 15y ago

IT DOESN'T MATTER. It doesn't matter how shitty the major labels treat musicians, or whether they get paid or not. To a musician, signing with a major label means you've "made it". If your shit gets leaked out there onto the internet, major labels will lose interest in you. They won't put up the money to promote you and won't sign you if you are perceived as a risk. There goes your career. There goes your opportunity to make a living off your music. Every small-time musician I've talked to has expressed favor for stronger copyright controls, both in the form of legislation and technical measures like DRM. I bet the band you see playing gigs in your local dive bar are all SOPA supporters. If it means the difference between where they are now and playing the Hollywood Bowl, they'll support it.

wazoox 15y ago
These guys never signed with a label. Back in the 90s two of my successive bands signed with labels. In one case, the label boss simply wanted to make sure that our album won't interfere with "his artists" by keeping us under control, printing just the minimum number of CDs and making dead sure that they were almost impossible to get, anywhere. Small time musicians playing gigs don't give a shit about copyright, and their practice, consisting most of the time of playing covers of well-known songs, contradicts what they'd say on it anyway: did they bought the scores? do they pay whatever ASCAP would want them to pay?
cechner 15y ago
> If your shit gets leaked out there onto the internet, major labels will lose interest in you I really don't think that becoming popular on the Internet would make you less appealing to a label. (I hope I'm not mangling your intended meaning too much.) > Every small-time musician I've talked to has expressed favor for stronger copyright controls I know many 'small time musicians' and not one of them is in favour of stronger copyright controls. In fact they spend a lot of their time trying to get their names out by any means possible. This is one of the main things MySpace is still used for, I believe - the free distribution of indy music. Music LABELS on the other hand, love controlling distribution because that's pretty much the main thing they do. They also love to make people think that the musicians beholden to them think this way as well. edit to add disclaimer: I don't know anyone who is signed to a label.

ecaradec 15y ago

The copyright issue is at an edge of what allows the the market to work. Until the internet, maximizing profit and maximizing value was more or less the same thing. That's not true anymore : when I copy something I'm actually creating value while destroying profit. The only way to do maintain profit is to create scarcity and define prices artificially as the most people would pay for it. The ability to create copy of things at no cost is a kind of a miracle when you look at it. The issue is that the market doesn't seem to work well with limitless resources. Totally fixing piracy would require a market that can work for unlimited resources, but we have nothing of that kind yet ; it could be something like wuffies (Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom ). Read it if you want to experiment what a society with limitless resources could look like. Not saying that this is the solution still.

davidw 15y ago
This is a well-defined problem in economics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good
cechner 15y ago
This so succinctly describes the problem that I created an account just to upvote you. These laws are essentially fabricating scarcity - the medium has /solved/ the distribution problem, so of course anyone with an interest in monopolising distribution would try to stymie it. This reminds me tangentially of software developers - especially iOS devs (of which I am one) - who get upset when their apps are cloned. It only seems unfair to those devs because they refuse to evolve with the available technology. You just don't make profits in the same way anymore. You want to take advantage of simple free distribution, but of course you don't want it to be TOO free! I will now go out and buy that book...
snowwrestler 15y ago
Creating digital copies is not free. It requires computing resources, connectivity, and electricity, all of which we pay for. I don't think the issue of digital copying is as revolutionary as we all like to think it is. I think we can look at it as another step on the long trek of using automation to reduce content production costs--a trek which began with the advent of the printing press. That was when the legal concept of copyright originated--which, for historical context, was the time of Newton. If you had a printing press back then, the cost of reproduction was reduced essentially to the commodity costs of paper and ink, plus the time to configure the copying. Fast forward to today. If you have a computer, the cost of reproduction has now been reduced to the commodity costs of electricity, fractional hard drive cost, and bandwidth, plus the time to configure the copy. Granted, those costs are way, way lower than a printing press 300 years ago. But to me at least that seems like a matter of degree than some fundamental difference.