4 ms·

>What unit would you use to measure the value it provides, if not money? I'm against quantifying it at all because, while useful, price is a very limited metri

>What unit would you use to measure the value it provides, if not money? I'm against quantifying it at all because, while useful, price is a very limited metric. There are numerous cases where you can increase the transaction sum and achieve 0 value increase, eg. monopolistic pricing in a market with inelastic demand or bad investing (destroying capital) or externalities, etc. >I don't understand the point you're making. Obviously somebody thinks Microsoft's Android patents are valuable, or they wouldn't pay to use them. What do you mean by "would it create extra value?" Nobody is "using them", in fact nobody knows what patents are in question, all that's known is that Microsoft forced different Android manufacturers to pay up for Linux kernel or they take them to court. That's textbook rent seeking. It's likely that Linux devs arrived at the solution independently (since IIRC it's unknown what patents are in question), or would have done so - so you can't make the point that without granting Microsoft a monopoly you wouldn't have Linux kernel. >That makes no sense. Demand existing isn't enough for something to spring into existence. You make it sound like other people slaving away to create music, movies, and software is your birth right or something. People choose to share their creations, once it's copied the copy is no longer their property. They can do whatever they want with their property but knowledge is a non-rivalrous non-excludable good (without infringing on excludable property of others) and creating artificial scarcities to sustain someones business model is ridiculous. Software can translate nicely to a no IP environment by SaaS, NDAs and open-source development financed by consulting. There are various routes for other industries, and many more can be created. I'm not sure about things like pharmaceuticals and maybe other industries have different conditions that would lead to catastrophic results, but that doesn't apply to software and entertainment, bankrupting Disney and Microsoft != bankrupting a company with 10 years of R&D in cancer treatment research.

sliverstorm 15y ago
creating artificial scarcities to sustain someones business model is ridiculous I read your words, but all I hear you saying is "I want free media". Do you fundamentally disbelieve in the concept of paying someone for the use/enjoyment of IP they produced?
- moonchrome 15y ago
  >I read your words, but all I hear you saying is "I want free media". All the media I consume nowdays is free, news, learning resources, youtube vids etc. Apart from going to cinema (but even that started to suck), and music from local bands that I pay for to support the artist. So nope, I don't want any media. >Do you fundamentally disbelieve in the concept of paying someone for the use/enjoyment of IP they produced? Do you pay for broadcast TV program or radio ? They are funded by advertising. Same thing with software, I don't mind paying for it, but if you expect people not to copy it - keep it on a private server and expose it as a service, or find some other model.
  - setrofim_ 15y ago
    >Do you pay for broadcast TV program or radio ? They are funded by advertising. Actually, in the UK, we do pay for it (BBC broadcasts, at least) through a TV license.
    - moonchrome 15y ago
      But you have private channels that are funded by advertising ?
      - setrofim_ 15y ago
        Yes, pretty much everything other than BBC.
  - shoham 15y ago
    Yeah, as an independent, 'starving' artist myself, I take exception to all this happy talk about making information free. It's already hard enough to make a living off of music, or any art, and I'm no fan of the monopolies, but it's incredibly obnoxious when I hear all this stuff about just give all of your work away for free with no path to eventual prosperity, and how "It's the producers problem, why don't they make a new business model". As for the monopolies, that's what they've done with litigation and IP protection measures, albeit more and more draconian ones...
mbell 15y ago
>I'm against quantifying it at all because, while useful, price is a very limited metric. There are numerous cases where you can increase the transaction sum and achieve 0 value increase, eg. monopolistic pricing in a market with inelastic demand or bad investing (destroying capital) or externalities, etc. I'm pretty confused as to how you first define that you don't want to quantify it but then one sentence later make a quantitative declaration ("achieve 0 value increase..."). How does this work?
- moonchrome 15y ago
  Zero means nothing, absence of extra value, that can be established on qualitative grounds - but true it doesn't have to be strictly 0 it just means there is no proportional value added.
Wilduck 15y ago
> knowledge is a non-rivalrous non-excludable good You sound like you know what you're talking about here. What you're claiming is that digital media is a public good. I can live with that definition. It's certainly non-rival, and in practice is fairly non-excludable. You then go on to claim that companies should just find a way to survive without copyright. The problem with this approach is that the creation of these public goods will be far below the social optimum without some sort of market interventions [1]. I definitely don't think that aggressive copyright law is the correct way to address the free rider problem. However, I think that it's shortsighted to create a necessarily inefficient market. It makes sense that companies like Disney want longer copyright, as that's how they capture the positive externalites of their work, and are able to keep producing it. Someone who is politically savvy and trying to solve this problem would look through possible solutions to the free-rider problem [2] and use them to formulate a way that producers and consumers can both benefit from relaxed copyright laws. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good#The_free_rider_problem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good#The_free_rider_prob... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good#Possible_solutions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good#Possible_solutions
- moonchrome 15y ago
  I would prefer to approach it as public good that is protected against market failure in few selective cases. I don't like that approach but it's an improvement over treating knowledge as private property/granting legal monopolies.
- pbhjpbhj 15y ago
  Copyright is monopoly protection granted on your works by the demos on the assumption of that work becoming freely available to the public domain in a reasonable time. If your work is not going to enter the public domain then there's no contract - the state then is enforcing a monopoly against the interests of the people. Disney can make a profit of 100s of millions on a movie within a few years. They don't need anything like as much as 20 years. They will of course retain their trademarks, and I think this is only right in a realistic IP environment. >relaxed copyright laws // Relaxation general means less strict or less firmly applied. This suggests an assumption that the state should grant a monopoly - there should be no such assumption but instead the application of a strict limited time contract in accordance with the original purposes of the law.

sliverstorm 15y ago

creating artificial scarcities to sustain someones business model is ridiculous I read your words, but all I hear you saying is "I want free media". Do you fundamentally disbelieve in the concept of paying someone for the use/enjoyment of IP they produced?

moonchrome 15y ago
>I read your words, but all I hear you saying is "I want free media". All the media I consume nowdays is free, news, learning resources, youtube vids etc. Apart from going to cinema (but even that started to suck), and music from local bands that I pay for to support the artist. So nope, I don't want any media. >Do you fundamentally disbelieve in the concept of paying someone for the use/enjoyment of IP they produced? Do you pay for broadcast TV program or radio ? They are funded by advertising. Same thing with software, I don't mind paying for it, but if you expect people not to copy it - keep it on a private server and expose it as a service, or find some other model.
- setrofim_ 15y ago
  >Do you pay for broadcast TV program or radio ? They are funded by advertising. Actually, in the UK, we do pay for it (BBC broadcasts, at least) through a TV license.
  - moonchrome 15y ago
    But you have private channels that are funded by advertising ?
    - setrofim_ 15y ago
      Yes, pretty much everything other than BBC.
- shoham 15y ago
  Yeah, as an independent, 'starving' artist myself, I take exception to all this happy talk about making information free. It's already hard enough to make a living off of music, or any art, and I'm no fan of the monopolies, but it's incredibly obnoxious when I hear all this stuff about just give all of your work away for free with no path to eventual prosperity, and how "It's the producers problem, why don't they make a new business model". As for the monopolies, that's what they've done with litigation and IP protection measures, albeit more and more draconian ones...

mbell 15y ago

>I'm against quantifying it at all because, while useful, price is a very limited metric. There are numerous cases where you can increase the transaction sum and achieve 0 value increase, eg. monopolistic pricing in a market with inelastic demand or bad investing (destroying capital) or externalities, etc. I'm pretty confused as to how you first define that you don't want to quantify it but then one sentence later make a quantitative declaration ("achieve 0 value increase..."). How does this work?

moonchrome 15y ago
Zero means nothing, absence of extra value, that can be established on qualitative grounds - but true it doesn't have to be strictly 0 it just means there is no proportional value added.

Wilduck 15y ago

> knowledge is a non-rivalrous non-excludable good You sound like you know what you're talking about here. What you're claiming is that digital media is a public good. I can live with that definition. It's certainly non-rival, and in practice is fairly non-excludable. You then go on to claim that companies should just find a way to survive without copyright. The problem with this approach is that the creation of these public goods will be far below the social optimum without some sort of market interventions [1]. I definitely don't think that aggressive copyright law is the correct way to address the free rider problem. However, I think that it's shortsighted to create a necessarily inefficient market. It makes sense that companies like Disney want longer copyright, as that's how they capture the positive externalites of their work, and are able to keep producing it. Someone who is politically savvy and trying to solve this problem would look through possible solutions to the free-rider problem [2] and use them to formulate a way that producers and consumers can both benefit from relaxed copyright laws. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good#The_free_rider_problem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good#The_free_rider_prob... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good#Possible_solutions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good#Possible_solutions

moonchrome 15y ago
I would prefer to approach it as public good that is protected against market failure in few selective cases. I don't like that approach but it's an improvement over treating knowledge as private property/granting legal monopolies.
pbhjpbhj 15y ago
Copyright is monopoly protection granted on your works by the demos on the assumption of that work becoming freely available to the public domain in a reasonable time. If your work is not going to enter the public domain then there's no contract - the state then is enforcing a monopoly against the interests of the people. Disney can make a profit of 100s of millions on a movie within a few years. They don't need anything like as much as 20 years. They will of course retain their trademarks, and I think this is only right in a realistic IP environment. >relaxed copyright laws // Relaxation general means less strict or less firmly applied. This suggests an assumption that the state should grant a monopoly - there should be no such assumption but instead the application of a strict limited time contract in accordance with the original purposes of the law.