5 ms·

The question is not whether there is a right to make a profit but whether there is a right to pursue a profit. Free, instantaneous distribution of all music as

The question is not whether there is a right to make a profit but whether there is a right to pursue a profit. Free, instantaneous distribution of all music as soon as it is produced (an exaggeration of torrents, but not by much) seems to take away the right to pursue a profit, at least profit by distribution of recordings. Or perhaps there is no right to pursue profit by distribution. Perhaps there is only a right to pursue profit by live performance. But what happens if that becomes copyable? We already have at least one instance of a holographic singer (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatsune_Miku https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatsune_Miku). What if holographic recorders and projectors become as cheap as cameras and microphones and screens and speakers? Live performance could be copied about as effectively as live sound is now (recorded music is not a perfect reproduction of what was played in studio or on stage). What then? Is there no right to pursue profit by live performance either? Decreasing costs of production seem likely to make copying merchandise reasonably possible (you can already just draw a design and have someone print a T-shirt or such for you). So is there no right to pursue profit by merchandise either? If there is no right to pursue profit by distribution, live performance, or merchandise, I think it is safe to say there is no right to pursue profit at all. But is that really fair? Musicians don't even deserve the right to try to get people to buy their product out of anything other than sympathy? Frankly, I think pay-what-you-want is great. But I don't think it can provide the same level of economic activity and technological development we are used to. The most advanced personal computing company in the world is also the most closed or near it. The iPhone, iPad, corresponding retina displays, the Macbook Air... all produced under tight control and for direct profit only. Why isn't an open, pay-what-you-will hardware company beating Apple? We all like our i-things, so why aren't we paying people to develop them? Why is Apple's cheapest product $129, and the cheapest Kickstarter level usually $1? Why won't we pay $129 for Kickstarter projects that sound interesting to us if pay-what-you-will really works? Similarly, the most advanced synthesizers, digital mixers, even music software are all produced to be sold. Why is there no open, pay-what-you-will synthesizer to match Kurzweil? Why is there no open, pay-what-you-will library to match O'Reilly's? Why no open, pay-what-you-will coffee to match Starbucks? Why no open, pay-what-you-will transportation system to match the U.S. interstates and European and Japanese light and high-speed rail? I would argue it's because accepting only the payment you can convince people to offer voluntarily doesn't work in most cases at an advanced level. And either way, it doesn't seem to right to force people into a pay-what-you-will model.

qdog 15y ago
I'm saying it's not a 'right' to expect profit from something. The right to pursue a profit exists as long as the law of the land allows it. Markets already provide a "pay-what-you-want" model, it just happens that not everyone is willing to accept what you want to pay. Selling capital goods is very different than selling digital copies of something. There is a limited amount of corn in the world, you can purchase it at the going rate generally set by the supply and demand. In digital goods, the supply is unlimited, there are no natural market forces. Apple heavily protects its products with patents and copyright where it can. You cannot take an ipad design and improve upon that design without cutting a deal with Apple. I think that strongly supports the case that the few (Apple) benefit from the current system while the many (anyone who thinks they could enhance the design of ipad) do not. There are, however, a few open and free items of software, Linux, MySQL, Apache, Firefox to name a few. Arguably, depending on what you want to do, there isn't even a better closed alternative (yes, yes, substitute whatever SQL package you prefer for MySQL). I personally have a cable provider (so I pay for the minimal tv package to get internet), a netflix account, Amazon Prime, see the occasional movie in the theater, etc. When people talk about copyright though, I generally see some stuffed suit making a bonus, not a bunch of creative people.
- DanielStraight 15y ago
  Except Apple is a bunch of creative people. So is Kurzweil and O'Reilly and, heck, even Starbucks. Markets are not pay-what-you-want, because pay-what-you-want implies $0 is an acceptable price. At least that's how I was using the term. Apple will not accept $0 for an iPad. If you don't accept their price, you don't get the iPad. That's why people buy it. Copying media lets you get it even if you don't accept the price. Which means the only reason to pay is because you want to. My contention is that making people pay in order to enjoy a product is often what provides the money necessary to exercise creativity. The iPad could be improved by an individual working alone with their own funds, but it never could have been created that way. Without profits from previous products, the creative people at Apple who designed the iPad never would have had the resources to do so. We have iPads today precisely because Apple is closed. What is the next innovation in personal computing? Who will come up with it? Will it be Apple or someone on Kickstarter? My money is on Apple. Even if it is someone on Kickstarter, will they be able to raise the probably millions of dollars necessary to make a viable consumer product? Unlikely. A system in which producers pay upfront and then recoup costs is actually better for consumers. You get to see the finished product before deciding whether or not to spend your money. If the finished product sucks, only the producer loses. If the finished product of a Kickstarter project sucks, everyone who contributed loses. How many iterations do you think it took Apple to perfect the iPad? Each of those would have to have been separately funded on Kickstarter for that system to produce the iPad. I doubt even the costs of one iteration could be raised. But when you cut off the ability to recoup production costs, you cut off the incentive to pay upfront production costs. Which cuts off the funding to creative people who are doing important work. The problem with only being able to collect voluntary payments (pay-what-you-want, Kickstarter, etc.) is that people don't necessary know they want something until it's done. The 1st iteration iPad probably sucked. So why would people fund it? If Apple builds an iPad, it only takes a few people's shared vision to make it happen. If a Kickstarter project wants to build something as innovative, it will required the shared vision of everyone contributing. You'll have to convince thousands of people that it's worth funding numerous iterations at thousands, or possibly even millions, of dollars, in the hopes that the final product will be good. I just don't see this happening.

qdog 15y ago

I'm saying it's not a 'right' to expect profit from something. The right to pursue a profit exists as long as the law of the land allows it. Markets already provide a "pay-what-you-want" model, it just happens that not everyone is willing to accept what you want to pay. Selling capital goods is very different than selling digital copies of something. There is a limited amount of corn in the world, you can purchase it at the going rate generally set by the supply and demand. In digital goods, the supply is unlimited, there are no natural market forces. Apple heavily protects its products with patents and copyright where it can. You cannot take an ipad design and improve upon that design without cutting a deal with Apple. I think that strongly supports the case that the few (Apple) benefit from the current system while the many (anyone who thinks they could enhance the design of ipad) do not. There are, however, a few open and free items of software, Linux, MySQL, Apache, Firefox to name a few. Arguably, depending on what you want to do, there isn't even a better closed alternative (yes, yes, substitute whatever SQL package you prefer for MySQL). I personally have a cable provider (so I pay for the minimal tv package to get internet), a netflix account, Amazon Prime, see the occasional movie in the theater, etc. When people talk about copyright though, I generally see some stuffed suit making a bonus, not a bunch of creative people.

DanielStraight 15y ago
Except Apple is a bunch of creative people. So is Kurzweil and O'Reilly and, heck, even Starbucks. Markets are not pay-what-you-want, because pay-what-you-want implies $0 is an acceptable price. At least that's how I was using the term. Apple will not accept $0 for an iPad. If you don't accept their price, you don't get the iPad. That's why people buy it. Copying media lets you get it even if you don't accept the price. Which means the only reason to pay is because you want to. My contention is that making people pay in order to enjoy a product is often what provides the money necessary to exercise creativity. The iPad could be improved by an individual working alone with their own funds, but it never could have been created that way. Without profits from previous products, the creative people at Apple who designed the iPad never would have had the resources to do so. We have iPads today precisely because Apple is closed. What is the next innovation in personal computing? Who will come up with it? Will it be Apple or someone on Kickstarter? My money is on Apple. Even if it is someone on Kickstarter, will they be able to raise the probably millions of dollars necessary to make a viable consumer product? Unlikely. A system in which producers pay upfront and then recoup costs is actually better for consumers. You get to see the finished product before deciding whether or not to spend your money. If the finished product sucks, only the producer loses. If the finished product of a Kickstarter project sucks, everyone who contributed loses. How many iterations do you think it took Apple to perfect the iPad? Each of those would have to have been separately funded on Kickstarter for that system to produce the iPad. I doubt even the costs of one iteration could be raised. But when you cut off the ability to recoup production costs, you cut off the incentive to pay upfront production costs. Which cuts off the funding to creative people who are doing important work. The problem with only being able to collect voluntary payments (pay-what-you-want, Kickstarter, etc.) is that people don't necessary know they want something until it's done. The 1st iteration iPad probably sucked. So why would people fund it? If Apple builds an iPad, it only takes a few people's shared vision to make it happen. If a Kickstarter project wants to build something as innovative, it will required the shared vision of everyone contributing. You'll have to convince thousands of people that it's worth funding numerous iterations at thousands, or possibly even millions, of dollars, in the hopes that the final product will be good. I just don't see this happening.