4 ms·

> The fact that a market is free... We're talking about a government-created monopoly though. If there is competition over distribution, rather than content,

> The fact that a market is free... We're talking about a government-created monopoly though. If there is competition over distribution, rather than content, better delivery mechanisms eventually win. We had this when FM displaced AM radio. There was a compulsory licensing regime, which means that anyone can distribute any content they want for a reasonable fixed fee. FM was a better distribution technology, so it won, but only because it was allowed to compete on the same terms, with the same content.

rayiner 12y ago
All property rights are government created monopolies. Imagine applying compulsory licensing to other things. They government forces you to sell your widgets at a "reasonable fixed fee." Imagine the government forcing Google or Facebook to share their databases to potential competitors for a "reasonable fixed fee." Compulsory licensing was a tactic used to shift profits from content creators to middlemen.
- Dylan16807 12y ago
  Obviously compulsory copyright licensing only applies to things that were being sold in the first place. Anyway can you explain your widget scenario more? In particular, how is it less fair than existing compulsory radio licensing?
- brownbat 12y ago
  > All property rights are government created monopolies. It's true that governments attempt to ensure property rights in other things. But tangible goods have a natural scarcity, while scarcity is imposed on digitial copies. My use of a plow excludes your simultaneously use of the plow. My use of an mp3 does not. Government steps in and limits the technology artificially, creating an artificial scarcity, not unlike a "club good": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Club_good https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Club_good The fact that widgets are "rivalrous" is exactly why they're poor candidates for such schemes. But the way we sell "widgets" isn't the ideal way to provide all things. The way we sell widgets wouldn't be a good way to sell street lighting or national defense, however, because those goods are "non-excludable," meaning you get free rider problems. So we have different systems for different goods based on the properties of those goods. Ocean going vessels don't shop for lighthouses at a corner store, and we don't have a municipal fund set aside to supply every child with popsicles. My humble suggestion is that we treat digital content more like other non-rivalrous goods, and less like popsicles. > Compulsory licensing was a tactic... Compulsory licensing arose in many different domains for different reasons. Radio, live performances, cover bands all have somewhat unique histories that defy one simple damning motive. Regardless of past motives, I'm happy to agree that compulsory licensing wouldn't be a good scheme if its only benefit was to move profits from one group to another. It improves efficiency more broadly though. There are several reasons, but for one, consider the transaction costs to any negotiation with any content holder. If society can just have that negotiation once, publicly, it will save everyone a lot of hassle. It also cleanly addresses the holdout problem, I find that a major perk.
res0nat0r 12y ago
Huh? Since when have Hollywood movie studios been government created monopolies?
- Dylan16807 12y ago
  Copyright is a government-created monopoly.
  - res0nat0r 12y ago
    Is there something inherently wrong with content creators controlling how their content is consumed?
    - Dylan16807 12y ago
      It's not inherently wrong but it's inherently not a completely free market. Almost all markets have elements of regulation, and these must be kept in mind when discussing solutions.
    - res0nat0r 12y ago
      I'm slightly confused as to why this perfectly valid question is downvotable....going against the hive mind?
      - Dylan16807 12y ago
        It's not just a question. It's also an implication that the people you're replying to have claimed there is "something inherently wrong with content creators controlling how their content is consumed". Such a loaded question is unfair and downvote-worthy.
  - tptacek 12y ago
    So is real estate.

rayiner 12y ago

All property rights are government created monopolies. Imagine applying compulsory licensing to other things. They government forces you to sell your widgets at a "reasonable fixed fee." Imagine the government forcing Google or Facebook to share their databases to potential competitors for a "reasonable fixed fee." Compulsory licensing was a tactic used to shift profits from content creators to middlemen.

Dylan16807 12y ago
Obviously compulsory copyright licensing only applies to things that were being sold in the first place. Anyway can you explain your widget scenario more? In particular, how is it less fair than existing compulsory radio licensing?
brownbat 12y ago
> All property rights are government created monopolies. It's true that governments attempt to ensure property rights in other things. But tangible goods have a natural scarcity, while scarcity is imposed on digitial copies. My use of a plow excludes your simultaneously use of the plow. My use of an mp3 does not. Government steps in and limits the technology artificially, creating an artificial scarcity, not unlike a "club good": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Club_good https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Club_good The fact that widgets are "rivalrous" is exactly why they're poor candidates for such schemes. But the way we sell "widgets" isn't the ideal way to provide all things. The way we sell widgets wouldn't be a good way to sell street lighting or national defense, however, because those goods are "non-excludable," meaning you get free rider problems. So we have different systems for different goods based on the properties of those goods. Ocean going vessels don't shop for lighthouses at a corner store, and we don't have a municipal fund set aside to supply every child with popsicles. My humble suggestion is that we treat digital content more like other non-rivalrous goods, and less like popsicles. > Compulsory licensing was a tactic... Compulsory licensing arose in many different domains for different reasons. Radio, live performances, cover bands all have somewhat unique histories that defy one simple damning motive. Regardless of past motives, I'm happy to agree that compulsory licensing wouldn't be a good scheme if its only benefit was to move profits from one group to another. It improves efficiency more broadly though. There are several reasons, but for one, consider the transaction costs to any negotiation with any content holder. If society can just have that negotiation once, publicly, it will save everyone a lot of hassle. It also cleanly addresses the holdout problem, I find that a major perk.

res0nat0r 12y ago

Huh? Since when have Hollywood movie studios been government created monopolies?

Dylan16807 12y ago
Copyright is a government-created monopoly.
- res0nat0r 12y ago
  Is there something inherently wrong with content creators controlling how their content is consumed?
  - Dylan16807 12y ago
    It's not inherently wrong but it's inherently not a completely free market. Almost all markets have elements of regulation, and these must be kept in mind when discussing solutions.
  - res0nat0r 12y ago
    I'm slightly confused as to why this perfectly valid question is downvotable....going against the hive mind?
    - Dylan16807 12y ago
      It's not just a question. It's also an implication that the people you're replying to have claimed there is "something inherently wrong with content creators controlling how their content is consumed". Such a loaded question is unfair and downvote-worthy.
- tptacek 12y ago
  So is real estate.