Why People Don't Believe In Paying For Music. Hint: Its All About Deflation.
Interest post on Squawking Tech--proposes that because of natural (price) deflation,
"With the exception of land and human time, in all areas of society we have been conditioned to expect more for less over time. Yet until just a few years ago, the music industry was increasingly charging more, for the same product. And they were able to do this because copyright law gives them the ability to set prices like a legal monopoly. ... When people in aggregate are asked to pay far more than what they think something should cost, they start looking for alternatives. In this case, the alternative comes in the form of P2P technology."
Intriguing argument: that the failure of music to fall in price along with other technology-related goods is evidence of the pernicious effect of copyright.
Comments (46)
anon
To claim that "the failure of music to fall in price with other technology-related goods" is one thing - but piracy (e.g P2P) essentially offers the same good for free. The fact is that customers are demanding, greedy and selfish - they want their desires and needs to be satisfied at the lowest cost possible. For example - you can get *anything* in China.
From this perspective, I don't believe it's accurate to entirely attribute music piracy to "people in aggregate having to pay far more than what they think something should cost", but because there are cheaper - almost free - alternative to obtained them. Consumers don't really care that such alternatives are illegal.
Published: January 8, 2009 12:01 AM
anon
While I agree there should be copyright reform (I loathe it myself, personally) - licensing and copyright were designed to protect the interests of creators. A lot of resources, time, energy, effort and ingenuity goes into the production of a creative work - but this point is often overlooked. There's an inclination here for people to narrowly focus on how much the consumer can get for his buck.
Published: January 8, 2009 12:06 AM
Carter
Imagine if the first man to build a car simply thought that he would never have to work again and his great idea would pay him for the rest of his life. That's a pretty bleak outlook on what copyright is supposed to achieve. It was never meant to allow someone to monopolize an industry. Musicians have to change their business plans like any other entrepreneur. If they don't give consumers what they want, they deserve to go out of business. Musicians today who create a business plan focused on real scarce goods not artificially scarce goods will be much better off. This is why Trent Reznor gives his music away for free. He knows the valuable/truly scarce/irreproducible good is his concerts, the special booklets you get when you buy the cd, etc. The argument that "a lot of work and ingenuity" went into the creation of the music is merely a half truth covering a blatantly ridiculous idea of how businesses operate and provide consumers with goods they demand. I am very grateful that Ford didn't try and use government instituted monopoly to stifle innovation of the auto industry. Instead they worked hard on innovating and changing. Change is not bad, it is what the market demands.
There was a time when cd's were almost impossible to make due to infrastructure required to create them. At that time it made economic sense for a music lover to buy a cd at $10 to $20 a pop. That barrier has been torn down. Instead of passing that savings onto consumers however, many musicians still want the profits of old. Profits are irregular and normalization always occurs. This is a fundamental truth of free markets.
Published: January 8, 2009 12:35 AM
beebs
The music world is cratering due to the availability of Amazon and Apple's "single download" and P2P like Limewire.
Rather than buying the entire album, you download only the songs that sound good, and then you share the CD you ripped with your friends.
So, there is deflation in music, as I see it.
Published: January 8, 2009 12:55 AM
Artisan
@ Carter "If musicians don't give consumers what they want, they deserve to go out of business..."
Ahem, there's two aspects here that are confusing. One is the quality of the music, the other one is the business model. One has little to do with the other in fact... or do you really believe Madonna is a greater composer than say... Schubert. (Or does it matter that they believe it...?)
You can't define humans only with economy. Religion, spiritual integrity ...and art, are things that also have their own life outside the immediacy of economy. And even if I welcome the reality of the live artistic performance as compared to "music in a box", you cannot deny that the artist participates to giving the public "what it wants" even if that public listens all day long to the artist's compositions without paying a kopek for it.
Published: January 8, 2009 3:24 AM
David Bratton
anon: "...essentially offers the same good for free."
Blank CD's are about twenty cents give or take. Cases are about the same again. So it isn't completely free.
When you factor in the search and download time, the quality uncertainty, and the burn time, I figure a music CD is probably worth about fifty cents.
Published: January 8, 2009 3:57 AM
David Bratton
anon: "...essentially offers the same good for free."
Blank CD's are about twenty cents give or take. Cases are about the same again. So it isn't completely free.
When you factor in the search and download time, the quality uncertainty, and the burn time, I figure a music CD is probably worth about fifty cents.
Published: January 8, 2009 3:59 AM
anon
P2P downloading is really free (you would retain your internet connection whether you're downloading or not). While I feel slightly smug at how piracy has forced music distributors to 'deflate' and come up with innovative, cheaper and more flexible methods of distribution, music piracy - like all forms of piracy - is wrong. You might deem something to be too expensive, but that doesn't entitle you to steal it - and music/movies/entertainment are not essential for our livelihood. We are just given ourselves over to entertainment - slaves to it so much that we've opted to steal.
Published: January 8, 2009 5:37 AM
anon
The title is rather silly come to think of it - people don't believe in paying for anything, unless it's necessary.
Published: January 8, 2009 5:40 AM
Inquisitor
Whilst I agree with Kinsella on IP, I'm wary of the claim that individuals who download do so with good intentions (i.e. they realize violating IP laws isn't theft.) Rather, I think they believe it is theft yet carry it out anyway because a) they're spoiled and want everything on their terms only; there's no positive "right" to music; b) it's easy to get away with it. It sounds like individuals who steal from corps because they think they're evil and deserve to be stolen from...
Published: January 8, 2009 6:31 AM
anon
We will steal everything and anything if it's easy to get away with impunity, really.
They should be copyright reform. But remember that people's livelihoods depend on what they produce - in this case music, entertainment... to steal it just because you can't - or refuse to -pay for it is wrong, regardless of whichever end of the telescope you're looking from.
Published: January 8, 2009 7:40 AM
Nick
All of you standing on your soapboxes and pounding your e-chests can do so guaranteeing me that you've never recorded music off the radio using a cassette deck, right? You never recorded an album using a cassette deck, right? You've never recorded movies or TV shows using a VCR or PVR, right? And once recorded, you've never shared those media with your friends via "sneakernet" - right?
I'm sure that all of you "law abiding" citizens are prepared to answer "no" to each of the above questions. If you're not, then STFU.
As a former musician I can guarantee you that with some *rare* exceptions, the ones hurt by downloading are not the artists, but the record companies. Most of the artists get screwed even if the albums aren't "pirated". It's why you see so many bands in favor of P2P sharing.
Bands have to sell their souls just to get a contract in the first place. After advances, instruments, miscellaneous fees (read: drugs and booze for the record company execs), lawyers, studio fees, recording, re-recording, mixing, production, re-mixing, mastering, re-mastering, re-recording, re-mixing, re-mastering, post-production, photography, printing, manufacturing, marketing, and promotion - all paid for by "loans" to the artists from the record company, it's truly rare that any of them see a dime off of CD sales or any other in-store merchandising. In most cases, bands are able to capitalize in two places: airplay and live shows.
Are there exceptions? Yes, and I stated as much above. However, they're extremely rare - and when I say "extreme" I mean U2, Metallica, and REM extreme. They're called "supergroups" for a reason.
Published: January 8, 2009 7:54 AM
anon
Which is why I said reform.
I worked as a animator for a while, before calling it quits.
Published: January 8, 2009 8:32 AM
Laz
http://www.amazon.com/b/ref=amb_link_7866952_18?ie=UTF8&node=1240544011
Amazon's best selling MP3 album of 2008 was in fact the NIN Ghosts album that he was giving away for free. It is available for free, yet it was the best selling album of the year. The number 11 album by Radiohead was also freely available.
I think that it would show a tendency of consumers to value the creative act of making music. The album was available for $5, which is about half the price of most mp3 album downloads. I think that this shows that the market for music between the current price and zero is very large.
Published: January 8, 2009 9:28 AM
Silas Barta (formerly Person)
Thanks, Carter, for giving me another chance to parody the claims of IP opponents, and show how ridiculous they're being!
Imagine if someone who bought a factory thought that he would never have to work again and his great factory would pay him for the rest of his life. That's a pretty bleak outlook on what property rights in physical objects is supposed to achieve. It was never meant to allow someone to monopolize an industry. Capitalists have to change their business plans like any other entrepreneur. If they don't give consumers what they want, they deserve to go out of business. Capitalists today who create a business plan focused on real cheap products not artifically expensive products will be much better off. This is why drug dealers give their drugs away for free. He knows the truly scarce good is drugs when you really need them, etc. The argument that "a lot of work an ingenuity" went into the creation of the factory is merely a half-truth covering a blatantly ridiculous idea of how businesses operate and provide consumers with what they demand. I am very grateful that Che Guevara didn't try and use government-instituted property rights to stifle innovation of industry. Instead they worked hard on freeing property from capitalist oppressors. Change is not bad, it is what the market demands.
There was a time when canned goods were almost impossible to make due to the infrastructure required to create them. At that time it make economic sense to pay for canned goods. That barrier has been torn down. Now you can just loot factories. Instead of passing that savings onto consumers, however, many capitalists still want the profits resulting from rights in factory output. Profits are irregular and normalization always occurs. This is a fundamental truth of free markets.
Published: January 8, 2009 10:01 AM
Inquisitor
Nick, my point is that the motives behind violations of IP are not exactly pure, and that merely taking a product because one does not believe it is worth it's price is no different to theft normally understood. It's true IP is without justification and will need serious revision to work in a free society, but that wasn't what I was contesting...
Published: January 8, 2009 10:55 AM
m4
Silas, that was hilarious, thank you.
Good to see someone standing up for intellectual PROPERTY.
Published: January 8, 2009 11:33 AM
Nick
My point is simply that the P2P sharing of songs is no different than recording those played by radio, album, cassette, cd, etc, and traded via sneakernet. The only differences are physical.
The motives behind any of these are getting something for nothing. Pure? Who knows.... Everyone wants to get as much as they can for as little as possible.
Trading of songs doesn't remove the song from the owner. People who trade songs usually don't turn around and sell the song as their own work and in the majority of cases they don't pirate them to re-sell to the public. To paraphrase Thomas Jefferson, lighting my candle off yours doesn't take your light from you. Once mine is lit, you still have your candle and your flame. The owner still has the song to be licensed for commercials, airplay, performance...etc.
I see this as a market issue that if left alone would work as intended.
Today, the supply of any given song's recording rapidly approaches unlimited once the first copy hits the public. And in any product with unlimited supply, the corresponding value approaches zero. However, musicians need not go poor and hungry. The supply of live performances is very limited and cannot be traded at all. In addition, unique non-digital merchandise isn't traded easily. Both can be fairly tightly-controlled by the artist and therefore sold at a premium provided the artist has demand.
In the end, if the free market were allowed to work, the only entities that would go poor and hungry would be the record companies because musicians would find that they're no longer needed.
Sauce for the goose.
Published: January 8, 2009 11:47 AM
David Spellman
"# Nick
#
All of you standing on your soapboxes and pounding your e-chests can do so guaranteeing me that you've never recorded music off the radio using a cassette deck, right? You never recorded an album using a cassette deck, right? You've never recorded movies or TV shows using a VCR or PVR, right? And once recorded, you've never shared those media with your friends via "sneakernet" - right?
I'm sure that all of you "law abiding" citizens are prepared to answer "no" to each of the above questions. If you're not, then STFU."
In answer to your question, the answer is NO to each of the above questions. I have never pirated any media and I obey the laws as they stand whether I agree with them or not.
I think that is the most important statement I can make.
Published: January 8, 2009 12:30 PM
scineram
I think I support some IP protection laws, so that the stuff I like gets produced. I just ignore them.
Published: January 8, 2009 12:47 PM
Michael A. Clem
The amount of time and effort that goes into creating a song is irrelevant to the consumer, and has nothing to do with the compensation the creator "deserves". To think so is a variant of the fallacious Labor Theory of Value.
Like any other producer, the creator of a song "deserves" what other people are willing to pay for his song, nothing more, nothing less. Did the auto industry 'deserve' their bailout for making cars that many people were unwilling to buy?
With the internet age comes not only easy distribution of music, but easier creation of music--anyone with a home computer and some music software can make music. The truly outstanding creators, the ones who can make great music and consistently so (not just one, flash-in-the-pan song) are the ones who "deserve" the greatest compensation.The market is increasingly saturated with songs, and deflation of the price of music is the inevitable result. How much deflation? I don't know, only the market can determine that.
Published: January 8, 2009 12:47 PM
Libertarian
Patents and Copyrights amount to nothing more than government enforced monopolies. They stifle innovation and concentrate power with the few. This is the antithesis of the libertarian viewpoint and, IMHO, one of the few mistakes in our Constitution.
With modern technology and easy dissemination we now literally have a thousand times the choice in music that we once had. With so much supply, the music itself is essentially worthless. The music is now simply the brochure for touring and merchandising. That's where the money is made in the industry. So being asked to get paid for the music itself is like paying for the brochure for a car. The paradigm has shifted, but as is mostly the case with gov interference in free markets, the legal structure is way behind (or as I believe, completely inappropriate to begin with).
Patents are no different. They grant monopolies on technology which stifles innovation and competition. We have been brainwashed into believing that innovating won't take place without patent protection, but since it's really only a recent invention, history is proof that really isn't the case. The format would simply be different with "first to market" always being the primary goal and many smaller firms working on similar products offering consumers more choice and therefor lower prices.
America needs to do some soul searching on these issues if it wants to have even the smallest hope of remaining competitive on the world stage.
Published: January 8, 2009 12:52 PM
Nick
@David
Good for you.
Don't jerk your elbow out of joint while patting yourself on the back.
:)
Published: January 8, 2009 1:48 PM
I Hate Taxes
QUESTION FOR EVERYONE ABOUT COPYRIGHT !
IF YOU PERFECTLY MEMORIZE A SONG IN YOUR HEAD, THEN "PLAY" IT IN YOUR HEAD OVER AND OVER AGAIN, ARE YOU VIOLATING COPYRIGHT LAWS ???
SHOULD I SEND MONEY TO THE RECORD COMPANY JUST BECAUSE I CAN "HEAR" THE MUSIC IN MY HEAD WITHOUT PAYING FOR THE CD OR MP3 ???
SEE HOW SILLY COPYRIGHT LAWS ARE ?
I MEMORIZE SONGS HEARD ON THE RADIO AND THEN PLAY THEM BACK IN MY HEAD !
AM I VIOLATING COPYRIGHT LAWS ?
IF I CAN DO WHAT I WANT WITH MY HEAD, WHY NOT WITH MY PC ?
Published: January 8, 2009 2:35 PM
I Hate Taxes
IF YOU MEMORIZE THE SONG LYRICS, FREELY AVAILABLE ON THE INTERNET, THEN SING THE SONG YOURSELF WITH A SIMILAR SOUNDTRACK THAN THE ORIGINAL SONG... ARE YOU VIOLATING COPYRIGHT LAWS ???
IF YOU SING THE SONG YOURSELF WITH YOUR MOUTH, ARE YOU VIOLATING COPYRIGHT LAWS ?
SEE HOW STUPID COPYRIGHT LAWS ARE ?
IF I HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO WHAT I WANT WITH MY HEAD AND MY BODY, THEN I CAN DO WHAT I WANT WITH MY PC...
THIS MEANS I CAN RECORD, COPY AND DOWNLOAD MUSIC.
AFTER ALL, MY COMPUTER IS MY PROPERTY !
Published: January 8, 2009 2:40 PM
I Hate Taxes
Libertarian,
Patents and copyright laws stifle PRIVATE PROPERTY.
I own materials, I should have the right to make those materials into whatever I want.
I own a computer, I should have the right to do whatever I want with it, including copying, downloading and recording music.
It's MY computer.
I own a brain and I already have the right to memorize and "play back" music in my head.
I own lips, a tongue and voice, I have the right to sing the songs I love by myself with my own mouth.
Published: January 8, 2009 2:51 PM
(8?»
Even before the days of online music, I stopped buying new CDs when they went above $15, switching to used CDs, until they too were over-priced, IMO.
Before that I bought anywhere from 2-6 per month.
Published: January 8, 2009 3:07 PM
Ken
Nick said:
Bands have to sell their souls just to get a contract (emphasis added) in the first place. After advances, instruments, miscellaneous fees (read: drugs and booze for the record company execs), lawyers, studio fees, recording, re-recording, mixing, production, re-mixing, mastering, re-mastering, re-recording, re-mixing, re-mastering, post-production, photography, printing, manufacturing, marketing, and promotion - all paid for by "loans" to the artists from the record company, it's truly rare that any of them see a dime off of CD sales or any other in-store merchandising.
No, they don't. They are simply too lazy and self-absorbed to do it themselves, as Fugazi did and as Ani DiFranco did. I have little use for Ani DiFranco as an artist and none for her polemics, but as an entrepreneur she is nonpareil, and has my utmost respect.
Published: January 8, 2009 3:49 PM
Inquisitor
"Silas, that was hilarious, thank you.
Good to see someone standing up for intellectual PROPERTY."
"Property", you mean.
Published: January 8, 2009 4:39 PM
anon
@MichaelClem
"The amount of time and effort that goes into creating a song is irrelevant to the consumer, and has nothing to do with the compensation the creator "deserves". To think so is a variant of the fallacious Labor Theory of Value... Like any other producer, the creator of a song "deserves" what other people are willing to pay for his song, nothing more, nothing less."
You are confusing a lot of concepts here. The creator deserves what other people are willing to pay for his song, perhaps - but he has the *right* to sell whatever he produced at the price he wants. (I'm short-circuiting recording companies here)
e.g. if I deem your car is only worth a dollar but you're selling it at $100,000, to toss a coin at you and grab a car is pure theft and a violation of private property
Sometimes freedom seems to be an excuse to justify whatever we want to do - "don't tell me what i should do, tell me what i already want to do"
Published: January 8, 2009 6:57 PM
Libertarian
@ Anon
You are confusing intellectual property with physical property. In a pure libertarian sense, intellectual property can't be stolen. If I learn how to play a song written by someone else, have I stolen it? That's what copyright laws would suggest. Just because it's become accepted that intellectual and physical property are interchangeable does not make it so.
Published: January 8, 2009 8:06 PM
Franklin
I'd be curious to hear Billy Beck's opinion on this. A libertarian purist, he's also expert music business, as far as I recall.
Cheers.
F.
Published: January 8, 2009 10:29 PM
Franklin
meant to write, "he's also expert in the music business...."
Published: January 8, 2009 10:33 PM
Charles Anthony
To the Person formerly known as Silas Barta,
Your parody fails and demonstrates a profound ignorance of basic libertarianism and PROPERTY rights.
The failure in your parody hinges on the fact that the factory owner/capitalist should be solely responsible for protecting his property. How he protects his business is up to him.
However, in our current State of affairs, the cost of defending intellectual "property" claims is coercively imposed upon tax-payers.
Try again.
Published: January 8, 2009 10:53 PM
Joe
I agree, movies and music are over priced by far of their real value. This inflated price we have to pay reflects the huge sums of money these musicians and Hollywood actors make, simply put they earn too much. The prices of these products should be decreased to more fair price. I see a real percieved value on DVD and music CDS at about $5. Not $39.99 or whatever it is for a new DVD or music CD.
Published: January 9, 2009 12:33 AM
Joe
I agree, movies and music are over priced by far of their real value. This inflated price we have to pay reflects the huge sums of money these musicians and Hollywood actors make, simply put they earn too much. The prices of these products should be decreased to more fair price. I see a real percieved value on DVD and music CDS at about $5. Not $39.99 or whatever it is for a new DVD or music CD.
Published: January 9, 2009 12:34 AM
anon
Illegal? People are just doing what the government does: take what you want because the law means nothing.
Published: January 9, 2009 4:00 AM
anon
^ Saying hi to the above anon
Published: January 9, 2009 4:13 AM
Reilly
Lets remember that a libertarian society has some protections for inventors and artists. The inventor of a machine can sell it to someone else with the proviso that they never reproduce it or that if they do they must give him a certain percentage of the profits. Same with music, a musician can agree to sell a recording to someone with the proviso that it no be copied or rerecorded by another artist. In the case of file sharing then, only the person who originally bought the recording and then distributed it contrary to the contract made with the artist would be a criminal, not the receivers of the illegally distributed material. Thus in a libertarian society the person who downloads music over a p2p network is in a similar position to the pawn shop that receives stolen goods. The pawn shop owners are not criminals or thieves, but they certainly are not the proper owners of the stolen goods, which should be immediately returned to their true owners. Thus deletion of your music files would be the only punishment for file sharers who are not the original illegal distributor(s).
Published: January 9, 2009 10:16 AM
matt
To me, it seems that IP and patent laws are essential in a free market-- an entreprenuer wouldnt want to develop a product/service if he knew his competition could steal his design and market it as their own, penalizing him for his innovation-- with IP and patent law, the competition then has the motivation to develop a similar product more efficiently that meets the needs of the consumer, therefore digressing in its original design, which in turn he can patent.
In terms of downloading/sharing songs without paying for them, I feel that this is not in violation of property rights, simply for the fact that the downloader isnt claiming that these songs are his own. Is he not doing the same thing that a passerby is doing as they walk by someone playing a song over their radio/ipod/computer? That person walking by has not paid for this song, but is still gaining access to it, and can now memorize words/riffs, etc, and can continue to enjoy it by replaying the song in his head--similar to someone clicking on the "download" button on a site where he is the "passer-by"
Where there would be a violation of property rights, is if that person began to charge others for access to that media-- or tried to market that media as his own. Profit would be derived from someone elses "creation", with the sole purpose of misleading the consumer into believing that that song is "his".
This is why artists dont sue Cover-Bands-- concert goers understand that they are going to see a "replica" of the original song-- which, because it is sung/performed by someone else, the song takes on its own "design", therefore slightly different than the original song sung by the original artist. The coverband is not marketing this song as "their own" and give credit where credit is due (im not sure if they share profits out of the goodness of their heart, but i believe they should in no way be obligated to)
Published: January 9, 2009 10:23 AM
matt
To me, it seems that IP and patent laws are essential in a free market-- an entreprenuer wouldnt want to develop a product/service if he knew his competition could steal his design and market it as their own, penalizing him for his innovation-- with IP and patent law, the competition then has the motivation to develop a similar product more efficiently that meets the needs of the consumer, therefore digressing in its original design, which in turn he can patent.
In terms of downloading/sharing songs without paying for them, I feel that this is not in violation of property rights, simply for the fact that the downloader isnt claiming that these songs are his own. Is he not doing the same thing that a passerby is doing as they walk by someone playing a song over their radio/ipod/computer? That person walking by has not paid for this song, but is still gaining access to it, and can now memorize words/riffs, etc, and can continue to enjoy it by replaying the song in his head--similar to someone clicking on the "download" button on a site where he is the "passer-by"
Where there would be a violation of property rights, is if that person began to charge others for access to that media-- or tried to market that media as his own. Profit would be derived from someone elses "creation", with the sole purpose of misleading the consumer into believing that that song is "his".
This is why artists dont sue Cover-Bands-- concert goers understand that they are going to see a "replica" of the original song-- which, because it is sung/performed by someone else, the song takes on its own "design", therefore slightly different than the original song sung by the original artist. The coverband is not marketing this song as "their own" and give credit where credit is due (im not sure if they share profits out of the goodness of their heart, but i believe they should in no way be obligated to)
Published: January 9, 2009 10:24 AM
Michael A. Clem
he has the *right* to sell whatever he produced at the price he wants. (I'm short-circuiting recording companies here)
Anon, you're reading too much into my comment. You're right, the creator has the right to price his music at any price he wants, and a price that's too high means that he won't sell very much, not that anyone has the right to download his music for free.
But copyright laws go way beyond illegal downloading, which is a big part of the problem.
For comparison, let's look at comic strips. Newspapers pay a syndicate to run a comic strip in their paper, and the syndicate has a contract with the cartoonist. The reader pays the cost of the newspaper to read the strip. Quite a different model than the music business.
Online, however, music and comic strips become much more similar. Most online comics are free to the reader, and the cartoonist makes money through web advertising, book collections of the strip, and, of course, merchandising. Why shouldn't music follow a similar business model?
Again, I'm not trying to justify theft, merely the recognition that the music industry needs to change its business model.
Published: January 9, 2009 10:57 AM
Mike
Matt,
What you're talking about seems like little more than protection against fraud. This can and does exist without IP.
Published: January 9, 2009 12:00 PM
Peter Surda
A lot of you seem to be missing a simple fact. Downloading isn't, and never was, illegal. If you don't believe me, read the law, read the **AA C&D letters, read the legal documents related to the P2P lawsuits. Noone has ever been sentenced for, or even accused of, breaking the law by downloading.
What is illegal is uploading, and those that have legal problems are (alleged) uploaders.
This makes a lot of "arguments" made in the discussions, including economic ones, irrelevant.
Cheers,
Peter
Published: January 9, 2009 7:21 PM
Peter Surda
Matt,
your arguments seem to stem from being confused by the term intellectual property. It isn't a property, it's a privilege. It has several distinctions form actual property, e.g. it is only valid for a limited amount of time, it's borders cannot be objectively defined, it expropriates actual property, etc.
With regard to the creators, there is no necessity, whether moral or economic, to be granted a monopoly in order to do business. There are infinite possibilities how to make profit with intellectual products without IP law.
Lawyers make money by creating information that becomes public domain (the arguments they make in front of the judge) and yet it appears they are doing pretty well financially.
Another example of people making loads of money by creating intellectual works that are freely available to everyone is marketing.
Claiming one hasn't figured out how to make money unless certain conditions are met only demonstrates lack of imagination and doesn't validate an idea (I don't mean you, I mean a hypothetical musician). Therefore I view IP law(s) as a special interest agenda and would definitely not describe them as "free market".
Cheers,
Peter
Published: January 9, 2009 8:29 PM
Peter
In answer to your question, the answer is NO to each of the above questions. I have never pirated any media and I obey the laws as they stand whether I agree with them or not.
I think that is the most important statement I can make.
How disgusting. If you lived in Nazi Germany and knew of a Jewish family hiding in your neighbor's attic, you'd turn them in to be rendered down for soap because "you obey the laws as they stand whether you agree with them or not", huh? (Yeah, yeah, Godwin; Quirk!)
Published: January 12, 2009 10:22 PM