Lots of people agree that we needeconomics of abundance, but nobody can actually come up with one.
Yeah, like I said, I'm pretty incredulous as to its feasibility. Sure, I'd love it to happen, but I don't see it really working, unless we have different standards for different things. Then the problem becomes deciding which standards to apply to which things, and that's a bureaucratic headache I simply can't fathom.
Don't like the game, it tries to be everything... but not in-depth enough to grab my attention, I can see what all the hype was about, not worth the money or time, I'd rather spend my time playing X-com (even though it seems that it's not available yet)
Don't like the game, it tries to be everything... but not in-depth enough to grab my attention, I can see what all the hype was about, not worth the money or time, I'd rather spend my time playing X-com (even though it seems that it's not available yet)
As a musician, I want my work out there for as many people to hear as possible. The more exposure, the better. But, if I choose to put out my work for free (CC, whatever) that's my choice to do so. That choice doesn't belong to pirates. No one has a fundamental right to take anything they want. That's anarchy. If I release an album (or movie or game or whatever) it is my choice how it is released.
All that being said, I see the benefit of piracy if people use it as a consumer filter. I try an album, like it and buy it. I don't like it and delete it.
As a musician, I want my work out there for as many people to hear as possible. The more exposure, the better. But, if I choose to put out my work for free (CC, whatever) that's my choice to do so. That choice doesn't belong to pirates. No one has a fundamental right to take anything they want. That's anarchy. If I release an album (or movie or game or whatever) it is my choice how it is released.
Stop the conflation of copyright violation with theft. What seems to be your core argument is "No one has a fundamental right to take anything they want", but that quite simply does not apply to non-material goods. (more here, graphic by Patri Friedman)
I would say, as Andrew has said, that digital media must function as a service rather than a good, but it cannot be sold in the same way if this is the case. It is hard to find how to reimburse the creators under such circumstances; however, there are alternatives to scarcity-based business models, like the threshold pledge system. I also recommend looking at the reference linked there.
I would say, as Andrew has said, that digital media must function as a service rather than a good, but it cannot be sold in the same way if this is the case. It is hard to find how to reimburse the creators under such circumstances; however, there are alternatives to scarcity-based business models, like thethreshold pledge system.
The problem with the threshold pledge system is that it is actually a step backwards. Functionally it is not really any different than the patron system, the only difference is that there are multiple smaller patrons pooling their resources as opposed to a single large patron.
One of the first you learn in art history, or IP history, is that copyright saved us from the horrors of the patron system. If you look at history, they are absolutely right. Art has always been around, but in the places and times (pre-digital) where proper copyright was enforced, artistic expression flourished. The reason the US and UK had explosive rock music industries, and the reason Hollywood existed, was because we actually had proper copyright at the time. If the patron system had prevailed, this would not have been the case.
So we've learned from history that the patron system is crap. We've also learned that proper copyright works really well, until technology defeated it. We are reluctant, and rightfully so, to return to the shitty patron system, or variants thereof. Yet, we are unable to come up with anything different.
I wondered why it started installing from 100 to 0%.
The heck? Does your camera make huge pictures allowing you to crop if out of the mirror. Yet it doesn't looked weird. *confused*
Just a regular webcam o.o I inverted the image because I always skype with my girlfriend (long distance) and I could never get used to the inverted default view.
One of the first you learn in art history, or IP history, is that copyright saved us from the horrors of the patron system. If you look at history, they are absolutely right. Art has always been around, but in the places and times (pre-digital) where proper copyright was enforced, artistic expression flourished. The reason the US and UK had explosive rock music industries, and the reason Hollywood existed, was because we actually had proper copyright at the time. If the patron system had prevailed, this would not have been the case.
The thing is, the shift from pre-digital to digital is an enormous one, and it changes basically everything.
Copyright came into being in the first place (i.e. starting with the Statute of Anne) because it was expensive to distribute (& copy) works. Indeed, as you say, the introduction of copyright did a very good job of alleviating this problem; it's pretty much self-evident that allowing a wide distribution of works in this manner would cause artistic expression to flourish. However, with the digital era, and of course the Internet, the distribution of works is now a negligible cost. Not only does the Internet make copyright unenforcable, it in fact destroys the original (and, it seems, long-forgotten) reason copyright was brought into being.
The modern "big money" media industries were able to build on the base of copyright to make viable business models for media with very high production costs. While it may be true that currently no-one can find a viable business model for such media industries without copyright (nor with copyright, it might seem in some cases), this is not true for artistic expression in general, which is enabled to flourish by zero distribution cost far better than pre-digital-era copyright could manage.
Of course, I don't want to lose the large media industries either; if someone comes up with a viable business model for them, I (and, I hope, all of you) will rejoice.
>Stop the conflation of copyright violation with theft.What seems to be your core argument is "No one has a fundamental right to take anything they want", but that quite simply does not apply to non-material goods. (morehere, graphic by Patri Friedman)
But, is an artist/writer/etc not deserving of payment for their work? Digital works are still works. A program may only exist in digital form, but it still exists and a creator has the right to be paid for that work.
But, is an artist/writer/etc not deserving of payment for their work? Digital works are still works. A program may only exist in digital form, but it still exists and a creator has the right to be paid for that work.
This is a separate issue to the Copy =! Steal thing. In my opinion, if you are business savvy you can work out how to make money, you just won't be able to over charge your customers.
Just a regular webcam o.o I inverted the image because I always skype with my girlfriend (long distance) and I could never get used to the inverted default view.
I hadn't thought of a webcam. And I did not know you could flip the image on them.
Stop the conflation of copyright violation with theft.What seems to be your core argument is "No one has a fundamental right to take anything they want", but that quite simply does not apply to non-material goods. (morehere, graphic by Patri Friedman)
Ah, but as an artist, if I create something and I don't want you to have it, well, do your desires override mine? If I create an image - an illustration or photographic stock - and you make a copy and I didn't want you to and it caused no physical harm to me, is it okay? I am not batshit crazy, I just don't like you (or, more rationally, maybe the image has personal value). Copy VS Steal in the case of intellectual property is not so simple. Harm doesn't have to be financial.
You still have to prove that you were harmed. The whole basis of copyright law enforcement is that you have financially harmed the artist in some way, which is much more demonstrable. You'd have to somehow prove that the owning of a copy of your work by another party somehow caused you palpable harm.
The root issue is that there is so much entertainment available today that more and more people aren't willing to pay for more of it to be produced: they'd rather go without than pay anything. It's not really worse than my choosing to rent old anime rather than buy new anime.
Say I borrow someone's DVDs (uncopied) to watch an old show, and then return them. Suppose I instead pirate said show and watch it, then delete it. In the case of the former, the same "harm" was done to the copyright holder as in the case of the latter: they received no compensation for my viewing. The only difference between these two situations is that one of them is legal: the net result is the same.
When people can buy DVDs by the truckload for paltry sums from the discount bins, that's some strong competition for new, yet-to-be-financed productions. The fact that old media are available is far more harmful to the media industry than the fact that media can be copied: there is more worthwhile media already in existence than any human could reasonably consume in his entire lifetime! Copying someone's work is tantamount to watching someone else's cheaper work, and he cost of media distribution is approaching zero.
Even if there were zero media piracy, I doubt sales of new media would increase.
Ah, but as an artist, if I create something and Idon't want you to have it, well, do your desires override mine?
Ah ha.. If my having it in no way damages you and will probably lead to some eventual benefit, then, what (non-arbitrary) rationale do you have for not wanting me to have it? This is sort of what the Creative Commons is getting at.
Freedom. We agree freedom is what we want, yes? The underlying principle that everyone can swing their fits around all the want as long as you never actually hit anybody.
Well, let's say I decide that I don't like people jumping up and down. The jumping up and down doesn't harm me in any way. It's simply that I have decided that I don't like it, and that I get upset when people do it. Well, in a land where we live by this principle of freedom, all way can say is "tough shit".
If someone else does something you don't want them to do, that's not enough to claim they have actually harmed you. If you get upset when other people swing their fists without hitting anybody, that's an emotional issue you're going to have to work out for yourself. If punk kids with no money are sharing copies of a video game that you made, the fact that it makes you upset is not justification to claim that their activity is wrong or harmful in any way.
Freedom. We agree freedom is what we want, yes? The underlying principle that everyone can swing their fits around all the want as long as you never actually hit anybody.
Well, let's say I decide that I don't like people jumping up and down. The jumping up and down doesn't harm me in any way. It's simply that I have decided that I don't like it, and that I get upset when people do it. Well, in a land where we live by this principle of freedom, all way can say is "tough shit".
If someone else does something you don't want them to do, that's not enough to claim they have actually harmed you. If you get upset when other people swing their fists without hitting anybody, that's an emotional issue you're going to have to work out for yourself. If punk kids with no money are sharing copies of a video game that you made, the fact that it makes you upset is not justification to claim that their activity is wrong or harmful in any way.
What about preemptive harm prevention? Do you consider that legit, or do you recommend a hands-off policy until actual harm has been reliably demonstrated?
Would this be something to do with the whole "record profits" goings on? Please don't post the thing just above you, you can go back and edit it. Alternatively you could strip out the middle and use ellipses.
What about preemptive harm prevention? Do you consider that legit, or do you recommend a hands-off policy until actual harm has been reliably demonstrated?
It depends on what kind of harm prevention you are talking about. Making a law for seatbelts in cars is AOK. Searching everyone's house, without a warrant, looking for dangerous stuff is not ok.
The fact that old media are available is far more harmful to the media industry than the fact that media can be copied: there is more worthwhile media already in existence than any human could reasonably consume in his entire lifetime!
Quoted for truth. This is the big problem that everyone is trying to avoid. Capitalism has no reasonable solution for market saturation (the technical term for the horrible problem of everyone having everything that they need :P). The only current "solutions" are to increase the size of the market (make sure every new baby has an X-Box, from Algeria to Zimbabwe) and to specifically design goods to be as non-durable as possible while not preventing a sale. Even with steady population growth the first solution isn't really much of a solution. My guess is that the solution will be in the 2nd one. Like selling media files that auto-corrupt after a specified period of time. They do this in the physical world to a limited extent with those disposable DVDs.
My guess is that the solution will be in the 2nd one. Like selling media files that auto-corrupt after a specified period of time. They do this in the physical world to a limited extent with those disposable DVDs.
People have tried this. It's just DRM. It doesn't work.
They'll make it work. There's a lot of money riding on it, so if they know what's good for them, they'll pay handsomely for workability. Sucks for media fans, though. Anyhow, I thought DRM simply attempted to prevent copying? I wasn't aware they'd also tried to create files that would only work for an artificially limited period of time even for the original purchaser...
Comments
All that being said, I see the benefit of piracy if people use it as a consumer filter. I try an album, like it and buy it. I don't like it and delete it.
Just got home from work. Woot.
(more here, graphic by Patri Friedman)
I would say, as Andrew has said, that digital media must function as a service rather than a good, but it cannot be sold in the same way if this is the case. It is hard to find how to reimburse the creators under such circumstances; however, there are alternatives to scarcity-based business models, like the threshold pledge system. I also recommend looking at the reference linked there.
One of the first you learn in art history, or IP history, is that copyright saved us from the horrors of the patron system. If you look at history, they are absolutely right. Art has always been around, but in the places and times (pre-digital) where proper copyright was enforced, artistic expression flourished. The reason the US and UK had explosive rock music industries, and the reason Hollywood existed, was because we actually had proper copyright at the time. If the patron system had prevailed, this would not have been the case.
So we've learned from history that the patron system is crap. We've also learned that proper copyright works really well, until technology defeated it. We are reluctant, and rightfully so, to return to the shitty patron system, or variants thereof. Yet, we are unable to come up with anything different.
Copyright came into being in the first place (i.e. starting with the Statute of Anne) because it was expensive to distribute (& copy) works. Indeed, as you say, the introduction of copyright did a very good job of alleviating this problem; it's pretty much self-evident that allowing a wide distribution of works in this manner would cause artistic expression to flourish.
However, with the digital era, and of course the Internet, the distribution of works is now a negligible cost. Not only does the Internet make copyright unenforcable, it in fact destroys the original (and, it seems, long-forgotten) reason copyright was brought into being.
The modern "big money" media industries were able to build on the base of copyright to make viable business models for media with very high production costs. While it may be true that currently no-one can find a viable business model for such media industries without copyright (nor with copyright, it might seem in some cases), this is not true for artistic expression in general, which is enabled to flourish by zero distribution cost far better than pre-digital-era copyright could manage.
Of course, I don't want to lose the large media industries either; if someone comes up with a viable business model for them, I (and, I hope, all of you) will rejoice.
The root issue is that there is so much entertainment available today that more and more people aren't willing to pay for more of it to be produced: they'd rather go without than pay anything. It's not really worse than my choosing to rent old anime rather than buy new anime.
Say I borrow someone's DVDs (uncopied) to watch an old show, and then return them. Suppose I instead pirate said show and watch it, then delete it. In the case of the former, the same "harm" was done to the copyright holder as in the case of the latter: they received no compensation for my viewing. The only difference between these two situations is that one of them is legal: the net result is the same.
When people can buy DVDs by the truckload for paltry sums from the discount bins, that's some strong competition for new, yet-to-be-financed productions. The fact that old media are available is far more harmful to the media industry than the fact that media can be copied: there is more worthwhile media already in existence than any human could reasonably consume in his entire lifetime! Copying someone's work is tantamount to watching someone else's cheaper work, and he cost of media distribution is approaching zero.
Even if there were zero media piracy, I doubt sales of new media would increase.
Well, let's say I decide that I don't like people jumping up and down. The jumping up and down doesn't harm me in any way. It's simply that I have decided that I don't like it, and that I get upset when people do it. Well, in a land where we live by this principle of freedom, all way can say is "tough shit".
If someone else does something you don't want them to do, that's not enough to claim they have actually harmed you. If you get upset when other people swing their fists without hitting anybody, that's an emotional issue you're going to have to work out for yourself. If punk kids with no money are sharing copies of a video game that you made, the fact that it makes you upset is not justification to claim that their activity is wrong or harmful in any way.
Please don't post the thing just above you, you can go back and edit it. Alternatively you could strip out the middle and use ellipses.