Patents, Copyrights And Trademarks, Oh My!
from the the-big-three dept
Continuing my series of posts on the basics of "intellectual property" (which, yes, is a misnomer, but that's the next post in the series...), I wanted to just do a quick post highlighting the major differences between the "big three" categories of intellectual property: patents, copyright and trademarks. This is not intended to be a complete description of the three, or a full listing of the differences between them. Just a quick breakdown. And, yes, there are some other things that some people include under the IP umbrella, but we're going to avoid those for now. Too many people seem to mix up patents, copyrights and trademarks (even the popular press does it all too frequently), and it's important to at least understand the basics. Also, on the specifics, I'm sticking to US law, rather than international law. There are some major differences across countries, though the key points are pretty similar.
- Patents: A patent is an exclusive right, or a monopoly, granted to someone for a limited time in exchange for publicly disclosing a new and non-obvious invention. The purpose of a patent, as discussed last week, is supposed to be to provide additional incentive for the invention to be created in the first place. While many insist that the purpose of the patent system is to force the disclosure of those inventions, that's, at best an exaggeration, and at worst, a complete myth. Generally speaking, a patent lasts 20 years from the date of filing. Under current US law, patentable subject matter has expanded quite a bit over the years, and now includes things that at times were not considered patentable, including software and business models or methods.
Getting a patent requires going through an application process, which can be rather involved. Given the current backlog, it can take quite a long time to get a patent approved. These days the percentage of patents being approved at the USPTO has dropped drastically from earlier in the decade. This is due to a few things, including changes in policies at the USPTO and in the US court system (basically forcing changes on the USPTO). Recipients of patents can assign those patents to other parties or license them, if they so choose. Patents are given to inventors, not companies, but are often assigned to companies (many employment agreements require employees to assign all patents to the company).
Infringement over a patent can be for violating specific claims within a patent -- even if the accused infringer came up with the same thing independently. Coming up with something independently is not considered a valid defense against a claim of infringement (though there is some effort underway to change this, and some believe that an independent invention should be evidence against obviousness towards a patent). Winning a patent infringement case can involve an injunction, forcing the infringer to stop producing the infringing product (even if the infringement is a small part of a larger product) as well as fines for the infringement. - Copyrights: Copyright is a right given automatically to the creator of new content, granting them the exclusive right (with some exceptions) to reproduce, perform or display the work. There is no application process for a copyright. Any new work is automatically covered by copyright (this is a change from earlier copyright law). Despite the fact that copyrights are automatically granted after a work is created, you can still register a copyright, and doing so allows you to sue for statutory damages against infringers. Copyrights are officially for "a limited time," though that limited time has been expanded repeatedly over the years, and currently stands at "life of the creator + 70 years."
Like patents, the purpose of copyright is solely to encourage the creation of new content. It's an incentive system of sorts. Contrary to popular opinion, the purpose of copyright has nothing to do with preventing plagiarism or even making sure that someone gets proper "credit" for their works. It also is not designed as a system to guarantee a living for creators. It is merely an extra "right" granted to creators in the hopes that it will help incent the creation of additional content. Copyrights can be sold, and entities other than the original creator can (and often do) own copyrights.
Copyright infringement is for actually copying the work. Unlike patents where something totally independently created can infringe, copyright infringement only covers copies of an existing work, rather than something similar, but different. There are various and important exceptions to copyright law, with "fair use" being a rather important one. These are uses of the copyrighted content that are considered perfectly legal without first requiring permission. There is also a "right of first sale" associated with copyright, which means that you have the right to resell copyrighted products you have purchased. That's why you can resell a book or a CD that you legally possess. - Trademarks: Trademarks are generally a company name, brand or logo that is used to distinguish the company and/or product from competitors. I take exception to the idea that trademarks should be lumped in with patents and copyrights, both of which really come out of the Constitutional clause we discussed last week, and are both designed as incentives for the creation of either inventions or new creative works. Trademarks, on the other hand, are really designed as a form of consumer protection. That is, they're designed to make it so you know who is actually creating a product, and don't get tricked into believing that a certain product was made by one company when it's really made by another.
There are common law trademarks, but for the most part, a trademark should be registered. Unlike patents and copyright, trademarks aren't designed to expire and can last as long as they're used in commerce and don't become generic. Also, despite attempts to expand what trademark rights grant, they do not confer the same level of control over the mark. Others can make use of trademarks, just not in commerce in ways that are likely to confuse users. Competitors, for example, can use the mark in a comparison or an advertisement (this is sometimes disputed, but it tends to stand).
Because of the risk of losing a trademark if it becomes generic, there's a belief that trademark holders are required to police its use -- which, again, is a bit of an exaggeration. Yes, trademark holders are required to take certain steps to keep a mark from becoming considered generic and potentially losing the mark, but that doesn't mean threatening or suing anyone who uses the mark. As we've stated, there are many perfectly legitimate ways to make use of someone else's trademark, and going after those uses is not necessary (though, it still happens all too frequently).
Links to other posts in the series:
- On The Constitutional Reasons Behind Copyright And Patents
- Patents, Copyrights And Trademarks, Oh My!
- If Intellectual Property Is Neither Intellectual, Nor Property, What Is It?
- What Kind Of Progress Are We Promoting?
- Why Do Patents Tend To Cause More Harm Than Good?
- The Case For And Against Software And Business Model Patents
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
Privileges - not rights
Come on. Let's take the opportunity of recognising patent and copyright as commercial privileges.
They are privileges because they place one party (the publisher) above another (the public) by suspending the right of the other (to their liberty to free expression and cultural exchange).
The privileges of patent and copyright are not without cost (in terms of liberty). This is why they are so commercially valuable as monopolies.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Intellectual property is accurate
Intellectual property is accurate when used to describe what actually is intellectual property as opposed to material property.
However, copyright does not constitute intellectual property. It is an intellectual property privilege (some call it a right), and by dint of being transferable it could be described as a legal property relating to intellectual property.
If you have written a book or drawn a design of a novel mechanism this is your intellectual property. When you make a copy that is also your intellectual property. When you sell that copy the purchaser owns the intellectual property - just as you own the intellectual property within your original.
Unfortunately, patent and copyright interfere with everyone's intellectual property rights, privileging the copyright or patent holder with exclusive reproduction or manufacture.
It is only because some people have conflated the privileges as intellectual properties that IP can be a confusing term.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Thanks for Posting
Mike,
Thanks for posting this, we could certainly use a better general understanding of these.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Privileges - not rights
Copyright does not "place one party (the publisher) above another (the public)". It works out in the public's benefit as well, by allowing the copyright holder to profit from their work, you encourage the creation of more works.
And before you jump all over this post I'll give you an example from personal experience. I am an author. There is a small demand for my books. I write mostly history books - and my example here is typical of most history authors, and authors in general who make a living from writing. When the copyrighted book gets published, the first run is in the more expensive hardcover. This is done to give the publisher the best chance of recovering investments in the book (editor, cover design, advertising, etc). Also, since a lot of research expenses go into history books, I usually only break even on the first run. When/if that sells out, a paperback will be released. This will happen maybe a year, sometimes a little longer, after the hardcover. This is where the profits are made. Without copyright protection, once the hardback comes out, anyone can copy it and print up cheaper paperbacks and sell them on their own. They can sell it for cheaper then my publisher because they didn't have all of the investments (editor, cover, etc) that the publisher did. All this would do it cut into the profits of the people who worked on and invested in the book. Most authors who do make a living don't make all that much - it wouldn't take much of a profit cut to send them back to the day job - which hurts the public because less books will be on the market. No author's output is the same when they have to work nine to five then write, and many won't write at all - how many of us are willing to spend countless hours away from our family, and invest lots of money, just so we can't make it back.
Remember, most people whose works are protected by copyright are not getting rich off of those works - copyright enables them to continue to produce works, which benefits everybody.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Privileges - not rights
I see where your coming from and I agree. Now, let me ask you a question. If you knew that your most recent book would still be selling in 70 years and you would still be making money off of it, would you continue all that hard work?
I understand that copyright is helping prevent people from just copying your book and releasing it on paperback the next day but, how much incentive is there to create when you know you can milk your one book for the rest of your life. How hard will your children work if they can just mooch off of your book for 70 years after your death?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Privileges - not rights
Yes, but the problem we run into is that too many people have the false belief that they are entitled to profits as if society has a moral responsibility to ensure hard workers are compensated. Sure, I could head out into the open fields and pull weeds all day every day for months until the fields are weed-free. I worked hard, but who is going to pay me? Not even the owner of the land has to pay if I failed to form a business contract with him.
When it comes to things like writing books, authors cannot press on with the mentality that "it takes lots of work, so I need legal protection to make money". We live in an age of photocopiers, scanners, and the Internet. Plenty of authors have proven that giving their works away for free on the Internet actually INCREASES sales of the physical book. Who wants to read 500+ pages on a screen? I certainly don't. The free online distribution causes a spike in demand!
In your case, you write history books, which are "less interesting" than other types of books. I still believe you should re-analyze your business model. You are playing a dangerous (and from the sound it, very non-lucrative) game by attempting to place protection on the information you sell. Nothing aggravates me more than to buy a book off the shelf to see an "offer" in the back of it to buy the eBook for $10. Wait, didn't I just buy the book? I have to buy it again in a format that costs the author NOTHING to distribute?
Recovering the fixed cost of organizing the information is always the tricky part, but relying on copyrights/patents/trademarks and the "honesty" of the people is naturally the worst way to go.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Intellectual Property
I wonder if the proponents of "intellectual property" have considered the possibility of "intellectual property taxes"? After all these people claim their intellectual property has value whether they publish, produce or perform the particular work or not. If it has value, it can be taxed. Failure to pay taxes could result in the work being seized for the public domain.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Privileges - not rights
Well, if its still selling in 70 years, it doesn't mean its making enough for me and my children and their children to live off of. If it did that wouldn't mean I'd write any less - I'd only write less if I wasn't making the money to support it - providing for my family has to come first. That being said, if someone's product is that successful, good for them. In every other industry, people can rise to the top and become rich, and no one cares - most people work hard to achieve just that. When we start talking about examples of one copyrighted work supporting someone for many years, that is an item that has climbed to the top. If you are at the top of most industries, you can become rich. Why is it only when its artists that we have a problem with it?
George Lucas is a good example of someone who climbed to the top of his profession and been able to retain the rights to his work thanks to copyright. And the money he's made off of Star Wars has enabled him to invest and create things like THX and Industrial Light and Magic. Good for him.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Privileges - not rights
Okay, you're first paragraph is nonsensical. I never said hard work should equal pay, but if there is a demand for a product you created, you should be allowed to profit off of that. Copyright protection gives you that right, and prevents you from having to compete with your own product.
Otherwise, I love how anytime someone involved in any industry give an example on any topic where they have personal knowledge - someone always responds with "you need to change your business model" and give away anything digital for free. Really? Because some select books have profited from free distribution of free ebooks means ALL books will? (I love how no one here seems to know the difference between micro and macro economics). I give a simpleexample of the value of copyright and get a business model reply that might as well have been written by Mike. I love how everyone here knows more about every business then the people actually running them.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Double Speak?
Quote:
"Contrary to popular opinion, the purpose of copyright has nothing to do with preventing plagiarism or even making sure that someone gets proper "credit" for their works. It also is not designed as a system to guarantee a living for creators. It is merely an extra "right" granted to creators in the hopes that it will help incent the creation of additional content."
How else would copyright incent the creation of additional content except through preventing plagiarism, making sure creators get proper credit, and providing a method for creators to profit from their creations?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Regarding trademarks
Hi, i will add something about trademarks, mainly from what happens here in Argentina, but i believe it will probably apply also in the US and many other countries, because there are many international agreements (notice: i'm a programmer that worked on a trademark app, not a lawyer).
The matter with trademarks is that they must be renewed every number of years (here is 5), because (as said in the post) lack of PROVED commercial use may allow another (unrelated) interested party to GET the trademark.
Most interesting (as said in the post), trademarks are to protect customers in a SPECIFIC MARKET. This means that i can have a "José Luis" branded product in Buenos Aires, and someone else may have a "José Luis" branded product in Mendoza (another city of Argentina) and there would be no infringement (at least, that was a 100 years ago, where markets used to be very-very local). Today is not that easy as markets have expanded, but this may take the form of businesses in different countries in different continents using the same trading mark. This has happened to many (now-global) brand names. They usually end up buying the trademark from the local holder.
Another thing specific to trademarks is that they apply only to a certain type of product (there are "classes" to this purpose). For example, i can have some food under "José Luis" and someone else can have some services under the same mark. It is atmost allways the case with big brands (like Coca-cola, nike, ibm, etc) that they register their trademarks in all the classes in all the countries, so that no one can use it.
Other extras:
1) slogans are also subject of trademark law (think nike "just do it!"). Scents and sounds are also subject of trademarks (chanel has a trademark on the scent of it's perfumes).
2) very important: a trademark not only recognizes the name, but also the logo (think of nike's check mark, that is also a trademark).
3) trademarks are PUBLISHED to public scrutiny before they are granted (at least, here in Argentina). The public can then oppose to the request (as in "this trademark is similar to this other"). Patent requests are published too (here), but i'm not sure if one can oppose.
The following is DUBIOUS (at best) but: someone once told me that the whole trademark law spawned from the use of "uncle sam" by some people (other than the original manufacturer). If this is true, then go figure!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Double Speak?
How else would copyright incent the creation of additional content except through preventing plagiarism, making sure creators get proper credit, and providing a method for creators to profit from their creations?
There is overlap, but they are not the same thing. Copyright merely grants you control over how it can be copied. Part of that can include plagiarism, but they're two different things.
Copyright infringement has nothing to do with getting the proper credit. That is, you can infringe on copyright by giving total credit to the original source, or you can infringe by not giving credit (which is plagiarism). It makes no difference for copyright.
Does that make sense?
So, plagiarism *can* be copyright infringement (though it need not be) and copyright infringement may not involve plagiarism at all.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Your privilege is ineffective and unethical
Corey, all authors and inventors have a right to sell their intellectual property in a free market, and until they choose to sell it (if they choose to), they have a right not to have it stolen from them.
This is precisely the same set of rights that any craftsman or artist enjoys whether they weave a basket or record a song.
The problem is that the illiberal anachronisms of awarding patents on designs or copyrights on writings and other artistic expressions were unethical in the first place - despite being quite effective. There have been good reasons to abolish copyright and patents for a long time. What has added grist to the mill is that such monopolies are no longer effective.
So, there's no amount of persuasion that can undo the invention of the Internet and digital diffusion technology. What could be achieved by persuasion would be to argue that prosecuting random families doesn't remedy the monopolies' lack of effectiveness either.
Meanwhile authors such as you are well advised to seek ways of selling your intellectual property without a monopoly, just as craftsmen of material property do.
No-one is arguing that the monopoly should be taken from you - you've already lost it. The argument is that people should no longer be prosecuted for infringing it.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Double Speak?
Quote:
"That is, you can infringe on copyright by giving total credit to the original source"
I'm not sure how it's infringment if you give credit to the original source, which generally means we're talking about fair use. But let's ignore the issues of plagiarism and credit and go straight to the important one: money-making ability. I'm normally very sympathetic to your views, Mike, but I am not quite convinced when it comes to the issue of written materials. Again, how else would copyright provide incentive except through the fact that it gives authors a way to profit from their works (which you call "guaranteeing a living", which is a rather prejudicial way of stating it)? It's all well and good to talk about new business models using the economics of the free, but until we see a successful one actually demonstrated, it's all just theoretical. Let's make sure we can build a new house before we tear down the old one. In a world devoid of copyright, how would authors make money? In your arguments for the music industry, you tout touring and merchandising, which certainly is an effective strategy, but this doesn't really apply to authors. Tom Clancy t-shirts? John Grisham keychains? The most popular authors (top 1%, maybe?) might be able to make money on a book signing and personal appearance circuit, but let's be honest - a lot of authors aren't exactly personable (Thomas Pynchon, anyone?). How would the Thomas Pynchons of the world make money without copyright? Sure, distributing copies of the work for free online drives up book sales, but without copyright publishers would not have to pay the original author royalties on those book sales. Now I understand that there is no fundamental natural law which states that authors must be guaranteed the ability to make money off their works. It could be that in a world free of copyright authors would have to accept that there is no money to be made, and they must either publish their work for free or not at all. But this would clearly drive down the amount of published work dramatically. If that is so, then isn't copyright an acceptable price to pay so that we can enjoy a wider variety of published work?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Double Speak?
Good post. Now its time for Mike and his hard-core disciples to give a few isolated examples that in their minds mean it can work across the board. But it is still theory until a much larger percentage of business from a particular group prove it otherwise.
My take has always been its not black and white - free works for some industries, not for others. I can give away free cell phones because people need to buy the plan for it to work, but yes, the Tom Clancy t-shirts might not do so well.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
a Patent
Some time ago the IEEE Spectrum published this on patents:
"A patent, any good patent attorney will tell you, isn't a right to do something, it's a right to keep others from doing it. If your invention is a good one, they'll pay you for the privilege of using it for the patent's 20-year life. If they don't license your patent voluntarily but apply its innovation anyway, you have two choices: back off, or sue for infringement. Which way you go depends largely on how much money you've got. If you decide to go the legalistic route, you'd better have a couple of million dollars to start you on your way."
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Double Speak?
I tend to agree that an author must have some way to gain from his writing, but to double charge as in pay for the book, then the ebook?
True that an ebook may be passed around indiscriminately, but I think that is a price to pay, and many who get ebooks, wouldn't have bought the actual books anyway, I know I do. And if I read an ebook and I like it, I like to buy the actual book for my collection.
I tend to favor limited copyright. I would understand that the author must have monopoly of his book for a time, but life plus 70 years? come on. Try 5 years since first publication. If the book sells, it was good, please write another. If it doesn't sell, please write a better one. No need for your children to earn from it when you're dead.
Peace!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Double Speak?
I'm not sure how it's infringment if you give credit to the original source, which generally means we're talking about fair use.
Oh really? So if I put up an MP3 by Metallica on this website and say "hey, everyone, here's Metallica's MP3" that's not infringement? I think Lars would disagree.
Giving credit alone is not fair use.
Again, how else would copyright provide incentive except through the fact that it gives authors a way to profit from their works
Yes, it gives *a* way for authors to profit from their works. In the same way that *giving* some farmer a monopoly on sugar gives that farmer a way to profit from his farming. It's just not a very efficient way or the best way.
It's all well and good to talk about new business models using the economics of the free, but until we see a successful one actually demonstrated, it's all just theoretical.
By this point, I've pointed to at least 50 different *actual examples*. Must I repeat them all?
In a world devoid of copyright, how would authors make money? In your arguments for the music industry, you tout touring and merchandising, which certainly is an effective strategy, but this doesn't really apply to authors.
Er. Selling books doesn't hurt, you know. Books being tangible things (remember, the model is selling scarce stuff). As we've pointed out repeatedly, giving away free elctronic versions tends to help with sales of the physical book.
Other authors have found that it helps generate other ways of making money as well: authors become sought after speakers and columnists thanks to their written works and their influence. Writers get commissioned to work on other projects.
These aren't theoretical, either. We've pointed to examples of all of them.
Sure, distributing copies of the work for free online drives up book sales, but without copyright publishers would not have to pay the original author royalties on those book sales.
There is tremendous demand for *authorized* copies, as published by the actual author. Being first to market makes a serious difference. Even if a publisher doesn't pay royalties (and US history shows that they often will even if not required to in order to keep the author happy for future deals -- see what US publisher paid Charles Dickens, despite not being required to do so), a publishing house that expects to be able to sell lots of books by an author would pay that author an upfront payment, knowing that having the "approved" version that would be first to market is a lot more valuable than being a copycat.
For proof of this, look at the sales of the 9/11 commission report (which was a huge best seller). It, being a gov't document, was not under copyright. However, the gov't gave it to one publisher first. That publisher got the book version out first, and even though others caught up withn a day or two, the original publisher DOMINATED sales throughout the lifecycle of the book.
Even though it was a public domain document, being the first with it, and being seen as the authorized publisher was worth a TON of money.
But this would clearly drive down the amount of published work dramatically.
You say this as if it's true, yet in every historical look at this subject, removing the monopoly *increases* the amount of work produced, because authors can no longer rest on their laurels and need to keep writing new stuff to continue generating revenue.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Privileges - not rights
But you've implied it, even to the point of implying it a few times in this comment I'm replying to.
Not necessarily.
Take, for example, biological weapons. I have little doubt that there are several firms in the US with the capability of making biological weapons, in part because they're probably under contract from the DoD to research such weapons. I'm fairly certain that there are any number of governments and extra-governmental groups (e.g., al Qaeda) who would like such weapons. There is a demand for the weapons, so clearly the firms should be allowed to sell the weapons, right?
Most people would say "no". Why? Because there is a clear cost to society for those weapons to be sold to groups who might use them. In this case, the benefit of society as a whole for blocking such sales trumps the benefit to the firms (and their prospective customers).
Copyright exists for one reason and one reason only: as Mike said, it is to "help incent the creation of additional content". According to Thomas Jefferson and the other architects of our nation's original "IP" policies, the natural state of ideas is to be free for all, what economists would describe as a non-rivalrous good. The oft-quoted line from Jefferson is "He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me." (from http://www.movingtofreedom.org/2006/10/06/thomas-jefferson-on-patents-and-freedom-of-ideas/)
Shou ld copyright exist? Yes, but only to the level to ensure creation of new content, not to the point of locking away said content from society indefinitely. A 14-year copyright term? Fantastic. Life plus 70 years? That's a better term for a murder sentence than a term for a copyright.
I heartily recommend Prof. Lessig's 2004 presentation on the "Comedy of the Commons" (http://itc.conversationsnetwork.org/shows/detail349.html) for more on rivalrous vs. non-rivalrous goods and its effects on copyright.
With respect to your business model, other than selling hardback books, you haven't really described it sufficiently for anyone to be saying it's awesome or sucks.
Speaking as somebody who has great concerns over outlandish CEO pay, I feel quite confident in saying that you are wrong when you say "no one cares". Heck, just watch Lou Dobbs for a week on CNN, and he'll beat into your head exactly how much he cares.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Double Speak?
Good post. Now its time for Mike and his hard-core disciples to give a few isolated examples that in their minds mean it can work across the board.
Corey, we've pointed to example after example after example after example. For you to say we haven't is willful misrepresentation.
But it is still theory until a much larger percentage of business from a particular group prove it otherwise.
That's like the buggy whip seller after Henry Ford introduces the Model T insisting that it means nothing until a much larger percentage of people own cars.
You can place your head in the sand to the new business models that are out there. It won't change the economics at play. I wish you the best of luck, but if you want to deny the basic market factors you're dealing with, that's up to you.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
example of incentives working
I think the case they allways post as an example is the fashion industry. They don't have copyright but every year new content is created.
For patents, as said in the IEEE fragment, you can license or you can invent yet another completely new thing to the same end (that's the incentive to progress).
The system is kind of twisted in many ways. It's common for patent holders to register for extensions (usually on variations of the original patent to cheat the time limit). To limit this missuse, i believe the Argentine patent and copyrigth office has issued a policy saying something on the line that some extensions have the lifetime of the original patent.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Double Speak?
Mike, honestly, is 5, 10 or even 50 examples representitive of the market as a whole? Your examples are still islolated cases, you can repeat them if you'd like, but it doesn't change that.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Double Speak?
Corey,
I have no problem paying for someone’s work once. Say I buy your book. It is a good book, and I read it all the time. One day I buy a pocket PC and discover I like to read books on it. I can do searches and find the info I want more readily, should I now have to compensate you again so that I can have your book on my Pocket PC, remember I already bought you book once. That is what is happening. I buy a DVD movie, but I want to watch it on my IPod, or PSP, or save it to my hard drive so I can watch it when ever I want. The movie industry are try to charge me every time, I already paid them for the privilege of watching the movie. Why should I have to keep paying just to watch it in a different format.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Double Speak?
"You say this as if it's true, yet in every historical look at this subject, removing the monopoly *increases* the amount of work produced, because authors can no longer rest on their laurels and need to keep writing new stuff to continue generating revenue."
Mike, you keep saying this as if repeating it is going to make it true. What % of authors with today's copyright system get to sit back and "rest on their laurels". Honestly, do you have any idea what most successful authors make. You obviously think authors make more then they do for you to keep repeating this statement.
I'd argue that getting rid of copyright would decrease the amount of work produced not only by driving some authors out of the business because of loss of profits, but in another way you haven't thought of. You do realize that if copyright didn't exist, there would be publishers exist only to reprint works of other publishers. Instead of these publishers being encouraged to go out and invest in new products, they'll just reprint what's already out there.
Anyway you cut it, you lose the number of new books being written.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Double Speak?
Mike, honestly, is 5, 10 or even 50 examples representitive of the market as a whole? Your examples are still islolated cases, you can repeat them if you'd like, but it doesn't change that.
Corey, I was merely responding to you, who said: "Now its time for Mike and his hard-core disciples to give a few isolated examples."
I was showing that we have given examples.
I find it hilarious that when we give an example you say "that doesn't work for everyone!" Then when we explain the theory behind why it would work for everyone you say "I need to see examples!" and when we point to the examples again, you say "I won't believe it until it works for everyone!"
By then it's too late. As I said, I'm sure the buggy whip makes wanted more evidence that the Model T would sell. And look where they are now.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Double Speak?
Mike, you keep saying this as if repeating it is going to make it true. What % of authors with today's copyright system get to sit back and "rest on their laurels". Honestly, do you have any idea what most successful authors make. You obviously think authors make more then they do for you to keep repeating this statement.
No. I'm quite aware of the fact that most authors make very little. Publishing is a tough, tough business. It's tough to get published and it's much more difficult to actually make any money at it. I know an awful lot of starving writers.
That's why I find it rather amazing that you are so against a system that allows writers to *better* promote themselves and *better* make money.
I find it hilarious that you would imply I think authors make a lot of money today. If that were the case, why would I be advocating a different system?
I'd argue that getting rid of copyright would decrease the amount of work produced not only by driving some authors out of the business because of loss of profits
And yet you were just claiming how few authors make profit. Which is it Corey?
You do realize that if copyright didn't exist, there would be publishers exist only to reprint works of other publishers. Instead of these publishers being encouraged to go out and invest in new products, they'll just reprint what's already out there.
Yes, and again, if you look at the historical record, that tends to help the market, not hurt it. It makes the market more competitive, which leads to more innovative offerings. And, as I pointed out, the original "official" version sells much better anyway.
Authors would work with the publishers who respected their works. Those who merely reprinted other works would have weak reputations. Publishers that represented authors well, and offered upfront payments or even work for hire deals would find it worthwhile and would find authors willing to work for them.
Anyway you cut it, you lose the number of new books being written.
Again, you keep saying that and every time you do, it's done while ignoring the historical evidence that says that's not true.
The problem is that you seem to think we're talking about a zero sum game here. History has shown (again and again and again and again) that this is not the case. If you can better promote the book, you can sell more of the book and you can sell more ancillary products. We're talking about expanding the market so that there are more ways to make money, and you're insisting that the old way (which even you ADMIT sucks for most authors) is better.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Double Speak?
I'm not insisiting on anyway - but if most working authors don't make that much - I find it absurd to argue that them having to compete with their own works will help them.
And the other point that you keep ignoring is that most authors don't have "ancillary products" to sell.
"I'd argue that getting rid of copyright would decrease the amount of work produced not only by driving some authors out of the business because of loss of profits
And yet you were just claiming how few authors make profit. Which is it Corey?"
Seriously, read my posts, I've been aying they don't make MUCH of a profit.
"I find it hilarious that you would imply I think authors make a lot of money today. If that were the case, why would I be advocating a different system?"
Because this is what you do. No matter how much or how little an industry makes, you have your black and white view of the world where free is always better. And don't just say its a business model - if it was just that then you'd freely acknowledge a companies right to try or not try the model, but no, you want to get rid of copyright and force the model on everyone because you have a handful of examples. You know - if half the major publishing houses gave their works away for free, you'd have a big enough sample to prove or disporve your theory, until then, its still a theory.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Double Speak?
Mike, I wasn't saying "Now its time for Mike and his hard-core disciples to give a few isolated examples." because I wanted you to give examples. I said that that because that's what always happens when someone challenges the everything must be free theory on here. My point was tht isolated examples are meaningless.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Double Speak?
And the other point that you keep ignoring is that most authors don't have "ancillary products" to sell.
There are ALWAYS ancillary products to sell. You can ignore them, but it doesn't change the fact that they exist.
No matter how much or how little an industry makes, you have your black and white view of the world where free is always better. And don't just say its a business model - if it was just that then you'd freely acknowledge a companies right to try or not try the model, but no, you want to get rid of copyright and force the model on everyone because you have a handful of examples.
Huh? I'm not sure how you can be this confused. I apologize if I haven't made myself clear, but I'm pretty sure I've pointed this out repeatedly: I am not forcing anyone to do anything. The basic ECONOMICS at play are what's forcing the changes in the market.
You know - if half the major publishing houses gave their works away for free, you'd have a big enough sample to prove or disporve your theory, until then, its still a theory.
Uh. This is the same ridiculous point you keep claiming. And I'll say it again: if the buggy whip makers said that autos didn't matter unless 50% of households had them, what would you think? You'd think they were sticking their heads in the sand.
It's really rather amazing that you are utterly unable to recognize the economic forces at work here -- especially when combined with example after example after example showing that it's not just a "theory" but that it works. The fact that not everyone has adopted it yet doesn't change the basic forces.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Privileges - not rights
I debated whether this was even worth responding to since you keep twisting my words.
Again, I never said hard work should equal pay - if you work on something that know one wants, nho you shouldn't get paid - but if you create something that has value - and I'm not talking about physical value - in books and ebook the content is what's of value. You analogy isn't very good - I'm not sure what point you think you've proved. How about this - look at the number of books Harry Potter sold. That has value. The author and her publisher should be the ones profiting from that - not other publishers jumping on the bandwagon.
Our economy works very simply. Exchange of money for goods/services. Those people who bought Harry Potter books gave their money in exchange for entertainment. Whether its a hardback or an ebook, they are still getting the entertainment they paid for.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Double Speak?
Because this is what you do. No matter how much or how little an industry makes, you have your black and white view of the world where free is always better. Corey that is a very false statement. Nowhere does Mike advocate that Ford should give cars away for free as a business model. But he would probably point out the 'free' cars being given away as promotions as yet another example of a company being able to leverage 'free' in the market place.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Double Speak?
My point was tht isolated examples are meaningless.
Well, there's your problem. They're not isolated. We show theory and then we show examples to prove the theory works. So now we've explained *why* it works and then given examples showing that the theory works in practice too.
I don't quite understand why you would need more.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Double Speak?
Actually, even then I'll expand on that.
We've explained theory. We've given examples to show that the theory works in practice. Plus we've shown historical evidence and peer reviewed research showing that the concept works on a macro scale.
So, now we've shown the theory to explain it. We've shown examples of it working on a micro level. And we've shown economic experiments that show it works on a macro level.
I'd think that covers all the bases.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Double Speak?
Fine, believe what you want, but it seems to me you are the one with their head in the sand. There are no "ALWAYS ancillary products to sell." You can keep saying it, but a Sci-Fi writer who maybe sells 20,000 books doesn't have many other products besides the book/ebook. The content therein IS the product.
You buggy whip analogy is no good here. The buggy and the car are 2 different products. In this case, to prove an economic theory, you would have to have a good % of the market adopting the theory in order to test it. For example, was it Radiohead who gave away their CD on their website? Well, this got them press and promotion because it was unique, but its not a true test of the market because being unique is part of the reason for its success.
You put some other post up about someone giving an ebook away (for a limited time I believe) and was promoting this fact on Oprah. Let's see now, maybe the promotion on Oprah has something to do with its sales increase. Its not a proven theory untill it works across the board. Sorry Mike.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Double Speak?
But Mike does say that everything digital should be free. That was what we were talking about and that is not a false statement.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Privileges - not rights
Again, I never said hard work should equal pay - if you work on something that know one wants, nho you shouldn't get paid - but if you create something that has value - and I'm not talking about physical value - in books and ebook the content is what's of value.
Corey, you are confusing value and price. It's a common thing to do (even Adam Smith did it at one point!) but it's wrong. Price does not equal value.
Value is *one* component in demand. But price is set at the interaction of supply and demand. This is an economic fact.
That has value. The author and her publisher should be the ones profiting from that - not other publishers jumping on the bandwagon.
Unfortunately, that's not how the economy works. Lots of people profit off of the value of someone else's work. You should learn a little about externalities here. It'll help move the discussion along.
Our economy works very simply. Exchange of money for goods/services. Those people who bought Harry Potter books gave their money in exchange for entertainment. Whether its a hardback or an ebook, they are still getting the entertainment they paid for.
Again, you have confused value for price and totally ignore the supply side of the equation. It makes for a very weak economic argument.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Privileges - not rights
You just aren't entitled to anything. Period.
It doesn't matter if other publishers are jumping on the bandwagon or if someone take a piece of your pie. It doesn't matter if you make none.
You are entitled to NOTHING.
There is no "I should be the only one who profit from that". There is no "I work hard, I should be compensated".
Life is unfair. Get with the program.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Double Speak?
He never said that. He said that the forces of economic will make digital goods free.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Double Speak?
You can keep saying it, but a Sci-Fi writer who maybe sells 20,000 books doesn't have many other products besides the book/ebook. The content therein IS the product.
The BOOK is an ancillary product. Corey, we've told you that about 1000 times by this point.
Other ancillary products:
* speaking engagements
* opportunities to write columns
* new books
* writing for tv or movies
* writing for magazines
* readers' attention
* readers' time
Some may be more valuable than others. Some may work for some and some may work for others. And that's off the top of my head -- there are a ton of others as well. Again, your own inability to think of ancillary goods doesn't mean there aren't any. ANY infinite good impacts scarce goods in some manner or another. You just need to figure out what those scarce goods are. There are always some.
You buggy whip analogy is no good here.
It's not an analogy of products, Corey. It's an analogy of the idiocy of saying that this theory is meaningless unless 50% of publishers adopt it.
The buggy and the car are 2 different products. In this case, to prove an economic theory, you would have to have a good % of the market adopting the theory in order to test it.
Ah, the old "let's wait until it's too late to change our model before we believe the new model works."
I've explained WHY the new model works. I've given proof of it working IN PRACTICE. I've shown economic peer-reviewed studies showing that it WORKS in practice on both a small scale and a large scale. To continue to insist it doesn't work is ridiculous.
Do you not believe maps until you've actually mapped the terrain out yourself too? A theory is a map. It provides a guide -- it explains why stuff works. And then when you use the map and it works a few times, you tend to recognize that the guide is reasonable and it works. You, on the other hand, apparently do not trust maps.
You put some other post up about someone giving an ebook away (for a limited time I believe) and was promoting this fact on Oprah. Let's see now, maybe the promotion on Oprah has something to do with its sales increase. Its not a proven theory untill it works across the board.
Corey. That was one example. Among many.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Double Speak?
But Mike does say that everything digital should be free. That was what we were talking about and that is not a false statement.
No Corey. I said that the economics means that digital goods *will* become free, thanks to the economic pressures. Not that they should be free, but that economic pressures will force them to be. However, once that's the case, there are ways to leverage that to make much more money.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Privileges - not right
I have not confused price for value. These items have more value until you start giving them away for free or getting rid of coyright law and flodding the market place.
"Unfortunately, that's not how the economy works. Lots of people profit off of the value of someone else's work. You should learn a little about externalities here. It'll help move the discussion along."
Why do you keep misrepresnting what I say. You are taking people profiting of of others works to another level if you got rid of copyrights and patents.
"Again, you have confused value for price and totally ignore the supply side of the equation. It makes for a very weak economic argument."
And you, as always, you're saying because a digital file CAN be copied infinitly it MUST BE, thus flooding the market and of course bringing the value down. This doesn't have to be the case, and its the major flaw in your argument.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Privileges - not right
Well, AC, that post brings nothing to the table. The entire point of copyright is so the creator DO get compensated and have an insentive to create. You do realize that if that insentive is taken away you will have less content and the consumers will lose.
"There is no "I should be the only one who profit from that"."
Wrong. Yes there is, its called copyright law, deal with it.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Privileges - not r
I have not confused price for value. These items have more value until you start giving them away for free or getting rid of coyright law and flodding the market place.
First of all, yes you have confused price for value. The fact that you say the value changes when you give something away for free shows that. Value is an inherent quality. Price is the intersection of supply and demand. Value doesn't change based on price.
You are taking people profiting of of others works to another level if you got rid of copyrights and patents.
How so? I could say the same thing about taking away the right to any monopoly. Any effort creates externalities. What we're talking about is profiting off of externalities. You seem to think there's a problem with that. I disagree, and history disagrees with you. You'll discover that profiting off of externalities is generally what drives economic growth and opens up new opportunities.
And you, as always, you're saying because a digital file CAN be copied infinitly it MUST BE, thus flooding the market and of course bringing the value down. This doesn't have to be the case, and its the major flaw in your argument.
Again, learn the difference between price and value. What you call "flooding the market" is simply the natural market equilibrium.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Double Speak?
You probably only need a few example to prove Mike wrong.
Why don't you do that?
Find examples where people actually test out Mike's business model and failed in the process.
Mike already use this strategy to build his business. Why not try it yourself?
You proposed hypothetical scenario where it doesn't work, but I would like to test assumption about that hypothetical scenario.
If you never try it before or never see anyone who try it, how do you know that it doesn't work in your situation?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Privileges - not r
The entire point of copyright is so the creator DO get compensated and have an insentive to create.
Corey, why do you wrongly insist that copyright is THE ONLY way to get compensated? It's not so they have "an incentive." It's so they have yet *another* artificial incentive. All we're saying is that there's plenty of economic evidence that those artificial incentives do more harm than good.
Wrong. Yes there is, its called copyright law, deal with it.
And a few hundred years ago there were official mercantilist monopolies as well. And those who thought they made sense said the same thing you're saying. They said "deal with it, a sugar monopoly is a good thing." But then people realized that was wrong, and that it made sense to open up markets and free them up -- and they found that the markets EXPANDED, because there was innovation. There was innovation in production methods. There was innovation in business models. There was innovation in product. And I'll tell you something else, the folks who were making money in the competitive environment made a lot more than those who relied on the monopoly powers of a Mercantilist era.
Why? Because by freeing up the market, it created new opportunities for growth. It opened up new market opportunities.
So, no, we won't "deal with it." We'll show why monopolies are bad for the market.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Privileges - not r
Wrong, the entire point is of copyright is to give incentive for authors to create.
It isn't to compenstate creators.
My point is that you're a lucky bastard to be the only one who profits from their work. You're a lucky bastard to be born in the United States. You're a lucky bastard to be living in prosperity, etc.
It is meant to express what I considered the truth of life, not whether the law agrees with you.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Double Spe
AC, there are plenty of examples of people who give away ebooks for free and make nothing. The reason I don't list a bunch of them is because most are unknowns trying to make a name for themselves, and may be doing just as poorly if they were not giving away their product for free. To prove or dispove Mike's theory, you would need a good sample of diffenret types of author's all doing it. It working or not working for a few doesn't mean it will work or not work for the many.
Why don't I try it? Let's see. I'm a history author - I've got plenty of other articles and other things out there that are free, so people interested in the subjects I've written about have probably already heard of the book, so in my case the free ebook would be more of a risk to cut into my sales then generate new sales. And my publisher, who has more publishing expeience then me, you, or Mike, would agree with this.
Sorry, I'll trust the people who have the most to gain more then Mike and his one size fits all theory.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Imaginary property
Mike, I'm sure you have seen people using the term "imaginary property" as a substitute for the traditional meaning of IP. I encourage you to give some careful consideration to adopting the practice yourself. A successful campaign to make the term IP or "intellectual property" be a joke will, I think, force people to abandon the lazy shortcut of lumping the two or three types together, and may even get them to consider the correctness of the arguments in favor of patents and copyrights.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Privileges - n
There is a competitive environment. Authors compete with other authors and books. A Sugar monopoly doesn't cut it here. If I was the onyl one allowed to write a certain type of book, you'd have a point.
My last book was about a murder-mystery. Anyone who wants to can write about that same case and compete with my book.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Privileges - n
"the entire point is of copyright is to give incentive for authors to create."
Exactly what I said. How does copyright give an incentive to authors to create, by allowing them to own the rights to the work and be compensated.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Double
You DIDN'T ACTUALLY TRY giving away your ebook.
I just want you to try it to see if it work.
That's the whole point. I don't care about whether you think the risk is very high.
If you can't do that. I guess you don't have enough balls to try them like you don't have enough balls to find viable example of people who did that and failed.
Mike already done his homework. Let see if you do your.
If you don't have enough time to do the research. Well, tough luck.
And oh, you're a historian for god sake! Act like one!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Privileges
Exactly what I said. How does copyright give an incentive to authors to create, by allowing them to own the rights to the work and be compensated.
No. You said that the point of copyright was so that authors DO get compensated. It's up a few posts. Go take a look.
The difference is that you seem to be claiming that the only way to get compensated is with copyright. That's flat out false.
Copyright is AN incentive. Not THE incentive.
The argument is whether it's a necessary incentive. You arguing that it's the only incentive misses the point and argues something entirely different and long disproved.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Double Spe
I don't have the time to respond to all of this - I've been here to long already, but I wanted to respond to:
"The BOOK is an ancillary product. Corey, we've told you that about 1000 times by this point.
Other ancillary products:
* speaking engagements
* opportunities to write columns
* new books
* writing for tv or movies
* writing for magazines
* readers' attention
* readers' time"
Fisrt of all, the book as the product works for now, but what if ebook readers become so good that in 10-20 years most people use those. Then we've got to take the book out of the equation. I'm not saying that will happen, but you have to look at future possibilities when arguing things like this, because things change.
speaking engagements: most authors DO NOT get paid. These are used to promote the book/ebook.
opportunities to write columns/magazines: I've done both. The pay is very small, the real incentive again is to promote the book.
writing for tv or movies: most authors will not get this chance.
So my point is the book is the main product/money maker. If ebooks ever take over, I'm sorry Mike, but your other products don't make up for the loss of book profits. Either authors SELL the ebooks, or you lose all but the very successful few.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Do
AC, find you're own examples. The internet is full of people trying to give products away who are going nowhere.
Let's see, why shouldn't I try Mike's theory? Maybe because if if it doens't work (like my gut and my publisher say), then what do I use to support my family.
Sorry, I'm not going to try a theory that I think will fail to prove a point to you.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Privil
It is THE incentive. By being an author, over the years I've met over a hundered authors. Authors make the VAST MAJORITY of their money from their copyrighted work. Everything else is just to promote that.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Transfer of trademarks