Is That The Best Cato Can Do In Defense Of Copyright?
from the yikes dept
We've been covering the Cato Institute's online debate over the future of copyright, which began with a detailed explanation of how copyright has been stretched so far that it has broken, followed by a partial defense of modified copyright law where copyright would only be applied to commercial use. While I disagreed with the second piece, both were well written and thought provoking. You knew one of the pieces in the series had to be a defense of copyright, and that role seems to have fallen to Doug Lichtman, law professor at UCLA, and I'm rather disappointed. There are eloquent and interesting defenses of copyright out there -- but this is not one. Lichtman basically attacks the first piece as being wishful thinking, claiming that it would be wrong to "put copyright in the corner" but can't come up with a good reason why.
Instead, Lichtman basically complains that he personally can't come up with good business models that would come around in the absence of copyright. The thing is, no one's asking him to do so -- they're saying that the market can and will come up with those business models, as it inevitably does. So, his weak attempts to pick apart the business models suggested in the first piece in the series fall flat and are easily responded to. For example, Lichtman claims that since Rasmus Fleischer skipped over movie industry business models, it means there really aren't any -- other than mockingly suggesting something silly: selling action figures from movies, and notes that no one would buy action figures for "A Beautiful Mind."
But just because Lichtman can only think of a bad business model for the movie industry, it doesn't mean that there aren't business models that don't rely on copyright. For example, while he just assumes that you can't sell movie tickets anymore -- that's not true at all. We've listed out plenty of ideas on ways to make the movie-going experience worth paying for -- and we're sure, given a world without copyright, many others would quickly pop up, as the history of free markets tends to show.
Lichtman really should have been able to come up with a better response than "but... but... but... I can't think of any way to make money without copyright." It says a lot more about Lichtman than it does about copyright.
Lichtman then claims that Rasmus Fleischer's piece suffers from a flaw that the models he describes work for some content, but not for others. But that's missing the point. Fleischer's point is that a variety of business models do pop up -- and, even better, new business models pop up to support content not currently being created. When Lichtman brushes off Fleisher by saying: "Fleischer is not merely interested in allowing alternative models like free peer-to-peer distribution to compete with traditional approaches; he wants to take away the traditional options and leave intact only his favorite alternatives," he again is missing the point. Fleischer is not saying leave only his favorites intact. He's saying get rid of the artificial system set up by government to support one favorite model -- and then let any model show up.
In the end, Lichtman's defense of copyright comes across as similar to defenses of protectionist anti-trade policies: claiming that taking away the protectionist barriers will hurt an existing business model -- while ignoring all of the new business models and more free and open markets that result. History has shown time and time again, that removing such artificial protectionist barriers ends up being better for the overall market -- including both producers and consumers. I would think the burden should be on Lichtman to explain why this time is different. Unfortunately, he does not shed any light in that direction.
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
A failure of imagination
What we have here is a failure of imagination.
I'm not saying it's easy to imagine a world without copyright, but it is possible:
http://www.digitalproductions.co.uk/index.php?id=130
The question isn't so much "Should we or shouldn't we have copyright?", but "Oh dear, copyright is broken. How shall we survive without it?"
Of course another solution is to pretend it's eternally 1984 - when the Internet wasn't so much of a problem and CD burners weren't quite so common.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Back and Forth, Back and Forth
Does anyone have a suggestion to voice the concerns of those of us wishing for Less stringent copyright laws ? Having blogs to go vent on (which are duly ignored by our politicians, unless the lobbyists have simply deafened them), while stress reducing, is not a solution. We can go back and forth on this for the next century (as we have for the last). But I would like to brainstorm some highly creative ideas to address the injustices, expand Fair Use (what a concept) and a way to bring things into the public domain that is congruent with today's market and distribution systems. It simply Should Not be a welfare system for the sake of the previous century's antiquated business model. And, Please don't tell me to write my congressman, as he has already been written to by lobbyists, on large numbered checks.
eleete
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Common problem
This is a common issue with anyone who tries to defend any sort of public good. They simply can't come up with a way the market could solve said problem, therefore (?) the gov't must intervene. There are a ton of complex market interactions every day. If we would have asked people in the past how such things would have been accomplished with the market, they likely would have lacked an answer. Think of where we would be if the market wasn't handling many of the things it does.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Back and Forth, Back and Forth
Competing with lobbyists and compensating authors for the delivery of their work into the public domain (without needing copyright) can be achieved with the same mechanism.
Such a mechanism would enable a large number of people to put their money on the table, to be paid to certain persons only should certain publicly visible things occur, e.g. the passing of certain legislation or the publication of a particular creative work (a piece of GPL software say).
We might imagine that such a mechanism, that enabled a market in such contingencies, would operate as a web service, perhaps at http://contingencymarket.com ?
That's my suggestion - if you're looking for less stringency.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
The Market Doesn't Care About the Public Good
One of the reasons the current media system is so out of control is exactly because of market pressures. Market pressures (read, lots of money) that have compelled government agencies to enact legislation on the part of those who have the money. This is exactly why a "let the markets take care of the problem" approach will NOT work. We do need government legislation (not just market action), but legislation that is concerned with the good of the society, not the good of the wealthy.
Ending copyright and letting markets decide will not work. In the short term, many things may turn over. Given some time, however, those who profit will once again find ways to control the others.
This is why we need a democracy that functions like a democracy, with an informed public, enacting legislation to counter-act such forces in the interest of the public good.
This is not happening now, nor will it happen by simply abolishing copyright law and letting the market "decide."
Get some historical context on these issues and stop looking only at the future ... future-vision has not yet been perfected.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Movie Industry without Copyright
I have yet to see a proposal for the movie/Hollywood industry without copyright. What do you propose they do?
My imagination must be failing because I can't conceive of methods that generate remotely similar amounts of revenue. Keep in mind how expensive movies are to create.
I can for see ways in which the industry can cut cost, allowing for decreased revenue business models to take hold. But those are a ways off.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Movie Industry without Copyright
Movie on one side, people who want to see it on the other.
Producers who have film, want money.
Audience who have money, want film.
Art for money, money for art.
How can you doubt that an equitable exchange is possible?
That doubt is the sound of your imagination failing.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
He's got a point about the movie industry, actually. To a greater extent than almost any other industry, their infinite goods is more valuable than any scarce goods they could conceivably sell on the back of it, and their alternatives are pretty limited.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
What is truly fascinating is how increasing irrelevant copyrights are becoming simply because technology makes any digital content an infinite good that can be replicated and distributed by anyone. The industry can bribe gov't to get more draconian copyright laws, they can introduce more DRM technologies, they can monitor internet packets, and throttle file sharing technologies, but it will all be to no avail.
Today you can buy portable self-contained storage in gigabyte capacities (iPod for example). In a few more years we will see terabytes on a portable device. What are these industries going to do when you can take your 5 terabyte 'iPod' to a flea market then copy every movie, TV show, song or book you ever wanted to it? No internet, no digital trail, no IP addresses, just two devises swapping terabytes of data. Don't think it can happen? Go look, its going on today.
That reality dictates that these industries have to adjust to new revenue models because there's no way you can stop or thwart the technology that enables it. Your digital content is infinite and therefore nearly free to consumers. You will have to get value from your content in some other way.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Movie tickets.
Oh, my God. I visted a Warner theatre last Saturday and pay 18.00 a ticket (standard is half that) to sit in an awesome seat that was more like a recliner. I pressed a button on the chair to summon a waiter when I felt like I needed a drink or a snack or dinner. Although I ate dinner in the diner adjacent to the lobby of the theatre. So between dinner, drinks, and tickets, we paid a ton of money to be there and had an awesome time, and plan to vist every time we feel like seeing a movie...
And those tickets are sold out a week in advance, even though you have to show up personally at the box office to get them. So somebody is selling movie tickets. Just not the dinosaurs.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
no one's asking him to do so -- they're saying that the market can and will come up with those business models, as it inevitably does.
Mike, you didn't go far enough. The "solution" to the death of copyright is not that some new business model will be created out of the ashes of copyright. It simply does not matter whether or not a viable business model is ever created. That's because it should never be the government's job to ensure the creation or to ensure the protection of business models.
By arguing that a business model will develop, you're falling into their trap that there needs to be one in the first place and that the industry needs to be protected. There doesn't and it doesn't. People stopped buying horse buggy whips, and yet we survived without that business model. We'll survive without a viable business model for the music industry too.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
c'mon he did it on a bet
You know somebody bet this guy that he wouldn't quote Dirty Dancing.
Nobody puts copyright in a corner!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
Mike, you didn't go far enough. The "solution" to the death of copyright is not that some new business model will be created out of the ashes of copyright. It simply does not matter whether or not a viable business model is ever created. That's because it should never be the government's job to ensure the creation or to ensure the protection of business models.
No, but the government has a legitimate interest in promoting culture and "the Progress of Science and useful Arts." Killing off copyright law entirely seriously undercuts that interest.
By arguing that a business model will develop, you're falling into their trap that there needs to be one in the first place and that the industry needs to be protected. There doesn't and it doesn't. People stopped buying horse buggy whips, and yet we survived without that business model. We'll survive without a viable business model for the music industry too.
I suppose we will, but will we be better for it? Is it really a good idea to have the nation's music culture suffer by killing off the music industry? Is it really a good idea to make the music profession more unattractive by killing off the music industry?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Music
I do not beilieve the music profession would suffer at all. There are thousands of musicians, much better than what you hear on the radio, that don't get paid near what a signed band does. Yes all musicians need compensation, but there are other ways of achieving that compensation. Many decent bands can't get out there because a few companies run the music industry. It is almost impossible for an unknown band to get airtime on a commercial radio station. I am all for killing the music industry. Let's chop it's head right off.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
I believe I have broken the "techdirt corde". If you say something that generally agrees with Masnick and Company...well that is good and indicative of progressive thinking. If you say something that generally does not agree with Mascnick and Company...well that is not good and indicative of regressive thinking.
It is sad that so many who frequent this site and comment on its articles haven't a clue why copyright law even exists, and appear to be of the mindset that if they can get it for free without paying then they are simply exercising their God-given right to set information "free" because that is good for society (even though what seems to be their view of societal good is getting a freebie from the hard work done by the person who created an original work in the first place).
Why am I left with the feeling that many of those screaming "free, free, free" likely went through high school and college cutting corners on tests, terms papers, and original research?
By the way, copyright law has not recently become "criminalized". Such sanctions have been a part of the law for many, many years, but are tightly constricted and apply to only the most egregious violations of law. Those who may disagree are simply misinformed.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: The Market Doesn't Care About the Public Good
Anonymouse wrote:
Yes it will work--eventually. Where do you think those companies got all that money from? From successfully exploiting market forces in the past. Which they're failing to continue to do now. So they're squandering their money trying to shore up their existing business model, and failing. It doesn't matter how many laws get passed, they will eventually go bust, because the laws are largely getting ignored.
Yes, it may take a while, and in the meantime we get an accumulation of unlucky victims of those unjust laws, but the number of those victims is no deterrent to the inexorable operation of market forces. King Cnut cannot legislate against the tide.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: The Market Doesn't Care About the Public Good
"...unjust laws."
Does this mean such laws would be "just" if they let you make illegal copies to your heart's content?
I guess we should also trash antitrust law and a whole host of other laws that have been enacted pertaining to unfair business practices.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: The Market Doesn't Care About the Public Good
This is exactly why a "let the markets take care of the problem" approach will NOT work. We do need government legislation (not just market action), but legislation that is concerned with the good of the society, not the good of the wealthy.
If that were actually possible or what happened, I might agree with you. But the problem is that most legislation these days is actually written by the wealthy corporations to favor themselves -- not for the good of society.
And so many laws that are actually designed to "benefit society" have unintended consequences that do the exact opposite.
You claim that the free market creates problems, but you don't give any examples.
Ending copyright and letting markets decide will not work. In the short term, many things may turn over. Given some time, however, those who profit will once again find ways to control the others.
Why do you say that? History suggests otherwise.
This is not happening now, nor will it happen by simply abolishing copyright law and letting the market "decide."
You say that but provide no evidence.
Get some historical context on these issues and stop looking only at the future ... future-vision has not yet been perfected.
Um. I've pointed to a ton of "historical context" on these issues, including much of it that shows that the market does solve these problems just fine.
What "historical context" are you talking about?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Movie Industry without Copyright
I have yet to see a proposal for the movie/Hollywood industry without copyright. What do you propose they do?
There's a link in the original post that shows one possible model.
But the simple fact is that the movie industry is selling *seats* to an *event* and as such they can keep doing that. That doesn't rely on copyright. They just need to make the event worthwhile.
As for "Keep in mind how expensive movies are to create" we've gone into GREAT detail as to what a bogus complaint that is. Movie costs are greatly inflated, and there's little incentive to actually make them cheaper. Yet, if the model changed and there was incentive to be more efficient at making a movie, you'd see more creative efforts to get costs under control in ways that won't negatively impact movie quality.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
He's got a point about the movie industry, actually. To a greater extent than almost any other industry, their infinite goods is more valuable than any scarce goods they could conceivably sell on the back of it, and their alternatives are pretty limited.
Huh? The movie industry has ALWAYS worked off the basis of selling scarce goods: *experience* and *seats*.
That doesn't change.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re:
I suppose we will, but will we be better for it? Is it really a good idea to have the nation's music culture suffer by killing off the music industry? Is it really a good idea to make the music profession more unattractive by killing off the music industry?
Um, what? Can you explain how the music industry is being killed off? As we detailed last week, as copyright is increasingly ignored, the music industry is doing BETTER than ever before in history. Every single part of the industry is moving upwards -- except for the sale of plastic discs.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Music Industry
I hope the music industry dies a slow, cold death. Then perhaps we'll be able to listen to good music again.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
"History suggests otherwise."
Merely FYI, the word "history" embraces so much more than what has happened since the day you were born.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
I believe I have broken the "techdirt corde". If you say something that generally agrees with Masnick and Company...well that is good and indicative of progressive thinking. If you say something that generally does not agree with Mascnick and Company...well that is not good and indicative of regressive thinking.
Not at all. However, I will express my opinion on things, and then back it up with evidence.
If you have evidence to the contrary, please post it. But if all you've got to say is that I tend to support opinions that are supported by the facts, and disagree with those that are not supported by the facts... well, then, I have to agree.
I'm sorry if that upsets you.
It is sad that so many who frequent this site and comment on its articles haven't a clue why copyright law even exists
Hmm. If they frequent the site, then they know why copyright exists, because we've gone into a detailed explanation of its history.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080220/020252302.shtml
http://www.techdirt.com/artic les/20071230/233138.shtml
appear to be of the mindset that if they can get it for free without paying then they are simply exercising their God-given right to set information "free" because that is good for society (even though what seems to be their view of societal good is getting a freebie from the hard work done by the person who created an original work in the first place).
Well, that would be something if that were the position we advocated, but it is not.
We are talking from the position of content creators and why its in *their* benefit to not enforce the copyright on their own works.
But, why argue against what we actually say when you've got a handy strawman?
Why am I left with the feeling that many of those screaming "free, free, free" likely went through high school and college cutting corners on tests, terms papers, and original research?
Perhaps because you want to accuse us of saying something we haven't -- which would be lying, which is worse than cheating, isn't it?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
Merely FYI, the word "history" embraces so much more than what has happened since the day you were born
I'm assuming this is a weak attempt at an insult?
If it's not and intended to be serious, then please check your facts. We have covered the history of content creation going back centuries, and pointed to plenty of evidence concerning what happens to content creation in the absence of copyright (hint: it actually works out great).
You are free to try to refute the evidence. Tossing weak attempts at insults in my direction won't get you very far in terms of actually convincing anyone of anything.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Strawmen?
Mike -
Thanks for the fun post; but your "response" seems to have almost nothing to do with my original essay. Did you even read my piece? For instance, do you really think that my point about movies is that "there really aren't any" business models beyond the conventional one? I can't imagine that your reading comprehension is *that* bad.
You have a good forum here and an audience of interested and thoughtful readers. It's a shame that you waste all that potential by writing posts like this one today.
Doug Lichtman
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
movies
Hi Mike
"But just because Lichtman can only think of a bad business model for the movie industry, it doesn't mean that there aren't business models that don't rely on copyright."
There may be business models that don't rely on copyright, but what about the current business model that DOES rely on copyright and IS a good model? Before you pounce on me and say the industry is wailing about losses, let me state that the movie industry does have huge problems but they are not all copyright-related.
There are so many other issues that the industry needs to fix (make less expensive, more entertaining/engaging/intelligent films, for starters). Doing away with copyright will only add to their problems. Distribution companies should also look at releasing a greater variety of foreign films, in the theaters and on DVD.
"For example, while he just assumes that you can't sell movie tickets anymore -- that's not true at all. We've listed out plenty of ideas on ways to make the movie-going experience worth paying for -- and we're sure, given a world without copyright, many others would quickly pop up, as the history of free markets tends to show."
Do you realize that in a world without copyright, any theater can screen any movie, old or new, make money of it and not pay the producer a dime? How does that help the movie industry (I refer to the production companies)?
If there's no copyright, anyone can use a franchise to sell all sorts of merchandise, OSTs, etc (the scarce goods you love to talk about). Won't that lead to huge losses to the content creators?
And what about international rights? I'm sure you know how big Hollywood movies are all over the world. Selling international rights fetches considerable income for Hollywood companies. Why do you expect them to let go of that?
"Lichtman really should have been able to come up with a better response than "but... but... but... I can't think of any way to make money without copyright." It says a lot more about Lichtman than it does about copyright."
A lot of people would like to make money with copyright, because it's a proven model. Why do you think they would prefer to try something that assures losses?
"When Lichtman brushes off Fleisher by saying: "Fleischer is not merely interested in allowing alternative models like free peer-to-peer distribution to compete with traditional approaches; he wants to take away the traditional options and leave intact only his favorite alternatives," he again is missing the point."
No, he's not missing the point. When you talk of removal of copyright, it is replacing one model with another. It's one thing to say free software will pose a threat to proprietary software, and quite anothe to say the concept of proprietary software has to be abolished (which in essence is what those clamouring for removal of copyright are seeking).
"Fleischer is not saying leave only his favorites intact. He's saying get rid of the artificial system set up by government to support one favorite model -- and then let any model show up."
Why did the government decide to support this model? Because it's a fair one. One that rewards the creator and allows him control over his content.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Strawmen?
Hi Doug,
Thanks for the fun post; but your "response" seems to have almost nothing to do with my original essay. Did you even read my piece?
Read it multiple times, because I kept trying to figure out where the substance was.
For instance, do you really think that my point about movies is that "there really aren't any" business models beyond the conventional one? I can't imagine that your reading comprehension is *that* bad.
Talk about reading comprehension... :) That's not what I said. I said that you complained that you couldn't come up with a business model that worked for "all" movies. But that's not true. What you *meant* was that you couldn't come up with business models for all movies that are made today.
And my response is twofold:
(1) Just because you can't, it doesn't mean they don't exist and...
(2) The existing business model doesn't support a ton of movies that can't be made *because* of copyright. Why aren't you upset about those movies?
You only are worried about what we have today that would disappear, rather than what we don't have today because of these unnecessary laws.
You have a good forum here and an audience of interested and thoughtful readers. It's a shame that you waste all that potential by writing posts like this one today.
If you have a substantive criticism, I'd love to hear it.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Hot rumors
Did somebody say I could get John Nash action figures?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: movies
There may be business models that don't rely on copyright, but what about the current business model that DOES rely on copyright and IS a good model?
That's a good and important question -- and one I've tried to answer, but perhaps not clearly enough.
Any sort of protectionist system creates *a* business model that's good for *someone*. And that's part of the problem. Those someones always want that business model to stay -- just as sugar monopolists want to keep their sugar monopoly.
But history and economics have always shown that removing those protectionist barriers *always* creates larger markets, more opportunities for profit and *more* of the product in question -- all while creating happier customers.
Why? Because in removing protectionism, innovation occurs in many different areas to improve the product and improve the process. That creates new incentives and cheaper, more efficiently made product. That's a good thing.
So, the reason I say what I say is because history and economics shows that a gov't enforced monopoly is NEVER the best business model for a market.
There are so many other issues that the industry needs to fix (make less expensive, more entertaining/engaging/intelligent films, for starters). Doing away with copyright will only add to their problems.
I disagree. It would make them focus in on business models that work -- which would include tackling all of those points you made. They need the real incentive to do that. Right now, copyright is a crutch that lets them avoid fixing those problems.
Do you realize that in a world without copyright, any theater can screen any movie, old or new, make money of it and not pay the producer a dime? How does that help the movie industry (I refer to the production companies)?
The content is promotion -- that's a good thing if others want to help promote your product. There are business models that take care of the "problem" you see (which appears to me as an opportunity). Why not offer incentives to come see the *authorized* version of the movie. Just off the top of my head I could come up with a variety of ideas for that: offer ticketholders to the authorized version a free "entry" into a sweepstakes to appear in a sequel or to meet a star of the movie.
Again, the point is that models exist. And the market can and will discover them. The gov't shouldn't.
If there's no copyright, anyone can use a franchise to sell all sorts of merchandise, OSTs, etc (the scarce goods you love to talk about). Won't that lead to huge losses to the content creators?
Official versions have value. History has shown that over and over again.
As for pure counterfeits that pretend to be authorized versions, anti-fraud (consumer protection) rules can take care of those.
And what about international rights? I'm sure you know how big Hollywood movies are all over the world. Selling international rights fetches considerable income for Hollywood companies. Why do you expect them to let go of that?
Uh... the new business models will work internationally too. Why wouldn't they?
A lot of people would like to make money with copyright, because it's a proven model. Why do you think they would prefer to try something that assures losses?
Why would the new model assure losses. It wouldn't.
Cram, you confuse me. We have these debates every few days, and at the end you always say that you now get it -- and then a few days you're back asking the same questions.
When you talk of removal of copyright, it is replacing one model with another.
No. It's saying we should take away the artificial, market-limiting gov't monopoly system, and let the free market determine the most efficient business models.
There's a difference.
Why did the government decide to support this model? Because it's a fair one. One that rewards the creator and allows him control over his content.
People would say the same thing about mercantilist protectionist policies, tariffs and subsidies -- and yet time and time and time again history has shown that the gov't was wrong. Often horribly wrong.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Thanks
Hi Mike
Thanks for your response.
"And what about international rights? I'm sure you know how big Hollywood movies are all over the world. Selling international rights fetches considerable income for Hollywood companies. Why do you expect them to let go of that?
Uh... the new business models will work internationally too. Why wouldn't they?"
I don't think they would, because movie halls all over the world would screen the latest Hollywood movies without having to pay the studios anything. Isn't that a clear loss for the companies? Right now the figure runs into hundreds of millions.
"Cram, you confuse me. We have these debates every few days, and at the end you always say that you now get it -- and then a few days you're back asking the same questions."
:-) I'll try and clarify my stance here. I am in agreement with you on the free model part - free as in free for personal, individual consumption, but not when it comes to free for commercial exploitation. That's why I try to argue in favour of copyright.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
one more point
"Why not offer incentives to come see the *authorized* version of the movie?"
I ask you: Why do we need more than one version of a movie? How does it benefit the consumer? If at all anyone benefits, it's the theater owner who'd gain the most, by simply raking in all the money without having to share it with the studio.
I don't see a compelling need for companies to be forced to offer incentives to watch the "authorized" version.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
more
Hi Mike
As I keep rereading your response, I find that there are more points of disagreement.
"Any sort of protectionist system creates *a* business model that's good for *someone*. And that's part of the problem. Those someones always want that business model to stay -- just as sugar monopolists want to keep their sugar monopoly."
Part of the problem? For who? And how is this a protectionist system? Do movie producers get some special subsidy or tax rebate? Are only a few companies allowed to make movies? Are foreign companies barred from getting into the movie business? Are foreign movies banned from being released in the US market? What kind of protectionism are you talking about? How does it compare with a sugar monopoly?
The only thing a company gets is protection over content it laboured to produce at considerable cost. And you want that to be taken away!
"But history and economics have always shown that removing those protectionist barriers *always* creates larger markets, more opportunities for profit and *more* of the product in question -- all while creating happier customers."
In this case, more of the product doesn't translate into more profits for creator; it certainly means more profits for third parties who won't have to pay the creator.
"Why? Because in removing protectionism, innovation occurs in many different areas to improve the product and improve the process. That creates new incentives and cheaper, more efficiently made product. That's a good thing."
Movies can still be made efficiently if only studio managements recognize the need for fresh ideas, spot good storytellers, give them enough financial incentive, give artists more freedom, try and focus on the storytelling than the bullshit CGI, etc, etc...none of which need the abolition of copyright.
"The content is promotion -- that's a good thing if others want to help promote your product. There are business models that take care of the "problem" you see (which appears to me as an opportunity)."
How is it a good thing when 100 million people all over the world are watching my movie, in theaters, with not a single dime coming back to me?
Of course, promotion's great for a movie, when people are talking about, reviewing it, blogging about...not when they are actually screening the product and making money off it. That kind of promotion doesn't help the movie makers.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Say What, Anonymouse?
Quoting "The Market Doesn't Care About the Public Good by Anonymouse on Jun 17th, 2008 @ 2:24pm
Market pressures (read, lots of money) that have compelled government agencies to enact legislation on the part of those who have the money. This is exactly why a "let the markets take care of the problem" approach will NOT work. We do need government legislation (not just market action), but legislation that is concerned with the good of the society, not the good of the wealthy."
You are calling on the broken part of the system to fix the part that works.
Yours is a description of fascist government, not 'market pressures'. Moneyed interests may pressure government to pass legislation in their favor, but they are hardly 'compelled' to pass it. Anyone is allowed to ask, but those with responsibility over resources make their own decisions.
If you can get someone unselfish and humbly servile elected to powerful office, maybe he can withstand the pressures that 'compelled' government to cave to those moneyed interests. Until then, I'm counting everyone looking out for themselves first, especially officeholders and their employees.
If you're counting on something else, you'll probably be disappointed.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Thanks
"I don't think they would, because movie halls all over the world would screen the latest Hollywood movies without having to pay the studios anything. Isn't that a clear loss for the companies? Right now the figure runs into hundreds of millions."
What the hell are you talking about exactly?
Studios would retain the rights in countries where copyright still exists. Eventually, assuming the US model proved successful, other countries might adopt that model. Until then, copyright laws in those countries would apply - i.e. highly protected in Europe not really protected in the East.
Besides, their current model - often forcing people in other parts of the world to wait anything from 3 - 12 months for a release of a movie - often *encourages* piracy to begin with. Why wait when you can download a US DVD rip?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: The Market Doesn't Care About the Public Good
But the problem is that most legislation these days is actually written by the wealthy corporations to favor themselves -- not for the good of society.
I agree ... which is why I wrote that in my original comment (did you read the whole thing?).
And so many laws that are actually designed to "benefit society" have unintended consequences that do the exact opposite.
Yes, which is why we need a continual review of the law, and why the courts exist. The fact that this happens, however, is not a good argument for abolishing law altogether.
You claim that the free market creates problems, but you don't give any examples.
Are you being intentionally difficult? The "free market" means a market driven by money, the greatest accumulators of which will become those who lobby (with their wallets) for regulations that benefit them. That's what the current state is, that's what it will always be, UNLESS we have a free press and rightly-functioning democracy in place to prevent such action through LEGISLATION.
My point is, no "one thing" will work to solve these "problems." Copyright law won't fix it. Abolishing copyright and letting the market decide won't fix it. The only thing that will work is an informed and acting citizenry pushing for legislation that truly balances the rights of the few and the good of the many.
A market-only approach, blind to other factors, is just as dangerous as any other.
For examples, look at the state of corporate media/journalism.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Movie Industry without Copyright
But the simple fact is that the movie industry is selling *seats* to an *event* and as such they can keep doing that. That doesn't rely on copyright. They just need to make the event worthwhile.
This is only helpful if the theaters send the profits (after construction costs, heating/ac, food, service staff, etc.) back to the production company, and the production company distributes those profits to the involved parties, etc. Much of this depends on copyright, sales of rights, and licensing of rights to function. Then there's the difficulty of maintaining profits from ticket sales alone.
Yet, if the model changed and there was incentive to be more efficient at making a movie, you'd see more creative efforts to get costs under control in ways that won't negatively impact movie quality.
This may be true, but it has no bearing on whether or not copyright is a good idea. Watch the sloppy logic.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Thanks
Hi Paul
How is that possible? If a company forsakes copyright protection in the US, it cannot seek to be covered by copyright laws in other countries. I don't think you can have it both ways - you know, copyleft in the US and copyright in the US. Anyway, Mike's point is that copyright should go away; I guess he wants that to happen universally.
"Besides, their current model - often forcing people in other parts of the world to wait anything from 3 - 12 months for a release of a movie - often *encourages* piracy to begin with. Why wait when you can download a US DVD rip?"
So the flaw in the current model is not releasing simultaneously, not pricing DVDs afforably, not marketing their films overseas substantuiially, etc. It has nothing to do with copyright, nor can doing away with copyright solve it.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Say What, Anonymouse?
Quote 1: Yours is a description of fascist government, not 'market pressures'.
I'm arguing for a more involved citizenry and legislation that curtails corporate power. How is that fascist? Extreme capitalism is just a fascist government ruled by the winning corporations. A truly "free" market, with no government intervention (such as, outlawing monopolies, ahem) would give us that world.
Quote 2: Moneyed interests may pressure government to pass legislation in their favor, but they are hardly 'compelled' to pass it. Anyone is allowed to ask, but those with responsibility over resources make their own decisions.
Wow. What naive rock have you been living under?
Quote 3: If you can get someone unselfish and humbly servile elected to powerful office, maybe he can withstand the pressures that 'compelled' government to cave to those moneyed interests. Until then, I'm counting everyone looking out for themselves first, especially officeholders and their employees.
Please read Quote 2 and Quote 3. Perhaps you forgot to include something between the two that makes them read as something other than a complete contradiction?
If you're counting on something else, you'll probably be disappointed.
I do agree that, left to themselves, people tend to be concerned only for their self interest. In fact, that corporations act this way is the basis of my argument. So you've apparently misunderstood me completely.
As for what I'm counting on, it's the same thing the founders of this nation were counting on: democracy (not oligarchy or aristocracy).
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: The Market Doesn't Care About the Public Good
Uh, the reason we have bad laws in the first place because of the fact that the government is easily prone to rent-seeking.
The best way to fix this is to get the government OUT of legislating unnecessary monopolies and forbid many other legislations such as "incentive" packages? So corporations have one less avenue to do their rent-seeking.
It require not legislation but consumer vigilances and a very strong free market.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re:
"Is it really a good idea to have the nation's music culture suffer by killing off the music industry? Is it really a good idea to make the music profession more unattractive by killing off the music industry?"
I don't care whether it is a good idea or not. But I do know one thing, it should not be the government/s job to make any profession more attractive.
And with the way the content industry is acting, it is not longer our music culture. Every time we try to share in the music culture by using our fair use rights the music industry comes after us.
The only way music could become our culture would be by talking away the government granted monopoly of copyright from the music industry.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re:
Every time we try to share in the music culture by using our fair use rights the music industry comes after us.
I'm not picking a side here, but it appears you don't understand what "fair use rights" entail. You might wanna look that up.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Re: The Market Doesn't Care About the Public Good
It require not legislation but consumer vigilances and a very strong free market.
So, we're back to "the market (i.e., money) can fix all our problems" are we?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You start off with a natural right to do what the heck you want with the intellectual property you purchase.
Part of that right (copying, performing, etc.) is then suspended by the state in order to grant a transferable commercial privilege for the benefit of publishers (initially attached to the original work).
This privilege is then moderated such that should someone be prosecuted for infringement they may claim a defense of 'fair use' for de minimis, insignificant, harmless, or 'more socially beneficial' infringements. 'Fair use' is not a right or privilege, but a matter of judicial arbitration.
Truly fair use (in the literal sense) would be the restoration of your natural intellectual property rights to do what you want with the IP you've created or purchased as long as that didn't unfairly impact on someone else's natural rights. There would certainly be no mercantile privilege of copyright or patent that unfairly suspended your rights.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Your explanation is clear and concise, Crosbie. I have a question, though (seriously, not snarky):
You say: You start off with a natural right to do what the heck you want with the intellectual property you purchase.
I'm guessing from previous comments that you don't think people should be purchasing "ip" right?
Also, if there were no copyright (or similar) law, why would anyone purchase "ip" ... except as a voluntary "thank you" to the creator/contributor?
Just curious about your thoughts here.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re:
Two very basic points that appear to govern the tone, tenor and content of articles posted for comment.
First, your continuing attribution of intellectual property laws in large part to Jefferson is terribly misleading. He had his opinions, but then again so did all the other drafters of our Constitution. Jefferson did not "invent" patent and copyright law. In fact, if memory serves me he was not even involved with its drafting since at the time he was serving as an ambassador in Europe.
Second, you seem prone to take quotes completely out of context, and then get all upset that the partial quote calls your site's motives and honesty into question. Here is a thought. Quote the entire comment. Had you done so in this instance you would have noted that it was not directed to you or your site.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You may recall Richard Stallman saying: '"Free software" is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the concept, you should think of "free" as in "free speech," not as in "free beer."'.
So, of course, I most assuredly do believe people should be purchasing intellectual property, and should indeed be prosecuted if they steal it.
As for voluntary payment as opposed to compulsory payment, you should bear in mind that all bargains are supposed to be voluntary. This is the whole point of a free market; that people come together to offer each other what they have with a view to obtaining that which they don't have in voluntary exchange.
One of those things that prevents markets from being free and fair are enforced unnatural monopolies, especially state enforced monopolies such as copyright or patent.
Check out Against Intellectual Monopoly for a more in depth explanation as to why whilst copyright may have been highly appealing to printers and the state 300 years ago, it was not actually ethical, warranted or necessary - merely expeditious. It is no longer even expeditious today (unless you are a totalitarian/police state).
So, without copyright, people purchase IP because they don't have it, want it, and are willing to exchange money in exchange. Once they have it, it's their IP and they can do what they want with it. It works just like material property. It's just a lot easier and cheaper to reproduce and distribute. Naturally, some artists are going to require a large number of their audience to commit to a collective purchase for their more valuable works. Conversely, many artists may already be sufficiently patronised by large audiences (given their goodwill) that they don't need any prior commitment.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: The Market Doesn't Care About the Public Good
I agree ... which is why I wrote that in my original comment (did you read the whole thing?).
I did. I just can't figure out how you believe the solution to bad regulation is more regulation. Don't you realize it will be just as bad?
Are you being intentionally difficult? The "free market" means a market driven by money, the greatest accumulators of which will become those who lobby (with their wallets) for regulations that benefit them.
Which is why we're saying deregulate. If the moneyed interests can't get regulations in their favor, then the problem goes away.
That's what the current state is, that's what it will always be, UNLESS we have a free press and rightly-functioning democracy in place to prevent such action through LEGISLATION.
I don't know how to respond to this. It makes no sense. Corporations are abusing the legislative process, so the answer is more legislation for them to abuse?
Bizarre.
My point is, no "one thing" will work to solve these "problems." Copyright law won't fix it. Abolishing copyright and letting the market decide won't fix it. The only thing that will work is an informed and acting citizenry pushing for legislation that truly balances the rights of the few and the good of the many.
Ah, you believe in the myth of balance. There is no "balance" that needs to be worked out. A free market that ends up benefiting everyone through growth doesn't need balance. It needs any attempt at "balance" to get the hell out of the way. Balance is just another way of shrinking a market and making everyone worse off by pretending you know how to make everyone better off.
A market-only approach, blind to other factors, is just as dangerous as any other.
Except, of course, in the real world.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Thanks
I don't think they would, because movie halls all over the world would screen the latest Hollywood movies without having to pay the studios anything. Isn't that a clear loss for the companies? Right now the figure runs into hundreds of millions.
That's only a loss if they don't replace it with other models that are more lucrative.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: one more point
I ask you: Why do we need more than one version of a movie? How does it benefit the consumer? If at all anyone benefits, it's the theater owner who'd gain the most, by simply raking in all the money without having to share it with the studio.
Competition does amazing things both for the market and for customers. What's wrong with competition?
I don't see a compelling need for companies to be forced to offer incentives to watch the "authorized" version.
Just as I don't see a compelling need for limiting an infinite resource and making it more difficult for creative people to be creative by giving monopolies to individuals.
As for being "forced" to offer incentives, that's ridiculous. Right now, do you think movie studios are "forced" to show movies and charge for them. What you see as being "forced" to do, I see as simply a good business model.
No one is forced to do anything.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: more
Part of the problem? For who?
For everyone. A less efficient market means a smaller market. That means less overall profit. Less overall social benefit.
And how is this a protectionist system?
Copyright grants a gov't monopoly, which is, by its definition protectionism.
Do movie producers get some special subsidy or tax rebate?
They get a monopoly over the content.
How does it compare with a sugar monopoly?
Just as with a sugar monopoly, only one person (or company) gets to control the entire market for the product. No one else is able to improve upon it or make it more efficient.
In this case, more of the product doesn't translate into more profits for creator; it certainly means more profits for third parties who won't have to pay the creator.
It does mean more profits for those who implement good business models. The fact that it might *also* create more profits for 3rd parties is a positive externality.
Movies can still be made efficiently if only studio managements recognize the need for fresh ideas, spot good storytellers, give them enough financial incentive, give artists more freedom, try and focus on the storytelling than the bullshit CGI, etc, etc...none of which need the abolition of copyright.
Sure it does. Without copyright, all of those things would become much more important -- which is the key point. Competition in the market would drive a better product.
How is it a good thing when 100 million people all over the world are watching my movie, in theaters, with not a single dime coming back to me?
You make a false assumption that not a single dime comes back to you. You keep doing that every time we have these discussions.
Which part of "you implement new business models" didn't make sense?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Movie Industry without Copyright
This is only helpful if the theaters send the profits (after construction costs, heating/ac, food, service staff, etc.) back to the production company, and the production company distributes those profits to the involved parties, etc. Much of this depends on copyright, sales of rights, and licensing of rights to function. Then there's the difficulty of maintaining profits from ticket sales alone.
It doesn't depend on copyright. These days it does because copyright is there. But in the absence of copyright, other models will rise up. Movie theaters will need to ensure that good movies are being made in order to sell more tickets to seats, so they have every incentive in the world to help fund those movies.
This may be true, but it has no bearing on whether or not copyright is a good idea. Watch the sloppy logic.
Actually, it has a ton of bearing on whether or not copyright is a good idea. After all, the whole point of copyright is to provide incentive to create content. If the process is more efficient and better without copyright, then doesn't it stand to reason that copyright should be removed?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Movie Industry without Copyright
Distribution of profits does not "depend on copyright"; if I get what you are saying it would depend on a contract law (i.e. both parties sign into a contract).
First, there is no one saying that ticket sales is the only way to make money.
Second, you are focused on the currently (broken) model that media companies and artists need to make obscenely large profits from their works. Why is this? Why can't movie directors, producers, writers, actors, ... make enough money from the proceeds of their works to put a roof over their heads, food in their families' bellies and be comfortable?
Abolishing copyright might affect the ability of top actors from making millions of dollars for relatively small amount of work. But the opportunities for anyone else to make a living will increase dramatically. More works can be produced on less money and have much less stressful business models.
The argument that this would then exclude the ability to create Big Budget movies (note: not necessarily good movies, just expensive ones) is coming from people who don't understand how to execute on a market demand. If people actually want a hundred-million dollar movie, then someone will figure out how to produce and monetize it.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Re: The Market Doesn't Care About the Public Good
Corporations are abusing the legislative process, so the answer is more legislation for them to abuse?
No, the answer is to improve the legislation so that corporations cannot abuse it. The only alternative to improved legislation is no legislation. No legislation (i.e., chaos) isn't helpful. A society without law, depending purely on economics/market forces, will soon be ripe for the rich to exploit.
We're being exploited because we've lost sight of the balance intended by the Constitution. Your answer, then, is to rid ourselves of such pesky limitations as the Constitution, balance, etc? How enlightened!
Except, of course, in the real world.
Please show me a well-functioning society where economics is the only driving force.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Movie Industry without Copyright
Why can't movie directors, producers, writers, actors, ... make enough money from the proceeds of their works to put a roof over their heads, food in their families' bellies and be comfortable?
I think that would be wonderful. Workers in these industries should indeed be able to live a relatively comfortable life, but it need not guarantee millions for anyone.
I'm not convinced this will/can work without copyright, though. I'm not saying I'm convinced it won't work, either. I'm still trying to get my head around it. Do you know of any substantive explanations (beyond a blog post) or real-world examples?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Substance
Mike -
It'd be great to engage in a conversation on substance, as I think you and I agree on more than might be apparent. For instance, I too worry about copyright law to the extent it blocks out new business models, and I too think copyright law at a minimum needs to change in light of all the new technologies and opportunities now at hand. Where we disagree, and where we could possibly have a really worthwhile conversation, are on issues like whether there is a way to allow copyright to keep doing the good work it has done in the past while still allowing for these new opportunities (I think yes) and on whether there is a meaningful difference between "commercial" and "non-commercial" infringement (I think the impact and scope of the infringement are much more important than the detail of whether someone is making money or getting some other positive feedback from the infringing act).
If you'd like to reach out via email, I'd certainly be happy to talk with you about maybe setting up a conversation between us here or elsewhere on these issues. My sense is that you have a lot of interesting points to make and we could have a worthwhile conversation. I resisted your original post because it felt more about being snarky/dismissive toward my views rather than wanting to really engage in the dialogue. If I misread your tone, apologies. But regardless, if you are attracted to the "let's talk about substance, respectfully and thoughtfully" style -- and you are, I think -- then let's find a way to do it. (Indeed, I was hoping the CATO event would be like that, but now I'm not so sure. The posts, even including mine, are more playful than substantive, which has charms but maybe isn't what everyone needed most.)
Reach out if you want.
Doug Lichtman
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Market Doesn't Care About the Public Good
The US Constitution does not actually require copyright or patent.
I argue in Constitutional Sanction that there are clear ways to protect an author's natural exclusive rights to their writings, or of an inventor to their designs, without abridging anyone's right to free speech.
Professor Lawrence Lessig once attempted to show that copyright conflicted with the right to free speech.
See http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2002/10/55612
and http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/01-618.htm
I'd argue that copyright was in complete conflict with the constitution the very moment it applies to a published work.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)