Scott Adams' Pointy Haired Views On Copyright
from the whose-cognitive-dissonance-was-that? dept
I've been quite busy lately and haven't had a chance to get much work done on the latest post about economics in the absence of scarcity, but it seems like Dilbert creator Scott Adams has picked up on a piece of the topic. dcm writes in to let us know: "Sounds like Adams has been reading your blog. He mentions a few reoccurring themes from your many entries, but comes to the opposite conclusions. Being a copyright owner, he sees it from a different perspective. I don't think I suffer from cognitive dissonance as he says, but that maybe that is the cognitive dissonance speaking. What do you think?"
It's an interesting read, and his description of the position statement of those who don't believe copyright infringement is the equivalent of stealing is almost word for word along the lines of what we generally say. However, where Adams gets confused is when he gets down into analogy land. He uses an argument about borrowing someone's underwear, cleaning it and putting it back -- but that's a bad example and not at all analogous. Also, the use of underwear and the idea of wearing someone else's is designed to make people react emotionally, not logically. The problem is that the analogy isn't at all valid, since the underwear is a scarce good -- and even if someone else takes it and cleans it, wearing it has a real "cost" to the original owner. The underwear is worn down slightly, the owner cannot wear it at the same time if he wanted to and there is, of course, that emotional cost of knowing someone else is wearing your underwear. However, a much more analogous situation is that someone learns that you wear one kind of underwear and makes a similar pair for themselves. In fact, to make it even more analogous, say that someone has created a special replicating machine that allows you to replicate the style of anyone's underwear that you like. That's what's happening. Suddenly, it doesn't seem nearly as bad.
The bigger problem with Adams' essay, however, is that he seems confused about how markets work. He complains that the "loss" created by infringement is the creator's right to control how a work is marketed. Unfortunately, there is no such right. If I build a chair and someone buys it, then they can then market it however they want. The creator doesn't retain control. Or, if you want to get even more specific, if I build a chair and someone else likes it and builds their own similar chair, again they can market it however they want. In fact, as we were just discussing, this is pretty much how the fashion industry works -- and it's working out quite well there, creating all sorts of incentives for continual growth, creativity and innovation. Once a product is out in the market, the original creator no longer gets to keep control over it.
Finally, it's quite weak of Adams to then pick some very poorly thought out defenses of copyright infringement and use that as evidence that everyone who disagrees with copyright policy has cognitive dissonance on the issue. It's a blanket way of brushing off all criticism without addressing the actual points. All in all, Scott Adams is an intelligent and thoughtful guy -- so it's too bad that his argument on this particular topic wasn't more compelling.
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
one question.... can i therefore replicate a chair that i have and sell it for profit...
if so then why cant i replicate somthing like a cd and sell it for profit...
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Those who live in glass houses.
You criticize Adams for using an emotional argument with the underwear analogy and yet you belittle his arguments by saying that he is "confused" by this and "confused" by that.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
compete with free and immediate
Adams says you can't compete with free and immediate. One way to complete against free and immediate is by being free, immediate and authoritative.
Open source projects compete on (at least) these three aspects all the time. If an authoritative project isn't free or has slow development, one will pop up that is immediate (or at least faster release cycle) or free. If there are numerous forks that are equal in freedom, price, and development speed, causing market confusion, one will, eventually, rise up and be authoritative (usually though increased marketing or developer mindshare).
Usually, being authoritative isn't even something you can obtain easily. It has to do with brand recognition, track record/history, and consumer adoption.
I wonder how many more sales of the print version of Adams' book (to use one of his examples) would result by actually _undercutting_ free and immediate by putting the book up, for free, on his website when or before it's published and providing a link right next to it that says 'buy the print version now!'. As the creator and copyright owner, he's effectively the only one that can do that.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Those who live in glass houses.
Would it have been better to just come out and say "Scott Adams was wrong about this"?
Saying he is wrong implies that he was incapable of generating the correct answer, which I am told can be insulting (I personally don't understand why that would be insulting).
While saying he is confused implies that he overlooked some aspect of the issue and just has not yet figured it out.
Which is worse? Being told you had all of the information and were still wrong or being told that you just don't seem able to grasp the issue? Either way it will seem insulting and emotionally based to *someone* out there.
Is there a way to say that someone is wrong politely?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Get a life
Scott is just a shit-stirrer who likes to inflame passions and stand back to watch the conflagration. And he has sound business reasons for doing so. So, since you are not a reader of the dilbert blog, like dcm is, you swallowed his bait, hook line and sinker.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Scott Adams
Is a trained hypnotist, after all. He likes to use subliminal effects and hypnotic induction in his writing. It's actually quite tricky if you know to look for it.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Why do you have to be 'polite' to tell someone they are wrong?
If someone is unable to deal with criticism - harsh, constructive or otherwise, they need to move back in with their mommies and grow up.
It's become far too politically correct to not offend anyone, which in turn limits our abilities and options. Life is not about limits and tip toeing around issues so nobody gets offended - especially when they are wrong.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
“I agree with your analysis of your hallucinatio
Scott Adams does not put forth what he believes on his blogs (in general). He puts for thought experiments and asks what you think of them. He enjoys reading the responses, especially the ones by people who totally misrepresent what he said or what he believes. From his blog a few days later:
"
My New Favorite Response
I’ve noticed that a lot of people, if not most, have sharp disagreements with what they hallucinate to be my opinions.
...
Anyway, I’m trying out my new favorite response to the people who get angry over their hallucinations of my opinions:
'I agree with your analysis of your hallucination.'"
As has already been said, he likes to stir up shit. He also likes to stir up peoples minds and he enjoys seeing what comes out afterwards.
The reason I enjoy reading his blog is that he doesn't make an argument to be right, but to see what comes out of it. It's fun. Sometimes it gives you a new perspective on things. But to take it as a serious analysis is to miss the point completely. I found the Techdirt analysis of his idea (not his belief necessarily) informative and thought provoking.
Interestingly, your chair example holds up only if you don't agree not to resell that chair by contract--just as with a software license. Of course, no one would buy a chair with that condition and they would rightly be shocked at the idea. Which shows how out of sync with the rest of the market copyright is.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Kinda missing his point...
This is a pretty weak criticism of Scott Adams' argument. He set up the original analogy to make it clear that the owner hasn't been inconvenienced (presumably he was wearing other underwear at the time), and the degree of erosion the fabric would suffer is so trivial as to be irrelevant if, as per the analogy, we're talking about a single incident.
The emotional cost was the important one, and it was the whole point of the original analogy. I would imagine that a musician whose new album is distributed via bittorrent ahead of the release date would find rather more common ground with Adams' analogy than with your hypothetical style replicating device, as it is his entire creative effort has been duplicated, it's not just some other performer doing an impression. It's the emotional loss of someone else getting a free ride from your efforts that Adams is highlighting. It would therefore have been useful if you had addressed it, rather than trying to reframe the argument in terms of real physical damage.
It wouldn't really have been all that difficult to focus on his real point, either - "it hurts my feelings" isn't a phenomenally persuasive economic argument, especially when accompanied by such a blatant strawman fallacy ("those against state-supported intellectual monopoly claim that they are doing me a favour by publicising my work more widely").
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
RE: Kinda missing his point... by Geeb
Jesus Geeb. Punch yourself in the face. Do it now Geeb. Punch yourself right on the nose. Anybody who can say with a straight face that copyright infringement is analogous to wearing somebody elses underwear should get punched in the face... daily... possibly by midgets so he can bend down to get the face beating. And if he doesn't he gets socked in the balls.
Are you seriously saying that artists feel emotional distress when people admire their work so much they want to obtain it, be it through piracy or not? What are you fucking nuts? The key word here is exposure, without exposure artists may as well just hang up their collective hats and jerk off to nurse porn 24/7.
If you're an artist and you put your work out there and NOBODY gives a shit, nobody pirates your crap. Not even china (who would pirate nose puppies if they could). Then, and only then should you feel emotional distress.
Fucking underwear. That is the most weak argument ever presented in the entire history of weak arguments.
Stop mucking about, there is no IRATE without PIRATE.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: RE: Kinda missing his point... by Geeb
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
DirtyTech
So what happens if I, say, want to setup a web site named DirtyTech, which posts my views on technology. It also, of course, will include your articles word-for-word. After all, once they're are on the web they're "non-scarce" and can be replicated at will.
At any rate, with a few well-placed ads and cross-posts on other sites I'm sure over time I can build a following, and, in the process, a tidy little business with Google ads and banners and some affiliate links. Probably won't do as well as yours, but it should keep me in pocket money. (Although on second thought, I have a decent fund I can tap into to buy traffic. Hmmm... maybe it won't take as long as I thought.) I can also piggy-back on a server used for another site, so I'll have no hostiing costs.
I'll also "re"-sell discounted research reports to those who may want them. After all, "once a product is out in the market, the original creator no longer gets to keep control over it."
Now, they are looking at my ads and not yours, and bumping my page views and not yours, and buying my reports, and not yours, but all of this shouldn't be an issue, since in all likelyhood you would never have "sold" those people in the first place. They might never have visited in the first place, or gone to some other site instead.
You might believe that with your content they would have been "your" customers, but any such claim of financial loss is obviously imaginary. After all, how could you, or anyone, know for sure?
Since I often have problems thinking up topics, this seems like a good solution to me. Especially since I have no qualms about taking credit for someone else's work.
But then again, the amount of work you put into your articles and posts and reports is irrelevant, isn't it? IIRC, production costs have no bearing on content once it's been produced.
I'll be back to check your answer. I need to visit GoDaddy and see what domains are available...
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Is it a crime? Is it victimless?
"I understand the point that copyright violations are different from theft of physical property, but is it a victimless crime?"
Here we come back to this point again. Linking victim and crime.
Scenario 1:
I read people palms and tell the future.
Someone else comes along and reads their palms.
I've lost palm reading customers.
Is it victimless? (No damn it, I'm the victim!) Is it a crime? (no)
Scenario 2:
Government wants to encourage palm reading as a commercial activity, so it creates a guild of palm readers.
I am a member, someone else who isn't a guild member comes along and reads their palms.
I've lost palm reading customers.
Is it victimless? (No damn it, I'm the victim again) Is it a crime? (Yes)
In both cases it's not victimless, I AM THE VICTIM WITH THE LOST CUSTOMER, but in scenario 2, it is also a crime.
My point is, just because there is a victim, it doesn't follow that a crime was committed.
I chose palmistry because it's a low rated skill and so not worthy of legal protection. It requires low investment in learning the trade and so it is easy to recover the costs.
If you spent 100 million making a movie, you have a different view of copyright, but you should never forget that copyright is a special legal construct of restricted extra rights SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF ENCOURAGING THE PRODUCTION OF NEW WORKS.
Not a *property* right at all, a legal construct to encourage new works. A TRADE, A DEAL, A BALANCE,
We get new works, you get some exclusive rights to that reproduce that work.
I lose some rights, you gain some rights, that balance is set so that you can make some money and encourages you to make more works.
Since Scott Adams is rich, the balance is set, if anything too far in his favor. A perfect free market would have him just covering his costs.
What is wrong with me printing off a dilbert cartoon and sticking it on the wall of my cubicle? If you think I should pay for the right to do that, then how can you quote other peoples works or use other people's cartoon ideas without ALSO paying them for their contribution?
BALANCE.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: DirtyTech
So you're basically saying competition is copyright infringement. In fact, that's pretty much what most companies also want to believe. In the same vein Google, Yahoo, Altavista, Web Crawler (add any other search engine) are copies of the same basic idea. Here's where quality of service and innovation comes into play, people go to the search engine they feel most comfortable with because of the quality it delivers. If its shit people will leave. So go ahead, start your DirtyTech, if its popular I'll visit it, if I like it I'll even drop TechDirt in favor of your own site. But chances are it won't, it'll suck as badly as you do in real life. That's why TechDirt doesn't give a shit. Chances are you'll just promote interest in the original, much cooler site.
Be your own MAN, a PIRATE has hair on his knuckles!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: RE: Kinda missing his point... by Geeb
Seems it's not just Scott Adams who can roll out a strawman fallacy in order to keep a good temper tantrum on the boil!
More weak from the pwner of lame. Are you bleeding yet Geeb? If not, punch yourself harder.
Ladies do you want adventure? Daring? Open Seas? Scurvy? Date a Pirate! TODAY!!!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Is it a crime? Is it victimless?
Since Scott Adams is rich, the balance is set, if anything too far in his favor. A perfect free market would have him just covering his costs.
What is wrong with me printing off a dilbert cartoon and sticking it on the wall of my cubicle? If you think I should pay for the right to do that, then how can you quote other peoples works or use other people's cartoon ideas without ALSO paying them for their contribution?
BALANCE.
Fucking right on! You sir, are an eloquent specimen with the heart of a true Pirate. I salute you!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
I left a somewhat detailed and lengthy comment on Adams' blog on why he was wrong about the copyright issue and his flawed analogy, but then I read the next post about cognitive dissonance and asked him to remove my post again.
It became quite obvious that he was more interested in making fun of people than in the topic at hand. It was not an attempt at a sincere exchange of views, it was a finger-pointing exercise where he could ridicule everyone else.
I'm surprised Techdirt took it seriously.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: DirtyTech
> Be your own MAN, a PIRATE has hair on his knuckles!
Oops, sorry everyone, my bad. Didn't mean to feed the troll - must have missed the sign on cage.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: DirtyTech
Oops, sorry everyone, my bad. Didn't mean to feed the troll - must have missed the sign on cage.
Haha, dont worry Geeb, everybody still thinks you're a loser. Including your mom.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Re: DirtyTech
Also... PIRATES RULE the seven seas!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
"...is almost word for word along the lines of what we generally say."
Is he plagiarizing?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
I think he's serious about the copyright violation topic, although his analogy of swiping underpants was more than a little goofy. I recall making the analogy here of borrowing a book from Border's from a large stack of identical copies, then sneaking it back in saleable condition two weeks later. Maybe that's why nobody has offered to syndicate my work (another reason is that I can't draw).
As for cognitive dissonance, you can see it clearly on sites such as Slashdot, when articles about DRM cracking and IT offshoring to India are posted on the same day. Watch where the majority sentiments are and which posts get modded up so they are expanded by default. Software and digitial content should be free... but where is the Bush administration when it comes to protecting good paying American jobs? It's laughable that they don't see they are advocating their own economic interests in each case. Maybe it comes down to defending one's lifestyle.
Of course, I'm sure I do the same as well, as it's easier to see other people's failings. Now why did that cop single me out when dozens of cars where whizzing by at 75 mph...?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
artists vs. piracy?
Have you ever noticed that the only artists who speak out *against* piracy are the ones who are already rich and famous? Sure... the system worked for them, so they don't see any problem with it. Never mind that it's 5 kinds of broken, and that somewhere along the way they probably benefited from unauthorized distribution of their stuff without even realizing it.... I mean seriously, would Scott Adams have sold as many books if his comics weren't illegally photocopied and posted in offices around the world? I seriously doubt it.
And the underwear analogy was incredibly weak. And honestly, if it didn't involve physical intrusion into my house, I'd be okay with somebody borrowing my undies and returning them clean. But as Mike points out, Scott is deliberately trying to make the argument emotional rather than rational. Because, I suspect, he realizes he can't win a rational argument on this topic.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: artists vs. piracy? by Wolfger
I mean seriously, would Scott Adams have sold as many books if his comics weren't illegally photocopied and posted in offices around the world?
The answer is no and I win a vowel.
And the underwear analogy was incredibly weak.
Yes it is. Some people (and by some people I mean Geeb) cant seem to grasp that. I guess maybe blind fanboism is to blame but seriously, what the fuck? Underwear? Gimme a break.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Chairman
by Chair man on Apr 16th, 2007 @ 11:51pm
one question.... can i therefore replicate a chair that i have and sell it for profit...
if so then why cant i replicate somthing like a cd and sell it for profit...
------------
you can...grab your guitars, keyboards and drums and get in the studio...be the next boy band or post-grunger or whatever...imitation is the sincerest form of flattery...however uncreative that may be...that's why we have nickleback...
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
You people (TechDirt writers) crack me up. You're exactly as Adams describes. And you're so self-deluded you can't even see it.
TechDirt has become a good source of comedy over the last couple years.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
"I mean seriously, would Scott Adams have sold as many books if his comics weren't illegally photocopied and posted in offices around the world?"
That may be true, but there is a big difference between copying one cartoon and putting it in your office for a handful of coworkers to see and making an exact copy of the entire book and giving it away for free.
Lending a CD to one friend so they can listen and see if they like it is the same as posting the cartoon (it's a just a sample of the whole product). Making an exact copy of the book and giving it to them gives them no incentive to purchase the book themselves. Why would they, they already have it?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Some quick points
Scott Adams has said numerous times that he is perfectly okay with people emailing his comics around.
Scott Adams is saying there is a cost, and its an emotional one. Techdirt and Dilbert are making the same point, only one feels the emotional cost is important, the other doesn't.
The reason why only big names complain isn't because they are big. Its because you have to be a big name to get your complaints public. Small no-name bands complain too, they just aren't heard. It takes "not caring about copyright" to get into the news for small groups.
The goal of the underwear analogy is to look ridiculous, but make you think. I would say "underwear replicator" is an even more ridiculous analogy.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
re: DirtyTech
I agree with the post by H Lancroft. It is morally wrong for someone to profit from plagiarizing someone else’s work, be it words, music or software.
The reason so many analogy’s break down (including Adams’) is because they try to compare this situation to something in the physical world and the come back is always the same line about scarcity.
That’s why this needs to compared with plagiarism and not theft. Plagiarism is wrong and there are real consequences for it. People lose their jobs over it.
Now, this situation SEEMINGLY gets grayer if you don't profit off the plagiarism because you just spread it around for free. However, just because you didn't try to market it doesn't mean you didn't plagiarize it. You copied something then offered it away on your terms, not the copywrite holder’s. Could this lead to a drop is sales of the original product? Probably, yes. The mere fact that pirated work COULD gain more notoriety and COULD lead to MORE sales simply can’t be the business model for all intellectual property and it is not being done by consent of the copywrite holder which makes that argument wrong.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Is it a crime? Is it victimless?
But copyright violation is not just healthy competition like with your palm readers... It's more like one of those palm readers psychicly reading another's mind and what he's going to say to every customer, then standing someways off and shouting at any that approach the tent of the other palm reader "I can give you the exact same fortune for a few bucks less." Comparing something like mp3s to the physical often makes no sense, and any analogy can be thought of from both perspectives.
Also, Scott Adams isn't upset when you post a cartoon around your office; it's when you reprint the cartoon and profit off of it. A little more reasonable.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Scott Adams' Pointy Haired Views On Copyright
Right up front, I created a site and technology platform that addresses this issue....I want you all to know right up front....check out www.9thxchange.com....i have been to Hollywood on many occasions and spoken to heads of Disney, MLB, NBA, Sony, etc....and they STILL just dont get it. Why shouldnt consumers be allowed to RESELL their digital purchases like we can RESELL a chair.....well, since the laws state you cant, we created a solution we are offering that ALLOWS people to legally RESELL items, while we capture and pay the copyright holder on each RESALE....we believe that this is a decent solution that bridges the gap between piracy and copyright holders...it is not the ONLY solution...but we believe most people are honest and would love to LEGALLY RESELL their digital products....and should be able to...I am going to contact Scott Adams and see what he says abou that.... Comments?
John
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Mee too
that copyright is a special legal construct of restricted extra rights SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF ENCOURAGING THE PRODUCTION OF NEW WORKS.
Well said sir. Nice to see that someone has been reading the Constitution.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Some quick points
Why is an "underwear replicator" a ridiculous analogy? What's the difference between that and right-clicking on an .mp3 file, making an exact copy of it, and emailing it to a friend?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Copyright infringement
One thing that is true is that we should all have the freedom to make poor business decisions. I don't think you would get much argument on the subject of whether or not record companies (for example) *should* allow people to freely download their music. The argument is whether or not they should be *forced* to allow people to freely download their music.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
So what happens if I, say, want to setup a web site named DirtyTech, which posts my views on technology.
Take Dorpus with you, M'kay?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: DirtyTech
I have no qualms about taking credit for someone else's work.
no where in p2p, or you tube, or any other "infringing" activity that the content industry is so scared of does someone take credit for someone else's work.
pirated copies of windows all still say microsoft on them. even cutomized slipz like the ones from eXPerience still say microsoft on them.
when i download an episode of "lost" or whatever from BT, the "pwnzr crew" isn't passing the show off at thiers. they want you to know they released it, yes, so you recognize how leet they are, but no one expects you to think they made the show.
that is the problem with calling this stuff theft.
it's unauthorized, it's unappreciated, and it might be illegal, but it's not theft.
if i jack you for your car, you need to come up with another car somehow. if it was a $20,000 car, you are now out $20,000 unless you get the car back in the same condition as before. that's theft.
if i publish your book with my name on it, that is theft. i am getting paid for your work and you aren't. letting my friends read my copy isn't theft.
if you worked your ass off on a book report in college and got an A, and i made copies of it and handed them out to people saying "H Lancroft wrote this paper and got an A, check it out!" that isn't theft.
the people all know you wrote it. they *might* even ask you to write more.
"but what if someone tries to hand it off as their own and get an A too?"
well, thanks to all those copies i handed out, it's pretty easy to prove that your paper is the original.
even if you told me to stop handing out your paper, a rational argument would be "why not? it's a great paper! why don't you want people to read it?"
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Those who live in glass houses.
Yes, but he provided good reasons to back it up.
That's not belittling at all, but drawing a conclusion based on the statements Scott Adams made.
Essentually, he said "He seems confused because his arguments don't make sense." And then gives detailed reasons why. It seems that either you have extremely thin skin, or you are confusing debating and name-calling.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: DirtyTech
even if you told me to stop handing out your paper, a rational argument would be "why not? it's a great paper! why don't you want people to read it?"
It doesn't matter why I might not want other people to read it, it's my paper and I can do what I want with it.
That's the point here, the content belongs to the copyright holder and they can do with it as they please. Just because you like it and think others should read/watch/listen to it, doesn't give you the right or permission to distribute it on the copyright holder's behalf. If I want to create content with absurdly restrictive DRM on it, that's my right. Just like it's your right to not buy it or watch it or listen to it.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
"Intelligent and thoughtful"
Remember, this is the same "intelligent and thoughtful guy" who, in an interview some years back, said "there are two types of people in the world: the ones who are creative and become engineers, and everyone else, who go into the service industry." No doubt that sort of observation requires a special form of cognitive dissonance that Scott Adams can call his own.
I enjoy the strip and read it to this day, but I learned a long time ago not to pay much attention to what comes out of Adams' mouth.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
I think Scott Adams is right
Copyrights make intellectual property more valuable, which increases the incentive to create new and interesting work.
Your argument that only physical goods should be protected ignores the vast amounts of time and effort people put into creating things(probably because you put so little thought into your blog posts).
At some point if these rights are continually infringed, people will stop designing things. Please explain how you expect this copyright-free society to work.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
To sum up this riveting conversation:
"Money is STILL the root of all evil."
If we all lived in a society where everybody worked to the betterment of mankind and there was no money or greed to be concerned with, then everything would indeed be free and immediate and whatnot. The point it, as long as people think they can get something for nothing, there will always be a piracy problem. There is simply no way humanly possible to thwart it. I say just accept it, get on with your life, and continue producing original works worth buying. If it is worth buying, people will buy it. Maybe not as many as you would like, but they will.
Part of the problem with piracy is the difference in price. Do I think a CD is worth $18? Heck no. Would I say it's worth $10 or maybe even $12? Yes. Same goes for movies and software and all other digital content. How many people think Microsoft Office should cost hundreds of dollars? Not many. If software like that was capped at a maximum price of $200, people might think a lot differently about the whole pirating thing, because it would be much easier to believe that they're getting their money's worth from the product. If companies stopped being so greedy and started caring about giving the customer a worthwhile piece of content for a reasonable price, I think the situation would be quite a bit different than it is now.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
...
It's just a blog...not an essay...sometimes people try to read into things more than they should and this is a perfect example. You must just like to hear yourself talk...idiot.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: I think Scott Adams is right
Copyright is a relatively new construct. Music, art, literature, etc. were around LONG before there was copyright, and they would still exist and new stuff would still be created if copyright was abolished. Why? Because true artists are compelled to do what they do by something inside them, and do it for the sheer sake of creating something.
Copyrights are also supposed to be for a limited time. In the United States I believe it was originally 14 years. I think 50 years from the time it is first put into a tangible medium is plenty of time, with an optional one-time renewal of 25 years.
Also, I think intellectual property should be subject to property tax, just like any other property.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
It's a new model
If a company designs a new car, it costs them a lot of money, resources, etc. Those are one time costs. Reproducing the car costs much less, but the costs are still significant. Over time, the company will recoup their one time costs and make a profit on the car.
The music industry currently operates the same way. A band expends time and effort to create some new music. Those are the one time costs. The music was then reproduced either on vinyl, cassette or cd, distributed and sold. Those were the recurring costs.
This is the model of business that the RIAA has been trying to legislate into perpetuity just as they've managed to legislate copyrights into perpetuity. Many of their one time costs have been going down - studios are cheaper to build, more people have expertise in recording, etc. Their recurring costs have also been falling. What the web in general and p2p and mp3 and all of these other technologies have done though is drop thier recurring cost to just about zero.
I recall a quote somewhere that said "if you can't compete with free, you can't compete at all". What free duplication and distribution has done is created a disruptive shift in the business of monetizing music. Movies, books and software are also in line for this shift, but music is first. Software actually dealt with it once before.
What it means is that the old way of making money from music isn't viable anymore. The law should not be used to prop up an outmoded business model. I've talked to young bands that have new ideas. They distribute their music for free on the web. Their business model is to sell concert tickets, t-shirts, posters, and even some cd's. But instead of DRMing and crying about the pirates, they're using the free distribution pipeline to create a wide word of mouth style marketing strategy rather than the traditional big record contract method. They're realistic about the money they'll make and maybe that's the biggest difference...
The days of the multi-million dollar contract may be over. The days of big record companies may also be over. It's not to say that you can no longer make a fine living as a musician, you just might have to tone down your tastes from that Beverly Hills mansion and the Ferrari.
A new paradigm always brings pain for the old guard and opportunities for those wise enough to see them.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Talking past each other
Two sides seem to be talking past each other.
Scott Adam's Point: Piracy is bad as your taking something away from the creator. It should be the creators choice whether ot make it free or not.
Techdirts point: DRM is bad as a person should be allowed to legally do whatever they want with what they bought.
I think both sides can easily agree that if you bought something legally, you should be able to do what you want with it, but you should have bought it legally in the first place.
When you create the music. It should be up to you whether you want it spread for free or not. It should not be the choice of others. In the same vein. If someone has bought the mp3 of a song, it doesn't mean they have the right to copy it and give it to all their friends, it does mean that they can give that single copy of an mp3 to anyone they want (which current DRM would not allow).
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: DirtyTech
So what happens if I, say, want to setup a web site named DirtyTech, which posts my views on technology. It also, of course, will include your articles word-for-word. After all, once they're are on the web they're "non-scarce" and can be replicated at will.
Yup. And as we've said repeatedly, we have no problem with people taking our content and reposting it. It's funny how many people come here, like yourself, and assume you've found some "gotcha." You haven't. There already are about 10 sites that copy Techdirt, post for post. Some of them give us credit. Some of them don't. We don't go after any of them.
Here's why:
1. None of those sites get any traffic. By itself, they offer nothing special.
2. If anything, it doesn't take people long to read those sites and figure out that the content is really from Techdirt. Then they just come here to the original source. So, it tends to help drive more traffic to us. That's cool.
3. As soon as the people realize the other sites are simply copying us, it makes those sites look really, really bad. If you want to risk your reputation like that, go ahead, but it's a big risk.
4. A big part of the value of Techdirt is the community here. You can't just replicate that.
5. Another big part of the value of Techdirt is that we, the writers, engage in the comments. You absolutely cannot fake that on your own site.
So, really, what's the purpose of copying our content, other than maybe driving a little traffic our way?
So, if you really want to, I'd suggest it's pretty dumb, but go ahead.
You might believe that with your content they would have been "your" customers, but any such claim of financial loss is obviously imaginary. After all, how could you, or anyone, know for sure?
You seem confused about our business model. We sign people up to provide them specific content *going forward*. In other words, that content is scarce before it's provided. Once that content is provided, we really don't care what's done with it. However, you can't replicate our ability to provide insight going forward. So go ahead. Copy all you want. Our business model is proofed against that, and about the only thing you'll do is either get more people interested in Techdirt... or make yourself look like a bunch of uncreative copycats. I don't see how that's beneficial for you, but if you want to try...
Since I often have problems thinking up topics, this seems like a good solution to me. Especially since I have no qualms about taking credit for someone else's work.
You misread what I said. I never said I have no qualms about taking credit for someone else's work. There's a very big cost if your caught. Your reputation (a scarce good) gets destroyed. I don't understand why you'd take the risk, but if you want to...
But then again, the amount of work you put into your articles and posts and reports is irrelevant, isn't it? IIRC, production costs have no bearing on content once it's been produced.
Again, you've misread our position. All of our past work simply helps promote our ability to do future work. So if you want to help promote our past work, PLEASE do. Thank you!
I'll be back to check your answer. I need to visit GoDaddy and see what domains are available...
How'd it go? Please let us know once you've set up the site.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
how about this analogy?
Instead of comparing ip to underwear, i have decided to start a website with my own advertising and business. The focus of the website will be all the techdirt articles. Each hour my website will mirror the articles and comments appearing on techdirt. I will of course credit techdirt for its hard work and labor, but will sell my other tech services around these articles. The reader will have no need to go to your site, because he will be able to read them on mine. You of course should have no problem with this, because you can compete with "even freer." And since im not really "stealing" anything from you, there is no problem right?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: I think Scott Adams is right
But in those times the ABILITY to copy was extremely limited due to lack of technology/means. Therefore the need for copyrights was probably not perceived.
Also don't overlook that most artists were paid for their (irreproducible). A "Patron of the Arts" was known as someone who paid for the privelege to enjoy an artist's work. And usually it was for a period of time and not just by piece.
So the "holier than thou" argument of doing it only for the love of creating doesn't really hold up so well.
Copyright is a relatively new construct. Music, art, literature, etc. were around LONG before there was copyright, and they would still exist and new stuff would still be created if copyright was abolished. Why? Because true artists are compelled to do what they do by something inside them, and do it for the sheer sake of creating something.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: how about this analogy?
or maybe it can be packaged better, have a better search and index, then techclean.com can charge for access. of course there are some who will not realize they can get this for free, so they will pay techclean.com.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: how about this analogy?
Instead of comparing ip to underwear, i have decided to start a website with my own advertising and business. The focus of the website will be all the techdirt articles. Each hour my website will mirror the articles and comments appearing on techdirt. I will of course credit techdirt for its hard work and labor, but will sell my other tech services around these articles. The reader will have no need to go to your site, because he will be able to read them on mine. You of course should have no problem with this, because you can compete with "even freer." And since im not really "stealing" anything from you, there is no problem right?
Look at the comment right above yours. I already answered that. Go for it. It will backfire for a variety of reasons I explain above, but if you can make it work, go for it.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: how about this analogy?
or maybe it can be packaged better, have a better search and index, then techclean.com can charge for access. of course there are some who will not realize they can get this for free, so they will pay techclean.com.
Yup. Go for it. If you can do a better search and index that will just encourage us to improve our search.
As for charging for the stuff we're giving away for free, good luck with that. But, if you can make it work, good for you. Thing is, people will soon figure out that we're offering that content for free (and faster) and that we're also involved in the discussion (which wouldn't be the case for what you sell) and then you're going to have some *very* angry customers on your hands. I'm not sure why you'd want to risk that, but it's your business decision to make.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: artists vs. piracy?
To further your case, Metallica benefited from unauthorized distribution of their songs. When they were first starting up, they sent a demo tape to several places and at least one of them made copies to pass out to friends. By the time they got thier first club show they had a huge fanbase. Metallica had rabid fans before they released an album or performed live due to unauthorized distribution. With P2P and bittorrent, their example could go into hyperdrive in today's world.
Another point in favor of your case. An unsigned band recorded a CD on their home equipment and one of their friends leaked a copy to the local radio station. One of their songs got played by accident and by the end of the month that band had a record deal. I don't want to name any names in this case to protect certain persons.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Those who live in glass houses.
Pointing out that someone is confused is not an emotional argument.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Adams blogs for publicity
I think Scott Adams blogs to start comment wars that end up getting his site and him publicity. After all, he offers his own book Gods' Debris in e-book form for free and encourages you to distribute it to your friends. Seems to me Scott Adams follows TechDirts line of thinking in using non-scarce resources, the e-book, to promote a non-scarce resource, his reputation.
This makes sense, since he makes quite a bit of money from speaking engagements, and not just from dilbert merchandise.
I got that he was more concerned about the ability to control what happens to creative content after it is out of the creators hands, rather than the monetary aspect. However that would be a strange extra right for owners of intellectual property seeing as how people who create physical products do not have the same right.
In regards to the comment about a lack of copyright in the past, few arts were for mass consumption in the past. Theatrical arts were consumed by the most number of people, and stealing other people's works word for word was abundant. That was offset though by the fact that in most countries public theatres had to have permission from a government agent to operate so there was still a source of artificial scarcity imposed by law.
In the end, intellectual property is an artifice of government, so laws governing it need to take into account all people, not just those at the top. Those who claim to have a right to complete control over their creative work, and those who claim a right to partake of others creative work are ridiculous and should be laughed at. It's fine to debate the issue, but it is not an issue of rights or morality. It is an issue of policy that should take into account the views of the people. If the people of the United State want to scrap intellectual property completely or strengthen it or adjust it, it is the duty of the lawmakers to do so even if they think it is the wrong decision, because intellectual property is not a right, it is not enumerated in the constitution or Bill of Rights.
The largest problem in the issue of intellectual property right now is the perception that intellectual property laws were written for an elite group of people who held sway, legally or illegally it doesn't matter, over lawmakers and ignored the will of the people at whose discretion the government is allowed to exist. One of the principles in the declaration of independence is that people have not just a right, but an obligation to rebel when the government oversteps its authority. This not an endorsement of breaking the law, but an observation that I believe is a major force behind it. We are not a country that blindly follows the rule of law.
In the end, the attempts to strengthen intellectual property laws are what I think has caused a lot of the backlash against it. Bad analogy time: If there's enough beer at a party for everyone to have two beers, and a guy grabs three for himself without asking anyone if he can have their beer, he gets beat up.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Get a life
That's a nice defense, but it's garbage, commonly used by Usenet trolls to deflect criticism of a particularly insipid or stupid train of thought.
"I was only kidding" or "lighten up, I'm just trying to piss you off".
The fact that you are employing this defense of Scott's ineffectual analogies indicates you know it's crap.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: "Intelligent and thoughtful"
"I enjoy the strip and read it to this day, but I learned a long time ago not to pay much attention to what comes out of Adams' mouth."
AOL
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
All these analogies...
I'm all for trying to simplify a situation in order to help people understand but copyright infringment analogies have gotten to the point where the analogy itself becomes the topic of discussion instead of what the analogy was trying to simplify.
If someone would clear up all these analogies I think people would have a much better understanding of copyright infringment.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Oops, whoa, dude. I've soiled your breeches.
...But fear not, as the original content remains intact, and credit is given where due.
As consolation, my accidental/unintended contribution, (when viewed in the absence of emotion), ultimately serves you - as an affirmation; as a true measure of your generosity.
I have not sullied your reputation, but in your stead, I have garnered and reinforced future support for your continued success.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Dirtytech sounds really wrong... i dunno bout you guys but i certainly wouldnt visit there...
however if that person made a site lets say: Tech-dirtz and just replicated the stories here... but pimped out the visual layout
hell yeah i would visit that...
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Get a life
Thanks for pointing out my behaviour might be likened to that of a usenet troll. That is a compelling argument on your part. For the record: YOU are agreeing with ME, that Scotts statement was crap designed to find what insects will come swarming around the stink. And now you and me are buzzing about it. :-)
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Mike, I know I am late to this party, but I am in New Jersey and have been bailing water out of my garage since yesterday. I usually don't promote products, but Lowes sells a 16 gallon wet/dry vac that you can hook up a garden hose to and pump water out. Comes in handy when you have a 1,000 gallons of water in your basement. Don't have to empty the tank. I would have got the 20 gallon model, but they were out.
Anyway, The poster that asked you if you would mind “stealing” articles from Techdirt asked the wrong question. The question that should have been asked is “Would you be OK with me signing up for your corporate intelligence feeds and then posting your feeds and analysis on my website where I can either give free access or charge for it?”
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
Anyway, The poster that asked you if you would mind “stealing” articles from Techdirt asked the wrong question. The question that should have been asked is “Would you be OK with me signing up for your corporate intelligence feeds and then posting your feeds and analysis on my website where I can either give free access or charge for it?”
RandomThoughts, I saw you posted the same thing to your blog, and I responded there. I think you misunderstand our business. We do not provide general "feeds" for clients. We provide custom analysis for each client based on their specific needs. Often, the analysis is so custom that it isn't particularly useful to others.
We have no problem if our clients post the content we provide them publicly. In fact, if that helps promote what we've done for them, that's great. They pay us to create custom analysis, and we do so. Once we're paid, why should we care what they do with the content?
However, while you're interested, if you would like to become a client, please do let us know, and we'll see if we can help provide analysis for you.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re:
where I can either give free access or charge for it
Oh, I should add that we've had clients that charge for access to our content as well. For a while (though, this is no longer the case) we had one of our customers who was reselling our content along with some of their own content, and they made quite a bit of money on it. We did fine ourselves -- and we actually got more business out of it. When those clients found out the content originally came from us and we do custom work, they came to us to see if we could do more custom work for their specific situations, rather than the stuff they were getting from our other customer.
Worked out great for us.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Your entire argument...
You offer an analogy: "If I buy a chair, I can go ahead and build a new chair and resell it. This is how the fasion industry works"
This analogy is flawed: When you build a new chair, you have created something of value. You need materials, you need time and labor to create it. Once you sell it you no longer have it, and must build a new one to sell it again. You aren't allowed to put the same label on it as the original, because you didn't design it.
If you upload an MP3 ripped from a cd you bought to a file sharing site, you have created nothing of value, yet you have removed the value from the original owner. The owner no longer has the ability to sell that thing, because an exact copy is available for free... and you can keep doing that forever, you have no resources to lose when you do it again.
You must be confused.
There, I've used your entire argument to debunk your own argument. See how useless your article is?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Fashion Industry as an Analogy
You said, "this is pretty much how the fashion industry works". Sort of. Actually, this is exactly how numerous lawsuits in the fashion industry are started. Not being a copyright owner myself, but recognizing the value in the creativity of others, I must say that your logic leads you to be a common thief. Nothing more. Just a thief. If that's OK with you, fine. But, at least do not be a hypocrite as well.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
No win situation
I don't think you are ever going to get everyone on the same page on this topic. How about this as a start...
If I researched, designed and built a chair, I have the right to sell it to anyone, in anyway I please. It makes good business sense for me to sell that chair for enough to at least make my original and recurring costs back, but I can do it for less, even free, that's my choice. The buyer of that chair also has a choice, they can keep it, use it, burn it, or even sell it. But once they sell it, they don't have it anymore, it's been transferred. I am not bothered by that, I have been compensated for 1 chair and there is 1 chair out there, whoever has it. That's fair, that's consumerism, love it or hate it. Now, if the first buyer had the ability to exactly replicate my chair, via magic wand or some other low cost solution, they did not buy the right to distribute any more than the 1 they bought. It is colorfull commentary at best, that if they distribute *my* chairs that I eventually profit from it. That wasn't what they bought. They bought 1 chair. I am not entitled to tell them what they do with that chair, who they can let sit in the chair, give it away to, or even if they paint it or anything similar. They can even disect the chair, and build one thats errily similar. As long as it doesn't cross the line of duplication, they are within their rights. I would be within my rights to allow or even encourage use of the magic wand to distribute my chairs, heck it might help promote them, and sell more. But it's my right to sell the product as 'for distribution'