If You're Going To Argue In Favor Of Copyright, It Might Help To Do Some Research First
from the just-a-suggestion dept
TechCrunch's Michael Arrington is a welcome addition to group of people who have come around to recognizing that copyright law is problematic these days. His arguments won't surprise many around here, but his latest post on the subject got a bizarre response from Hank Williams (not the musician) at Silicon Alley Insider, insisting that Arrington's thoughts on copyright were flat out "wrong." Williams is the same guy who wrote a troublesome post explaining that there were no reasonable business models built on "free." That was easy enough to debunk, but Williams is back making simply incorrect claims in his attempt to refute Arrington.
Let's go through some of William's assertions and point out why they're either wrong or ill-informed.
First, if music goes down, so will every other form of copyrighted material including ultimately books, movies, TV, etc.This assumes that without copyright, content creation goes down. There's no evidence to support this. In fact, we see more content creation today than ever before in history, and most of it is not because of copyright in the slightest.
Second, there is no evidence *at all* that free music on the Internet is an effective (i.e. successful career building) marketing tool.That's simply untrue. Mr. Williams may not have found such evidence, but it's only because he didn't look very hard. The number of bands who exist solely because of their ability to build a following on the internet is rather large at this point, with plenty of bands crediting the internet's ability for easy distribution and marketing for their own ability to exist.
There have been no blockbuster successes that have come from, for example Garageband availability. I don't think you could even count more than a handful -- if that -- internet-based artists making a living from music.Of course, that depends on how you define "blockbuster" success. Williams seems to define it narrowly to suit his purposes, and that completely undermines his argument. Bands like the Arctic Monkeys created the following that turned them into a huge success via the internet. Maria Schneider won a Grammy with a model that relied on internet support. Flo Rida, whose music I keep hearing in random places, built up his following using the internet. And those are ones I can think of off the top of my head. We get examples sent to us practically every day of bands successfully using these models that don't rely on copyright. It's difficult to see how Williams can claim with a straight face that there's no evidence that it works. It also makes me wonder if Williams has ever been on the MySpace page of even a moderately successful independent musician.
Third, if the recorded music industry goes down, concert sales will not grow -- they will shrink. This is because the money that goes into creating concert demand (all from record label marketing) will disappear. People *will* see fewer concerts and they will cost less money because of reduced demand. So not only will the recorded music business disappear, but so will the much of the live music business. So there will be no "live music windfall" to share. Revenue in live music will shrink substantially from where it is today.That's quite an assertion considering exactly the opposite has been happening. Recorded music sales have been shrinking rapidly over the past few years. Concert revenue, on the other hand, is at an all time high. Williams is simply incorrect and clearly hasn't done the research. In fact, the numbers we've seen have shown the same thing consistently: every single aspect of the music business is on the upswing, except for sales of shiny discs. Concert revenue is up. The number of people making music is up. The number of people earning money from their musical careers is up. Even the instrument sales business has been up. The music business is doing great -- and it has nothing to do with copyright. The demise of copyright hasn't done anything to hurt the other aspects of the business, despite William's uninformed conjecture.
As for William's reasons for why it will shrink, it shows a profound misunderstanding of how the music business works today. We've already established that he doesn't understand that internet promotion works, but it does. So the fact that you don't have a record label out pushing your CD isn't a problem for the other parts of the music business, because the internet and the ability to connect directly with fans via social networks and websites has taken up the slack.
Williams then goes on a tangent about the purpose of laws being to protect others from harm, which all sounds nice, but really is besides the point here. As we've pointed out at length, and backed up with economic research and examples, there are new business models being developed that allow everyone to be better off. Bands make more money, fans get access to more music, and everyone's better off. Where is the "harm" that anyone needs to be protected from in that situation?
Williams then chides Arrington for not having any real suggestions on how to reform copyright law -- which may be true, but that doesn't mean others haven't thought it through. But, instead, Williams immediately jumps to the false conclusion that any change of copyright law will harm nearly the entire economy:
As I see it, the concept of "rethinking copyright" without specifics and without the willingness to follow things through to their natural conclusion is dangerous. This discussion must be about consequences. If you cannot propose solutions and provide reasonable answers to what the consequences are, such suggestions are only harmful because they embolden people to think that stealing intellectual property is acceptable and that IP protections are bad. But, In fact without intellectual property and attendant protections, we will be flushing down seven or eight percent of our economy directly, and indirectly twenty percent or more.This is simply untrue, and suggests Williams has never once looked at the economic research on this topic. We're seeing more content production and more money made from content production today than at any time in history, and much of it has absolutely nothing to do with copyright. Williams also leaps to the false conclusion that this is about "piracy" rather than about business models.
Much of our economy and our value in world markets is tied into the creation of intellectual property. The collapse of the concept of intellectual property will have devastating economic effects on everyone in every post-industrial economy. This may seem like it is just about illegal downloads, but the issue is much more serious and if not addressed portends an economic melt down of unthinkable proportions. A little "straight talk" is really critical at this point, because we really are talking here about economic Armageddon.Again, if Williams is going to make these sorts of ridiculous claims, he owes it to himself to read some of the research first. He can start with Against Intellectual Monopoly. In the meantime, Silicon Alley Insider is usually a fantastic read. They should think twice about letting someone like Williams comment on subjects which he is clearly uninformed about, however. This is only the second time I've had a serious problem with an SAI article, and both were by Williams.
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
"Williams is the same guy who wrote a troublesome post explaining that there were no reasonable business models built on 'free.'"
So this guy has never watched or even heard of broadcast television or radio?!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Huh?
You critize the author of the article in SAI, and then suggest he read:
"Against Intellectual Monopoly"
Surely this was an attempt at humor, i.e., telling someone whom you believe is making "nutty" points to read a document likewise making "nutty" points.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Huh?
Care to make a point by point debunking of the book, like Mike did of Williams' post, MLS?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
If only
"First, if music goes down, so will every other form of copyrighted material including ultimately books, movies, TV, etc."
God, if only that were true. Then my death obsessed goth cousin would stop sending out his godawful poetry to any of us that once pretended an interest.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
wha?
I think MLS might actually stand for something. Mistaken Logic Syndrome. Either that or Makes Little Sense. Seriously, MLS, you're all over the place here, trying to make fun of Mike (or Tim, or whoever), but every time you make a post, you do nothing more than make derogatory statements.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Another Opinion on Greed
I've never heard of this Williams guy, but it sounds to me like he produces/creates absolutely nothing. I'd bet the reasons behind his thinking is directly related to his wallet somehow. I am also inclined to believe that he likes the idea of buying IP works for next to nothing (dead artists, starving ones...) and turn around and soak the profits. Either way, his mentality smacks of someone who enjoys the control of taking someone who is genuinely creative into a courtroom and blasting them with both barrels. When/If he loses, he would evade payment, when/if he wins, he doesn't feel at all obligated to share with the content creators. Basically a Corporate Greed hypocrite !!
eleete
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: wha?
Ummmm, Hate to point out the obvious, but isn't what you are posting derogatory ?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Second, there is no evidence *at all* that free music on the Internet is an effective (i.e. successful career building) marketing tool.
Psssst... Radio.
*Hint*
Oh wait - Radio's not an effective marketing tool - because, umm it's free.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Huh?
You critize the author of the article in SAI, and then suggest he read:
"Against Intellectual Monopoly"
Surely this was an attempt at humor, i.e., telling someone whom you believe is making "nutty" points to read a document likewise making "nutty" points.
MLS, I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Against Intellectual Monopoly is written by two respected economists, and has detailed, backed-up and well-researched arguments. Are you suggesting otherwise?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Another Opinion on Greed
Hey, he did produced something. It just so happen that his articles were of poor quality.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Huh?
Oh?
I am pretty sure that monopoly supporters have a pretty heavy burden of proving that indeed monopolies does increase economic welfare. Because we all know monopolies are generally bad, right?
This book is simply increasing the burden of monopolists everywhere to supply proof. Proof that we have not seen materializes.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Huh?
Not possible to debunk a 355 page book with a series of simplistic sound bites. But if I was inclined to do so I would begin with the title itself. The mere suggestion that a patent or copyright is a government granted "monopoly" is ludicrous. Perhaps the authors should have spent time actually reading our patent and copyright laws before writing their book. It seems strange to debunk a system of laws without having an intimate familiarity with what the laws actually say.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Another Opinion on Greed
Perhaps you might consider following the links to find out just who this person is and what he does...
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
Radio is not free in the sense that broadcasters do pay royalties for the music they play.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Huh?
Yes, I am suggesting otherwise. I assumed they were respected economists after having taken a quick look at the respective CVs.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Huh?
What the hell have you been reading in the past few years to make that sort of conclusion?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re:
You don't pay attention do you?
Broadcast radio is free as in free to me. They still make money off of advertising and yes they pay royalties (even though I don't know why.)
Just like if music was free to me, the artist could sell other (finite) objects like concert tickets, physical CDs, shirts, and other thinks I can't think of at the moment.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Huh?
I am pretty sure lot of other economists disagree with you.
Make me wonder...Are you an economist?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re:
Not on internet radio, and it's not actually legal (payola is one thing the music industry was successfully prosecuted for)
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Huh?
So, erm, do you have any hints? or are you basing your opinion just on the title?
"The mere suggestion that a patent or copyright is a government granted "monopoly" is ludicrous."
Really? Describe how the Berne convention or the US copyright act of 1790, for example, don't fall into this category (accepting of course that Berne convention signatories were governments who enacted the agreements in their own countries).
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Huh?
The mere suggestion that a patent or copyright is a government granted "monopoly" is ludicrous.
Yes, which is exactly why Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and plenty of others referred to them as exactly that when designing our IP system.
They are monopolies. I can't see how you can dispute that. Even those in favor of patents and copyrights are usually willing to admit that they are monopolies.
And, as Kiba points out, multiple Nobel Prize winning economists seem to respect their work. I find it amusing that you think that it's some sort of fringe economic work without backing up the statement in any way, shape or form -- other than to make a statement that is false (that copyrights and patents aren't monopolies).
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re:
And so the ignorance is exposed...
Just as long as it is free to me then I don't care what happens to anyone.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
It makes me wonder why this individual is so angry. Is it because he realizes the days of musicians and publishers getting multi-million dollar paydays is a thing of the past? Is it because people simply choose to buy music online? Even if it WERE piracy that accounts for the huge change in the way music is heard now all the bitching in the world won't stop it.
Instead of crying to every site that is pro-free business model perhaps he should spend the time formulating a way to monetize what he can and take the advice of such sites.
I know I sound like a simpleton but thats what I'm seeing here.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
I have a friend whose 18 year old daughter posted her original music videos on YouTube (Julia Nunes) and she has had 1.3 million views, multiple record company offers (which she doesn't need) and is selling 10-20 CDs a day via her web site (yes, actual CDs). She is touring with Ben Folds. Not bad for a video made in a dorm room for zero dollars. She has talent...
He is completely wrong.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
hypocritical hypocrisy?
I've got to laugh at the absurdity of someone criticising someone else for not doing research when it's damn obvious they haven't even bothered to research the person whom they're criticising, and that goes for most of the comments here as well.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
"Huh?" 2.0
Did a bit of research on Messrs. Boldrin and Levine. The more I read (and I have taken a look at much of their work pertaining to the field of "IP") the more it appears that many of their views are results oriented, i.e., having a view and then cherry picking for things supporting their view. This is not scholarship...this is advocacy.
By the way, their various comments about what patents and copyrights are in a subsstantive, legal sense lend credence to my above observation that they would do well to actually study the law before waxing poetic about what it is and what it is not.
I will be interested to see if they claim copyright in their upcoming book, or if they simply dedicate it to the public domain.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
so lets follow mls's logic. (assuming the media industry is in bed with the senate, which they are) the law says that we need copyright. the experts (including founding fathers) disagree. who do we trust, the people who dedicate their lives to a just system, or those who dedicate their lives to profiting from the system they pay the senate off to write.
hmm. why read a law when we know it was written with poor intentions. this argument is over what copyright law SHOUD BE, now what IT IS. it is what it is because of two of the biggest evils in america share a bed.
if dr seus's work was law would, should we live by it. hell naw, cuz we know its imaginary.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
are sharing*
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: "Huh?" 2.0
Says the guy who argues against "intellectual monopoly" title despite it being historically and factually correct. So you (MLS) are not only practicing advocacy, you are doing it without a modicum of basic conceptual understanding. At least it's not hypocrisy, it's just rubbish. :)
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: "Huh?" 2.0
Did a bit of research on Messrs. Boldrin and Levine. The more I read (and I have taken a look at much of their work pertaining to the field of "IP") the more it appears that many of their views are results oriented, i.e., having a view and then cherry picking for things supporting their view. This is not scholarship...this is advocacy.
MLS, for someone who rails against everyone here for supposedly talking about stuff without first understanding things (often incorrectly), it's rather amusing to watch you squirm around as you've been caught quite clearly doing what you always accuse everyone else of doing.
Yes, the book by Boldrin and Levine is advocacy, but it's the result of plenty of scholarship. They have written peer-reviewed papers on the topic, and now they're writing a book for laymen directed at advocating a specific result that came out of their scholarship. It also covers much of the scholarship done by others -- the stuff you keep mocking people for not knowing about, when now it's clear that it was you who didn't know.
By the way, their various comments about what patents and copyrights are in a subsstantive, legal sense lend credence to my above observation that they would do well to actually study the law before waxing poetic about what it is and what it is not.
Or, perhaps, you should learn economics before making your statements about the economic impact of copyright and patents. We've pointed this out before, and you keep repeating yourself.
I will be interested to see if they claim copyright in their upcoming book, or if they simply dedicate it to the public domain.
Or, you know, you can read the beginning of the book where they answer that very question.
But why bother actually understanding when you can cast aspersions on others' work?
Btw, I think the phrase you're searching for is "Hey, guys, sorry I jumped to conclusions without knowing what I was talking about."
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
"this argument is over what copyright law SHOUD BE, now what IT IS"
To which I must ask "How does one argue over what copyright should be if that one does not know what it is?"
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re:
I know! MLS must be a laywer! Am I right?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: "Huh?" 2.0
Historically correct?
Factually correct?
All I have said is that before calling something a "monopoly" it is useful to study that something in detail; in this case patent and copyright law.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re:
Yes, as I have noted on several prior occasions.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Orlowski's response
Mike,
Great article as usual. If you have time you might want to peruse Andrew Orlowski's (hopefully tongue-in-cheek, though I suspect not) comments on Arrington's post on copyright, which are as ill-informed as Williams':
Failing Web 2.0 stars pray for copyright abolition
Some of the ego-bashing points about Arrington and the shallowness of Web 2.0 business models are probably valid (comparing Arrington's appearance to Gertrude Stein is however a little cruel). But Orlowski comes up with such gems as this:
Ahem. YouTube.
And he accuses the Harvard Berkman Centre copyright scholars of being 'sock puppets' for big media. I simply can't see Benkler and Zittrain this way - and it's utterly unsubstantiated.
Orlowski has been making 'freetard' references continually and deserves a swift skelp around the backside in the shape of a Masnick blog post ;)
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: "Huh?" 2.0
I make no pretense about being an economist. I am merely pointing out that many who rail that patents and copyrights are bad economic and social policy do so using examples that manifest a clear lack of familiarity with what the law actually embraces.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
King of Handwaving
"This assumes that without copyright, content creation goes down. There's no evidence to support this."
Of course there's no evidence to support this, because copyright's not been done away with yet. Actually, the fact that plenty of copyrighted content is still being created shows that copyright and content are not totally delinked. If that were the case, everyone should have moved away from copyright to GPL or Creative Commons by now.
"In fact, we see more content creation today than ever before in history, and most of it is not because of copyright in the slightest."
Is there any data to support this claim? Even if it were true, much of the non-copyright content is rubbish (Youtube is a classic example). Would it be sacrilegious to say copyright is directly linked to the quality of content?
"The number of bands who exist solely because of their ability to build a following on the internet is rather large at this point, with plenty of bands crediting the internet's ability for easy distribution and marketing for their own ability to exist."
Rather large? How large is that? And how big are they? Are we talking about at least 25 significant bands/musicians? 50? 100? Where do they figure on the top 100 list, if they do?
"Of course, that depends on how you define "blockbuster" success. Williams seems to define it narrowly to suit his purposes, and that completely undermines his argument."
How many ways are there of defining blockbuster success, at least in this context? I don't think one can "narrowly define" a blockbuster.
"Bands like the Arctic Monkeys created the following that turned them into a huge success via the internet. Maria Schneider won a Grammy with a model that relied on internet support."
That's skating on thin ice. Succeeding via the Internet and "relying on Internet support" are two different things. How many bands have succeeded primarily through the Internet? How many Grammy winners are using the Internet as the sole distribution channel?
"We get examples sent to us practically every day of bands successfully using these models that don't rely on copyright."
Could you publish a list of those bands, and maybe some info on how successful they have been? It would provide tremendous insight into how the emancipation of musicians has just begun.
"Recorded music sales have been shrinking rapidly over the past few years. In fact, the numbers we've seen have shown the same thing consistently: every single aspect of the music business is on the upswing, except for sales of shiny discs."
Is that a good thing, this fall in the sales of shiny discs?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: "Huh?" 2.0
Can you enlighten us why patents and copyright are not monopoly grants?
Because you're the only lawyer that I have heard of that made this assertion.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Thanks to Mike for fighting these fights
Thanks for rounding up and debunking this stuff, Mike...you're like IP's unofficial ombudsman!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
King of Handwaving - Part Deux
"Concert revenue is up. The number of people making music is up. The number of people earning money from their musical careers is up. Even the instrument sales business has been up. The music business is doing great -- and it has nothing to do with copyright."
And how on earth did you conclude that the fact the music business is doing great has nothing to do with copyright? If that were the case, all music should have become free by now. People should be freely publishing and redistributing music without any encumbrances, as they do in China and India. That has not happened. If the music business is doing fine, without copyright, why are they clamouring for greater copyright enforcement?
"The demise of copyright hasn't done anything to hurt the other aspects of the business, despite William's uninformed conjecture."
Demise of copyright? When did that happen? Or do you mean the annihilation of the idea of copyright in the digital domain, thanks to a six-letter word called piracy?
"So the fact that you don't have a record label out pushing your CD isn't a problem for the other parts of the music business, because the internet and the ability to connect directly with fans via social networks and websites has taken up the slack."
But you just said there has been a fall in the sales of shiny discs, which is what CDs look like. You also said Internet promotion works. Then why has it not led to a jump in CD sales? Topping handwaving with contradictions?
"Williams then goes on a tangent about the purpose of laws being to protect others from harm, which all sounds nice, but really is besides the point here."
Besides the point? I thought that was the core point. But of course, I'm not Mike Masnick.
"As we've pointed out at length, and backed up with economic research and examples, there are new business models being developed that allow everyone to be better off. Bands make more money, fans get access to more music, and everyone's better off. Where is the "harm" that anyone needs to be protected from in that situation? "
The harm or perceived harm is being done to the labels. If every band/musician can become a super success on the Internet, no one would give a rat's ass about shows like American Idol, which provide a platform for you to reach the whole world and help you strike deals with labels who will take care of promoting you and your music, touring, merchandising, press, PR, worldwide sales, etc. And when you start talking of a copyright-free world, naturally it's the labels who get jittery.
"But, instead, Williams immediately jumps to the false conclusion that any change of copyright law will harm nearly the entire economy."
No, that's not what he did. he said "Rethinking copyright without specifics and without the willingness to follow things through to their natural conclusion is dangerous."
That's a whole lot different from saying he's opposed to any change in the copyright law. As usual, you are putting words into people's mouths, something you have elevated to a fine art.
"We're seeing more content production and more money made from content production today than at any time in history, and much of it has absolutely nothing to do with copyright."
Here we go again. Where's the data to back this up? What proof do you have that most content production and revenue generation have "absolutely nothing to do with copyright"? Most books/movies/music/newspapers still come with a copyright tag. Are you trying to say that copyleft content is all around us?
"Williams also leaps to the false conclusion that this is about "piracy" rather than about business models."
Isn't it? If there were no piracy, why would we even be discussing alternative business models?
"They should think twice about letting someone like Williams comment on subjects which he is clearly uninformed about, however. This is only the second time I've had a serious problem with an SAI article, and both were by Williams."
You have a serious problem Mike. With people who don't share your grand unified theory of free. That's why you even want to clamp down on someone like Williams; after all it was just his opinion. Isn't he entitled to it?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
That comment was from me.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Re: "Huh?" 2.0
"Can you enlighten us why patents and copyright are not monopoly grants?"
I have never seen, and I rather doubt I ever will, a patent or a copyright where substitute goods are not readily available in the relevant market. Moreover, I have never seen one that stops competitors dead in their tracks from effectively competing in the relevant market by creating their own product offerings.
"Because you're the only lawyer that I have heard of that made this assertion."
You obviously do not talk with many lawyers who have studied this matter, including academics, practitioners, and jurists alike.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Hell, companies pay radio DJays because they're so important.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Huh?" 2.0
Jurists are not lawyers.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Huh?" 2.0
Within law circles judges/justices are oftentimes identified using this term.
E.g., a headline from a state bar association announcing "Judge Brunner earns "Lifetime Jurist Achievement" Award".
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Huh?" 2.0
I neglected to mention that I have never met a jurist who is not a lawyer. Of course there may be some exceptions, but they likely are a number somewhere about -5 sigma on a bell curve.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re:
at the moment radio does NOT pay royalties in the U S of A in Europe yes.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
As I said before
copyright was originally an attempt to stop one writer from saying another writer from claiming the first writers was his or hers. the extra stuff was added over years surely now is the time to get back to that original intent and allow people to do what they wish with their copy and yes Mikes views are usually spot on. MLS go sit in a court room and cry in your port.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: King of Handwaving
Of course there's no evidence to support this, because copyright's not been done away with yet.
Um. No. There's plenty of evidence to support this because you can look at the production of content that is used in ways that does not rely on copyright as the incentive of production.
Actually, the fact that plenty of copyrighted content is still being created shows that copyright and content are not totally delinked. If that were the case, everyone should have moved away from copyright to GPL or Creative Commons by now.
Not at all. No one denies that copyright gives an easy crutch for content creators to use. So the fact that they haven't abandoned it is meaningless.
Is there any data to support this claim? Even if it were true, much of the non-copyright content is rubbish (Youtube is a classic example). Would it be sacrilegious to say copyright is directly linked to the quality of content?
Well, I'm glad that we have cram to judge the quality of all content.
And, no, I disagree with your statement that copyright is linked to quality. It's not. There is plenty of quality stuff that is created not by using copyright as the incentive.
As for the amount of content being produced today... is that really an open question?
Rather large? How large is that? And how big are they? Are we talking about at least 25 significant bands/musicians? 50? 100? Where do they figure on the top 100 list, if they do?
I don't have exact numbers. But Williams claimed it was zero. That's obviously false. Who's handwaving now?
That's skating on thin ice. Succeeding via the Internet and "relying on Internet support" are two different things. How many bands have succeeded primarily through the Internet? How many Grammy winners are using the Internet as the sole distribution channel?
Um. You're setting up totally pointless rules here. No one said that they had to only rely on the internet. There's simply no reason for any band to do so today. So I'm not sure what sort of point you're trying to prove, because you're failing. Williams claimed there was no evidence that the internet helps a band. That's easily proven false. You seem to be attacking a different point. I'm not sure why.
Could you publish a list of those bands, and maybe some info on how successful they have been? It would provide tremendous insight into how the emancipation of musicians has just begun.
We do mention many of the bands here. You asking us to do some busy work doesn't change the fact that plenty of bands are where they are today because of the internet.
Is that a good thing, this fall in the sales of shiny discs?
If the replacement is more efficient, more cost effective and allows for more music to be distributed to more people... I'd say yes.
I had no idea anyone contested that fact.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: King of Handwaving - Part Deux
And how on earth did you conclude that the fact the music business is doing great has nothing to do with copyright?
Er, I thought it was rather obvious, but it's because all of these areas where the business don't require copyright to succeed -- and it's occurred at the same time that recorded music sales are down.
If that were the case, all music should have become free by now.
Rome wasn't built in a day. These things take time. When automobiles appeared, horse and buggies didn't go extinct the next day.
I recognize that you disagree with me, but, seriously, you've got to come up with better arguments than this.
That has not happened. If the music business is doing fine, without copyright, why are they clamouring for greater copyright enforcement?
Don't confusing the *recording* industry with the *music* industry.
Demise of copyright? When did that happen? Or do you mean the annihilation of the idea of copyright in the digital domain, thanks to a six-letter word called piracy?
I was merely pointing out that the shift in making money from music has moved away from relying on copyright -- as I already explained. And it hasn't hurt the music business. And, again, no it's not about piracy, no matter how many times you insist on pinning that label on everything I describe.
But you just said there has been a fall in the sales of shiny discs, which is what CDs look like. You also said Internet promotion works. Then why has it not led to a jump in CD sales? Topping handwaving with contradictions?
Again, I was talking about promotion of the overall music business -- which I explained. I'm not sure what you think is handwaving, because I thought I was quite clear on that. CD sales are down because it's a substitute. The music itself acts as a promotion for all those other *scarce* goods that aren't substitutes.
You really want to attack me, I understand, but your arguments need to at least make sense. Try to read what I actually wrote rather than what you want me to write. It'll make this debate a lot more interesting.
Besides the point? I thought that was the core point. But of course, I'm not Mike Masnick.
Two points:
* Copyright was never intended to protect from harm. It was created as an incentive to create.
* More importantly, the reason I said this was besides the point was that if there's *no actual harm* the question of why laws are in place doesn't matter. Williams entire point is based on the idea that there's harm. If there's no harm, it's besides the point.
At this point I'm repeating myself.
The harm or perceived harm is being done to the labels.
And we need a law to protect harm to the labels? Where was the law to protect harm done to the horse and buggy makers? Do you support laws protecting any business that has a bad business model and goes out of business?
My only focus is on promoting the progress, as per the constitution. And that's at a wider level. If the labels don't want to adapt, that's their problem. As we've pointed out in other posts however, there are plenty of ways they can adapt and make more money.
If every band/musician can become a super success on the Internet, no one would give a rat's ass about shows like American Idol, which provide a platform for you to reach the whole world and help you strike deals with labels who will take care of promoting you and your music, touring, merchandising, press, PR, worldwide sales, etc.
Huh? I know you've been commenting here for a while, but I really have to question if you've read what I've written, or if you've just decided what you think I said. You keep creating these strawmen.
Considering that every other area of the music business is doing quite well, we've explained how there's absolutely a role for the record labels to play on the marketing side. Your statement above suggests I've said something completely different.
Arguing against a strawman may make you feel right, but you'll find it does little to convince anyone that you're actually right.
That's a whole lot different from saying he's opposed to any change in the copyright law. As usual, you are putting words into people's mouths, something you have elevated to a fine art.
Funny. This from the guy who has repeatedly put words in my mouth. This from the guy who says that I've said record labels shouldn't exist. This from the guy who insists I'm really talking about piracy, when I am not.
Your credibility here is nonexistent.
Isn't it? If there were no piracy, why would we even be discussing alternative business models?
Absolutely. I was talking about this stuff before Napster existed. It's still fundamental economics. The fact that piracy exists may have accelerated some of the issues, but it doesn't change the fundamental economics.
With people who don't share your grand unified theory of free.
That's not a sentence.
That's why you even want to clamp down on someone like Williams; after all it was just his opinion. Isn't he entitled to it?
He's absolutely entitled to his opinion. I've never suggested otherwise. I just suggested that it hurts SAI's credibility to publish an opinion that is clearly ill-informed and based on a clear and easily proven lack of research and knowledge.
Just because everyone's entitled to their opinions it doesn't mean that a respected publication needs to publish and promote ignorant ones.
Cram, again, I recognize that for whatever reason, you are still not convinced by what I write here. Fair enough. But I would suggest for the betterment of this entire conversation that you stop raising strawman arguments and focus on what I have actually said. Otherwise, you're wasting your own time.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
I hope the entertainment industry does die
Let's pretend the argument from Williams is sound (LOL!) - so what? There is virtually no utility in entertainment and it is a tremendous waste of resources that just sends money from the masses to a select few rich people who then spend that money unwisely. If it wasn't an industry, people could still create music and share music and make films, etc, etc, but it would not be part of the economy. If entertainment were free, people wouldn't need to work so much to pay for it - if we worked less, we would have more time to relax and think. Maybe then we would become aware of the real problems facing the world e.g. poverty and Climate Change.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
Shhh! That's not free-free. You're paying for it with commercials. You're selling your mind!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: wha?
True, but sometimes some old guy adds pertinernt comments to the discussion; he posits here that MLS never does, and is only ever derogatory.
As much as I strongly disagree with just about everything MLS posts, and despite the fact that a lot of the time he does just throw stones at Mike, he contributes meaningfully to the conversation as much as SoG does.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Re:
We had this argument once before on Techdirt. How do you define free? If you want to qualify it as "no money changes hands ever" then yeah, nothing is free. Even this post is being paid for down some long food-chain from you through the economy to my boss to me to the ISP.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re:
"How does one argue over what copyright should be if that one does not know what it is?"
Ask any philosopher. They spend their lives discussing things no one can really pin down, talking about the way things should be by reasoning through intents.
What is the intent of copyright? Well, that's something you and I probably disagree on, MLS, but I hold that the intent of patents and copyrights is as an incentivising system to encourage creators to create. From that intent we can discuss what this system should be, very much aside from how the system actually is, currently. And, in particular, when a system is broken it's often times far more productive to start by looking at how such a system should be designed rather than busying oneself with examining the current (broken) system.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: King of Handwaving - Part Deux
"Copyright was never intended to protect from harm. It was created as an incentive to create."
The below is relevant to #48's comment as well as the above quote:
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Copyright_Act_of_1790
It is noteworthy that the original copyright act provided two distinct assessments against one found to be an infringer: (1) a fine (shared between the copyright holder and the government) per the provisions of Section 2, and (2) damages for harm to the copyright holder per Section 6.
What I have always found interesting about this is that copyright, from its inception, has included both criminal and civil penalties, quite unlike patents that have always been limited to civil penalties.
I have also found interesting that while patent law tends to remain relatively faithful to what was contained in the original act of 1790 (with changes being incremental), the same certainly cannot be said for copyright law (with changes being almost "explosive").
I believe it is fair to say that as between these two bodies of law copyright law today bears virtually no resemblance to what was originally enacted.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re:
I do not agree that the patent system is broken, but I do agree that it, like any law, should always be subject to scrutiny to try and keep it relatively faithful to the intent underlying why it was created in the first place. The recent "reforms" debated in Congress do very little in this regard. I do agree, however, that copyright law is in dire need of a top-down reconsideration. The concept of limited times (originally 14 years with the opportunity of a one time extension for an additional 14 years) has morphed into something bordering on perpetuity. Criminal penalties are well past the point of being draconian; civil damages can be assessed even in instances where the copyright holder cannot prove he/she has been harmed; the "first sale" doctrine has effectively been emasculated (unlike patents where it remains a viable doctrine); public notice provisions have been totally eliminated, leaving members of the public totally in the dark about the copyright status of a work; the DMCA countenances the prohibition of activities, reverse engineering, whereas patent law has done no such thing except in very limited situations; etc.
While my area of legal specialization involves the entire gamut of what comprises so-called "IP" law, do underatand that I am most certainly not an apologist for either system. There are some issues in patent law that could benefit from changes (albeit I believe that effective changes can be made in an incremental manner), but copyright law is an entirely differrent matter. While I do not advocate throwing it out and starting with a blank page, I do advocate significant changes to return it back to its roots.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: King of Handwaving - Part Deux
Failed to note I presented the comments in #56
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm not aware that many people here are arguing for the total abolition of copyright. Simply a return to its roots and intended purpose.
To agree with you the DCMA is ridiculous and the cause of much of the hostility towards copyright. Let's all thank Sonny Bono for most of the US Senate sharing a comfy bed with the entertainment industry.
Patents, particularly software patents are another kettle of fish completely. As the current mess rose not from legislation but by judicial extension of patent law to include common software and such silliness as business methods there is much to question here.
This is not to say that the judiciary has no place in civil law doing that sort of thing. Quite the contrary. What it does mean is that precedent and rulings are not "cast in stone" in the same way legislation is.
At least one of the, I hope, unintended consequences of this is that tech companies arm themselves with a mess of largely inconsequential patents (often challengeable) for the sole purpose of protecting themselves from patent claims. Microsoft, IBM, Sun, Apple, Novel and many others do this as does the Linux Foundation.
While it may offer work for lawyers like yourself who make their living from IP law it does, I would argue, little or nothing to encourage innovation or invention. The reverse, actually.
And like it or not patents and copyrights are limited monopolies in both economic and social terms and were described as such by the framers of the US Constitution.
That they aren't in law, at least in terms of anti-trust law, is entirely beside the point.
And both are open to change.
Thank God that, in a free society, we don't rely on lawyers to push for those changes.
ttfn
John
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Perhaps I've misread you, then, as I agree with nearly everything you just said. I'm not a lawyer by any stretch, just a typical tech worker. That said, though, I do feel that copyright and patentys are both 'broken' in that the abuses are so much the norm that both systems actively work against their original intents in practice. Patents are used to stifle forward progression (see, for example, the whole mess with solid state drives) and copyrights are used to prevent further creativity (such as making music videos or media-mashups on YouTube). Nothing moving through congress has given much hope at all, and as has been noted here is often only more problematic than what we currently have.
I think that if we're to keep these systems, they have to be re-worked practically from scratch. Copyright 2.0 or whatever. That being said, I don't think we need them, I feel we would be better off without them, and I wouldn't mind in the least if both systems simply ceased to be.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: King of Handwaving
"Of course there's no evidence to support this, because copyright's not been done away with yet. Actually, the fact that plenty of copyrighted content is still being created shows that copyright and content are not totally delinked. If that were the case, everyone should have moved away from copyright to GPL or Creative Commons by now."
Now that's a good start, isn't it? Neither the GPL or Creative Commons do away with copyright. What they do is set licensing terms on copyrighted material.
There is a rather large difference, you know.
"Would it be sacrilegious to say copyright is directly linked to the quality of content?"
It would simply be wrong.
You can copyright crap if you want. Nothing at all to stop that. And there is copyrighted material on YouTube placed there legally and often with a Creative Commons License.
"Is that a good thing, this fall in the sales of shiny discs?"
The decline in sales started long before things like peer to peer file sharing began and isn't directly linked to it.
That has far more to do with the quality and pricing of those shiny discs than anything else.
A very common and valid complaint in the 90s was that you could rely on a CD to be mostly good with anywhere from 1/4 to 1/3 of it throwaway stuff that was simply awful.
Yes, there were artists who would release discs crammed with quality material but these were often the big players who had significant control over what actually came out. (Say U2, Dixie Chicks, Sarah McLaughlan...folks in that class.) New artists definitely didn't and don't have that kind of control.
Still, if you describe blockbuster as being in the category of those I mentioned above they are few and far between and always have been. The music market in the late 60s and early 70s wasn't as fractured as it is now, in many ways a good thing.
I would argue, however, that should there be the "next Beatles" floating around out there, as unlikely as that is, they'll do fine using the Internet and waiting for the industry to beat a path to their door.
Remember, The Beatles had one hell of a time getting a recording contract.
ttfn
John
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You, as a lawyer whose job is to work with the law, do not agree that the patent system is broken.
I, as a software developer who is subject to the penalties of the law, find that I am overly burdened and at risk because of the current patent system. I have my lawyers constantly reviewing our designs, our marketing, etc... to determine what we might be infringing by code that we've written ourselves.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: King of Handwaving
"Of course there's no evidence to support this, because copyright's not been done away with yet.
Um. No. There's plenty of evidence to support this because you can look at the production of content that is used in ways that does not rely on copyright as the incentive of production."
What the...? You say there's no evidence. I say of course there's none, but then you promptly say there is plenty. Contradictions again, Mike.
"Not at all. No one denies that copyright gives an easy crutch for content creators to use. So the fact that they haven't abandoned it is meaningless."
I thought your fight was againt labels that push for copyright protection. If a creator wants to protect his content with copyright, how is it meaningless? Just because you say so? Are you basically saying no content creator should be allowed to copyright his material?
"Is there any data to support this claim? Even if it were true, much of the non-copyright content is rubbish (Youtube is a classic example). Would it be sacrilegious to say copyright is directly linked to the quality of content?
Well, I'm glad that we have cram to judge the quality of all content."
I asked you a question and you refuse to answer it. Is there any data to prove your point? As for my opinion about Youtube rubbish, that's just it. My opinion. I don't understand why chose to pick on that point and ignore the rest.
"And, no, I disagree with your statement that copyright is linked to quality. It's not. There is plenty of quality stuff that is created not by using copyright as the incentive."
That's not what I was referring to. I fully agree that there's quality stuff created not by using copyright as the incentive. But there's also tons of copyrighted stuff that's of high quality. Do you agree? Should the creators be allowed to copyright them?
"Rather large? How large is that? And how big are they? Are we talking about at least 25 significant bands/musicians? 50? 100? Where do they figure on the top 100 list, if they do?
I don't have exact numbers. But Williams claimed it was zero. That's obviously false. Who's handwaving now?"
Both of you are. He says there's none, which is false, of course, I agree. But your statement that there's a rather large number is vague. That's what I was picking on. You do have a strong tendency to make such statements without backing them up with data.
"That's skating on thin ice. Succeeding via the Internet and "relying on Internet support" are two different things. How many bands have succeeded primarily through the Internet? How many Grammy winners are using the Internet as the sole distribution channel?
Um. You're setting up totally pointless rules here. No one said that they had to only rely on the internet. There's simply no reason for any band to do so today. So I'm not sure what sort of point you're trying to prove, because you're failing. Williams claimed there was no evidence that the internet helps a band. That's easily proven false. You seem to be attacking a different point. I'm not sure why."
The way you phrased the sentence, I read (or misread) it as an assertion that the Internet is the way out for musicians to make it big today. My bad, I admit.
"Is that a good thing, this fall in the sales of shiny discs?
If the replacement is more efficient, more cost effective and allows for more music to be distributed to more people... I'd say yes.
I had no idea anyone contested that fact."
In an earlier blog post, where I had asked you whether you were for or against CDs, you said you were for them. That you loved them. You have always touted the CD as a scarce good. Now you say a fall in CD sales is a good thing. Isn't that a contradiction again?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
First time SAI reader
Thanks for pointing out this article. I just recently started reading SAI and I'm glad to know that Hank Williams opinions are not their usual mo.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: King of Handwaving
You keep talking about artists being "allowed to copyright" their stuff. Now, first and foremost, Mike isn't dictating what people should be allowed to do with their content. He's just talking about why it's dumb. I'm allowed to charge people $100 for a glass of fresh-squeezed orange juice, but it's a pretty dumb idea especially if the kid down the street is offering something similar for a nickle. Mike is just pointing out that it's a smarter idea to encourage people to use your content rather than restricting who can access it and how. It's not that they shouldn't be allowed to do it, but that if they do they're going to be out-maneuvered by the competition.
Now, when he said that the fact people haven't abandoned copyright is meaningless, his point was: copyright is broken because it is unfairly weighted against the public in favor of the artist; the artists are still hiolding to this unfair advantage is irrelivant to a discussion of how unfair the system is or ways that a better equity can be struck, where all people are better off.
Williams says it's zero. Mike says it's lots. You say, I don't believe you, Mike, give me numbers. Sure, lots is vague, but your complaint amounts to "nuh-uh," and is less than a compelling argument. Do you have evidence that it's not a huge number?
I'm a big fan of CDs as well, but for the most part they have historically added little value and have been priced too high. Mike says here that if the alternative to steady CD sales is a system that's more efficient and adds more value, that's a good thing. I agree, and I don't see how saying, "A is Good, but B is better," is a contradiction.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
"I recognize that you disagree with me, but, seriously, you've got to come up with better arguments than this.
That has not happened. If the music business is doing fine, without copyright, why are they clamouring for greater copyright enforcement?
Don't confusing the *recording* industry with the *music* industry."
A large part of the "music" industry is still intertwined with the "recording" industry. How many of the top acts are independent? Do you mean to say the members of the "music" industry have freed themselves of th