Yet Another Study Shows That Weaker Copyright Benefits Everyone

from the good-news dept

Economists Felix Oberholzer-Gee and Koleman Strumpf have written some previous papers on this subject, but they've just come out with a new working paper on how weaker copyright protection benefits society (pdf file). Michael Geist has an excellent overview and summary of the paper. To understand the key points made by the paper, you need to understand the purpose of copyright -- something that many people are confused about. It's always been about creating incentives to create new works. Copyright maximalists and defenders of strengthening copyright laws always suggest that without copyright, there would be much less creative output, because there would be much less incentive to create. History has shown that to be false. If you look back at the age when all creative output had to be registered to be covered by copyright, studies showed that only a very small fraction of content creators even bothered, because copyright wasn't the incentive. It's only now, when copyright is automatic, that people seem to think that copyright is somehow necessary.

But the paper shows why this isn't true, and highlights a few points that we've made repeatedly over the years. Even if there are fewer "album" sales, more people are creating more music than ever before in history, and more people are making some money from the production of music -- even if it's not from album sales directly:
Overall production figures for the creative industries appear to be consistent with this view that file sharing has not discouraged artists and publishers. While album sales have generally fallen since 2000, the number of albums being created has exploded. In 2000, 35,516 albums were released. Seven years later, 79,695 albums (including 25,159 digital albums) were published (Nielsen SoundScan, 2008). Even if file sharing were the reason that sales have fallen, the new technology does not appear to have exacted a toll on the quantity of music produced....

Similar trends can be seen in other creative industries. For example, the worldwide number of feature films produced each year has increased from 3,807 in 2003 to 4,989 in 2007 (Screen Digest, 2004 and 2008). Countries where film piracy is rampant have typically increased production. This is true in South Korea (80 to 124), India (877 to 1164), and China (140 to 402). During this period, U.S. feature film production has increased from 459 feature films in 2003 to 590 in 2007 (MPAA, 2007).
So the idea that file sharing has somehow damaged creative output is simply not supported by the numbers. At the same time, the paper also makes the other point that we've made: that as infinite goods spread more widely, it only tends to increase the ability to make money from other scarce complements. After going through a few different studies, the paper notes:
As these results show, income from the sale of complements can more than compensate artists for any harm that file sharing might do to their primary activity. We are not aware of empirical work that has looked at these effects in industries other than music. But the potential of complements to provide ancillary income is certainly not unique to the music industry. In film, for instance, the International Licensing Industry Merchandisers' Association (LIMA) estimates that Hollywood derives $16 billion annually from sales of entertainment merchandise, a figure that exceeds the value of ticket sales (Film Encyclopedia, 2008).

The role of complements makes it necessary to adopt a broad view of markets when considering the impact of file sharing on the creative industries. Unfortunately, the popular press -- and a good number of policy experts -- often evaluate file sharing looking at a single product market. Analyzing trends in CD sales, for example, they conclude that piracy has wrecked havoc on the music business. This view confuses value creation and value capture. Record companies may find it more difficult to profitably sell CDs, but the broader industry is in a far better position. In fact, it is easy to make an argument that the business has grown considerably. Figure 7 shows spending on CDs, concerts and iPods. The decline in music sales -- they fell by 15% from 1997 to 2007 -- is the focus of much discussion. However, adding in concerts alone shows the industry has grown by 5% over this period. If we also consider the sale of iPods as a revenue stream, the industry is now 66% larger than in 1997.... Technological change will often lead to changes in relative prices and shifts in business opportunities. Focusing exclusively on traditional streams of revenue to arrive at a sense of how new technology changes welfare will typically be misleading.
This looks like another great addition to the literature on the overall economic impact of "file sharing" and copyright. How much do you want to bet Congress will ignore it?


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    identicon
    Justin, Jun 17th, 2009 @ 12:38pm

    A nice cover page

    If there is not a check to the campaign fund as the cover page to the report I am guessing it won't get looked at what so ever.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  
    icon
    Dark Helmet (profile), Jun 17th, 2009 @ 12:42pm

    Re: A nice cover page

    I couldn't agree more.

    When a politician is given a choice of, "I can be right, or I can be wealthy", I think we all know which they opt for.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 17th, 2009 @ 12:44pm

    "In film, for instance, the International Licensing Industry Merchandisers' Association (LIMA) estimates that Hollywood derives $16 billion annually from sales of entertainment merchandise, a figure that exceeds the value of ticket sales (Film Encyclopedia, 2008)." But, But, we can't make money from t-shirts and coffee cups. Hmmmm, infinite goods used as a promotion to sell scarce goods. By Josh, that just may work!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4.  
    icon
    GregSJ (profile), Jun 17th, 2009 @ 1:03pm

    "How much do you want to bet Congress will ignore it?"
    Sadly a lot.

    Thanks for the find Mike.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 17th, 2009 @ 1:09pm

    Some honesty, please

    If you're going to make these argument, why can't it be done so honestly.

    Even if there are fewer "album" sales, more people are creating more music than ever before in history...

    Gee, could this be because music is much cheaper to make than it used to be? That would have nothing to do with copyright or the lack thereof.

    more people are making some money from the production of music

    That is a very misleading stat. Part of the beauty of artists being able to profit from their work is that when there's a demand for an artists work, they can make a career out of creating that art, and therefor (without the "day job") have more time to create the art. Also, they have more money to invest in that art (hire a producer, a horn section, whatever). But when you say that more people are making some money, that included many, many, band who are making only a few dollars here and there. Add it all together, and it looks like a lot of money, but to each band that now has an extra $50 to work with, the money is inconsequential. It's not enough to invest into the music in any meaningful way, and not enough to make career musicians out of anyone. A more meaningful stat would be how file sharing affects the top 1% (or whatever percentage of musicians have historically made a living off of music) of musicians. Do they have more or less money to invest in music creation. Can they still create music as a full time job?

    Similar trends can be seen in other creative industries. For example, the worldwide number of feature films produced each year has increased from 3,807 in 2003 to 4,989 in 2007

    Again, digital technology has made films cheaper to produce.

    So the idea that file sharing has somehow damaged creative output is simply not supported by the numbers.

    A big part of that has to do with the cost of creation coming down. Many of these products being created are from people who, before the costs of creation and distribution got so low, would never have had the opportunity to create their product because no one was willing to invest in it. This has nothing to do with the copyright issue at all.

    And I know quality is subjective, but we've all seen "works of art" created in this environment that are horrible and there's no market for because nobody wants it, but yet this can be included in "more people creating" whatever.

    Since I don't want to post a bunch of bad music and youtube links, I'll take my example from the publishing industry now that it costs almost nothing to self publish. The book by Aaron Rayburn received the following reviews on amazon:

    I took one for the team, so the rest of you would NEVER have to be subjected to this beast. I beg you, don't let my selflessness be for nothing. Heed my warning. This is the worst book ever written....

    Okay, I know it doesn't seem THAT bad from the plot. But I haven't begun quoting yet. Mark Twain said, "The difference between the right word and the almost right word is the difference between lightning and the lightning bug."

    Rayburn wasn't even close.

    "Spiers's eyes popped extraneously from their sockets, as his face turned from a deep red to a sickly purple."

    "Extraneous" means "irrelevant." I don't think that's what he meant. At least, I hope not.

    Here's my favorite:

    "The lamp's glow was very weak compared to the blue glow emancipating from the basement."

    Emanating, Rayburn, EMANATING. When will people learn never to trust their SpellCheck without verifying it's the word they meant??? There are, in total, 11 instances of Rayburn using the wrong word....

    Okay, one more.

    "It infiltrated his lungs, filling them with a kind of innovativeness he had never felt before."


    Is society better off because this book was written? Probably not. Point is the total number of music/movies/whatever created is a misleading stat.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 17th, 2009 @ 1:17pm

    Re: Some honesty, please

    "A more meaningful stat would be how file sharing affects the top 1% (or whatever percentage of musicians have historically made a living off of music) of musicians. Do they have more or less money to invest in music creation. Can they still create music as a full time job?"

    I believe Mike has posted numerous stories about how file sharing actually helped ALL sizes of bands/musicians/artist. Your statement here is completely ignoring any of those stories with are factual.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 17th, 2009 @ 1:17pm

    Re:

    "In film, for instance, the International Licensing Industry Merchandisers' Association (LIMA) estimates that Hollywood derives $16 billion annually from sales of entertainment merchandise, a figure that exceeds the value of ticket sales (Film Encyclopedia, 2008)." But, But, we can't make money from t-shirts and coffee cups.

    Not an anti-copyright example. This is copyright at work here. Copyright protects those who own the product so that they control and profit from the merchandising.

    Without copyright, a film company invests $100 million in a movie, and as soon as it's out are competing for DVD sales with people who invested $0 in the movie, but bought and copied the DVD, and competing with people who invested $0 in the movie, but are making products related to it. And they not only have to be a little better than the competition, but a lot better because, for them to make a profit, they first have to make $100 million to pay for the production of the movie.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8.  
    icon
    Rosedale (profile), Jun 17th, 2009 @ 1:19pm

    Why do they ignore it?

    Congress will ignore it. The *IAA's will ignore it. I plan on reading the entire study, but this comes out just as the *IAA's are pushing ever harder in foreign countries for more draconian laws. Someone should be flaunting a study like this around just as loudly as all the false numbers and studies. I sickens me to watch and yet I can't look away :-).

    Oh well such is life. Thanks for sharing!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 17th, 2009 @ 1:20pm

    Re: Re: Some honesty, please

    I believe Mike has posted numerous stories about how file sharing actually helped ALL sizes of bands/musicians/artist. Your statement here is completely ignoring any of those stories with are factual.

    No, I believe he's posted examples of specific bands who have been helped. That's completely than a study of the music industry or movies that show the overall affect of file sharing. You'd need a much larger sample of artists to prove anything conclusively.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10.  
    identicon
    DJ, Jun 17th, 2009 @ 1:27pm

    IT'S "WREAK"!!!

    "they conclude that piracy has wrecked havoc on the music business."

    Yes, I know that the quote is taken from the excerpt. However, I'm simply pointing out an EXTREMELY common misuse of the word "wreck". If someone were to "wreck havoc", they would be, in effect, STOPPING said havoc from happening.

    The correct use of the phrase in question is:
    "WREAK HAVOC"

    WREAK: verb (used with object) 1. to inflict or execute (punishment, vengeance, etc.): They wreaked havoc on the enemy.

    /soapbox

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 17th, 2009 @ 1:35pm

    Re: Re: Re: Some honesty, please

    You're saying the same thing - he's provided (numerous) examples where file sharing has helped.

    What I think you're asking for is, at the very least, some specific examples of where file sharing has hurt specific artists.

    Your call for a systematic study of the issue is essentially unachievable as the only sources of the systematic data are biased against file-sharing and will NEVER provide the data to an objective third party.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  12.  
    icon
    Dark Helmet (profile), Jun 17th, 2009 @ 1:37pm

    Re: IT'S "WREAK"!!!

    As long as you constructed your soapbox and then vacated it:

    "Yes, I know that the quote is taken from the excerpt."

    This is a common misuse of the word "quote". The correct word would have been quotation, which is a known. Quote is a verb and is something you do, not something that is.

    /your soapbox

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  13.  
    identicon
    Fushta, Jun 17th, 2009 @ 1:38pm

    Weak Copyright Does Not Benefit Everyone

    These studies show that weaker copyright benefits "society," but it does not benefit the companies and lawyers that want to up-hold stronger copyright.

    Maybe in the long run, weaker copyright would benefit them, but they aren't willing to let us find out.

    They would say, "Society be damned. We needs our copyrights to survive."

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  14.  
    icon
    Dark Helmet (profile), Jun 17th, 2009 @ 1:38pm

    Re: Re: IT'S "WREAK"!!!

    "which is a known"

    Dammit, noun. Got it before you did.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  15.  
    identicon
    DJ, Jun 17th, 2009 @ 1:39pm

    Re: Re: Re: IT'S "WREAK"!!!

    lol

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  16.  
    identicon
    DJ, Jun 17th, 2009 @ 1:43pm

    Re: Re: A nice cover page

    The ways I can twist that statement are too numerous to list here.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  17.  
    identicon
    DJ, Jun 17th, 2009 @ 1:44pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Some honesty, please

    Objectivity can still happen????

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  18.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Cowherd, Jun 17th, 2009 @ 1:44pm

    Re: Re: IT'S "WREAK"!!!

    "Got it before you did."

    The "did" is superfluous. "Got it before you." would be perfectly acceptable and more concise.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  19.  
    identicon
    DJ, Jun 17th, 2009 @ 1:46pm

    Re: Re: IT'S "WREAK"!!!

    Guilty as charged.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  20.  
    identicon
    DJ, Jun 17th, 2009 @ 1:48pm

    Re: Re: Re: IT'S "WREAK"!!!

    Superfluous, yes, but it was still grammatically correct.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  21.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 17th, 2009 @ 1:52pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Some honesty, please

    The problem with the examples that have been given is that they are the exception, not the rule. There are so few that each time a band does something like giving away downloads of an album for free, it makes news. This is promotion in itself. I'm saying the realities of how all this affects bands and the industry as a whole can't be known unless these models are tried on a much larger scale. Big record company vs. big record company giving away music for free may have a much, much different result than a handful of bands doing it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  22.  
    identicon
    DJ, Jun 17th, 2009 @ 1:57pm

    Re: Re:

    DVD sales and merchandising (moichandising?) are NOT in competition with the movie. In fact, copyright permissions must be purchased PRIOR to production and/or sale of those products; which is how the movie makes money off of them.

    Welcome to capitalism, my friend.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  23.  
    identicon
    Computer guy Lou, Jun 17th, 2009 @ 1:58pm

    Downloading then buying

    I read the paper and the articl; adding my 2 cents in is I have downloaded music and films and I purchased them because I liked what I got. Have I downloaded music I haven't purchased; sure, but I alsodo not have it on my system anymoe and was glad I didn't buy it. I really wanted to see a movie that I went to in the theatre but it was released yet. Than goodness for the fle sharers cause I got to see the movie again. When it came out on DVD I purchased it.
    I love movies and have a collection numbering over 1200. I do download these same movies because I don't have the knowledge to turn my DVDs into .AVI or DiVX which my Home theatre system can play from the computer. If the MPAA or other companies would include a copy, I know it will never happen, with the movie then I would never download. I would simply be patient and wait for the DVD and simply copy it to my media machine and watch.
    BTW, I haven't notced anyone talking about how I make apurchase of a DVD then a couple months later out comes another with more content; wait a year then out comes another with even more additional content and I get no credit or even partial credit for making a previous purchase.
    what I do now is wait after downloading; till some company sells a "previous viewed" version for a quarter of what it sells for new. I simply got tird of buying new then they coming out with even different versions; just a slap for forking out extra money for being first and paying more and gettting less than others.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  24.  
    icon
    Matt (profile), Jun 17th, 2009 @ 2:01pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Some honesty, please

    "The problem with the examples that have been given is that they are the exception, not the rule."

    Would you care to post some examples of the rule?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  25.  
    identicon
    DJ, Jun 17th, 2009 @ 2:07pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Some honesty, please

    This is kind of a tangent, here, but let me just ask you this: what kind of advertisement is the best?
    Answer: word-of-mouth
    Susequently, how much does word-of-mouth advertising cost:
    Answer: nothing
    "Free" and "no cost" are synonymous. So, while I would agree that, in music, it's not the best, giving away free copies of music is a FANTASTIC way to advertise.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  26.  
    identicon
    DJ, Jun 17th, 2009 @ 2:12pm

    Re: Downloading then buying

    " haven't notced anyone talking about how I make apurchase of a DVD then a couple months later out comes another with more content; wait a year then out comes another with even more additional content"

    I think that sort of thing has become the norm, lately, and most people realize it, too. I wonder if there is some sort of relationship between this and DVD sales. That would be interesting to know.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  27.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 17th, 2009 @ 2:12pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Some honesty, please

    So what is required then? A major record company to break from the pack and redefine, from the top, a new vision for the music industry? The facilitation needs would require all resources, and the subsequent downstream (and major) realignment of the company so that internally would be immense to actually to meet those 2015/2017 business goals.

    It would be a culture shock, and I imagine the short term attrition of that company would be immense, but, in an odd way, is very curious. But until it happens, the headbanging will continue, eh?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  28.  
    identicon
    hegemon13, Jun 17th, 2009 @ 2:17pm

    Re: Re:

    "This is copyright at work here. Copyright protects those who own the product so that they control and profit from the merchandising."

    The article did not say "no copyright." It said "weaker copyright."

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  29.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 17th, 2009 @ 2:18pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Some honesty, please

    So what is required then? A major record company to break from the pack and redefine, from the top, a new vision for the music industry? The facilitation needs would require all resources, and the subsequent downstream (and major) realignment of the company so that internally would be immense to actually to meet those 2015/2017 business goals.

    It would be a culture shock, and I imagine the short term attrition of that company would be immense, but, in an odd way, is very curious. But until it happens, the headbanging will continue, eh?


    Exactly. Both sides of the issue can debate all they want, but unless these business models get tested on major scale, it's all just theory. Which is fine, it's perfectly legitimate to argue theory, just don't present it as fact.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  30.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 17th, 2009 @ 2:22pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Some honesty, please

    Would you care to post some examples of the rule?

    Yes, it's everybody who is not giving away their movie or music for free.

    Try to follow along. When there is a story of a major band giving away their music for free, it is a story because it is the exception. Most major bands are not doing this. Able to follow that?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  31.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 17th, 2009 @ 2:27pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Some honesty, please

    Then I suppose the question is "Who is going to blink first"?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  32.  
    icon
    herodotus (profile), Jun 17th, 2009 @ 2:43pm

    "Try to follow along. When there is a story of a major band giving away their music for free, it is a story because it is the exception. Most major bands are not doing this. Able to follow that?"

    Every major band I have looked for on MySpace has had a page with free music streaming from it.

    Lots and lots of successful bands also have pages at Last FM. Again, free music streaming.

    Free Music, major bands.

    Able to follow that?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  33.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 17th, 2009 @ 2:49pm

    Re:

    herodotus, do you understand the difference between streaming a few songs and giving away an entire album for free download. If every was giving everything away for free, this discussion wouldn't be happening.

    Geeze people, try to follow along.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  34.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 17th, 2009 @ 2:55pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Some honesty, please

    Then I suppose the question is "Who is going to blink first"?

    That, or some company will try it little by little. Give a small portion away for free. If their revenues go up, give a little more away, and so on, until they either:

    1. Reach a point where they are giving away all digital content for free and are making more money than ever, thus proving Mike's theory, or

    2. Reach a point where the profits lost by not charging for digital content are not being made up in other areas, thus disproving Mike's theory and learning what the threshold is for how much content to give away for free and how much to charge for.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  35.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 17th, 2009 @ 3:09pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Some honesty, please

    The answer is 2.

    Even if we swallow Mike's (somewhat misleading) theory as god's own words, there is a simple problem: At some point, even scarce goods would become too common to be useful and to actually sell for any real price.

    Ever seen a promotion for something and realized you have just seen it too much? You know, like the lead up to the last couple of star wars movies where it seemed that even the toilet paper in public restrooms had a star wars ad on it? Every toy store was selling toys, every fast food chain seemed to have a tie in? At some point, all that "stuff" loses it's value.

    Put another way, if music sales are 10 billion a year (last numbers I saw, 2007), and t shirts are $10 each, that means that artists worldwide would have to shift an extra 1 BILLION t-shirts a year to keep things in balance.

    Possible? Perhaps. But obviously, 1 billion extra garments in a year would put heavy pressure on the garment retail industry, which would likely respond with lower prices (and maybe even band logo shirts, not paying the bands, because hey, we tossed copyright and trademarks and patents out the window to get here).

    Sorry, but overall, the report is flawed because it doesn't look at alternate explainations for what is going on, rather, it attempts to make the data fit a preconceived conclusion, and that is never a good way to find the truth.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  36.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 17th, 2009 @ 3:20pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Some honesty, please

    The answer is 2.

    I agree with everything you just wrote. The reason for me giving to options is to acknowledge that both sides are just theory - even though many people (Mike) think there solution is a proven fact.

    My personal opinion is that scarce goods will not replace what could be made by sale of digital content in all content driven industries. I'm willing to listen to the other side, I just take exception when the data is deliberately misleading.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  37.  
    icon
    Overcast (profile), Jun 17th, 2009 @ 3:28pm

    "suggest that without copyright, there would be much less creative output, because there would be much less incentive to create"

    If the MP3 format was 'copy written' and controlled by one entity - there's pretty much no possibility that it would be - by far - the most predominant format for music out there.

    Same could be said for the format CD's and DVD's use.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  38.  
    icon
    Overcast (profile), Jun 17th, 2009 @ 3:30pm

    At some point, even scarce goods would become too common to be useful and to actually sell for any real price.

    You pay for water don't you?

    Why?

    You could... dig a well.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  39.  
    icon
    Overcast (profile), Jun 17th, 2009 @ 3:33pm

    Oh that and it (water) does fall out of the sky on occasion too. It is likely the most abundant chemical compound on Earth...

    Yet, Coca-Cola and Pepsi make a mint on their bottled water, along with at least 10 other companies.

    I suspect quality and convenience have a lot to do with that.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  40.  
    icon
    Marcus Carab (profile), Jun 17th, 2009 @ 3:35pm

    Re: Some honesty, please

    The purpose of copyright IS NOT to decide what art is worthwhile and what art isn't. It is simply to promote the creation of work from all who wish to create - and then to allow the free market to reward them only as it sees fit (a process very nicely illustrated by your example, thank you)

    Total creative output is not a misleading stat when you are talking about a law intended to INCREASE TOTAL CREATIVE OUTPUT. If the law's intention was to ensure only "good" things get created, your point would be accurate. Thank the stars that's not the case.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  41.  
    icon
    BobinBaltimore (profile), Jun 17th, 2009 @ 3:36pm

    Not About Copyright

    I agree that this is really not about copyright at all, but is just data related to a decrease and cost and increase in the ease of distribution of electronic media. They are interpreting the data through a copyright prism, but the simpler explanation is ease and access to means of creation and distribution.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  42.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 17th, 2009 @ 3:40pm

    Re:

    You have to be careful where you go with this one. Water is a life necessity, not a luxury. We pay for water, but mostly we pay to have it filtered and delivered to our homes in abundance (tap water). Clean tap water is, remarkably, a SCARCE resource. The water that "just falls from the sky" isn't really drinkable (tends to be dirty and a little acidic). So it isn't the same product Sort of like comparing chocolate cake to cow plop. Both are brown, and one is produced in abundance (just falls out of their butts).

    Look at the reverse. In places like California where water is scarce, the price of tap water is higher, and subject to many restrictions. If those restrictions became severe enough, there would be a market for much more expensive water. Not just people paying for bottled water, but an actual real shortage would cause the price of clean water to spike.

    Conversely, if someone discovered a way to turn rainfall into drinking water for free, and convert all your "greywater" back into drinking water for nothing, the market for water would disappear.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  43.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 17th, 2009 @ 3:43pm

    Re:

    A couple of problems here. First, MP3 is a format, nothing more or less. It isn't "copyright", at best it might be patented, different process. But if MP3 was patent, then we might be all listening to wmv files or digitalmax files or some other format.

    Formats like this are common language, like driving on one side of the road and not the other. There is a need, and if MP3 was patent and not an open public format, then another one would have come along.

    Not really an issue.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  44.  
    icon
    herodotus (profile), Jun 17th, 2009 @ 5:39pm

    herodotus, do you understand the difference between streaming a few songs and giving away an entire album for free download. If every was giving everything away for free, this discussion wouldn't be happening.

    Yes, I understand. Sadly, the statement that you made wasn't nuanced at all. What you wrote was:

    "Yes, it's everybody who is not giving away their movie or music for free.

    Try to follow along. When there is a story of a major band giving away their music for free, it is a story because it is the exception. Most major bands are not doing this. Able to follow that?"

    I don't see anything about whole albums in this statement. No, you made a fatuous unqualified generalization and were rude while you were doing it. You were called on it and were rude again.

    Here's a thought: maybe, when people can't follow your train of thought, it isn't because they are slow, it's because you are inarticulate.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  45.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 17th, 2009 @ 7:17pm

    Re: Not About Copyright

    Not as if Mike would ever address this.

    Come on Mike, admit that the study is full of it, disassociate yourself from it, and perhaps even kill the thread. It's a crock.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  46.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), Jun 17th, 2009 @ 7:39pm

    Re: Not About Copyright

    I agree that this is really not about copyright at all, but is just data related to a decrease and cost and increase in the ease of distribution of electronic media. They are interpreting the data through a copyright prism, but the simpler explanation is ease and access to means of creation and distribution.

    I think you're missing the point. We've long argued that the explosion in content creation is due to the cheaper means of production... but also the cheaper means of PROMOTION and DISTRIBUTION.

    So, yes, copyright very much comes into play.

    But the end question is very much about copyright: is it needed to encourage production? The results of this study pretty clearly call that into question. The idea that file sharing has destroyed the incentives of musicians? Totally in question.

    So where's the "harm"? There is none.

    The only "harm" is in choosing a bad business model. That's a marketing issue, not a legal one.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  47.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 17th, 2009 @ 7:56pm

    Re: Re: Not About Copyright

    But the end question is very much about copyright: is it needed to encourage production? The results of this study pretty clearly call that into question. The idea that file sharing has destroyed the incentives of musicians? Totally in question.

    Seriously? Copyright also protects the scarce items that are associated with the content musicians, filmakers, and other content creators create. So even if this study called the need of copyright in question (which, as the post you are responding to points out, it does not), filesharing is still just one small part of all of the copyright issue.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  48.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 17th, 2009 @ 8:01pm

    Re:

    herodotus, I'm sorry if you misunderstood. In context what I wrote makes perfect sense. I was taking issue with Mike's business model. I think he's been very clear about saying everything should be freely available. Not just select songs, not just streaming. So, I think when I state "Yes, it's everybody who is not giving away their movie or music for free." most people in here know that means making entire albums available for free download.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  49.  
    identicon
    David O., Jun 17th, 2009 @ 9:37pm

    Re: Some honesty, please

    Great post, would have wrote something similar, but you "hit the nail on the head."

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  50.  
    identicon
    David O., Jun 17th, 2009 @ 9:42pm

    exactly

    "If we also consider the sale of iPods as a revenue stream, the industry is now 66% larger than in 1997."

    No you can't included sales of ipods, because the content creators don't make ipods and Apple does not produce music or movies.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  51.  
    identicon
    Dave, Jun 17th, 2009 @ 10:17pm

    Re: Re: Not About Copyright

    Some industries are discourage more than others:
    consider what some of the content creators have to say:

    Debate of on the pros and cons of being content creators and running a website

    Artist are going to create art because that's what they love. I know musicians that don't care about making money from music because the have day jobs. But if you want record companies to continue to invest in artist, then their copyrights needs to be protected. Using music as loss leader is not a novel idea. And I think we're going to see more records labels being bought by companies that sell other type of tangible goods. Your favorite artist endorsing jeans, burritos and cars more than ever before.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  52.  
    icon
    Mr RC (profile), Jun 18th, 2009 @ 12:47am

    Hmmm...

    So according to the AC's (well the majority of them) .. file sharing is still harming industries... and that more stuff was created because it has become cheaper to do so, as well as to distribute and market...

    Then why haven't we seen a reduction in prices for any media? everything else goes down, things that offer far more value... but ... CD's still cost the same, DVD's still cost the same.. movie ticket prices are going up...

    Where's the value for us? all I see is greed...

    I download, I also own over 1,000 CD's AND DVD's.. (legit copies, all of them.. not to mention band shirts and such) ... I'm obviously hurting the industry, how dare I try before I buy.. given that just about every other type of sale AND contract offers a refund/cancellation period... these industries do not... I'm not in the habit of buying shit... if I buy something shit I expect to be able to return it... but with movies and music I'm not allowed to do so... so... either I download... or I just don't buy at all...

    As far as I'm concerned, the RIAA, MPAA, their ilk globally and their defenders... can go suck on a ruptured and inflamed hemorrhoid whilst being jacked off and fingered by the worlds fattest man in a sauna...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  53.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), Jun 18th, 2009 @ 1:25am

    Re: Re:

    I think he's been very clear about saying everything should be freely available. Not just select songs, not just streaming

    Nope. Wrong. Sorry. I have never been clear in saying that at all.

    SHOULD is a moral statement. I'm not making a moral statement. I'm talking about economics. I'm saying it *will* be free eventually. That's where the market is heading. It's just basic economics.

    Given that, I suggest that content producers are better off taking strategies that recognize (and even embrace) that to their benefit.

    Understanding that difference is important.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  54.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), Jun 18th, 2009 @ 1:28am

    Re: Re: Re: Not About Copyright


    Seriously? Copyright also protects the scarce items that are associated with the content musicians, filmakers, and other content creators create. So even if this study called the need of copyright in question (which, as the post you are responding to points out, it does not), filesharing is still just one small part of all of the copyright issue.


    No, copyright does not protect the scarce goods. It may protect the use of certain things associated with the scarce goods, but the scarce goods themselves are quite different. A cup is not protected by copyright. What's on the cup may be.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  55.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), Jun 18th, 2009 @ 1:31am

    Re: exactly


    No you can't included sales of ipods, because the content creators don't make ipods and Apple does not produce music or movies.


    Huh? So what? You're defining the market incorrectly.

    We're looking at the overall economic impact of entertainment. And that's grown massively. If the determination is societal/economic benefit, then you absolutely must include the iPod because even if one part of the industry shrinks, if another one grows much greater because of that, it's a *net benefit*.

    Your argument is like saying "well, you can't count automobiles in the market for transportation, because they're different than horses."

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  56.  
    identicon
    gg-liddy-diddy, Jun 18th, 2009 @ 4:43am

    Why Pay at all?

    After all, most "artists" aren't really worth listening to anyway. Certainly not for money! Certainly not ofr rappers.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  57.  
    identicon
    David Touve, Jun 18th, 2009 @ 5:33am

    Understanding Soundscan data

    I might suggest people do some investigating into how Soundscan works, and how its sample has changed (particularly during the period 2000-2007)

    There were additions of retailers and distributors to the Soundscan data that were not previously included in Soundscan sample. The authors of this paper may not have known this. The addition of CD Baby alone would have added 20,000-35,000 albums each year - albums that very likely were already being produced, but simply overlooked since they were not included in major retailer inventory.

    The inclusion of "indie" music was a very important shift in the Soundscan sample. The industry suddenly became very aware of a large sample of music that was being produced, but was not being sold in a major retailer (the source of earlier soundscan data).

    Arguing that there are social benefits to the free flow of copyrighted stuff is spot on. This benefit of copyright is why we historically just transfer value, and don't lock up files.

    This supply-side argument has a bump however (imho), in the form of these additions to the Soundscan sample.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  58.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 18th, 2009 @ 5:37am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Some honesty, please

    Ok, and are the people/artists/bands who are not giving away their music for free making more, less, or the same amount of money as they have in the past?

    And if it's more or less, how much more or less are they making?

    Is it 2% or 75%? Or, alternatively, have they seen a drastic change in their lifestyle?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  59.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 18th, 2009 @ 5:47am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Some honesty, please

    Ahhh, yes, the old "selling t-shirts will be all they have left" tired argument.

    Are t-shirts the only scarcity you can think of? I hope you're not managing creative folk, cuz they be in trouble with you as their manager.

    Come on, stretch your imagination and your creativity...think of products that can augment revenues...

    You complain about Mike's theories and then you present a stream of consciousness "this is what I think will happen." Do you see how that's just not going to cut it?

    The markets have and continue to change...that's reality, not theory...if those selling products in them don't change and don't take some risks, then I have no sympathy.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  60.  
    identicon
    Defining the market, Jun 18th, 2009 @ 6:23am

    You're painting a board stroke

    No we're looking at the economic impact of file sharing on content creators. Remember the topic

    "The idea that file sharing has destroyed the incentives of musicians"


    This is not just about the overall entertainment, not all entertainment evolves file sharing.

    Breeders of horses provide a means of transportation but they are not part of the automobile industry, there is a difference. We don't talk about them when we are talking about the problems of the automobile industry.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  61.  
    icon
    Killer_Tofu (profile), Jun 18th, 2009 @ 6:32am

    Re: Some honesty, please

    While your post may be picking at a point or two here or there, there is one thing your post does wonderfully that agrees with the original post.

    It completely helps demonstrate why copyright is no longer needed at all as an incentive for artists to create.
    A large point you make about several industries is how the cost to produce has come down, which has led to a lot more artists.

    Thank you for helping to prove another part of the overall point we are trying to make for why copyright is no longer needed as an incentive. (The decrease in cost has been mentioned before on Techdirt)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  62.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 18th, 2009 @ 6:44am

    Re: Re: Some honesty, please

    While your post may be picking at a point or two here or there, there is one thing your post does wonderfully that agrees with the original post.

    It completely helps demonstrate why copyright is no longer needed at all as an incentive for artists to create.
    A large point you make about several industries is how the cost to produce has come down, which has led to a lot more artists.


    Missed the entire point. Because the cost of production and distribution is down, there will e a lot more creation, sure, from anyone who wants to make a CD. Copyright makes no difference for people when there's no demand for their product. But lets talk about products people actually want. If copyright helps these artists make money, it certainly does provide an incentive by letting them continue to create and giving them money to invest in their creations.

    The other issue is, even for those artists who are making little or no money, copyright is still an incentive because of the possibility to make money. Most bands don't make much money, but every band is trying too. Just look at the number of bands selling CDs through CD Baby.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  63.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 18th, 2009 @ 6:47am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Not About Copyright

    No S***. Come on Mike, you knew what the point was. Of course if I'm selling a scare good related to the move, something from the movie (protected by copyright) will be on that item. You know I wasn't talking about tying in plain white cups with a movie.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  64.  
    identicon
    mobiGeek, Jun 18th, 2009 @ 7:03am

    Re: exactly

    "You can't count the record companies because they don't create content and artists don't make vinyl discs."

    iPod is a delivery mechanism, just as LPs, CDs, cassettes, etc. The fact that it is also a player is simply a perk.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  65.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 18th, 2009 @ 11:33am

    Re: Re: Not About Copyright

    "The idea that file sharing has destroyed the incentives of musicians? Totally in question.

    So where's the "harm"? There is none."

    This is the biggest logical jump possible. How does it go from "totally in question" to "none"?

    Mike, right now you are looking at a market that is mostly still buying shiny plastic discs and itunes downloads. There is still plenty of money in the system. But if and when that stops, the entire financial dynamics of the situations changes.

    Get rid of the record labels. Get rid of the fees, the fees collection companies, the licensing, artist rights, copyright, and all that other stuff, and what is left to make someone want to write and record a new song, except for perhaps the sheer pleasure of doing it? What you are proposing is to drop billions and billions of dollars that right now go to make the system work, to pay the song writers, to pay the artists, to pay for recording, and replace it with... well, nothing. Oh wait, no, a bunch of "artistes" plunking out tunes on their guitars in coffee shops.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  66.  
    identicon
    TomB, Jun 18th, 2009 @ 1:01pm

    Patents

    Copyright terms are ridiculously long - life of the author plus 70 years or 95 years for a corporate work.

    Patents terms, on the other hand, are 20 years. 20 years of patent protection is enough to convince a company to invest millions into research & development. Pharmaceutical companies regular spend 100s of millions of dollars developing a drug. If 20 years of protection is enough to incentivize that kind of investment in patent creation, 20 years should be enough to convince some artist to write a song or write a book or paint a picture. It should be enough to invest even the millions it costs to make some movies.

    The current balance is waaaay off.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  67.  
    icon
    Killer_Tofu (profile), Jun 18th, 2009 @ 1:16pm

    Re: Re: Re: Some honesty, please

    So now you are contractdicting your previous point that because production costs are way down, people are creating because they want to and can.

    Copyright is not meant to guarantee income. Nobody is entitled to earn money. Anybody who thinks they are can shovel it elsewhere.

    The real artists don't do it for the money. If they are doing it just for money, all it means is that they are greedy. If I couldn't make a living as a programmer, I would still do it on the side because I enjoy it.

    And it is also worth mentioning that your point that copyright is an incentive because of the possibility to make money, while wrong since copyright guarantees no such thing, is still moot because plenty of artists make money without copyright. You are still left with not needing copyright at all.

    Please recall that there was countless content creation before copyright ever existed for the past couple hundred years. And some of that music from before copyright, even today, I quite enjoy.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  68.  
    icon
    BobinBaltimore (profile), Jun 18th, 2009 @ 3:13pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Some honesty, please

    So content created by non-real artists is less important/worthy of consideration than content created by "real artists." I don't get the point about real artists and greedy non-real artists. You note that "plenty of [presumably "real"] artists make money without copyright." What is "plenty?" Is it 10% of all "real" artists, 2%, 1%, 0.000000000000002%? I'm guessing something close to the latter. Will that approach scale? No one seems to know how to make it scale and there are a lot of attempts to ignore the scaling issue. All very interesting, though, in a collectivist theoretical kinda way.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  69.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 18th, 2009 @ 6:11pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Some honesty, please

    "Copyright is not meant to guarantee income. Nobody is entitled to earn money. Anybody who thinks they are can shovel it elsewhere."

    Of course it isn't a guarantee - but it is a guarantee that NOBODY ELSE MAKES MONEY OFF IT EITHER, at least not without you getting a cut of the action.

    There is no guarantee that you will ever make anything from something you create. It's just right that the creator has control over their creation, not any lazy ass person who just feels like ripping it off.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  70.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 18th, 2009 @ 10:03pm

    Mike and the authors of the working paper don't seem to have any idea of how the Indian film industry works, or they would have realized India is a classic example of how copyright actually HELPS the movie industry survive. It's paradoxical, actally!

    Yes, piracy is rampant; it has virtually destroyed the sales of legit CDs and DVDs, and at one point (late 90s) even threatened to wipe out the industry as theater attendances fell to a record low - a great many theaters were even converted into shopping malls.

    But theaters underwent a makeover to become swanky and now the moviegoing experience is much better, and people are willing to pay a lot more for the experience. Companies are now back to focusing on revenues from theaters and have given up on curbing the CD/DVD piracy menace (which is now extended to the Net; virtually every new movie available either on Youtube or sharing sites like Megavideo and Rapidshare).

    Indians are a TV and movie addicted people, so another major source of revenue is television rights. TV channels scramble to bag the rights of the latest releases.

    But the biggest moneyspinner is the Indian diaspora scattered all over the world, which is willing to pay good money to watch the latest movies. This translates into lucrative international TV and DVD rights. (An example is a Tamil film called Sivaji starring Rajinikant, which stayed to the top 10 in the UK for a few weeks and was the biggest grosser in history in Malaysia.)

    So, while lax copyright enforcement in the case of CDs and DVDs causes (minor) losses to moviemakers, it is strong copyright law that ensures returns through theater attendances, TV rights and international rights.

    An explosion in satellite channless, the rise in diaspora revenues, not to mention the opaque nature of the industry (becomes convenient way of laundering ill-gotten wealth), have led to an overall increase in content. It has not beeen dented by piracy, but at the same time has been aided by copyright! Paradoxical, as I said!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  71.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 18th, 2009 @ 10:04pm

    Mike and the authors of the working paper don't seem to have any idea of how the Indian film industry works, or they would have realized India is a classic example of how copyright actually HELPS the movie industry survive. It's paradoxical, actally!

    Yes, piracy is rampant; it has virtually destroyed the sales of legit CDs and DVDs, and at one point (late 90s) even threatened to wipe out the industry as theater attendances fell to a record low - a great many theaters were even converted into shopping malls.

    But theaters underwent a makeover to become swanky and now the moviegoing experience is much better, and people are willing to pay a lot more for the experience. Companies are now back to focusing on revenues from theaters and have given up on curbing the CD/DVD piracy menace (which is now extended to the Net; virtually every new movie available either on Youtube or sharing sites like Megavideo and Rapidshare).

    Indians are a TV and movie addicted people, so another major source of revenue is television rights. TV channels scramble to bag the rights of the latest releases.

    But the biggest moneyspinner is the Indian diaspora scattered all over the world, which is willing to pay good money to watch the latest movies. This translates into lucrative international TV and DVD rights. (An example is a Tamil film called Sivaji starring Rajinikant, which stayed to the top 10 in the UK for a few weeks and was the biggest grosser in history in Malaysia.)

    So, while lax copyright enforcement in the case of CDs and DVDs causes (minor) losses to moviemakers, it is strong copyright law that ensures returns through theater attendances, TV rights and international rights.

    An explosion in satellite channless, the rise in diaspora revenues, not to mention the opaque nature of the industry (becomes convenient way of laundering ill-gotten wealth), have led to an overall increase in content. It has not beeen dented by piracy, but at the same time has been aided by copyright! Paradoxical, as I said!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  72.  
    identicon
    mulp, Jun 18th, 2009 @ 11:28pm

    Re: Some honesty, please

    The cheaper production costs cuts out the "middle man" - the record or movie studio that once took the biggest share of the profits because they fronted all the cost of the equipment and labor for production. Many artists got nothing other than exposure which they could leverage into good income touring.

    Today, the artists get the exposure on the web, get the same revenue as before: zero, but without the studio gatekeeper blocking their access to their possible fans.

    A lot more artists are getting a little income, while the small number of record companies are getting wacked big time. But no one buys a record label; we buy the work of the artist, and the best way to buy that artist's work is fresh, in concert.

    Of course, Ticketmaster has done a lot to lock up those avenues and acts as the new gatekeeper. But that is another day's battle.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  73.  
    icon
    Killer_Tofu (profile), Jun 19th, 2009 @ 6:03am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Some honesty, please

    Of course it isn't a guarantee - but it is a guarantee that NOBODY ELSE MAKES MONEY OFF IT EITHER, at least not without you getting a cut of the action.

    So why is stuff like private copying of songs bad? Nobody else is making any money off of it. If anything it just makes more people more likely to know about artists and then go and buy stuff or go to concerts.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  74.  
    identicon
    peter bruce, Jul 1st, 2009 @ 7:18pm

    Re: Re: Some honesty, please

    Hello,
    Good Morning to you,I am interested in immediate purchase of your item,but
    before i proceed on this transaction i will like to ask some question as
    follow. i can only raise cashier check or money order for the payment of
    your item so i will like to know if the item is still available and also if
    is in good condition?Please your answer on this, will enable me to issue
    your payment to you asap

    1. Do you accept a ( Cashier Check / Money Order)as a mode of payment?

    2. What is the firm price of the item?

    3. Will you let a shipping company to come to your house for the pick up of
    the item?

    4. Do get back to me with your contact info where you want the payment to
    address to

    5. I will like you to contact me to my personal email address which
    is(anny_bruce2000@yahoo.com)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  75.  
    identicon
    peter bruce, Jul 1st, 2009 @ 7:21pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Some honesty, please

    Hello,
    Good Morning to you,I am interested in immediate purchase of your item,but
    before i proceed on this transaction i will like to ask some question as
    follow. i can only raise cashier check or money order for the payment of
    your item so i will like to know if the item is still available and also if
    is in good condition?Please your answer on this, will enable me to issue
    your payment to you asap

    1. Do you accept a ( Cashier Check / Money Order)as a mode of payment?

    2. What is the firm price of the item?

    3. Will you let a shipping company to come to your house for the pick up of
    the item?

    4. Do get back to me with your contact info where you want the payment to
    address to

    5. I will like you to contact me to my personal email address which
    is(peter_bruce14@yahoo.com)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  76.  
    identicon
    peter bruce, Jul 1st, 2009 @ 7:21pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: IT'S "WREAK"!!!

    Hello,
    Good Morning to you,I am interested in immediate purchase of your item,but
    before i proceed on this transaction i will like to ask some question as
    follow. i can only raise cashier check or money order for the payment of
    your item so i will like to know if the item is still available and also if
    is in good condition?Please your answer on this, will enable me to issue
    your payment to you asap

    1. Do you accept a ( Cashier Check / Money Order)as a mode of payment?

    2. What is the firm price of the item?

    3. Will you let a shipping company to come to your house for the pick up of
    the item?

    4. Do get back to me with your contact info where you want the payment to
    address to

    5. I will like you to contact me to my personal email address which
    is(peter_bruce14@yahoo.com)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  77.  
    identicon
    peter bruce, Jul 1st, 2009 @ 7:22pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Some honesty, please

    Hello,
    Good Morning to you,I am interested in immediate purchase of your item,but
    before i proceed on this transaction i will like to ask some question as
    follow. i can only raise cashier check or money order for the payment of
    your item so i will like to know if the item is still available and also if
    is in good condition?Please your answer on this, will enable me to issue
    your payment to you asap

    1. Do you accept a ( Cashier Check / Money Order)as a mode of payment?

    2. What is the firm price of the item?

    3. Will you let a shipping company to come to your house for the pick up of
    the item?

    4. Do get back to me with your contact info where you want the payment to
    address to

    5. I will like you to contact me to my personal email address which
    is(peter_bruce14@yahoo.com)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  78.  
    identicon
    peter bruce, Jul 1st, 2009 @ 7:22pm

    Re: Re: Re: IT'S "WREAK"!!!

    Hello,
    Good Morning to you,I am interested in immediate purchase of your item,but
    before i proceed on this transaction i will like to ask some question as
    follow. i can only raise cashier check or money order for the payment of
    your item so i will like to know if the item is still available and also if
    is in good condition?Please your answer on this, will enable me to issue
    your payment to you asap

    1. Do you accept a ( Cashier Check / Money Order)as a mode of payment?

    2. What is the firm price of the item?

    3. Will you let a shipping company to come to your house for the pick up of
    the item?

    4. Do get back to me with your contact info where you want the payment to
    address to

    5. I will like you to contact me to my personal email address which
    is(peter_bruce14@yahoo.com)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  79.  
    identicon
    David, Jan 13th, 2010 @ 4:48am

    Riiight

    "The real artists don't do it for the money. If they are doing it just for money, all it means is that they are greedy. If I couldn't make a living as a programmer, I would still do it on the side because I enjoy it."

    Wanting to get paid means you're greedy? So you don't mind if your salary is reduced to zero then? I'll get in touch with your company right away, they'll be delighted with the cost saving, I'm sure.

    I note how all these people who are, in essence, arguing that others should work for nothing are not, themselves, quite prepared to take that step.

    The other point is that the anti-copyright argument always rests on the ability to sell items that are not copyable ("complements") rather than selling the item that is the primary source of value (which can't be sold because it's copyable and we cannot or do not want to enforce copyright). The flaw in this scheme is obvious. In a world where more and more goods are likely to be digitalised, you cannot charge for the item itself (meaning that the market price will be unrelated its value), but only for "complements". If these complements do not exist, the value of the item cannot be extracted from the consumer. If they do exist, their value will determine the market price. This is, at the least, a clear market distortion. There is, one assumes, some sort of relationship between the popularity of a band's music and, say, its t-shirt sales. The same could be said for concerts, but this conveniently ignores that fact that many great bands of the recording era made their best music in the studio, when they had stopped touring (anyone remember The Beatles?). But what about books? Once copyright on books is being systematically flouted and it is no longer possible to charge for them, what complements are authors supposed to sell? T-shirts? Autographs? There is a reason why, even today, many books are not available in electronic format, and that reason is piracy. If publishers are smart, they will continue to restrict digital availability of their works to closed devices such the Kindle. This is a clear cost imposed on us by piracy.

    One last point. If it is true that artists will happily work for nothing, what is the point of the elaborate "complements" defence? If those who oppose copyright feel sure that we will continue to get the books, movies and music we want without paying for it, why not just say so? Say it out loud: authors, musicians and moviemakers should work for nothing, or scratch around for "complements". Then we can have an honest debate.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  80.  
    identicon
    repelsteeltje, Mar 16th, 2010 @ 12:39pm

    It's all about you

    And the right to protect the things coming from a creative mind.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  81.  
    identicon
    Pool Tables For Sale, Dec 18th, 2010 @ 7:29pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Some honesty, please

    Yeah, you're right. I think that won't happen.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This