Looks like we've come full circle- the modern newspaper has its roots in the coffee houses, cafes, and clubs of the 16th and 17th century where people would congregate to read and discuss current events.
You can argue the actual content of the article without resorting to "Mike lied!" If you disagree with the points raised, argue those. Silly attacks are not needed. Besides:
Mike summary: "BT broke the law in not stopping file sharing"
Actually said: "If you operate a commercial service and know it is being used to break the law, taking steps to ensure it is used legally is a cost of doing business."
How would this work in practice, as it stands it's something along the lines of big group with lots of lawyers says:
"I'm suing you over something baseless! But it is more costly to defend yourself in court than just settle! I have made a mockery of justice!"
The NH law changes it to:
"As above, except now you could try to prove to a court my claim is baseless. But it will cost you more to try and allege that in court than just settle. I win again!"
If you create something valuable, and which other people want, should you be able to charge them for it? I think many people, even here, would say yes.
You can -try- to charge for it. But if the supply is infinite, and you even acknowledge the price ought to be zero, why should anyone pay more than its worth?
I think you're concerned that a) If content creators don't get monopoly rents from copyright, they will make no money. And b) If they can't make money no one will create content.
I strongly disagree with both of those suppositions.
I don't think we're really disagreeing over much. I think the labels are fighting basic economics, I agree infringement is still illegal, and I'm not for the abolishing of copyright, just getting rid of the excesses of the 'abusive territory' you agree its been wildly defined into.
"it clearly and specifically their right to sue people who don't abide by the current law of the land."
A response to this though:
We're a bit off topic now- the original post was whether they -deserve- payment. I think entitlement and economics don't mix, and they don't -deserve- anything. But that's not saying they can't sue for it as the law allows. Do you feel they -deserve- the money though?
@PopeHilarius wrote:
"I think the point is that music is now free by default".
This is the crux of the issue. The music in question here is decidedly *not* free. There is a quite specific price attached to it by the Label who is selling it.
Should it be free? that's an entirely different question.
Should has nothing to do with this- it's not that music should be free, it's that it IS. And the music in question here decidedly IS free- I can go and download whatever I want, right now, for free. The labels are offering that same free product, with a plastic disc bundled into the package, for cash.
This is just economics- I agree that the law hasn't caught up with the marketplace yet. But law is just creating artificial barriers.
But the reverse, that *no one* would have bought it, is likewise not a reasonable statement either.
I don't think Mike (or anyone) is arguing that the only people who infringe music are people who would never pay money. In fact, Techdirt's highlighted a number of times that these same people -will- pay money, given a reason to.
I think the point is that music now is now free by default. The cost of distributing a song to everyone with a computer doesn't cost anything. Joel (and others) didn't want to pay money for the physical CD disc, and instead just got the music at cost online.
Customers will willingly (gladly even) pay money for things they want. Strongarm lawsuits, government protection, and grandstanding in the media aren't things customers want though.
This reminds me of Len Riggio, Barnes and Noble's chairman. A separate holding company which he owns actually has the rights to the Barnes & Noble name, which it leases to Barnes & Noble the bookstore (at like, a dollar a year or whatnot). It's a pretty funny poison pill- a hostile takeover would just net you the brick and mortar, but none of the brand equity.
I don't think it's just that the industry funds campaigns. So did the tobacco industry, but prevailing social mores eventually overcame the industry's lobbying.
I think the real issue is that people don't care about copyright law because it affects them very little, and that I think people generally believe the story the entertainment industry has put out: infringement is theft, and copyright reformists are pirate-hippy-thieves. I'm surprised how many people I talk to that feel downloading music (for example) is stealing directly from the artist. I think outside of people who are interested in this topic, most people believe the industry's propaganda. A politician isn't going to take a stand on an issue his constituents either don't care at all about, or think is actually wrong.
I know what I'd like to see is some propaganda in other direction. Informative articles are one thing, but what we really need is posters on the subway that say "Why buy a CD- only X% goes to the artist" or whatever.
I'm a little off topic here- but the politicians bit resonates with me. I think it's more of a bottom-up problem.
This is right in line with that Christian Engström suggested would happen in his FT editorial- zeal for protecting copyrights means privacy has to be trampled.
Hilarious and short-lived it may be, but in the meantime, is it a legit service? I'd love to pay $10 for some downloads. It's flashbacks to allofmp3.com.
I think a lot of these arguments get muddled by using morality-laden words like 'fair'. There's nothing right or wrong about any price. But .99 cents for a song -is- too high (economically, not ethically), because the marginal cost of delivering me that song is $0*.
So no one needs justifications/rationalizations you put forward (though people do, of course). The simple fact is downloading a digital product incurs no cost to the producer. Any prize above zero is artificial, and economics tells us it'll have to come down. There's no morality here, it's just the way the market'll go. You can't charge money for something that's actually free, in the long run.
* Actually infinitesimally above zero, factoring in electricity, bandwidth and other frictional elements.
"This is not a portrait of a dying industry. It's illustrative of transformation. Newspapers are reinventing themselves to focus on serving distinct audiences with a variety of products."
I think the first two sentences of that are completely true. I just wish the last sentence was as well. It's like they know they need to try something different to stay alive, but just keep saying, "Hmmm, how about micropayments?" and so on.
RSS
Twitter
(as PopeHilarius)
Looks like we've come full circle- the modern newspaper has its roots in the coffee houses, cafes, and clubs of the 16th and 17th century where people would congregate to read and discuss current events.
(as PopeHilarius)
You can argue the actual content of the article without resorting to "Mike lied!" If you disagree with the points raised, argue those. Silly attacks are not needed. Besides:
Mike summary: "BT broke the law in not stopping file sharing"
Actually said: "If you operate a commercial service and know it is being used to break the law, taking steps to ensure it is used legally is a cost of doing business."
C'mon now. There's no "Mike made stuff up".
(as PopeHilarius)
When questioned about its actions, the GPS system admitted it provided bad directions "for the lulz"
(as PopeHilarius)
How would this work in practice, as it stands it's something along the lines of big group with lots of lawyers says:
"I'm suing you over something baseless! But it is more costly to defend yourself in court than just settle! I have made a mockery of justice!"
The NH law changes it to:
"As above, except now you could try to prove to a court my claim is baseless. But it will cost you more to try and allege that in court than just settle. I win again!"
Unless I'm missing something.
(as PopeHilarius)
@DoctorStrange
If you create something valuable, and which other people want, should you be able to charge them for it? I think many people, even here, would say yes.
You can -try- to charge for it. But if the supply is infinite, and you even acknowledge the price ought to be zero, why should anyone pay more than its worth?
I think you're concerned that a) If content creators don't get monopoly rents from copyright, they will make no money. And b) If they can't make money no one will create content.
I strongly disagree with both of those suppositions.
(as PopeHilarius)
@PixelPusher220... again.
I don't think we're really disagreeing over much. I think the labels are fighting basic economics, I agree infringement is still illegal, and I'm not for the abolishing of copyright, just getting rid of the excesses of the 'abusive territory' you agree its been wildly defined into.
"it clearly and specifically their right to sue people who don't abide by the current law of the land."
A response to this though:
We're a bit off topic now- the original post was whether they -deserve- payment. I think entitlement and economics don't mix, and they don't -deserve- anything. But that's not saying they can't sue for it as the law allows. Do you feel they -deserve- the money though?
(as PopeHilarius)
@PixelPusher220
@PopeHilarius wrote:
"I think the point is that music is now free by default".
This is the crux of the issue. The music in question here is decidedly *not* free. There is a quite specific price attached to it by the Label who is selling it.
Should it be free? that's an entirely different question.
Should has nothing to do with this- it's not that music should be free, it's that it IS. And the music in question here decidedly IS free- I can go and download whatever I want, right now, for free. The labels are offering that same free product, with a plastic disc bundled into the package, for cash.
This is just economics- I agree that the law hasn't caught up with the marketplace yet. But law is just creating artificial barriers.
(as PopeHilarius)
@PixelPusher220-
But the reverse, that *no one* would have bought it, is likewise not a reasonable statement either.
I don't think Mike (or anyone) is arguing that the only people who infringe music are people who would never pay money. In fact, Techdirt's highlighted a number of times that these same people -will- pay money, given a reason to.
I think the point is that music now is now free by default. The cost of distributing a song to everyone with a computer doesn't cost anything. Joel (and others) didn't want to pay money for the physical CD disc, and instead just got the music at cost online.
Customers will willingly (gladly even) pay money for things they want. Strongarm lawsuits, government protection, and grandstanding in the media aren't things customers want though.
(as PopeHilarius)
This reminds me of Len Riggio, Barnes and Noble's chairman. A separate holding company which he owns actually has the rights to the Barnes & Noble name, which it leases to Barnes & Noble the bookstore (at like, a dollar a year or whatnot). It's a pretty funny poison pill- a hostile takeover would just net you the brick and mortar, but none of the brand equity.
(as PopeHilarius)
I don't think it's just that the industry funds campaigns. So did the tobacco industry, but prevailing social mores eventually overcame the industry's lobbying.
I think the real issue is that people don't care about copyright law because it affects them very little, and that I think people generally believe the story the entertainment industry has put out: infringement is theft, and copyright reformists are pirate-hippy-thieves. I'm surprised how many people I talk to that feel downloading music (for example) is stealing directly from the artist. I think outside of people who are interested in this topic, most people believe the industry's propaganda. A politician isn't going to take a stand on an issue his constituents either don't care at all about, or think is actually wrong.
I know what I'd like to see is some propaganda in other direction. Informative articles are one thing, but what we really need is posters on the subway that say "Why buy a CD- only X% goes to the artist" or whatever.
I'm a little off topic here- but the politicians bit resonates with me. I think it's more of a bottom-up problem.
(as PopeHilarius)
This is right in line with that Christian Engström suggested would happen in his FT editorial- zeal for protecting copyrights means privacy has to be trampled.
(as PopeHilarius)
Sure this might work for an established copyright blog like Techdirt, but it'd never work for up and coming copyright blogs.
Zookz (as PopeHilarius)
Hilarious and short-lived it may be, but in the meantime, is it a legit service? I'd love to pay $10 for some downloads. It's flashbacks to allofmp3.com.
Re: Pirates are underserved customers. (as PopeHilarius)
@Michael Long
I think a lot of these arguments get muddled by using morality-laden words like 'fair'. There's nothing right or wrong about any price. But .99 cents for a song -is- too high (economically, not ethically), because the marginal cost of delivering me that song is $0*.
So no one needs justifications/rationalizations you put forward (though people do, of course). The simple fact is downloading a digital product incurs no cost to the producer. Any prize above zero is artificial, and economics tells us it'll have to come down. There's no morality here, it's just the way the market'll go. You can't charge money for something that's actually free, in the long run.
* Actually infinitesimally above zero, factoring in electricity, bandwidth and other frictional elements.
If Only (as PopeHilarius)
I like the last section of that memo:
"This is not a portrait of a dying industry. It's illustrative of transformation. Newspapers are reinventing themselves to focus on serving distinct audiences with a variety of products."
I think the first two sentences of that are completely true. I just wish the last sentence was as well. It's like they know they need to try something different to stay alive, but just keep saying, "Hmmm, how about micropayments?" and so on.