Techdirt. Stories filed under "externalities"

Not This Again: IEEE Plays Up Bogus 'Digital Sharecropping' Argument Again

Mike Masnick — Thu, 4 Oct 2012 12:13:24 PDT

Nearly six years ago, we wrote about the ridiculousness of Nick Carr's suggestion that Web 2.0 was all about "digital sharecropping", in which online service providers are somehow "exploiting" users to take the fruits of their labors. I would hope that, with six years of hindsight, people would still remember what a completely nonsensical argument this is -- based as it is on the economically clueless suggestion that the only possible benefit someone could get from using an online service is money. Of course that's not true. The reason that so many people use something like YouTube isn't because they're being exploited, but because it enables something wonderful and powerful for free. Prior to YouTube, if you wanted to put up a video, you had to install complex or expensive server software, pay a ton for bandwidth... oh yeah, and hope that whoever wanted to watch the video had the proper software to view it. YouTube took all of that away, and made it all free (and even added easy ways to monetize it). If that's exploitation, sign me up to be exploited. Similarly, look at a platform like Twitter, which has enabled amazingly powerful real time communications that has connected me with people worldwide in ways never before possible. That's not exploitation. It's called providing something of value.

So it's a shame to see the IEEE basically rehash Carr's silly argument as if it were still relevant, setting up a strawman about how "Web 2.0" (really, is anyone still using that term?) was all about empowerment, but the reality is that (*gasp*) there are companies involved. And some of them... (wait for it...) make money!

But the road to Utopia all too often ends up detouring through the business district, and Web 2.0 has been no exception. By offering the means of production free to their users, other leviathan sites, such as Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube, have generated enormous amounts of content at almost no expense. Even better, this content is a gold mine for targeted advertising.

Over in Utopia, the “workers” who generated all those articles, photos, tweets, and videos would get a cut of the profits they helped to generate. In the business district, however, users retain their amateur status, while the companies they labor for rake in billions. Worse, contributors don’t even own the content they create. The smallest of the small print in the terms of use, which you must agree to in order to get an account, states that the company can use your content as it sees fit.

Beyond the fact that this is a common misreading of the terms of service of most of the sites he's talking about (which merely request a license to make sure that their hosting of the content you put up is legit), author Paul McFedries completely ignores the tremendous value that people get for using those platforms... almost all of which is given out for free. While economic value is often measured in dollar terms, that doesn't mean that people don't get value if actual dollars aren't exchanged. The people using these platforms aren't being exploited -- they use them because they really, really value them.

Anthony De Rosa, a product manager at Reuters, calls this digital feudalism and laments that we “are being played for suckers to feed the beast, to create content that ends up creating value for others.”

And this is equally misguided. All sorts of things people do create value for others. Almost no economic activity is entirely contained so that only the person doing the initial activity retains 100% of the benefits. Concepts like externalities and spillovers exist in economics for a very good reason -- and part of the problem is people who don't understand that creating excess value that benefits others is actually a core reason we have economic growth in the first place. Creating value for others is of tremendous economic value. The problem is that people ignore the fact that those doing the creating are getting back more than enough value directly or they wouldn't be doing the activity in the first place.

It's a shame that we're still having these discussions today, after we've had many more years of experience with all of these valuable services to recognize that it's not exploitation to get a tremendously useful service for free, while also increasing value for others. It's actually how we innovate and grow the economy itself.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Why Open Doesn't Conflict With Money... But Often Appears To

Mike Masnick — Wed, 5 Sep 2012 12:38:48 PDT

Venture capitalist Fred Wilson has a typically insightful post discussing the question of whether or not being "open" conflicts with making money, building off a post by Mathew Ingram about his love/hate relationship with Twitter in which he notes:

Lastly, I hate that Twitter’s metamorphosis seems to reinforce the idea that being an open network — one that allows the easy distribution of content across different platforms, the way that blogging and email networks do –isn’t possible, or at least can’t become a worthwhile business.

Fred is a well known believer in "open" projects and has quite literally put an awful lot of money into a variety of startups that espouse a very open philosophy. So it's not surprising that he disagrees that it's not possible to make money and be open. But his view is nuanced:

I do not think open conflicts with making money and further I think there are ways to make more money by being open rather than closed, but it takes imagination and a well designed relationship between your product/service and the rest of the Internet.

I also think it is better to open up slowly, cautiously, and carefully rather than start out wide open and then close up every time an existential threat appears on the horizon.

He points to Etsy as an example of a company that has become more open over time, and to Twitter as one that started out very open and has had to close up over time (Fred is an early investor in both companies). At the end of his post, Fred tosses in an aside to the "O'Reilly Doctrine" referring to one of Tim O'Reilly's (many) great maxims:

Create more value than you capture

I've actually been thinking about this quite a bit lately, and I think that when you recognize how growing markets tend to work, and the way openness can influence markets, that the O'Reilly Doctrine explains -- in a backdoor way -- why it appears that open platforms are antithetical to making money, when the truth is often quite the opposite. I've been trying to explain this (unsuccessfully) for years, but hopefully I can express it more clearly here.

Economic growth comes from the sharing of ideas (once you get past growth through scarce resource discovery). This is the key realization of a number of economists over the past few decades, most notably, Paul Romer. As we've noted in the past, knowlege is a universal resource that does not diminish and can expand -- unlike scarce resources that are limited. Knowledge and information only expand, and in doing so they often make all of those other scarce resources more valuable. Knowledge and information makes things more efficient and makes things better, thereby increasing economic value and expanding the overall pie. Or, as Romer has said:

Economic growth occurs whenever people take resources and rearrange them in ways that are more valuable. A useful metaphor for production in an economy comes from the kitchen. To create valuable final products, we mix inexpensive ingredients together according to a recipe. The cooking one can do is limited by the supply of ingredients, and most cooking in the economy produces undesirable side effects. If economic growth could be achieved only by doing more and more of the same kind of cooking, we would eventually run out of raw materials and suffer from unacceptable levels of pollution and nuisance. Human history teaches us, however, that economic growth springs from better recipes, not just from more cooking. New recipes generally produce fewer unpleasant side effects and generate more economic value per unit of raw material.

Every generation has perceived the limits to growth that finite resources and undesirable side effects would pose if no new recipes or ideas were discovered. And every generation has underestimated the potential for finding new recipes and ideas. We consistently fail to grasp how many ideas remain to be discovered. The difficulty is the same one we have with compounding. Possibilities do not add up. They multiply.

Possibilities do not add up. They multiply. But take that a step further. One of the ways to increase this kind of growth and to increase this kind of knowledge sharing is to be open and to allow everyone (or larger groups of people) to contribute. And that requires openness. But there's a related caveat to that. When you're open like that and allowing others to contribute, you're also "leaking" some of the benefits as well -- often a very large amount. In economic terms, these are often referred to as positive externalities or spillovers. Basically things that one party does that benefit others widely. I think both terms are slightly misleading in that when most people think about externalities or spillovers, they assume a small bit off the top.

But when it comes to knowledge and information in open systems, it's not that way at all. The vast majority of the benefit is actually going back to the public, because you don't have the walls and the gates to contain it and capture all that value directly. But that doesn't mean there isn't a tremendous amount of value that can be captured by those responsible for creating the open systems. It's just that on a percentage basis, it seems much less. They create these massive and expansive fields of value out of nothing, and only capture a small piece of it -- leaving the rest of those benefits to be enjoyed by the public. But these fields are so big that the businesses themselves can be huge and can make a ton of money (think: Google, Twitter, Craigslist, Kickstarter, etc...).

Yet, in the old, closed way of doing business, the mentality is very much about how much of the value did you capture. They're not concerned about expanding the overall market and just keeping a small part. They're focused on capturing a larger and larger piece of the existing market. It's why, for example, with the entertainment industry, we see them so focused on taking bigger and bigger licensing deals, and making it so businesses like Netflix and Pandora and Hulu have trouble building long term viable businesses -- because the old gatekeepers look at them and say they're benefiting too much from the value we created -- and we need to take our "fair share." The open systems look at the absolute amount of money they're making, and say "wow, by creating so much more value, and just taking our sliver of the proceeds, we're doing great!"

It's a completely different view of the world.

But, from the outside looking in, if you view the two using the same "metrics" as the old, closed systems, the new "open" ones don't appear to make as much money. But it's not that they can't or don't make a lot of money. They do. It's just that they make less as a percentage of the value they create. And while it's the absolute number that really matters, it seems that our brains are sometimes hardwired to focus on the relative value capture.

Open systems can and do make lots and lots of money. As Fred notes, it requires a lot more thought and planning in terms of figuring out where and how (and often it requires a much closer relationship between products/services and users). But often, looking at the wider market, it feels like those businesses must be leaving more money on the table because they capture a relatively smaller portion of those markets, even if the dollar amounts may be bigger in real terms.

In the simplest of traditional terms: it's better to capture a small slice of a massive pie then a large slice of a small (and shrinking) pie. And being open is how you grow the pie -- not incrementally or linearly, but exponentially.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Under Logic Of German 'Pay To Link' Proposal, If A German Publication Wastes My Time, I Can Send Them A Bill

Mike Masnick — Thu, 23 Aug 2012 20:05:36 PDT

For quite some time now, we've been following the bizarre effort in Germany to establish "neighboring rights." This was a plan, first floated a few years ago, to force aggregators to pay to link to news sources. This year, that effort has really ramped up. In March, news came out that such a proposal was being written, and the first draft was released in June, horrifying many who actually understand how the internet works. Basically, if you make money (say via some ads on your site) and link to a source with a short excerpt, you would have to pay. This includes those who do so via their own blog or social network site. Quote an article on a Facebook account, which you also use to make some money (say to promote your business) and you may have to pay.

As is described in a recent comment from Mathias Schindler, who has been attending the various hearings on these neighboring rights proposals, this appears to be a misguided effort by publishers, who have failed to adapt, to capture revenue from anyone who incidentally profits from the information they provide:

"The publishers argued that the bank consultant was only able to advise his clients because of the journalistic work in the published article. So that means the publisher deserves a fair share of any money made from that scenario. This was the proposal from the start."

We've seen this kind of thinking for years, and it really represents a fundamental misunderstanding of economics, driven by a variety of false assumptions, including the idea that the only way to determine value or benefits is through monetary transactions. This is obviously crazy when you put things into context. At the very same time that these publishers are demanding payment to link to their content, they and others are paying search engine optimizers to get more links, recognizing that such traffic is important. Basically, implicitly they recognize that traffic, absent money, is valuable, but they're now trying to add money on top of that.

One of the most misunderstood aspects of economics is the allocation of benefits. It's all too common for certain players in a market to assume that they should accrue money for anyone and everyone who benefits from their work. But that is not only impossible, it would actually massively limit growth. Such "externalities" or "spillovers" (depending on which economist you're talking to) have a major impact on economic growth, which often comes back to help the originator of the work, even if they don't directly receive payments for it. The research of the "new growth" economists over the past couple decades have really zeroed in on how externalities from information, such as third party benefits, are the key ingredient in economic growth. Clamp down on that, and you clamp down on the ingredient needed for economic growth.

Of course, if you want to demonstrate the fallacy of the publishers' argument, it's easy: just flip the situation around. If the publishers truly believe that anyone who uses information found in a publication to profit owes them a cut, then what if information leads to a loss? Say that I rely on information in a German publication to make an investment in a company that goes out of business. Should the publisher now repay me for my losses? Taken to the logical extreme, that's exactly what the publishers appear to be arguing. Take it one step further: let's just say that the article I read in a German publication wastes my time and provides no useful information. My time is valuable, and they've now wasted it. By their own logic, should I not be able to send them an invoice for wasting my time?

Somehow, of course, that flip side of the equation never gets discussed. Because this is not about logic. This is about publishers who don't want to adapt looking for protectionism on the upside only, against actual innovators. That the German government appears to be treating such concepts seriously suggests a significant risk for Germany to end up putting a massive chill on innovation and economic growth, by trying to tax the very beneficial externalities of information in a manner designed solely to protect one side of the market for a group of businesses who are trying to stifle competition and innovation. It's a dangerous move by a government who should be encouraging innovation and growth, not stifling it.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

When Games Allow Mods, Beautiful Things Can Happen

Leigh Beadon — Wed, 16 May 2012 13:53:00 PDT

Recently, Mike wrote about the importance of externalities and spillovers in economics, and the fact that it's often best to allow other people to capture pieces of the value you create and build on top of it. Not only does this benefit the economy as a whole, it benefits the originator, because some of the additional value that people create feeds back to them.

In the video game world, a great example of this is when companies open their games up to mods, so users can tweak them or build entirely new games on top of the same basic engine. Valve's Counter-Strike series grew from a fan-made mod for Half-Life, which was so popular it has been credited with keeping Half-Life on gamers' radars for years longer than it would have been otherwise, leading Valve to hire the creators and turn it into its own game, which remains one of the company's most successful titles. This week another example bubbled up on Reddit, in the form of a captioned screenshot of the Steam store titled "Dear developers, this is why you should make your games moddable":

The game ARMA II: Combined Operations was on track to be another mostly-forgotten game, still enjoyed by a small group of fans with few other prospects. Then, two years after its release, and without getting any kind of promotional sale price, it started selling like crazy and surged to the front page of the Steam leaderboards. Why? ~~Another team of developers~~ One of the company's developers released the alpha of a project he'd been working on independently: Day Z, a zombie-survival game built as an ARMA II mod. Fans have been clamoring for a particular type of zombie game for a while now (and Cracked's Robert Brockway pitched a similar idea recently) and the description of Day Z sounds like it fits the bill—so when the free alpha of the mod was released, lots of people bought a copy of ARMA II so they could give it a try. The developer was expecting it to be a hit within the existing fan community, but he had no idea that it would cross over into the mainstream.

In this situation, everybody wins. Gamers get a new game, ARMA II gets renewed sales, Day Z gets to exist (without the need to build a brand new engine). The sales boost to the original might be temporary, or it might spark new interest in the game and revive it entirely, or it might inspire newer and even more popular mods, or... well, there are a lot of possibilities, none of them bad. All because the ARMA II creators had the foresight to let people add value to what they created.

Update: A commenter pointed out that Day Z is the independent project of one of the developers working on ARMA 3. Post has been updated to reflect that fact.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

When You Create Value It Doesn't Mean You Have To Capture Every Bit Of That Value

Mike Masnick — Fri, 27 Apr 2012 17:33:00 PDT

As I discussed in my Hacking Society post, one of the things I'm thinking a lot about these days is how to measure value that isn't directly monetized. There's a related aspect to all of this, as well: recognizing that when you create value, you don't have to monetize all of it directly yourself. Historically, in economics, they've talked about things like "externalities" and "spillovers" when discussing parts of the economic value chain that can't be controlled or monetized directly. However, it seems like a growing number of economists are realizing that this undersells what's happening. Externalities and spillovers often feel like a small thing -- a tangential bit tossed off to the side. But when you're dealing with information and digital goods, it's important to recognize that these things can be a major part of the market, and may not be controllable at all. And that may be a good thing.

In the discussion we had about Craigslist, one of the points was that while Craigslist itself only "captures" a small part of the value it's unleashed, that's not necessarily bad. First, it's good because much of that value to go out to the users of Craigslist themselves. That's why they appreciate and use Craigslist in the first place. If Craigslist tried to capture all of that value itself, people would stop using Craigslist. Now some may argue it becomes a different situation when you have third parties monetizing some of that value, but I disagree. When you look at the most successful companies in the world, they're often platforms -- they create value and capture some of it, but also allow much of that value to be monetized by others.

Look at Microsoft, Apple, Google and Facebook. All of them created a massive amount of value -- and all have become phenomenally successful companies -- but all of them did so by also letting others monetize large portions of the value they created. It's how you build a more long-lasting ecosystem from which you can continue to profit from over time. If you seek to capture all of the value yourself, you don't last very long.

I got to thinking about this more, after hearing the CEO of The Economist (who, one would hope, would understand these economic concepts) complaining about Flipboard capturing some of the value The Economist creates, and declaring it a "competitor" to The Economist's own digital and app ambitions.

“But you’re heading down a route we’ve seen before – giving the opportunity to extract value to somebody else in an area that should be our own – so Flipboard is problematic.”

Of course, that ignores the fact that Flipboard -- an aggregator app -- provides its own value as well. People don't use Flipboard just because it includes content from The Economist. They use it because of the overall experience and the fact that it aggregates content from lots of different sources in one place. As much as The Economist, or any publication, might like to "own" the reader, that's not necessarily what the reader wants. Letting others "extract" some of that "value" can actually be a really good thing. Flipboard provides a useful service for The Economist in not only experimenting with new ways to aggregate and present content -- from which The Economist can learn -- but also in potentially expanding The Economist's audience as well, feeding much greater value back into that ecosystem.

Yes, companies need to look at the overall market and see where it is they can extract value -- but you have to wonder about those who claim eminent domain over certain parts of the marketplace. Letting others extract some (and perhaps lots) of that value can have tremendous benefits for those who do so.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Morality, Non-Zero Sum Games, Externalities & Why Someone Profiting Off Of Your Work Isn't A Bad Thing

Mike Masnick — Thu, 1 Dec 2011 09:45:44 PST

In the discussion following my recent post about ex-RIAA boss Hilary Rosen's comments about my article highlighting all of the problems with SOPA and PIPA, Ms. Rosen was kind enough to stop by and attempt to clarify her position:

...my response was "Think analog" not as in analog policy vs digital policy but think of the real world we live in and the ethical issues we face every day. My point was that I can be pissed that the GAP doesn't have an outfit that is as stylish or fit as well as I want. And I can think that they arent serving their customer when they give me ugly clothes that dont fit well. ie: their busiess model sucks. But I don't think that gives me the right to take any of their clothes without paying just because I am an unhappy customer. That was my ONLY point. Do I think that the content industry has moved way too slowly in putting their content online? Absolutely. Do I think they could have been and should be more innovative? of course. But I also know that these are huge ships turning around in creeks and however easy the answers seem to you , they are often really hard. When people screw up their business, their sales go down. That has happened in the entertainment business. They are paying a price for their pace of change. BUT, there is also stealing. Pure old simple unethical stealing. Call it whatever you want - the march of technology - the inevitable cost of innovation, etc. To the writer or songwriter who makes their money on SALES, it is stealing. (Even if they might be thinking about making their money another way.) And while I love the dialog by for and about consumers and fans on these issues, I have no patience for big companies like Google who not only throw huge sums of money out there buying professors and economists and think tanks to kill any effort at copyright protection, they make a fortune on search advertising for those same illegal products.

So, your first sentence was right, I have long been willing to shine an unattractive searchlight at my old compatriots when they deserve it But I have no patience for the finger pointing and nastiness of the so called tech fans in this debate. Thank god I don't have to care so much anymore.

While we appreciate Rosen stopping by and joining in the discussion, the responses highlighted the myriad problems with this statement, going beyond both the tortured, nonsensical analogy (who steals something from a store that doesn't have what they want, or who steals clothes they don't like because they don't like them?) and the ridiculous "it's theft!" claims. If you want to read the full thread or discuss her specific points, I urge you to go to that thread and continue the conversation there.

The whole exchange got me thinking about some bigger issues though. Rosen's comments reminded me so much of my experiences at various recording industry events, where they pay basic lip service to things like "we have to adapt" and "we have to stop blaming customers," but then immediately flips to "but piracy must be stamped out first!" never recognizing that these two things are at odds. And what it boils down to is a mixture of a psychological issue and a confusion over economics.

First, Rosen's response, like many others, falls back on facile and inaccurate "morality" claims. This is usually a sign of a very weak structural framework to an argument. When you can't explain why, you resort to "well, it's just wrong." But, as we've explained for years, the "morality" aspect of an economic decision only comes into play when there's a decision to be made about who will be worse off. That's all morals really are about. If move x harms person y, is it "right" to do that? Folks like Rosen and many SOPA/PIPA supporters see what's happening online and it looks exactly like the previous sentence: "If downloading music harms musicians/songwriters, it's clearly not right to do that."

But that misunderstands the wider economic implications of what's happening. Let's put it another way to make this clear: If selling automobiles harms the makers of buggy whips, is it "right" to do that? I think most everyone would claim that it's fine. This is innovation in process. Thus, the simple statement, "If move x harms person y, that's immoral," seems way too simplistic. Let's expand it out further. What if, in our buggy whip hypothetical, the rise of the automobile forces the buggy whip maker to change their business model... such that they no longer make buggy whips, but steering wheels. The classical lover of buggy whips may find this upsetting -- and the buggy whip maker may complain, "but buggy whips are my product, I'm not in the steering wheel business." But the market doesn't care. In this situation, the morality question is more complex: "If move x harms person y in the short term... but opens up much greater opportunity for them to do better by accessing a much larger market, is it right?" Suddenly, the moral issue is pretty straightforward. There's no moral question at all. The market has changed, and as long as the whip maker comes along for the ride, the opportunity is there to be better off. It may be a challenge, but it's hardly a moral issue.

Rather than confront this, the people who insist this must be a moral issue, back up their claims with a secondary claim to make it seem like a moral issue: "someone else is profiting off my work, and that's unfair." In many cases, the "someone" they point to is "Google." This is mostly a correlation vs. causation error. People see that Google is massively successful, and the timing correlates well with the decline in the record labels. So they assume that Google must be "taking" money from the labels. This is quite inaccurate and shows a lack of knowledge about a variety of subjects, beyond the fact that correlation is not necessarily causation. In the thread with Rosen, I point out that the claims that Google "profits" from infringement are widely overblown. Google makes money from clicks, and infringers aren't hanging around these sites clicking on ads.

But the bigger issue is this relative morality issue of "If someone else benefits from my work without paying, that's unfair." But, again, this is way too simplistic and not reflective of reality. People benefit from the work of others for free all the time. In economics, it's known as an externality. Tragically (and potentially because of the name), people think that externalities are rare. They're not. They happen all the time. Every day, people benefit freely from the work of others without paying. As the saying goes, we all "stand on the shoulder's of giants." So much of what we value today comes from advancements in the past, which we benefit from, without paying those who created them. And yet, no one thinks this is bad.

The real question is if whether you can take it a step further and recognize that the economy is not a zero-sum game, in which one party loses when the other benefits. This is often difficult to understand, but put simply: in a zero-sum market, someone paying you $10 means I lose those $10. In such a scenario it may be reasonable to worry about someone else profiting, because it really does mean you lose. But in a non-zero sum market, with externalities, the market can expand. If every time you get paid $10, I now have the opportunity to make $100, that's clearly a better deal. But, let's make it a little more complex. In the zero sum game, every time you get $10, it's at my expense. But what if the other option in that world is that every time I raise my hand, you get $10 and I get just $1. That's still a much better deal for me to take than the one where I lose money. In this case, I might not make as much as you -- even if I'm doing the work, but is that morally wrong? We're both better off under this scenario. You're better off because you make more money. And I'm better off because I'm making more money... just not as much as you.

But, for whatever reason -- psychology, economic ignorance, etc, -- many people react poorly to this, claiming that it's a moral problem. I, personally, have trouble seeing how a situation in which everyone is better off results in any sort of moral dilemma, since we never reach that crucial moral question of "who gets harmed?" Because no one has to get harmed. But here's the kicker: no one has to get harmed if they adapt. And it's the adaption part that freaks people out and makes them want to cling to something clearer, even if it makes them worse off in the long run.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

The Psychology Of Externalities: Only I Can Benefit

Mike Masnick — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 10:10:00 PDT

To understand the economics of the digital era, at some point or another you need to dig pretty deep into the issue of externalities -- a topic on which there's been a lot of recent research. However, the traditional view of externalities is that these are economic "spillovers" that either benefit (positive externalities) or harm (negative externalities) third parties. The traditional view is that too many externalities can lead to too much or too little of a good being produced, because all of the costs and benefits are not properly accounted for by those making the production decisions. Some recent research begins to question that assumption. And this becomes more and more important in a digital era, where externalities are less "spillover" and can, in some cases, be a major result of the good. For example, the ability to make a perfect copy of a song for free may be seen as an externality.

Either way, though, Clay Shirky recently brought up a point that touches on the psychology associated with externalities. He was talking about the silliness of Mannie Garcia claiming copyright on Shepard Fairey's iconic poster, and noted that people seem to view externalities quite differently, depending on how they impact them. For example, nearly the entire benefit of the photo that is being fought over was added by Fairey. That is, the only reason that the photo has any significant value these days is because of Fairey's poster. It's an externality from the poster. And yet, rather than recognizing that it has received a free benefit, both the AP and Garcia want to demand money from Fairey for causing the externality.

But, at the same time, the AP of course has no trouble profiting off the externalities of others. The fact that people make news that allows the AP to report on it, is an externality. The fact that tons of people are willing to talk to reporters and give them quotes and educate them is an externality. The fact that the AP learns about some stories from other news sources or researchers its stories via Google or any internet technology is an externality. And it has no problem benefiting from every one of those externalities, and would be quite upset at the thought that someone would come back later and try to charge them for it.

And, yet, when it comes to the other direction, suddenly the AP says that no one else might benefit from externalities. Only it may benefit from externalities.

Of course, this is not just limited to the AP. It's a common psychological problem when it comes to externalities. Look at almost any dispute that's being caused by the modern internet and you can find someone who's upset about some externality not being "fair." We see it with the blame being put by the entertainment industry on "piracy." We see it with the blame being placed on aggregators and Craigslist by newspapers. We see it in trademark, copyright and patent disputes. And it's always psychological. Recent behavioral economics studies have shown that rationality gets tossed out the window the second someone thinks that someone else is benefiting too much. Even if you would benefit more yourself, seeing someone else apparently benefit more seems unfair.

This thinking is both pervasive and dangerous -- even if it's natural. It leads to a destruction of value (or, at the very least, a hindrance of it). It focuses on pulling others down, rather than looking at how we can all, individually, be better off. Both Mannie Garcia and the AP benefited greatly from Shepard Fairey's externalities. But because they feel he benefited too much, they want to sue him. And all that does is prevent them from benefiting from similar externalities in the future. The same is true in pretty much every industry that we talk about. It's as if people don't realize how much they benefit from externalities. They assume that benefiting themselves is "normal." But the second anyone else benefits, it's "theft" or a massive problem that needs intervention. And that's a problem.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Recording Industry Testing Out New Theory: It Deserves More Money Because It Lets You Transfer Music

Mike Masnick — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 08:46:00 PDT

William Patry has a long, but fascinating, discussion on the latest trick being used by the recording industry to try to squeeze more money out of you: telling governments that because it's now willing to let people transfer the music they legally purchased between devices, it deserves extra money for it. To back this up, it's claiming that there's obviously value in being able to transfer music around, otherwise why would people want that ability. The audacity of such a statement from the industry shouldn't be understated. After all, this is the same industry that has, for years, ignored pleas from fans all over the world to get rid of DRM because it would make digital files increase in value. And, now, that the industry has finally been forced to recognize this, it seems to be claiming that all of the value belongs to the industry itself, and it's the government's job to hand over that "value."

The reasoning for this seems to go back to the psychological explanation for why the recording industry keeps getting itself into trouble (and it's similar to the story we had recently about bloggers worrying about a new aggregator). They assume that all of the "value" needs to be captured by them, and not anyone else. In economics, this is effectively an industry telling the government that it needs to be compensated for all of the positive externalities it created -- even if it's better off at an absolute level. Basically, the industry is so overvaluing its own content, that it assumes that any additional value that people get out of music, even if it's through no effort of the recording industry itself, should be entirely converted to more revenue for the industry. As an analogy, it's like your automobile maker demanding an ongoing cut of your salary, since without the automobile, you wouldn't be able to drive to work. Unfortunately, though, unless you're a copyright wonk, you might not even notice that the recording industry is trying to do this. Instead, it presents its case in a logical fashion, focusing on how much "value" it's suddenly creating by "allowing" people to transfer the music they already legally purchased to the device of their choosing.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story