You make some good points, but I think you're overreaching yourself in some places:
"But the larger point here is that, even if people were searching for "Scott Turow free e-books," how would that matter that much? By the very fact that they're doing that particular search, they've more or less self-identified as people not interested in paying money for Scott Turow books, so they're not the market anyway."
Non sequitur. If I want something enough to put out any effort to obtain it, I am in the market for it. I might prefer to get it for free if it's easily available, but be prepared to buy it otherwise.
"Instead of understanding any of this, Turow falsely attacks search engines on multiple levels. First, he suggests they're at fault because people are looking for free ebooks (even if they're not actually doing so for his own books). He assumes that because he did that search, others must. Second, when those search engines actually try to deliver what these theoretical people want (despite the fact that Turow himself has failed to do so) he complains about it. Finally, he falsely suggests that the search engines are making money doing so. They're not. Search engines make money if people click on ads. If someone sees a free ebook and clicks on an organic link, the search engine isn't making any money. I recognize that Turow hates technology, but that's no excuse for being blatantly ignorant about it when spewing misrepresentations in the NY Times."
Gee, why don't search engines just maximize their revenue by serving up nothing but ads and leaving out all those non-lucrative search results, then?
Thanks to Terry and Mike for noticing and giving thought to my article. I'm glad if it provides any food for thought.
In response to Mike, while I did not use the specific terms "abundance" or "scarcity", I am very focused on the issue that you are referring to with those terms. I call it the issue of "consumptive" versus "beneficial" use. Making use of a work of authorship is not consumptive (i.e., it doesn't consume opportunities for others to make use of the same work). It's precisely because of this important fact that I argue the scope of copyright owners' rights should be kept cabined much more strictly than it is in the realm of traditional tangible property, so that most transformative uses are simply outside the owner's right to exclude.
I'm well aware that property rhetoric can be used (and has been used) in the service of "copyright maximalism" (what I refer to in the article as "expansionism," and what I'm trying to do is drive a wedge between the two.
If you're someone who thinks we shouldn't have copyright at all, then you won't be interested in the thrust of what I'm doing. But if you think copyright might be good if properly limited, then you should be. Property theory (properly understood) provides limits on what owners can claim. Making everything an ad hoc fair use determination creates uncertainty, which leads to rights accretion.
Anyway, thanks again for your interest.
Regards,
Chris Newman
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by cmn.
You make some good points, but I think you're overreaching yourself in some places:
"But the larger point here is that, even if people were searching for "Scott Turow free e-books," how would that matter that much? By the very fact that they're doing that particular search, they've more or less self-identified as people not interested in paying money for Scott Turow books, so they're not the market anyway."
Non sequitur. If I want something enough to put out any effort to obtain it, I am in the market for it. I might prefer to get it for free if it's easily available, but be prepared to buy it otherwise.
"Instead of understanding any of this, Turow falsely attacks search engines on multiple levels. First, he suggests they're at fault because people are looking for free ebooks (even if they're not actually doing so for his own books). He assumes that because he did that search, others must. Second, when those search engines actually try to deliver what these theoretical people want (despite the fact that Turow himself has failed to do so) he complains about it. Finally, he falsely suggests that the search engines are making money doing so. They're not. Search engines make money if people click on ads. If someone sees a free ebook and clicks on an organic link, the search engine isn't making any money. I recognize that Turow hates technology, but that's no excuse for being blatantly ignorant about it when spewing misrepresentations in the NY Times."
Gee, why don't search engines just maximize their revenue by serving up nothing but ads and leaving out all those non-lucrative search results, then?
A few comments
Hey guys, Chris Newman here.
Thanks to Terry and Mike for noticing and giving thought to my article. I'm glad if it provides any food for thought.
In response to Mike, while I did not use the specific terms "abundance" or "scarcity", I am very focused on the issue that you are referring to with those terms. I call it the issue of "consumptive" versus "beneficial" use. Making use of a work of authorship is not consumptive (i.e., it doesn't consume opportunities for others to make use of the same work). It's precisely because of this important fact that I argue the scope of copyright owners' rights should be kept cabined much more strictly than it is in the realm of traditional tangible property, so that most transformative uses are simply outside the owner's right to exclude.
I'm well aware that property rhetoric can be used (and has been used) in the service of "copyright maximalism" (what I refer to in the article as "expansionism," and what I'm trying to do is drive a wedge between the two.
If you're someone who thinks we shouldn't have copyright at all, then you won't be interested in the thrust of what I'm doing. But if you think copyright might be good if properly limited, then you should be. Property theory (properly understood) provides limits on what owners can claim. Making everything an ad hoc fair use determination creates uncertainty, which leads to rights accretion.
Anyway, thanks again for your interest.
Regards,
Chris Newman