But if the concern is fair practice and economic harms, Boyd has it reversed.
Because business software piracy, unlike other kinds, is implicitly and sometimes explicitly part of the software business model and largely under the control of the vendors. With apologies for narcissistic linking practices:
Without even getting to powerful network effects that make piracy useful to monopolists--especially in developing countries where few people can afford their products. Hello Microsoft.
Also, talk about protecting the software "supply chain" is overdetermined by Microsoft's very controversial efforts (through the Washington State legislature) to make businesses liable for software piracy occurring anywhere within their supply chains. Liability for everyone! I am guessing that that's not her intent, but the language--given her employer--is loaded.
On the other hand, I think she's defending the various appropriation and remix versions of infringement, which is fine. But I think she's also conflating this with 'media piracy' more generally which, regardless of whether you think it's sharing or inevitable or inseparable from core Internet freedoms at this point (which I do), can be notionally viewed as harming incumbent film and record companies (vs. some high water mark of recorded media sales. I'd dispute this as a basis for IP policy, but that's different.) So I'm left confused by this piece.
The main problem facing the film industries in other countries is not piracy but Hollywood domination of domestic markets. Hollywood productions own 67% of the European market, for example. 80-90% of most developing countries. And what do pirates pirate? It's not European film:
1. No connection to Larry Lessig. And in fact we have relatively little to say about Lessig's broadest concerns with IP, creativity, and innovation in the report, or even his narrower concerns with piracy and orphaned works. We do echo his very legitimate and separate constitutional concerns about how the Obama administration has proposed to ratify the ACTA agreement, via a sub-variety of executive order.
2. ... Ok, well. I'll own up to a few some other time.
3. The 'Media Research Hub' that people are pointing to is just a sort of structured wikipedia for the media research sector related to an earlier project, not a list of SSRC partners, staff, board members or whatever. It has about 4000 profiles in it. Sadly, it never achieved critical mass and is growing out of date. It's main utility, at this point, is to make a large tier of developing-world researchers more googleable, which is why we've left it up. It may have served its purpose at this point.
4. I'm sensitive to the evolving pros/cons of the Consumer's Dilemma license and am genuinely interested to know how big that subset of potential readers is that:
Lives in a high-income country.
Wants to read the whole thing (as opposed to the various and substantial excerpts we've posted).
Won't pay $8 (would it matter if we called it an ebook and locked it into Amazon/Apple?).
Doesn't fall under (or won't assert an expanded claim on) the various carved out exceptions
Won't pirate it.
Our guess has been: very small, but we could be wrong. We probably will re-CC-license it, eventually, for the CD license haters out there. I will wager that it's very hard to read past page 1 of the 440 without getting the point about incomes, pricing, and access barriers.
Reposting since a 'less than' sign cut off part of the comment
To repeat: we are selling the report for $8 (or $2000) in high income countries. We take our rights (and the ability to successfully commercialize work) seriously, so we no reason to adopt a donation model. Whether this approach is a profitable strategy or not depends on a number of things, including the perceived value of the work, the collective conversation about what books should cost, and the willingness of high income and especially 'commercial' readers to honor the license.
There are no practical consequences to pirating it because (1) the cost/benefit ratio for enforcement is way too high; (2) we benefit from the network effects of widespread circulation through all channels, and so decided to take that process of diffusion into our own hands.
In this respect, we operate very much like the software companies we describe in the report: strong assertion of rights, high toleration of piracy, and calibration of licenses to whatever the market will bear.
To repeat: we are selling the report for $8 (or $2000) in high income countries. We take our rights (and the ability to successfully commercialize work) seriously, so we no reason to adopt a donation model. Whether this approach is a profitable strategy or not depends on a number of things, including the perceived value of the work, the collective conversation about what books should cost (
There are no practical consequences to pirating it because (1) the cost/benefit ratio for enforcement is way too low; (2) we benefit from the network effects of widespread circulation through all channels, and so decided to take that process of diffusion into our own hands.
In this respect, we operate very much like the software companies we describe in the report: strong assertion of rights, high toleration of piracy, and calibration of licenses to whatever the market will bear.
Thanks and, yes, we're on weird ground here. I do take from this exchange that we'll have to be more explicit about what we're doing.
A couple other small notes on the issue of business models: the CD license very much practices what we preach in the report: local income-based price discrimination. It is also a business model of sorts, designed to test whether people in the US and other high income countries view $8 for a 'somewhat epic' report as fair. Or whether they'll ignore our rights claims and go to Scribd to save the price of two lattes. There are a lot of complicated expectations in play here, including what gets called a report vs. a book or ebook, how the CD license differs from a 'pay what you want' model, and even the resentment of the other getting things for free. For my part, I see it as a 'pay what you want' model, with the 'pay nothing' option shifted into the illicit market, which in turn raises ethical issues for those who care about IP rights. This is essentially the global media market we describe, aka the Consumer's Dilemma.
Sigh. Yes, the difference does matter.
But if the concern is fair practice and economic harms, Boyd has it reversed.
Because business software piracy, unlike other kinds, is implicitly and sometimes explicitly part of the software business model and largely under the control of the vendors. With apologies for narcissistic linking practices:
http://piracy.ssrc.org/adobe-logic/
http://piracy.ssrc.org/the-software-enforcement-d ance/
http://piracy.ssrc.org/overinstaller-awareness-day/
Without even getting to powerful network effects that make piracy useful to monopolists--especially in developing countries where few people can afford their products. Hello Microsoft.
http://piracy.ssrc.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/MPEE-PDF-1-Rethinking-Piracy.pdf
Also, talk about protecting the software "supply chain" is overdetermined by Microsoft's very controversial efforts (through the Washington State legislature) to make businesses liable for software piracy occurring anywhere within their supply chains. Liability for everyone! I am guessing that that's not her intent, but the language--given her employer--is loaded.
http://www.law.com/jsp/lawtechnologynews/PubArticleFriendlyLTN.jsp?id=1202486273303&slreturn =1
On the other hand, I think she's defending the various appropriation and remix versions of infringement, which is fine. But I think she's also conflating this with 'media piracy' more generally which, regardless of whether you think it's sharing or inevitable or inseparable from core Internet freedoms at this point (which I do), can be notionally viewed as harming incumbent film and record companies (vs. some high water mark of recorded media sales. I'd dispute this as a basis for IP policy, but that's different.) So I'm left confused by this piece.
Another minor detail...
The main problem facing the film industries in other countries is not piracy but Hollywood domination of domestic markets. Hollywood productions own 67% of the European market, for example. 80-90% of most developing countries. And what do pirates pirate? It's not European film:
http://piracy.ssrc.org/the-european-strategy-send-money-to-the-us-part-deux/
Re: Re: Re: Re:
1. No connection to Larry Lessig. And in fact we have relatively little to say about Lessig's broadest concerns with IP, creativity, and innovation in the report, or even his narrower concerns with piracy and orphaned works. We do echo his very legitimate and separate constitutional concerns about how the Obama administration has proposed to ratify the ACTA agreement, via a sub-variety of executive order.
2. ... Ok, well. I'll own up to a few some other time.
3. The 'Media Research Hub' that people are pointing to is just a sort of structured wikipedia for the media research sector related to an earlier project, not a list of SSRC partners, staff, board members or whatever. It has about 4000 profiles in it. Sadly, it never achieved critical mass and is growing out of date. It's main utility, at this point, is to make a large tier of developing-world researchers more googleable, which is why we've left it up. It may have served its purpose at this point.
4. I'm sensitive to the evolving pros/cons of the Consumer's Dilemma license and am genuinely interested to know how big that subset of potential readers is that:
Our guess has been: very small, but we could be wrong. We probably will re-CC-license it, eventually, for the CD license haters out there. I will wager that it's very hard to read past page 1 of the 440 without getting the point about incomes, pricing, and access barriers.
Re: Re:
I endorse this explanation. Thank you.
Re: Re: Re: The Consumer's Dilemma
Reposting since a 'less than' sign cut off part of the comment
To repeat: we are selling the report for $8 (or $2000) in high income countries. We take our rights (and the ability to successfully commercialize work) seriously, so we no reason to adopt a donation model. Whether this approach is a profitable strategy or not depends on a number of things, including the perceived value of the work, the collective conversation about what books should cost, and the willingness of high income and especially 'commercial' readers to honor the license.
There are no practical consequences to pirating it because (1) the cost/benefit ratio for enforcement is way too high; (2) we benefit from the network effects of widespread circulation through all channels, and so decided to take that process of diffusion into our own hands.
In this respect, we operate very much like the software companies we describe in the report: strong assertion of rights, high toleration of piracy, and calibration of licenses to whatever the market will bear.
Re: Re: The Consumer's Dilemma
To repeat: we are selling the report for $8 (or $2000) in high income countries. We take our rights (and the ability to successfully commercialize work) seriously, so we no reason to adopt a donation model. Whether this approach is a profitable strategy or not depends on a number of things, including the perceived value of the work, the collective conversation about what books should cost ( There are no practical consequences to pirating it because (1) the cost/benefit ratio for enforcement is way too low; (2) we benefit from the network effects of widespread circulation through all channels, and so decided to take that process of diffusion into our own hands.
In this respect, we operate very much like the software companies we describe in the report: strong assertion of rights, high toleration of piracy, and calibration of licenses to whatever the market will bear.
Re: Free for Canadians
You are correct!
Re: Re: Re: The Consumer's Dilemma
Thanks and, yes, we're on weird ground here. I do take from this exchange that we'll have to be more explicit about what we're doing. A couple other small notes on the issue of business models: the CD license very much practices what we preach in the report: local income-based price discrimination. It is also a business model of sorts, designed to test whether people in the US and other high income countries view $8 for a 'somewhat epic' report as fair. Or whether they'll ignore our rights claims and go to Scribd to save the price of two lattes. There are a lot of complicated expectations in play here, including what gets called a report vs. a book or ebook, how the CD license differs from a 'pay what you want' model, and even the resentment of the other getting things for free. For my part, I see it as a 'pay what you want' model, with the 'pay nothing' option shifted into the illicit market, which in turn raises ethical issues for those who care about IP rights. This is essentially the global media market we describe, aka the Consumer's Dilemma.