First Mover Advantage Shows How Copyright Isn’t Necessary To Protect Innovative Creativity
from the incentive-structures dept
One of the arguments sometimes made in defense of copyright is that without it, creators would be unable to compete with the hordes of copycats that would spring up as soon as their works became popular. Copyright is needed, supporters say, to prevent less innovative creators from producing works that are closely based on new, successful ideas.
However, this approach has led to constant arguments and court cases over how close a “closely based” work can be before it infringes on the copyright of others. A good example of this is the 2022 lawsuit involving Ed Sheeran, where is was argued that using just four notes of a scale constituted copyright infringement of someone else’s song employing the same tiny motif. A fascinating new paper looks at things from a different angle. It draws on the idea of “first-mover advantage”, the fact that:
individuals that move to a new market niche early on (“first movers”) obtain advantages that may lead to larger success, compared to those who move to this niche later. First movers enjoy a temporary near-monopoly: since they enter a niche early, they have little to no competition, and so they can charge larger prices and spend more time building a loyal customer base.
The paper explores the idea in detail for the world of music. Here, first-mover advantage means:
The artists and music producers who recognize the hidden potential of a new artistic technique, genre, or style, have bigger chances of reaching success. Having an artistic innovation that your competitors do not have or cannot quickly acquire may become advantageous on the winner-take-all artistic market.
Analyzing nearly 700,000 songs across 110 different musical genres, the researchers found evidence that first-mover advantage was present in 91 of the genres. The authors point out that there is also anecdotal evidence of first-mover advantage in other arts:
For example, Agatha Christie—one of the recognized founders of “classical” detective novel—is also one of the best-selling authors ever. Similarly, William Gibson’s novel Neuromancer—a canonical work in the genre of cyberpunk—is also one of the earliest books in this strand of science fiction. In films, the cult classic The Blair Witch Project is the first recognized member of the highly successful genre of found-footage horror fiction.
Although copyright may be present, first-mover advantage does not require it to operate – it is simply a function of being early with a new idea, which means that competition is scarce or non-existent. If further research confirms the wider presence of first-mover advantage in the creative world – for example, even where sharing-friendly CC licenses are used – it will knock down yet another flimsy defense of copyright’s flawed and outdated intellectual monopoly.
Follow me @glynmoody on Mastodon and on Bluesky. Originally posted to Walled Culture.
Filed Under: copyright, creativity, culture, first mover advantage
Comments on “First Mover Advantage Shows How Copyright Isn’t Necessary To Protect Innovative Creativity”
Is “the artistic market”, however defined, really a winner-take-all gig? First-mover advantage certainly makes sense, and it seems it is backed by data – sufficient innovation does tend to get people’s attention. But now i’m curious about the winner-take-all bit. It sounds like a zero-sum game.
Sorry about all the hyphens.
Unfortunately, it is only with hindsight that one identifies niches. And it is only with wild success that a niche because a genre.
I mean, “Songs that start with the word Kumquat and which have violins in them” is technically a “niche” song, even though it belongs to the genre “songs with violins” and the previously established niche “songs that start with the word Kumquat”. Until it is joined by others, it’s … just there.
Re:
What’s unfortunate about this? People liked the stories by Christie and Gibson, and when other writers turned their work into a whole genre, people kept wanting Christie and Gibson to write more stuff. Had everyone read their previous books for free, I don’t think that would’ve changed. Probably most people would be happy to have this kind of misfortune.
In a way Glyn’s quite right. No consumer or music listener picks up on new content and starts thinking to themselves “Yeah, but what’s the copyright like on this thing?” to decide if it’s good or not.
Then again, there really are idiots like out_of_the_blue who keep harping on $10 million movies like it means anything.
Man, life must of sucked before copyright was invented. Can you imagine what it was like between copyright existed and there was no wheel, no cart, no campfire because innovation just didn’t exist…
Innovation will continue in spite of, not because of copyright. Look at the number of people who take risks in creating something that might be subconsciously or intentionally taken from someone else, knowing full well they could be sent to jail over it, and yet they still do it. Makes you think that the whole “forbidden fruit” aspect of other peoples’ works makes it even more enticing.
Re: One builds upon the other
You’re describing nearly all music, and most cinema/tv shows.
There are a limited number of notes in Western music, and limited number of phrases that sound aesthetically pleasing. It is
nearlyimpossible to have an completely original phrase that includes nothing that hasn’t been written/performed prior.Same for scripts. There is a general framework for telling stories that has been copied and built upon over and over again. The modern comedy has its roots in Menander’s plays from ~300 BCE.
That’s not to say someone should be able to lazily produce “BUNE” about a princess who takes over the salt production on a water planet by riding giant water bunnies (which no outsider has ever done), or “Deadman vs Honey Badger”, but to lock up culture for 100+ years at a time is stupid.
Copyright is no longer about innovation. It’s leech food.
First mover advantage?
The “first move advantage” is a popular meme, but although there is some truth to it, the graveyard of companies is littered with “first movers”. It was originally popularized, IIRC, by a study which found all the industries it studied were dominated by what it thought were “first movers”. The study was flawed, however, as it only looked at currently active companies and was retrospective. As a result it missed earlier entries that had subsequently died. A better term would be “first survivor advantage”.
Re:
Sure, you never know what’s going to catch on. But copyright isn’t going to help those who fail. Context.
Re: Re:
It will if someone else happens to use 4 notes from their music and has to pay.
First Mover Advantage and legal protection.
This article above argues that copyrights are not necessary because the value of being the “FIRST MOVER” makes copyrights unnecessary to the first user/creator. For 50 years, I have been an attorney specializing in the law of Intellectual (intangible) Property; Patent, Trademarks, and Copyrights. These legal subjects cover, respectively, useful inventions, business symbols, and works of art. Thus, Copyrights cover music. I can assure you that being the “First Mover” seldom makes you the financial winner, unless your work is protected. Every innovation takes time and money to become profitable, and, if the copiers have more money and/or market influence, they can move faster, and take the market before the “First Mover” can establish a sustainable profitable position. The history of innovation in all fields is dominated by the better financed EXCEPT if the “First Mover” has a patent, or a trademark, or a copyright, as appropriate. Many historians consider those three legal structures as the essential bedrocks of modern human progress. Even long before modern societies, kings would grant monopolies to people who wanted to introduce something novel into their kingdom, and and to start a new industry there. The Royal monopoly concept was so successful, that it was copied throughout the world, and eventually evolved into the innovation system that allowed a British backwater colony (that’s us) to become the most powerful nation in the world. P.S. Four notes can’t be copyrighted. The only way that four notes can be “owned” is as a trademark such as the historical NBC gongs, from the early days of TV, and which most of you readers, nor your parents, ever heard. Ask your grandparents about them. Gerry
Re:
It’s funny that you wrote all that in which you flat out admit that the copyright system descends from the concept of a royal monopoly in which the government gets to pick the winners and the losers, cutting off anyone else who attempts to innovate on previous works.
Glyn and myself have both been writing about the ways in which copyright distorts the market, deprives people of creativity, and limits advancements for decades.
Glyn’s piece never claims that first movers always win. Because why would they? Having those who can build on those works and better serve the market should, of course, win in the long run.
And, yes, many things take capital to succeed. But the idea that the only way to enable that capital to be spent is to give a monopoly to the first mover is laughable. Indeed, in the patent space, you may have many teams all competing to get a patent first, yet only the first to file the patent (not even the first to invent) gets the monopoly.
Such a system does not “protect” the capital of everyone who invested in those who got to the patent office late, does it?
Isn’t a better system to allow those to all compete it out in the market and see who can serve the market better? Why limit such competition?
Re:
Wasn’t the whole point of you guys not wanting to be a British colony anymore the fact that you didn’t want to be a part of the royal monopoly?
And for all the “innovation” that supposedly spurred your development, you’re a long, long way from that alleged golden age.
And if someone enterprising enough filed a DMCA claim, they could still sue over them.
The bulk of anger against copyright isn’t even against the spirit of the law, it’s the fact that anyone with an ax to grind can drag innocent people to court, waste their time and money, then run like hell with no consequence.
THERE IS A SOLUTION –
FreeRoyalties was created to help various stakeholders, including artists, agents, labels, producers, and streamers, to bring rights and royalties into the AI era. It ensures transparency and gives them control over terms, such as usage rights and compensation rates. Rather than viewing AI as a threat, FreeRoyalties leverages it to create new revenue streams while protecting talent rights and ensuring they are compensated for any usage.
As AI is projected to create 90% of all commercial content in the coming years, there is a growing need for a legitimate way to monetize and pay artists for their rights. FreeRoyalties enables businesses, creators, and AI tools to rapidly create premium content using the likenesses, voice, music, and other rights of celebrities and artists, enhancing content and driving virality.
FreeRoyalties is a for-profit public benefit company committed to never taking a percentage of the royalties. Its vision is for every person, content, and AI agent globally to have a FreeRoyalties page to set terms and monetize their rights effortlessly. The mission is to provide free royalties for all types of rights (voice, music, likeness, art, content, etc.) worldwide. FreeRoyalties aims to act as an evidence locker for fair usage and compensation, working with all industry parties—unions, social platforms, streamers, marketplaces, labels, and AI tools—to create a fair revenue model where everyone benefits.