Alex Bowles 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (43) comment rss

  • On the post: Senator Wyden Asks Congressional Research Service To Determine If ACTA Impacts US Law

    Alex Bowles ( profile ), 11 Oct, 2010 @ 01:52pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: w00t

    Yes, that's EXACTLY what's being taxed.

    Income tax does not tax the money. It taxes the income. If I inherit $1,000,000, that is, most assuredly, income.

    Likewise, if I earn (and pay income tax) on $1,000,000 then use part of that money to employ others, they must treat that money as income, and pay tax accordingly.

    The idea that taking inheritances will cause people to stop transferring wealth between generations is absurd. It's like saying that the simple act of taxing paychecks (even at a mere 10%) will stop people from working altogether.

    Let's be clear, if you inherited $1,000,000 instead of having to work for it, you're already coming out way ahead, since you still have all the free time that the earner had to spend laboring. Some would argue that this means inheritance should be taxed *more* than labor. For the sake of simplicity, I think you should tax all income sources equally, only adjusting the rate with respect to combined income from all sources.

  • On the post: Senator Wyden Asks Congressional Research Service To Determine If ACTA Impacts US Law

    Alex Bowles ( profile ), 11 Oct, 2010 @ 01:40pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: w00t

    You're confused about what's being taxed. It's not the money, it's the exchange.

    If I pay you to mow my lawn, that money becomes part of your income. The fact that I earned that money (and was taxed accordingly) does not mean that the portion I kept was transformed into magical untaxable dollars that I can now use to pay others without them incurring any liability.

    If tax law regarded an extended family as a single entity, then the case against taxing inheritance as income would be different. In that case, it would be like taxing an individual's transfers from checking to savings.

    As it stands, only married couples are taxed collectively. That makes sense, since marriage allows for joint ownership of housing, investments, etc. The recognizes this, and can treat shared income accordingly.

    Inheritance is obviously *not* jointly owned. That's the whole point. Ownership is - explicitly - transferring from one person to another.

    It's no different, really, from the transfer tax that cities asses every time a house changes hands.

  • On the post: CBC Stops Using Creative Commons Music Over Concerns About Commercial vs. Non-Commercial Use

    Alex Bowles ( profile ), 09 Oct, 2010 @ 05:09pm

    Re: Re: Our classic human failures, on display

    The real issue is that 'making money' is completely undefined here. In the crippled view of the CC system, there's no difference between an individual using NC CC elements and charging audiences to cover all the other costs of a show (even if they're just offsetting a loss), and a GigantoCorp making said element a critical component in a bazillion dollar enterprise.

    I mean, I get the reluctance to have one's freely offered material profitably used by an entity that may also be a strong supporter of trade groups that go out of their way to shut down free culture. That makes sense. But the idea of having to deal with a complicated and possibly contentious royalty scheme - especially for something that will also be made freely available to an extent - well, that's just nuts. Most serious, independent artists won't even bother. So NC remains a ghetto.

    The far more sensible system is to look not at what's being done with the material, but who (or rather, what) is doing it. So focus no on ?commercial? vs. ?non-commercial? (obviously ambiguous). Rather, consider ?incorporated? vs. ?unincorporated? (a crystal clear distinction).

    A system that allowed individuals to make commercial use of material would allow them to develop more complex (i.e. relevant) works, doing so knowing they were free to cover their costs legally and efficiently. Realistically, if anyone is doing anything at a scale that's genuinely lucrative, they're going to need to incorporate. And *that's* the point where the new license should kick in.

    And let?s face it - if someone is charging, but still operating at a loss, and you're demanding ?your piece? simply because ?money is changing hands?, well, you're just being a dick. That?s twice as true if you?ve ever gone on about how ?stupid and evil? the RIAA, ASCAP et. al. can be. I mean, that?s *their* whole attitude, right?

    If something small gets huge, and you set up a shell to profit from it, that's a fine place to either set up payment plans. If an element is critical, this obviously gives the original creator more leverage in the negotiations, but that's probably fair. If the contribution is incidental, the honest producer can avoid gouging by opting for a more reasonably proved alternative. It's really a case-by-case thing, and one that favors genuine contributors over marginal players behaving like patent trolls.

    The nice thing for everyone is that this approach lets producers identify and test out new commercial markets without a lot of encumbrances, then talk about appropriate compensation when all involved actually have a real sense of the value available to all, and the relative importance of any given element.

  • On the post: How Is It That New Copyrights Are Being Claimed On Work Done By An Artist Who Died 70 Years Ago?

    Alex Bowles ( profile ), 26 Jul, 2010 @ 08:37am

    Re: Re: Clearly

    In exchange for you post, we (the public) will offer you an empty sandwich wrapper and a piece of chewed up gum (or a similar pair objects with roughly equal value).

    It's not much, we admit, but more than enough to satisfy your exceedingly vague definition of "something". You can take receipt of this payment via any of the trash cans (or gutters) that we - the public - have graciously provided.

    It's been a pleasure doing business with you, Mr. Advocate. And good luck in billing your client.

  • On the post: Is Intellectual Property A Violation Of Real Property?

    Alex Bowles ( profile ), 14 Apr, 2010 @ 09:48am

    Tangible vs. Intangible goods

    The smart thing to do is to recognize that the term 'intellectual property' is a clever bit of propaganda advanced by those who want to replace many of the rules that govern intangible goods with the (generally) far more serious rules that govern the tangible goods (a.k.a. real property).

    Instead of going along with this, opt for the terms 'tangible goods' and 'intangible goods' if you really want to help preserve clarity in distinctions between them. 'Goods' is a very broad term, after all, and one widely used in relation to intangible qualities and benefits, as well as physical objects with commercial value.

    'Property', on the other hand, has none of this neutrality. The term is heavily weighted towards the tangible realm, and freighted with meaning stemming from its original application to considerations of land and livestock.

    Avoidance of a deliberately confusing term is a great way to avoid confusion about the things that term describes. It's also an excellent way to advance conversation about the very real problems that attend the production of intangible goods, especially in a world that can't widely or easily recognize them for what they are.

  • On the post: Misguided Outrage At NY Times' Ethicist Over Ethics Of Downloading A Book

    Alex Bowles ( profile ), 09 Apr, 2010 @ 09:59am

    Re: Re: So many excuses for theft

    Darryl (last name withheld) "So until the law is changed, morals has nothing to do with it. You're breaking the law, and you're engaging in simple THEFT.. "

    The Supreme Court of the United States "Interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The infringer of a copyright does not assume physical control over the copyright nor wholly deprive its owner of its use. Infringement implicates a more complex set of property interests than does run-of-the-mill theft, conversion, or fraud."

    No further comment.

  • On the post: Misguided Outrage At NY Times' Ethicist Over Ethics Of Downloading A Book

    Alex Bowles ( profile ), 09 Apr, 2010 @ 09:41am

    Re: Re: So many excuses for theft

    When you acquire an unauthorized copy of something out of print, you harm everyone in the publishing cartel by shifting your attention to something they didn't sell you.

    The fact that you're reading something out of print is irrelevant. The whole point of letting things go out of print is to encourage you to buy something new to read. When you go digging up old stuff, you're pulling yourself out of the market for new stuff. And that's obviously bad (for the cartel).

    For this reason, the cartel has traditionally opposed things like the Doctrine of First Sale, which allows for the existence of lending libraries, second-hand book stores, used record shops, and so on.

    Wretched libraries, letting people read for free. We hates them, my precious (monopoly), we hates them.

  • On the post: If 'Piracy' Is Killing Filmmaking, Why Do Nigeria, China And India Have Thriving Movie Businesses?

    Alex Bowles ( profile ), 08 Apr, 2010 @ 05:30pm

    It's not your model, it's your plan.

    Maybe talking about 'business models' is a mistake, at least when it comes to copyright-protected companies. How many of these conversations would be more illuminating if people asked "what's your business plan?

    A model describes how anyone can make money. A plan describes how you–in particular–will make money.

    If I'm investing in an early-stage startup–one so fresh that everything is being built from scratch–then the basic model is very important. In fact, I'd say forget about a business plan, since it's a batch of variables that are sure to change. Focus on simply making money, period, and save the planning until you know you've got a leg to stand on.

    But if I'm looking at an established company, or a new provider of a well-defined proposition, the model is no longer a question. This is where an actual plan is what truly matters.

    If I were investing in major media companies, I wouldn't be asking about their model. I understand the model. I'd be asking how their model's assumptions were holding up, and how they were going to deal with changing projections.

    When it comes to established publishers, the real issues is that they have no plan to lower their costs far enough to compete with companies using the same model, but with a much better set of assumptions, along with operations and cashflow projections to match.

  • On the post: If 'Piracy' Is Killing Filmmaking, Why Do Nigeria, China And India Have Thriving Movie Businesses?

    Alex Bowles ( profile ), 08 Apr, 2010 @ 03:36pm

    'Post-Copyright' business model? How about 'Pre-Internet'?

    These are all places where 'piracy' doesn't mean 'Torrents', it means 'physical CDs'. No, not DVDs, mind you (too expensive), VCDs. And forget streaming broadband. In the muddy season, simply getting the electricity to say connected for more than four hours straight is a more realistic concern.

    This means that all the markets profiled by Kelly are outside the sphere where 'the number of copies can be infinite' (in theory or practice), and placed firmly in the zone where the value of a copy is still a positive number. There's nothing futuristic about that. To the contrary, it's where Blockbuster was seven years ago.

    Meanwhile, the fundamental business model for all media anywhere remains relentlessly intact. (Sorry, Unicorn Hunters, there's no "new" model to be found.) Nothing about digital media or the emergence of the internet has altered the essential fact: when it comes to intangible goods, audiences have never, and will never pay for the goods themselves (that's the patron's role). What they do pay for are the wrappers in which those goods are delivered.

    That could mean a ticket for a theater seat, an LP record, or a new TV. Whatever, it's all wrapper. For a producer / patron, this means one thing only - make stuff people like, and keep your costs lower than whatever price the wrapper makers are willing to pay you directly.

    To simplify even further; buy low and sell high to someone who returns your calls. Seriously, that's it. So stop with the unicorn hunt. There are no 'new models to discover', and you're just wasting your time if this is what's holding you up.

    If you're feeling the pinch and you're an author or an artist, you need to be looking for reliable new patrons. If you're a patron, you need to be looking for new distribution partners. And if you're a distributor, you need to be offering something more interesting, exclusive, and worthwhile than a broadband connection attached to a 60" 1080p HDTV (unless you're in someplace like Nigeria, in which case, you're now a theater operator, charging people for fuel in the generator + a satellite down-link).

    In other words, if you make a living from intangible goods, you don't need to be focused on your business model. You need to be focused on your business itself. And the internet changes nothing fundamental. No matter who or where you are, and no matter how big or small, the rule remains the same; if your output exceeds your income, then your upkeep becomes your downfall.

    Provided you know your basic role (author/artist, producer/patron, or wrapper-maker extraordinaire), you're in a position to work well with others who share the same level of clarity. And if all of you can keep your costs in line while making something that can't be had elsewhere for free, then you'll have successfully adapted your business to the one and only model you'll ever see.

  • On the post: NYTimes Ethicist: Not Unethical To Download Unauthorized Copy Of Physical Book You Own

    Alex Bowles ( profile ), 06 Apr, 2010 @ 02:33pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: According to Cohen, the ethics of ripping are relative to the title (though this would be news to him)

    @Harrison,

    Not sure if (or where) I implied that copyright privilege was granted with no quid pro quo.

    To the best of my knowledge, public benefit is derived (in theory) from the general advance "of the useful arts and sciences" which (also in theory) can be accelerated at little cost via the grant of exclusive rights "for limited times", etc.

    These theories and assumptions are, of course, what's starting it unravel now.

  • On the post: NYTimes Ethicist: Not Unethical To Download Unauthorized Copy Of Physical Book You Own

    Alex Bowles ( profile ), 06 Apr, 2010 @ 01:40pm

    Re: Re: Victimless crime?

    Wonderful citation - thank you.

  • On the post: NYTimes Ethicist: Not Unethical To Download Unauthorized Copy Of Physical Book You Own

    Alex Bowles ( profile ), 06 Apr, 2010 @ 01:28pm

    Re: Re: According to Cohen, the ethics of ripping are relative to the title (though this would be news to him)

    @Some Guy

    So, essentially, it's ethically wrong because the publisher set up a stupid model? It's ethically wrong because he's made an artificial piece of the game essential to his survivability?


    No, it's ethically wrong because copyright violation is against the law, the establishment of which was clearly based on Constitutional principle which has yet to face serious formal challenge.

    Also, the copyright holder wasn't foolish to bank on monopoly power. The Constitution made the explicit assumption that the grant of (limited) monopoly power was essential to artistic or scientific enterprise. The fact that more that 200 years passed before this assumption was seriously questioned speaks to how foolish it wasn't–at least for pre-internet media firms (i.e. virtually all major, publicly-traded publishers).

    Further, to say pirating is "just like" theft in the same way that inflation is "just like" a bank robbery and to then claim that pirates should be held responsible for theft strongly implies that those responsible for inflation (the government, banks?) should be charged for bank robbery.


    No it does not. It is 'like theft' in terms of effect (i.e. loss of useful power). But it is not actual theft. Which is why you can't charge software infringes with larceny, and nor can you sue the Fed for creating inflation (though lord only knows how many people would if they could).

    By the same logic, eating at Wendy's is "just like" stealing from Burger King, isn't it? Or would it be that competing with Burger King is "just like" theft?


    This is totally absurd, though it wouldn't be if Burger King had a legal monopoly on hamburgers. That is to say, if Burger King had the right to control the supply absolutely, then anyone messing with the supply would produce an effect 'just like' stealing. Only the thing being stolen wouldn't be the burgers themselves, it would be the portion of Burger King's profit margin that could only be maintained due to an absolute–and perfectly enforced–monopoly.

    Finally, how is my downloading a digital copy of content I already own increase anything? So long as I don't then give that copy to someone else (who doesn't already have it) then I've changed absolutely nothing -- unless you think I would (not simply should) pay for a second copy of what I already own. I submit that most people would not pay twice for the same thing.


    Um, are you serious? Do you not see how making a copy increases the supply? What you do with it is irrelevant; once you make a copy, that copy–by definition–exists. And even if you don't redistribute it, can't you see how that additional copy produces an effect?

    After all, if you've got a backup, you don't care as much about the original. You can loose it, or give it away, or do whatever. It doesn't matter anymore. As long as you maintain access to a copy, your entire pattern of conduct changes because you don't depend on others to reproduce copies for you.

    And that's exactly the point of escaping from monopoly control. Your attitudes and behavior change. Instead of treating this object as a singular thing, replaceable only at real expense, you adopt a very casual and uncaring attitude towards copies, and start to think of the work in far more abstract (and hard to monetize) terms.

    From the perspective of the monopolist–who wants you to think of master recordings as almost sacred and impossible to access relics, and to hold that single precious copy in the highest regard possible–this is a terrible development. Control over supply is directly related to control over attitudes, behavior, and perception of value, which are all directly related to the amount of money the publisher can extract from you.

    In short, a well managed monopoly is economically indistinguishable from a license to print money. And the value of owning a mint, in turn, is directly proportional to your power to control the supply of currency.

    The internet ruined publisher's capacity to control the currency supply, which devalued the economic power of their licenses to print money, which (for many) threatened their ability to simply survive.

    Now, the real test is whether "the useful arts and sciences" (however that's defined) will manage to survive this implosion. If so, the basic Constitutional supposition that led to copyright law's creation will have been debunked. This will open the law to increasingly severe legal challenge from the courts, while limiting the ability of Congress to enact new law to replace the ones getting struck down.

  • On the post: NYTimes Ethicist: Not Unethical To Download Unauthorized Copy Of Physical Book You Own

    Alex Bowles ( profile ), 06 Apr, 2010 @ 09:37am

    Re: Re: According to Cohen, the ethics of ripping are relative to the title (though this would be news to him)

    The weird thing about Cohen's argument was that he was, on one hand, completely ignoring the value of intangible goods. But elsewhere, he was referencing this value to support his position.

    He ignored intangible value when saying that copying 'costs the publisher nothing' because it consumes none of the publisher's labor or materials, and leaves his supply of copies intact. Accordingly, (says Cohen) it's ridiculous for the publisher to say that copying is 'just like' theft, since theft would have deprived him of tangible stock.

    However, it's not ridiculous to say that something which decreases value by diluting scarcity is 'just like' theft. It is just like theft in that both dilution and theft reduce the commercial utility of whatever you once had. For this reason, we have strong laws against counterfeiting currency and back-dating stock options, as both strip value from the shells that contained them, even when they leave the shells intact.

    So basing an argument (as Cohen initially does) by looking only at the publisher's cost and possession of tangible materials is wrong when you're talking about the value of intangible goods.

    But then Cohen turns around and acknowledges the intangible value of scarcity, by reckoning that making an additional unauthorized copy was probably a drop in a a bucket, and was therefore relatively harmless. Suddenly, he is admitting that there's more to this that the cost of materials, and who who possesses them, and that overall supply is a determinant of value.

    And he's conceding that making additional copies does diminish the commercial value of every other copy (including those still held by the publisher). He goes on to justifies the copying (and the harm) by saying that the dilution is so small that it probably doesn't matter - even if the publisher being harmed by this tells him otherwise.

    Given that Cohen does, in fact, recognize the nature of value in intangible goods, the correct response would be to agree with the publisher, and say "yes, unauthorized duplication is just like theft (at least in terms of effect) and yes, I am condoning it since the effect (in this case) is totally inconsequential."

    It would be up to the publisher to demonstrate otherwise.

  • On the post: NYTimes Ethicist: Not Unethical To Download Unauthorized Copy Of Physical Book You Own

    Alex Bowles ( profile ), 06 Apr, 2010 @ 01:18am

    According to Cohen, the ethics of ripping are relative to the title (though this would be news to him)

    Apparently Cohen never considered that publishers use their perfectly legal monopoly to make money in two ways. The first is by selling copies of the work they commission (or buy outright after the fact). The second is by controlling the supply of those copies so it never quite meets demand, resulting in an attractive price (for the publisher).

    People (like Cohen) are missing the point when the say "how is copying like theft? It didn't cost the publisher anything, and anyway, once I've bought one copy in one format, I should never have to buy another."

    In reality, it did cost the publisher something, in that every additional copy (regardless of who makes it) creates an incremental reduction in value of all other copies. Dilution 101.

    The publisher's main concern is in maintaining enough control over the supply to keep it just below demand, allowing him to hit that sweet spot between units sold and cash extracted. If your copying didn't change the overall supply, he wouldn't care. But obviously it does, and so he cares. Deeply.

    Consider his aims: it's better for him to sell 500,000 units at $5 than it is to sell 100,000 units at $10, or 1,000,000 units at $1. He doesn't want to be too restrictive, since prices will top out eventually. And he doesn't want to be too liberal, since he'll have to slash his price below profitability if supply outpaces demand. Somewhere between gouging and giving, there's an optimal point of exchange. That's tricky to find with confidence, but it's much easier if you can maintain absolute control over the supply (an advantage not open to guys selling dishwashers or chewing gum).

    However, when the publisher loses control over supply (which is what happens when people start making copies on their own, even "just for non-commercial personal use"), then his ability to play (and profit from) his advantage in the price optimization game goes out the window. If his business has evolved so that possession of this advantage has become essential to his survival, then a loss of control on the supply side can be fatal.

    Accordingly, downloading a movie is 'just like' stealing in the same way that sudden inflation is 'just like' suffering a bank robbery. Obviously, inflation doesn't change the amount of money in your account. But it can demolish the value. So in terms of effect, yes, it is 'just like' robbery.

    Likewise, it's not the copy you're 'stealing' when you make a duplicate, it's the incremental (but real) sliver of market power that the publisher looses every-time someone (aside from him) increases the supply. The more tightly controlled the market, the more damaging each act of infringement becomes.

    Interestingly, if Cohen's ethical scale is based on relative harm, it becomes increasingly acceptable to copy as the supply of copies expands. In other words, the ethics of duplication (in his view) are tied directly to the number of copies that already exist, which each new act of unauthorized duplication being slightly less serious than the ones that proceeded it.

    Accordingly, leaking an unreleased but eagerly anticipated manuscript is far worse that downloading and old novel by Stephen King, copies of which are already found everywhere. In other words, if you're an especially sensitive soul who wants to copy without guilt, rip the stuff that everyone else already has.

    Conversely, be willing to pay more for stuff where fewer copies exist, and every new copy is likley to represent a greater dilution of value. And if you're a publisher, recognize that it's total lunacy to think that you can effectively control the supply of anything for 120 years.

    With some things, you can't keep the lid on for 120 minutes.

  • On the post: Universal Music Funds Yet Another 'Educational' Propaganda Campaign Against File Sharing

    Alex Bowles ( profile ), 26 Mar, 2010 @ 04:22pm

    Putting the 'Service' in PSA

    Education? You mean like helping people understand the legal and moral distinctions between a natural right and an artificial privilege?

    What a wonderful thing for these producers to do. God bless 'em.

  • On the post: ACTA Raising Serious Constitutional Questions

    Alex Bowles ( profile ), 26 Mar, 2010 @ 05:35am

    http://www.signalflight.com

    The irony, of course, is that Biden is now trying to argue the opposite side of the same argument - after all, he's ACTA's primary champion in the White House, and has anchored the Executive lead on the provisions it contains. As such, he's doing what he specifically argued against - on fundamental Constitutional grounds, no less.

    That's not the kind of change we can believe in.

  • On the post: Irish Collection Society Wants Hotels To Pay Performance Fees For Music Played In Guest Rooms

    Alex Bowles ( profile ), 20 Mar, 2010 @ 08:22am

    How is this not double dipping? I mean, if it's a commercial performance (i.e. one made by a broadcaster and paid for using ad revenue) then doesn't that broadcaster have the right to reach as many people in a given territory that want to tune in?

    If I'm hearing an ad, I've already paid for the performance with my attention - attention that has already been converted into cash by the media company that (a) counted me as part of its audience and (b) licensed the music they played accordingly.

    The record companies are, in essence, subcontractors who are now stepping way out of line. Dealing with them is like dealing with a tire company attempting to bill you directly for the tires that already came on the new car you already bought.

  • On the post: More Myth Debunking: File Sharing Is A Gateway Crime

    Alex Bowles ( profile ), 15 Mar, 2010 @ 08:53am

    Something that does erode respect for the law is the willingness of Congress to permit the appearance of corruption in the making of law.

    After all, people who (theoretically) spend their days writing laws should not spend most of their time asking others to write them checks. That's just bad - unless you're running a business that can only survive because you write those checks.

    If you're ever in doubt about any organization's true commitment to the rule of law, their support for public election finance (or lack thereof) says it all.

  • On the post: More Myth Debunking: File Sharing Is A Gateway Crime

    Alex Bowles ( profile ), 15 Mar, 2010 @ 08:29am

    Re: Prediction

    How's that for irony?

  • On the post: How Much Money Can You Make For Others, Rather Than Yourself?

    Alex Bowles ( profile ), 10 Mar, 2010 @ 11:47am

    Webonomics 101: Secure value for yourself by creating more value for others. Much more.

Next >>