Slashdot Mirror
The Fashion Industry As a Model For IP Reform
Scrameustache writes "In this 15-minute TED talk, Johanna Blakley addresses a subject alien to most here — fashion — but in a way sure to grab our attention. The lesson is about how the fashion industry's lack of copyright protection can teach other industries about what copyright means to innovation. And yes, she mentions open source software. There is one killer slide at 12:20 comparing the gross sales of low-IP-protection industries with those of films and books and music. If you want to know more, or if you prefer text, the Ready To Share project website should give you all the data you crave on the subject."
I had a kneejerk thing to say here about software piracy, but then I realised that in my rush to be relevant, I hadn't RTFA and it was irrelevant.
Yes, I know, this is slashdot, I should GTFO with an attitude like this!
I am one of many. My idea is not unique, nor do I expect my voice alone to sway you. I speak in a chorus of opinion.
A not too wild guess is that this will probably remedied in the wrong way; by adding more IP protection to the fashion industry, rather than following their example.
Obviously nobody has heard of "Forever 21." The fashion industry's biggest problem right now is IP theft -- you talk to any of the young, creative designers that are moving things forward, and they will tell you about how all of their designs are being ripped off by mall stores.
The Slashdot crowd may find this hard to believe, but you should be glad that the megacorps in our industry work to protect the IP of the industry's creative people. Fashion is a perfect example of the corporate machine deciding that theft is a better business plan ... Perhaps the exact opposite of a "model for IP reform"!
http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=KrsEAAAAEBAJ&dq=denim
http://www.google.com/patents?lr=&q=fashion+clothing&spell=1&oi=spell
http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=nX4CAAAAEBAJ&dq=clothing
for just a sampler.
In fashion, women are required to constantly buy new clothes lest they be considered "frumpy". Last year's clothes are perfectly good, quality-wise, but a culture has been created by which anyone who wears them is subject to public ridicule. The point of all this is to keep the fashion industry's pockets full. What kind of developer, oops I mean designer, doesn't enjoy working on new designs? They want everyone buying the latest greatest design, even if it's not as good as last year's.
Likewise in software, where upgrades are mandatory even though the current software works just fine. "But it's old tech!" the developer shouts at his utterly stupid users. "Why won't you upgrade? I really enjoyed working on this!" I recently asked a question on a support forum about Drupal. I didn't get my question answered, as the developers immediately discussed the fact I was using the "old tech" version (5) and the entire discussion became about when I was going to upgrade to the latest greatest version (7). Why should I? My software works just fine and customers are happy. Security upgrades are more like obscurity upgrades. "Because it's last year's fashion, daaahling"
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
People copy fashions of high end items. Most people can't afford those anyway. They're too expensive. So no sales are lots.
Clothing is a physical good. If you can make one instance of it, you still need to repeat the whole manufacturing process to make more. This is not true of digital information.
The value of a good drops with the availability of the good. Digital information can be replicated infinitely. Clothing is much harder to replicate.
The value of clothing drops dramatically within 3 months because fashions are seasonal. So if you can replicate it after 1 year, no one cares. This is not true of software, movies, music, etc. A lot of IP retains its value for decades or longer.
First off, fashion occupies a unique niche in culture and purchasing decisions. As noted http://www.publicknowledge.org/node/597on a relevent blog "The fashion industry profits by setting trends in clothing, and then inducing consumers to follow those trends. This process leads us to treat clothing as a status-conferring good to be replaced once the fashion changes, rather than as a durable good to be replaced only when all the buttons fall off. Trend-driven consumption is good for the fashion industry, because it sells more clothing. " That nature is hardly applicable to software, literature, film, or design.
The New York times http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/04/us/04fashion.html?_r=2&hp=&oref=slogin&pagewanted=allran a story that included this telling quote, "“If I see something on Style.com, all I have to do is e-mail the picture to my factory and say, ‘I want something similar, or a silhouette made just like this,’ ” Ms. Anand said. The factory, in Jaipur, India, can deliver stores a knockoff months before the designer version."
An NPR story http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1434815noted that "it's expensive and risky to actually create new designs. It's cheaper and easier to simply knock off successful ones."
The entire point of IP is to encourage social and cultural development through the protection of initial investment. The fashion industry demonstrates what happens when IP is weakened or non-existant - a disincentive to create and develop and a thriving copy-culture.
I didn't get my question answered, as the developers immediately discussed the fact I was using the "old tech" version (5) and the entire discussion became about when I was going to upgrade to the latest greatest version (7).
7 is still alpha. I wouldn't use that for production system. What's more, most modules are still unavailable for 7.
Heck, some useful modules are even unavailable for 6, such as views_ticker. Or are there any other tickers that show titles of nodes of a view? There are plenty which show all nodes of a certain type, or featuring certain taxonomy keywords, or from a hand-picked list, but no tickers based on a view. For that you have to stay with 5.
With drupal, you've got a good excuse for wearing last year's fashion: your favourite module or theme is still unavailable.
She said (paraphrasing), "Open Source. Those people decided they wanted nothing to do with copyright."
She's a little bit wrong there when you consider that the GNU General Public License uses copyright as the vehicle through which the license is enforced. What she meant to say was that the free software movement requires people be able to copy and modify their software as part of the definition of software freedom. Not quite as good for a sound bite but a truer meaning for those who care.
TED talks might be "ideas worth spreading," but unfortunately Johanna Blakley is spreading nothing but half-truths and misconceptions about FOSS in her talk.
Don't get me wrong -- I have no impression that she's acting with malicious intent. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if she was supportive of the open source business model. But regardless of intent, her voice carries great weight when she's given the microphone at a TED talk.
11:50
"Open source software. These guys decided they didn't want copyright protection. They thought it'd be more innovative without it."
False. Some FOSS developers eschew some of the protections granted to them through copyright law and grant everyone very permissive licenses to their code. Other developers have used a clever hack to create a body of "copyleft" work -- code that can be used and expanded upon, contingent upon derivative works being distributed under the same terms as the original work.
Very few FOSS developers put their code into the public domain.
13:50
Around this point she shows a chart.
The chart has two axes:
X: "Property (Art)" -> "Free (Utility)" and
Y: "Physical Fixed Expression" -> "Idea/Digital Manifestation".
The left two quadrants are colored grey and have "COPYRIGHT PROTECTED" written above them. The right two quadrants and colored white and have "NOT COPYRIGHT PROTECTED" above them.
She plots "OPEN SOURCE CODE" on the chart exactly in between "Idea/Digital Manifestation" and "Free (Utility)", placing it on the right hand, "NOT COPYRIGHT PROTECTED" side of the chart.
At least for the moment, computer code is copyrightable in the US. And as I stated before, most FOSS code is copyright protected.
I think that Blakley has a lot of interesting ideas, and certainly knows more about the fashion industry than I, but she's needlessly negligent in her characterization of how FOSS interacts with copyright law.
Perhaps I should write her a polite letter...
coding is life
What free culture? This is an industry that has no qualms about charging thousands of dollars for a pretty piece of cloth!
I read "IP Railway". While that would be pretty cool to see, I'm very worried about my eyes now.
The speaker is getting her things mixed up.
Open source is copyrighted. And if it were not then people would copy without any regards. For example the GPL works BECAUSE of copyright. It uses copyright to keep free.
"You can't make a race horse of a pig"
"No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
can you help me?
Fashion is about standing out, getting attention and signalling belonging to an elite clique. Items cannot be replicated infinitely. Because items are easy to create, many are created. Brand matters.
Computer software is about utility - does it work or not. Items can be replicated infinitely. Because items are difficult to create, very few are created. Brand does not matter.
With fashion, what you pay for is 1) the physical item itself, 2) the time that went into designing the item, 3) the prestige the creator has built for themselves.
With computer software, there is clearly no point in paying for the physical item itself, and no point in paying for any prestige either.
You could say that "if you could download clothes fully made there would still be an industry based around design" - true, but the example isn't transferable, because clothes, as mentioned above, are easy to create and many are created. If designing a dress cost $200m, and copies made of it were sold _marked with the same brand and in the same stores_, it would never be designed in the first place.
In fact, the important thing in fashion isn't about copyright protection, it's about trademark protection. Why does Armani sell? Because, although people can copy their style, they cannot copy their brand. It's trademark protection that is key to the profitability of the fashion industry - which she does NOT mention at all. Trademark is to fashion what copyright is to computers. Ask a designer how they would feel if trademark protection was removed, and you would see any "brand" they seek to create for themselves copied identically by mass producers. By pretending that the fashion industry thrives with no copyright protection, she fails to point out that their "intellectual property" is their TM, which they guard like hawks. This is deceptive. You go to jail for violating fashion trademarks. I would even argue that fashion trademarks are even stricter than computer copyrights.
Not to mention that to base projections about downloads on current download/sales ratios are deceptive - because if copyright violation was legal, companies would rapidly spring up, in the style of Steam, with a menu of software ready to pipe to home computers. Why pay for a movie in a store when you can have a library of every movie ever created instantly available only for the cost of bandwidth? With the current torrent system, at least a) your bandwidth may be limited, which market pressure would stop it from if copyright violation was legal; b) there are a few steps involved in burning the ISO; c) you will miss out on patches and downloadable content. If copyright violation was legal a Steam-like system would spring up in 2-3 months, with a well-managed system of circumventing copy protection. This would again lead to an explosion of even stricter anti-circumvention, probably involving hardware, which would add multiple layers of cost.
Why must KDawson be evil enough to put forward deceptive examples uncritically to serve his ideology? Can everyone else do the same thing? Or is being deceptive good as long as it serves the cause of good? It doesn't exactly inspire me to show much regard in return.
The TCP/IP stack isn't protected. Fail.
The difference between fashion and software (well, one of the many) is that software can be improved on iteratively.
And that improved version gets a NEW copyright, therefore the OLD one doesn't need it any more.
Even if your software is old, if it's solid and mature, people will want to built new shinies on top of its old reliable, and therefore, it was value to them.
Except with closed source (heck, even most Open Source but not FOSS), you CANNOT. Go update Windows 95 so it supports the new Atom subnotes.
Nice pun in the title there, kdawson.
I can't believe no-one seems to have commented yet on the "killer slide" comparing expenditure on "low-IP" and "high-IP" industries. People spend more money on food, clothes, cars and furniture than music and DVDs, and this is some big strike against IP protection? How about the fact that people spend more money on necessities than luxuries?
The video makes some good points of varying levels of validity, but equating "people spend more money on food than DVDs" with "copying shit rulez" is nonsensical- I saw more honest statistics used in the general election last month.
I loved the rationale that a recipe is "just a list of instructions and therefore not copyrightable". Maybe we should apply the same logic to software which is "just a list of instructions" and somehow therefore copyrightable? It does not compute... Personally, I have in the past 27 years of programming not once directly profited from copyright. The only software to which I've retained copyright is software that I wrote under the GPL, and all of the other software has been work for hire. Of the work for hire, not a single line of that code was ever sold! All of the code that was distributed as done so freely, usually to capture and audience or promote another product or event. Would it make any difference to me if software were not copyrightable? Hell Yes! I would have just as much programming to do, but I could re-use software I have already written. As it stands now, the only software I can reuse on each job is the code I wrote under that I placed under GPL! And it is because of that code, that I always have work that I have to turn down due to lack of time. So for some of us, the Fashion model is reality in software, just we end up knocking our own work off over and over again for different clients with different tastes.
It's trademark protection that is key to the profitability of the fashion industry - which she does NOT mention at all.
Actually, she does. More than once. Did you watch the video?
The point that she makes is that the ability to create derivative works fuels innovation, makes money, and fosters creativity, a point that I totally agree with.
Your assertion that "If designing a dress cost $200m, and copies made of it were sold _marked with the same brand and in the same stores_, it would never be designed in the first place." is specious.
Movies that cost $200M (and more, much more), are greenlighted all the time, bomb at the box office, die in the dustbins of discount DVDs, still don't recover their budgetary costs, and yet that doesn't stop more from being made. Does it?
Which leads to the question: Why do movies that cost millions to make generally suck the most?
Could it be that the old business models, dinosaurian management, and a sense of protected entitlement, foster a culture that recycles themes, prizes visual efx over story, stifles creativity and throttles risk taking?
Look at some of the most successful, highest grossing movies of the last 15 years and I think you'll see more that were made on relatively small budgets (Blair Witch Project being the poster child, but there are others) than you will Summer Blockbusters. My Big Fat Greek Wedding was turned down for production by all the major studios until Playtone picked it up, dropped it in the can for $5M and to date it's grossed $369M worldwide.
No, I'm with Johanna Blakely, less protectionism, less legislation, and less artificial control will foster change, evolution and creation, and that's something we should look forward to.
Some days it's just not worth
chewing through my restraints.
There is one killer slide at 12:20 comparing the gross sales of low-IP-protection industries with those of films and books and music.
Seriously?
Comparing food, cars and clothing to films, books and music?
I don't know about you... but I kinda have this habit of eating every day, sometimes even more than once.
I also have this crazy need to change my clothes from time to time. Sometimes I even throw it away as I find it "unwearable", as it gets worn out OR my body changes from all that food I eat every day.
Compared to that, I am yet to throw away any of my DVDs, CDs, books etc. because it is "worn out" or "out of trend" or "I don't want to watch/listen to/read that at the moment".
And putting cars up there... Why not diamonds too? Or "space vacations"?
Come on... You can't compare a price of a car to the price of a lunch, or a pair of pants, or a CD.
Also, note the HUGE difference in the gross sales of the first two industries (food - which everyone buys all the time; cars - which cost much more per single item than the products of any other industry) and the rest of the "IP-freely" industries (fashion - items last a lot longer than food; furniture - lasts virtually forever).
Furniture is right there at the low end with the movies. Despite the fact that a decent bed (or even a cheap one) will set you back a lot more than a fun movie.
Also, virtues of copying?
Ohh... Just TRY incorporating the second two into ANY industry not based on shoe shopping.
"Induced obsolescence"? Really?
How would you like to have to re-buy ALL your software, books, movies, CDs EVERY SEASON instead of every time a new digital media appers?
Why would you have to buy it?
Because of "Acceleration in creative innovation", which translates to:
Fashionistas want to stay ahead of the curve.
They don't want to be wearing what everybody else is wearing and so they want to move on to the next trend as soon as possible.
EVERY SEASON these designers have to struggle to come up with the new fabulous idea that everybody's going to love.
And this [..] is very good for the bottom line.
In other words - snobbery supported by profit margin supported by snobbery.
Sure... you might say that we already have that in constantly changing "modern" music, artsy-fartsy films or even Apple.
But none of those "industries" can be pushed into fashion industry's "season based" product cycle.
Why?
Because fashion is the only "art" that can become OBSOLETE.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
With that bar chart at around 12:24 - is she implying that correlation == causation? Here, in the slashdots?
Also, I'd like to see what's included within the food category. Restaurant & takeaway only? Or are branded convenience foods included? How about basic ingredients?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
fuck you, i would if i could.
http://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
If copyright violation was legal a Steam-like system would spring up in 2-3 months
You do know that Steam(Valve Software) makes money and passes some of that along to the creators, right?
Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
Fashion is a lot like software: the more transparency, the better.
The fundamental concept and spirit of open source does not, in any way, depend on copyright (or government for that matter). The GPL is useful today because it offers a way to fight back against a corrupt system of law. If the law wasn't corrupt, then the GPL wouldn't be nearly as useful.
The fact that the GPL is based on copyright law does not provide an argument "for" copyright law. Open source could and would exist in the absence of a GPL, and indeed, in the absence of copyright law altogether. After all, the most open form of open source is public domain.
Good talk, but isn't the higher income of low-ip industries precisely because they're utilitarian? You need food, transport, clothes, furniture but you can live without movies and music.
Fashion doesn't need copyright because they have super-aggressive design patent and trademark protections. Coca-cola doesn't have to worry about copyright on the coca-cola logo design on shirts because the design is a registered trademark, and thus is way easier and more powerful to prosecute than a wimpy ol' copyright. I am surprised that this would qualify as a TED talk since it seems to completely miss the point, but I haven't seen too many... are they all this wrong?
stuff |
You can have example after example. Proof after proof.
The money grubbing bastards who know how to milk the status quo for every last cent will continue to forge ahead, regardless of who or what gets in their way.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Software actually adds additional functionality, security updates, fixes bugs and adds compatibility with new technologies.
A new pair of pants does none of that.
Also, fashion industry is supposedly IP-free exactly BECAUSE it can push a new line of products down the public's ummm.. wallets every three months.
Try doing the same with software and pretty soon they will try to sell you a new desktop background.
And IP-protected industry covers a lot more than just software.
Books, movies, music - those can never go out of fashion. And you can't push their production cycle into a "three-month-wide" mold.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
So... IP reform should be based on really skinny women that throw up all the time? Gah! Brilliant!
load "$",8,1
It's not true to say that the fassion industry doesn't hand any IP protection. They utilize trademarks quite heavily. The difference is that you have to pay for a trademark, it has more restrictions on what can be trademarked, and you have to enforce your trademark.
If we were to apply this to software we'd see a lot more Apple-like software companies where their sucess is tied to their brand and that logo that it's illegal for anyone but them to plaster on a product.
IP is pants.
Any asshole can make umpteen zillion copies of an mp3, but it takes equipment to churn out a bunch of dresses. Car parts work the same way; unless some patent prevents you from replicating them, you can make all the replacement parts you want. Unless there's a design patent on it, you can copy the design of a fender, and then stamp out knockoffs as fast as you can sell them... but it takes enough equipment to work sheet metal like that. Clearly, material and nonmaterial goods are fundamentally different. That's why we have separate laws for theft of property and "theft" of ideas.
(ObDisclaimer: I didn't watch some woman blather for fifteen minutes, when if I had the opportunity, I could read the same shit in three. Posting video links is stupid, Ted Talks is stupid for not having transcripts, and their website sucks for requiring Javascript.)
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Computer software is about utility - does it work or not. Items can be replicated infinitely. Because items are difficult to create, very few are created. Brand does not matter.
Brand does not matter? Really? Then explain why the phrase "Nobody ever got fired for buying X." (where X is IBM, Microsoft, Cisco, etc) is so prevalent in the IT industry. People buy computers strictly because of the brand be it Apple, Dell, HP, etc. and the some goes for software. OpenOffice is functionality equivalent for probably 99% of Office's userbase, but people still buy MS Office due to the Microsoft brand.
Brand makes a huge difference regardless of the industry.
You're wrong, and the "Long Tail" shows us that. People aer still willing to pay for all *sorts* of IP, a long time after it was created.
Software is not only about its utilitarian value. Some are sold only on prestige like Adobe PDF Writer when free alternative like PDF Creator exist. Some are mostly sold on annex services like for Oracle when the vast majority of implementation could have run with any other cheaper RDBMS. Some are sold because of their unique or perceived unique feature. Some are sold because they are more 'complete' than others (Photoshop Vs The GIMP). With only trademarks in software, each company competing for customers cash would have to improve their product, make some unique feature first, make them more complete then other. This will result of not be in the actual position of some software stagnating because there is no contender in their niche market, making a better one at less cost than the actual way of doing it because developers could copy and not have to reinvent the wheel each time.
This is exactly my thinking for a while. Its brand that is important. We are a bit weary of cheap knock offs, we don't think of them as quality items. We trust in brands, because they have a reputation to protect. As everything is becoming free, brand becomes increasingly important. What is a Linux distribution if it is not a brand? I'm really chuffed with this video because to me it validates my musings with real world examples. :-)
Movies that cost $200M (and more, much more), are greenlighted all the time, bomb at the box office, die in the dustbins of discount DVDs, still don't recover their budgetary costs, and yet that doesn't stop more from being made. Does it?
These movies are subsidized by the studios through those that are profitable, so I'm not sure how this is similar to dresses at all.
Which leads to the question: Why do movies that cost millions to make generally suck the most?
They do? Sure, there are plenty expensive movies that are terrible, but have you seen most of the cheap movies? They're just as bad if not worse.
Look at some of the most successful, highest grossing movies of the last 15 years and I think you'll see more that were made on relatively small budgets (Blair Witch Project being the poster child, but there are others) than you will Summer Blockbusters. My Big Fat Greek Wedding was turned down for production by all the major studios until Playtone picked it up, dropped it in the can for $5M and to date it's grossed $369M worldwide.
The highest grossing movies are, with maybe a few exceptions, also the most expensive movies to make. Avatar, Titanic, and the Dark Knight come to mind. Movies like the Blair Witch Project do have a great return on investment though.
I do agree with your main point about protectionism, the above just bothered me.
Disco Stu disagrees. Disco is still alive!
you didn't wtfv, she mentioned trademark in fashion several times.
This question was specifically addressed in the talk. To dig deeper, maybe Microsoft doesn't need to spend billions annually on software development and R&D. It's very likely that Microsoft, Oracle, Google, Apple, Adobe, Hewlett-Packard, IBM, Intel, Cisco, etc. are all spending billions doing more or less the same research. The first one who gets it basically invalidates the billions that all the others have spent, at least for 20 years. If Microsoft could just openly rip off, say, Apple, then maybe some of those billions they're spending on reinventing Apple's wheel could be spent improving Apple's wheel instead. Better yet, maybe Joe Kernelhacker could take the wheels that Microsoft, Oracle, Google, etc. have created, tweak it a bit, and come up with something that the rest could in turn incorporate, or that he could even sell and help share the wealth.
Also, look at, for example, Adobe's new feature in Photoshop whereby you can remove stuff from pictures just by painting a boundary around it, and it fills in the background. Now, I'll agree that you shouldn't be able to just copy the code directly from Photoshop and use it in your own application wholesale. But as the laws are set up now, you can't even implement your own version of this feature, and that's absolutely horrible for innovation. Hell, just look what's going on with the H.264 battle. Not only are some people saying you can't use that codec--by far, the most popular and well-supported codec on the Internet--to make your own videos without paying up to MPEG LA, but some have issued veiled threats that the whole process is patented down so heavily that making any software that can stream video at all will get you sued into oblivion. And they're probably right.
The point of that tangent is that without software patents and copyright laws being extremely relaxed, maybe Microsoft can take some of that money they spend on lawyers (a very significant amount, by the way) and divert it to R&D because they no longer have to worry about being sued and paying millions to some schmuck who, it turns out, has a patent on wiping their butts. (Not to mention the millions in royalties they're having to pay to the other schmuck who has the patent on using toilet paper.)
Also, the fact that Adobe has the first product on the market that can do the out-of-sight out-of-mind trick is great advertising. Without software patents, will everyone replicate this feature in their products? Eventually, of course, yes. It's a cool feature. But it's obviously something that's not easy to replicate. It's not like Microsoft can just go to their development gurus and say, "Make this happen." If they incorporated it into Paint, it would probably take them months or even years to figure out a way to replicate the effect, during which time Adobe will be selling copies of Photoshop like gangbusters. This was what she was referring to with the slide on making it hard to replicate.
Have you ever used a piece of software that was blazing fast at something? Unless it was open source, did you really know exactly how it was fast? Was it because they came up with some clever way to use less resources? Did they come up with some clever algorithm that churns the numbers faster than everyone else? Did they just work really hard to remove all the bloat from their code, or write it to use resources on your machine at a lower level? There are literally millions of ways to make something work better. I just don't think that IBM will be ripping stuff off left and right from Oracle because it's not like they're going to instantly just know what to rip off.
Sadly the world is going to hell because of greed, irresponsibility and selfishness.
The original culture in hight-tech Silicon Valley in the early 80s did not include patents and IP protection. A company needed to get their product on the marker ahead of their competitors and, given the learning curve, even two weeks mattered a lot. No money and time were wated on patents and no information was disclosed to the public. But then the lawyers came and took over.
More than once she mentions items which don't have copyright protections because they are "too utilitarian." If computer software is "about utility" why should it have copyright protection?
As far as trademark is concerned, this only really applies to the logo. You can't trademark a design. I can't make a new type of shoe and say "this is trademarked so now you can't copy it." I can, however, make a unique "shoe logo" and stamp it prominently on every shoe I sell. Then, when the knockoff designers make copies of my shoes, they won't have the cool design on their shoes.
When it comes to the question of why pay for a movie when you download it for free, this is where I think price, availability, hassle and extras can tip the scales. First of all, don't price your product too high or people won't buy it and will seek out other methods of obtaining it (either used or pirated versions). Secondly, make your product available. I can't count how many times people have said they wanted to buy movie X but couldn't because it wasn't released in their DVD region. Thirdly, if you add hassles to your legal copy (DRM, unskippable ads, etc) people will flock away from it. Alternatively, if you make it hassle-free, people will choose it over trying to find and download a good pirated copy. Lastly, if you include cool extra features in your paid-version, people will buy that over the "just the movie DVD rip" torrent.
This isn't to say that everyone would flock to the paid-for copy. There are people out there who would download the pirated version even if the movie company was selling a DRM-free, Platinum Version with a thousand extra features for $5. You just need to realize that these people aren't your customers. Just like Gucci realized that the people buying cheap Gucci knock-offs weren't their customers.
Perhaps you can even find a way to profit from them like some high fashion designers who knocked off their own looks for sale to the "cheap knockoff" chains. To give an example from Disney, they're currently giving away free music every day for 50 days. ( http://twitter.com/disneymusic ) The "free music buffs" will eat this up and download every one. They might even discover that they like the song and go out and buy the album it came from. In the end, Disney is "out" 50 songs yet potentially increases their sales. (And yes, I know that Disney is a huge source of our current copyright woes, but like any big company there are good things they do and bad things. I figured I'd give them credit for one of the good things.)
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
My wife works in fashion, she knows many designers personally and has very strong views on copyright as a result of her experiences. Big companies are not really affected by these issues; owning a big name designer brand is all about the brand. If you have an identical fake, it is not as good purely because it is a fake. This is not directly equatible to software where nobody cares that there pirated copy isn't a "geniune Prada". The people who get screwed, though, are the smaller designers. It actually does take considerably more effort to create something unique and special, then it takes to copy that something. My wife has people from these cheaper knock-off stores come in, buy (or look at an item) and then see the near identical item in their store the next week. This hurts! If it was so damned easy to make in the first place, why do these people need to copy. Another designer she knows from Paris (who is a holocost surviver), was put out of business for a time due to floods of cheap copies from china. The problem isn't just that some people can get it for cheap as a result, it's also that your entire brand is devalued by association. (note that these copies were majorly inferiour in every way, except for how they looked). This sort of thin causes real harm to real people. It's made me re-think some of my pirating ways.
What about BSD? Their license (as I understand it) is basically, here, use it, just give me credit.
The IP in industry Vs Turnover/gross. Essentially this looked like it might be a counter-argument to the core of the talk. If someone can get very rich, in a relatively 'small' industry, then that is a greater motivator to that person. Just because everyone spends money on prepared food, does not mean that the recipe industry is a good way to make dough, ahem, dou$h. A good graph would be average income of persons (including corps) in some of the hi IP and low IP industries.
Waiting for the other shoe to...
While TFA is not correct about copyright in software, I think that there is a parallel to be drawn between copyright of fashion design and patents in software. In fashion, the inability to copyright a design allows small designers to flourish and compete against the larger brands by being more innovative. In the same way, if patents in software were limited or eliminated, it would allow smaller developers without defensive patent portfolios and armies of lawyers to compete.
Similarly, use of trademark laws in fashion to defend revenue and limit piracy in fashion can be equated to use of copyright in software law to limit piracy.
Yep. Basically, they're buying exclusivity.
Twitter recently bought Atebits, which produced the Tweetie 2 twitter client for the iPhone. Previously, Tweetie 2 was a $2.99 app. Upon acquisition, Twitter released an updated version, renamed it simply "Twitter", and gave it away for free.
You should see some of the negatives reviews that were left. Much wailing and gnashing of teeth, some of it angry that they paid for something that became free (ignoring the value they received in the meantime), but a lot of it sounding like, "I paid for this app because not everyone had it, now anyone can get it? Lame." (That's almost a direct quote from one of the complaints.)
Exclusivity is a tangible item to some people; it's what makes collectors spend ridiculous amounts to find that last item for their collection, or buy $24k Rolex watches. I might personally think it's ludicrous, but there you go.
-Ed Felix qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas.
What do you mean by fashion being the only art that can become obsolete? Do you mean all other art forms live forever? in a physical sense, or in an influential sense? and you're saying some (all?) of fashion will cease to exist after a certain time? in a physical sense? or in an influential sense?
cheers
Oh, and one more thing. Maybe I don't want Microsoft spending billions annually on software development and R&D. Personally, I don't like 15 or 20 companies being the gatekeepers of new technology because they're the only ones rich enough to throw that kind of money around. Instead of Microsoft spending a billion dollars to research 1000 things, why not have 100 companies spend 10 million each, each researching 10 things? Not only would you get a better diversity of research with lots of different ideas, but that also helps 100 companies make new and interesting things instead of just one. Maybe 100 CEOs can become multimillionaires off of their products instead of one guy becoming a multibillionaire.
The *entire* point of patents, as defined in the US Constitution, is "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"
Notice it says "limited time", because it does *not* promote progress by giving unlimited time. In fact, you could argue (and I'd love to see someone take this to court) that the DCMA violates this clause, as well as the current patent law, since it prevents progress.
mark
Fashion depends on churn. There aren't many original ideas. If you look at this year's runway fashion, and are familiar with the history of fashion, you can usually find a matching piece from decades ago. The Fashion Institute of Technology in New York has a large library of clothing against which new designs can be compared. This year, we have khaki (again), Gautier is trying green spandex shorts (80s aerobic wear), and Issey Miyake is over-pleating again (he did that better in the '80s) and using pink accents (so last year.) The jeans industry keeps fussing with various levels of fading, but they've been doing that for so long that nobody is paying much attention.
There's some technological progress, and it gets IP protection. Gore-Tex was patented, and for a long time, had a monopoly over waterproof fabrics that breathe well. Progress in materials, in sewing technology, and in cleaning has led to new ranges of clothing. Jeans, for example, depend on a sewing technology for strong corners that's only about fifty years old. (Today, rivets in jeans are decorative, not structural.) Sportswear, which was invented by Coco Chanel, wasn't really feasible before washing machines. Elastic fabrics opened up many new options. Not much new has come along in the last two decades, ("pleather" made a small splash) and fashion technology has somewhat stagnated.
As the TED talk points out, the big thing today is trademark protection via "designer labels". This is a relatively new concept. Until the late 1970s, no respectable garment maker would have the designer's mark visible, let alone a prominent feature of the design. Logos were associated with cheap T-shirts. The interlocking double C now associated with Chanel did not appear on Chanel products until the 1980s.
The apparel distribution pipeline is incredibly inefficient. Over 60% of apparel is eventually sold on sale. There's a hierarchy. First there's the initial sale, with a big markup. Then there's the sale rack at the original retailer, with the original tags still attached. Then there's the discount retailer who buys from the original retailer and resells from their own store. Finally, the unsold apparel is rolled into big balls about eight feet in diameter, which are rolled into shipping containers and shipped to third world countries for final sale, or recycled into nonwoven fabrics like cleaning cloths. There was an attempt during the dot-com era, called "Tradeweave", to create a secondary trading market in unsold apparel, but it only lasted from 1999-2001.
The watch industry is a branch of the fashion industry now. "We are not in the watch industry, we are are in the luxury industry" says the CEO of Rolex. They had the basic problem that their overpriced machinery is less accurate than a midrange quartz watch, and they now have the worse problem that people who grew up with cell phones see no need for watches. There have been attempts by the phone industry to do "designer cell phones", but so far, that's mostly a joke. Apple tried to position themselves as a high-end product, but you can now get an iPhone at WalMart for $97. Emulating the fashion industry hasn't worked for technology industries.
goddamn I wish I had mod points 'cause what you wrote is goddamn poetry.
If Microsoft could just openly rip off, say, Apple, then maybe some of those billions they're spending on reinventing Apple's wheel could be spent improving Apple's wheel instead. Better yet, maybe Joe Kernelhacker could take the wheels that Microsoft, Oracle, Google, etc. have created, tweak it a bit, and come up with something that the rest could in turn incorporate, or that he could even sell and help share the wealth.
Which, incidentally, is how it actually works in the open-source world, thanks to license such as GPL whose whole purpose is to *force* passing the wheel around and to make sure that nobody will cling to an "improved wheel" without sharing with the others.
(Open-source is also briefly mentioned in her talk among a list of other stuff which don't have or refuse to use copyrights)
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
the big fashion houses go after fakes and knockoffs very aggresivly
Just for example...
Every fashion designer of significance will have a valued trademark.
Every automobile manufacturer has a trademark and applies for design patents and process patents.
Copyright does not in itself prohibit reverse engineering.
You have a lot of opinions, and they are just that: opinion. I would like to see some numbers to support your claim that "if copyright violation was legal, a Steam-like system would spring up in 2-3 months". As I see it, we have 3 groups involved in copyright violation. Assuming we are talking about a movie, these would be: 1) Die hard fans who insist on going to the movie theater and owning an official copy of the DVD once it comes out. 2) Normal people. Some will see the movie, some won't have time, some will buy the DVD, some won't have the money. 3) Die hard pirates. These will never pay for the movie, out of principle. Of these, group 1 will never pirate the movie, so we can ignore them. Group 3 will never pay for the movie, so there are no lost sales, so we can ignore them too. Out of the largest group, group 2, a significant proportion may pirate movie. But why? They may not have money, or consider the price of the movie or DVD excessive. This sub-group, then, are not the target market, so there are no lost sales. Some may have no time, and thus we can also exclude this sub-group, because they would never have time, regardless of the legality of copyright violation, and thus no lost sales. So what is the situation we find ourselves in? The target market of movies and DVDs - those with the funds and the time to spend - will likely purchase the entertainment. Those outside of the target group - those who cannot afford it - may pirate the work so that they can also enjoy it, but even if piracy was impossible, they would simply not purchase the work, no lost sales, no harm done. What can the movie (and by extension, the entire entertainment industry) do about this? In my humble, non-professional, armchair-critical opinion, they should stop worrying about those who are not their customers (people outside the target market, just as the fashion industry is doing) and/or change their business model to make them their customers once again. Raising prices will do nothing, it will only make the second group larger than before. Legally persecuting pirates will not help, as it still will not make those unable/unwilling to purchase their material change their minds nor their situation. What they can do, however, is provide services that directly compete with piracy. If Prada wanted to combat copies of their items, they could lower their prices so that purchasing an official copy becomes worth the price to a larger group of people. Similarly, if the entertainment industry wants people to stop pirating their works, provide a viable alternative, or stop complaining. You talk about Steam-like systems. Then lets look at Steam itself. It is incredibly successful, and offers many low-cost games, specials and weekend demos to entice more customers to pay. Not only that, but it provides a common, easy to use, system for purchasing, and downloading new games. It is a viable alternative to piracy. Yes, piracy still happens, and it always will. Even if you entice all of group 2 to become your paying customers, there will always be group 3 who refuse to pay, not matter how little you charge. Similarly, there will always be people who will only buy knock-off fashion items, and will never buy and authentic piece. There will always be people who obtain all their music from recording songs from the radio, or copying CDs from their friends. There will always be people who wait until movies come out of TV, or borrow their friend's DVDs and copy them. These people will never go away, and it's pointless to try and make them. Instead, the entertainment industry, like the fashion industry, should innovate, and make a valuable, viable, alternative to entice as many people from group 2 to pay for their products.
If you ensure that no one obtains any copy of the software from you without first signing this contract, then you can in effect reinvent copyright within contract law.
This is probably impossible. The consequences for unauthorized copying are far more draconian today than what you propose, and yet it's done all the time. It's easy to get free copies of pretty much any software.
One difference is that you wouldn't be able to successfully sue any third parties other than the recipient, even if the third parties continued to make further copies.
Exactly. All it would take is one person who gets the product from someone other than you, and they could redistribute to their heart's content since they did not sign your contract. You'd be stuck trying to track down the original contract violation; meanwhile you're getting killed in the marketplace by your own product.
Without copyright, they could distribute it in any way they chose...in a shiny box on the shelf right next to your shiny box, but with a far lower price since they don't have any development costs to pay down. They could run twice as many ads as you do on TV. They could show up at trade shows and put their booth right next to yours. Etc.
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
While the graph shown at ~12:23 is interesting, is that what is being actually measured?
For those with tired old eyes, the Y-axis was Gross Sales of Good in billions of USD, and the X-axis was:
"Food Automobiles Fashion Furniture" -- which she labeled as "Low IP Industries"
"Films Books Music" -- which she labeled as "High IP Industries"
I wonder if the proper labels and groupings are, in fact:
"Food Automobiles Clothing Furniture" -- Essentials for life in the US
"Films Books Music" -- Luxuries
OR
"Food Automobiles Clothing Furniture" -- Physical items
"Films Books Music" -- (mostly) Electronic media that could be pirated more easily than stealing physical items.
This would probably also create the trend she was looking for.
You want to use an old version, that's fine, but if you want support, you should be using the newest version.
Unless the newest version of one program that you use requires an old version of a different program. For example, unless something has changed very recently, the newest version of the MySQLdb module for Python on Windows is for Python 2.5 series, which is old.
it's in malware's best interest not to be noticed - if it gets noticed, it gets removed.
Unless, for example, it's fake antivirus.
Why should we keep copyrights on 85% of works lengthened for the sake of 15% of works?
Because the publishers of proprietary works have managed to get U.S. trade negotiators to tie copyright to treaties affecting unrelated industries. The United States would first have to back out of the World Trade Organization in order to terminate copyright in works that are no longer profitable for their copyright owners.
OpenOffice is functionality equivalent for probably 99% of Office's userbase, but people still buy MS Office due to the Microsoft brand.
I'd guess the percentage of Microsoft Office users using Excel macros or Access apps is greater than 1%. But perhaps my experience is atypical because my employer relies on an Access app (from which we are slowly migrating away).
With computer software, there is clearly no point in paying for the physical item itself
In some parts of the world, the best available Internet access has a 5 GB per month cap. A point release of your operating system (e.g. from Ubuntu 9.04 to 9.10) can eat up a lot of that, so a lot of people upgrade by buying a disc.
Right now if you take just a few musical notes at random that sound good together, there's a very strong chance you'll wind up with something that has already been done, is still under copyright protection and has a pack of hungry lawyers to prove it. There was a podcast somewhere which explained this and pointed out the absurdity complete with examples, but I've forgotten where it was and a quick search doesn't reveal anything particularly helpful.
It wasn't Cryptomnesia: Vertigo, was it?
"Hemlines are lower this year"
"We have rounded the corners & changed the colors of the window chrome"
"We have changed the shape of the taillights and the location of the license-plate holder"
They are all the frickin same...
A pox on web designers who feel that window.innerWidth == screen.availWidth
Very similar - may even have been the same narrator - but I specifically remember that one of the comparisons included "Ob-la-di" by the Beatles
I remember one by the same narrator that involved a different Beatles song and the theme fron Animal Crossing 2 and 3. Cryptomnesia: Animal Crossing
Here's the bottom of the apparel food chain. "Bulk Bale Clothing". $0.25/lb. Minimum order 55,000 pounds. Supply availability 1,000,000 pounds per month. Bulk in 1000 pound bales.
That's just one of a hundred similar suppliers. "We currently have 28 containers of brand name clothing acquired in a bank deal." "250,000 lbs baled used clothing. 25% coats,sweaters, heavy clothing. $0.84/lb."
That's life in the no-IP world of apparel. The wastage is enormous.
you can't replicate a dress for $0.
Not that I'm for IP. Just saying.
I think his idea was that companies which use a steam-like UI to provide software in a manner which would have previously been considered piracy (possibly for a price, possibly with malware or just ads in the download system's gui). I suspect he's right, but people would still see the benefit of buying what we think of as legitimate copies (especially with the sort of marketing power organisations like the BSA have). How many do I don't know, but I suspect a large proportion of the home users who buy legitimate software do so because it is safer and because you get patches, not because they are afraid of being sued. Also, abolishing copyright wouldn't prevent companies using DRM to make it hard to use copies which did not come from them.
Businesses would be more affected by abolishing copyright, since they are generally interested in using many copies of the same software, but a site-licence could still be implemented using either a pre-sale contract, or by making use of the reason no one ever got fired for buying IBM: support and buck-passing. If you are using "pirate" copies, you lose that, and have to handle any DRM they chose to throw at you, and probably get no patches, so your system is likely to be very insecure after a short time.
.. they are build of cheaper materials.. I can hardly imagine software made of "cheaper materials".
You will learn for yourself what I am about to tell you now.
It is a very simple truth, but many people can't quite grasp it. Particularly in our modern, fast-moving world.
Culture and art NEVER go "out of fashion".
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
I was here back in the '90s (and for a short while even back in the '70s), and so I can't make such a claim.
Also... watch any Tarantino movie and then try saying that disco is dead.
Regardless of how much I wished it was so.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
When it gets to spring that warm sweater goes to the back of the wardrobe because it's not being worn. When autumn rolls around and I dig it out it's still fine. Not obsolete at all.
And I never said anything about buying an exact identical replacement (no, same kind != identical) because I don't need to - I've already got one. Perhaps if you weren't so stupid you could afford a bigger house with a bit more storage space?
P.S. I have no idea what all that crap about my mother dressing me is supposed to be (an insult perhaps?) but at least she isn't a fat whore like yours.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
I still doubt that anyone would go to the trouble of disassembling and fully comment commercial software.
Doubt this.
Notice it says "limited time"
Anything beyond the author's life is prima facie "unlimited" between the concerned parties. Anything just short of that fails the "promote" test.
Sam Clemens's strategy is more valid.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)