This is all fine. You are talking about a basic theory of market signals. Having a celebrity endorse a product is -- in some respects -- the same as having a well-produced, rather than a shoddy, television spot. People pick up on the probably quality of a product on offer by noting these kinds of signals.
But all this is beside the point Moglen makes. He doesn't argue anywhere that incentives are useless. Only that financial incentives are not in themselves sufficient to explain human creative activity.
You said "You cannot convince people to buy things they don't want" which is so obvious it's a truism. My point, and the point of the other poster you're replying to, is that if there's no rational reason to want X, the marketing industry doesn't give up on selling X. They simply reformulate a strategy based on creating the want. And this is not even advanced or intermediate marketing. It's basic. 101. Marketing and advertising do not appeal to rationality.
If you don't think a big chuck of marketing is about *shaping (rather than reacting to) people's desires, then I seriously am beside myself. Seriously.
Those who wish to make money need to find something non-digital to sell. The experience of a live show is one of many hundreds of possible examples.
"In the future you support, that would be true. Right now, of course, it is not. All other things being equal, if the incentive for producing digital content was decreased (I.e. you could no longer reliably sell it), the supply of such content would also decrease. Bands would record less music."
My support for this future is irrelevant. The market tends to smooth out inefficiencies; assuming, of course, that the market is allowed to operate freely. I support free markets, so if that's what you meant, I'm guilty.
"That one guy "Did it for the love," does not show that there aren't a thousand others who would have done that much and more if only the fruits of their labor were guaranteed."
You are correct. More of *anything whatsoever will be created when a reward is guaranteed for it. As I've said numerous times, to justify the state-granted monopoly we call copyright, you have to demonstrate the *public's interest in the difference between X (quantity of art that would exist w/o copyright) and Y (quantity of art that would exist with the proposed copyright scheme).
People are not machines; that's the basis of all the econodwarf "namecalling". People do things for lots of reasons, including create music. Reducing human creativity to a process whereby you put incentives into one end of an artist and songs come out the other end is offensive as well as illogical. This might be a good time to let you know I'm a songwriter.
About your MS vs. Linux trolling I have nothing to say. Lots of people went and saw "Dead Man's Chest" too. Lots of people buy (or bought) beanie babies.
Geez, I'm getting tired of people looking at their favorite piece of the picture and drawing conclusions about the whole thing.
"Piracy is rampant and DRM is needed to control it."
If DRM is required to control it, you must demonstrate that 1) harm is being done ("lost sales") and 2) DRM is effective in preventing that harm.
2) is highly debatable, outright rejected by most experts. As for 1), most people say something like
"I agree that 97% of "pirations" represent users who would not have bought the content anyways. But this doesn't mean that it is ok to let them pirate and enjoy the content"
If 9 million files are shared, and 3% (270,000) are actual lost sales, you're not done. You have to see whether the 8.7 million other instances of sharing led to any sales and subtract these. If over 3.2% of these lead directly or indirectly to a sale, it's a wash and 1) is disproven. "Piracy" would be a net plus and nothing -- least of all DRM -- would be needed to control it.
"content creators will not distribute media without DRM"
This is patently false. Millions of content creators are doing exactly that right now. I'm sorry if your personal faves are not among them.
"Piracy is rampant and DRM is needed to control it"
Part one of this is kinda-true, but I've never seen a good independent assessment of what % of "pirations" really represent lost sales. I believe it's around 3%. The other 97% of pirations simply represent users who would not have song X unless it were free, i.e. they represent no lost revenue, only lost potential-to-enjoy-a-song and potential-to-become-a-fan-of-the-song-or-the-artis t-or-both.
It is also pretty demonstrable that DRM is not going to curb piracy much, if at all. DRM schemes only need to be cracked once.
The point of the whole free-culture position is that it does *not make economic sense to purchase what is downloadable for free. We're on the same side of that fence. Those who wish to make money need to find something non-digital to sell. The experience of a live show is one of many hundreds of possible examples.
"The study of economics proposes that people respond to incentives" --- "According to the econodwarf's vision, each human being is an individual possessing "incentives," which can be retrospectively unearthed by imagining the state of the bank account at various times. So in this instance the econodwarf feels compelled to object that without the rules I am lampooning, there would be no incentive to create the things the rules treat as property: without the ability to exclude others from music there would be no music, because no one could be sure of getting paid for creating it."
"The dwarf's basic problem is that "incentives" is merely a metaphor, and as a metaphor to describe human creative activity it's pretty crummy"
I agree with you; one of the strangest things about our "intellectual property" fetish is that it's creating -- in my opinion -- a situation where 20th century arts are likely to be unavailable/unimportant to the rest of human history.
I know you can quite easily go rent The Lion King now, but in 2019 you'll have a watch that can copy any non-DRM'd movie into any machine you want. The Lion King will be comparatively Difficult to Find, and will have another 75 or so years of copyright protection before it gets much easier.
"human rights experts expressed concern yesterday that the language in the new provision would be a precedent-setting congressional endorsement for the indefinite detention of anyone who, as the bill states, "has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States" or its military allies.
"José Padilla (also known as Abdullah al-Muhajir) (born October 18, 1970) is an American citizen of Puerto Rican descent "
"On June 9, 2002, two days before District Court Judge Michael Mukasey was to issue a ruling on the validity of continuing to hold Padilla under the material witness warrant, President Bush issued an order to Secretary Rumsfeld to detain Padilla as an "enemy combatant,"
...providing "material support" to organizations that have terrorist ties is -- if I understand our new insect overlords correctly -- now sufficient to classify anyone as an "enemy combatant" and basically strip himher of all habeas-type rights. Putting money in offshore accounts helps those banks to launder the money of terrorists and many other unsavory types, which I believe could qualify as material support (the law was intentionally left vague on what constitutes material support).
It is you, not me, who is conflating principle and implementation. Do you think the only way for artists to get paid is through a copyright system? I believe that artists, in general, will actually make more money when and if this system is dismantled/obviated. Not only do I think it's okay for them to get paid, but I think they should get paid more than they currently are.
"I do not see how it benifits a society to not freely share and celebrate music and other forms of art."
I believe that people -- Americans in particular -- get very wigged-out when it is suggested that anything whatsoever might not be private property.
Slashdot Mirror
This is all fine. You are talking about a basic theory of market signals. Having a celebrity endorse a product is -- in some respects -- the same as having a well-produced, rather than a shoddy, television spot. People pick up on the probably quality of a product on offer by noting these kinds of signals.
But all this is beside the point Moglen makes. He doesn't argue anywhere that incentives are useless. Only that financial incentives are not in themselves sufficient to explain human creative activity.
You said "You cannot convince people to buy things they don't want" which is so obvious it's a truism. My point, and the point of the other poster you're replying to, is that if there's no rational reason to want X, the marketing industry doesn't give up on selling X. They simply reformulate a strategy based on creating the want. And this is not even advanced or intermediate marketing. It's basic. 101. Marketing and advertising do not appeal to rationality.
If you don't think a big chuck of marketing is about *shaping (rather than reacting to) people's desires, then I seriously am beside myself. Seriously.
Stop asking what's ok. I'm not making a moral argument. I don't actually believe in legislating this sort of thing morally.
Those who wish to make money need to find something non-digital to sell. The experience of a live show is one of many hundreds of possible examples.
"In the future you support, that would be true. Right now, of course, it is not. All other things being equal, if the incentive for producing digital content was decreased (I.e. you could no longer reliably sell it), the supply of such content would also decrease. Bands would record less music."
My support for this future is irrelevant. The market tends to smooth out inefficiencies; assuming, of course, that the market is allowed to operate freely. I support free markets, so if that's what you meant, I'm guilty.
"That one guy "Did it for the love," does not show that there aren't a thousand others who would have done that much and more if only the fruits of their labor were guaranteed."
You are correct. More of *anything whatsoever will be created when a reward is guaranteed for it. As I've said numerous times, to justify the state-granted monopoly we call copyright, you have to demonstrate the *public's interest in the difference between X (quantity of art that would exist w/o copyright) and Y (quantity of art that would exist with the proposed copyright scheme).
People are not machines; that's the basis of all the econodwarf "namecalling". People do things for lots of reasons, including create music. Reducing human creativity to a process whereby you put incentives into one end of an artist and songs come out the other end is offensive as well as illogical. This might be a good time to let you know I'm a songwriter.
About your MS vs. Linux trolling I have nothing to say. Lots of people went and saw "Dead Man's Chest" too. Lots of people buy (or bought) beanie babies.
So is patronage just no longer an allowable funding mechanism? Or are there no more wealthy aristocrats?
Geez, I'm getting tired of people looking at their favorite piece of the picture and drawing conclusions about the whole thing.
"Piracy is rampant and DRM is needed to control it."
If DRM is required to control it, you must demonstrate that 1) harm is being done ("lost sales") and 2) DRM is effective in preventing that harm.
2) is highly debatable, outright rejected by most experts. As for 1), most people say something like
"I agree that 97% of "pirations" represent users who would not have bought the content anyways. But this doesn't mean that it is ok to let them pirate and enjoy the content"
If 9 million files are shared, and 3% (270,000) are actual lost sales, you're not done. You have to see whether the 8.7 million other instances of sharing led to any sales and subtract these. If over 3.2% of these lead directly or indirectly to a sale, it's a wash and 1) is disproven. "Piracy" would be a net plus and nothing -- least of all DRM -- would be needed to control it.
"content creators will not distribute media without DRM"
s t-or-both.
This is patently false. Millions of content creators are doing exactly that right now. I'm sorry if your personal faves are not among them.
"Piracy is rampant and DRM is needed to control it"
Part one of this is kinda-true, but I've never seen a good independent assessment of what % of "pirations" really represent lost sales. I believe it's around 3%. The other 97% of pirations simply represent users who would not have song X unless it were free, i.e. they represent no lost revenue, only lost potential-to-enjoy-a-song and potential-to-become-a-fan-of-the-song-or-the-arti
It is also pretty demonstrable that DRM is not going to curb piracy much, if at all. DRM schemes only need to be cracked once.
The point of the whole free-culture position is that it does *not make economic sense to purchase what is downloadable for free. We're on the same side of that fence. Those who wish to make money need to find something non-digital to sell. The experience of a live show is one of many hundreds of possible examples.
. html
"The study of economics proposes that people respond to incentives"
---
"According to the econodwarf's vision, each human being is an individual possessing "incentives," which can be retrospectively unearthed by imagining the state of the bank account at various times. So in this instance the econodwarf feels compelled to object that without the rules I am lampooning, there would be no incentive to create the things the rules treat as property: without the ability to exclude others from music there would be no music, because no one could be sure of getting paid for creating it."
"The dwarf's basic problem is that "incentives" is merely a metaphor, and as a metaphor to describe human creative activity it's pretty crummy"
http://emoglen.law.columbia.edu/my_pubs/anarchism
"we the producers are happy"
You're going to have to de-anonymize to back that up.
I'm pretty sure they just use the one built into emacs
POTD IMO
n/t
Click here to edit this song
"That store wouldn't get much business then, huh?"
It would if this "content protection system" were made mandatory for all stores to comply with zoning laws/building codes.
i.e. if it were enforced the way Orrin and friends want TCP enforced.
I agree with you; one of the strangest things about our "intellectual property" fetish is that it's creating -- in my opinion -- a situation where 20th century arts are likely to be unavailable/unimportant to the rest of human history. I know you can quite easily go rent The Lion King now, but in 2019 you'll have a watch that can copy any non-DRM'd movie into any machine you want. The Lion King will be comparatively Difficult to Find, and will have another 75 or so years of copyright protection before it gets much easier.
"human rights experts expressed concern yesterday that the language in the new provision would be a precedent-setting congressional endorsement for the indefinite detention of anyone who, as the bill states, "has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States" or its military allies.
c le/2006/09/25/AR2006092501514.html
l leged_terrorist)
The definition applies to foreigners living inside or outside the United States and does not rule out the possibility of designating a U.S. citizen as an unlawful combatant."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/arti
"José Padilla (also known as Abdullah al-Muhajir) (born October 18, 1970) is an American citizen of Puerto Rican descent "
"On June 9, 2002, two days before District Court Judge Michael Mukasey was to issue a ruling on the validity of continuing to hold Padilla under the material witness warrant, President Bush issued an order to Secretary Rumsfeld to detain Padilla as an "enemy combatant,"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Padilla_(a
...providing "material support" to organizations that have terrorist ties is -- if I understand our new insect overlords correctly -- now sufficient to classify anyone as an "enemy combatant" and basically strip himher of all habeas-type rights. Putting money in offshore accounts helps those banks to launder the money of terrorists and many other unsavory types, which I believe could qualify as material support (the law was intentionally left vague on what constitutes material support).
It is you, not me, who is conflating principle and implementation. Do you think the only way for artists to get paid is through a copyright system? I believe that artists, in general, will actually make more money when and if this system is dismantled/obviated. Not only do I think it's okay for them to get paid, but I think they should get paid more than they currently are.
...people who say global warming stopped in 1998, 'cause mean temperature has been basically steady since then.
(1998 was the hottest year in the 140-record. The fact that mean temperature has been steady since then is terrifying)
"I do not see how it benifits a society to not freely share and celebrate music and other forms of art." I believe that people -- Americans in particular -- get very wigged-out when it is suggested that anything whatsoever might not be private property.
Puppet strings. Same size as Verne Troyer. Lame.
'Now I vote for "insect overladies" :-)'
You leaning toward Hillary or Condoleezza?
Hehe. Good one. Almost didn't recognize yr name.
And I guess Foxy is in the eye of the beholder : http://firefoxy.vegard2.no/firefoxy_045_cosplay_76 8x1024.html