While copyright has provided a huge incentive, the world is in the process of moving on to new incentives and dada's own experience is one such example.
What makes you think dada's experiences are "new"? People have been finding value in giving things away as "loss leaders" for millenia.
When making a copy becomes a zero-marginal cost action, charging for making copies becomes inherently untenable - customers will not see any value in paying for something that costs nothing. Thus old business models based on copyright must be and are being replaced by new ones that provide incentive to create too.
Talk about leaps of logic! The value is not in the zero-cost copy, but in the original work of art.
Are you saying things are only worth what it costs to copy them? Are you familiar, at all, with market forces? Economics 101?
If anything, the internet re-inforces the need for (sane) copyright incentives, because we now have the ability to so easily share information for relatively little cost. Obliterating copyright is not the answer, if you want people to continue to create new works at the same rate as they've been in the past.
Just because one person wants to give away their work for free in the hopes of selling their customers services doesn't mean it should be foisted upon everyone else.
I'm glad to hear you're able to make a living without copyrights. (Assuming you're saying you've released stuff in the public domain, and not something like the GPL, which uses copyright.)
However, if you don't recognize that copyright provides a huge incentive for people to create things, then I feel you're being naive. Most popular artists may not make money directly from their copyrights (which the labels usually own), but without those copyrights in the first place, the labels would not have signed, paid, and promoted those bands. That means most of them would not have had the money or the promotion necessary to tour, which is where they DO make money if they're any good.
If authors had no copyright protection, there would be less incentive to spend years writing a book, since no publisher on earth would want to pay you for it, knowing that if it was any good at all, it'd be uploaded to the internet for worldwide, free sharing.
If you eliminate incentives to create original works, you will absolutely limit original works.
All I'm saying is, before you proclaim yourself anti-copyright, you need to recognize the world you'd live in if it came to fruition would be a much, much different place, with much different qualities and quantities of information to choose from. I think the quality and quantity would both be less than what we have now.
Do you understand economics? If movies stop making as much money, they will receive less investment, which means they can hire less people, including Best Boys.
I dont expect the Americans to simply adjust to the 50C heat, well maybe the aussies and the texans. Certainly not the New Yorkers.
Two things. (a) You've never been in Manhattan in the summer time, and (b) you don't know where Australia is located.
You know, in your heart that it's all ripping off profits of hardworking, honest, family-type people who really have to scrape to make ends meet in the record industry... you *
Sounds funny until you think about all the regular folks that work in the entertainment industry that are affected by piracy. All those names that go by when the movie/game ends. All those names in the About [Software] screen. And yes, there are thousands of non-managers working in the record industry.
Now, with this, I'm going to be inundated with more advertisements.
Stop whining. It's not intrusive, it is helpful to most people, and you are free to ignore the top result, which is not really an ad, but targeted info... just like when you enter a weather search, or a stock ticker symbol, or a UPS or fedex tracking number, or a movie that is out in theatres now... Google gives you what you are probably looking for right at the top of the page. Brilliant.
Your second issue about "web clips." I didn't like it either. Big whoop, it took 5 seconds to turn it off, and it's back to the way it was.
Before you assume the worst about Google, why don't you try searching for an address? Hmm, what's this, they provide links for the maps not only on Google, but also, you guessed it, competitors at Yahoo Maps and MapQuest. Wowie.
In fact citing Google News is actually a direct prove of the outside assertion - Google has kept it beta for years (and isn't like to ever make it a "real" service) simply because there is no true model they could legally use. They are screen scraping other people's content and the second they let it be legally defined as anything but an academic exercise (by removing the beta mark or sticking ads on it) they will get hit with a million lawsuits and Google won't have a legal leg to stand on.
The AFP are already suing Google over Google News. I guess your "beta theory of legality" didn't work?
Somehow, I really don't think this defense will work: "But, your Honor, our infringing program is in BETA!"
I agree with much of your reasoning, but I think you're leaving out a factor. There are two different things that make a song worth more:
1. Many people want it
2. Few people want it, but they want it a lot.
That's why you'll end up with a U-shaped curve: very popular music will sell for a lot because so many people want it that you can raise the price until listeners squeal. And some unpopular songs will have higher prices because they appeal to a market with few people willing to spend a lot of money (say, "rare" jazz recordings or concert bootlegs).
That is how the existing physical CD/record world may work, but that's because the "unpopular" stuff is scarce. Therefore, even though it's not popular, you have to pay more for it because there isn't much of it around.
Since the supply is unlimited, you need to use a different way of dynamically pricing. Assume the item is popular until proven otherwise. There's really no harm.
What iTunes needs to do is start each new song at some price, let's say $2, and $20 for the whole album.
If the number of sales is below average or below some threshhold, the system lowers the price. At some point the number of sales per day will start to increase. The price is lowered every day until sales per day plateaus. This would be the optimal price point (or right around this point) for this particular song. If the sales start increasing again, the song price shifts upward until sales plateau again. Back and forth.
This means the hits on a CD might be $2 per song, and the shit on the CD might get down to $.25 per song.
Incentive is created to churn out a CD filled with great music, because your music will sell for more.
In addition, whereas your unpopular music might not have sold at $.99, you might start selling quite a bit at $0.25.
This is absolutely where iTunes will be in a few years.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure they do. Haven't you ever heard the phrase, "It takes one to know one!"
While copyright has provided a huge incentive, the world is in the process of moving on to new incentives and dada's own experience is one such example.
What makes you think dada's experiences are "new"? People have been finding value in giving things away as "loss leaders" for millenia.
When making a copy becomes a zero-marginal cost action, charging for making copies becomes inherently untenable - customers will not see any value in paying for something that costs nothing. Thus old business models based on copyright must be and are being replaced by new ones that provide incentive to create too.
Talk about leaps of logic! The value is not in the zero-cost copy, but in the original work of art.
Are you saying things are only worth what it costs to copy them? Are you familiar, at all, with market forces? Economics 101?
If anything, the internet re-inforces the need for (sane) copyright incentives, because we now have the ability to so easily share information for relatively little cost. Obliterating copyright is not the answer, if you want people to continue to create new works at the same rate as they've been in the past.
Just because one person wants to give away their work for free in the hopes of selling their customers services doesn't mean it should be foisted upon everyone else.
I'm glad to hear you're able to make a living without copyrights. (Assuming you're saying you've released stuff in the public domain, and not something like the GPL, which uses copyright.)
However, if you don't recognize that copyright provides a huge incentive for people to create things, then I feel you're being naive. Most popular artists may not make money directly from their copyrights (which the labels usually own), but without those copyrights in the first place, the labels would not have signed, paid, and promoted those bands. That means most of them would not have had the money or the promotion necessary to tour, which is where they DO make money if they're any good.
If authors had no copyright protection, there would be less incentive to spend years writing a book, since no publisher on earth would want to pay you for it, knowing that if it was any good at all, it'd be uploaded to the internet for worldwide, free sharing.
If you eliminate incentives to create original works, you will absolutely limit original works.
All I'm saying is, before you proclaim yourself anti-copyright, you need to recognize the world you'd live in if it came to fruition would be a much, much different place, with much different qualities and quantities of information to choose from. I think the quality and quantity would both be less than what we have now.
I'm anti-copyright, so I couldn't care less about who owns what.
Since you've never lived in a society without copyright, how are you so sure you're going to enjoy it?
Or did you just mean you're pro-copyright-infringement? Since that's an entirely different statement.
"Scuse me while I whip this out!"
companies (espacially big ones) are more or less meant to be evil
And here is where I stopped listening to what you had to say... talk about childish.
Do you understand economics? If movies stop making as much money, they will receive less investment, which means they can hire less people, including Best Boys.
I dont expect the Americans to simply adjust to the 50C heat, well maybe the aussies and the texans. Certainly not the New Yorkers. Two things. (a) You've never been in Manhattan in the summer time, and (b) you don't know where Australia is located.
You know, in your heart that it's all ripping off profits of hardworking, honest, family-type people who really have to scrape to make ends meet in the record industry... you *
Sounds funny until you think about all the regular folks that work in the entertainment industry that are affected by piracy. All those names that go by when the movie/game ends. All those names in the About [Software] screen. And yes, there are thousands of non-managers working in the record industry.
Now, with this, I'm going to be inundated with more advertisements.
Stop whining. It's not intrusive, it is helpful to most people, and you are free to ignore the top result, which is not really an ad, but targeted info... just like when you enter a weather search, or a stock ticker symbol, or a UPS or fedex tracking number, or a movie that is out in theatres now... Google gives you what you are probably looking for right at the top of the page. Brilliant.
Your second issue about "web clips." I didn't like it either. Big whoop, it took 5 seconds to turn it off, and it's back to the way it was.
Before you assume the worst about Google, why don't you try searching for an address? Hmm, what's this, they provide links for the maps not only on Google, but also, you guessed it, competitors at Yahoo Maps and MapQuest. Wowie.
Sort of reminds me of all the management types here at work who don't know that ISO means anything other than ISO 9000.
Sort of reminds me of people that think all stocks are traded on NASDAQ. Hmph NYSE.
Obligatory link
What does this have to do with India? The BBC owns India. Duh...
In fact citing Google News is actually a direct prove of the outside assertion - Google has kept it beta for years (and isn't like to ever make it a "real" service) simply because there is no true model they could legally use. They are screen scraping other people's content and the second they let it be legally defined as anything but an academic exercise (by removing the beta mark or sticking ads on it) they will get hit with a million lawsuits and Google won't have a legal leg to stand on.
The AFP are already suing Google over Google News. I guess your "beta theory of legality" didn't work?
Somehow, I really don't think this defense will work: "But, your Honor, our infringing program is in BETA!"
I agree with much of your reasoning, but I think you're leaving out a factor. There are two different things that make a song worth more: 1. Many people want it 2. Few people want it, but they want it a lot. That's why you'll end up with a U-shaped curve: very popular music will sell for a lot because so many people want it that you can raise the price until listeners squeal. And some unpopular songs will have higher prices because they appeal to a market with few people willing to spend a lot of money (say, "rare" jazz recordings or concert bootlegs). That is how the existing physical CD/record world may work, but that's because the "unpopular" stuff is scarce. Therefore, even though it's not popular, you have to pay more for it because there isn't much of it around. Since the supply is unlimited, you need to use a different way of dynamically pricing. Assume the item is popular until proven otherwise. There's really no harm. What iTunes needs to do is start each new song at some price, let's say $2, and $20 for the whole album. If the number of sales is below average or below some threshhold, the system lowers the price. At some point the number of sales per day will start to increase. The price is lowered every day until sales per day plateaus. This would be the optimal price point (or right around this point) for this particular song. If the sales start increasing again, the song price shifts upward until sales plateau again. Back and forth. This means the hits on a CD might be $2 per song, and the shit on the CD might get down to $.25 per song. Incentive is created to churn out a CD filled with great music, because your music will sell for more. In addition, whereas your unpopular music might not have sold at $.99, you might start selling quite a bit at $0.25. This is absolutely where iTunes will be in a few years.