Speaker: Copyright Must Change
2201 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 29 30 31 32 33 … 89 Newer→ Last
-
As I said privately to Don, one of the benefits of 20+ years as a public servant is you know where people routinely bury bodies... :-)
That said, my ACTA OIA didn't bear much fruit, but it raised the profile a bit. So we'll see...
-
-
Keir wrote:
Adam Smith wept.
Perhaps you could share your ideas on how it might work, Keir.
-
It is not through the benevolence of the butcher or the baker...
The way you measure and reward social impact for most things is through the sensible creation of property rights. Modern capitalism: it works! (For a given value of `works'.)
Quite why the creation of (or, rather, alteration and continuance of currently existing) sensible property rights here wouldn't work is somewhat unclear to me. (If the objection is that they don't seem to be, why are music companies posting record profits? Etc, etc.)
If that fails, then there's the generic government subsidy solution, which may be inelegant, but you could run it pretty efficiently. If that fails, then we're all dead by now anyway.
-
We were talking about recompensing, say, a writer for the increased tourism that may or may not have been engendered by something they wrote. How do "property rights" come into this?
-
Weelll, in that case it's one of your classic positive externalities; there's sfa you can really do to help in that specific instance in a strict economic sense.
But, in point of fact, the context was pointing out that `no one deserves a living for writing' is a bit offensive -- unless it is meaningless.
-
Any offense is in your misquoting.
What I actually said was "No-one is guaranteed a living" which is not the same thing as "deserves" at all.
I write. Occasionally (very) I get some money for doing that. I don't expect to make a living just by doing that in a micro -economy like New Zealand, even though I write pretty well, when I put my mind to it. I certainly don't expect to make money just because I write.
Weelll, in that case it's one of your classic positive externalities; there's sfa you can really do to help in that specific instance in a strict economic sense
So, why would Adam Smith be weeping, Keir?
-
Perhaps you could share your ideas on how it might work, Keir
There are some ideas from a few thought-leaders being shared in the New York Times on micropayments. There seems to be a few noises being made that the NYT won't be sharing quite so freely in the future and I wonder if that article is part of a larger campaign to socialise that idea.
-
I truly believe in micropayments, Jon, but I've been a believer since 1995, and they haven't cracked it yet. It's the final disintermediation, where by I can pay the artist directly, like cash, without a middleman. Various schemes have been tried - all have failed so far, or run out of investor funds as they were seemingly on the verge.
But that doesn't resolve the scenario we were discussing some pages back, as I said to Keir.
-
I like Shirky's comment:
The fantasy that small payments will save publishers as they move online is really a fantasy that monopoly pricing power can be re-established over we users.
Having read the article, I can see I misunderstood what you meant by micropayments. I was talking more, I think, about digital cash, than micropayments per se which can be linked to external currencies.
The issue with micropayments is that they generally don't scale very well. Paypal has made it work sort-of, but it's been a bumpy ride. And they're sort of 'medium"-payments rather than the cent-a-page sort of stuff that's been proposed in various newspaper models.
Dubner's point is a good one:
This is what happens when an existing business model begins to collapse: alternative models are desperately invented, debated, attempted, rejected, etc.
-
There seems to be a few noises being made that the NYT won't be sharing quite so freely in the future and I wonder if that article is part of a larger campaign to socialise that idea.
NYTs problems are not the result of free internet. News papers have always been free. *If* you pay for your paper you are only covering a small %tage of the production costs.
Right now we are in the middle of a global downturn and a downturn in general advertising. NYT no doubt rode the recent good times (or should have done) but will now have to cut its cloth, sell to Mexico or go under.
-
So, why would Adam Smith be weeping, Keir?
Because his theory is up the proverbial small watercourse without a paddle?
More to the point, you are carefully eliding the distinction between getting paid to do x, and getting paid to do x well. (Nobody is owed a living for digging holes -- one does it in one's garden all the time after all; however, the guy at the bottom of the coal mine does deserve to be paid for what he does.) Likewise, nobody is owed a living for writing; what they are owed is a living for writing in a way which benefits society.
(The american newspaper industry is bit of a special case; these are people who employ Bill Kristol, Charles Krauthammer, George Will etc. They have lots of problems.)
-
Because his theory is up the proverbial small watercourse without a paddle?
This doesn't make sense to me, much like your original comment, which is why I asked you to clarify. To date, it's not much clearer.
More to the point, you are carefully eliding the distinction between getting paid to do x, and getting paid to do x well. (Nobody is owed a living for digging holes -- one does it in one's garden all the time after all; however, the guy at the bottom of the coal mine does deserve to be paid for what he does.) Likewise, nobody is owed a living for writing; what they are owed is a living for writing in a way which benefits society.
No, I'm not eliding anything. No-one is owed a living, full stop. One might make a living writing, because an audience perceives value and chooses to reward a writer by paying them. Copyright (when properly applied) should ensure that the writer receives revenue. Whether it adds up to a living is based on the amount of value the audience places on the item, and the size of the audience willing to reward the writer. They don't owe the writer anything. They choose to reward the writer.
Many writers do not find favour with the audience, or as much favour as another writer may. Their writing may be hugely significant to the society but receives little recognition outside a small niche. Or they may just be a bad writer. Whatever, they don't receive revenue or enough revenue to make a living. That, to me is pure Adam Smith economics - the market will decide. No-one is owed anything and receives revenue only on the basis that their work holds value in the marketplace.
But this is a diversion and not the main point at all.. Giovanni wrote:
So long as we are discussing how to reform copyright, shouldn't we aspire to recognise the work of a Keri Hulme for the actual benefit it provides to the society in which she lives?
Gio, I can't think of any mechanism for measuring the impact of, let alone compensating, any individual for benefiting society that isn't a form of welfare benefit apportioned on some incredibly arcane scale and requires a substantial number of bureaucrats to run.
Adam Smith wept.
And when I asked you to clarify, you wrote:
The way you measure and reward social impact for most things is through the sensible creation of property rights. Modern capitalism: it works! (For a given value of `works'.)
Quite why the creation of (or, rather, alteration and continuance of currently existing) sensible property rights here wouldn't work is somewhat unclear to me. (If the objection is that they don't seem to be, why are music companies posting record profits? Etc, etc.)
If that fails, then there's the generic government subsidy solution, which may be inelegant, but you could run it pretty efficiently. If that fails, then we're all dead by now anyway.
We were talking about recompensing, say, a writer for the increased tourism that may or may not have been engendered by something they wrote. How do "property rights" come into this?
to which you responded :
Weelll, in that case it's one of your classic positive externalities; there's sfa you can really do to help in that specific instance in a strict economic sense.
In none of this can I discern any reference to what I wrote initially about a bureaucratic solution except your point that a government subsidy might be the only way to manage it. But I'm unable to discern any method of estimating the impact so that fair recompense can be made, Adam Smith notwithstanding.
Do you have any focussed input on that, Keir?
-
Sorry, that last post was brought to you by People Who Think 39 Pages Is A Bit Much To Work Back Through(tm)
-
This doesn't make sense to me, much like your original comment, which is why I asked you to clarify. To date, it's not much clearer.
I think Keir might have been saying that Adam Smith's 'invisible hand' theory isn't looking to good round about now (and a few other times in history as well).
Unless you like to be rogered by the invisible hand, in which case, you're loving it.
-
Can I just put an "Ewwww" on that, Kyle?
-
Sorry, that last post was brought to you by People Who Think 39 Pages Is A Bit Much To Work Back Through(tm)
QFT,
I can't actually remember my original point there, to be honest. It was probably along the lines of `this idea isn't one that can be implemented in a modern capitalism; if you want to try it, you've got bigger problems than the record companies'.
-
Bingo - humility and a reasonable argument in a copyright thread. I hoped it were possible.
-
I can't actually remember my original point there, to be honest. It was probably along the lines of `this idea isn't one that can be implemented in a modern capitalism; if you want to try it, you've got bigger problems than the record companies'.
I agree, and was what I was trying to say to Giovanni. Possibly my pleading tone for different solution wasn't clear.
Thanks, Keir
-
In other news APRA has a new press release:
RIANZ & APRA confident about code of conduct
[...] Since the TCF issued the draft Code of Conduct on 4 February 2009 for public consultation, the dialogue between RIANZ, APRA and the TCF has continued.
RIANZ and APRA are confident the discussions with the TCF will lead to a Code of Conduct which will satisfy copyright holders and ISPs, which will satisfy the requirements of Section 92A and which, if adopted by ISPs, will provide certainty for all parties moving forward.
“We are confident the concerns that rights holders have had with the draft Code of Conduct, including issues such as counter-notice procedures and costs, will be satisfactorily resolved,” says RIANZ Chief Executive, Campbell Smith.
[...]
I believe we will achieve a positive result before Section 92A is due to come into force on 28 February 2009. We are confident a code that is both reasonable and effective can be agreed between us prior to 28 February.”APRA’s Director for New Zealand Operations, Anthony Healey says: “We recognize that ongoing public discussion has identified some concern regarding the content and operation of a code, particularly with regard to a user’s right to object to a notice of infringement.
“Contrary to reports and concerns we have never been opposed to the idea of an independent third party considering objections and adjudicating where necessary. We are not opposed to this approach provided the process is fair and timely. This is one of the issues we have been discussing with the TCF this week.”
That's a change of tone.
But still the same old same old:
Online copyright infringement is doing serious harm to the creative industries in New Zealand and around the world. For example, it is estimated that 19 out of every 20 downloaded songs infringe copyright. No legitimate business model can compete with that scale of infringement and loss and nor should it. At the same time we recognize that any process established to deal with this infringing activity must be reasonable and fair.
-
The way you measure and reward social impact for most things is through the sensible creation of property rights
On the other hand, market economies frown on monopolies. They create huge distortions. Dishing them out should be exceptional and managing their existence is something usually mandatory.
-
<i>On the other hand, market economies frown on monopolies. They create huge distortions. Dishing them out should be exceptional and managing their existence is something usually mandatory.</i>
Eh, I'm awfully suspicious of claims that copyright is monopolistic in any meaningful way. There's nothing stopping you writing your own novel or whatever, or employing someone else to.
(It's awfully like claims that Apple's a monopolist, because if you want a MacBook, you've only one choice!)
And, Mark, I had wondered if Giovanni wanted to make a broader point about capitalism in general meself.
-
Well, he's Italian, so he's probably a filthy pinko...
-
Or a male model.. :)
-
For example, it is estimated that 19 out of every 20 downloaded songs infringe copyright.
Is a nonsense line that means absolutely nothing beyond the scare factor which doesn't take too kindly to any scrutiny
Post your response…
This topic is closed.