Posts by Mark Harris
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
If the object was the only thing on sale (as you said), the fact that they were identical would mean that they should fetch the same price.
The object is the only thing on sale. What you may pay for it is influenced by a number of factors. Once purchased you can take the object and hide it away so that no-one can ever see it again. But you can't hide its context, ergo you don't "own" the context.
-
Agriculture. Massively important. Followed up by domestication of animals.
What I was looking at was cultural change. Fire at night meant leisure time for stories to be told. Writing meant that the stories became fixed, instead of being retold with cumulative subtle changes.
Agriculture and domestication were important to progress, but they are techniques. There's still a fierce chunk of hunter/gatherer in the human animal.
-
Don't tell Ben but I'm trying to help David Slack win that bet. ;-)
-
it was an interesting comment re gauging how 'piraters' 'feel' about things.
IF "piracy" is such a major issue that it's killing the industry, then you need to understand why your potential customers do what they do, and how you can change the situation so everyone wins. Just smacking them with lawsuits hasn't worked.
-
Piracy is a funny one, though, insofar as the people who engage in it don't mind using it.
I think it's a reflection of the charged wording the maximalists use. Kind of like blacks reclaiming "nigga" of geeks standing proud with the term.
-
Hmm, must have hit a "past" without noticing.
Re paintings - you pay what the market will bear. Whether the artist knocks off a work in 20 minutes or 20 days, the charge would be they wanted it to be. You don't buy the process, you buy the results of the process.
And NEVER suggest that what you pay a lawyer has ANYTHING to do with the amount of work or training involved.
-
if only that were the case all items would be so much cheaper.
development of any product is built into the price. hence paintings don't sell for the cost of paint and man hours, and computers don't sell for the price of the raw materials, and you pay a lawyer a rate that reflects the years they took to get their qualification, all built in.What you pay is what the market will bear. If the PC was put together by a robot, the retailer would still charge whatever they could get away with. It's called profit, and it's how they make their living.
Re paintings - you pay what the market will bear. Whether the artist knocks off a work in 20 minutes or 20 days, the charge would be if only that were the case all items would be so much cheaper.
development of any product is built into the price. hence paintings don't sell for the cost of paint and man hours, and computers don't sell for the price of the raw materials, and you pay a lawyer a rate that reflects the years they took to get their qualification, all built in. they wanted it to be. You don't buy the process, you buy the results of the process.And NEVER suggest that what you pay a lawyer has ANYTHING to do with the amount of work or training involved.
-
Interesting ethical question, Mark: you insist that copyright infringement is in a different ethical catagory to theft, yeah? Yet personally you won't have a bar of it.
Not quite. My point is that copyright infringement is in a different legal category to theft and, because copyright is a legal construct (as is theft BTW), you cannot discuss it rationally without acknowledging that. My personal ethics compel me to pay my own way, and to give credit (and money) where it's due.
I view the distinction between ethics, morals and the law as this:
ethics are internal subjective, morals are external subjective and the law is external objective. That is, ethics are about what I think is right and wrong, morals are about what the people around me think is right and wrong, and the law is about what we collectively agree is right and wrong. None of these are universal or inherent in the human condition. They are all learned behaviours that enable us to live together as a society. And sometimes, the agreed behaviour of the law may not accord with the ethics of the individual or the moral code of a group but, because we have collectively made the rules, they take precedence over personal preferences.I can see many sides of the debate and, while I can understand the thinking of people who just want stuff to be free, it doesn't mean I agree with them. I think their position is as unsustainable as the copyright maximalists in the long term. But both have to be considered if we are to move forward. Both are stakeholders, along with all those in-between. The arguments I hear from the likes of RIANZ are all skewed towards one end of the spectrum, and are technologically unfeasible. The arguments from "free-riders" are skewed the other way, and (for me) ethically unacceptable.
I believe that copyright is a useful method of encouraging innovation and creation of new art by remunerating artists for prior work in order to afford them the resources to move forward to the next project. And I don't just say that because I are one. ;-)
I don't believe it's a property right, indivisible and eternal. I believe its a contract between the creator of work and the society s/he lives in to afford the creator control over the use of and revenue from the act of creation for a limited time. After that time, the work becomes the property of the society.
Can you put your finger on what it is about this "not-theft" that is so clearly unethical you won't do it? Is it simply that it's not fair?
Pretty much. I want to get paid as much as anyone else does (one day, Roger Fitch!) so it would be hypocritical of me to say "well, pay me, but I won't pay you" and I've never been a big fan of hypocrisy.
I can kind've see that, yet since you've so vehemently taken the line: "the world ain't fair- get over it" I'm struggling a bit.
Yes, it's not. Just because I believe in a certain perspective doesn't mean the world does the same or operates in concert with my beliefs. I think it should be fair, but I know it's not and no amount of bleating "But it's not fair!" will make it so. That's the pragmatist in me - you've got to live in the world that is, and deal with what it throws at you. I might wish it was different, and indeed I do, but it's not going to remake itself to my wishes just because I wish it.
It's not incompatible to hold an ethical position in a world that doesn't operate that way. In fact, I think it's essential in order to keep your balance. Those who operate without ethics to guide them will never be able to make the changes needed. I acknowledge that my ethical stance may not be shared by others - that's their problem, nt mine. I don''t argue from an ethical position because that's my business. I don't argue from a moral position, because that a sure way to never get anything done. I argue about the legal position because it's behaviours we need to change, and the legal method is the only way to objectively do that.
I want the maximalists to realise that their day is done, because the world has moved on and their perspective doesn't rule any more. I want the free-riders to accept that people should be paid for the work that they do. I want creators and publishers to understand that the scarcity model is dead in the digital world and they have to adjust their thinking to the abundance model, and the fact that they need to stop seeing every copy as revenue lost or yet to be earned, but to start looking at the opportunities offered to increase the potential size of the pie.
It think Reznor gets this, and Doctorow and many others. It's early days but they're making money, so they're making it work. The old ways are on life support, going kicking and screaming into the dark.
How much money has the movie and music industry spent on trying to criminalise their customers? How much difference might that money have made to some musician or writer or performer, if they'd focused on finding new ways to funnel that money to them.
I think we're all pretty much agreed that the media industries have fucked up in their approach. But their rhetoric is pervading all debate - "stealing", "pirates", and such. "Won't someone think of the struggling artist?". We need to get away from that and away from the "content just wants to be free" as well. To move forward we need an approach that is fair and balanced, that recognises the new reality instead of railing against it and that looks to create a new model that's not just about protecting vested interests on both sides.
Phew. Thanks for asking, Rob. It's good to articulate it. I think I may copy this screed over to my blog as well.
-
Glad to see you're still on this page, Mark. 'Cos it'd be a real shame if the new cornerstone of copyright were unveilled on some thread devoted to the dratted dingy casino ;-)
We should probably institute a PAS Godwin rule, that any mention of copyright gets immediately banished to a special thread :-D
-
I find the "CwF" + "RtB" formula (connect with fans/reason to buy) very unconvincing. It disconnects the value of the product (lets say music) with what is actually being sold (some variant of tee-shirts!?) It's pushing the (old way of thinking, Mark?) notion that you CAN compete with free.
I don't think it's about competing with free, but it is, I think a legitimate reaction to the fact that an immediate revenue stream appears to disappear and you can't stop it technologically, and you'll only spend money trying. It probably is a bit old school, in that you're not actually reforming the structure, you're only evolving your reaction to it.
Perhaps we can see it as a transition phase? Where you acknowledge the abundance paradigm, but are still supplying something scarce, and unobtainable without paying for it. And it has to be something non-digital, as anything digital can and will be copied by someone who just wants to be a spoiler. Sad but true.
I see it as a coping mechanism until we big PAS brains are finished developing the new model ;-)
It disconnects the value of the product
Now who's confusing price and value? :-)
See my rant on intrinsic value, in response to Kyle (I forget which thread).
Value is what people perceive they're getting. Price is what they're prepared to pay.
Reason to Buy is about trying to find a price that they're willing to pay in order to receive value. If they're not willing to pay for the track, how can you make them? I don't think you can.
But is there an alternative that's not some variety of compulsary levy or tax?
That's why I think Reason to Buy is a good way forward, if it's married to Connect with Fans. The fans want to reward you, because they like what you do and want you to keep doing it. The RtB doesn't have to be physical - it can be a heartfelt plea that makes your fans want to help. But the stepped value tiers of Ghosts is one way to do it, granting access to the band or the artist that non-payers don't get. And you have to let go of the idea that you're going to see revenue for every single copy. That's where the concept of "intrinsic value" can be so toxic, and lead to the charges of "stealing" and stuff.
A compulsory levy or tax is like the dole, in my mind. It bears no relationship to any value, or merit in the work. Eventually, it will lead to an overall diminution of quality in the product, as some will only provide what is necessary to gain their stipend. Others will still produce fine works, because that's how they're wired, and works that are popular but are not recompensed appropriately because it's very difficult to design a stipendiary sytems that takes account of "quality" when quality is so subjective.