McInnes's Big Fat Pirate Hero

[roo_ster]

http://takimag.com/article/my_big_fat_pirate_hero_free_kim_dotcom/print#axzz1lEvDKiEm

The right sees entrepreneurs as job machines who create wealth for everyone, and they view the government as a parasite thwarting both rich and poor. The left, in turn, portrays entrepreneurs as the parasites. In this instance, the left is wrong and I think it’s because they don’t understand the pie analogy. They think a rich person has taken more than his slice of the pie, which leaves less for the rest of us. They didn’t take math in college and don’t understand that “greedy” entrepreneurs keep creating more pies.
...
Big Business and Big Government, who still haven’t officially announced that they’re married, have been seeking to get even bigger lately. They’d been trying to push a bill called SOPA—the Stop Online Piracy Act—that empowered Wall Street and the White House to decide who gets to do what on the Internet. But the Big Biz/Big Guv tag-team wrestling duo suffered a smackdown.
...
Again, we have two sides: Us and Them. The other side says Megaupload cost Hollywood and record companies hundreds of millions of dollars by allowing users to send each other copyrighted content...Bill Maher calls Kim’s crimes “Caucasian looting.”

But this assumes that people who downloaded Maher’s film for free are the same ones who would have happily paid $11.98 for it. We believe the people who downloaded Maher’s film aren’t the same ones who would have bought it online. They are new customers, people who wouldn’t have otherwise seen the film. In that sense, Kim Dotcom has increased the size of the pie. Maher should be thanking Megaupload.
...
Online “piracy” isn’t looting. It’s capitalism. It forces dinosaurs to evolve or become extinct. The music and movie industries are in denial, mistaking progress for criminal activity. In fact, they’ve already benefited from piracy’s kick in the ass. Music piracy sites such as Napster forced an antiquated model to reinvent itself, and today we have solutions such as iTunes at a dollar per song and Spotify’s monthly subscription rate. These new systems didn’t kill the music industry; they saved it.

The same thing has happened with films.

From a fellow (me, who hasn't pirated anything since dinosaurs roamed the earth and 5 1/4" floppies toted all the data you'd need), I think this is an interesting take on the issue.

From my perspective, music & film industries still have a LOT more evolving to do, if they expect to survive this technological challenge.  They look like buggy-whip manufacturers in the face of the automobile.  Or, maybe more apt, members of an exclusive crafts guild reacting to a technological innovation that renders their skills and guild obsolete.  IOW, Luddites.

Their reaction is what one would expect.  Instead of innovating in response, they use their cash to lobby for the gov't to beat on their upstart rivals.

Eventually, I suspect that the industries will be weakened to the point they can no longer bribe gov't to do their leg-breaking and they will either innovate or go under.  New conduits will evolve that pay the producers of media product better than they are paid today.

[HankB]

I've been skeptical about the dangers of individuals involved in "piracy" ever since Hollywood went apoplectic about the Betamax several decades ago; they might have even gotten a "piracy tax" placed on blank video tapes (to be split up among Hollywood producers according to some arcane formula) until someone with a new video camera asked their congressman "Why do I have to pay Hollywood a fee to film my little Johnny's first birthday party?"

Today, when movie companies collude with hardware manufacturers to include unwanted content that the purchaser can't skip (thus dictating how their product is used by the buyer after the sale) or "region code" discs to enable worldwide price fixing . . . my response to their piracy whines is downright hostile.

[RevDisk]

Today, when movie companies collude with hardware manufacturers to include unwanted content that the purchaser can't skip (thus dictating how their product is used by the buyer after the sale) or "region code" discs to enable worldwide price fixing . . . my response to their piracy whines is downright hostile.

It's illegal under RICO and other anti-trust/racketeering laws.  But legal under DMCA.

The movie and music industry is an admitted cartel. And they're fairly honest about buying their way into favorable laws. Both make their major cash not off the product, but through creative accounting to short everyone else in a manner that would be blatantly illegal if not for the bribery.

[erictank]

Interesting to see that take on online "piracy".

Eric Flint, an author and editor at Baen, said the same thing ten years ago, pushing for book publishers to adopt fairly-priced and DRM-free ebook models, stating that hard evidence showed that "piracy" of Flint's own books online *RAISED* his income, by exposing people to his writing.  Some of them said, "Whoa, this Flint guy's pretty good, wonder if he's got anything else I can read?", and went out and BOUGHT HIS BOOKS, when they otherwise wouldn't have. He got, as the article's author put it, a bigger pie to take his piece from.

And yet Baen is STILL just about the only publisher with fair ebook prices and no DRM.

Buggy whip sellers DESERVE to go out of business, if they cannot adapt to the changing marketplace.  We do not owe them anything.

[seeker_two]

Online piracy laws will be just as effective as high-seas piracy laws....esp. when China provides safe haven to online  pirates as Somalia does for the real thing....

[just Warren]

These two links explain why copyright is not all it's cracked up to be. It seems to me it was set up as a scam to mulct authors to the benefit of publishers. And now, since it has been around for so long, it's accepted that; of course copyright is the best way for authors to make money from their efforts.

Maintaining a copyright or other forms of IP is just one business model and not necessarily the best.  If you could make more money in the absence of  IP why wouldn't you want to?

http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/0,1518,710976,00.html

http://www.cippm.org.uk/downloads/Symposium%202009/Hoffner%20-%20vortrag_eng-10_min.pdf

[TommyGunn]

These two links explain why copyright is not all it's cracked up to be. It seems to me it was set up as a scam to mulct authors to the benefit of publishers. And now, since it has been around for so long, it's accepted that; of course copyright is the best way for authors to make money from their efforts.

Maintaining a copyright or other forms of IP is just one business model and not necessarily the best.  If you could make more money in the absence of  IP why wouldn't you want to?

http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/0,1518,710976,00.html

http://www.cippm.org.uk/downloads/Symposium%202009/Hoffner%20-%20vortrag_eng-10_min.pdf

  What does "mulct"  mean?

[roo_ster]

Interesting to see that take on online "piracy".

Eric Flint, an author and editor at Baen, said the same thing ten years ago, pushing for book publishers to adopt fairly-priced and DRM-free ebook models, stating that hard evidence showed that "piracy" of Flint's own books online *RAISED* his income, by exposing people to his writing.  Some of them said, "Whoa, this Flint guy's pretty good, wonder if he's got anything else I can read?", and went out and BOUGHT HIS BOOKS, when they otherwise wouldn't have. He got, as the article's author put it, a bigger pie to take his piece from.

And yet Baen is STILL just about the only publisher with fair ebook prices and no DRM.

Buggy whip sellers DESERVE to go out of business, if they cannot adapt to the changing marketplace.  We do not owe them anything.

Yup, Baen has gotten a goodly amount of $$$ out of me, at $5 a pop...after I downloaded a few authors' works for free off their website and decided I liked them.  That is $$$ they NEVER would have seen absent the gratis downloads.

How much did it cost Baen to make that $$$?
1. After taking the cream off the market when the books were published years ago.
2. Offering them for free download.
3. Then me paying $5 per book for newer titles they never even had to bring near a printing press.

Then, there is the guy who wrote self-published e-book novels and was charging $5-$10 for them.  He sold some small number, 50--100 over a couple years.  Then, he lowers the price to $0.99 and sells several hundred thousand copies in a year.

In both cases, the publisher found the price at which a lot of folks were willing to risk buying/downloading a dud and made out like bandits.

That is the future of publishing, or at least part of it.

The rest of the music/book/movie industry needs to face a reality hostile to yesteryear's business model and adapt to the new reality.

[just Warren]

mulct  (mlkt)
n.
A penalty such as a fine.
tr.v. mulct·ed, mulct·ing, mulcts
1. To penalize by fining or demanding forfeiture.
2. To acquire by trickery or deception.
3. To defraud or swindle.


It's one of my favorite words because it just sounds nasty. "Hey, did you hear about Jim?" "No! What happened?" He caught a case of the mulct." "No!"

Or "Man, I had something roll under the fridge the other day and when I fished it out of there it was all covered in mulct." "Oh, gross!"

[RevDisk]

And yet Baen is STILL just about the only publisher with fair ebook prices and no DRM.

I have bought a large number of ebooks from them. I admire their business sense.  Mind you, this from the guy that actually does shell out $15 for eARC's (only books by Correia or David Drake) and then is usually dumb enough to shell out the cash to buy the paper version as well.

Highly recommend them.


Giving the finger to the rest of the publishing industry is just icing on the cake.

[longeyes]

The step from stealing intangible property to stealing tangible property is not as large as some here may believe.  People who want everything "free" and feel they deserve it are not likely to stop at ripping off music and books.  Because digital content is, for now, easy to steal doesn't mean it should be stolen.  Your bank accounts are just digital entries too, let it be remembered.  The ultimate property is your identity, and that is already under severe attack.

[RevDisk]

The step from stealing intangible property to stealing tangible property is not as large as some here may believe.  People who want everything "free" and feel they deserve it are not likely to stop at ripping off music and books.  Because digital content is, for now, easy to steal doesn't mean it should be stolen.  Your bank accounts are just digital entries too, let it be remembered.  The ultimate property is your identity, and that is already under severe attack.

I'd be more sympathetic if a) IP laws were not so blatantly rigged, b) IP laws are hostile to the citizenry and c) IP laws are hostile to economic development.

a) Copyright Term Extension Act is known as the Mickey Mouse Protection Act of 1998. It used to be life of the author + 50, or 75 for a corporate work. Now it is life of the author plus 70 and corporate works to 120 years after creation or 95 years after pub.  This was driven by Disney expressly to protect Steamboat Willie.

b) Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution. "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;"

The sole legality of all Intellectual Property laws of the United States are to promote science and useful arts. IP laws that hinder the progress of science and useful arts by overly extensive time periods are contrary to the Constitution, and thus hostile to the citizenry. No sane person is saying that all IP laws should be struck down and free downloads for all. But they should be reasonable. One must always remember that a patent or copyright is a government mandated monopoly, which should be wisely viewed with suspicion at any time. It may be necessary, IS a necessity, but it still bares strict scrutiny against inevitable government abuse and corruption.

c) The tech industry is at a near constant state of patent warfare. Software patents are notorious, if not nefarious. The tech megacorps patent ANYTHING that the USPTO will approve. The overwhelming majority of said patents should not be issued.  Little to none of those patents are actually development, they are merely a tool for lawsuits and extortion.

Unless anti-trust laws apply and forbid this sort of sanity, I'm wondering why tech companies don't form a version of NATO.  Pool all of the patents. Anyone suing a member of Patent-NATO is automatically countersued with the entire patent nuclear arsenal of Patent-NATO. (It's the nature of tech patents, even a Hello World violates a dozen patents.) Anyone in Patent-NATO cannot patent-troll except under extremely blatant infringement circumstances.

This would be beneficial as it would drastically reduce legal expenses, allow innovation (which tech patents make impossible to do legally) and force companies to stand on their merit and not their lawyers.

[longeyes]

I agree with you about the insanity in the patent area.

The problem with the aboriginal perspective on intellectual property law is that it is based on a false distinction between intellectual and tangible property.  One could make the same argument for restricting in-perpetuity rights on ALL property.  If intellectual property rights to extinction in the service of "Progress" then all property rights could be construed as subject to how well they are employed to "promote...Progress."  I see a slippery slope here.

I am not making an argument for plenary censorship and/or control of the internet.  Quite the contrary.  I believe that property holders need to find effective ways to secure their investments without interfering with everyone else's activities.

[RevDisk]

Except physical property and IP are not the same.  It is not about progress, IP's legality is solely protected by " promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts ".  Some folks may not like that, and I agree there are other justifications.  But amend the Constitution instead.

Physical property and non physical property are not, and should never, be considered the same.  Depriving someone of actual physical goods is a crime, because the owner has lost dominion and now cannot use it.  Infringement of IP does not deprive the owner of any usage, just loss of potential profit.  Which is a legit concern, if it hinders progress of science and useful arts, which it does.  But taken too far in either direction, it harms everyone involved.  The owner, the citizenry, the economy and the nation.

[MechAg94]

I have a bought a few hardback books from Baen that came with a CD containing a whole bunch of electronic books in MSWord and text formant.  I have bought several books at least after reading all or part of the electronic version.  

IMO, there will always be a black market for any product.  The more overpriced the product, the more black market.  IMO, it is incumbent on the owner/seller to price their product so that they still make money, but a black market is discouraged.  Sure, it is illegal, but I have little sympathy for an owner/seller who makes no effort on that front, certainly when it comes to music and movies.

[RevDisk]

I have a bought a few hardback books from Baen that came with a CD containing a whole bunch of electronic books in MSWord and text formant.  I have bought several books at least after reading all or part of the electronic version.  

IMO, there will always be a black market for any product.  The more overpriced the product, the more black market.  IMO, it is incumbent on the owner/seller to price their product so that they still make money, but a black market is discouraged.  Sure, it is illegal, but I have little sympathy for an owner/seller who makes no effort on that front, certainly when it comes to music and movies.

If a company wants to overprice their product, more power to them.  I have outright hostilities to companies that do so, and then rig the laws to protect themselves from free market.

[De Selby]

If a company wants to overprice their product, more power to them.  I have outright hostilities to companies that do so, and then rig the laws to protect themselves from free market.

You nailed it with comparisons to a monopoly, which the originators of IP thought it was - just like a monopoly on coal/resources/colonies, designed to create incentives to exploit that resource.  And that's how it should be limited - when it stops promoting innovation and development, it serves no purpose. 

You shouldn't have investors being able to acquire patents on basic things that never should have been protected, and then use those to shake down real innovators and producers for a cut of the money. 

[longeyes]

Except physical property and IP are not the same.  It is not about progress, IP's legality is solely protected by " promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts ".  Some folks may not like that, and I agree there are other justifications.  But amend the Constitution instead.

Physical property and non physical property are not, and should never, be considered the same.  Depriving someone of actual physical goods is a crime, because the owner has lost dominion and now cannot use it.  Infringement of IP does not deprive the owner of any usage, just loss of potential profit.  Which is a legit concern, if it hinders progress of science and useful arts, which it does.  But taken too far in either direction, it harms everyone involved.  The owner, the citizenry, the economy and the nation.

Infringement of intellectual property does not deprive the owner of any usage, just a loss of potential profit?  Well, in that case, not to worry.  In a time oft called "The Information Age," in a time where just about everything we do and are has become ones and zeros intellectual property is vitally important as a principle.  Our inalienable rights are themselves not tangible.

[De Selby]

Longeyes, ideas have been recognised as a source of profit for thousands of years - yet no one, founding fathers included, noticed that an idea was "property" in the same way as a house until the last hundred years.  Strangely, the development of this notion that there's a moral claim to cry "don't copy me!!!" (imagine kids in a school yard, and you have exactly the basis of an IP claim) didn't occur until massive corporations started lobbying the Government to take action against their competitors.  RevDisk's example is the prime case.

Throughout history, it's been widespread sharing of information that's driven some of our greatest innovation.  I can see no justification other than greed to discourage people from learning about ideas and doing what they can to improve them.

[MicroBalrog]

More to the point, has nobody read Milton Friedman?

The right to property may be natural, but some of it can - and does- get defined and redefined around the edges. For example, think of land - you own your land, and you can keep people from coming onto the land. What about flying a jetpack at one inch high? Ten inches? Ten feet? Miles? That's up for negotiation is that not?

IP is like that. The exact conditions of IP get negotiated, and renegotiated, by legislators at all times. There never were - nor should there be - permanent patents, for instance.

And as the information age evolves, IP should evolve to keep with it.

[longeyes]

Longeyes, ideas have been recognised as a source of profit for thousands of years - yet no one, founding fathers included, noticed that an idea was "property" in the same way as a house until the last hundred years.  Strangely, the development of this notion that there's a moral claim to cry "don't copy me!!!" (imagine kids in a school yard, and you have exactly the basis of an IP claim) didn't occur until massive corporations started lobbying the Government to take action against their competitors.  RevDisk's example is the prime case.

Throughout history, it's been widespread sharing of information that's driven some of our greatest innovation.  I can see no justification other than greed to discourage people from learning about ideas and doing what they can to improve them.

Far be it from me to discourage innovation, but that doesn't mean that property rights and the income to be derived from same needs to be cast aside.  Are you telling Apple to surrender its patents because opening up their trove of knowledge would benefit mankind?  Very idealistic but definitely, in my mind, tantamount to unctuous looting.

The issue is not whether any philosophers noted that ideas were property.  Frankly, it doesn't matter; views change over time.  But I am not talking about ideas, I am talking about WORKS.  Surely you recognize the distinction.

[longeyes]

More to the point, has nobody read Milton Friedman?

The right to property may be natural, but some of it can - and does- get defined and redefined around the edges. For example, think of land - you own your land, and you can keep people from coming onto the land. What about flying a jetpack at one inch high? Ten inches? Ten feet? Miles? That's up for negotiation is that not?

IP is like that. The exact conditions of IP get negotiated, and renegotiated, by legislators at all times. There never were - nor should there be - permanent patents, for instance.

And as the information age evolves, IP should evolve to keep with it.

Ah, now we are in the realm of negotiation, which in the end always comes down to who has the most power (guns?).  If intellectual property can be viewed as an extension of "the common good," real property can be viewed the same way--and in fact often has, not only abroad but right here in River City.

[makattak]

Far be it from me to discourage innovation, but that doesn't mean that property rights and the income to be derived from same needs to be cast aside.  Are you telling Apple to surrender its patents because opening up their trove of knowledge would benefit mankind?  Very idealistic but definitely, in my mind, tantamount to unctuous looting.

The issue is not whether any philosophers noted that ideas were property.  Frankly, it doesn't matter; views change over time.  But I am not talking about ideas, I am talking about WORKS.  Surely you recognize the distinction

Nope. I'm not telling Apple to "surrender" its patents because they will expire in any case.

Copyright and patent exist by the artificial construct of the state. There is no natural right to own an idea. We grant that right in order to encourage the production of ideas. (in the form of music, books, poetry, innovations, inventions, etc...)

And you ARE talking about ideas. Just because you call them "works" doesn't make it less an idea.

You can't prevent people from using ideas without the coerceive power of the state. You CAN prevent people from using your land, dinner, other physical property without the coercive power of the state.

[makattak]

(I should note one exception. You can prevent people from using your ideas without the coerceive power of the state if you choose not to share them. And you have that natural right to keep ideas within your own mind.)

[longeyes]

Works are already protected, whether you acknowledge the distinction or not.  The issue is for how long and in what way.

For you to think that the estate of Charles Dickens is not entitled to the profits from A Christmas Carol in perpetuity but the heirs of the Rockefeller oil fortune are suggests a failure to appreciate or respect artistic creativity in whatever form.  For some reason you believe that "all" are entitled to fruits of a man's imagination whereas "all" are NOT entitled to the fruits of a man's labor or investment.  I contend this is an artificial and, worse, intellectually sloppy, distinction.

Copyright and patent exist, according to you, by the "artificial construct of the state."  Interesting.  And real property rights are, by contrast, God-given??? 

You must be a landowner, my brother; you are surely not someone who writes, does graphic art, or makes music.  :)