Intellectual property: what do we do now?

[SWPIGWANG]

Okay, the age old requirements are simple:
People want their intellectual property goods.
And the producers need to get paid.

But currently there is a oppunity to reshape the system to fit the two goals better. From economic theory we know that the ideal state is that such good are spreadout to all of society, and each in society pays the producer the amount equal to their utility-price, as the cost of production is constant reguadless of people serviced.

The current system works by fix price distrubition, and people that has marginal utility of goods lower than that of the price do not obtain the goods are simply denied use (or get them illegally) and the producer are underpaid due to the fact that the some that would benefit from the goods do not pay for them. The net result is that such goods are underproduced.

All the while the current system of restricting physical media used to carry intellectual property is being undermined. Maybe it is time for a new system to be build, out of new laws, and new business models. If there is a model that is better than the current one, the time to implement it would be now. After all, intellectual property itself was a ideal that had to be created after the printing press allowing rapid information distribution that bypasses supply limitations of its day. (written copys)

So my question is simply whether that model exists, and what is it exactly?
---------------------------------------------------------
To be honest to my roots, I am one of those that "downloads whatever" and pays for around 5% of the stuff I consume/get. I do realize I'm really selfish in this reguard, but the fact is that if I paid for everything, I'd be able to consume only ~6% of what I do now (unless I intend not to eat....).

While it is fine to argue on the side of the artists, I find that cutting consumption for everyone in my age group by say, 50% while improving supply side revenue by say 10%, simply isn't that good utilitarian wise, on the short term. Of course, if left alone, the supply side revenue could approach 0 in the long run, so it has to be cracked down. Of course it would best if the richer people pay for them while the poorer just benefits, but the world doesn't work like that if the system doesn't support it.

but hey, there is no cause like a selfish one. I want to fish the pond but I do want it out of fish......

[Chmee]

The market mechanism will ultimately prevail here ... the owners of IP will implement technology that makes stealilng the IP prohibitively difficult. The Wild West of digital file-sharing won't last long.

Will new methods of theft emerge? Sure. But wide-scale file-distribution infringement of IP won't last.

[Queeb Salaron]

First of all, I really tried to understand your point, but I was overcome by the need to redpencil the everloving fuck out of it. Does no one bother to review and revise anymore? <le sigh>

I don't know much about economics, but I think I understand where you're coming from. As a college student, I am often faced with the common dilemma of how to spend my money, and how to entertain myself on a limited budget. The simple fact of the matter is that as much as I worry about what to do with the money I've earned, by participating in piracy I'm helping to take away the income of another person.

This may sound harsh and extremist, but people who can't afford to pay for music should save their pennies and buy a radio. They should go onto bands' websites and download music clips legally. Make friends with the bands on sites like myspace.com, and download their music legally. I find it hard to believe that those same college students who drop $200 for iPods can't afford to buy and rip the CDs they have stored in their portable MP3 player's memory.

One of these days I'm going to find the RIAA task force's hotline, and just go nuts calling them and reporting people walking around in broad daylight with stolen music.

[Queeb Salaron]

The market mechanism will ultimately prevail here ... the owners of IP will implement technology that makes stealilng the IP prohibitively difficult. The Wild West of digital file-sharing won't last long.

Will new methods of theft emerge? Sure. But wide-scale file-distribution infringement of IP won't last.

Your lips to God's ears, my friend.

Y'know... if God has ears.

Anyway. I'm waiting for the day they make CD ripping programs and hardware illegal. That would cut off music piracy pretty well, I'd think.

[SWPIGWANG]

It won't last alright (one way or another), but I'd perfer a better system to come out of its ashes.

I don't think that IP theft is what causes in P2P-theft nor is it the cure. After all, there are always proxy and encryption. Unless one totally rebuild internet to prevent the above, and have quantum computers crack all encryption there is, or alternatively send people to jail for dozens of years for some mp3s, it won't work.

However, the theft is not only due to convience, but partially due to how easily justified it is. After all it is not too hard to steal from mom and pop shops either, but it doesn't happen on that kind of scale.
-----------------
It is absurd to think that the worst thing that anime watchers face is having a series getting licenced here(in north america). As someone else put it, one has to pay money for a product that is worst than what is free. (fansubs, which are often good (dvd) quality and more importantly, comes out much faster...DVDs are also region locked, copy protected making them crap to the consumer compared to its "raw" form)

It is not that things should be free (they shouldn't) but the whole physical-media distrbution system is a waste of resources, akin to digging holes and filling them up again. It is even more annoying that sometimes most of the money paid is to the distribution system rather than the content provider.

[SWPIGWANG]

First of all, I really tried to understand your point, but I was overcome by the need to redpencil the everloving fuck out of it. Does no one bother to review and revise anymore? <le sigh>

Give me a edit button, and I might revise it. Normally I don't since it takes time. My english sucks in any case. (if you haven't noticed)

by participating in piracy I'm helping to take away the income of another person.

I spend nearly my entire disposable budget on games, videos, whatever. Simply: I can not spend mcuh more and I can not "take away" anyone's income or increase anyone's. My only choice right now, if left without piracy, would be cut back consumption. The only advantage from lack of piracy is the my spending would not be distorted so that people that deserve more of my money would be paid accordingly. I certainly don't mind the latter, but it isn't good enough.

Personally, I don't really care that much about "justice", but I do care about my future consumption and I know piracy hurts me in the long run, so it can't go on. But the old system is not much better. In some sense I'm just like a good capitalist that is trying to miximize wealth rather than follow dogma.

This may sound harsh and extremist, but people who can't afford to pay for music should save their pennies and buy a radio. They should go onto bands' websites and download music clips legally. Make friends with the bands on sites like myspace.com, and download their music legally. I find it hard to believe that those same college students who drop $200 for iPods can't afford to buy and rip the CDs they have stored in their portable MP3 player's memory.

Maybe they can, but only to a extent. In anycase, all the music I have on my PC are jpop that I probably won't find in stores easily.

The thing is that, once that one song is made and stored digitally, the costs of making additional copies for everyone is zero. If you think about it this way, everyone really should have everything as it costs nothing to give them it. (it only costs to make the original copy) The question is how to give everyone a copy while still getting the money for the first copy.

[Mobiboros]

Anyway. I'm waiting for the day they make CD ripping programs and hardware illegal. That would cut off music piracy pretty well, I'd think.

Never happen. There are far too many legal uses for CD ripping softwrae and hardware in home use. What if I want to rip a home movie to DVD? Or put my photo-album on CD? Or transport any media via CD since CD's have replaced floppy disks as the portable media of choice.

As far as CD ripping, there's nothing illegal about being able to convert your CD's into MP3's to listen to on your computer or portable MP3 players. The illegality is in sharing those rips with other people.

I don't seriously think, as someone else said, that the age of piracy is coming to a close. As encryption get's better, hackers get better. As copy protection gets better so does the software to crack the protection. Don't underestimate the dilligence of people to find ways to break the law simply to say they can do it.

[Xenophobe3691]

Anyway. I'm waiting for the day they make CD ripping programs and hardware illegal. That would cut off music piracy pretty well, I'd think.

Eat shit. I ripped every CD in my collection onto my iPod, and that's primarily the reason I got the damn thing in the first place.

Blanket condemnations are bad, mkay?

[SirNitram]

Idiotic witch-hunts of CD ripping tech and similar completely legal measures just shows how fucking braindead the position against changing the current trend is.

I will again cite that the Music Industry conceded the entire argument years ago, making the digital copying of their property legal, in exchange for a tax they receive on all CD burners and similar tech. I beleive this is a comprehensive explanation: Here

So the side going 'YOU'RE BREAKING THE LAW!!! YOU'RE BAD!!!' may now eat shit and die.

[SWPIGWANG]

Never happen. There are far too many legal uses for CD ripping softwrae and hardware in home use.

and some people would like to make them all illegal too. (for example hacking a dvd box so I can watch all dvds....)

I don't seriously think, as someone else said, that the age of piracy is coming to a close.

unless for some reason a unstable system could be maintained, it would end either in crackdowns, crash of content providers or an alternative pricing models.

I perfer the last one, but for all intents and purposes the first two is where we are headed.

Don't underestimate the dilligence of people to find ways to break the law simply to say they can do it.

Most people have no interest in breaking the law, and those that do are serial crimials that does far more than ....search bt sites.

[kc8tbe]

No. P2P, ripping technology, and the rest of the "digital wild west" will always stay ahead of DRM-like technology. Why?

In the real wild west, robbing banks 'n stuff just didn't make sense. Money is a conflict-of-use item -- if I have the money, then I can spend it and you can't. It was not a economical model that could support itself.

In the "digital" west, sharing music does make sense. If I have the music and I share it with you, then we can both use the music. How is it that you identify "people walking around in broad daylight with stolen music?" Does the music have a big red sticker on it? Is it in any way different from the non-stolen music? DRM-encumbered music is identifieable, but it is very easy (and always will be) to remove DRM.

Anyway, the only way DRM will advance beyond the rest of technology is if Congress legislates us back to pre-1995 communications technology or we spring for Chinese-style Internet censorship. Artists are just going to have to find a different way to make money off of their art.

[Mobiboros]

and some people would like to make them all illegal too. (for example hacking a dvd box so I can watch all dvds....)

Yes, and I cited examples of perfectly legal uses that no one wants to make illegal. Copying old home movies from VHS onto DVD. Transferring photo albums. Home recording of personal images/music (meaning images or songs you created in the first place). There are too many home uses that are legal and require access to the media in question to make the technology illegal.

Most people have no interest in breaking the law, and those that do are serial crimials that does far more than ....search bt sites.

You are hopelessly naive if you believe that people don't break the law for fun. It has nothing to do with being a "serial criminal" and everything to do with it being a mark of honour in hacker and cracker circles to be able to break encryptions. People have very differet views on what they think of as 'victimless crimes'. The same people who'll spend hours and days breaking a password file often wouldn't think of going into a store and actually stealing merchendise or, even more extreme, comitting violent crimes.

[Queeb Salaron]

I spend nearly my entire disposable budget on games, videos, whatever. Simply: I can not spend mcuh more and I can not "take away" anyone's income or increase anyone's. My only choice right now, if left without piracy, would be cut back consumption. The only advantage from lack of piracy is the my spending would not be distorted so that people that deserve more of my money would be paid accordingly. I certainly don't mind the latter, but it isn't good enough.

No, it's not good enough. And I wish to Allah there was a way that was good enough. I wish I could walk up to my favorite artist, hand him/her a $20 bill, grab their CD, and know that the money I gave them went right into their pockets. Really, the only way that happens is if the band is small and producing their own albums (which, in a rash generalization, are usually of terrible quality).

Personally, I don't really care that much about "justice", but I do care about my future consumption and I know piracy hurts me in the long run, so it can't go on. But the old system is not much better. In some sense I'm just like a good capitalist that is trying to miximize wealth rather than follow dogma.

Is it up to the artist, then, or the wallet-conscious consumer to fix the system?

The thing is that, once that one song is made and stored digitally, the costs of making additional copies for everyone is zero. If you think about it this way, everyone really should have everything as it costs nothing to give them it. (it only costs to make the original copy) The question is how to give everyone a copy while still getting the money for the first copy.

And every product in the world should be sold for cost, because once the item is paid for, there's really no need to charge extra. Some capitalist you are.

As for the anti-ripping software comments, I don't really mean them. Obviously CD ripping/burning technology is very useful. It would be like outlawing guns because guns kill people. Not helpful. Obviously no one is advocating for banning these devices. It would be like Paramount trying to ban VCRs in the 80s because they thought that recording broadcast TV shows was a violation of copyright. It was just a frustrated, impulsive "just ban the fucking things" comment.

[SirNitram]

I spend nearly my entire disposable budget on games, videos, whatever. Simply: I can not spend mcuh more and I can not "take away" anyone's income or increase anyone's. My only choice right now, if left without piracy, would be cut back consumption. The only advantage from lack of piracy is the my spending would not be distorted so that people that deserve more of my money would be paid accordingly. I certainly don't mind the latter, but it isn't good enough.

No, it's not good enough. And I wish to Allah there was a way that was good enough. I wish I could walk up to my favorite artist, hand him/her a $20 bill, grab their CD, and know that the money I gave them went right into their pockets. Really, the only way that happens is if the band is small and producing their own albums (which, in a rash generalization, are usually of terrible quality).

So a law passed which ensures every time someone burns a CD of downloaded music, money is given to the artist, this is not enough?(Not entirely precise.. Every blank CD sold in the US has this tax, but the intent is there)

Personally, I don't really care that much about "justice", but I do care about my future consumption and I know piracy hurts me in the long run, so it can't go on. But the old system is not much better. In some sense I'm just like a good capitalist that is trying to miximize wealth rather than follow dogma.

Is it up to the artist, then, or the wallet-conscious consumer to fix the system?

It is up to the government to crackdown on the illegal activities of those trying to manipulate Justice. What a pity that the current one won't enforce the fact the RIAA slammed through a law making it legal to download and copy songs, in exchange for money. And yes, this law made it illegal to sue for damages based on this.

Could this be why none of these subpeonas have made it to court..?

The thing is that, once that one song is made and stored digitally, the costs of making additional copies for everyone is zero. If you think about it this way, everyone really should have everything as it costs nothing to give them it. (it only costs to make the original copy) The question is how to give everyone a copy while still getting the money for the first copy.

And every product in the world should be sold for cost, because once the item is paid for, there's really no need to charge extra. Some capitalist you are.

As for the anti-ripping software comments, I don't really mean them. Obviously CD ripping/burning technology is very useful. It would be like outlawing guns because guns kill people. Not helpful. Obviously no one is advocating for banning these devices. It would be like Paramount trying to ban VCRs in the 80s because they thought that recording broadcast TV shows was a violation of copyright. It was just a frustrated, impulsive "just ban the fucking things" comment.

And demonstrates how pervasive the lies of the RIAA have gotten. Educate yourself on the history of this, please.

[Chmee]

I don't foresee the IP protection being very successful at the ripping/conversion layer (although MS and its allies are working very hard to embed that restrictiveness into the OS).

I just don't think the ease of distributing a single file to tens of thousands of anonymous users over the Net will last very long, there are simply too many ways to attack it. Truly private, encrypted P2P networks like Waste make it relatively easy and secure for a small workgroup of trusted members to exchange files, but that's not the scale of IP infringement that owners are worried about. They just don't want one person to be able to easily distribute to 10,000, and that is the 'wild west' I see going away.

[sketerpot]

If the RIAA, MPAA, etc, would chill out, we'd have a pretty workable system. People would generally rather acquire stuff legally than through piracy, whether or not the laws are actually enforced for individuals. I notice that iTunes and similar music stores are doing well, despite the fact that you can get all that music from P2P without any likely consequences.

Sure, CDs and DVDs may have to come down in price to stay competitive---but this is small stuff, not a huge Threat to our Economy and our Way of Life.

[SWPIGWANG]

No, it's not good enough. And I wish to Allah there was a way that was good enough. I wish I could walk up to my favorite artist, hand him/her a $20 bill, grab their CD, and know that the money I gave them went right into their pockets.

I agree, and thus I'd like to move away from the traditional laws and economic system and replace it with something better.

Is it up to the artist, then, or the wallet-conscious consumer to fix the system?

someone has to do it, and it is irrevelent who starts it really.

You are hopelessly naive if you believe that people don't break the law for fun. It has nothing to do with being a "serial criminal" and everything to do with it being a mark of honour in hacker and cracker circles to be able to break encryptions.

We've had hackers and crackers around since electronic phone networks, but we don't see them making up 50+% of an age group. Those people do it for the sake of the challenge, not "massive file transfers." I don't think it is a particularly impressive skill to download a few GB though cable per day. (it just says how sad one is...really )

For the most part, the acts of hackers do not cause much economic distruption (in themselves), and crackers can be punished heavily without serious reprecussions. (unlike locking up all collages students bleh)

Artists are just going to have to find a different way to make money off of their art.

A way that has not quite been found yet.........

So a law passed which ensures every time someone burns a CD of downloaded music, money is given to the artist, this is not enough?(Not entirely precise.. Every blank CD sold in the US has this tax, but the intent is there)

So you want the media to go socialist? While this sort of fixes the problem of distroted economics, it adds the problem of the government. Aside from the problem of speaker piece newsmedia (since news are relatively cheap and people should be able to afford it privately), no government that I know of is responsive enough to fit fickle consumer demand. Afterall, people's opinions on abortion changes slower than their opinion on another season of Enterprise. It is true that goverments has not be designed with fast, direct response time to the public in mind though.

If the RIAA, MPAA, etc, would chill out, we'd have a pretty workable system. People would generally rather acquire stuff legally than through piracy, whether or not the laws are actually enforced for individuals. I notice that iTunes and similar music stores are doing well, despite the fact that you can get all that music from P2P without any likely consequences.

Maybe, but I'm not holding my breath.

but I certainly would love a system that is legal and can stuff workable price discrimination, while minimize loopholes and unnecessary distribution costs.

[SWPIGWANG]

can a mod fix my quotes.....its messed up since I used the quote format at another forum........

Grrrr this is the only forum that I post in that is without out a edit button....grrrrr

[SirNitram]

So a law passed which ensures every time someone burns a CD of downloaded music, money is given to the artist, this is not enough?(Not entirely precise.. Every blank CD sold in the US has this tax, but the intent is there)

So you want the media to go socialist? While this sort of fixes the problem of distroted economics, it adds the problem of the government. Aside from the problem of speaker piece newsmedia (since news are relatively cheap and people should be able to afford it privately), no government that I know of is responsive enough to fit fickle consumer demand. Afterall, people's opinions on abortion changes slower than their opinion on another season of Enterprise. It is true that goverments has not be designed with fast, direct response time to the public in mind though.

That's a very cute strawman. Did that take you all night to build up and knock down?

Point blank: What the RIAA is doing is illegal, what the P2P networks are doing is legal. That is the point being conveyed. Yelling 'SOCIALISM!' isn't even a fucking argument. They made the AHRA, and now that no one seems to remember it(Or why they're paying a tax on blank CDs and CD burners) they're violating it. Tell me whose the ethical slimeball now?

The idea that this will go away is wishing on stars, nothing more. Bandwidth will improve, compression will improve. DRM will never become widespread enough to deal with it, because the RIAA has very, very little power beyond America.

You want a 'solution' to this terrible problem of the consumer not being fucked up the ass by the RIAA? The new download services are ideal.

[SWPIGWANG]

meh, I don't never mean socialism in a bad way.

What the RIAA is doing is illegal, what the P2P networks are doing is legal...They made the AHRA, and now that no one seems to remember it

What I'm saying is that if that future media companies works on government taxes, it would effectively be a branch of government since the government has direct control of funding. This is probably a strawman, but I'm not really trying argue against it, and certainly not against your original statement.

not trying to lable anyone as ethical slimeball here.

The idea that this will go away is wishing on stars, nothing more.

I'd agree that it won't happen unless we legislate ourselves back to the stone age, but that is not saying that we won't actually legislate ourselves back there, especially if there is mass economic disruption from it.

Bandwidth will improve, compression will improve.

And the government can send alot of people to jail. I guess I hold a dim view of "fundamental" rights that has shown to be as fundamental as biblical interprations..

[SirNitram]

meh, I don't never mean socialism in a bad way.

Well, it wouldn't do much good deployed against a supporter of socialism anyways.

What the RIAA is doing is illegal, what the P2P networks are doing is legal...They made the AHRA, and now that no one seems to remember it

What I'm saying is that if that future media companies works on government taxes, it would effectively be a branch of government since the government has direct control of funding. This is probably a strawman, but I'm not really trying argue against it, and certainly not against your original statement.

They have control over a portion of funding. Essentially, you're saying that if the RIAA never adapts, it will only exists by this, and that's bad. You're right. It should be shot in the head if it doesn't shape up fast to the fact it's business model is outdated.

not trying to lable anyone as ethical slimeball here.

The idea that this will go away is wishing on stars, nothing more.

I'd agree that it won't happen unless we legislate ourselves back to the stone age, but that is not saying that we won't actually legislate ourselves back there, especially if there is mass economic disruption from it.

You can't legislate it away. National boundaries.

Bandwidth will improve, compression will improve.

And the government can send alot of people to jail. I guess I hold a dim view of "fundamental" rights that has shown to be as fundamental as biblical interprations..

They can't, not for something that they've already declared is legal. The only people who are breaking a law that could result in jailtime is the RIAA, by pursuing lawsuits. Funny how they always settle.

[Vicious]

My only gripe about the AHRA is the fact that legalese is so fucking difficult to read. Difficult and mind-numbingly boring. Other than that...the RIAA/MPAA can kiss my ass. They haven't a legal leg to stand on and are exploting peoples ignorance of the law and their fear of lawsuits to get them to settle out of court. The media, of course, doesn't call them on this. I hate the way things work, or more properly don't work, in this fucking country, sometimes.

[Prozac the Robert]

What I'm saying is that if that future media companies works on government taxes, it would effectively be a branch of government since the government has direct control of funding. This is probably a strawman, but I'm not really trying argue against it, and certainly not against your original statement.

Hmm, the BBC does okwithout being too heavily restricted by the government. (Everyone with a TV pays a liscence fee, with some exceptions or reductions I think, the BBC uses money to make programs etc. and provide them for free. Government reviews their charter every, uh, maybe 10 years).

Perhaps they should start buying music

[Keevan_Colton]

What I'm saying is that if that future media companies works on government taxes, it would effectively be a branch of government since the government has direct control of funding. This is probably a strawman, but I'm not really trying argue against it, and certainly not against your original statement.

Hmm, the BBC does okwithout being too heavily restricted by the government. (Everyone with a TV pays a liscence fee, with some exceptions or reductions I think, the BBC uses money to make programs etc. and provide them for free. Government reviews their charter every, uh, maybe 10 years).

Perhaps they should start buying music

The reductions include less if you've only got a black and white TV and half off if you're blind...

But the License fee comes with it's own little problems, ~$1 Billion a year in revenue from it goes to the fuckers at the collection agency who arent much better than the RIAA in terms of using fear and scaremongering.