Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

The other half of this is that people will download music they might well not have bought. If I were a file sharer and sued by Big Content, I would be inclined to base my defense on asking them to prove I would have bought the music had it not been available online. If not, they had no loss. In fact, the only music I ever downloaded (from a Usenet binary group, not a file-share) and burned to a CD was the Joplin-Kaukaunnen Typewriter Tape, from which only two songs are even available for purchase on CD.

Posted by triticale at July 10, 2003 02:12 PM

Music, once digitized, is much like software. Traditionally, software makers have defended (?) their wares from theft by combining two tactics:

1) They've lowered the prices of their products as rapidly as the amortization of the R&D that went into them would allow.

2) They've moved as much "value" as possible into things that could not be stolen, such as perfect-bound manuals and call-back customer service for registered users.

I don't know how applicable these tactics are to music. However, it's now clear that there'll have to be some attitude adjustments among the music vendors, and soon. Music CDs are as expensive as video DVDs, which defies any justification other than monopoly. Present trends continuing, the music theft rampant today presages the collapse of Big Music and its replacement by a smaller, much more innovative and entrpreneurial sort of firm.

We shall see.

Posted by Francis W. Porretto at July 10, 2003 03:59 PM

You know, once the technology exists to nano-assemble a dresser, and make it cost-effective to do so, how hard will it be for the record industry to, say, nano-disintegrate the $1 bill in your wallet when you listen to the song? I mean we're talking technology so advanced, it's in the realm of faeries and elves.

Posted by Jon Acheson at July 10, 2003 06:14 PM

Another side effect is what sort of effect will all this have on the people who design, invent and create these things. In the past, because of the economics of scarcity, there was a market for the second and third tier producers for those who couldn't afford the best. But when everyone can get the best for the same cheap price, what happens to all those people? And if the best aren't able to extract multi-millions for their efforts, at what point will they decide to do something else?

For example, with computer generated actors and computer generated voices, who needs to pay for "stars"? Who needs big studios with multi-million dollar budgets whena few people and a lot of software will turn out a product as good or better. For a while, those people who design "actors" and "sets" will be in demand, but even then, one the standards have been set, they won't be needed either. We may soon see movies which reflect a single person's vision or imagination, the equivalent of what novels have been for centuries.

The real problem is that people are still thinking in the realm of a world that operates on the principal of scarcity, and we may be headed for one of those "singularities" that Vinge writes about. And as he points out, the only way to know what lies ahead is to actually experience it.

Posted by Raoul Ortega at July 10, 2003 07:25 PM

"base my defense on asking them to prove I would have bought the music had it not been available online."

I'm afraid you'll find that's no defense for copyright violation, a much different thing than vanilla theft. The RIAA uses the word 'theft' in its rhetoric, but when the lawyers appear they are always prosecuting based on copyright infringement.

Posted by eli at July 11, 2003 08:02 AM

I guess the thing that bothers me most about "intellectual property" is the idea that the "artist" created the music (or book, or whatever) out of thin air, that thousands of musicians and performers didn't inspire and teach.
Let's get extreme for a moment: Jason Newstead leaves Metallica. Let's say his house burns down and he loses all the recordings of his time in the band. According to "intellectual property" laws, if he downloaded the music he contributed and played on from a website, he'd be stealing. How much sense does that make?
Let's say a famous writer scans my blog and it influences a novel he writes. Do you think I'll get any credit? Or any break in the price if I buy it? Or any of portion of the profits?
The current concept of "intellectual property" is based on an outmoded assumption of technology and dissemination.
The example of computer software is exactly what the music industry should be emulating.

Posted by nathan at July 11, 2003 10:54 AM

Taking Rand's reasoning to its logical terminus, one must inevitably conclude that no goods should be valued higher than the exact cost of producing them. For example, suppose a blanket costs $10 to produce, but those greedy curmudgeonous Afghanis are charging $20 for it. If I take the blanket without paying, but then write the manufacturer a check for $10, I haven't "stolen" anything, according to Rand. Rand defines stealing as "someone who once had a physical object no longer has it, and is thereby made poorer" -- I've taken a $10 blanket, but I've compensated the manufacturer by the exact amount of his loss. Thus, on net, the manufacturer is not "made poorer" at all--he's exactly the same.

Of course, Rand's definition of theft is completely ridiculous. Theft is the taking of somebody else's property, intellectual or otherwise, without their consent and has nothing to do with the valuation--market or otherwise--of the good or service. Stealing a CD from a store is barely different from pirating the music itself. The total cost to produce a CD, including costs of materials, distribution, labor, warehousing, etc., is literally pennies. What you're stealing when you steal a CD, whether it's through piracy or from your local Sam Goody, is the effort that went into making that CD. You're stealing the hours and hours of practice the band went through in order to get the songs just right, the bandmembers' advances and royalties, the money spent on marketing, cover design, etc. You're stealing the product of their /intellect/, which is the most egregious theft of all.

Posted by Jason H at July 11, 2003 04:45 PM

Taking Rand's reasoning to its logical terminus, one must inevitably conclude that no goods should be valued higher than the exact cost of producing them.

I didn't read it that way at all. The disconnect he's writing about is between the value held for it by the industry, and the value held for it by the market. The market value has so little to do with the cost-basis value that it is not unheard-of for companies to go out of business because what they can get for their product isn't enough to cover the costs of production.

Jason, you have obviously missed Rand's point completely.

Posted by Kevin McGehee at July 12, 2003 05:49 AM

Part of the reason people don't value music as extravagantly as the music industry does is because for decades the music industry has given it away free via a file-sharing service called "radio."

Posted by Mike G at July 12, 2003 06:41 AM

Kevin: The market value of music is what the owners of it charge. The fact that they're not as low as what you want them to be is irrelevant. The market price isn't determined by consumer whim. I want a brand new computer for 50 cents, but that doesn't entitle me to steal the next Dell I see.

Radio is paid for with advertisements and the record industry gets paid for the music stations play. Also radio encourages people to buy the CD: radio quality is poorer and it isn't an "on-demand" medium.

All that misses the point, which is that pirates are taking the owners' property without their consent. As I said, it has nothing to do with cost. It's all about consent.

Posted by Jason H at July 12, 2003 11:03 AM

The market value of music is what the owners of it charge.

No, it isn't. You're apparently unaware of the meaning of the word "value," which is totally subjective, and changes from individual to individual. What the owners charge is the price, not the value.

The market price isn't determined by consumer whim.

It is, to a large extent. If the customers don't think that the value is as high as the price, they don't purchase the item. The seller then has to drop the price to match the value in order to move the merchandise.

Posted by Rand Simberg at July 12, 2003 01:27 PM

the word "value," ... is totally subjective, and changes from individual to individual.

Value to the individual changes based on his whims, value on the market does not (where's my 50 cent computer?). Don't take my words out of context.

The seller then has to drop the price to match the value in order to move the merchandise.

The seller has to? Retail stores aren't eBay. The seller can charge (ie be willing to charge) whatever price he darn well pleases and suffer the consequences thereof--good or bad. And a consumer can be willing to pay whatever price he wants to and suffer the consequences of that action, even if it means not buying the item. That's because mutual consent is required in any transaction on a free market.

The fact that you're not willing to pay $16 for a CD means you won't get to listen to it, and the unwillingness of the artist to charge 10 cents for his songs means he'll have one less listener and 10 less cents.

How can you support a free market and yet advocate rampant rights violation? What about "mutual consent" don't you understand, Rand?

Posted by Jason H at July 12, 2003 05:08 PM

You continue to confuse "price" and "cost" with "value." Have you ever taken a course in economics?

Posted by Rand Simberg at July 12, 2003 08:03 PM

You still dabble with inessentials. You have to understand context in order to grasp that "value" has different meaning in different situations. "Value", when referring to an individual's personal valuation of some product, is of course subjective. But I never said it wasn't! You're misrepresenting my (less relevant) position for whatever reason and completely ignoring the point of what I said.

I'll grant there are situations when the price can vary from fair market value, but this is not one of them--and that's irrelevant. I never ever said that individuals' valuation of products is set by companies that sell those products, as you are trying to imply here. Nevertheless, the market value of a product does not vary wildly or at all from person to person. It is a market-wide price, the result of the pressures of supply and demand.

Now, if you can stop evading the point of what I said and stop your ad hominem attacks on my intelligence, please tell me how you justify violating the all-important principle of mutual consent and the sanctity of contracts.

Posted by Jason H at July 13, 2003 04:06 AM

I said nothing about your intelligence, and you continue to misuse the word value. Price is not value.

And I didn't justify violating the principle of mutual consent and the sanctity of contracts (certainly not the latter, since I have no contracts with any record companies, or the RIAA).

What I said was that downloading of information, regardless of its legality or morality, was in a different ethical category than robbing banks, and most people (properly, in my opinion) see it that way.

And, for what it's worth, I've never downloaded or shared files, but that's mostly because most popular music is crap, and not worth my time.

Posted by Rand Simberg at July 13, 2003 08:21 AM

Larry Niven (the science fiction writer) speculated in some of his Known Space stories that with sufficient population densities it would be impossible to enforce laws against picking pockets, just as it's practically impossible to enforce jaywalking laws now. In his stories, people treated picking pockets as a huge game, and people kept an ID tag and stamps on their wallets to guarantee their return (sans cash).

Fanciful? Sure -- but the relevant point is that it's very hard to prosecute (criminally or civilly) an action which virtually everyone participates in. And downloading music is damn near universal among younger, wired people, among others.

Copywrite law hasn't caught up with the technology, and it's been misapplied in far too many cases; until that's corrected, the laws will be ignored by a very large fraction of the population. But the music industry seems intent on suicide anyway, in their refusal to comprehend and cater to the real market demands...

Posted by Troy at July 13, 2003 10:15 AM

you continue to misuse the word value. Price is not value.
I never said it was. You fail to grasp the difference between market value and individual valuation of some product.

And I didn't justify violating the principle of mutual consent and the sanctity of contracts

True. You advocate violating mutual consent by acquiring music without the creator's consent, and you advocate violating the sanctity of contracts by using software contrary to the user agreement to which one must agree, but you have yet to justify those positions. They contradict directly the principles of individual rights and a free market.

regardless of its legality or morality, [piracy is] in a different ethical category than robbing banks

You have yet to give any valid reason why we should consider theft of intellectual property as a lesser evil than theft of physical property (which I assume is what you mean by your confusing misuse of "ethical" and "morality" in this context). Your argument about cost or loss or whatever doesn't hold water, as I've already pointed out. The fact that most people seem to think so also does not prove your point.

Which do you support, individual rights and the free market, or rampant, non-consensual theft of others' property? It's not possible to advocate both.

Posted by Jason H at July 13, 2003 11:48 AM

I advocate nothing. I was simply explaining what others' rationale may be.

And you continue to misuse the word "value" and completely miss the point.

Here's a little primer.

Price: the amount of money a purchaser actually pays.

Cost: the amount of money representing the resources consumed in producing, marketing and distributing a product

Value: what the buyer or seller thinks something is worth. If the value to the buyer is greater than the price, then the buyer will purchase it. If the value to the seller is less than the price, then the seller will sell it. If that price is greater than the cost, then the seller makes a profit.

If value to the seller is less than the price, or the value to the buyer is greater than the price, then no sale will occur. This is increasingly what's happening in the music industry.

Posted by Rand Simberg at July 13, 2003 11:59 AM

Rand, look up "market value" in any economics glossary. No, don't turn to 'V', turn to 'M'. Do you understand that "market value" is different from "value", just as "fire truck" is different from "semi truck"?

I advocate nothing. I was simply explaining what others' rationale may be.

Is that so? When you said "He puts forth some hypotheses [about piracy], but misses the most important one (or at least the one that justifies it the most to me)," you were referring to something else? You sure fooled me and every other one of your readers with your extremely sympathetic tone toward piracy and not a single argument or statement against piracy (but several defending it). Do you think piracy is immoral, as it is immoral to violate any license or contract? Or do you, for the sake of some rights-be-damned, whimsical hedonism, support stealing others' property?

Posted by Jason H at July 13, 2003 03:26 PM

The phrase "market value," regardless of whatever utility it may have in some contexts is monumentally irrelevant to my point and this discussion. I was talking about the actual value, which will always be subjective.

And "justifying it most" doesn't necessarily mean justifying it very much.

My point remains that there is a fundamental difference between stealing something when that item is actually transferred from one person to another, and copying something in a way that leaves the person who had it originally no poorer, and to not see that is to be obtuse, deliberately or otherwise.

Whether the latter is ethical is a different subject.

Posted by Rand Simberg at July 13, 2003 04:07 PM

I already explained that there is no fundamental difference. Resorting to argument from intimidation by labelling me "obtuse" is not a valid argument.

Posted by Jason H at July 13, 2003 04:57 PM

No, you didn't explain that. You just thought you did.

The distinction seems to be quite clear to everyone else here and at the Volokh site. I won't speculate further on why it's not to you.

Posted by Rand Simberg at July 13, 2003 05:04 PM

The distinction seems to be quite clear to everyone else here and at the Volokh site.

Just like the difference between taxation and theft. To most people. It is true, then, that you don't support individual rights or a free market; you're more of a "might makes right"/majority rules sort of fellow.

I already identified the essential characteristic of theft, ie taking something without the owner's consent. Your position (loss or cost or whatever) is indefensible as I've already demonstrated. Are you going to attempt to defend it, or just accuse me of missing something "obvious"?

Posted by Jason H at July 13, 2003 06:44 PM

"Taxation versus theft" is an interesting argument, and one that's been thrashed around in many places at many times, but it is utterly irrelevant to this one.

I've taken one more shot at explaining it here.

Posted by Rand Simberg at July 13, 2003 08:06 PM

Jason: The market value of music is what the owners of it charge.

Rand: No, it isn't. You're apparently unaware of the meaning of the word "value," which is totally subjective, and changes from individual to individual. What the owners charge is the price, not the value.

You guys are talking past each other. For what it's worth, though, Rand, Jason is correct on this point. Market value is a specific term of art both in law, and in economics, and is typically defined as the price a seller could reasonably be expected to get (and accept), if the property were for sale on the open market for a reasonable period of time, both buyer and seller being in possession of all pertinent facts, and neither being under any compulsion to act. If people are buying the product on the market at a given price, then it's market value is at least that high. Obviouly, the subjective value of property may be more or less to different buyers. This is true of both tangible and intangible products. For instance, a box of maxi pads may have a market value of $10 (I have no idea), but may have absolutely no subjective value to me. Likewise, a 2 Live Crew CD may have no subjective value to me, but may well have a market value of $11.99.

The term Jason used was market value, however, and I believe that he is using it correctly, and respectfully, Rand, you are not.

Posted by Spoons at July 13, 2003 09:21 PM

And my point, which I repeat, was that the phrase "market value" had no relevance to this particular discussion, because I was describing real value to the actors involved.

Posted by Rand Simberg at July 13, 2003 10:38 PM

Rand, I used "market value" because Kevin brought it up and I responded. I don't know why you thought my comments to Kevin were directed at you or what you said about musicians valuing their products more or less than listeners.

Posted by Jason H at July 14, 2003 02:38 PM

Post a comment