4892625
story
Comments: 326 +- Your Rights Online: Harvard Study Says Weak Copyright Benefits Society on Thursday June 18 2009, @03:56AM
Posted
by
samzenpus
on Thursday June 18 2009, @03:56AM
from the free-is-good dept.
from the free-is-good dept.
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicinternet.gif); width:70px; height:73px;
internet
An anonymous reader writes "Michael Geist summarizes
an important new study on file sharing from economists Felix
Oberholzer-Gee and Koleman Strumpf. The Harvard Business School working paper
finds that given the increase in artistic production along with the
greater public
access conclude that 'weaker copyright protection, it seems, has
benefited society.' The authors point out that file sharing may not
result in
reduced incentives to create if the willingness to pay for
'complements' such as concerts or author speaking tours increases."
Related Stories
Submission: Harvard Study Says Weak Copyright Benefits Society by Anonymous Coward
A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely
rearranging their prejudices.
-- William James
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2010 Geeknet, Inc.
Pointless (Score:5, Insightful)
So what? (Score:5, Insightful)
The media industry is not society. Why would they care if society benefits if their bottom line does not also benefit?
Parent
Re:So what? (Score:5, Interesting)
But ... their bottom line *could* benefit if they add value to the physical items they sell (eg. if their CD comes with an official t-shirt, sew-on patch, etc).
Parent
Re:So what? (Score:5, Interesting)
You know, that's something I just simply don't understand: Why don't they bundle some crap with the CDs? Cheap trinkets that cost close to zero but make the fans happy?
You needn't go fancy. How about the "official, signed photograph"? Of course the signature is printed, but who cares? You can ONLY get it with THIS CD! (sure, others may exist, but THIS very special autograph picture is only available that way)
It's not like this would break the bank. But then again, they don't even include booklets anymore in CDs, why would I assume they could spend half a buck for a cheap crappy picture print?
Parent
Re:So what? (Score:4, Interesting)
Personally, I couldn't give a crap who the artist is, much less about having their signed photograph. To paraphrase a common saying, "It's the information, stupid." People want information, because they know information is power. Anything that gets in their way will be mown down. It's really that simple.
What can big media distribution companies do for money now that the internet has replaced their distribution model? Well, it's simple: they do the same thing spinning wheel operators did when the industrial revolution made it easy to get quality thread. They retrain, and get a new job --- one that's relevant and useful to the newer, more evolved society. They could become specialist, old-school, niche-market distributors for a select few, much like you can still go to a craft store and find hand-woven fabrics etc., but in that case, they'll need to be happy with their niche status, and their much reduced income. Not least, because people in hobbyist niche markets expect their suppliers to be decent people doing it for the love of tradition, rather than hate.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Look at games like Guitar Hero, excellent, fun games that could quite easily be pirated but what is the point of having the game without the nice guitar to play it with. Same goes for rock band etc. More bespoke controllers and extras that make the game worth playing and consumers are quite happy to pay through the nose for it and not bother trying to pi
Re:So what? (Score:5, Insightful)
The RIAA isn't making money because it's stuck in a rut with a 1990's business model. A big reason that people pirate music is because the RIAA isn't giving them what they want and the P2P networks are. What most people want is that song they heard on the radio in a format that works on their MP3 player (and no trip to the shops to get it). Apple is doing Ok with their iTunes store because they're doing this (though it's still a bit heavy handed with the DRM - I want files I can put on a USB stick and plug it into my car/HiFI).
The CD sales model? Not so much. The only people I know who still buy CDs are the ones who aren't handy with a PC. This is doomed business model. Period.
I don't care if the RIAA dies but I do care about all the laws they're buying that are rushed and later get misused (eg. DMCA).
Parent
Re:So what? (Score:4, Insightful)
Years ago we've done some work for a record label to promote an artist. When the job was over, we received a few "special" complimentary CDs - a lot better packaging, hand-signed, lots of extras. It was really nice and it succeeded in making us feel, well, special. It was probably a short-run that was given to press and so on as part of the promotion.
So they CAN do it. If, instead of a cheap plastic holder and some paper they'd add something of value, people would have an extra incentive to buy the CD as opposed to download the mp3 (legally or not).
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
They could even look to the cereal industry for ways of doing these promotions. Cereal boxes all the time will offer something only to require that the person mail in a request form and pay some small shipping and handling fee. They could, as you said, include a code for a free 4x6 photo and then, when the photo is shipped to the person, toss in a mini-catalog with other band items the person can buy. Posters, hats, t-shirts, etc. Heck, it could just be a small card with the URL to the band's Zazzle.com
Re:So what? (Score:4, Informative)
You know, that's something I just simply don't understand: Why don't they bundle some crap with the CDs? Cheap trinkets that cost close to zero but make the fans happy?
Don't you already get that? Most CDs come with a booklet with lyrics and photos of the artists, and they're often little works of art in themselves. It's one of the reasons why I prefer real CDs over downloads.
But then again, they don't even include booklets anymore in CDs,
They don't? Since when? I admit it's been a couple of month since I've bought a new CD, but usually it's only the really old albums that don't come with a booklet.
Parent
Re:So what? (Score:5, Insightful)
I read the first ten or so pages of the PDF before posting, and the intended audience was obviously not the media companies. I would guess that that audience would be law makers. The paper clearly states that social welfare for artists is not the intended consequence of copyrights, but that encouraging production is.
I found most of the arguments in the front section (which were probably more general and less supported than ones later in the paper) to be logical and well-reasoned, except for the part about authors generating income through speaking tours, which I doubt would be effective for any but the most famous.
I'll definitely read the rest of the paper this weekend.
Parent
Re:So what? (Score:4, Insightful)
Their bottom line DOES benefit. Their problem is that their indie competetion, who don't have radio and empty-v, also benefit. The mainstream recording industry doesn't want to keep Metallica out of your ears, they want to keep indie music out of your ears.
Parent
Re:Pointless (Score:5, Insightful)
Indeed, since the media "industry" - the guys that buy the lawyers and Senators - have no interest in "creating" anything. Their job is to exploit other peoples' creations. Whether the creators get rewarded or not is utterly irrelevant to them.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
They will learn. They will learn, or they will die.
The recent Virgin/Universal deal [slashdot.org] that was covered here on slashdot is an example of things moving in the right direction. In case you don't remember: A UK ISP will offer something very close to Magnatune, for Virgin/Universal's music. You can make a monthly payment for an all-you-can-eat buffet. Yeah, there are still some minor issues (they still want to disconnect people without any trial, and they still won't let you give a friend a copy), but it's a huge
Re:Pointless (Score:5, Insightful)
The media industry DOES believe it. In fact they have known it for a long time. This is easily demonstrable in that people listen to their radios and then turn around and go to concerts and other things. Radio play does not necessarily equate to CD sales unless the buyer is more or less a fan. On the radio the music is already effectively free. (Yes I know it is paid for by advertising and that the radio stations pay the music publishers for the right to play. But to the listener, it's free.)
The music publishers only have music to publish. That's what they sell. They don't do concerts. They might have the rights to sell t-shirts and other things as well, but their primary income is selling music. If the study says free music is better for society, they already know that. If the study says free music is better for artists, they already know that. The study effectively says that the music publishers are bad for society and are holding everyone back with their business model. Do you expect them to care? I don't.
This study is for legislators to listen to, not "the enemy."
Parent
Equally Pointless (Score:3, Insightful)
These kind of studies are largely pointless. We already know this, and the media industry will not believe it regardless of how many studies come to this conclusion.
It is equally pointless to post a summary of this economic paper to slashdot. Everyone here "already knows" the answers.
Let me explain what it means when an economist says "society benefits". (By the way, I am one.) If a policy change causes Person A to lose $1 and Person B to gain $2, then "society benefits". If a policy change causes Persons A and B and C each to lose $1,000, but Person D gains $5,000, then "society benefits".
If you RTFpdf, you'll notice one argument they make: While file sharing may
Re:Pointless (Score:5, Funny)
Really? And here I was under the impression that "politics" stems from "poly" meaning many, and "ticks" meaning "little blood sucking pests".
Parent
Re:Pointless (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
"Polis" which means "great gathering of lobbyists"
What? Did you just make that up? If politicians are nothing but lobbyists, whom exactly would they be lobbying?
Polis is the greek word for their contemporary city/state. Politics would be things "of the state" (e.g. governance).
Re:Pointless (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, no we don't know this, but, most importantly, it does not matter. This misses the point. The copyrights ought to exist, because the creators of things, that are hard to create but easy to replicate -- like software, literature, music, video, fashion design, what have you -- ought to enjoy to lesser control of their creations, than creators of things tangible.
Didn't you read the last post I made responding to you? Fashion design is not copyrightable, at least in the United States, and never has been, so why do you keep bringing it up, and perhaps pretending that it is? It's very odd. And it's certainly an unusual example to bring up in any case, since most people wouldn't think of it as a creative work, particularly around here.
Anyway, assuming you misspoke when you said that "creators ... ought to enjoy lesser control," you're wrong. This has nothing to do with fairness. The world, it is well known, is not fair. And while it might be a good idea to make it more fair, surely we must prioritize our efforts such that we make things more fair for the most people before moving on to increased fairness for smaller groups, all the while not making things less fair for anyone, nor reducing the amount of increased fairness we've already brought about. Well, there are more readers of books than there are authors of books. So not only do the readers have more power in a democratic society, but making things fair for them surely must take precedence, if fairness is truly your goal, as opposed to, say, pandering to special interests while disguising yourself in noble-sounding lies about fairness.
The world seems to be made in such a way that things that are hard to create, but easy to copy are, well, easy to copy. If I come up with a good story which entertains and enlightens people who hear it, then surely it would be most fair to those who have not yet heard it if they could hear it from more than one person. After all, even if I went on the speaking tour from hell, and printed a lot of books, and distributed them all over, I'm sure to miss some people who cannot take the time to see me, cannot afford to buy a book, can't read, don't know the language I work in, etc. Letting others fill in the gaps that I, a mere one person cannot possibly fill myself, is a better method than letting them go unenlightened and unentertained. Copyright would prohibit this.
A lack of copyright, OTOH, certainly wouldn't prohibit me still going on tour and selling books, it would merely mean I'd face more competition. Since copyright didn't exist anywhere until the 18th century, and didn't exist most places until well into the 19th and 20th centuries, yet world literature got along okay, and has likely benefited more from things like improved printing technology, increased literacy, increased leisure time, improved methods of transporting books, etc. than it has from mere copyright, we can be pretty confident that the lack of copyright would not be a big deal.
Of course, it's not fairness, per se, that copyright is interested in. The goal of copyright is to promote the progress of science (i.e. knowledge) by encouraging the creation and publication of more original and derivative creative works, and having those works be as minimally copyrighted in both scope and duration as possible in the process, and fully in the public domain as rapidly as possible, since it is only then that the people of the world can take advantage of the easy-to-copy nature of the world that you have noticed, and help themselves the most. Since there are more of them than there are of authors, this is appropriate. Since it aids authors as well (e.g. Disney making films based upon public domain fairy tales), it's even more appropriate.
This derives not from it being economically beneficial (which it may or may not be), but from simple fairness. A book-writer ought to be no less protected from thieves, than a shoemaker...
An author and a cordwainer are pretty much protected the same. A tangib
Parent
in today's America (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:in today's America (Score:5, Insightful)
Lets see...
70 year copyright terms that continue to be perpetually extended.
150K per song statutory damages for individuals.
Tools that allow you to put your own DVD on your own iPod are illegal.
Parent
Other studies tell the same story (Score:5, Informative)
A downloaded movie, CD or game is not equal to a product not sold, say the researchers. Also, "Amongst downloaders of music and film, the percentage of buyers is as high as with non-downloaders, in games, the percentage of buyers even higher. Music downloaders are also more likely to concerts and buy more merchandise. Downloaders buy more games than gamers who never downloaded and movies downloaders buy more DVDs than non-downloaders."
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Did the study consider questions of causality?
Meet Alice. She buys two games per year. Now meet Bob. He downloads five games per year, and buys five.
If Alice started downloading two games per year instead of buying, would she start playing more games? At the current state, why isn't she playing more games?
If it's the price, letting her download wouldn't seem to change things. If it's her lack of interest, offering her something she doesn't want for free isn't going to change things.
It seems that the ob
Err.. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Err.. (Score:5, Insightful)
The same question would be: What if you are a painter and you paint only for a niche of the market? You make less money. But if you love the art, that's where your hart lies and that's what will make you happy.
Sure, you can go commercial and make more money, but that would probably negatively affect your happiness so you will have to choose and possible compromise.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The same question would be: What if you are a painter and you paint only for a niche of the market? You make less money. But if you love the art, that's where your hart lies and that's what will make you happy.
Sure, you can go commercial and make more money, but that would probably negatively affect your happiness so you will have to choose and possible compromise.
Well said. I was going to say something along the lines of:
What if you're a food critic. You love traveling to exotic locations and sampling new food items for free, but you don't like having to write about it later. How do we, as a society, make your wishes profitable?
Re:Err.. (Score:4, Interesting)
Yeah, the only difference is, like it or not, right now the studio artist makes $1-2 for each album sold, without it, well, he'd make nothing.
That's actually not so true today. Check out the distribution one can buy these days:
http://gc.guitarcenter.com/tunecore/ [guitarcenter.com]
The problem is there are too many stupid artists, and I say this as an artist myself. Most seem to not take any time or trouble at all to even learn about basic copyright, never mind researching the various types of contracts available or that could be demanded from labels if they bothered to organize and put collective pressure on all the labels. More are beginning to adopt online distribution, however there are still plenty of pitfalls for the unwary & lazy.
Most are too self-centered around their art and ego. The big "Gold Ring" they drive for is to "get signed", and most of them are without any real clue as to what that can actually mean when you're talking about dealing with a record label.
Those kinds of artists get chewed up and spit out, ending up as burned-out cynical husks touring crappy venues in a crappy bus, living on less income than they'd make at a burger joint, trying to pay off what they "owe" to the record label after the third album, which the label didn't really promote much anyway, while still tied contractually to the label and unable to break free without paying the label tons more money on top of the mint they've already made the label.
Here's a piece I post a link to when this topic comes up. It's a bit cynical and also dated, but the situation he describes here is generally pretty accurate in how labels tend to treat bands/artists, which is generally as crappy as the band/artist lets them get away with.
http://www.negativland.com/albini.html [negativland.com]
Until artists make more effort to educate themselves about the business/legal end of the music biz and stop throwing themselves into the big-label roasting pit carrying their own bucket of BBQ sauce, not much will change. As long as the labels have lambs begging to be slaughtered and handing them the axe while shoving the previous lambs' remains off the block to make room, why would they want to change?
Strat
Parent
Re:Err.. (Score:5, Insightful)
They can still do that.
I swear to God, sometimes it's like people equate "loss of some monopoly privileges" with "absolutely forbidden to sell a disc ever again".
Yes, some people will download instead of buying the CD or paying for it on iTunes. Others will find the artist through file-sharing sites and buy something to either support the artist, own the physical CD or just to feel good inside. On the whole, these effects evens out pretty well, except for the minority of really big artists who lose a bit of income and the majority of really small artists who gain from being more exposed. This is, generally speaking, a good thing since the incomes in the copyright industry is very uneven compared to other industries.
Parent
Re:Err.. (Score:4, Interesting)
By the way, just record music, distribute music and ask donation to make another album. If people are unwilling to pay you for that, well, maybe it is better for you to stop. Or not. Not very long ago, most musicians did not expect to earn any money at all. Those surviving thanks to their art only had music-hall pays. Records were a new thing, that changed the landscape completely and now it changes again. Now even a novice artist can reach millions of people if he manages to make ONE good tune. But he lost the ability to win millions of dollars once he established a trademark.
Parent
Re:Err.. (Score:5, Insightful)
What the hell does it have to do with anything? I'm talking about artists getting a cut of the money on albums they sell. If the market will buy, it means you created value, value which you should get.
But if the market won't buy, what does it mean ? That you didn't create value or that someone steals from you ?
Bullshit. If you knew anything about classical music...
I'm talking about the 1900' before the record industry went up. But yes if we go further back in time, we find composers (not musicians, musicians just had a regular salary when part of an orchestra or were itinerant artists if not) that are paid for commissioned work. A model that worked well enough to provide us with Mozart's and Bach's music. Why could this model not be used today ? Instead of some rich aristocrat, you would have donation from thousands or millions of people asking for new songs, et voila...
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Copyright in the U.S. was not created as a social welfare device, but as an incentive to create. The question this research paper raises is whether strong copyright actually creates that incentive or not.
You keep calling other people dense, but I think it's you that doesn't get the argument that's occurring.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Copyright in the U.S. was not created as a social welfare device, but as an incentive to create. The question this research paper raises is whether strong copyright actually creates that incentive or not.
You keep calling other people dense, but I think it's you that doesn't get the argument that's occurring.
At last a comment that makes a bit of sense. You're right about copyright, its use is questionable. The problem with other people's comment that I deemed 'dense' was that they said artists shouldn't get a dime for their studio work. The problem at hand is copyright, not the actual sale of albums. Even without copyright you can sell albums. In that sense, the comments in question are indeed quite retarded.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
'Armchair Pirates' (lol) don't force anyone to give anything for free. They redistribute for free what they already have access to, if I was an artist I would say they would be doing me a favour by distributing my work for me. If you mean forcing people to give away for free by undermining copyright.. how is not asking for money worse than forcing people to give you money?
Basically you decide arbitrarily that studio recorded music should be free, and therefore as a sort of feedback loop that makes it inherently unworthy of any money. You can't just say "this should be free, make it free" for something that's not free and that the market validated as something you can ask money for.
Firstly, information is already free. The law might want to change the way reality works but you're not going to win an argument by sayin
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Get a job. (Score:5, Insightful)
Get a job like the rest of us? You can't just label yourself an artist and go around whining about loss of income if you don't want to go the extra mile. I'm terribly sorry for people's overly romantic view of stardom, but it just sucks, especially if you're not a star (yet).
By the way, pretty much any artist has a side job. In my experience, the more serious the job is, the less serious the artist is about being an artist and vice versa. There is only a very limited subset of artists that can make a living from their art.
Parent
Re:Err.. (Score:4, Insightful)
are you sure?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3D_printing [wikipedia.org]
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Err.. (Score:5, Informative)
[...], Picasso all died more or less penniless,
How wrong! Picasso was probably one of the commercially most successful artists. His fortune has been estimated at $50m. [bbc.co.uk]
Parent
copyrights were meant to be weak (Score:5, Insightful)
Copyright was invented to allow creators to get an income from their creations before the creations are released to the public domain. The state should have stood firm in keeping the copyright protection short. However they didn't, but instead succumbed to the "industry" interests. This resulted to turning every creation in a cash-cow with no expiry date, which obviously hinders innovation and creation: there is little incentive to create a second good work since the first one you created will provide you and your descendants with a steady flow of cash for the next 200 years.
I understand that the above is a bit simplified because it omits the role of the "industry" in the flow of cash. The "industry" pimps will absorb much of the cash intended for the creator (after all, they forced him to sell them for pennies the copyright of his work). This will keep the creator going because he doesn't really earn that much to retire. But it will also degrade his output because he knows that even if he does really-really good with his next creation, it is the "industry" pimps that will get the most out of his work.
Still quite simplified, but I think you get my point: You can't grant quasi-perpetual copyright protection (google "The Mickey Mouse Protection Act") and still expect the same amount of innovative creations.
I was just telling this the other day.. (Score:3, Interesting)
I am not trying to defend pirates at all here.
But I was just telling somebody about that possibility last week.
I had just watched an interview with an old theater actor which is pretty wealthy today. He said he made most of his money acting in theaters almost everyday, 2 or 3 shows a day. He said: "That was real work, there was almost no TV or movies in those times."
He added: "Pay was god, because not that many people would be crazy enough to do it, but we had a lot of fun and I enjoyed every minute of it".
I then envisioned things like a return of the pendulum, which sometimes seems like something natural in society. Nowadays, a limited set of actors get work making movies/TV shows and get paid the big bucks. Either you get famous and make millions or you starve. A lot more actors/musicians would get work if they had to do live shows. I can see how more diversity, thus availability would benefit society. Of course, the big names would lose but this is another story already largely covered here before..
I guess the point I am trying to make is that even if technology is involved, like with nature, society seem sometimes driven by a magical hand that cause a return of the pendulum at some point when we have reached a breaking point in one direction ;-)) Like nature, society sometimes seem to tend to come back to an equilibrium by itself !!
Interesting (Score:3)
Not causation - AGAIN! (Score:5, Insightful)
Copyright Clause (Score:4, Informative)
"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."
I wish people would actually read the constitution.
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts," : not to promote the interests of monied pockets of power.
"securing limited Time to Authors and Inventors," : limited time (we've gone over this time and time again), but *Authors* and *Inventors*
The people that wrote the constitution were damn smart people. Too bad we stopped listening. Copyright is supposed to benefit all of us so of course a limited copyright span that balances the rights of *Authors* (not Corporations) vs. the public is the best. Here's to another study that didn't need to be done.
Amusing in the context of the paper (Score:4, Funny)
This working paper is distributed for purposes of comment and discussion only. It may not be reproduced without permission of the copyright holder.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You want media companies to run stories on how copyright might be bad?
Email me privately, I've got an offer you'll be interested in.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They are not famous enough to make any income from such "complements."
Why is that my problem?
If 95% of [insert poor helpless group] can't make any income from [insert some lifestyle choice they want] it is not society's problems. Its theirs. If they can't make it as an artist then don't quit your day job.
Re:Flawed logic (Score:5, Insightful)
So the artists need to find a way to get paid in some other way. Most smaller bands don't make any appreciable money fom record sales anyway (if they even produce recordings of their shows) but work on a per-gig basis: You hire them, they play at your venue. So bigger bands have to do this as well, only they call it a tour. Or you produce stuff of intrinsic value and sell that - for example by bundling your CDs with something physical your fans are going to like. Or even auctioning off the gold master of your studio album if you're big enough. Or just by selling your music on vinyl.
The problem bands face is that the current distribution model has become obsolete. Extending copyright is not going to change that, especially as the labels now have the copyright for longer than the artist lives, so they'll keep profiting off his work when he won't be able to benefit from that profit (leaving aside that the artist only sees a small fraction of what the label makes).
Parent
Re:Different views on "society" (Score:5, Insightful)
Nope, it is not a differing view on "society", but rather a differing view on "good".
For the society outside of the corporations, "good" is, generally, more creativity, i.e. less copyright. Less copyright means less monopoly, and less monopoly provides generally a better allocation of the resources of society. Of course, it'll make those lawyers, who want to succeed in the creative business work harder, but ain't that the American way anyway? Incidentally, this freedom may make people who invest in art more focused on the art itself as opposed to taking the easy way out -- owning copyrights and doing a failed remake after remake.
For the corporations, "good" is exactly the opposite. A corporation doesn't give a damn about what is good for society, as long as it benefits the corporate bottom line. Monopoly is the best way to insure a bottom line, especially in the view of the corporate owners (see, e.g. concepts like "economic moat"). So, a corporation will allocate resources not for new art, but for protection of lucrative copyrights, and for politics. Neither of which is good for art, or society.
If you take a look, you'll see that's exactly what's been happening in the decades since the ifpies and the wipos of the world came about.
Parent