Slowly, ever so slowly, some of the clear thinking with respect to filesharing and intellectual monopoly (imaginary property, if you will) is filtering into more mainstream channels. I was rather pleased to see these two pieces by Joe Konrath and David Gerrold; both say some excellent things before veering off into the content industry’s Bizarro World.
Konrath starts out making some clearheaded observations about filesharing (“piracy”), recognizing that current technology has made copyright unenforceable, that there is no evidence that sharing hurts sales, and that free promotion is a good thing. Much to my dismay, he proceeded to append his post with the smile-erasing quote,
I’d like to make it clear that I believe piracy is stealing. I simply do not equate it with stealing something tangible.
J. A. Konrath, blog post
Wait, what?
Likewise, Gerrold realizes that part of continuing to make money in a changing world involves recognizing what business you are actually in, something Mike Masnick often talks about. Much like the horse buggy industry was actually in the business of transportation, the recording industry is selling entertainment, not plastic discs. Disappointingly, Gerrold caps this off with a false axiom, saying,
Downloading what you haven’t paid for is electric shoplifting—no question.
David Gerrold, Maximum PC
Excuse me?
Both of these authors have undermined their otherwise intelligent pieces by buying into the notion that copying files has some kind of relationship with physical theft. One is infinite, so copying increases the amount available for all, while the other is scarce, where taking deprives somebody else of the object. Still don’t understand? Watch this simple video.
Nobody is breaking into these people’s homes and leaking artwork to the internet; nobody is depriving others of objects. Parroting the deliberate attempt to equate sharing with destructive behavior is ignorant—if you can’t parse the difference, it’s difficult to take you seriously.
4 responses to “Missing the Mark”
I will give you a great example of this. I illegally downloaded all 5 Scott Pilgrim comics. They were awesome. Now I am super pumped to buy a ticket to the movie and buy the 6th Scott Pilgrim book when it comes out.
Had I not downloaded Scott Pilgrim comics, I would not be buying a ticket to the Scott Pilgrim movie or the new book. By getting a copy of it from downloading, they did not lose money from shoplifting and I was convinced to give them money. They earned a net profit.
Comic books do this all the time. They give a 4 or 5 page preview either in a previews catalog (It’s called Previews for god’s sake) or put it online to convince you to purchase the product. The only difference is that my previews are larger, but in the end I still buy some form of the product.
And let’s say I didn’t buy the product after reading my “preview”. I could tell someone I enjoyed reading Scott Pilgrim and maybe they will buy the product. Either way, knowledge about the existence of Scott Pilgrim spreads and it becomes more popular. It sounds like an advertisement campaign without spending money for TV spots or billboard space.
Penis.
Your comment is filled with pounding tools, sharpened metal rods, and directed application of force. I agree with everything you said, which makes me love you all the more.
Hippocampus.
Personally, I think the problems you highlight here go even deeper than anybody — even Masnick (forward thinking as he tends to be) wants to think.
1. First, there’s just something fundamentally wrong with the phrase “economics of abundance”. Economics is *about* “allocating scarce resources” (where “scarce == “non-infinite”).
So, the notion of an economics of “non-scarce resources” is just fundamentally unsound in the extreme, if not a blatant oxymoron.
2. There’s something equally horrifying about how people are reacting to the *first truly efficient* production/distribution channel in human history. Media that is “born digital” is infinitely more easy to produce, work with, copy, distribute, etc.
1. The rules of basic economics (that is, supply and demand) definitely apply to non-scarce resources. That’s what explains why the price rapidly reaches $0 even as the value remains unchanged or even increases. Not applying basic economics leads people to believe in bogus ideas, such as the one that because they are selling something for a price, people have to pay it.
2. It’s wildly different than anything we’ve been used to, not to mention upsetting to a number of business models. Home 3D printing and object fabrication is going to be another game-changer.