|
DiegodelaPuenteSecondPaper 16 - 28 Jan 2012 - Main.DiegodelaPuente
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="SecondPaper" |
|---|
UNDER REVISION | | | You can compete with zero
| |
<
< | Copyright is no longer needed in the Internet society where we live in. It is outdated and lacks of effectiveness, because it does not consider the social changes that technology has generated. When Copyright was born it was believed that monopolistic financial incentives stimulate artistic production and that it will guarantee artists a decent income. However, as Ithiel de Sola Pool conceived in 1983, copyright practices become unworkable with the arrival of electronic reproduction. Moreover, in recent years, some scholars such as Danny Colligan had written about why Copyright is detrimental to society, referring that its enforcement by the government necessarily entails monitoring computer communications and erodes public domain and free culture. | >
> | Copyright is no longer needed in the Internet society. It is outdated and lacks of effectiveness, because it does not consider the social changes that technology has generated. When Copyright was born it was believed that monopolistic financial incentives stimulate artistic production and that it will guarantee artists a decent income. However, as Ithiel de Sola Pool conceived in 1983, copyright practices become unworkable with the arrival of electronic reproduction. Moreover, in recent years, some scholars such as Danny Colligan had written about why Copyright is detrimental to society, referring that its enforcement by the government necessarily entails monitoring computer communications and erodes public domain and free culture. | | | In this new age, content is information and on a computer, information is anything that can be digitized, that is, encoded in a sequence of zeros and ones. In that order of ideas, information has two important properties that modify the foundations of Copyright: it is both non-exclusive (any number of people can access and use it simultaneously) and non-rivalrous (the fact that one person has more information does not imply that another person has less). | |
<
< | Under this new scenario, the ownership idea must be change for access, sharing and selling added value. For example, Michael Masnik (Techdirt) explains that people do not buy “a movie”; they buy the “experience” of going to the theater. They like the differentiated value they can get from bundled goods and services that helps justify a price that is more than $0. Kevin Kelly (Wired Magazine) clarifies this approach and sustained that under actual technological circumstances, the idea is not to sell books or music copies, because they must be available to everyone, instead content industry should follow the path of attention to consumer preferences and provide intangible value to the content. In that sense, Kelly defined eight categories of intangible value that consumers will buy when they consider that it is worth value to pay for: immediacy, personalization, interpretation, authenticity (quality), accessibility, embodiment, patronage and findability. These generatives demand an understanding of how abundance breeds a sharing mindset. | >
> | Under this new scenario, the ownership idea must be change for access, sharing and selling added value. For example, Michael Masnik (Techdirt) explains that people do not buy “a movie”; they buy the “experience” of going to the theater. They like the differentiated value they can get from bundled goods and services that helps justify a price that is more than $0. Kevin Kelly (Wired Magazine) clarifies this approach and sustained that under actual technological circumstances, the idea is not to sell books or music copies, because they must be available to everyone, instead content industry should follow the path of attention to consumer preferences and provide intangible value to the content. In that sense, Kelly defined eight categories of intangible value that consumers will buy when they consider that it is worth value to pay for: immediacy, personalization, interpretation, authenticity (quality), accessibility, embodiment, patronage and findability. These generatives demand an understanding of how abundance breeds a sharing mindset. | | | | |
<
< | In accordance to the referred economical model, and proposing the freemium business model (combination of free and premium), Fred Wilson stated that the market will identify the right point to pay money to information providers, when they see a real value: “free gets you to the place where you can ask to get paid.” Wilson’s model realizes that the cost of delivering many services over the Internet has decreased significantly from what it cost to deliver them in the analog world. Thus, once you have built a large audience providing free content, then you can offer premium priced value added services or an enhanced version of your service to your customer base. | >
> | In accordance to the referred economical model, and proposing the freemium business model (combination of free and premium), Fred Wilson stated that the market will identify the right point to pay money to information providers, when they see a real value: “free gets you to the place where you can ask to get paid.” Wilson’s model realizes that the cost of delivering many services over the Internet has decreased significantly from what it cost to deliver them in the analog world. Thus, once you have built a large audience providing free content, then you can offer premium priced value added services or an enhanced version of your service to your customer base. | | | | |
<
< | In 1997 and in a more economical sense, Eric Schlachter described that the profit-maximizing price on the Internet will be where marginal revenue equals marginal cost, because intellectual property will be cross subsidized by other products in a manner sufficient to cover the fixed costs associated with intellectual property creation and distribution. Under this statement, Schlachter considered that a market price of zero for intellectual property can still create long-term economic profits by means of advertising, sales of upgrade models and sales of complementary technology. Michele Boldrin and David K. Levine, also contribute to this economical discussion demonstrating potential profitability in an age of unrestricted copying. In their book, Against Intellectual Monopoly, they discuss several instances where the absence of copyright has not led to bankruptcy, and in the contrary some industries became profitable. For instance, consumers may often pay to get access to the breaking news stories first, even though the same will eventually be available to the public at a later time. Recently, Pandora, MOG and Spotify business models follow this path in the music industry, where users would listen for free, but they would have to submit to a few minutes of advertisement every hour. | >
> | In 1997 and in a more economical sense, Eric Schlachter described that the profit-maximizing price on the Internet will be where marginal revenue equals marginal cost, because intellectual property will be cross subsidized by other products in a manner sufficient to cover the fixed costs associated with intellectual property creation and distribution. Under this statement, Schlachter considered that a market price of zero for intellectual property can still create long-term economic profits by means of advertising, sales of upgrade models and sales of complementary technology. Michele Boldrin and David K. Levine, also contribute to this economical discussion demonstrating potential profitability in an age of unrestricted copying. In their book, Against Intellectual Monopoly, they discuss several instances where the absence of copyright has not led to bankruptcy, and in the contrary some industries became profitable. For instance, consumers may often pay to get access to the breaking news stories first, even though the same will eventually be available to the public at a later time. Recently, Pandora, MOG and Spotify business models follow this path in the music industry, where users would listen for free, but they would have to submit to a few minutes of advertisement every hour. | | |
- Richard Stallman, Misinterpreting Copyright (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/misinterpreting-copyright.html) | |
<
< | - Kevin Kelly, Better than Free (January 31, 2008) (http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/kelly08/kelly08_index.html)
- Michele Boldrin and David K. Levine, Against Intellectual Monopoly (November 11, 2005) (http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/against.htm)
- Mike Masnik, Saying You Can't Compete With Free Is Saying You Can't Compete Period, Techdirt (February 15, 2007) (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070215/002923.shtml)
- Fred Wilson, Freemium and Freeconomics (July 4, 2009) (http://www.avc.com/a_vc/2009/07/freemium-and-freeconomics.html) | | | Once again, you should
rewrite in actual hypertext, putting the links in the text where they |
|
|
DiegodelaPuenteSecondPaper 15 - 23 Jan 2012 - Main.DiegodelaPuente
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="SecondPaper" |
|---|
| |
>
> | UNDER REVISION | | | | |
<
< | Copyright is no longer needed in the Internet society where we live in
"Where we live in" doesn't work. "In which we live," or "where we live" or even "society" full stop would be better choices. | >
> | Copyright is no longer needed in the Internet society | | | -- By DiegodelaPuente - 15 Nov 2011 |
|
|
DiegodelaPuenteSecondPaper 14 - 19 Jan 2012 - Main.EbenMoglen
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="SecondPaper" |
|---|
| |
<
< | READY FOR FIRST REVISION | >
> | | | | Copyright is no longer needed in the Internet society where we live in | |
>
> | "Where we live in" doesn't work. "In which we live," or "where we live" or even "society" full stop would be better choices. | | | -- By DiegodelaPuente - 15 Nov 2011 | | | - Fred Wilson, Freemium and Freeconomics (July 4, 2009) (http://www.avc.com/a_vc/2009/07/freemium-and-freeconomics.html) | |
>
> | Once again, you should
rewrite in actual hypertext, putting the links in the text where they
can be consulted with minimal breakage of flow in reading. They're
very much less useful here. You use "economical" throughout these
grafs where "economic" is colloquial. | | | The blindness continues
Despite the economical and social reasons given above to eliminate Copyright; once more, as in the case of telecommunications regulation, U.S. Congress has favored private interests and is attempting to strengthen Copyright by means of the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), that tries to expand the U.S. Department of Justice and copyright holders’ power allowing seeking court orders against websites outside U.S. jurisdiction accused of infringing on copyrights, or of enabling or facilitating copyright infringement. Moreover, without understanding our actual technological sharing world without frontiers, Representative Lamar Smith, one of the chief sponsors of the bill, said, “SOPA is needed because rogue websites are stealing and selling American innovations”. | |
>
> | No. Congress wasn't
trying to do that, and isn't going to do it. Congress was trying to
take the money of people who want to do that, while also taking the
money of those who want it not to be done. They have
succeeded. | | | Content industries monopolies, particularly represented by the Motion Picture Association of America, Recording Industry Association of America and Business Software Alliance have rejected the discussed vision of a world with the absence of Copyright, primarily by their fear to loose the millionaire earnings they received under the current ownership system and try to district public attention and opinion disguising their intentions stating that Copyright will protect artist’s intellectual property, including the resultant revenue and jobs. Even the Obama Administration itself has played an active role in secret negotiations between Hollywood, the recording industry and ISPs in this matter as Wired Magazine has revealed recently.
| |
>
> | Actually, the primary
difference between the WH and the Congress here was only that the WH
tried to take both sides' money while also engaging in responsible
policy-making. But, having in mind that it's an election year, which
means that anybody with any muscle and skill can stop anything, it
was really a rigged game in the first place. Your analysis, like
most of what's been written about this, has not the slightest tinge
of reality to it. | | | - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Online_Piracy_Act | | | Information sources | |
>
> | Once again, you should incorporate the links into the text. If they on't help with what you've written, this isn't the place for them, either. | | | Stop Online Piracy Act
- Stop Online Piracy Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Online_Piracy_Act) | | | - What would Jesus hack? Cybertheology: Just how much does Christian doctrine have in common with the open-source software movement?, The Economist (http://www.economist.com/node/21527031) | |
>
> | Overall, I think you've done a pretty good job of expanding around the edges of the argument I offered in class. Ithiel de Sola Pool was indeed very perceptive very early, but he didn't follow up. Danny Colligan, on the other hand, has never in my recollection said anything I haven' said first.
But I think the most evident avenue to improvement of the essay is to
drop the never-accurate and now evidently imprecise analysis of the
significance of SOPA/PIPA. There's a purely US context, which has to
do with the shifting politics of Hollywood and the Net: this marks the
past-noonday start of Hollywood's decline as a political heavyweight.
Night will come on fast.
But the more important realities are international, having to do with
the overall confrontation now unrolling between states and
intermediaries: their tame telecomms, the North American data miners,
etc. In this confrontation, "copyright piracy" is just one among
many excuses for efforts to implant state power more deeply in the
Net, and by no means the most important. The real issue here, I
think, is what you want to build the second half of the paper on,
given that the US legislation is now revealed to be no part of the
major issue. | | |
You are entitled to restrict access to your paper if you want to. But we all derive immense benefit from reading one another's work, and I hope you won't feel the need unless the subject matter is personal and its disclosure would be harmful or undesirable. |
|
|
DiegodelaPuenteSecondPaper 13 - 05 Dec 2011 - Main.DiegodelaPuente
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="SecondPaper" |
|---|
| |
<
< | The Stop Online Piracy Act: the blindness continues | >
> | READY FOR FIRST REVISION
Copyright is no longer needed in the Internet society where we live in | | | -- By DiegodelaPuente - 15 Nov 2011 | |
<
< | The Futile Stop Online Piracy Act discussion | >
> | You can compete with zero | | | | |
<
< | U.S. Congress’ discussion about the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) does not contribute to the Net’s growth; on the contrary, it distracts public attention to the real issue: copyright is no longer needed in the Internet society where we live in. SOPA tries to expand the U.S. Department of Justice and copyright holders’ power allowing seeking court orders against websites outside U.S. jurisdiction accused of infringing on copyrights, or of enabling or facilitating copyright infringement. Without understanding our actual technological sharing world without frontiers, Representative Lamar Smith, one of the chief sponsors of the bill, said, “SOPA is needed because rogue websites are stealing and selling American innovations”. Moreover, even SOPA’s most famous detractors, Google, Facebook, AOL and Twitter, are only arguing about Internet censorship or chilling effects on speech, rather than proposing a radical change to the actual copyright framework in accordance with new technological trends, which is intended by many recognized scholars and scientists, such as Kevin Kelly (Wired Magazine), Richard Stallman (Free Software Foundation), Fred Wilson (Union Square Ventures) and Mike Masnick (Techdirt).
Unfortunately, this new vision of content industries with the absence of copyright law has been rejected by content industries monopolies, represented by the Motion Picture Association of America, Recording Industry Association of America or Business Software Alliance and the American Government itself as Wired Magazine have revealed recently. Principally, these monopolies feared to loose the millionaire earnings they received under the current ownership system and disguise their intentions stating that Copyright will protect artist’s intellectual property, including the resultant revenue and jobs. I disagree with that idea and will prove that without Copyright, artists will continue to have incentives to innovate and produce culture.
| >
> | Copyright is no longer needed in the Internet society where we live in. It is outdated and lacks of effectiveness, because it does not consider the social changes that technology has generated. When Copyright was born it was believed that monopolistic financial incentives stimulate artistic production and that it will guarantee artists a decent income. However, as Ithiel de Sola Pool conceived in 1983, copyright practices become unworkable with the arrival of electronic reproduction. Moreover, in recent years, some scholars such as Danny Colligan had written about why Copyright is detrimental to society, referring that its enforcement by the government necessarily entails monitoring computer communications and erodes public domain and free culture. | | | | |
<
< | Stop Online Piracy Act | >
> | In this new age, content is information and on a computer, information is anything that can be digitized, that is, encoded in a sequence of zeros and ones. In that order of ideas, information has two important properties that modify the foundations of Copyright: it is both non-exclusive (any number of people can access and use it simultaneously) and non-rivalrous (the fact that one person has more information does not imply that another person has less). | | | | |
<
< | - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Online_Piracy_Act | >
> | Under this new scenario, the ownership idea must be change for access, sharing and selling added value. For example, Michael Masnik (Techdirt) explains that people do not buy “a movie”; they buy the “experience” of going to the theater. They like the differentiated value they can get from bundled goods and services that helps justify a price that is more than $0. Kevin Kelly (Wired Magazine) clarifies this approach and sustained that under actual technological circumstances, the idea is not to sell books or music copies, because they must be available to everyone, instead content industry should follow the path of attention to consumer preferences and provide intangible value to the content. In that sense, Kelly defined eight categories of intangible value that consumers will buy when they consider that it is worth value to pay for: immediacy, personalization, interpretation, authenticity (quality), accessibility, embodiment, patronage and findability. These generatives demand an understanding of how abundance breeds a sharing mindset. | | | | |
<
< | - http://americancensorship.org
The new model
Copyright is outdated and lacks of effectiveness, because it does not consider the social changes that technology has generated. When Copyright was born it was believed that monopolistic financial incentives stimulate artistic production and that it will guarantee artists a decent income. As Ithiel de Sola Pool conceived in 1983, copyright practices become unworkable with the arrival of electronic reproduction. In recent years, some scholars such as Danny Colligan had written about why Copyright is detrimental to society, referring that its enforcement necessarily entails monitoring computer communications and erodes public domain and free culture. In this new age, content is information and on a computer, information is anything that can be digitized, that is, encoded in a sequence of zeros and ones. In that order of ideas, information has two important properties that modify the foundations of Copyright: it is both non-exclusive (any number of people can access and use it simultaneously) and non-rivalrous (the fact that one person has more information does not imply that another person has less).
Under this new scenario, the ownership idea must be change for access, sharing and selling added value. For example, Michael Masnik explains that people do not buy “a movie”; they buy the “experience” of going to the theater. They like the differentiated value they can get from bundled goods and services that helps justify a price that is more than $0. Kevin Kelly clarifies this approach and sustained that under actual technological circumstances, the idea is not to sell books or music copies, because they must be available to everyone, instead content industry should follow the path of attention to consumer preferences and provide intangible value to the content. In that sense, Kelly defined eight categories of intangible value that consumers will buy when they consider that it is worth value to pay for: immediacy, personalization, interpretation, authenticity (quality), accessibility, embodiment, patronage and findability. These generatives demand an understanding of how abundance breeds a sharing mindset. In accordance to this economical model, and proposing the freemium business model (combination of free and premium), Fred Wilson stated that the market will identify the right point to pay money to information providers, when they see a real value: “free gets you to the place where you can ask to get paid.” Wilson’s model realizes that the cost of delivering many services over the Internet has decreased significantly from what it cost to deliver them in the analog world. Thus, once you have built a large audience providing free content, then you can offer premium priced value added services or an enhanced version of your service to your customer base. | >
> | In accordance to the referred economical model, and proposing the freemium business model (combination of free and premium), Fred Wilson stated that the market will identify the right point to pay money to information providers, when they see a real value: “free gets you to the place where you can ask to get paid.” Wilson’s model realizes that the cost of delivering many services over the Internet has decreased significantly from what it cost to deliver them in the analog world. Thus, once you have built a large audience providing free content, then you can offer premium priced value added services or an enhanced version of your service to your customer base. | | | In 1997 and in a more economical sense, Eric Schlachter described that the profit-maximizing price on the Internet will be where marginal revenue equals marginal cost, because intellectual property will be cross subsidized by other products in a manner sufficient to cover the fixed costs associated with intellectual property creation and distribution. Under this statement, Schlachter considered that a market price of zero for intellectual property can still create long-term economic profits by means of advertising, sales of upgrade models and sales of complementary technology. Michele Boldrin and David K. Levine, also contribute to this economical discussion demonstrating potential profitability in an age of unrestricted copying. In their book, Against Intellectual Monopoly, they discuss several instances where the absence of copyright has not led to bankruptcy, and in the contrary some industries became profitable. For instance, consumers may often pay to get access to the breaking news stories first, even though the same will eventually be available to the public at a later time. Recently, Pandora, MOG and Spotify business models follow this path in the music industry, where users would listen for free, but they would have to submit to a few minutes of advertisement every hour.
| |
<
< | New model | >
> | - Richard Stallman, Misinterpreting Copyright (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/misinterpreting-copyright.html) | | | - Kevin Kelly, Better than Free (January 31, 2008) (http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/kelly08/kelly08_index.html)
- Michele Boldrin and David K. Levine, Against Intellectual Monopoly (November 11, 2005) (http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/against.htm) | |
<
< | - Richard Stallman, Misinterpreting Copyright (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/misinterpreting-copyright.html) | | | - Mike Masnik, Saying You Can't Compete With Free Is Saying You Can't Compete Period, Techdirt (February 15, 2007) (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070215/002923.shtml)
- Fred Wilson, Freemium and Freeconomics (July 4, 2009) (http://www.avc.com/a_vc/2009/07/freemium-and-freeconomics.html) | |
>
> | The blindness continues
Despite the economical and social reasons given above to eliminate Copyright; once more, as in the case of telecommunications regulation, U.S. Congress has favored private interests and is attempting to strengthen Copyright by means of the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), that tries to expand the U.S. Department of Justice and copyright holders’ power allowing seeking court orders against websites outside U.S. jurisdiction accused of infringing on copyrights, or of enabling or facilitating copyright infringement. Moreover, without understanding our actual technological sharing world without frontiers, Representative Lamar Smith, one of the chief sponsors of the bill, said, “SOPA is needed because rogue websites are stealing and selling American innovations”.
Content industries monopolies, particularly represented by the Motion Picture Association of America, Recording Industry Association of America and Business Software Alliance have rejected the discussed vision of a world with the absence of Copyright, primarily by their fear to loose the millionaire earnings they received under the current ownership system and try to district public attention and opinion disguising their intentions stating that Copyright will protect artist’s intellectual property, including the resultant revenue and jobs. Even the Obama Administration itself has played an active role in secret negotiations between Hollywood, the recording industry and ISPs in this matter as Wired Magazine has revealed recently.
| | | Conclusion
| |
<
< | We have demonstrated that Copyright is no longer needed in our actual Internet Society, where an accessible market is desired. Therefore, our obligation for the next years is to eliminate intellectual monopoly, because a world without copyright would offer the guarantee of a good income to the content industry, and would protect the public domain of knowledge and creativity. Consumers must not be forced to buy content, when the market is free, consumers will be willing to pay for value-aggregated services. | >
> | We have demonstrated that Copyright is no longer needed in our actual Internet Society, where an accessible market is desired, but that unfortunately, content monopolies interest is far more important for the Government. Therefore, our obligation for the next years is to foster the elimination of intellectual monopoly, because a world without Copyright would offer the guarantee of a good income to the content industry, and would protect the public domain of knowledge and creativity. Consumers must not be forced to buy content, when the market is free, consumers will be willing to pay for value-aggregated services. | | |
Information sources |
|
|
DiegodelaPuenteSecondPaper 12 - 01 Dec 2011 - Main.DiegodelaPuente
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="SecondPaper" |
|---|
The Stop Online Piracy Act: the blindness continues
-- By DiegodelaPuente - 15 Nov 2011 | |
<
< | The Futile Stop Online Piracy Act's discussion | >
> | The Futile Stop Online Piracy Act discussion | | | | |
<
< | U.S. Congress’ discussion about the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) does not contribute to the Net’s growth; on the contrary, it distracts public attention to the real issue: copyright is no longer needed in the Internet society where we live in. SOPA tries to expand the U.S. Department of Justice and copyright holders’ power allowing seeking court orders against websites outside U.S. jurisdiction accused of infringing on copyrights, or of enabling or facilitating copyright infringement. Without understanding our actual technological sharing world without frontiers and different ownership rules, Representative Lamar Smith, one of the chief sponsors of the bill, said, “SOPA is needed because rogue websites are stealing and selling American innovations”. Moreover, even SOPA’s most famous detractors, Google, Facebook, AOL and Twitter, are only arguing about Internet censorship or chilling effects on speech, rather than proposing a radical change to the actual copyright framework in accordance with new technological trends, which is intended by many recognized scholars and scientists, such as Kevin Kelly (Wired Magazine), Richard Stallman (Free Software Foundation), Fred Wilson (Union Square Ventures), Mike Masnick (Techdirt) and James Allsworth (Harvard Business School). | >
> | U.S. Congress’ discussion about the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) does not contribute to the Net’s growth; on the contrary, it distracts public attention to the real issue: copyright is no longer needed in the Internet society where we live in. SOPA tries to expand the U.S. Department of Justice and copyright holders’ power allowing seeking court orders against websites outside U.S. jurisdiction accused of infringing on copyrights, or of enabling or facilitating copyright infringement. Without understanding our actual technological sharing world without frontiers, Representative Lamar Smith, one of the chief sponsors of the bill, said, “SOPA is needed because rogue websites are stealing and selling American innovations”. Moreover, even SOPA’s most famous detractors, Google, Facebook, AOL and Twitter, are only arguing about Internet censorship or chilling effects on speech, rather than proposing a radical change to the actual copyright framework in accordance with new technological trends, which is intended by many recognized scholars and scientists, such as Kevin Kelly (Wired Magazine), Richard Stallman (Free Software Foundation), Fred Wilson (Union Square Ventures) and Mike Masnick (Techdirt). | | | | |
<
< | Unfortunately, this new vision of content industries (film, television, books, software, music and others), with the absence of copyright law has been rejected by content industries monopolies represented by the Motion Picture Association of America, Recording Industry Association of America or Business Software Alliance and the American Government itself as Wired Magazine have revealed recently. Principally, these monopolies feared to loose the annual millionaire earnings they received under the current ownership system and disguise their intentions stating that SOPA will protect artist’s intellectual property, including the resultant revenue and jobs. Moreover, in respect to the music industry, Dr. Robert Levine (former Billboard executive editor), said that the best way to save artists’ jobs is to strengthen copyright law. I disagree with that mistaken idea and will try to prove that without copyright, artists will continue to have incentives to innovate and produce culture. | >
> | Unfortunately, this new vision of content industries with the absence of copyright law has been rejected by content industries monopolies, represented by the Motion Picture Association of America, Recording Industry Association of America or Business Software Alliance and the American Government itself as Wired Magazine have revealed recently. Principally, these monopolies feared to loose the millionaire earnings they received under the current ownership system and disguise their intentions stating that Copyright will protect artist’s intellectual property, including the resultant revenue and jobs. I disagree with that idea and will prove that without Copyright, artists will continue to have incentives to innovate and produce culture. | | | | |
<
< | | | | Stop Online Piracy Act
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Online_Piracy_Act | | | The new model
| |
<
< | Copyright is outdated and lacks of effectiveness, because it does not consider the social changes that technology has generated. When Copyright was born it was believed that monopolistic financial incentives stimulate artistic production and that it will guarantee artists a decent income and subsidize certain professions. As Ithiel de Sola Pool conceived in 1983, with the arrival of electronic reproduction, copyright practices become unworkable. In recent years, some scholars such as Danny Colligan had written about why copyright is detrimental to society nowadays, referring that Copyright enforcement necessarily entails monitoring of all computer communications, and therefore the destruction of online privacy, erodes the public domain and free culture, criminalizes a large percentage of the population and poses large economic costs to society. Also economists, such as Michele Boldrin and David K. Levine, from Washington University, published a book, Against Intellectual Monopoly, where they described that the current copyright system discourages and prevents inventions from entering the marketplace. In this new age, content is information and on a computer, information is anything that can be digitized, that is, encoded in a sequence of zeros and ones. In that order of ideas, information now has two important properties that modify the foundations of Copyright: it is both non-exclusive (any number of people can access and use it simultaneously) and non-rivalrous (the fact that one person has more information does not imply that another person has less). | >
> | Copyright is outdated and lacks of effectiveness, because it does not consider the social changes that technology has generated. When Copyright was born it was believed that monopolistic financial incentives stimulate artistic production and that it will guarantee artists a decent income. As Ithiel de Sola Pool conceived in 1983, copyright practices become unworkable with the arrival of electronic reproduction. In recent years, some scholars such as Danny Colligan had written about why Copyright is detrimental to society, referring that its enforcement necessarily entails monitoring computer communications and erodes public domain and free culture. In this new age, content is information and on a computer, information is anything that can be digitized, that is, encoded in a sequence of zeros and ones. In that order of ideas, information has two important properties that modify the foundations of Copyright: it is both non-exclusive (any number of people can access and use it simultaneously) and non-rivalrous (the fact that one person has more information does not imply that another person has less). | | | | |
<
< | Under this new scenario, the ownership idea must be change for access, sharing and selling added value. For example, Michael Masnik explains that people do not buy “a movie”; they buy the “experience” of going to the theater. They like the differentiated value they can get from bundled goods and services that helps justify a price that is more than $0. Kevin Kelly clarifies and gives more detail that under actual technological circumstances, the idea is not to sell books or music copies, because they must be available to everyone, instead artists and industry rather should follow the path of attention to consumer preferences and provide intangible value to the content in order to gain incomes. In that sense, Kelly defined eight categories of intangible value that consumers will buy when they consider that it is worth value to pay for: immediacy, personalization, interpretation, authenticity (quality), accessibility, embodiment, patronage and findability. These generatives demand an understanding of how abundance breeds a sharing mindset. In accordance to this new economical model, and proposing the freemium business model (combination of free and premium), Fred Wilson stated that the market will identify the right point to pay money to information providers, when they see a real value: “free gets you to the place where you can ask to get paid.” Wilson’s model realizes that the cost of delivering many services over the Internet has decreased significantly from what it cost to deliver them in the analog world. Thus, once you have built a large audience providing free content through word of mouth, referral networks or marketing techniques, then you can offer premium priced value added services or an enhanced version of your service to your customer base. | >
> | Under this new scenario, the ownership idea must be change for access, sharing and selling added value. For example, Michael Masnik explains that people do not buy “a movie”; they buy the “experience” of going to the theater. They like the differentiated value they can get from bundled goods and services that helps justify a price that is more than $0. Kevin Kelly clarifies this approach and sustained that under actual technological circumstances, the idea is not to sell books or music copies, because they must be available to everyone, instead content industry should follow the path of attention to consumer preferences and provide intangible value to the content. In that sense, Kelly defined eight categories of intangible value that consumers will buy when they consider that it is worth value to pay for: immediacy, personalization, interpretation, authenticity (quality), accessibility, embodiment, patronage and findability. These generatives demand an understanding of how abundance breeds a sharing mindset. In accordance to this economical model, and proposing the freemium business model (combination of free and premium), Fred Wilson stated that the market will identify the right point to pay money to information providers, when they see a real value: “free gets you to the place where you can ask to get paid.” Wilson’s model realizes that the cost of delivering many services over the Internet has decreased significantly from what it cost to deliver them in the analog world. Thus, once you have built a large audience providing free content, then you can offer premium priced value added services or an enhanced version of your service to your customer base. | | | | |
<
< | Back in 1997 and in a more economical approach, Eric Schlachter described that the profit-maximizing price on the Internet will be where marginal revenue equals marginal cost, because intellectual property will be cross subsidized by other products in a manner sufficient to cover the fixed costs associated with intellectual property creation and distribution. Under this statement, Schlachter considered that a market price of zero for intellectual property can still create long-term economic profits by means of advertising, sales of upgrade models and sale of complementary technology. Boldrin and Levine also contribute to this economical discussion in demonstrating potential profitability in an age of unrestricted copying. In their previously referred book, they discuss several instances where the absence of copyright has not led to bankruptcy, and in the contrary some industries became profitable. For instance, consumers many often pay to get access to the breaking news stories first, even though the same will eventually be available to the public at a later time. Some actual business models in the music industry that follow this path are Pandora, MOG and Spotify, where users would listen for free, but they would have to submit to a few minutes of advertisement every hour. | >
> | In 1997 and in a more economical sense, Eric Schlachter described that the profit-maximizing price on the Internet will be where marginal revenue equals marginal cost, because intellectual property will be cross subsidized by other products in a manner sufficient to cover the fixed costs associated with intellectual property creation and distribution. Under this statement, Schlachter considered that a market price of zero for intellectual property can still create long-term economic profits by means of advertising, sales of upgrade models and sales of complementary technology. Michele Boldrin and David K. Levine, also contribute to this economical discussion demonstrating potential profitability in an age of unrestricted copying. In their book, Against Intellectual Monopoly, they discuss several instances where the absence of copyright has not led to bankruptcy, and in the contrary some industries became profitable. For instance, consumers may often pay to get access to the breaking news stories first, even though the same will eventually be available to the public at a later time. Recently, Pandora, MOG and Spotify business models follow this path in the music industry, where users would listen for free, but they would have to submit to a few minutes of advertisement every hour. | | |
New model | | | - Fred Wilson, Freemium and Freeconomics (July 4, 2009) (http://www.avc.com/a_vc/2009/07/freemium-and-freeconomics.html) | |
<
< | Conclusions | >
> | Conclusion | | | | |
<
< | We have demonstrated that Copyright is no longer needed under our actual Internet Society, where an accessible market is desired. Therefore, our obligation for the next years is to eliminate intellectual monopoly, because a world without copyright would offer the guarantee of a good income to artists, and would protect the public domain of knowledge and creativity. Consumers must not be forced to buy content, when the market is free, consumers will be willing to pay for value-aggregated services. | >
> | We have demonstrated that Copyright is no longer needed in our actual Internet Society, where an accessible market is desired. Therefore, our obligation for the next years is to eliminate intellectual monopoly, because a world without copyright would offer the guarantee of a good income to the content industry, and would protect the public domain of knowledge and creativity. Consumers must not be forced to buy content, when the market is free, consumers will be willing to pay for value-aggregated services. | | |
Information sources |
|
|
|
|
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform.
All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
All material marked as authored by Eben Moglen is available under the license terms CC-BY-SA version 4.
|
|