Steve Pavlina Possibly Misunderstanding Intellectual Monopoly Abolisionists?

[Kiba]

Originally Posted by JimOfferman

BUT NO ONE IS PAYING AFTER THEY BOUGHT THE SONG.

Consumers can buy a CD or download and then they own the music (and with the license I employ they are free to give copies to their friends).

Radio stations don't buy a CD or download. They'll get a copy of the record from me (it is formally a loan), because it has been agreed upfront that they will pay a royalty for every time they play a song.



Again, I don't force anyone to pay anything. If you don't want to pay me, don't play my music - it is as simple as that!



You are the one who is immoral here. By your own admission, you are willing to pay for the story or information in a book but not for a music record. The only difference between the two is that the former still normally distributed in the form of paper, while the latter has become widely available in digital format.

Will you also stop paying for stories when e-books overtake regular books as their main distribution channel?

You value things purely on how easy it is for you to get them - not on the actual value they provide to you.

That I find highly immoral.

What is immoral there?

This is completely rational economic thinking. It is maximizing my resources for the best value offered. Or are you saying that I shouldn't do that?

With infinite supply of goods, it is BOUND that the prices to go down. Or are you saying that we should support the farmers after foods can now be duplicated at a price of $0.00?

Or support people working in obsolete business models?

Your business model is not my problem just as my business model is not your problem.

And I won't replace books with e-book, ever. It doesn't matter if it is easy to pirate a copy of an e-book. I will pay for a book. Of course, if I can get a book for free, I'll get it.

If anything, intellectual monopoly is an unneccessary evil and should be opposed, I got economic evidence to back it up in books like Against Intellectual Monopoly.

[Erki]

Originally Posted by Kiba

Or are you saying that we should support the farmers after foods can now be duplicated at a price of $0.00?

Don't know about Jim, but I am.

[Tobias Zimpel]

Originally Posted by Kiba

Or are you saying that we should support the farmers after foods can now be duplicated at a price of $0.00?

Or support people working in obsolete business models?

Your business model is not my problem just as my business model is not your problem.

If you don't want to support an obsolete business model, it's your free choice that I would always support. But take the consequences and don't own or use one of their products or properties.

If you are not OK with the business model of a music or movie company for example, don't listen to their music, watch their movies, nor own or copy them. Just leave them alone and let them drive their business against the wall if they want to ignore the fact that their business model is outdated.

As long as you don't take these consequences, I will gladly call you immoral and anti-social.

[Kiba]

Originally Posted by Tobias Zimpel

If you don't want to support an obsolete business model, it's your free choice that I would always support. But take the consequences and don't own or use one of their products or properties.

If you are not OK with the business model of a music or movie company for example, don't listen to their music, watch their movies, nor own or copy them. Just leave them alone and let them drive their business against the wall if they want to ignore the fact that their business model is outdated.

As long as you don't take these consequences, I will gladly call you immoral and anti-social.

I concedes that is quite immoral to copy movies when the law told you not to do so, but not because it is the right of the authors, but rather it is wrong to support to support these authors in the first place.

Thus I am gradually moving to indie musics that support freedom and away from musics that don't support my views. (I love the Tryad's Public Doman and Listen album.) I should do more to search great musics that I like and support freedom.

I am already quite an avid supporter of the OGG format and use an almost entirely free software operating system. I am also creating entirely free softwares too.

However, what I do to support my views is not a testament to my ability to walk the whole pathway fully. Temptation sometime run rampant and sometime I succumb to it. These days, it is quite impossible not to consume any proprietary media. As an idealist, I have to face the impracticality of my ideals.

Therefore I'll continue to consume proprietary media while working on projects such as bringing free(as in free speech) gaming to the masses and personal changes so it doesn't have to be this way.

[JimOfferman]

Originally Posted by Kiba

And I won't replace books with e-book, ever. It doesn't matter if it is easy to pirate a copy of an e-book. I will pay for a book. Of course, if I can get a book for free, I'll get it.

Just as long as you understand that those books are controlled even tighter by the evil intellectual property monopolies that you so oppose.

I got economic evidence to back it up in books like Against Intellectual Monopoly.

I have books that state quite the opposite (at least as far as the music business is concerned). Neither source constitutes solid evidence. If someone writes it down in a book, that doesn't make it fact.

But let's end the discussion here. Neither of us is going to change position, not even if we continue debating this to death. If we go back to your original post, I feel that Steve's assessment describes your attitude quite well:

While some people take issue with the concept of intellectual property and believe that all content should be free, I don’t count myself among them. In fact, for the most part I consider the anti-copyright fanatics rather juvenile and intellectually immature. Too often their utopian language is merely a hollow shell around the desire to get something for nothing.

By your own admission, the above is exactly who you are.

And it is also where you and I differ. I am happy to pay for anything that adds value to my life.

[Keith]

Originally Posted by JimOfferman

Yes, airplay will result in exposure to the general public and spark interest. Yes, that may lead to sales. But no there is no direct correlation. There is no trend that says if your song is played X times, then you will sell Y number of singles or records.

For the (I think) third time: You have no direct correlation between exposure and sales for any form of advertising. You still have to pay for it.

It is the job of advertising (including radio airplay) to expose your work to the public. From there it rises and falls on its own merits and public whim. That doesn't mean you shouldn't pay for their service.

If someone hires you for a gig to bring people into their pub and no-one shows, should they not have to pay you? By analogy, that's what you're saying.

Originally Posted by JimOfferman

No one who is bought or been gifted my music is forced to pay for it ever again. Unless they want to attend one of my concerts, of course. Once you have a CD or download in your possession, it is yours.
And don't tell me that the radio listeners are paying to listen to my music being played on the radio, because that is not true. Advertisers are paying for that, because that gives them the privilege of divulging their messages to you.

I suspect you're skim reading my comments.

Radio station buys Jim Offerman CD. Pays Jim Offerman.
Radio station plays Jim Offerman CD. Pays Jim Offerman.

Hence, paid twice.

Anyway, never mind. You clearly believe that you don't get any value worth paying for from radio airplay. I find this ludicrous, but I've said my bit.

Originally Posted by JimOfferman

But such experiments are happening, to very mixed results. It worked for Radiohead. It resulted in more downloads (and exposure) for Niggy Tardust's latest record (produced by Trent Reznor from Nine Inch Nails), but also in less income.

Less income than what?

Less income than if they had released it the regular way? Presumably not, because we don't have a basis for comparison there.

Less income per unit moved? Well duh, that's the nature of the model. It doesn't it matter whether they make a million dollars for 50,000 sales, or a million dollars for 10 million downloads.

At any rate, I fail to see how they could make less. The very nature of the model is that the artist sets their own price!

All that said, we're interested in ensuring that artists are paid a fair amount and enough to live on, not necessarily as much as possible.

Originally Posted by JimOfferman

I completely understand your catch-22, but I am by no means in a position to change the music market as a whole.

Sure. Just like your individual vote makes no difference, but everyone's individual vote does collectively.

Originally Posted by JimOfferman

I am also not convinced that the patronage model you suggest is actually better.

Allow me to try a tack I haven't yet actually expressed:

Do you think your music is good? Do you think it enriches people's lives by hearing it?

If so, wouldn't you prefer to use a model that enriches as many lives as possible, while still making a good living for yourself, even if that's a bit less money than you would make by gouging on every sale?

I suspect the answer is yes. That your music is more important to you than whether you become a millionaire or a multi-millionaire. That you just have doubts about whether the model will get you there.

Originally Posted by JimOfferman

I don't think it is a matter of saying that protocol such-and-such worked in market A so it must also work in market B. Different markets require different strategies. It's always been that way and it always will be.

Sure. But music is a similar market to software - both involve high up-front sunk costs and tiny production costs.

Originally Posted by JimOfferman

BTW, the Blender guys only adopted the street performer protocol after the company went belly up. Their previous business model wasn't working. That is the major difference between them and most artists.

The point is, they tried the model and it worked. Why they tried it isn't particularly relevant.

Though it is interesting as an example where it worked better than the pay-per-copy model.

Originally Posted by JimOfferman

In the end, I have to make decisions about my business for the sake of growing the business and keeping it alive. I'm a big fan of the Creative Commons licenses, because they allow me to make a profit without imposing unnecessary restraints on my fans. But, for now at least, it that is as far as I can go without hurting my business.

Sure. I wouldn't ask you to throw away your income for an unproven business model.

Originally Posted by JimOfferman

I'm sure there are better business models in the ideal world, but I live in the real one.

And do you really believe that the "real world" is immutable?

Originally Posted by Kiba

This is completely rational economic thinking. It is maximizing my resources for the best value offered. Or are you saying that I shouldn't do that?

With infinite supply of goods, it is BOUND that the prices to go down. Or are you saying that we should support the farmers after foods can now be duplicated at a price of $0.00?

If there is an initial production cost then yes we should support them. Just like we should support Jim to cover his production costs and pay for his time and labour.

[Kiba]

Originally Posted by JimOfferman

By your own admission, the above is exactly who you are.

And it is also where you and I differ. I am happy to pay for anything that adds value to my life.

It would be great if I get everything for free or I make a million of dollars, whatever.

But we live in a world of "scarcity" and supply and demand! Resources are not unlimited.

I want the world to accurately reflect supply and demand. Hell, I am willing to pay a lot of money for a lot of things provided that I have money.

Hell, I would love someone to pay me royalty for distributing and selling my softwares but I rather not.

I would love to shut down every single threat and every single competitors.

I would love to be a monopolist if it make me more money.

In the end, I determine that it is a net loss for society. They will not be better off if they can't control the softwares that they brought from me. They will not be better off if they can't distribute it to their friends. They will not certainly be better off if they can't even use the software as they like. Great for me? Probably. For them, ABSOLUTELY not so.

They will not be better off if the prices of softwares are artificially high. They will certainly not be better off if oil prices are subsided by the government to be cheaper.

I am sorry, I have to disagree with you.

[Tobias Zimpel]

Originally Posted by Kiba

I concedes that is quite immoral to copy movies when the law told you not to do so, but not because it is the right of the authors, but rather it is wrong to support to support these authors in the first place.

I quite understand that point of view - I had the same some time ago. However, I had to admit that I would not take all of the consequences this point of view implied, and I improved it.

Thus I am gradually moving to indie musics that support freedom and away from musics that don't support my views. (I love the Tryad's Public Doman and Listen album.) I should do more to search great musics that I like and support freedom.

I am already quite an avid supporter of the OGG format and use an almost entirely free software operating system. I am also creating entirely free softwares too.

I appreciate your efforts. I also support free software and media. And I also used to copy proprietary media or software if I wanted to use it.

Later I changed my mind about it: If I want to use something (whether it be software, music or a movie), I should respect the creator and his "business model", whether I agree with it or not.

This means that when I want to use proprietary software for whatever reason, I pay for it. But I usually prefer free software whenever it fulfills my needs. When I want to see a non-free movie, I pay for it - either by buying a cinema ticket, a DVD, or via a pay-per-view provider. When I want to listen to a non-free song, I either buy it on CD or online.

When I find myself not willing to pay for a proprietary piece of media, I just don't use it.

However, what I do to support my views is not a testament to my ability to walk the whole pathway fully. Temptation sometime run rampant and sometime I succumb to it. These days, it is quite impossible not to consume any proprietary media. As an idealist, I have to face the impracticality of my ideals.

I know that challenge not only regarding media usage. I struggled for years before I found a way to handle these problems: If my ideals are challenged by reality, I either keep them up and take the consequences, or if I am not able or willing to do that, I play not my idealistic rules, but the one that are brought towards me. I have to do that because my values and moral concept imply that I should honor and respect others.

Therefore I'll continue to consume proprietary media while working on projects such as bringing free(as in free speech) gaming to the masses and personal changes so it doesn't have to be this way.

Again, I appreciate your effort to create free media - as long as you do not copy from those who don't share your mindset. Let them do business with those who do, and do business with those who share yours. Time will tell whose business model will be better.

Kiba, showing respect for those who are like you is easy. Showing respect for those you don't agree with can be challenging. But as long as you don't do that, I will add "disrespectful" to what you are in my opinion, and I strongly suggest that while you are inside of a glass house, you stop throwing stones.

[Kiba]

Originally Posted by Tobias Zimpel

Again, I appreciate your effort to create free media - as long as you do not copy from those who don't share your mindset. Let them do business with those who do, and do business with those who share yours. Time will tell whose business model will be better.

Kiba, showing respect for those who are like you is easy. Showing respect for those you don't agree with can be challenging. But as long as you don't do that, I will add "disrespectful" to what you are in my opinion, and I strongly suggest that while you are inside of a glass house, you stop throwing stones.

I am moving toward that and I already stop doing it in some aspect. Now I have a nice dell box that have ubuntu preinstalled. I am voting with my money.

I think the last time I have an illegal copy of softwares was years ago.(though I am not sure if it is illegitimate in the first place)

Now I am getting rid of my dependence on the patent encumbered MP3 and replacing them with OGG format muscis.

Also, I decided that I am accepting the copyright term that the proprietary media provider though in most cases I already do not violate their term. This does not mean that I accept their legitimacy but rather in recognition that it is dangerous to break the law.

[JimOfferman]

Originally Posted by Keith

It is the job of advertising (including radio airplay)

You keep insisting on equating radio airplay to advertising, but it is not! Music playing on radio stations is like TV shows - it's content, not advertising. Stations pay for content, because it is content that drives listeners or viewers to the station.

I don't deny that airplay benefits the artists, but it is the stations that benefit most from providing great content. Again, for the umpteenth time, without good content no listeners! That is why the stations get to decide what is played or not. Paying artists is their way of ensuring that they get great content - just like TV stations pay production companies to ensure they get great content.

If someone hires you for a gig to bring people into their pub and no-one shows, should they not have to pay you?

If the venue booked me to draw in a crowd and no-one shows, then they would still have to pay me.

Of course, the story gets a little different if I book the venue in hopes of attracting new fans.

I suspect you're skim reading my comments.

Right back at you! Because I have already explained the following to you:

Radio station buys Jim Offerman CD. Pays Jim Offerman.

Radio stations don't buy CDs. Artists and labels will provide those for free to the stations, because we already have this agreement that results in the following:

Radio station plays Jim Offerman CD. Pays Jim Offerman.

Hence, paid only once.

Less income than what?

Than with their previous record, sold through a label.

They earned more per record sold, but because it is also available for free, the total sales were considerably less.

There are also examples to the contrary (Jane Siberry), but it is not as simple a "let the fans set the price and you'll be rewarded fairly in all situations."

All that said, we're interested in ensuring that artists are paid a fair amount and enough to live on, not necessarily as much as possible.

Artists who get paid as much as possible are the exception. That privilege is reserved for those artists who fill stadiums worldwide, because everybody stands to make a lot of money from their involvement in anything.

Most artists, however, just make a decent living from their music.

While I would love to do a stadium gig (how cool is that?), I don't really care about making millions - all I care about is (eventually) making the $75-$100k a year that keeps me paying my mortgage and ensures there's always food on the table.

Do you think your music is good? Do you think it enriches people's lives by hearing it?

Of course I think that!

That you just have doubts about whether the model will get you there.

No, I just have doubts that your suggested model will get me there. The model I adhere to, on the other hand has been working very well for a number of artists I know. All those artists are receiving a fair but not exorbitant income, while still allowing their fans to freely trade their music.

But music is a similar market to software

Similar but not equal. Just because the markets are similar, you can't simply state that a model that works for software should also work for music.

Software and music are similar from a production standpoint, but not from the perspective of the consumer. You don't get support calls for music, for example.

And do you really believe that the "real world" is immutable?

No, just as my business model is not immutable. But I choose to work with a model that works now, as opposed to going with something that might work in the future.

If there is an initial production cost then yes we should support them. Just like we should support Jim to cover his production costs and pay for his time and labour.

I find it rather limiting to value things purely on what it cost to produce them.

[PatriceA]

I've been reading most of the 4 pages of this topic and at the beginning I was agreeing with Kiba..
But then I thought : Hey, I'm a "knowledge worker". I teach people stuff.

If some guy was going to enter one of my seminars by sneaking through some back door, telling me that he's not stealing anything and should thus be allowed to sit there and listen... I'd feel offended.

I mean, it's not really about the money... It's more about respecting my effort in putting together that seminar. I've allowed people in for free when they contacted me upfront about their financial problems... but just showing up to "copy" the information is not a respectful way to deal with other people's work.

Maybe this business model of having people pay for content or art or information (non-tangible goods) is obsolete - but then, the whole services industry has to move to a communist-like system where "performers" would be payed by public funds and "content" would be free for everyone.

Until that day, i'll keep locking back doors at seminars and copyrighting my work...

[Keith]

Originally Posted by JimOfferman

You keep insisting on equating radio airplay to advertising, but it is not!

This is the key point of contention. This distinction is why I think it's reasonable to pay for airplay and you don't. I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

Originally Posted by JimOfferman

Right back at you! Because I have already explained the following to you:
Radio stations don't buy CDs. Artists and labels will provide those for free to the stations, because we already have this agreement that results in the following:

I thought you were wrong about that, but I've looked into it, and I stand corrected. My apologies.

Which just returns us to the key question.

(1) Whether the CD was sold or voluntarily given, is it really reasonable to retain control of it once it has changed ownership?

Originally Posted by JimOfferman

[Less income than... ] with their previous record, sold through a label.

That unfortunately tells us nothing unless you can filter out all extraneous differences - which you can't. eg. Michael Jackson's "HIStory" album made half the sales of the previous "Dangerous". Had he released "HIStory" via non-standard model that might seem the cause, even though the album just had less mass appeal than its predecessor.

Originally Posted by JimOfferman

There are also examples to the contrary (Jane Siberry), but it is not as simple a "let the fans set the price and you'll be rewarded fairly in all situations."

Note that I have consistently been talking about the Ransom model. Under that model the artist sets the price, not the fans.

Originally Posted by JimOfferman

While I would love to do a stadium gig (how cool is that?), I don't really care about making millions - all I care about is (eventually) making the $75-$100k a year that keeps me paying my mortgage and ensures there's always food on the table.

Then you know the minimum that you would charge under a Ransom model.

Originally Posted by JimOfferman

Of course I think that!

That was a rhetorical question to set the foundation for the next point. I assumed you would since you strike me as someone who values the quality of your music.

Originally Posted by JimOfferman

No, I just have doubts that your suggested model will get me there.

In context, that's what I said. "The model" refers to the model I had been discussing the whole post.

To clarify, my hypothesis is: "You consider that your quality music improves people's lives. If you could find a way to give it to everyone whilst making a good living for yourself, you probably would. But you doubt that an alternate model to the standard would make you that good living you need".

Does that sound accurate?

Originally Posted by JimOfferman

[re: Music is similar to software]
Similar but not equal. Just because the markets are similar, you can't simply state that a model that works for software should also work for music.

I don't think I did state that. Certainly a successful example in the software realm isn't decisive, just suggestive that a similar model may work for music.

Originally Posted by JimOfferman

Software and music are similar from a production standpoint, but not from the perspective of the consumer. You don't get support calls for music, for example.

Thus ruling out providing support as a fundraising model? I wasn't really suggesting that, but it's a good point. The reverse is also true: there are fundraising options available for music that aren't available to software.

The two aren't directly analogous, but there are commonalities.

Originally Posted by JimOfferman

I find it rather limiting to value things purely on what it cost to produce them.

Then don't value your music that way. It's up to you to set the price.

Production cost was the minimum I thought you should be paid, not an absolute.

[Keith]

Originally Posted by PatriceA

I've been reading most of the 4 pages of this topic and at the beginning I was agreeing with Kiba..
But then I thought : Hey, I'm a "knowledge worker". I teach people stuff.
If some guy was going to enter one of my seminars by sneaking through some back door, telling me that he's not stealing anything and should thus be allowed to sit there and listen... I'd feel offended.

I can't speak for Kiba, but I don't think that's analogous. In that instance, you're charging for a service. You're charging for your presence and your time and your personal delivery of the content.

The issues Kiba is talking about kick in when you (or someone else) distributes (eg) a videotape of your seminar.

Originally Posted by PatriceA

I mean, it's not really about the money... It's more about respecting my effort in putting together that seminar. I've allowed people in for free when they contacted me upfront about their financial problems... but just showing up to "copy" the information is not a respectful way to deal with other people's work.
Maybe this business model of having people pay for content or art or information (non-tangible goods) is obsolete - but then, the whole services industry has to move to a communist-like system where "performers" would be paid by public funds and "content" would be free for everyone.

That's pretty much the problem. It's hard to move to a superior system (supposing for the moment that one exists) when so many people have so much invested in the current one.

Still, similar things have happened in the past (the