Tuesday, November 08, 2005
Got to love the binary
I have something to tell you all, a dark secret: I've downloaded music off the internet. I've downloaded movies and software off the internet. I've even downloaded TV shows off the internet. And I'll probably do it again.
I have no qualms about doing this- what the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) and the Recording Industrya Assocation of America (RIAA) want to call 'stealing'. I don't call it that because A) I know I am everyone's moral compass and it would break all your little hearts to know I am stealing, B) because I don't think it IS stealing, and C) stealing is such a negative word. But don't worry, I'm here to assuage and rationaliez your fears away. The thing is, everyone is downloading stuff off the internet these days, and nobody is giving too much thought to it. Are we really lawless thugs who will do anything if we can get away with it?
There are, of course, the stock rationalizations that everyone turns over in their head. Let's go over a few of these arguments.
1) They make so much god damn money anyway.
This one falls a bit short upon review, because carmakers and dealerships make a lot of money, but you don't steal those. In fact every 'industry' makes a lot of money-- that's what makes them industries. Plus, not everyone involved in making music, movies, or software gets paid ungodly amounts of money. No, this one doesn't make any sense.
2) I wasn't going to buy it anyway.
This one holds up much better. For a loaf of bread, this wouldn't work, because someone else might buy it. But when you download bits, you're not taking anybody's rights to hear that song or movie. Yes, there are some other issues: What if this isn't really true? What if the fact that everyone does it makes it true?
What if by connecting to a peer-to-peer network, you enable other people who WOULD buy it to download from you instead?
Still, this one at least has the ring of truth to it.
3) It costs too much.
Now this one sounds extra whiny and probably would get blown out of the water normally- but to a small degree, I agree. The music industry has long been accused and even convicted of price gouging, cartel agreements, and anti-competitive practices. If this were a true free market, then I would say, no, the prices are exactly what people would pay. But they've thrown this process off-kilter. The movie industry is to some degree guilty of this too. The software industry, however, is less guilty, as it has an increasing number of competitors and even legally free competitors in the open source movement. So file this one under 'dubious'.
4) Everybody's doing it.
Again, this one isn't exactly the most logical argument, but it's hard to ignore. Why IS everyone doing it if it's illegal and heinous?
I believe that 2 and 4 really point out the problems with the current distribution model of digital property, of ideas, and the flaws in the current copyright laws on the books. Number 2 especially points out a few things about digital media today. Now the next blurb is courtesy of Wikipedia, about the properties of a public good:
* Non-rivalrous — its benefits fail to exhibit consumption scarcity; once it has been produced, everyone can benefit from it without diminishing other's enjoyment.
* Non-excludable — once it has been created, it is very difficult to impossible to prevent access to the good.
Obviously, in the digital age, many new things have been made non-rivalrous. And the ease at which we have been downloading music suggests that it may indeed be getting close to non-excludable.
However, it's too simplistic to call digital media a public good, and throw our hands up and wait for government intervention. (Would that even be a good thing?) No, the truth of the matter is that we are at a crossroads in the copyright movement. Digital media is close to being non-excludable, but it isn't there yet. And in fact, it is getting farther away. With the advent of new copy-protection technologies and legislation backing them up like the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA), companies can now put ever-more draconian copy protection on anything digital and control everything that consumers do with them. If they succeed, then it will be so hard to copy them that it will be excludable once again.
The problem, however, is that these laws, the DMCA especially, are blatantly anti-consumer and pro-corporation. And yes, corporations do have interests that need to be protected, but they're not the only show in town. There's opposing legislation, the Digital Media Consumers' Rights Acts (DMCRA, confusing, huh?), that attempts to give back some rights to the consumer. If not, the DMCA could give companies the power to charge you for every copy of a song you wanted to listen to. One for your iPod, one for your car, one for your home stereo, and one for your computer. They would own everything about that disc you bought, and you'd basically only be renting it from them.
Would it be better if the consumers had all the rights, though? What would be the incentive for artists and companies to produce movies, music and software without strong copyright laws?
Well, that gets down to the real purpose of copyright laws- they are not there to make sure artists become rich off their creations- merely to ensure that artists continue to create. And as long as there is a void to fill, people will probably create things to fill it. And who's to say that a little less commercialization in music and movies wouldn't be a bad thing?
I'm going to make a few predictions here. I think that the spectrum of digital media, from music to software, spans a range of technological and logical issues. Music, as we know it today, is probably the simplest of the forms of digital media. It is the smallest (in terms of information) of the big 3 I've discussed here, and it's the hardest to exclude. Because our sense of hearing is less acute than our sense of sight, music of average quality is more useful than movies of average quality. And software of poor quality probably doesn't work at all. Plus, music sharing is even more entrenched in the American culture than movies- radio traditionally plays the unadulterated song right there for everyone to see, Napster is a household term, and everyone has MP3s and iPods. Sharing movies is much less common- they're usually poor quality, have commercials in them, and are edited for both time and content.
Therfore, I think music will eventually be free. Too many people are now thinking of it as a free media, and that is a powerful force. Artists will probably not be massively opposed to it (they make most of their money off live music anyway), and music will probably live on as an ad-supported medium, much like TV is today. The way things are going now, the record companies have the most to lose, and that's why they've been fighting the hardest. Movies are on the fringe- I think the crush of DVD sales over theater sales and the general increase in ticket prices will force them to change something (I have no idea what though- more product placement in movies? oh boy!). Lastly, software, which I think is the most easily excludable of the three, will probably continue on in its current form for a while. There's plenty of free software, and while companies like Microsoft make plenty of money, much of it is off corporations, who can't afford to 'just download' it.
OK, this blog is way too long for a topic that only I care about. But you should! Support the DMCRA!
P.S. Everything I wrote above is false.
I have no qualms about doing this- what the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) and the Recording Industrya Assocation of America (RIAA) want to call 'stealing'. I don't call it that because A) I know I am everyone's moral compass and it would break all your little hearts to know I am stealing, B) because I don't think it IS stealing, and C) stealing is such a negative word. But don't worry, I'm here to assuage and rationaliez your fears away. The thing is, everyone is downloading stuff off the internet these days, and nobody is giving too much thought to it. Are we really lawless thugs who will do anything if we can get away with it?
There are, of course, the stock rationalizations that everyone turns over in their head. Let's go over a few of these arguments.
1) They make so much god damn money anyway.
This one falls a bit short upon review, because carmakers and dealerships make a lot of money, but you don't steal those. In fact every 'industry' makes a lot of money-- that's what makes them industries. Plus, not everyone involved in making music, movies, or software gets paid ungodly amounts of money. No, this one doesn't make any sense.
2) I wasn't going to buy it anyway.
This one holds up much better. For a loaf of bread, this wouldn't work, because someone else might buy it. But when you download bits, you're not taking anybody's rights to hear that song or movie. Yes, there are some other issues: What if this isn't really true? What if the fact that everyone does it makes it true?
What if by connecting to a peer-to-peer network, you enable other people who WOULD buy it to download from you instead?
Still, this one at least has the ring of truth to it.
3) It costs too much.
Now this one sounds extra whiny and probably would get blown out of the water normally- but to a small degree, I agree. The music industry has long been accused and even convicted of price gouging, cartel agreements, and anti-competitive practices. If this were a true free market, then I would say, no, the prices are exactly what people would pay. But they've thrown this process off-kilter. The movie industry is to some degree guilty of this too. The software industry, however, is less guilty, as it has an increasing number of competitors and even legally free competitors in the open source movement. So file this one under 'dubious'.
4) Everybody's doing it.
Again, this one isn't exactly the most logical argument, but it's hard to ignore. Why IS everyone doing it if it's illegal and heinous?
I believe that 2 and 4 really point out the problems with the current distribution model of digital property, of ideas, and the flaws in the current copyright laws on the books. Number 2 especially points out a few things about digital media today. Now the next blurb is courtesy of Wikipedia, about the properties of a public good:
* Non-rivalrous — its benefits fail to exhibit consumption scarcity; once it has been produced, everyone can benefit from it without diminishing other's enjoyment.
* Non-excludable — once it has been created, it is very difficult to impossible to prevent access to the good.
Obviously, in the digital age, many new things have been made non-rivalrous. And the ease at which we have been downloading music suggests that it may indeed be getting close to non-excludable.
However, it's too simplistic to call digital media a public good, and throw our hands up and wait for government intervention. (Would that even be a good thing?) No, the truth of the matter is that we are at a crossroads in the copyright movement. Digital media is close to being non-excludable, but it isn't there yet. And in fact, it is getting farther away. With the advent of new copy-protection technologies and legislation backing them up like the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA), companies can now put ever-more draconian copy protection on anything digital and control everything that consumers do with them. If they succeed, then it will be so hard to copy them that it will be excludable once again.
The problem, however, is that these laws, the DMCA especially, are blatantly anti-consumer and pro-corporation. And yes, corporations do have interests that need to be protected, but they're not the only show in town. There's opposing legislation, the Digital Media Consumers' Rights Acts (DMCRA, confusing, huh?), that attempts to give back some rights to the consumer. If not, the DMCA could give companies the power to charge you for every copy of a song you wanted to listen to. One for your iPod, one for your car, one for your home stereo, and one for your computer. They would own everything about that disc you bought, and you'd basically only be renting it from them.
Would it be better if the consumers had all the rights, though? What would be the incentive for artists and companies to produce movies, music and software without strong copyright laws?
Well, that gets down to the real purpose of copyright laws- they are not there to make sure artists become rich off their creations- merely to ensure that artists continue to create. And as long as there is a void to fill, people will probably create things to fill it. And who's to say that a little less commercialization in music and movies wouldn't be a bad thing?
I'm going to make a few predictions here. I think that the spectrum of digital media, from music to software, spans a range of technological and logical issues. Music, as we know it today, is probably the simplest of the forms of digital media. It is the smallest (in terms of information) of the big 3 I've discussed here, and it's the hardest to exclude. Because our sense of hearing is less acute than our sense of sight, music of average quality is more useful than movies of average quality. And software of poor quality probably doesn't work at all. Plus, music sharing is even more entrenched in the American culture than movies- radio traditionally plays the unadulterated song right there for everyone to see, Napster is a household term, and everyone has MP3s and iPods. Sharing movies is much less common- they're usually poor quality, have commercials in them, and are edited for both time and content.
Therfore, I think music will eventually be free. Too many people are now thinking of it as a free media, and that is a powerful force. Artists will probably not be massively opposed to it (they make most of their money off live music anyway), and music will probably live on as an ad-supported medium, much like TV is today. The way things are going now, the record companies have the most to lose, and that's why they've been fighting the hardest. Movies are on the fringe- I think the crush of DVD sales over theater sales and the general increase in ticket prices will force them to change something (I have no idea what though- more product placement in movies? oh boy!). Lastly, software, which I think is the most easily excludable of the three, will probably continue on in its current form for a while. There's plenty of free software, and while companies like Microsoft make plenty of money, much of it is off corporations, who can't afford to 'just download' it.
OK, this blog is way too long for a topic that only I care about. But you should! Support the DMCRA!
P.S. Everything I wrote above is false.
# posted by Stuart @ 11:56 AM 
Comments:
<< Home
There is another side to free music that often gets ignored. My musical taste has been greatly broadened by the greater access digital music provides to the consumer. For those bands who do not get the free promotion of MTV or radio (which is the majority,) the digital revolution has been a positive influence on their ability to market their music. Even within the music industry it's a case of haves versus have nots. Just another reason why the current system isnt harming anyone. Unforunately, just as in every industry versus consumer battle, industry lobbying efforts hold disproportinate control over political candidates relative to the actual weight of their interest in society. This is the biggest problem in American politics today, but another blog for another time
Here's a question I have had for a while but never had a good venue to being up (Or maybe I did, I can't remember). Won't there come a point when a technology can actually capture the sound being created? I could put a tape recorder up to my speakers and record a song, and while the quality might be terrible, won't this improve? Or better yet, build speakers with a recording device that can record the signal that comes through the wire and the quality would be perfect. Is there anybody working on these ideas? Why not?
Any time the signal becomes analog, it's as easy as pie to record it. If it comes over the radio, just hit record. If it comes on satellite or digital radio, even better. But in analog form- the actual sound waves coming out- there's no way to stop someone from copying them. This is what people call "the analog hole."
The DMCA allows attempts to close this whole in various ways. Music companies have put copy protection on their CDs so that they can't be read from a computer (not even if you're just trying to listen to it on your computer) Then, in even more questionable methods, when you try to rip that CD to a hard drive, it instead streams a very bad quality or even gibberish version of the CD. Still, obviously, when it comes through to your stereo system, there's nothing stopping you from just turning it back into an MP3.
Of course, they're trying to change this too- digital watermarking is a way of encoding audio and video so that human ears can't hear or see anything different, but when recorded back to a recorder, sounds terrible. VEIL (video encoded invisible light) is a technology that flashes pulses of light in a video that the human eye can't pick up, but when recorded on a video camera in a theater, makes it so that the camera just picks up a big white blur.
Basically, you can't close the analog hole, but you can make it annoying and difficult to circumvent it.
The DMCA allows attempts to close this whole in various ways. Music companies have put copy protection on their CDs so that they can't be read from a computer (not even if you're just trying to listen to it on your computer) Then, in even more questionable methods, when you try to rip that CD to a hard drive, it instead streams a very bad quality or even gibberish version of the CD. Still, obviously, when it comes through to your stereo system, there's nothing stopping you from just turning it back into an MP3.
Of course, they're trying to change this too- digital watermarking is a way of encoding audio and video so that human ears can't hear or see anything different, but when recorded back to a recorder, sounds terrible. VEIL (video encoded invisible light) is a technology that flashes pulses of light in a video that the human eye can't pick up, but when recorded on a video camera in a theater, makes it so that the camera just picks up a big white blur.
Basically, you can't close the analog hole, but you can make it annoying and difficult to circumvent it.
those methods you mention don't sound terrible to me. at least not the light pulses preventing recording movies in theatres. though i hope they've tested them for any physical effects on human brains. instead of imposing legal penalties on people who use their possessions (cd's, purchased downloads), in ways that are possible and easy and safe to use, the creators have developed their own modifactions to restrict the possible uses of their creations. that's how the market works, and that's a natural way for artists and distributors to protect their creation.
as for free music, artists surviving on ads and live performances, i don't like where that takes us. without doing any research whatsoever, it seems to me that "artists" like ashlee simpson and the backstreet boys make much more tour money than what i would consider good musicians, who tend to have to play in smaller settings and don't get to make dr. pepper commercials. free music might lead to only crappy music that appeals to teens with big allowances.
as for ad placements in movies, perhaps the best thing to come of changes to the movie industry that lead to a decline in their revenue is to cut the astronomical salaries of the actors (and execs). i agree that ad placements are probably the first step, and other ways to maintain their revenue, but when people (hopefully) stay away from more and more movies because they are sick of the annoying ads, the studios will have to make some other cuts to maintain a profit while getting rid of the things, like ads, that damage the quality of the films.
as for free music, artists surviving on ads and live performances, i don't like where that takes us. without doing any research whatsoever, it seems to me that "artists" like ashlee simpson and the backstreet boys make much more tour money than what i would consider good musicians, who tend to have to play in smaller settings and don't get to make dr. pepper commercials. free music might lead to only crappy music that appeals to teens with big allowances.
as for ad placements in movies, perhaps the best thing to come of changes to the movie industry that lead to a decline in their revenue is to cut the astronomical salaries of the actors (and execs). i agree that ad placements are probably the first step, and other ways to maintain their revenue, but when people (hopefully) stay away from more and more movies because they are sick of the annoying ads, the studios will have to make some other cuts to maintain a profit while getting rid of the things, like ads, that damage the quality of the films.
# posted by 
: 11:50 AM
: 11:50 AM
Where the post on topic of the Kansas school board approving science standards that cast doubt on modern evolutionary theory?
david-
yes, that's how the market works, because that's the way the laws are set up. But does that mean that it's working in everyone's best interests? almost certainly not. obviously the creators want to make as much money as possible off their work- but is that necessarily a good thing? should we give people control of every single aspect of their idea? could i copyright that phrase, and charge everyone who uses it, and disseminate a technology that blurs out the words of that phrase unless you paid me to see it? no, obviously there are limits to copyright law. and i think those limits are set a bit too low. shouldn't it be non-infringing if i want to make a back-up of a movie that i already own?
if the copyright laws stay as they are right now, consumers will probably end up having to spend less money on the arts (which is actually happening, both CD and movie sales are down) and then we'd just be left to hope that the market would readjust and make it cheaper, and the media companies have shown blatant disregard for market practices. Right now, the industry blames piracy for all its monetary troubles (which is mostly false), and they're correspondingly cracking down.
but if we simply had fair use laws in place, then the market would readjust to that too. and perhaps it would help solve piracy too.
as for "crappy" music, aren't the backstreet boys and ashlee simpson also the same artists that make the most money off their record deals? because they are pop stars they can afford to negotiate with their companies. Most other artists are stuck with getting 1% royalties because that's the best they can get. In a free music model with sponsors, pop stars would still make plenty of money because they'd be the most popular. And less popular artists would make less money. i don't see how you would expect it to be different. would you suggest a model where only david-approved artists got paid?
the difference in a free music model would be that less well-known artists would get be on a more level playing field, because the more popular artists wouldn't have the huge marketing campaigns in best buy and borders to sell their CDs funded by Sony music and such. But yes, they'd still be heavily promoted by their sponsors. think of it more like the iTunes music store. To apple, all the songs are the same, and so it doesn't matter what your tastes are. 1 million downloads of an britney spears song are the same as if they have 1 million downloads of 1 million obscure songs. and since they don't take up valuable shelf space, they don't have to overpromote the more popular artists. I think that is the biggest difference in the digital age.
smoov-
also i forgot to mention that under the DMCA, those devices you mentioned would be illegal, becaues circumventing copyright is illegal.
Post a Comment
yes, that's how the market works, because that's the way the laws are set up. But does that mean that it's working in everyone's best interests? almost certainly not. obviously the creators want to make as much money as possible off their work- but is that necessarily a good thing? should we give people control of every single aspect of their idea? could i copyright that phrase, and charge everyone who uses it, and disseminate a technology that blurs out the words of that phrase unless you paid me to see it? no, obviously there are limits to copyright law. and i think those limits are set a bit too low. shouldn't it be non-infringing if i want to make a back-up of a movie that i already own?
if the copyright laws stay as they are right now, consumers will probably end up having to spend less money on the arts (which is actually happening, both CD and movie sales are down) and then we'd just be left to hope that the market would readjust and make it cheaper, and the media companies have shown blatant disregard for market practices. Right now, the industry blames piracy for all its monetary troubles (which is mostly false), and they're correspondingly cracking down.
but if we simply had fair use laws in place, then the market would readjust to that too. and perhaps it would help solve piracy too.
as for "crappy" music, aren't the backstreet boys and ashlee simpson also the same artists that make the most money off their record deals? because they are pop stars they can afford to negotiate with their companies. Most other artists are stuck with getting 1% royalties because that's the best they can get. In a free music model with sponsors, pop stars would still make plenty of money because they'd be the most popular. And less popular artists would make less money. i don't see how you would expect it to be different. would you suggest a model where only david-approved artists got paid?
the difference in a free music model would be that less well-known artists would get be on a more level playing field, because the more popular artists wouldn't have the huge marketing campaigns in best buy and borders to sell their CDs funded by Sony music and such. But yes, they'd still be heavily promoted by their sponsors. think of it more like the iTunes music store. To apple, all the songs are the same, and so it doesn't matter what your tastes are. 1 million downloads of an britney spears song are the same as if they have 1 million downloads of 1 million obscure songs. and since they don't take up valuable shelf space, they don't have to overpromote the more popular artists. I think that is the biggest difference in the digital age.
smoov-
also i forgot to mention that under the DMCA, those devices you mentioned would be illegal, becaues circumventing copyright is illegal.
<< Home
