Thanks for the generous response and critique. I'll say more later, but I'll just admit right now that my main problem with copyright, by far, is the derivative works right. Take that one away, and I'll be happy to be an ignored extremist grumbling in the corner. =)
Noel Le
· 3 years ago
Interesting blog XT:)
So tell me Tim Lee and XT, what do you folks think of the US venture capital system. Is it a waste of money. Should all the capital flowing from VCs be diverted elsewhere besides commercial firms. How should profitable companies (who often act as VCs themselves) (re)use their revenue.
Also, XT, did you catch my point about the iPod and DRM. Although it plays MP3 files, the iPod is successful because it excludes non-Apple DRM. This probably marks the difference in success between the iPod and your usual MP3 player. W/o that kind of exclusivity enabled by DRM and the DMCA, seriously, why would Apple invest in creating the iPod and its peripheral products.
Tim Lee
· 3 years ago
I don't think venture capital is a waste of money, and I have no clue how that's related to anything I wrote here.
Noel Le
· 3 years ago
Its related to XT's blog, where he talks about how capital is not necessary for innovation. One of the tenets of our current IP regime is that copyrights/patents help induce capital investment and appropriation. If capital is not necessary, neither are IPRs.
Tim Lee
· 3 years ago
Well, since this post was in defense of copyright law, I don't understand why you're directing the question at me.
Steve R.
· 3 years ago
Noel: What is the basis for this statement "the iPod is successful because it excludes non-Apple DRM."? iPods are bought on the customers perception that they can have a lot of content irrespective of any DRM. Seems to me, the iPod would be even more sucessful if it accepted all formats since it would mean even greater availability to content. Would you buy a Ford on the sole basis that it does not use any parts made by Chevrolet?
Noel Le
· 3 years ago
Steve, how would you explain the iPod's success vs MP3 players then.
Snorre
· 3 years ago
Noel, I think most customers of the ipod either are unaware of the drm, or don't care because they don't have any drm'd media. The reason it is successful is more likely because it is seen as cool, hip, and well-designed (apart from the drm issue, obviously). I'd be truthfully surprised if you could drag out as many as one ipod customer that bought it because it disallows said customer to play files from some other provider.
Also, completely unrelated, would you please start using question marks? witout tehm yuo coulds as wells be writeining lieks dys
Steve R.
· 3 years ago
Noel: You are avoiding answering the question. Your statement is illogical since it lacks causality. There is not dispute that the iPod is successful. While it is successful, where is the evidence (proof) that it was successful because it "excludes" non-Apple DRM? The success of the iPod may be due solely to effective marketing and may be a transient fad while having absolutely no correlation to DRM. I could say, if logic does not matter, that the continued existence of MP3 players "proves" that knowledgeable consumers crave DRM free devices.
Noel Le
· 3 years ago
Steve, its a bit complicated, but if you're a man who needs causation, you know that its often hard to pin down in the technology industry.
iTunes has a couple more deals with the Studios than other music services. Those studios signed with Apple b/c of DRM agreements. iTunes, while not a big profit maker for Apple, induces folks to get the iPod.
Granted that most songs on the average iPod are not bought from iTunes, the fact that iTunes offers many labels/tracks not available many places elsewhere, which can only be played on the iPod, is enough of a case for DRM.
I should have clarified this, but when you talk about DRM and Apple, its probably important to mention both the iPod and iTunes.
X. Trapnel
· 3 years ago
Noel, please stop talking nonsense about the iPod's success. You have yet to address what seems the single most important stylized fact for this discussion about the iTunes Music Store: they have only sold enough songs to account for Almost no-one is buying an iPod with the intent to fill it with iTunes' DRM music.
Perhaps you are getting confused by the very real fact that iTunes integration is a big selling point for the iPod. But this has nothing to do with DRM, and everything to do with the fact that iTunes is a very well-designed MP3 playing music program. People like iPods because they are gorgeous, hip, and user-friendly; people like iTunes because it is a great piece of software; people like them both even more because they are designed to work well together. I repeat: none of this has anything to do with DRM. I use both an iPod and iTunes all the time, and my position on DRM is pretty obvious by now. I use both iTunes and my iPod to play DRM-free MP3s. Which is why your comment about "iPod vs MP3 players"--as if the iPod weren't an MP3 player itself!--is so bizarre.
Now: if the time comes when many consumers will have built up a significant library of DRM'd iTunes tracked, then this will, in fact, result in a lock-in effect that will help the iPod withstand rivals. But we're not there yet, not at all.
X. Trapnel
· 3 years ago
Whoa, weird HTML mess-up there. My first paragraph should have read: "they have only sold enough songs to account for less than 25 songs per iPod. Almost no-one is buying an iPod ... "
Noel Le
· 3 years ago
XT, the iPod is in a way an MP3 player, my distinction above was meant to call out the difference between the iPod and MP3 competitors: Apple's DRM.
It really doesn't matter the small percentage of songs from iTunes played on the iPod. Its more important that iTunes gives near exclusive offerings that other services don't. And you know that iTunes will only play on the iPod (at least currently). This ads enough value to the iPod so that MP3 music owners will buy it rather than other players.
We agree that Apple is really tapping 2 markets: the market for its iTunes store, and the market for MP3 songs. The first, which deals with DRM:), makes the second more valuable. By buying an iPod, MP3 users get a player that will also give them access to exclusive offerings.
Jeremy
· 3 years ago
Its related to XT's blog, where he talks about how capital is not necessary for innovation.
Capital is not necessary for innovation. You can have innovation without capital (just look at Charles Babbage, who designed an extremely complex mechanical computer on paper) but obviously capital does not, of itself, dream up the iPod killer or the next Harry Potter book. Rather, it requires human ingenuity and creativity.
The point of Trapnel's argument was not that capital isn't helpful or useful to innovation, but that the State intervenes in the economy to artificially favor corporate capital against, say, independent artists or inventors in the ongoing race for innovation (at least, that's how I understood it). The justification for the monopoly of IP is that it is an unequivocal good to grant this privilege, and Trapnel simply introduced some doubt into that thesis.
eric
· 3 years ago
"Its more important that iTunes gives near exclusive offerings that other services don't. And you know that iTunes will only play on the iPod (at least currently). This ads enough value to the iPod so that MP3 music owners will buy it rather than other players."
I think we would need some actual data to establish this. How many iPod owners are buying "near exclusive offerings?" Of this number, how many consider it an important factor in their purchase?
All Comments
So tell me Tim Lee and XT, what do you folks think of the US venture capital system. Is it a waste of money. Should all the capital flowing from VCs be diverted elsewhere besides commercial firms. How should profitable companies (who often act as VCs themselves) (re)use their revenue.
Also, XT, did you catch my point about the iPod and DRM. Although it plays MP3 files, the iPod is successful because it excludes non-Apple DRM. This probably marks the difference in success between the iPod and your usual MP3 player. W/o that kind of exclusivity enabled by DRM and the DMCA, seriously, why would Apple invest in creating the iPod and its peripheral products.
Also, completely unrelated, would you please start using question marks? witout tehm yuo coulds as wells be writeining lieks dys
iTunes has a couple more deals with the Studios than other music services. Those studios signed with Apple b/c of DRM agreements. iTunes, while not a big profit maker for Apple, induces folks to get the iPod.
Granted that most songs on the average iPod are not bought from iTunes, the fact that iTunes offers many labels/tracks not available many places elsewhere, which can only be played on the iPod, is enough of a case for DRM.
I should have clarified this, but when you talk about DRM and Apple, its probably important to mention both the iPod and iTunes.
Perhaps you are getting confused by the very real fact that iTunes integration is a big selling point for the iPod. But this has nothing to do with DRM, and everything to do with the fact that iTunes is a very well-designed MP3 playing music program. People like iPods because they are gorgeous, hip, and user-friendly; people like iTunes because it is a great piece of software; people like them both even more because they are designed to work well together. I repeat: none of this has anything to do with DRM. I use both an iPod and iTunes all the time, and my position on DRM is pretty obvious by now. I use both iTunes and my iPod to play DRM-free MP3s. Which is why your comment about "iPod vs MP3 players"--as if the iPod weren't an MP3 player itself!--is so bizarre.
Now: if the time comes when many consumers will have built up a significant library of DRM'd iTunes tracked, then this will, in fact, result in a lock-in effect that will help the iPod withstand rivals. But we're not there yet, not at all.
It really doesn't matter the small percentage of songs from iTunes played on the iPod. Its more important that iTunes gives near exclusive offerings that other services don't. And you know that iTunes will only play on the iPod (at least currently). This ads enough value to the iPod so that MP3 music owners will buy it rather than other players.
We agree that Apple is really tapping 2 markets: the market for its iTunes store, and the market for MP3 songs. The first, which deals with DRM:), makes the second more valuable. By buying an iPod, MP3 users get a player that will also give them access to exclusive offerings.
Capital is not necessary for innovation. You can have innovation without capital (just look at Charles Babbage, who designed an extremely complex mechanical computer on paper) but obviously capital does not, of itself, dream up the iPod killer or the next Harry Potter book. Rather, it requires human ingenuity and creativity.
The point of Trapnel's argument was not that capital isn't helpful or useful to innovation, but that the State intervenes in the economy to artificially favor corporate capital against, say, independent artists or inventors in the ongoing race for innovation (at least, that's how I understood it). The justification for the monopoly of IP is that it is an unequivocal good to grant this privilege, and Trapnel simply introduced some doubt into that thesis.
I think we would need some actual data to establish this. How many iPod owners are buying "near exclusive offerings?" Of this number, how many consider it an important factor in their purchase?
Color me skeptical.