6 comments

• 

  Greg Touchton

  1 year ago

  Perhaps I missed repeated use of the term "rivalrous" in another chapter, but if you could replace the term rivalrous with a more commonly used, the chart would be easier to understand.
  
  Thanks for posting these; I have been enjoying them.
  reply
• 

  will page

  1 year ago

  Nice post, well done.
  
  ...This is not a corner kick away from a paper I published in late 2006, titled "is the price of recorded music heading for zero?" and available here:
  
  www.mcps-prs-alliance.co.uk/economics
  
  My paper neatly sets up the 2x2 matrix and walks the reader through where the physical cd used to belong (private good) and where its contents now appear (public good) to many torrent tracking teens and upwards.
  
  What I try to do is to get people thinking about an effecient toll, in the economic sense, as opposed to an enforceable toll in the legal sense.
  
  Since publishing the paper, much of my work has been on the secondary 'black' market, and I would refer you to a second short paper titled 'Album Base' which I co-wrote with Paul Sanders, (one of the best brains I've ever met when dealing with these complex issues). This will offer a useful tool for understanding the options that might exist when thinking about an effective and effecient toll, which allows creators to be compensated.
  
  Given its a tech audience, I'd warn that your book risks talking to the converted, but ignoring those you need to understand. Copyright and Tech work in different environments, at different tempos and often have assymetric objectives. To prevent your book from becoming another "also ran" (there are many) you really need to bridge that divide. MTV is a classic example, as they built a massive ad funded business on 'free music' without comensating the creators who's works arguabley drove the business. That should help let the penny drop... Its a supply chain issue. Again, I'd highlight the work of Paul Sander's Play Louder project as one such example - but it aint been easy.
  
  Lastly, don't let music dominate your thinking. I'm biased, for obvious reasons, but you will find that the problems the music bizniz has been grappling with for the past decade are already begining to filter into television (check www.tioti.com for a very interesting development), film and printed press.
  
  Happy to offer comments on your first draft if it helps, best of luck!
  
  WP
  
  Ps: believe me, the term rivalrous is a night mare, why not opt with "scarce/ non scarce" and apply a healthy footnote.
  reply
• 

  Steve R.

  1 year ago

  In reviewing the recently posted articles, a thought occurred to me; copyright only benefits a segment of those creating expressive works, specifically those who have established a demand for their products.
  
  In reading the posts on copyright on this forum and others, it is often pointed out that the major problem faced by many aspiring authors is creating name recognition, not the protection of their work. Hence to create name recognition and product demand, the authors give their work away and depend on other merchandising tactics to generate their income.
  
  Additionally, there is the issue that for many artistic producers there may simply be no public demand for their work: poor quality, socially unacceptable, etc.
  
  Copyright, for those who have not yet achieved a certain critical mass of public acceptance is irrelevant ("Why to Call Copyright "Privilege""). Common law, though I am not a lawyer, may hold a greater degree of relevance for those in the process of establishing themselves.
  
  I hope that you may be able to incorporate the concept that copyright is not meaningful for the segment of creative producers who have yet established a public demand for their creative work.
  reply
• 

  Anonymous

  1 year ago

  Greg: I didn't define "non-rivalrous" earlier, but rather tried to explain it in the paragraph following the graphic. I guess it didn't exactly pop out, so maybe I should work on that. Thanks for the feedback.
  
  Will: I've never before heard the expression, "This is not a corner kick away," but I think I understand you! Thanks for the tip to your interesting paper, which touts some very nice graphics. I'll have to think about your suggestion that I relegate "non-rivalrous" to a footnote. You are surely right that it would trip up some readers. At the same time, though, I don't want to miss the chance to communicate clearly with folks more used to the technical term.
  
  Steve: Thanks for that suggestion. This chapter will elsewhere include some discussion of what common law can (and cannot) do for authors. With luck, that will help to cover some of the points you raise.
  reply
• 

  Jessica

  1 year ago

  aewdsa saf wefrasf adsf sdaf
  reply
• 

  50psi

  4 months ago

  I like to agree with Steve. The way i see it, the only people who enforce Copyrights are the ones who can afford it.
  reply