| richard barbrook on Thu, 8 Nov 2001 02:07:01 +0100 (CET) |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
| [Nettime-bold] Fwd: TidBITS#602/22-Oct-01 |
---- Begin Forwarded Text ----
>Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 21:00:00 -0700
>From: TidBITS Editors <[email protected]>
>Subject: TidBITS#602/22-Oct-01
>To: [email protected] (TidBITS Distribution)
>Reply-To: "TidBITS Editors" <[email protected]>
>
>TidBITS#602/22-Oct-01
>=====================
[snip]
>Steal This Essay 1: Content Is a Pure Public Good
>-------------------------------------------------
> by Dan Kohn
>
> Steal this essay, or, why these sorts of essays represent the
> future of all publishing. Hint: I'm not getting paid for them.
>
> "Freedom of the press belongs to those who own one."
> - A.J. Liebling
>
> If you or anyone you know has ever or will ever produce content
> (writing, music, video, etc.) and hopes to get paid for it, you
> should be afraid.
>
> To see why, start by downloading (for free, of course) one of the
> numerous peer-to-peer file sharing systems such as Aimster,
> LimeWire, and eDonkey2000 that have emerged hydra-like to take the
> place of Napster, whose head was cut off this spring by the
> Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA). You will find
> that much the same selection of MP3 music that was on Napster is
> still available for free, as well as being accompanied by more and
> more movies ("ripped" directly from DVDs), and nearly all other
> forms of content, from Shakespeare's works to hard core adult
> materials.
>
><http://www.aimster.com/>
><http://www.limewire.com/>
><http://www.edonkey2000.com/>
><http://www.napster.com/>
><http://db.tidbits.com/getbits.acgi?tbser=1206>
>
> What you will not find - even if you are the RIAA - is anyone to
> sue. Because unlike Napster, there are no companies underlying the
> software infrastructure, no servers to confiscate, no officers on
> whom to serve papers. The next generation of peer-to-peer clients
> relies on no central infrastructure whatsoever, and is being
> developed by a loose knit group of developers spread around the
> world, all donating their significant efforts without any real
> hope of getting paid for their work. All of the developers are men
> - or teenage boys - and though not following the typical societal
> track toward prestige, they are just as competitive as any rival
> athletes or entrepreneurs. Many are distributing their software as
> open source, so anyone else can fix bugs and make improvements.
> What this means is not just that the RIAA is applying makeup to
> the corpse of the music industry as we've known it. In fact, it
> heralds an even larger change about how all content is created and
> distributed, and raises serious questions as to whether content
> creators (such as the author of this essay) will ever be
> compensated for our work.
>
> Read a few dozen articles by top technology analysts, and it is
> often difficult to find one that doesn't breathlessly declare how
> this or that new technology represents a sea change, an inflection
> point, or the end of history. In fact, while the Internet's growth
> rates have been quite high, other technologies such as radio and
> gas cooking have actually been adopted faster. It may be, though,
> that all of the hype surrounding the digital duplication and
> peer-to-peer distribution of content actually underestimates the
> impact on the authors and publishers of music, movies, and written
> works.
>
> Put simply, in a world where there are essentially no costs to
> replicate content and it is effectively impossible to stop anyone
> from doing so at will, the current economic model underpinning
> content creation will be dead. Despite the protestations of
> lawyers, (certain) rock bands, and legislatures (all on the same
> losing side, oddly enough), we are entering that brave new world.
>
> If, as this hard technology determinist viewpoint suggests,
> content is destined to be free - i.e., the content creators and
> publishers will not be directly compensated the way they are today
> when you make a purchase from your local CD store - then the real
> question is what system could replace the content compensation
> system that has worked quite well for the last 300 years. However,
> implementing revenue models for infinitely redistributable goods
> is not an entirely novel question, and there are several economic
> models that can support the creation of content. What there may
> not be is _enough_ revenue to support the publishers of that
> content in addition to the authors, which helps explain why the
> RIAA is so eager to thwart digital distribution. When an ecosystem
> undergoes severe environmental changes, certain organisms that
> were previously essential - like the cyanobacteria that originally
> converted carbon dioxide to oxygen, or the record companies'
> A&R men - may recede to minor ecological niches.
>
> Economists have a term for what digital goods have become. Items
> are "nonrival" when we can all make use of them without anyone
> having to give them up. If I copy your CD, you're none the worse
> for it (nonrival), but if I steal your car, you will probably be
> upset (rival). Goods are "nonexcludable" when it becomes
> impractical to stop everyone from making use of the item, once one
> person can. It is infeasible, for instance, to stop additional
> viewers of broadcast television (nonexcludable), while it is very
> feasible to stop additional moviegoers from entering a theater
> (excludable). Economists call nonrival, nonexcludable items "pure
> public goods," although the name does not imply that public goods
> can be provided only by the government.
>
> Lighthouses are a classic pure public good. They are nonrival
> because each additional ship does not reduce the light available
> to the others. They are nonexcludable because any ship sailing by
> can see them. There are cases in New England two centuries ago of
> shipping guilds building privately managed lighthouses, even
> though the services couldn't be withheld from non-members. Most
> medical research and nearly all basic scientific research today is
> a pure public good, although for exactly this reason it is often
> financed (at least indirectly) by the government. Other textbook
> public goods are national defense, mosquito control, and public
> radio. In each case, the cost of providing the item to one
> consumer is the same as providing it to any number of consumers
> (nonrival), and it is impractical to stop anyone from making use
> of the good (nonexcludable). The table below provides some
> examples.
>
> | EXCLUDABLE | NONEXCLUDABLE
> -----------+--------------------+--------------------------------
> RIVAL | car, Walkman | unmanaged fishing rights
> -----------+--------------------+--------------------------------
> NONRIVAL | movie in a movie | lighthouses, national defense,
> | theater, concert | mosquito control
> | in a large hall |
>
> If content is becoming a pure public good, it will necessitate a
> radical rethinking of the recording industry's claim that copying
> content is stealing. We as a society react very differently toward
> the unpaid use of rival versus nonrival goods. Think of the
> punishment inflicted, for example, on those who steal cars versus
> those who listen to public radio without contributing to the fund
> drives. Of course, whether a good is rival or not is beside the
> point if you can successfully exclude people who don't pay. (Ask
> Microsoft, whose cost for selling one copy of Office is
> approximately the same as selling 100 million copies (nonrival),
> but which has used informant tactics and large legal penalties to
> make their software very excludable, at least for businesses.)
>
> The lawyers representing the recording and movie industry are well
> aware of the threat to their business models of digital content,
> and they believe they have already developed the answer:
> encryption. Encryption represents the music industry's last, best
> hope of maintaining their product as excludable. Why they are
> wrong, and content protection is doomed to failure, will have to
> wait for the next essay.
>
> [Dan Kohn is a General Partner with Skymoon Ventures. His writings
> are announced through <[email protected]> and can
> be discussed through <[email protected]>.]
>
><http://www.dankohn.com/>
><http://www.skymoonventures.com/>
>
>
>
>$$
>
> Non-profit, non-commercial publications may reprint articles if
> full credit is given. Others please contact us. We don't guarantee
> accuracy of articles. Caveat lector. Publication, product, and
> company names may be registered trademarks of their companies.
>
> This file is formatted as setext. For more information send email
> to <[email protected]>. A file will be returned shortly.
>
> For information: how to subscribe, where to find back issues,
> and more, email <[email protected]>. TidBITS ISSN 1090-7017.
> Send comments and editorial submissions to: <[email protected]>
> Back issues available at: <http://www.tidbits.com/tb-issues/>
> And: <ftp://ftp.tidbits.com/issues/>
> Full text searching available at: <http://www.tidbits.com/search/>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>
---- End Forwarded Text ----
--
___________________________________________________________________
Jeremy Quinn Karma Divers
webSpace Design
HyperMedia Research Centre
<mailto:[email protected]> <http://www.media.demon.co.uk>
<phone:+44.[0].20.7737.6831> <pager:[email protected]>
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Get your FREE credit report with a FREE CreditCheck
Monitoring Service trial
http://us.click.yahoo.com/Gi0tnD/bQ8CAA/ySSFAA/GFYolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
_______________________________________________
Nettime-bold mailing list
[email protected]
http://amsterdam.nettime.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nettime-bold