JonBostwick:You can't be for real. Prices for IP do not reflect consumer demand, they represent price controls.
"The market has spoken: - Max Liberty
I have noticed that words like digital goods and ideas are getting thrown around. This make for a very confusing discussion.
It seem that I was talking about the production of digital goods while others talked about using ideas to produce something?
http://libregamewiki.org - The world's only encyclopedia on free(as in freedom) gaming.
JackSkylark:On the developer side of the IP disconnect, the idea is super-scarce, and could be disseminated at a monopoly price chosen by the inventor (factoring in substitutes, etc.)
No, either the idea does not exist which makes it a non-good, or the idea is common knowledge which makes it a non-good. The only way an idea could be a good is if its a secret(eg black mail).
But once an idea becomes common knowledge(eg the black mail is sold) the supply becomes infinite.
Peace
JonBostwick: kiba:On the developer side of the IP disconnect, the idea is super-scarce, and could be disseminated at a monopoly price chosen by the inventor (factoring in substitutes, etc.) No, either the idea does not exist which makes it a non-good, or the idea is common knowledge which makes it a non-good. The only way an idea could be a good is if its a secret(ie black mail). But once an idea because common knowledge(ie the black mail is sold) the supply is infinite.
kiba:On the developer side of the IP disconnect, the idea is super-scarce, and could be disseminated at a monopoly price chosen by the inventor (factoring in substitutes, etc.)
No, either the idea does not exist which makes it a non-good, or the idea is common knowledge which makes it a non-good. The only way an idea could be a good is if its a secret(ie black mail).
But once an idea because common knowledge(ie the black mail is sold) the supply is infinite.
Woah! This quote doesn't belong to me!
ah. sorry. Didnt proof read.
kiba: Why can't the labor cost be used as price signal for the production of digital goods?
Why can't the labor cost be used as price signal for the production of digital goods?
You could use the same argument is support of a socialistic central planning... But the issue comes down to relative prices.
JonBostwick: JackSkylark:No one has even attempted refutation of my Economic argument for IP, which naturaly would need to exclude any appeal to natural law, or morality. Property rights exist to resolve the disputes that naturally arise over scarce goods. Ideas are not scarce. If the cotton gin is patented and I create my own, no person has been wronged. No one has been deprived of their cotton gin, a new one has been created through my labor. Since me creating the cotton gin does not violate the NAP, the IP holder's violence against me for having made it does. The only "just price" for a good is that price agreed upon by both parties. Your appeal to "economics" is laughable. You want us to prove that IP will flourish just as much without a government grant? That's a matter of preference, not economics. Without the state involved in IP, consumers would benefit and producers would be hurt; the same result as would happen if the state got out of the postal service. JackSkylark:Thus this follows the same line of argument Mises puts forward on the failure of socialism - namely economic calculation is dislodged since relative prices do not exhibit consumer demand.) You can't be for real. Prices for IP do not reflect consumer demand, they represent price controls.
JackSkylark:No one has even attempted refutation of my Economic argument for IP, which naturaly would need to exclude any appeal to natural law, or morality.
Property rights exist to resolve the disputes that naturally arise over scarce goods. Ideas are not scarce.
If the cotton gin is patented and I create my own, no person has been wronged. No one has been deprived of their cotton gin, a new one has been created through my labor. Since me creating the cotton gin does not violate the NAP, the IP holder's violence against me for having made it does.
The only "just price" for a good is that price agreed upon by both parties.
Your appeal to "economics" is laughable. You want us to prove that IP will flourish just as much without a government grant? That's a matter of preference, not economics. Without the state involved in IP, consumers would benefit and producers would be hurt; the same result as would happen if the state got out of the postal service.
JackSkylark:Thus this follows the same line of argument Mises puts forward on the failure of socialism - namely economic calculation is dislodged since relative prices do not exhibit consumer demand.)
You can't be for real. Prices for IP do not reflect consumer demand, they represent price controls.
You did not read my posts, did not understand them, or are an idiot. My assumptions are based on a a value free economic approach, not a system of rights, natural or govenment fiat...Thus my argument is not on right or wrong, but on what happens in the market as a result of a legal framework (either one that does not accept IP or does). So you must, in order to refute my argument, go by my points and show the errors in my pragmatic argument by pointing out where my theory is flase and why my predictions are unsound, not by appeals to "rights" (i.e. the NAP).
I am following the same argument Mises advocates in "Human Action", and then embelishing it to encompass an economic calculation problem due to the identical nature of relative prices under no IP, in the realm of ideas (which are subject to a disconnect in scarcity).
I could very well say "You can't be for real. Prices without IP do not reflect consumer demand (note: relative pricing structure), they represent a problem in disconnect driven infinite goods."
but you didnt address how confident you feel in your Misesian argument, under the combustion engine or wheel scenario. it seemed for a moment that you were poised to reject or qualify some particular assumption Mises made. but perhaps not. so tell me is there an underproduction currently of things with wheels because there is presently not a monopoly price affixed to wheeliness, and do you think there should be a wheel tax?
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
kiba: I have noticed that words like digital goods and ideas are getting thrown around. This make for a very confusing discussion. It seem that I was talking about the production of digital goods while others talked about using ideas to produce something?
I have also noticed we are both using a different definition (or coming from a different perspective) of production for (what I have been calling) IP based goods (or, goods that have a temporal, scarcity disconnect). I dismissing comissions or being hired, prior to the invention of the good, to invent and and produce the idea that would be immediately posessed by the one who hired you (I see this as mostly a service, similar to tech support). My viewpoint is on the lone entreprenuer who has not been comissioned to produce something, and thus is not performing a service - but purely in the area of development and production.
nirgrahamUK: but you didnt address how confident you feel in your Misesian argument, under the combustion engine or wheel scenario. it seemed for a moment that you were poised to reject or qualify some particular assumption Mises made. but perhaps not. so tell me is there an underproduction currently of things with wheels because there is presently not a monopoly price affixed to wheeliness, and do you think there should be a wheel tax?
There will be an underproduction in the development of future "wheel" improvement's, not in the wheel as it is exhibited at that time in the market. It is becasue of this that a wheel tax would be, not only useless, but damaging to the market, and have a negative effect on consumer satisfaction.
Goods that have become infinite is supply (goods on the market side of the disconnect) are worthless and only enter my argument in order to showcase the temporial disconnect surrounding IP based goods. My inquiry only models the goods on the super-scarce (inventor) side of the disconnect.
JonBostwick: JackSkylark:On the developer side of the IP disconnect, the idea is super-scarce, and could be disseminated at a monopoly price chosen by the inventor (factoring in substitutes, etc.) No, either the idea does not exist which makes it a non-good, or the idea is common knowledge which makes it a non-good. The only way an idea could be a good is if its a secret(eg black mail). But once an idea becomes common knowledge(eg the black mail is sold) the supply becomes infinite.
Apparently you do not find my "temporial disconnect" assumption viable?
JackSkylark:There will be an underproduction in the development of future "wheel" improvement's, not in the wheel as it is exhibited at that time in the market. It is becasue of this that a wheel tax would be, not only useless, but damaging to the market, and have a negative effect on consumer satisfaction.
it would seem that as you do not support that wheeliness should be owned by someone or have an artificial monopoly price attached to it that you are abandoning your attempt to economically justify IP...
neh?
if wheeliness was owanable or chargeable, this would hamper the production of wheel based products (you were clear on this).
if ownership or chargeability would however have a benefit to inspire future wheel improvements Wheel2, then perhaps this ccould justify it. but then wheel2 could be analysed just as we have analysed wheel1.
so where does that leave us?
kiba: You are fucking clueless. You misconstructed what I have said not once, but twice. This is not what all I meant is all. It isn't even a hypothetical at all. The dude funded me because he wanted a game to play with or simply put, a better version of the game he played. I was selling my programming to a consumer, not an entrepneur who want to make extra cash. That is the business model I was talking about. A regular boring old job where I get paid to create new things.
You are fucking clueless. You misconstructed what I have said not once, but twice. This is not what all I meant is all. It isn't even a hypothetical at all.
The dude funded me because he wanted a game to play with or simply put, a better version of the game he played. I was selling my programming to a consumer, not an entrepneur who want to make extra cash.
That is the business model I was talking about. A regular boring old job where I get paid to create new things.
Are you a programmer? Do you know what it takes to create something as complex as a video game? The hundreds of thousands of man-hours needed? Who can afford to pay the entire development cost on their own? And if you are 'creating new things', when do you deliver the product? Twenty years later? This isnt pong we're talking about, but complex programs. Modding existing game engines is an option, but who created the game engine you're modding? No one will, because there is no profit to be had from it. But you're very good at responding to points. "you're fucking clueless". I'm completely without retort to such ingenious third grade debate techniques.
JackSkylark: kiba: Why can't the labor cost be used as price signal for the production of digital goods? You could use the same argument is support of a socialistic central planning... But the issue comes down to relative prices.
Huh? I don't understand. If a digital good that is not yet produced yet fetch a high price, doesn't that prove that relative prices do exists without IP?
liberty student: JonBostwick:You can't be for real. Prices for IP do not reflect consumer demand, they represent price controls. "The market has spoken: - Max Liberty
LS, the first time you made your point. You yourself said in this thread that it was good to exchange ideas on a friendly field. Isnt this crossing the line a bit? You dont have to agree with Max, but please respect his right to have an opinion, wrong though you may think it is, and not ridicule him to no end.
This is one of the biggest problems that libertarians have today, that even here, where most of us agree on 99% of our beleifs, we bicker and go very low in our debates. To an outsider, we would appear to be a bunch of children fighting over every minute detail. Why would a liberal or conservative ever join the discussion, and therefore *hopefully* be educated and change their mind, when we are so openly aggressive toward each other?
In the case of IP, let us hope that someday there is a world where we can test what the true free market will do with no IP. Then, if people such as myself are correct and there needs to be some basic protection, we will at least know for certain. And if we are wrong, and the market does indeed find a way, I will of course admit I was wrong. I pray that happens, because that means that the other 99% of the beleifs we share has also happened. In conclusion, we are all friends here, so lets all take a deep breath and realize that fact.
JParker: kiba: You are fucking clueless. You misconstructed what I have said not once, but twice. This is not what all I meant is all. It isn't even a hypothetical at all. The dude funded me because he wanted a game to play with or simply put, a better version of the game he played. I was selling my programming to a consumer, not an entrepneur who want to make extra cash. That is the business model I was talking about. A regular boring old job where I get paid to create new things. Are you a programmer? Do you know what it takes to create something as complex as a video game? The hundreds of thousands of man-hours needed? Who can afford to pay the entire development cost on their own? And if you are 'creating new things', when do you deliver the product? Twenty years later? This isnt pong we're talking about, but complex programs. Modding existing game engines is an option, but who created the game engine you're modding? No one will, because there is no profit to be had from it. But you're very good at responding to points. "you're fucking clueless". I'm completely without retort to such ingenious third grade debate techniques.
Are you trying to misunderstand everything I said? That is my frustration with you! You misunderstood everything I said and ignore all the points that I made.
I am a game programmer and I know very well the cost of game development, the long hours that is needed, and how fucking difficult it is to create good games! I been there. I failed lot of projects and succeeded in finishing some.
What wrong with people hiring other people to make fun games for them? Don't answer because you got so focused on selling games to entrepeneurs or distributors who in turn sell them for profit that you ignore entirely that I was selling my services to gamers, directly.
Want to see my little contract job? Go here.
Go ahead and laugh all you want and how my minicule my earning is but please actually comperhend what I actually said!
I feel very insulted that somebody actually questions that if I actually program and don't know the immense difficulty of game development.
Kiba, I understand what you're saying. And there very well can be many people developing programs such as yours. But as you hopefully concede, you could not develop the new call of duty. Not on your own. Even if you had the time and patience and immense skill to do so, no one could afford to pay you for it. Thus the market would be deprived of call of duty. Call this a good or bad thing, but my point is that w/o something protecting the code from being pirated by everyone, the large projects will never happen. Entire industries would cease to exist outside the hobbyists.
It seems as though you're suggesting that we be reduced to all being independent contractors as far as software goes. What of books? You have two weeks to write your software, a book takes much longer. I cannot afford to pay thousands of dollars for an author to spend a year writing me a custom book. But, because the book has a copyright, and it is illegal to reproduce it without the author's consent, he can write a book and sell it to a publishing company, who will then turn and profit from its mass production.
I believe I addressed your point, if not point out what I did not address to me, and I will. Please also address my points above.
JParker: LS, the first time you made your point. You yourself said in this thread that it was good to exchange ideas on a friendly field. Isnt this crossing the line a bit? You dont have to agree with Max, but please respect his right to have an opinion, wrong though you may think it is, and not ridicule him to no end.
What LS is really saying is that he is acknowledging that he is wrong and his arguement no longer makes sense in light of the obvious. Unable to admit his error he resorts to personal attacks.
Kiba, what Jack and I are talking about are not one consumer paying labor directly for a product. Your product may be sufficiently desired by many so that with some mechanism in place preventing them from using the product unless they exchange $50 with you, that you could earn a living exclusively producing such, which would fulfill specialization of labor. Do you fail to see why this is both in your best and the consumers' best interest?
Essentially, copyright tries to most efficiently ask the consumers, would you rather scarce resources be put to X use or Y? It is a signal that consumers may prefer information, an infinite good, to bread, or the production of some other scarce good. This is not a labor theory of value, because access to the information is freely priced and is not guaranteed to be profitable or not. The wage rates/salaries, the complexity of the information, and the amount of labor time spent has no effect on what the market will offer in demand.
I've mentioned the mass-consumer "bounty" method of doing this, and how few consumers are willing to fund information development this way. What is needed is entrepreneurial vision, profit motive, and calculation. But if entrepreneurs do not receive a marketable product from the laborers, but an infinite good with a market value equal to its marginal cost, which is significantly less than its fixed cost (labor for the infinite good), then entrepreneurs can only capitalize best on services and scarce goods that they produce in addition to the information. This again harms specialization of labor. What if I know video gamers' tastes, I know they want a full length game that will take a year or two to produce, I know they will prefer playing this game over alternative uses of their money, and I have the capital to produce it, but I have no idea about how to go about producing posters, physical discs, an overly resourceful website, etc., then I will need to find someone to handle that. But why would they align with me, when once they have my infinite good, they can simply cut me out? It's like saying one (or all) of the members of the Federal Reserve will refuse to inflate in harmony with the other banks because it doesn't want to devalue the real value of its debts. They may not like the game, but if that's what it is, they'll play it. A gift economy will not work efficiently, and that's what this scenario effectively reduces it to. Without IP law, entrepreneurs cannot direct the production of information most efficiently towards consumer desires. This does not mean entrepreneurs cannot profit through alternative business models (and that such may actually be more profitable in cases), but IP law does not deny them this opportunity.
The linking of infinite goods and scarce goods doesn't make sense to me in many cases. It obviously applies to instances where the scarce goods are specific and complex and required to consume the infinite good. For example, engines and tomatoes. Engine designs and tomato DNA or cultivation techniques cannot be consumed without the physical good, nor can engines or tomatoes be created without some amount of knowledge. But there is no engine that is designed to reconfigure itself based upon being fed engine designs. What about software, music, and literature, which is able to be consumed on a variety of general purpose devices? Any scarce goods attempted to be mixed with these are strictly complimentary to the prime informational, infinite good. Their supply costs and expected demand are different than potential demand for the informational good under IP law. Which do you believe will produce the primary good, the information, more efficiently? It does not matter if both are simply profitable. What is the difference in profit? How does this affect the marginal producer? Are there instances where it is more profitable to use IP law rather than sales of complimentary scarce goods as a business model? If so, then it is inevitable that many projects will only be pursued under one business model and not the other. Given that both can exist under copyright law, it seems like a market restriction to do away with it.
Then there's the argument of the cost of enforcing copyright violation being an additional cost onto the business model of artificial exclusion and unenforcible piracy being priced into expected demand. Alternative business models won't have these costs. I would assume that entrepreneurs surely take this into account already. And costs associated with contract violation should be passed onto the violator, not the enforcer.
...
The Techdirt alternative business model would be to syndicalize the release of the infinite good, thus drawing mass consumers back to a particular web location frequently, which would necessarily have the most updated and content-heavy information. This creates demand for advertisement (and other goods/services) on your site (time and space delimited - so they are scarce), especially for producers of physical goods that enhance that information. In this manner, the information becomes most commonly linked to other scarce goods, which command a market price.
Essentially this means all information production should be done in the smallest possible discrete entities as possible, while retaining consumer interest. There are numerous cases where this is not viable, or not even close to being as profitable as using copyright, where significant production time must be spent to create a project that is fully enjoyable. For instance, while we will read a book one chapter at a time, we don't prefer to watch films scene by scene. The only way such would be possible with film, in my mind, is to reduce production budgets to reality TV levels. I don't think such moves represent the market desires of either producers or consumers.
Check my blog, if you're a loser
JParker: Kiba, I understand what you're saying. And there very well can be many people developing programs such as yours. But as you hopefully concede, you could not develop the new call of duty. Not on your own. Even if you had the time and patience and immense skill to do so, no one could afford to pay you for it. Thus the market would be deprived of call of duty. Call this a good or bad thing, but my point is that w/o something protecting the code from being pirated by everyone, the large projects will never happen. Entire industries would cease to exist outside the hobbyists.
I can tell you that business models can do and will scale. There was a guy with much bigger reputation who was able to raise 700 dollars of the 1000 dollars in a pledge drive before his project get derailed by outside events.
I also know other failure of those who tried the ransom model. One involving the company Sixth Floor Lab. I viewed the failure as largely having unrealistic expectation and inability to raise awareness and follow through with their game projects. ($320 of the $40,000 raised)
Admitely, They all have much more programming experiences than me with more pledges from customers and yet they failed to gain any money. I viewed this as mostly as an entrenpenural failure.
I also have quite bit of experience in what is actually a big risk and what is actually not because I live and breath these models. I can assure you that small scale projects or probably even a small popular site are not at the risk of "piracy". Even when my wiki was at the hieght of its traffic(It got dugg once, and stumbleuponed several times), nobody actually brother copying the encyclopedia and earn some money with it. Nobody has so far copied it in the two years my site been in existence.
I am very realistic and incremental in approach to business.
I actually have the same kind of feeling you do. It wouldn't work according to my gut feeling. It would probably fail spectacularly Yet I am succeeding more than ever before...I may not be the best entrepeneur in the market, but I can outlast practically everybody. I am willing to try new business models and take any jobs as long I get my foot into the door. My patience knows no end.
Other people wouldn't believe for a second that it would work or believe that piracy will be so rampant so they never tried it. That what entrepneurship is. It is risky, ambigious, and uncertain but you never know if your economic theory is correct if you don't try.
Maybe two years later, I'll be a prosperous businessman who finally disproves all the critics wrong. On the other hand, I will probably be just another CS student looking over the horizon working at one of these wage-slave job at a software company. I don't know how the future will play out. The odd are is that I will be complementing my income with one of these lucrative web application programming job and do my hobby on the side.
Do you eat your own dog food?
meambobo, i just reading your long strident appeal in favour of the status qou. you dont want to live in a world where video games that cost a few million dollars to make, dont get made, because the entrepeneurs who might invest in making them arent guaranteed a return because they cant artificially maintain the price of their final product.
Well, so what.
You imagine a scenario where in this curernt IP world theres a Big Video Game that will cost a couple of million dollars to produce, in computer hardware and software engineer labour cost, that with it being an IP world an all, the game can still find hundreds of thousands of customers willing to pay 50$ apop over the counter in the traditional buy from shop or online store a physical copy of your game for your console business Model.
What if i told you I can think of ways of making a money from investing in the creation of the product, where ceteris parabis the only thing different is that its a non-IP world. There are business models where R&D in consumer products can pay off, and the money extracted from the willing consumers in a voluntary fashion without the use of intellectual monopoly privaledge (IMP is now going to be my pet name for IP, a fightback if you will)
perhaps its worth your while asking what a counter-example to your position look like, even in just a sketched out form. what would have to be demonstrated in order for you to concede...
meambobbo: The Techdirt alternative business model would be to syndicalize the release of the infinite good, thus drawing mass consumers back to a particular web location frequently, which would necessarily have the most updated and content-heavy information. This creates demand for advertisement (and other goods/services) on your site (time and space delimited - so they are scarce), especially for producers of physical goods that enhance that information. In this manner, the information becomes most commonly linked to other scarce goods, which command a market price. Essentially this means all information production should be done in the smallest possible discrete entities as possible, while retaining consumer interest. There are numerous cases where this is not viable, or not even close to being as profitable as using copyright, where significant production time must be spent to create a project that is fully enjoyable. For instance, while we will read a book one chapter at a time, we don't prefer to watch films scene by scene. The only way such would be possible with film, in my mind, is to reduce production budgets to reality TV levels. I don't think such moves represent the market desires of either producers or consumers.
Actually, this is not techdirt's primary business model. Their actual specialization is getting the experts to customers who needed it most. As far as I know, they earn very large rents for their work. The client base of techdirt is mostly corporations or business. They could be advising some of the biggest name in technology, banking, and other sectors.
Clients flock to techdirt because they knew that techdirt is a reputable source for in-your-face no agenda opinion. The kind of opinion that can't be baised to make somebody feel good. For them, they want techdirt to tell them straight up if techdirt think if their business model really sucks or if they're pissing off customers.
The syndication of infinte goods(in this case, contents written by techdirt bloggers) double as advertisement for their consulting business.
This is not a kind of reputation you would see overnight. It takes years.
Kiba, you've kind of proved my point. Someone raised 1000 dollars... another person failed to raise 40k. No offense, but you're a CS student still in school. 50 bucks for two weeks of your time is worth it. Gears 2, which was developed cheaper than most any blockbuster game in recent memory, cost a bit more than $10 million. And they (Epic) had already developed and owned the graphic engine. If groups have problems raising 40k, how will they raise 10 million?
I am happy for you, and hope that you get a good job and suppliment your income with your side programming. I would warn you, however, that most any software company will make you sign an agreement that anything you program in your free time is their property. Most of the time you can tell them you'll only sign it if they change the wording to say that they only get to take software you develop in the same industry. But if you work for a game company like EA, and they find out you sell game code on the side, you're screwed. Just a friendly warning. Anyway, you may be happy with this, and perhaps people will someday pay you hundreds of dollars for software. This cannot support a person.... life is too expensive. Your code is not pirated.. because there's better code to be taken. Not to say you're not skilled or anything, but if you could take your game, or the new madden, which would you steal? Obviously the large, well-known, expansive game.
So i'll ask again, how has anything you've pointed out done anything but reinforce my assertion that no IP = no games/code development outside hobbyists (which is what I would consider you, despite the fact that you get paid). Dog food? huh?
nirgrahamUK: What if i told you I can think of ways of making a money from investing in the creation of the product, where ceteris parabis the only thing different is that its a non-IP world. There are business models where R&D in consumer products can pay off, and the money extracted from the willing consumers in a voluntary fashion without the use of intellectual monopoly privaledge (IMP is now going to be my pet name for IP, a fightback if you will) perhaps its worth your while asking what a counter-example to your position look like, even in just a sketched out form. what would have to be demonstrated in order for you to concede...
I dont give a damn about IP, I care that the person who created the code/book/art/music is justly compensated. If there is a way without IP, I'm all for it. The onus, I believe, is on you to demonstrate that the above scenario where people would willingly pay for software they can legally* get for free (*legally because there is no IP law) is possible. Some would pay, as I pay for my music because I want to support the artists I like. Most would not, making it most likely economically unfeasible to create the code/book/art/music.
so your response is that there is no counter-example that could possibly convince you? or have i misread you?
nirgrahamUK: so your response is that there is no counter-example that could possibly convince you? or have i misread you?
No my response is please provide such example, while still maintaining the ability to produce at somewhat close to the same level as we currently do. I'm open to changing my mind, I just cannot fathom how this could work without IP. Especially for books.
JParker: Kiba, you've kind of proved my point. Someone raised 1000 dollars... another person failed to raise 40k. No offense, but you're a CS student still in school. 50 bucks for two weeks of your time is worth it. Gears 2, which was developed cheaper than most any blockbuster game in recent memory, cost a bit more than $10 million. And they (Epic) had already developed and owned the graphic engine. If groups have problems raising 40k, how will they raise 10 million?
I'm just asking for a bit more clarification- I would think that Gears 2 was developed because of the success of Gears 1- and even if Epic didn't have the sole rights to the graphic engine- it would still sell just as well even if other companies were able to create a game with the same graphics engine. Lets say Mario was not solely owned by Nintendo and any company could make a game and slap mario's face on it. I still think most people will end up buying Nintendo-made Mario game due to their quality.
Could you just paint me a scenario of what you think would happen if someone invested a lot of money into making a video game in a non-ip world? What do you think would happen to the industry if IP laws were to be eliminated tomorrow? I just want to get a better understanding of the argument.
so if i found you an example of a publisher that makes money selling hardback books for $$$ and at the same time offers the contents of those books available with no fee downloadable so that anyone with a computer can read it and or print it off onto their own paper. this would serve to act as a counter example on the book front ? would it or wouldnt it?
kiba:The commercial distinction is completely abritiary. For example, I uploaded a music video that I don't have a copyright up to youtube. Youtube is now making money from my video.
I agree that profit is always best expressed in personal desire - if profit were only monetary, no one would spend money. That being said, there is a reason money is used in economic calculation and indirect exchange. I would consider monetary income resulting directly from unlicensed use of a copyrighted to be commercial and subject to having a portion of it being forcefully rewarded to a copyright holder.
In your example, the uploader could do whatever he pleased with it without being sued (so long as he didn't post a link to his for profit website or similar on the video); however, commercial sites wouldn't be able to redistribute it without paying some of their revenue to the copyright holder (which could be determined by the number of hits the video recieves in proportion to others). This is similar to when someone uploads an NBC program, and YouTube subsequently takes it down. Under my approach, it could take it down, leave it up and pay the legally required amount, or license the material on whatever terms the parties agreed to.
Here is a more difficult example. Let's say I use Macromedia DreamWeaver to make a number of non-profit websites. Then I put on my resume "experienced with Macromedia DreamWeaver". I subsequently get a job. This may be a case where a suit is valid. The copyright holder would have to prove that some portion of revenue he is currently earning is due explicitly to his past, unlicensed experience with DreamWeaver, rather than his licensed use or training received at the company. This may be a much harder case to make, and I believe copyright holders would usually avoid it. They would much more prefer to go after torrent sites, commercial bootlegging operations, and the like. These would yeild higher entitlement %'s of revenue, in addition to a greater revenue pot, as well as being targeted as the copyright holder's most direct competition otherwise.
I would agree with the contractual approach as long as it held 3rd parties accountable for obstruction of justice or accessory charges if they refused to divulge the source of an unlicensed IP. I feel the entitlement system would be a "freer" and more "anti-IP" approach than contracts.
JParker: Kiba, you've kind of proved my point. Someone raised 1000 dollars... another person failed to raise 40k. No offense, but you're a CS student still in school. 50 bucks for two weeks of your time is worth it. Gears 2, which was developed cheaper than most any blockbuster game in recent memory, cost a bit more than $10 million. And they (Epic) had already developed and owned the graphic engine. If groups have problems raising 40k, how will they raise 10 million? I am happy for you, and hope that you get a good job and suppliment your income with your side programming. I would warn you, however, that most any software company will make you sign an agreement that anything you program in your free time is their property. Most of the time you can tell them you'll only sign it if they change the wording to say that they only get to take software you develop in the same industry. But if you work for a game company like EA, and they find out you sell game code on the side, you're screwed. Just a friendly warning. Anyway, you may be happy with this, and perhaps people will someday pay you hundreds of dollars for software. This cannot support a person.... life is too expensive. Your code is not pirated.. because there's better code to be taken. Not to say you're not skilled or anything, but if you could take your game, or the new madden, which would you steal? Obviously the large, well-known, expansive game. So i'll ask again, how has anything you've pointed out done anything but reinforce my assertion that no IP = no games/code development outside hobbyists (which is what I would consider you, despite the fact that you get paid). Dog food? huh?
Because it doesn't prove anything...yet. Would you based your opinion on failures of relatively few unknown entrepeneurs?
I actually know a few that were actually successful. One guy got paid to work on an pretty cool RTS game(actually comparable to Command and Conquer in term of complexity) for a few month. A guy managed to get money so he can test his game on a new graphic card. Another got constant donation every month from users who were grateful for all of his contribution to indie game development. (His reputation is on a whole nother level and begging for donations I don't see as particularly high potential earning)
You have to understand my reason for my commitment to this experiment:
Ask yourself why commercial indie game developers exist anyway? Why these little fishes exist in the first place? They don't have very large budget or resource for that matter and yet they managed to sell. Their game may be proprietary, but they have an audience despite budget limitation and the lack of fancy 3D graphics.
Ask yourself why large corporations funds the development of KDE, the Linux kernel, and others. Ask why some webcomic artists managed to live entirely off donations? Sell swags?
There were also so many successful example of musicans and other people doing these things in other field so I thought I could replicate these experiments in gaming as well and see if I can make enough living.
I am no indie developer. I am just a FOSS developer. If I can reach the market that indies crater to and uses my business model in place of their, than I could make enough money.
Dog food as in "do you practice what do you preach?". It is a metaphor.
auctionguy10:I still think most people will end up buying Nintendo-made Mario game due to their quality.
You may be right that people prefer the Nintendo game, but would people pay Nintendo $50 for the game they made, or a different source $5 for the same good?
meambobbo: kiba:The commercial distinction is completely abritiary. For example, I uploaded a music video that I don't have a copyright up to youtube. Youtube is now making money from my video. I agree that profit is always best expressed in personal desire - if profit were only monetary, no one would spend money. That being said, there is a reason money is used in economic calculation and indirect exchange. I would consider monetary income resulting directly from unlicensed use of a copyrighted to be commercial and subject to having a portion of it being forcefully rewarded to a copyright holder. In your example, the uploader could do whatever he pleased with it without being sued (so long as he didn't post a link to his for profit website or similar on the video); however, commercial sites wouldn't be able to redistribute it without paying some of their revenue to the copyright holder (which could be determined by the number of hits the video recieves in proportion to others). This is similar to when someone uploads an NBC program, and YouTube subsequently takes it down. Under my approach, it could take it down, leave it up and pay the legally required amount, or license the material on whatever terms the parties agreed to. Here is a more difficult example. Let's say I use Macromedia DreamWeaver to make a number of non-profit websites. Then I put on my resume "experienced with Macromedia DreamWeaver". I subsequently get a job. This may be a case where a suit is valid. The copyright holder would have to prove that some portion of revenue he is currently earning is due explicitly to his past, unlicensed experience with DreamWeaver, rather than his licensed use or training received at the company. This may be a much harder case to make, and I believe copyright holders would usually avoid it. They would much more prefer to go after torrent sites, commercial bootlegging operations, and the like. These would yeild higher entitlement %'s of revenue, in addition to a greater revenue pot, as well as being targeted as the copyright holder's most direct competition otherwise. I would agree with the contractual approach as long as it held 3rd parties accountable for obstruction of justice or accessory charges if they refused to divulge the source of an unlicensed IP. I feel the entitlement system would be a "freer" and more "anti-IP" approach than contracts.
My position remain the same. If people want to make restrictive contracts in their goods, let them do so. However it wouldn't extend to parties who didn't enter into a contract with them.
meambobbo: auctionguy10:I still think most people will end up buying Nintendo-made Mario game due to their quality. You may be right that people prefer the Nintendo game, but would people pay Nintendo $50 for the game they made, or a different source $5 for the same good?
Take a look at RedHat corporation in Against Intellectual Monopoly. It is very illustrative.
auctionguy10: JParker: Kiba, you've kind of proved my point. Someone raised 1000 dollars... another person failed to raise 40k. No offense, but you're a CS student still in school. 50 bucks for two weeks of your time is worth it. Gears 2, which was developed cheaper than most any blockbuster game in recent memory, cost a bit more than $10 million. And they (Epic) had already developed and owned the graphic engine. If groups have problems raising 40k, how will they raise 10 million? I'm just asking for a bit more clarification- I would think that Gears 2 was developed because of the success of Gears 1- and even if Epic didn't have the sole rights to the graphic engine- it would still sell just as well even if other companies were able to create a game with the same graphics engine. Lets say Mario was not solely owned by Nintendo and any company could make a game and slap mario's face on it. I still think most people will end up buying Nintendo-made Mario game due to their quality. Could you just paint me a scenario of what you think would happen if someone invested a lot of money into making a video game in a non-ip world? What do you think would happen to the industry if IP laws were to be eliminated tomorrow? I just want to get a better understanding of the argument.
Sure, i'll clarify. Gears 2 was developed bc of the financial success of gears 1. In a non-ip world what i believe would happen is thus: Epic investes 10+ million to make gears 2. It is pirated/leaked and stolen by almost everyone who has interest in it. Epic earns a small fraction of what they did, because they sell far far far fewer copies. Epic never developes another game because the second it hits the market, it is stolen and pirated by everyone because it is fully legal to download the game off bittorrent with no compensation to Epic. Small projects such as kiba speaks of, and philanthropic/hobbyist projects such as linux would happen, but the large projects/industry would cease to exist.
JParker: Small projects such as kiba speaks of, and philanthropic/hobbyist projects such as linux would happen, but the large projects/industry would cease to exist.
Small projects such as kiba speaks of, and philanthropic/hobbyist projects such as linux would happen, but the large projects/industry would cease to exist.
Linux isn't some hobbyist project coded by some programmer in their parent's basement. It is developed by professionals hired from corporations like IBM.
nirgrahamUK:so if i found you an example of a publisher that makes money selling hardback books for $$ and at the same time offers the contents of those books available with no fee downloadable so that anyone with a computer can read it and or print it off onto their own paper. this would serve to act as a counter example on the book front ? would it or wouldnt it?
I would say that so long as the author is being paid , this could be an example. I'm assuming you're going to pull out an ebook that is available free as the example, but there are few enough of those, and they are free with the author's consent. Show me a publisher who pays the author for each downloaded copy, and i'll really be taken aback.
JParker: nirgrahamUK:so if i found you an example of a publisher that makes money selling hardback books for $ and at the same time offers the contents of those books available with no fee downloadable so that anyone with a computer can read it and or print it off onto their own paper. this would serve to act as a counter example on the book front ? would it or wouldnt it? I would say that so long as the author is being paid , this could be an example. I'm assuming you're going to pull out an ebook that is available free as the example, but there are few enough of those, and they are free with the author's consent. Show me a publisher who pays the author for each downloaded copy, and i'll really be taken aback.
nirgrahamUK:so if i found you an example of a publisher that makes money selling hardback books for $ and at the same time offers the contents of those books available with no fee downloadable so that anyone with a computer can read it and or print it off onto their own paper. this would serve to act as a counter example on the book front ? would it or wouldnt it?
Increased sale of physical books don't count?
kiba:Increased sale of physical books don't count?
Show empirical evidence that providing the entire book, unedited, for free increased the rate of book purchase. Kind of hard to prove a direct connection.
JParker:I would say that so long as the author is being paid , this could be an example. I'm assuming you're going to pull out an ebook that is available free as the example, but there are few enough of those, and they are free with the author's consent. Show me a publisher who pays the author for each downloaded copy, and i'll really be taken aback.
I'm assuming you're going to pull out an ebook that is available free as the example, but there are few enough of those, and they are free with the author's consent. Show me a publisher who pays the author for each downloaded copy, and i'll really be taken aback.
online
http://mises.org/books/sol.pdf
hardcopyhttp://www.amazon.com/Speaking-Liberty-Llewellyn-Rockwell-Jr/dp/0945466382/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1233364261&sr=1-1
why would he need to be paid for each downloaded copy. you are just projecting your persoinal preference for how conducts his business out on the world.
How about British authors who got paid by American publishers despite the fact that they have no copyright in the USA?