Also it doesn't take revenue into account, if you get 1 track off itunes and then pirate 10 how can you know how many tracks you would have purchased had piracy not been an option?
Does it matter? As long as people pay enough to ensure the creation of new works, I couldn't care less if every single dollar of revenue is extracted or not.
There are of course other options like live shows etc, but this won't work in all cases. For example you may be listening to a small artist from the other side of the planet who will likely never play a show in your country.
Sure, that's why I support both going to live shows and buying. I just don't support legal coercion.
The other problem is that some forms of media don't lend themselves so well to live performances.
Can you give me some examples?
I think we can agree that providing better services to supply content to end users as well as alternative business models are the key to beating piracy over the long term. I just don't but the argument that because you paid $10 for an album or a movie gives you a right to redistribute it to potentially thousands of others worldwide under your own conditions rather than those set by the original rights holder.
I don't consider that creating a work gives me the right to prevent others from copying whatever they want.
Does it matter? As long as people pay enough to ensure the creation of new works, I couldn't care less if every single dollar of revenue is extracted or not.
That's the issue, how do we know how much is required to create new works? perhaps more money would also create better new works? I would also assume that piracy is not necessarily uniform, something popular with a younger more tech savvy audience would be more likely to be pirated (I assume at least).
Sure, that's why I support both going to live shows and buying. I just don't support legal coercion.
We have legal coercion to do many things , for example to pay taxes or honor contracts that you may have signed (including EULAs etc). Not sure why this should particularly be different, you need some method of enforcement otherwise you would be essentially running an honesty system. Very few other industries can exist purely on what would essentially be donations so not sure why IP should be different.
Can you give me some examples?
Sure , Movies (although I suppose you could count cinema as performance) , video games and pretty much all software. There's also a lot of musicians that I enjoy but have no real desire to see live (mostly electronic stuff).
I don't consider that creating a work gives me the right to prevent others from copying whatever they want.
A counter question to this;
If you create a piece of IP then what additional rights should you have over everyone else?
Should somebody else be able to use it for something you might deem distasteful without your permission, perhaps misrepresenting your views in the process?
Should somebody else be able to take credit for your work? For example say you write and record a song and a large company with more resources than you decides to take your song and have somebody else perform it and they make serious money doing this do they owe you anything?
Or if they decide to host your work on a website with adverts (essentially what TPB did/does) do you have any right to a portion of that ad revenue?
That's the issue, how do we know how much is required to create new works?
If new works are still being produced - and right now, they're being produced more than ever - we know there is enough.
perhaps more money would also create better new works?
Define "better work".
I would also assume that piracy is not necessarily uniform, something popular with a younger more tech savvy audience would be more likely to be pirated (I assume at least).
Possibly, but again, I don't find that relevant.
We have legal coercion to do many things , for example to pay taxes or honor contracts that you may have signed (including EULAs etc). Not sure why this should particularly be different, you need some method of enforcement otherwise you would be essentially running an honesty system.
And we also don't have legal coercion for many other things. Fashion, for example, does not rely on copyright and still manages to be a vibrant community of creation.
Legal coercion should be reserved to when it's actually necessary. I'm not convinced it is in this case.
Very few other industries can exist purely on what would essentially be donations so not sure why IP should be different.
(I don't like the term IP. I'm talking about copyright.)
Show me another industry where the marginal costs are essentially 0. Music, movies, software, etc creation is different from most other industries for that fact alone.
A counter question to this; If you create a piece of IP then what additional rights should you have over everyone else? Should somebody else be able to use it for something you might deem distasteful without your permission, perhaps misrepresenting your views in the process?
Yes, they should be able to use it for something I might deem distasteful. I don't like censorship. If they misrepresenting my views, then they're defaming me. I don't need copyright to protect myself from that.
Should somebody else be able to take credit for your work?
No, because that would be fraud. Again, you don't need copyright, just basic consumer protection.
For example say you write and record a song and a large company with more resources than you decides to take your song and have somebody else perform it and they make serious money doing this do they owe you anything?
Sure. In fact, if more money alone makes a better song, I question the artistic quality of that work.
Or if they decide to host your work on a website with adverts (essentially what TPB did/does) do you have any right to a portion of that ad revenue?
If new works are still being produced - and right now, they're being produced more than ever - we know there is enough.
This I would think is partly due to having some copyright protection for their works.
* Define "better work". *
I don't think there's a universal definition, but higher budget works or just more lower budget works that might appeal to different people.
Possibly, but again, I don't find that relevant.
it's relevant because piracy of certain works more than others will mean that stuff that gets highly pirated becomes less lucrative to produce. Think PC gaming as an example of this.
And we also don't have legal coercion for many other things. Fashion, for example, does not rely on copyright and still manages to be a vibrant community of creation.
Fashion relies on trademarks to protect labels, also having an expensive fashion item is a way to visibly display wealth as much as anything else, movies and music don't really work like this.
Show me another industry where the marginal costs are essentially 0. Music, movies, software, etc creation is different from most other industries for that fact alone.
Marginal costs are low but the up front costs can be very high , this needs to be recouped somehow.
Yes, they should be able to use it for something I might deem distasteful. I don't like censorship. If they misrepresenting my views, then they're defaming me. I don't need copyright to protect myself from that.
I don't like censorship either but if I say wrote a song that was adapted and used as an anthem for a racist group I wouldn't be pleased with that.
They don't have to misrepresent your views directly but they can make you seem guilty by association and it is hard to get damages for that.
Sure. In fact, if more money alone makes a better song, I question the artistic quality of that work.
Or simply a larger marketing budget gets it out in front of more people, not necessarily a bad thing but surely it seems reasonable that the original author can dictate at least some terms of use?
No, why should I?
Because it encourages parasitic business models , the guy who created the work has created more value than the guy who put adverts around it but the economic incentive is to be the latter.
Does it matter? As long as people pay enough to ensure the creation of new works, I couldn't care less if every single dollar of revenue is extracted or not.
There are of course other options like live shows etc, but this won't work in all cases. For example you may be listening to a small artist from the other side of the planet who will likely never play a show in your country.
Sure, that's why I support both going to live shows and buying. I just don't support legal coercion.
The other problem is that some forms of media don't lend themselves so well to live performances.
Can you give me some examples?
I think we can agree that providing better services to supply content to end users as well as alternative business models are the key to beating piracy over the long term. I just don't but the argument that because you paid $10 for an album or a movie gives you a right to redistribute it to potentially thousands of others worldwide under your own conditions rather than those set by the original rights holder.
I don't consider that creating a work gives me the right to prevent others from copying whatever they want.