 |
|
|
 THE LIBERTARIAN ENTERPRISE Number 549, December 20, 2009 "The United Nations must be destroyed."
In the Dec. 13th, 2009, issue, Daniel Jennings discusses how
publishing is changing by noting that electronic formats and
print-on-demand have finally reached the "mainstream".
This brings to mind that we, as in society in general, are going to
have to deal with copyright.
In long, sometimes very hostile, discussions, it has become clear to
me that the government "Letters Patent" monopoly grants have infected
the thinking of many people, maybe most, as deeply if not more so
than the ever popular issue of "roads".
One proponent of copyright in such a discussion was all for
downloading music online until, in trying to support copyright
against my position of repeal, she suddenly realized that she was
breaking the law she was arguing for. Rather than turn toward repeal,
she instead ignored every argument she had made in favor of this
minor freedom, and ceased talking about downloading at all. Her last
comment to me to date is, "you're insane and so are your ideas."
Even though some of these discussions have occurred in forums
dedicated to Linux and other Free and Open Source Software, where
many developers are paid for what they do even though they give away
the software that they write, the idea of being paid for creation,
rather than copies, is something that the prohibitionists cannot
grasp.
Yes, prohibition. The peaceful copying of something which belongs to
me is illegal, because someone else claims legal ownership of an idea
or pattern that they have previously sold or given away.
The idea of intellectual property, that copying and idea/pattern is
theft, is why the discussions do not remain polite. The supporter's
reaction is emotional the same way it would be emotional if I were
trying to get people to agree to me taking their car, or the food
from their refrigerator, without "paying for it".
What's strange is that these people aren't themselves earning money
through royalties or residuals or whatever the words are. Yet,
like "roads", they freak out at the idea that something they are
accustomed to that relies upon government for its existence at the
present time might possibly cease to exist as they know it.
Thomas Jefferson was so right. All experience hath shewn, that mankind
are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to
right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are
accustomed.
Now why is it fine for me to copy that here, but if it were written
more recently would require the legal twisted logic of "fair use" for
me to be allowed to do so? Because copyright requires loopholes,
twists and turns in order to make it even marginally workable.
And let me repeat, the most acerbic of these discussions have been in
forums dedicated to things people give away!
The rationalization for the establishment of copyright and patent,
just one obvious example of merchantilism enumerated in that statist
rag, the "Constitution for the United States", was to ensure a
vigorous public domain by requiring ideas to be placed into the
Library of Congress or the Patent Office in order to be granted legal
monopoly status. Then, after being secured "for a limited time",
those ideas would be available to anyone and everyone to copy and
build upon.
There is a glaring problem, though: This rewards not creation, but
laziness. A real "better idea" need only be come up with once or
twice in order to secure a lifetime of royalties. With the changes to
to the laws in the latter half of the 20th century, one "better
idea", such as a cartoon character drawn quickly of only three
conjoined circles, can mean several lifetimes of "protection" for one
mickey-mouse idea.
I think creation is best rewarded at the time of creation. Inventors,
rewarded most highly by being first to market, establishing a
reputation for quality, for being "The Real McCoy." But sitting on
one's laurels cannot succeed without artificial support. The creator
must continually innovate, just like any other business without a
monopoly grant that prevents competition.
"We" react negatively to monopolies in business, in particular regions
or services. "We" know that such a monopoly grant reduces innovation,
stifles competition and generally supports inefficient firms that
provide substandard services that people wouldn't otherwise pay for.
It doesn't take much effort to realize that the monopoly grants of
copyright/patent are no different in their effects.
So what about the creators? How to support inventors, musicians and
authors? To tell the truth, I have no easy answer. I don't think
there is any answer that will maintain "monopoly profits" to these
creators and producers that isn't just more of what we have now.
In my life the jobs I've had have been direct service or creating
answers for people to solve their particular needs. I've never had a
use for copyright or patent, because I was paid to solve problems
now. The market benefits of a human voice, rather than a
voicemail-hell decision tree, are very well known. People who want to
get to their data are not going to wait for me to file a patent on
the technique for getting them reconnected before I implement it.
One manufacturer I worked for made their excellent profits by being
able to produce a plastic to customer specifications faster than
anyone else on the planet. During the year it took for the
competition to copy the properties of the material (and supply it
cheaper) the company was able to charge "monopoly prices" for their
product because they were, without any recourse to legalities, the
only place it could be bought. Humans have very strong time
preferences.
The best are in demand because they are the best. Photography did not
prevent Picasso and Warhol from earning a living as painters, TV
hasn't put theaters out of business. Recorded music has not meant the
death of live performances of every size or venue, or symphonies even
though several of those exist only because of their involuntary
patronage by taxpayers.
Horse-drawn carriages still are made and sold, as are those hapless
foils of change, buggy-whips. Those producers found their niche,
albeit a small one.
Nothing can replace or replicate, yet, personal service or live
performance. Quality reproductions cost more than shoddy, and that is
reflected in what people pay for personal service, live performances
and quality recordings/prints.
Ok, back on track. Mr. Jennings (remember Mr. Jennings? Scroll back if
not) brings up digital publishing, direct to the computer. Copying
digital content is just too easy to believe that authors are going to
be protected by DRM or copyright. Personally, I won't buy a "book"
with DRM even though I have no intention to give it away, any more
than I would buy a paper book with a lock on it that checks my
identity before it will allow me to open it.
Carl Bussjaeger, after writing his seriously excellent novel Net
Assets, sold electronic copies. Then someone made it widely
available "online" and, as he puts it, "didn't even have the decency
to include a link for voluntary donations."
There was a PDF of photographs of Rawlings' The Deathly Hallows soon
after publication; searching for L. Neil Smith online found an
electronic version of Forge of the Elders floating around.
Those who uploaded Net Assets, Forge of the Elders and The
Deathly Hallows must have the freedom to do what they want with the
bits on their own computer or the very concept of "private property"
does not exist.
The Patron Author of The Libertarian Enterprise has put his novel
Ceres online, one chapter at a time, and I dearly hope that the
ad-clicks are sufficient for him to continue doing so. If Mr.
Bussjeager had written Net Assets today, maybe that would have
worked for him as well. We have the examples of Charles Dickens and
numerous authors since who have serialized their works for magazines,
being paid for their creation by being the "first to market", in
exactly the same way that Big Head Press and other online comics are
doing with their various works.
This is one idea for authors that I see working, today, without their
first taking recourse to the monopoly grant of copyright. I'm certain
that there are more different and interesting answers that people
will come up with. And if it turns out that musicians, authors and
inventors cannot do their thing full time without those monopoly
profits, then the old phrase of "don't quit your day job" comes
to mind.
...and please, don't forget to drop a nickel in the jar.
Daniel Jennings, The Publishing Revolution
Carl Bussjeager, Net Assets
L. Neil Smith, Ceres
Big Head Press
Boldrin and Levine, Against Intellectual Monopoly
TLE AFFILIATE
|
|
|
|
![[DIGG THIS]](../gifs/91x17-digg-button.gif){kind=small}
Previous
Contents
Next