[p2p-research] Fwd: [fcforum] Fw: iPad DRM is a dangerous step backward. Sign the petition!

[M. Fioretti]

On Fri, Feb 05, 2010 12:38:48 PM -0600, Kevin Carson (free.market.anticapitalist at gmail.com) wrote:
> On 2/5/10, M. Fioretti <mfioretti at nexaima.net> wrote:
> >  "I do certain things only if I know in advance that, IN CASE it
> >  does (not "could"!!!)  generate some money in the first N years
> >  (where N should be much, much less than it is today), that money
> >  comes to ME, that is to the person who did spend his own time to
> >  do that thing, and that I can stop others who didn't make any
> >  effort at all from taking a part of that money".
> 
> Thanks for the clarification, Marco.
> 
> But what about the kinds of business models Chris Anderson and Mike
> Masnick point to, making money off of scarce goods associated with
> content, rather than off of the content itself?

I have two answers:

1) Why make of such models the ONLY alternative left even in cases
   when (cfr what I already described several times in this thread)
   maintaining a reformed copyright gives more incentive to produce
   without any actual damage to society?

2) The error, no, the risk in those models is to give for granted than
   everybody always has the time to do both, in all fields. I have no
   problem with "making money off of scarce goods associated with
   content": I can move full time to private lessons, write theses,
   and many other things all based on "selling" my limited time to
   SELECTED individuals and if I did it full time I'd make more money
   than now. Leave me that as the only source of income and when I'm
   done I'll take a walk, enjoy my family etc... instead of publishing
   online for free. It's as simple as that.

> But at the same time, if we remove all forms of state-enforced
> artificial property and artificial scarcity, the portion of the
> prices of all the things that we consume that comes from embedded
> rents on proprietary content

Please do not use "rent" even when it has nothing to do with the
matter at hand. I feel it as another proof that most thinking about
copyright is limited, if not actually harmed, by considering only
music and movies.

If I publish something online for free counting on banners, paypal
buttons and similar I'm like a street musician who makes NO objections
if somebody records the performance with their cameras for personal
use, but just puts his hat on the ground to collect offers from people
passing by who FREELY decide to contribute.

The only difference is that the musician is only seen by whoever is
there in that moment (so there would be something gained by society by
publishing a recording online) whereas something directly published
online is ALREADY available to everybody (there's nothing left
unshared, cfr my answer to Michel)

I see nothing like "rent" in this scenario. In that context, placing
an integral copy somewhere else online it's exactly as:

- placing _your_ hat over mine to intercept some of that money (if you
  do it for profit)
- partially covering the hat (ie making it more difficult to throw
  coins into it) with a shirt with your name, just to show everybody
  that you were there.

Try to do any of those two things to a street musician and then try to
convince him (or anybody else) that he's wrong to get angry.

Marco