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

[M. Fioretti]

On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 15:19:05 PM -0600, Kevin Carson
(free.market.anticapitalist at gmail.com) wrote:

> The idea is not to do those things instead of publishing online for
> free, but to use free online content as advertising to promote the
> scarce paid content

I know. I have been reading these business models for years, thanks.
Of course I would adopt them if I went doing private teaching
etc... full time. My point is simply that in the second case I would
publish online much, much, much less.

The maximum amount of stuff an individual can produce is limited. If
you allow unhautorized distribution in cases like the one I've already
described 6/7 times, all you get is to remove an incentive to make all
or almost all of that stuff available for everybody.

> > 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.
> 
> It has everything to do with the matter at hand.  I'm using it in
> the sense of an economic rent or quasirent, a scarcity rent deriving
> from artificial property rights.  To the extent that the right to
> sell a good is artificially restricted, the privileged seller is
> enabled to charge a price above the marginal cost of production.
> That's a rent.  And specifically, the price of a manufactured good
> that results from proprietary industrial design rather than
> materials and labor is a rent.

and frankly now I see even less of a connection with the specific
cases I've mentioned all the week, than when I wrote "please do not
use rent". Why don't we restart from the street musician analogy I
proposed in another message? Thanks.

Marco