copy protection vs file sharing -- or -- the economics of scarcity vs economics of plenty

[miriam_e]

When the first printing presses were made the priests thought it would be the ruination of books and society -- what possible good could come of the common people having access to all that priveleged knowledge?... but it started a whole new printing and publishing industry, and science and technology exploded as information became more accessible.

Back in, I think it was the 17th(?) century, when the piano was invented the British Musicians' Union tried to have it banned because they felt that it would put other musicians out of business -- one person could now play all the parts of a chamber orchestra! It was obvious that no good could come of this, and had to be stopped. But we all know it just added another instrument to our palette and helped further the cause of music generally.

When photostat machines were developed they caused horror among publishing circles that it would ruin the printing industry -- why would people buy books if they could photostat them? Copy protection laws were hastily enacted that tried to limit this, even though everybody knew that you couldn't easily police them. But photostat machines just added to our tools and had no deleterious effect on the publishing industry, and may actually have helped it because of fanzines and other small-circulation magazines that started life as photocopied publications, and the authors they helped to success.

When compact audio cassette tapes were introduced the music industry was outraged and there were panicked calls to have them banned. Clearly they would put companies out of business and wreck musicians' livelihoods. There were even some copy protection schemes developed. But audio cassettes never hurt record sales, and probably actually helped by spreading popular works -- friends would give each other tapes which they would come to enjoy then go out and buy more works by those artists.

When videotape machines were introduced it caused a terrible reaction among those in the movie industry. Oh no! It would be the end of the movie-making business as we know it. They even had laws passed that made it illegal to record shows from TV!! (So we are all criminals.) But they were right in one respect: it did alter the movie-making industry -- they made far more profits than ever before! People could now play movies from video libraries as well as seeing them at the cinema. Not only that but you could still get to see stuff on TV if you were at work or asleep or on holiday, by getting your videotape machine to record it for you on timer. All those extra advertising dollars fed back into the movie industry.

Now there is a great fury among musicians and record companies because of people swapping mp3 files. They are scared that it will be the end of record sales (again!). I think we will find that it is simply another way of publicising music. Bands will be even hotter, sales will be lifted even more and record companies will move to DVD where they can sell music videos or use CDs to pack ten times as much music in by encoding it as mp3. People who remember will wonder what all the fuss was about.

Another big scare centers around DivX compressed movies. Oh woe! It will be the ruin of the movie industry! We need to enact all manner of draconian legislation to protect our stranglehold on the market! Don't people ever get sick of this same old whine? It seems the bigger an industry gets the more it reverts to the behavior of a petulant, tantrum-throwing infant.

Some people never learn from history. These new technologies represent great opportunities... but the big companies are so scared and loathe to embrace change that they are not likely to see it. They want to keep milking the same old cow, and never have to change -- even if that change could benefit them and their customers!

Any group of people have the right to become stuck in the past if they want, but the rest of the world wants to move on. When a piece of music or picture or text is copied in today's electronic world nothing is actually stolen. To call it theft is to take an old concept, appropriate for physical objects like paper and plastic, and attempt to apply it to the new ethereal world of data -- but it is apples and oranges. For the first time in history the world's wealth can increase almost effortlessly. This is a great thing -- a revolutionary thing! We need to find a way for this to work; not stand in its way. And anyway, file sharing is going to happen -- is happening -- whether we call it theft or not.

The old system derives much of its value from scarcity. If something was hard to come by then it became valuable. Gold is valuable because it is hard to find. If a way was found to cheaply transmute silicon (sand is silicon dioxide) into gold, then gold would become worthless overnight. In a system ruled by the economics of scarcity an artist's work jumps in value after they die (a totally insane concept). We need a system based upon intrinsic worth, and this new data age looks like it could deliver it. Instead of paying for some paper or plastic that is difficult to recreate, we have to think about a new economics of plenty, where anybody can have any data they want.

We need to be pragmatic and work out ways to ensure that artists, writers, film-makers, and musicians get their rewards for enriching society. If we keep to the same, old, outmoded system based upon scarcity of physical objects then we guarantee that the creators of culture will lose out... and if they do, we all do.

Comments

[patchworkkid.livejournal.com]

Wow. What she said. Damn. We need people like you in positions of power, dammit.

[miriam-e.livejournal.com]

heheheh thanks, though I want power like I want ulcerated eyes.
Unfortunately the very people who do want power are the very ones that should be immediately disqualified from ever getting it.
Gotta say I like Arthur C. Clarke's idea that there should be a computer-matched search for the person best qualified for the job, they are dragged kicking and screaming into the job, and allowed time off for good behavior.
I also think people in public office should not be paid more than the minimum wage, nor get fat pensions, should be required to use only public services (transport, health, etc), and that instead of being allowed to lie their asses off, such behavior carry punishment matching the seriousness of someone in a responsible position misleading millions of people.
Would anybody ever want to take up office? Yes, I think it would just restrict it to those who are not greedy, lying, bottom feeders. Oh, what a terrible prospect!
But can you imagine any politicians ever voting in such changes? *sigh*
Maybe one day. I know not all politicians are not bad -- just most of them