Digital Communism

National Review ^ | 5/6/2003 | James D. Miller

[traditionalist]

Internet file-trading tools, a California court handed a major victory to communism. The Internet allows the well-wired to take copyrighted material freely. Left unchecked, rampant copyright theft may soon destroy the for-profit production of movies, music and books and may usher in an age of digital communism.

Technology will soon increase the ease of copyright theft because as broadband access proliferates, more people will be able to download pirated movies and music quickly. Currently, authors are safe from Internet piracy because most book readers still prefer printed words to electronic text. We may soon, however, see electronic paper that is as easy to read as printed pulp. How much money would Tom Clancy be able to make when readers can download all his books freely in under a second? Can you imagine college students paying $75 for a textbook they could download for free?

The best hope to stop copyright piracy lies in stopping the distribution of peer-to-peer networks that facilitate such theft. By holding that these networks have no liability for inappropriate use of their tools the California court has reduced the value of digital property rights.

Some have claimed that Internet piracy simply represents another form of competition and all copyright holders need do to compete successfully is to lower prices. But a central tenant of economics holds that if multiple firms sell identical products, consumers will patronize the lowest price provider. If pirates give away their product for free, content providers can compete only by also charging nothing.

The ability to exclude is the essence of property rights. If I "own" land but anyone can trespass I don't really have any property rights. Similarly, if I own a movie, but anyone can freely watch it, my rights have disappeared.

Is it necessarily bad if piracy destroys intellectual property rights? After all, when everything is free we can live out Karl Marx's dream and have everyone take according to his needs.

The twentieth century witnessed a brutal competition between communism and capitalism. Communists believe that people can be motivated to work for the common good, while capitalists believe that profit provides the best catalyst for economic production. Capitalism, of course, triumphed mainly because of its superior economic performance. By decimating profits for content producers, peer-to-peer piracy may give us a communist system of intellectual-property production.

I imagine that few would invest in a factory in the Congo. Because of political strife, property rights in the Congo aren't respected, so it would be nearly impossible to profit from building a factory in the Congo since once it was built, armed men would come and steal the equipment. Businesspeople only make investments they can profit from.

Copyright holders were able to sue Napster into submission, but Napster had a centralized database that was easy to locate and destroy. New forms of Internet piracy, however, rely upon peer-to-peer networks where users download material directly from each other's hard drives. Since it would be impractical for content providers to sue millions of Internet users, to protect digital-capitalism copyright holders must be able to stop the proliferation of piracy tools.

Some might argue that copyright holders should fend for themselves in the marketplace. Imagine, however, the fate of stores if there were no effective laws against shoplifting: Theft would drive them to bankruptcy. True, copyright holders can somewhat protect themselves by imbedding copy protection technology in their products. A movie, for example, could contain a code allowing it to be played only on your hardware. Imbedded copy-protection technology is foiled, however, if even one user creates and disseminates a clean and playable copy. Furthermore, imbedded copy protection can never protect e-books since you can create a copyable e-book merely by scanning the text of a physical book.

Of course, copyright holders could still find a few ways to profit in a world of rampant piracy. Movies could be financed by the sale of action figures and musicians could profit from concerts. It's difficult to see how authors could profit, however, except, perhaps, by begging for tips.

[babyface00]

Theft is theft , and theft is wrong

Are you talking about what consumers are doing to music files, or what record companies are doing to artists? (or both...)

[genefromjersey]

Both !

If you are a performer yourself, you have some idea of what musicians, etc. go through before their efforts begin to return any money. ( The old adage : " Don't quit your day job ! " is painfully true to MOST . )

I'm not a musician or entertainer myself. If I can hit 4 or 5 chords on a guitar, or pick out the bones of a melody on a mandolin, etc., I'm having a really good day; but fooling around on an instrument or two has given me an appreciation for the genuine- trying-like- hell- to- make- it performers out there : most of whom , if they EVER make an album, will have to finance and market it themselves.

What gives me - or anyone else - the right to rip them off because it's technologically feasible ?

If I have THAT right, then I also have the right to walk up to any point of purchase display, and help myself to any tapes or CD's that catch my eye..if no one is watching : my rationalization being " the store charges too much ".

Is that the new face of morality ?

[Protagoras]

So, in other words, you can't name any. Until tomorrow, of course.

No, I actually had to go. But I'm sure a person like you never actually entertained that possibility.

Now as the day goes on and I have time to toy with your moronic statement that NO literature of worth was wtitten for money, I'll make a list.

Name a great work of literature and I'll show you a book that made the author far less money than if the author had just spent the time waiting tables instead of writing it.

As you tried to change the terms of your moronic statement the first time by changing it to " a ton of cash", now you try to change your moronic statement to whether the author could have made more money at something else. I understand it. When you make a moronic statement, you need to change it somehow to make it seem less moronic. It won't work.

I'll get back to you when I have time, and if that ain't soon enough for you it's just too damn bad.

[Paul C. Jesup]

P2P programs are responses to the monopolistic socialist/communist/leftist control that pervades the music, movie, and media industies.

[Protagoras]

The Sun Also Rises

[Protagoras]

A Farewell to Arms

[Protagoras]

For Whom the Bell Tolls
The Old Man and the Sea

That's one Author

[Protagoras]

The Sound and the Fury

[brbethke]

Don't forget everything by Mark Twain, Charles Dickens, Honore de Balzac, Emile Zola, Rudyard Kipling...

[babyface00]

I sympathize with musicians, programmers, writers, etc. However, the question becomes do they own their creations once they chose to release them to the public? After all, we're not talking about a physical thing here, we're talking about an idea, a thought, a collection of magnetic pulses, or an arrangment of musical tones or words. (Which is not to say these aren't real or valuable)

Since the concept of a copyright exists, it seems to imply pretty strongly that these creations aren't owned at all. The creator is only given the "right" to control "copies" for a limited period of time. Artist can keep their creations to themselves and not run the risk of their creations being copied by others - it is a choice they make to release them.

I guess the question becomes then, if the public owns any released works (as the law as originally written seems to imply) and it temporarily cedes control over to the copyright holder, then if, in the public's view, the copyright has been abused, does the public have the right to ignore the owner's copyright and reclaim their ownership?

A reason I assert, based on my understanding, that creators of these works don't own them, is that the work itself doesn't exist, only a copy, in some form, of that work. All of these originate in the mind of their creator or discoverer. That person has a choice - they can keep it to themself, or they can elect to transmit that work to the minds of others - and that's what we're really talking about here - a book that no one reads, a record that no one listens to, or a computer program that is never executed on a machine are worthless. Their value only is realized when someone takes them into their own mind (or runs them on the "mind" of a computer). Once I've read the book, listened to the music, or understood the idea as a consumer, that book, music or idea is mine. Its in my brain and I can recall it, reconsider it, replay it as often as I want. I can even communicate that work to others (although possibly not as accurately as the original). So, what we're really talking about, is control over the means of disseminating a work or idea for profit because no one seems to be arguing that I can't talk to another person about a book I read, even if I'm able to memorize it and repeat it verbatim.

Lets take a hypothetical here. Say I invent a machine that can extract thoughts or memories from one person and insert them into another person's brain - no more far-fetched than the concept of an MP3 would have been 50 years ago. I listen to a performance of a piece of music. Since I have a great memory, I'm able to communicate that performance exactly to another person via this invention (just like I could have told them about it in lesser detail). If the artist "owns" the performance, than this would be illegal. But doesn't talking about a performance result in the same thing, albeit with less detail? If an artist owns a performance, then shouldn't it also be (at least partially) illegal to talk about a performance if you communicate a certain level of detail? If I had a good enough memory, I could relate an entire novel to another person, couldn't I? No one seems to be suggesting this is illegal.

Sorry for the length. I'm just pointing out that this isn't quite as "cut and dried" as stealing a car, for instance.

[wideawake]

As you tried to change the terms of your moronic statement the first time by changing it to " a ton of cash", now you try to change your moronic statement to whether the author could have made more money at something else. I understand it. When you make a moronic statement, you need to change it somehow to make it seem less moronic. It won't work.

You really have an inventive prose style - and excellent manners to boot.

My original statement was that great art is not made for profit.

Profit is revenue less the costs of generating that revenue (labor, time, materials, etc.)

I stand by my original statement.

If there was a profit motive involved, why would all the world's great artists not just have gone into other lines of work that would have been far more profitable?

I don't need a list: name for me one great work of art that was composed solely as a profit-generating venture. Just a single one.

Like: "Mallarme wrote his Sonnet in yx as a way to make more money in a few hours' work than he would have in his day job tutoring young society children. He sold it to a magazine and received 400 francs, while forgoing 390 francs in tutoring fees, generating a very modest 10 franc profit."

Mallarme's sonnet was actually written as a personal challenge and was never intended for publication - so this is purely a hypothetical.

Name me one real example of a great work of art composed in this fashion, with the express intention of generating a profit over the cost of production - no "ton of cash" necessary. Just profit.

[Protagoras]

The books of C. S. Lewis The books of JRR Tolkien

I know you won't come to your senses and admit you were incorrect, but on the off chance that you do, let me know.

[steve-b]

The best hope to stop copyright piracy murder lies in stopping the distribution of peer-to-peer networks guns that facilitate such theft violence.

[Protagoras]

I have bad manners? You accused me of running away and I have bad manners? You need a Dale Carnegie book. He wrote it for profit.

Now you have changed the subject to art. Figures.

Like YOUR opinion of what good art is would carry the day with all the rest of the people in the world.

Your statement was MORONIC.

I made it in bold now so you won't have to change it.

[Protagoras]

Don't forget everything by Mark Twain, Charles Dickens, Honore de Balzac, Emile Zola, Rudyard Kipling...

Like I said, there are far too many to list. But that didn't keep the genius who called me a coward by intimating that I was running away yesterday from proclaiming himself to be the final authority on what good writting is.

[steve-b]

You don’t have to do it yourself, just turn the socialists "morally relative" monster against them.

It occurs to me that the pop-culture mavens who have been pumping out the message of "tear down the rules" (as opposed to a perfectly legitimate call to skepticism and reasonably targeted rebellion) are now shocked, shocked to find that their audience thinks it applies to their rules as much as any others.

[Protagoras]

Michangelo was paid to paint the ceiling of the chapel. He didn't use a roller.

[brbethke]

This is a test. Given your previously stated opinions, please answer yes or no:

1. Do you agree that the NEA and all similar taxpayer-funded arts grant programs should be abolished immediately?
    
2. Do you agree that professors and teachers who create art during the hours in which they are being paid to educate students should be at least denied tenure, and preferably fired?

[steve-b]

What do you think?

Dunno what wideawake thinks, but I think Mr. Miller needs to see an exorcist to get the mental processes of Sarah Brady out of his head.

[brbethke]

Personally, I think this is *brilliant* writing!

The Postmodernism Generator