No. DRM is not a physical barrier. It’s an artificial one. That’s the key here. You are correct (in a roundabout way) in saying that there is exclusion of some kind — which has always been the key to my argument anyway — but the idea is that you make use of the real physical barriers, rather than artificial ones.

Artificial barriers (i.e., protectionism) limit markets. Real barriers create markets.

“What is puzzling is why from a copyleft standpoint the primitive means of excluding a non-paying audience with walls, contracts, and so on, are fine, but trying to do something more sophisticated to get enforceable boundaries apparently isn’t–apparently just because those boundaries weren’t built in to the tech from the beginning, so people just aren’t used to them. It’s a rather conservative position, and an arbitrary one.”

I have to be honest, I have no idea what you are saying here. You seem to be ascribing a position to me that I do not hold. I am not asking for arbitrary boundaries at all. I am saying that you let the real boundaries (supply of scarce items) be the boundaries — as that’s how any market is supposed to work. I am against artificial boundaries put on infinite goods. The reason you exclude people with walls is because the space is limited. That’s a physical property of the space. That’s not the case with an infinite good like music.

“The coke flowing out of the faucet analogy can be nitpicked, but it still works as a quick-and-dirty one. I think everyone can agree that if Coke did come out of faucets, Coke would face a different business landscape than they are now. Likely it could be worked out–it’s tougher with information goods–but it would not be trivial.”

Huh? This does not support your point. It supports mine. Coke would face a different landscape they do now, but it’s not a hypothetical. It’s a real situation. The bottled water business is a huge one. So you toss it up as if it’s a “well, we’ll never know” situation when that’s not the case at all. We do know. We know that it’s entirely possible to build a huge business even if the liquid is coming at free or close to free out of a tap.

“Sellers of bottled water may not be selling a different product in many cases (there are exceptions i.e. perrier, pellagrino), but people perceive it to be different.”

Again, I don’t understand the point you are trying to make, unless you really believe that the recording industry can’t do the same thing. I’d agree that someone like Morris is clearly too shortsighted to understand how to make a perceived difference in purchased music, but that doesn’t mean it’s impossible. It was done with water, and it’s actually much easier to do with an entertainment good, as we’ve pointed out over and over and over again.

It surprises me that you would make these arguments.

As for the D&T study, we discussed that in great detail and in the end, while we made one small mistake (again, one small mistake) you pretended that it changed the nature of what we said (which it did not). Also you ignored the fact that the people from whence D&T got their data later claimed that D&T totally misinterpreted it. But, alas, since you never admit that you were wrong and only want to insult me, I’ll assume that you won’t respond to that again.

I will expect a few more insults, though.

Norms and laws around copying reflect the technologies in place at the time. For example, in today’s political campaigns, it’s considered acceptable to use a clip from an opponent’s TV commercial in your own TV commercial.

The “conservative” position seems safer than the alternative, which is to throw the power of the legal system into a program of changing citizens’ norms — like Prohibition or the 55mph speed limit. The DRM proponents don’t even have the equivalent of the WCTU behind them — just a few vendor-backed lobbying groups.

Norms and laws around copying reflect the technologies in place at the time. For example, in today’s political campaigns, it’s considered acceptable to use a clip from an opponent’s TV commercial in your own TV commercial.

The “conservative” position seems safer than the alternative, which is to throw the power of the legal system into a program of changing citizens’ norms — like Prohibition or the 55mph speed limit. The DRM proponents don’t even have the equivalent of the WCTU behind them — just a few vendor-backed lobbying groups.

My favorite Techdirt strawman was this post about the Deloitte & Touche study of Internet bandwidth. This is a post criticizing a study the author hadn’t read on a subject he doesn’t understand, making an argument for a policy he doesn’t want. Classic.

Slightly off-topic, but I was thinking, reading this, that advertising ought really to be considered as a product or complimentary product in and of itself. There’s no shortage of examples of ads that I keep watching over and over again because they’re beautiful.

The Honda Cob commercial: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UScbWzhieNc

The sony bravia ads: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Bb8P7dfjVw

In any case, bundling such ads at the beginning of, say a movie at a movie theater, instead of the generally crap advertising I see in such places might actually increase the level to which I would enjoy my experience.

Could you imagine the above honda ad in a 15-20 minutes version which would only be shown at the cinema before certain movies? (Granted, that’s basically a movie called ‘Der lauf der Dinge’ but anyhow.) In some way, I guess this would work in much a similar way as the opening act of a show.

So bottom line, I’m eager to see a time come when advertising will no longer be something to avoid, but something to enjoy, sponsored by the makers of a product.

(end of unrelated side issue)

Well, I can’t speak for “the copyleft,” but personally I oppose DRM because it doesn’t work. The walls of a concert hall keep non-paying customers out. DRM simply inconveniences paying customers while having little if any effect on non-paying customers.

–The coke flowing out of the faucet analogy can be nitpicked, but it still works as a quick-and-dirty one. I think everyone can agree that if Coke did come out of faucets, Coke would face a different business landscape than they are now. Likely it could be worked out–it’s tougher with information goods–but it would not be trivial.

And the comparison to water is not necessarily more helpful than Morris’ original analogy. Sellers of bottled water may not be selling a different product in many cases (there are exceptions i.e. perrier, pellagrino), but people perceive it to be different. Hospitals used to give bottled water only to fragile patients, thinking that it would have a lower bacteria count (in fact, it doesn’t). Because water has never been as homogenous a product as coke, it isn’t surprising that the perception that different sources matter a lot is hard to get rid of and can be marketed to.

-Solveig Singleton

Rather hilarious from someone who spends so much time distorting my arguments, but alas…

“I never said a word about safety, yet you claimed I did. That’s annoying, of course, and something you did to make your ridiculous point about water water everywhere.”

No. Again, my point had nothing to do with water, water everywhere, but if you want to distort my point, go right ahead. The point of what complementary good you were pointing out is meaningless. If it wasn’t safety then it was something else. It’s meaningless to the actual point. I’m sorry you’re so offended over such a meaningless point, but it amazes me that you are so offended over such a minor point after getting the entire point of your original comment wrong (i.e., that tap water is different than bottled water — something you still haven’t admitted to getting wrong, despite it being a key part of your argument).

“If you’re going to rely on personal attacks and distortion in your articles, don’t be surprised when these tactics are turned back on you.”

Richard, you attacked me first, and chose NOT to follow suit. Yet here you are, distorting my argument and distorting the clearly viewable history above. Stunning if not so obviously wrong.

“Protecting creative people from theft of their works in the era of digital production is a hard problem, especially for those of us who favor market-based solutions.”

You make a ton of really bad assumptions in a single sentence. If you favor market-based solutions, why do you need to “protect” anything? Why not let the market decide?

I won’t even get into the wrongness of calling it “theft.”

“That doesn’t mean, however, that it’s OK for those of us who care about policy to dictate business models to artists.”

Indeed. I’d like you to point out where I have “dictated” business models for artists. I have not. I have merely pointed out over and over again how artists can make more money by adopting these business models and not relying on artificial protections. I do not say they need to adopt them. I simply point out that others will adopt them and then old business models will be untenable. I am trying to help musicians recognize these new business models where they can make more money.

It’s funny that you accuse me of saying something you didn’t say and tear me apart for a really minor thing… and then get the ENTIRE key point of my argument wrong. I have never said that musicians should be forced to adopt this model or that anyone should dictate it. Just the opposite. I am saying that there are plenty of business models and if artists understood the economics they’d recognize it’s in their best interest to embrace them.

I expect an apology for you so badly getting my argument wrong, especially after you were so offended for me getting yours wrong.

“and for now that model represents the most viable path for artists who want to eat.”

For someone who believes in market-based solutions, I’m surprised to hear the phrase “the most viable path” come out of you. What’s wrong with letting the market decide the most viable path.

“One might argue that it’s bad to compensate musicians with great gobs of money as they’ll simply spend it on drugs and die without giving us as much music as we want.”

Another odd statement. I have shown that the models I’ve discussed allow musicians to make more money (despite your erroneous claim of “the most viable method”). It’s got nothing to do with artists deserving less. I say let the market decide, and get rid of artificial gov’t subsidies to do so.

“so in the spirit of the Techdirt strawman I’ll attribute it to you”

Richard, we pride ourselves on intellectual honesty. If you would point to a single such “strawman statement” on Techdirt, I would appreciate it. Since you have already gotten so many things wrong here and blatantly overreacted to a minor misinterpretation on my part, I somehow doubt you’ll actually be able to back up your statement.

However, I do expect an apology for all of the incorrect statements you have made above.

Second, I buy bottled water. For convenience and because I don’t like the taste or health concerns of chlorinated tap water (higher incidence of bladder cancer, for one). The MSM may say there’s no difference, but since when did the MSM exhibit any evidence of accuracy?

Third, I think it would be a wonderful experiment if a magic wand could be waved and all the music on labels associated with the RIAA — you know, the guys suing college kids — could suddenly be completely barred from any sharing on the internets. The only way you could ever have an RIAA song would be to pay for it. This would un-clutter P2P for artists who want to share their music with the world for free, or at least let people sample their wares for free (as Radiohead did) — music made for the love of music instead of the love of mammon. That might be a very revealing test of how well the schlockmeisters of the Big Four record cartels can compete with free.

I never said a word about safety, yet you claimed I did. That’s annoying, of course, and something you did to make your ridiculous point about water water everywhere.

If you’re going to rely on personal attacks and distortion in your articles, don’t be surprised when these tactics are turned back on you.

Protecting creative people from theft of their works in the era of digital production is a hard problem, especially for those of us who favor market-based solutions. That doesn’t mean, however, that it’s OK for those of us who care about policy to dictate business models to artists.

The sale of music in tangible form can certainly be conducted without promoting theft in closed systems such as iTunes, and for now that model represents the most viable path for artists who want to eat.

One might argue that it’s bad to compensate musicians with great gobs of money as they’ll simply spend it on drugs and die without giving us as much music as we want. I can sympathize with that argument, so in the spirit of the Techdirt strawman I’ll attribute it to you: “Masnick says copyright theft is good because it keeps musicians from OD’ing.”

For example, I’ve talked about one band that did use the touring model, but actually found another complementary good to help it make lots of money: it set up its own travel agency to help its fans travel around the world to catch its shows!

However, for bands that don’t want to tour, there are plenty of other options. For years, I’ve talked about the idea of “access” as a complementary good. That could be associated with touring (such as being able to get better seats or backstage passes or private shows) but it could just mean the ability to chat online with the artists or get your name in a song or get to watch them record in the studio… all if you’re a “subscriber” to the band.

Another model is one where a band asks fans to pony up ahead of time to pay for the studio costs and initial profit to make it worthwhile to record an album. When they start, they start small and don’t need to capture as much money upfront, but then they give away that music, attract more fans, and the next time around they can charge more. And the next time, more… etc.

I’m not saying that these work for all bands, but there are tons of complementary goods out there, all of which are made more valuable when you free the music.

As for the opportunity costs, that strikes me as a total red herring argument. After all, there are opportunity costs involved in ditching any protectionist economic policy — but the end results tend to be much more efficient for everyone. Yes, if we take away the sugar monopoly from BigSugarCo it means they no longer get easy money and are forced to compete in the marketplace, but the end result is actually greater demand for sugar as well, as people learn new ways to make use of sugar, since it’s now much more affordable. If anything, it should pressure BigSugarCo to innovate and be more efficient in its sugar processing so that it can continue to have decent margins.

Generally, most of us tend to agree that fewer regulations tend to lead to more efficient results. Yet, somehow that thinking seems to go out the window when it comes to content — and the only reason is that some folks get blinded by the $0, rather than recognizing the same economics applies.

Richard, thanks for ignoring my link above that showed that tap water and bottled water are the same things.

The point of my comment (which you again conveniently ignore) isn’t specific to WHAT the complementary good was, but the fact that you believe it’s a complementary good that helps sell the water… just as it’s a complementary good that helps sell music.