[free-sklyarov] reasons for restriction of competition

[Chris Savage]

>-----Original Message-----
>From: DeBug [mailto:debug at centras.lt]
>Sent: Monday, August 20, 2001 10:40 AM
>To: Chris Savage
>Subject: Re[2]: [free-sklyarov] reasons for restriction of competition
>
>
>>>Curiously copyrights, licenses, certificates have one thing in common
>>>They restrict competition Can anybody give me reasons why competition
>>>should be restricted ?
>
>CS> The basic theory is this:
>
>>(1) Most of the work involved in creating something 
>>copyrightable is the creativity/mental effort etc.  Once
>>it is embodied in a copyrightable form (on paper, on a
>>diskette, whatever), making additional copies is really
>>cheap.  (This is not just true of writings, music & 
>>programs, BTW: consider what Intel has to do to get the
>>first new chip out the door, versus the 100,000,000th one.)

>You talk about what mass production together with efficiency
>can bring. What would happen if all people could have access
>to mass production lines. Just imagine automobile factory at
>your home.

Good question.  I don't know what would happen.  (I'm thinking about Neal
Stephenson's "The Diamond Age" here, with everyone having matter-rearranging
machines at their fingertips.)  I think, though, that it takes a fairly rare
skill set to produce copyrightable stuff -- writings, songs, software --
that will actually have mass market appeal.  So if everyone had the digital
equivalent of a factory at home (which you can, pretty much, for 1000 bucks
of hardware/software, more or less), that would make it easier for people to
make copies.  It would not necessarily increase the supply of stuff people
want to copy.

>>(2) If anybody could take a cheap copy of a work and, 
>>totally without restriction or payment to the creator,
>>make as many additional cheap copies as the market will
>>absorb, the people who actually did the creative work
>>will be screwed.

>I must disagree. This is not necessarily true.  If new
>product creators were paid IN ADVANCE this would not happen.

Fair enough, but you are just moving the problem back one level.  Who will
pay in advance?  Either (a) a bunch of people willing to pay a small amount
to be a patron or (b) a distributor willing to take the business risk that
the stuff to be produced will be able to earn enough money to be worth the
advance payment (including the risk involved in advancing the capital).
Established authors and even people with good new stuff do indeed get
"advances" on their works.  But those advances are made in the context of
traditional copyright rules under which the entity making the advances
figures it can make its money back on (copyrighted) sales.  The garage band
next door may indeed be the next Nirvana or Lynard Skynard or N'Sync (pick
your taste), but then again they may just be the garage band next door.  I'm
not saying that no new and improved ways of finding talented folks and
getting their work out to the world could ever be developed.  I am saying
that there's no free lunch.  For anyone to be paid in advance means money
has to come from somewhere, which raises the question of "where?"

>>(3) Therefore, unless we restrict copying, etc., there 
>>will be insufficient incentive for creative people to
>>actually create and distribute their stuff.

>This is a BIG LIE. creative people (as i define this term) do create
>not because they want to make money but because they LIKE creating.
>So if someone create to get money i do not call him creative person.

Well, I may be wrong, but I don't think I'm "lying" by stating the normal
rationale for copyright.  I'm not even saying that I necessarily believe it
to be true in all cases; I'm just saying what the "conventional wisdom" is
on this topic.

What you are saying, though, is something that I actually think is true,
although I'd state it another way.  Some people create stuff because, as you
say, they like doing it and are driven to do so by their own urges.  They
will create whether they get paid or not.  Others have talent but will only
deploy it for money.  But then there's the whole middle ground of cases --
someone who can write beautiful novels or wonderful songs, but has bills to
pay, kids to feed, etc., and if they have to spend 8 hours a day plus
commute time flipping burgers or writing legal briefs or teaching school to
pay the bills, and then another 8 hours getting the kids fed, the shopping
done, etc., then the novels, songs, etc. just won't be forthcoming.

Saying people need money in exchange for their creations is not the same as
saying that they are motivated to create by money or that they are the
creative equivalent of whores.  It's just saying that creative people have
bills to pay like anyone else.

>>Hence the reference in the constitution to advancing 
>>"science and the useful arts."  The restrictions on
>>competition in copying/distribution are done
>>with the conscious purpose of rewarding inventors 
>>(patents) and creators (copyright) with money, to keep
>>them inventing/creating.

>Since people are lazy by their nature ( usually try to get as 
>much money as they can for as little effort as possible)

Certainly true for me! <g>  Seriously, I could spend 8-10 hours/day planting
plants for a landscape company for minimum wage, or I could spend the same
8-10 hours per day doing legal work for much more per hour.  I suppose that
reflects a certain kind of laziness, but as vices go I think it tends more
towards greed.  <g>

>there is a need to force them to create goods.

Where did "force" come from here?  People can produce or not.  It's up to
them.  If we want them to produce more than they otherwise would, I suppose
we could round them up and chain them to a desk, but why not just say we'll
pay you if you do a good job (defined as creating stuff other people want to
look at or use)?

>Now this can be done by introducing copyrights
>and other forms of restrictions. This way seemed to work good.
>But i can predict it will not perform good in the future as more
>and more easy it becomes to resist restrictions. What must be done
>is to make people creative so i think a special copyright-tax
>collected from public and distributed among authors would be
>more appropriate than copyrights.

This is a variant of what is known as a "compulsory license."  I suppose we
could tax blank CDs and CD players, etc., to generate this fund.  But then
how do we decide who gets how much?  I'm not raising that as an objection
but as a serious question.  Do you pay the would-be garage band the same as
you pay Smash Mouth?  The same as you pay N'Sync?

Chris S.


*************************************************************************** 
This electronic mail transmission may contain confidential or 
privileged information.  If you believe that you have received the 
message in error, please notify the sender by reply transmission 
and delete the message without copying or disclosing it. 
***************************************************************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://frotz.zork.net/pipermail/free-sklyarov/attachments/20010820/c3f9c91b/attachment.html