Lucas, I did not, nor did anyone participating in this discussion make the argument that a third party's profit is necessarily someone else's loss. No one said any such thing. What many people are saying is that they don't want others, with most of the emphasis on corporations, profiting from their work without their permission or some compensation. Metaphors and analogies about neighbors painting houses really don't change the basic formula, which is: you make it, you own it, you get to decide what to do with it and what gets done with it. Property rights are an axiom of western civilization. They are an axiom of our legal system and our economic system too. A thicket of what-if scenarios notwithstanding, that's the state of things right now. Here's the good news: if you want to share your work or give it away, you can do that too. The irony is that many of us coming on all William F. Buckley on this issue are really no such thing. But the confusion is rampant. Or is this all just a big argument for the sake of argument? If that's the case then I'm done.
Cheers --- In [email protected], "Lucas Gonze" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 1/27/07, Steve Watkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Im not sure Id agree that a sense of victimization or righteous anger > > are the primary driving forces behind such things, but they are in the > > mix somewhere when it comes to reactions of music etc industry. > > When somebody makes the argument that the profit of a third party is > necessarily their loss, they are arguing from victimization. > > Let's say you argue that aggregated creators deserve a share of the > profits of an aggregator. That doesn't follow from economics. The > economic point of view is that investors in the aggregator, its > owners, are the ones who deserve a share of the profits, because they > also stood to lose money if it lost money. > > When I buy a house for $X, I stand to lose $X and also stand to gain > whatever I can sell it for above $X. If the value of my house goes up > because my neighbor painted and fixed up their own place, my neighbor > has no claim to my profit. > > There are people who read my blog in Bloglines, for example, but I > make no claim to Bloglines' revenues. If Bloglines goes out of > business I lose nothing, so why should I stand to gain if it makes > money? Ditto videoblogs and video aggregrators. > > Ask yourself this: if MyHeavy goes out of business, what does it cost > you? And how do you know whether they are even making a profit right > now? (I doubt they are). The reality is that you don't know or care > whether they exist, much less whether they are profitable. The only > thing that matters to you is whether *you* are profitable. > > People in the music business made the same bogus argument over and > over again in reaction to third parties who benefit from their work. > If somebody sings my song at a birthday party and everybody has fun > because of that, don't I deserve a few bucks? If my song accidentally > ends up in the background of a scene in a documentary, don't I get > paid? If an Elvis impersonator lands a good gig in Vegas, doesn't the > Presley estate get a cut? > > So that's my case that the sense of righteous anger is misplaced. Now > for the issue of victimization -- why do I say this anger flows from a > misplaced sense of victimization? > > The value of my house goes up because my neighbor painted and fixed up > their own place. Do they deserve a cut? Why shouldn't they get a > share, since it was their work? Their improvements weren't cheap > either! I mean, they slaved on their fixup every weekend, they put a > ton of money into the painters, they took a day off from work to get a > construction permit -- where do I get off making a fortune off them!? > > But hold on, there's another way of looking at it. My benefit is a > positive externality. Per Wikipedia at > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality, 'an externality is a cost or > benefit from an economic transaction that parties "external" to the > transaction receive.' Just so for remixers and aggregators and all > the other third parties, whether street people or rich corporations, > who benefit from the labor and investment of a videoblogger. > > What matters has nothing to do with the benefit of third parties. It > has to do with the health of the videoblogger. If you got what you > wanted out of your vlog, who cares whether other people benefitted > too? Did you have fun? Did you make friends? Did you make something > beautiful and worthwhile? If so, keep doing it. If not, quit. There > is no need for my neighbor to get a share of my profit if their > intention was to live in a better home. > > Our work on CCMixter.org made it possible for remixers in the > community to do stuff they couldn't have done otherwise. Ok, they > lost the potential to earn money from people who sampled them, but > they wouldn't have created those samples if they weren't able to > sample others in the first place. Whatever they might have lost was > something they wouldn't have had in the first place. As Rox says, > "from way out there it all belongs to all of us. We are the > messengers." > > So that's the arguing from victimization thing. It's an argument that > doesn't flow from economics, just from a sense of entitlement. > > > What a totally different attitude we might have to all forms of > > ownership, rights, control, freedom of all creative works, ideas, and > > reuse, if we lived in some totally different world where everybody did > > a practical job such as farming during the first part of the day, and > > then returned home to converse, create, remix and redeploy, entertain > > , amuse and educate fellow humans during the afternoon & evening. > > As a musician, I have no desire to do it for a living. I really do > prefer to do it on the side. It makes me happy to play in the morning > before I go to work, and that's all I need. > > -Lucas >
