I think we can all agree that the economy, whether on a global scale or on a smaller scale such as the one we're currently discussing, is not a zero-sum game.
> -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David > Sent: Sunday, January 28, 2007 11:28 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: [videoblogging] Re: MyHeavy and Magnify and > aggregators in general > > 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 > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > >
