About this weblog
Here we'll explore the nexus of legal rulings, Capitol Hill
policy-making, technical standards development, and technological
innovation that creates -- and will recreate -- the networked world as we
know it. Among the topics we'll touch on: intellectual property
conflicts, technical architecture and innovation, the evolution of
copyright, private vs. public interests in Net policy-making, lobbying
and the law, and more.
Disclaimer: the opinions expressed in this weblog are those of the authors and not of their respective institutions.
What Does "Copyfight" Mean?
Copyfight, the Solo Years: April 2002-March 2004
1. Dr. wex on May 20, 2005 10:27 AM writes...
Oh, that's a great quote: "I don't believe in the oversaturation of a quality product." I may have to change my .sig now.
Permalink to Comment2. Copyrighter on May 20, 2005 3:24 PM writes...
Funny how you need to turn to 50 Cent to get your business theory. That's probably a wonderful idea.
Whatever.
Permalink to Comment3. Copyrighter on May 20, 2005 3:44 PM writes...
Further: this quote draws interesting parallels between two illegal activities - drug dealing and file sharing. It's clear the moral base that copyfight is based on is shakey at best. And I'm not talking about religious morals, but concepts surrounding if someone has a product that they want you to pay for, you shouldn't take it. Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should. Violating that principal will just lead to more restrictive laws.
Permalink to CommentThat's why I find correlating the "copyfight" to drug dealing very amusing -- it fits in many ways.
4. Jason Schultz on May 20, 2005 5:25 PM writes...
First, no one on this site or in my post is suggesting that people should file-share. Copyfight is about the politics of IP, not advocating the breaking of laws.
As to the point of my post, more often then not, people argue that file-sharing is hurting music sales. I thought this quote from 50 Cent was an interesting counter-testimonial to something people are taking as truth.
Second, your parallelism doesn't make any sense. 50 Cent is talking about supply and demand of a product, whether legal or illegal, and the effect of free supply on the demand for the good. The fact that his example is illegal drugs has nothing to do with the economics of the transaction, i.e. he's not saying that illegal drug trafficking is somehow cutting into legitimate drug trafficking. The argument put forth re: file-sharing is that illegal music downloads is somehow cutting into legitimate music sales. If you're going to critique his quote, at least line up your analogies properly.
Permalink to Comment5. Branko Collin on May 21, 2005 4:18 PM writes...
In short, 50 Cents is proposing a loss-leading model.
I am not sure though that such a model translates well into more creativity (which presumably is what copyright is all about in the US).
"And I'm not talking about religious morals, but concepts surrounding if someone has a product that they want you to pay for, you shouldn't take it."
In that case, the copyfight is on very firm grounds indeed. For what is copyright other than a grand scale theft from the public? Published works do not belong to the maker.
Permalink to Comment6. Copyrighter on May 23, 2005 2:13 PM writes...
"First, no one on this site or in my post is suggesting that people should file-share."
No, you're just protecting their right and ability to do it. Check out Dr. Wex's comment that 90% of file-sharing amounts to content theft.
"Copyfight is about the politics of IP, not advocating the breaking of laws."
Politically, copyfighters have only been about protecting technological means that are primarily about taking content. Spin it however you want, but that's the naked truth.
"As to the point of my post, more often then not, people argue that file-sharing is hurting music sales. I thought this quote from 50 Cent was an interesting counter-testimonial to something people are taking as truth."
Okay fine. But you know who gets to make decisions regarding how they promote or distribute their product? The owners of the product; not the public. Obviously 50 believes in loss-leading sampling. That's his right. However, most of copyfight appears to be about FORCING content owners to agree to a "brave new world" where their content is distributed for free. Clearly, content owners are aware of how to run a business and understand the opportunities under the new tech paradigm.
"Second, your parallelism doesn't make any sense. 50 Cent is talking about supply and demand of a product, whether legal or illegal, and the effect of free supply on the demand for the good. The fact that his example is illegal drugs has nothing to do with the economics of the transaction, i.e. he's not saying that illegal drug trafficking is somehow cutting into legitimate drug trafficking. The argument put forth re: file-sharing is that illegal music downloads is somehow cutting into legitimate music sales. If you're going to critique his quote, at least line up your analogies properly."
Permalink to CommentI still think the correlation is interesting.
7. Neo on May 23, 2005 5:43 PM writes...
Loss leading sort of supposes that something is being distributed and made available below cost, does it not? 50 cent songs being distributed independently of 50 cent or his label via BitTorrent, on the other hand, are being made available AT cost -- the distribution occurs without any work or expenses on the part of 50 cent or his label, and with the time/bandwidth/storage space burden resting entirely on the people who want copies and download them.
Permalink to Comment