<< Thumbs up to piracy@latenightwallflower.com
Enacting laws to protect the entertainment industry from piracy is inherently anti-capitalistic. In every case, the industry attempts to violently protect their right to continue producing the mediocre status quo, rather than answer the call to produce a superior product.
What is the endgame of capitalism? Efficiency and innovation. It’s a system that, in theory, rewards the most innovative person/company who finds the quickest and cheapest way to deliver the best product. Anti-piracy legislation merely protects an inefficient, non-adaptive industry.
Piracy, lets face it, enables a consumer to get a superior product (single songs they actually want) in an easily transmittable format (mp3) in the cheapest way (free). This phenomenon arose in response to overvaluation. Why pay ten bucks for something you can get for free when there is no added value (I’m not aiming to turn this into a discussion of ethics, just of value).
The real solution to fighting piracy? Do it better than they do. Create a value for what you’re offering.
From start to finish, record companies stop innovation. They sign artists making music in ‘tried-and-tested’ genre for a pittance, promote them in monolithic entities such as MTV and ClearChannel, and create such a distance between artist and consumer that no one knows exactly what they’re paying for.
Make it clear that the money you pay actually goes to the artists, who we may care enough about to also care about whether they can support their music-making lifestyle. And if we’re not caring, then change your artist roster. Do your job and find musicians consumers can actually connect to. You don’t see independent music firms fighting piracy. Why? They are providing innovative artists and payment structures that the consumer is happy to support monetarily. They provide free mp3 samples that allow you to make an informed decision about your purchase. Would you buy a car without a test drive? A house without looking inside?
Or maybe Spotify is the big revolution: convenient, easy, instant and free, and the artists still get to profit. See how adaptation works? Let’s see how long it lasts.
I can see your point as it applies to music, but what about when it is more broadly applied. It could be argued that piracy (and thus the destruction of property rights) could create disincentive for innovation and entrepreneurism in certain contexts: for example, the pharmaceuatical company that drops millions in research into the development of a drug? The same could be said of software, technology, clothing, etc. You can make imitation products, sure-- but what if piracy were allowed in these fields? It seems to me that this would severely cut into the profit-making incentive.
ReplyDeleteNo it's true, I should clarify that more. I am talking mainly about music, as much of what's above doesn't even apply to the film industry to the same extent. However, I would say the same about pharmaceutical's efforts to ban generics that are imported from Canada, which aren't pirated, but again: better, cheaper, faster.
ReplyDeleteNot sure if you can just jump from piracy to the destruction of property rights, although I do agree that it is a major concern.
ReplyDeleteIn the context of pharmaceuticals, I think you have to look at why piracy occurs to begin with - that is, the unavailability of certain pharmaceuticals. If everyone had access to most drugs when they needed it for a reasonable cost, I don't think you would have the same kind of problem of 'piracy' (or in this case, violation of intellectual property rights). On the one hand, such a situation would virtually nullify any incentive to reproduce a drug because it wouldn't make economic sense; if you can purchase it at a reasonable price/cost, then why spend the time, effort, and money to reproduce it? On the other hand, the same situation would also incentivise those who think they can reproduce the drug at a lower cost, supply it at the same price as the original, and make a profit. In either of those scenarios, IPP isn't completely mutiliated - just adapted.
But, that's a mull point, because neither of those situations exist. Certain pharmaceutical products are either unreadily available because the cost of production is too high for mass production, or are mass-produce-able but supply is limited, demand is uncontrolled and unsatiated, thus artificially pushing up prices, allowing companies to make a large profit. My humble opinion is that, given the politico-economics of pharmaceuticals, a little bit of piracy might actually do some good.
And to quickly address the profit-making incentive: government subsidies for R&D coming out of taxation, and removal of any taxes in the production of pharmaceuticals.
@ hope I don't know the details of the pharamaceutical industry-- but I don't know whether piracy is an appropriate label to the Canada example. Tarrif, perhaps? Protectionist regulation, definitely? I feel like there's another term here that would be better used. I think we're on the same page here that whatever it is in that context is not good. I think I would just question what it is you mean by "piracy" and what you consider fundamental to "capitalism."
ReplyDelete@ Tedor. Piracy is most definitely an infringement on property rights: In the music industry-- it is intellectual property. In the old style image of Johnny Depp pirates comadeering ships, piracy actually involves the literal theft or destruction of someone's property (boat, gold, house, etc).
@ hope ... just to clarify: moreso i question (open endedly, not in a "i think you are wrong" sort of way) -- how those definitions could be specified so they have more universal weight when applied to different industries. =)
ReplyDelete