DISQUS

How much money has MS sunk into Vista? More than $50 million, I imagine. Probably more than $200 million, not so?

What's the value of the labor poured into Linux over the last two decades? Or even over the last few years?

I don't want to push this too far, but--Levine's basic point is that generally speaking, we don't protect business models. Why are we so afraid of protecting them in the case of IP? We have plenty of evidence that it isn't strictly necessary. Of course the companies don't innovate when they don't have to; this isn't a reason to protect them from having to.

I'm a bit puzzled--I looked at Linspire's site, and it claims it is based on the Xine player. But the Xine player is GPLd--so wouldn't Linspire's player have to be, as well? Yet here it claims to be "closed source".

Is this a GPL violation, or am I just being trigger-happy? It sure would be amusing if the only "legit" Linux player was actually an infringing derivative work.

PLN

Oh god my eyes are bleeding.

Tim, I think the connection between illegality and stigma is more complicated, and more contingent, than that. Many people *do* think that there's a prima facie obligation to obey the law, of course, so that does serve to stigmatize illegal things. But not everyone believes that--I certainly don't--and it's not clear how much force this adds overall. How much stigma is there attached to parking or speeding tickets? Not much. To drug use? Varies enormously across demographic groups. Views about the propriety sodomy and abortion tend to determine one's views on its constitutionality, not vice-versa. So: if you think artists ought to be compensated for each use, you'll still avoid the knock-off theatres.

Finally, one of the great factoids in L&B;'s book is how even when drugs go off-patent, the name-brand (A) still costs far more but (B) maintains a substantial market share. The same is true with every category of generic product I can think of, from cereal to bandaids.

We (used to) let true market competition work everywhere else. Why not here? Just because we've put up with it so long doesn't make it reasonable!

Also, I wouldn't entirely rule out Street Performer Protocol / Assurance Contract ways of financing. Take Lord of the Rings, for example. First movie cost about 150mil, a third of that for advertising/prints. I really wouldn't rule out the worldwide fan community having been willing to put up even that kind of money, in a world where they knew they *could* do so and go ahead with it.

This would, of course, especially apply to things that have dedicated fans--but this might be a good thing. You'd tend to get big-budget movies backed by true believers, which are often (though not always) the best sort.

In a world without copyright, people might nevertheless want to use authorized channels rather than illicit ones. So, yes, the licit theatres would be competing with a lower price version, but they would also be selling a slightly different product: the Feel Good Experience.

Also, a large part of Levine's response is that the *costs* of production would drop drastically as stars started seeing their salaries move closer to their opportunity costs. This would have a pretty real effect. Compare the fees actors are willing to settle for in independent films, for example. (Yes, it's not a perfect comparison for various reasons, but it is suggestive.)

I agree that there would be fewer big-budget movies, even considering these effects. But it seems odd to design policy around, not just this one tiny category, but the *best* of that category (for every Kong there's something pretty awful). Elimination of copyright would make big-budget extravaganzas a problematic strategy, but it would simultaneously make micro-budget films much, much cheaper (no more clearing music rights, ability to adapt books without a license, etc.).

Joel--I thought Europe didn't *have* software patents yet.

MikeT, I'm really a bit puzzled by your vehemence. I mean, at some basic level we agree that it's not all that great for the French government to require as a matter of law that the DRM spec be made available to anyone for interoperability; bad French government! My bottom-line position is Tim's; don't criminalize circumvention to begin with.

But... I just don't get your objections here. Let's leave aside all the stuff about China and slave labor--this is, after all, rather a reverse situation, insofar as French labor practices are far overregulated, giving us a large competitive advantage; the *French* are always the ones complaining about a 'race to the bottom' vis-a-vis the US. What's going on in this case is basically that the French are interfering with Apple's ability to turn its iPod market share into iTunes market share. What exactly is the terrible outcome of iTunes competing purely on features and price? Is it just a mercantilist point about not enough francs flowing to the US, and too many dollars flowing to France?

And let's not forget that damn sun, too. How the heck can our candlemakers ever compete?

The rhetoric that has emerged around this French development makes me want to cry, honestly.

I'm also a bit puzzled by his use of the term "market." On the one hand, this passage makes it seem that so long as you have two companies competing at some level with reasonably substitute goods, you have a market, and there's nothing more to be said. In other words, the implication is that there's no noteworthy difference between two companies versus twenty or two hundred, and the fact that we have given legal weapons to content providers that make it two rather than two hundred is of no relevance to its "marketness." It's a binary property.

On the other hand, all of his criticisms of Tim are premised on the idea that there ARE levels of "marketness", and that anything that in any way interferes with content providers maximizing their revenue decreases this "marketness". Because contract is useless against 3rd parties, contract isn't enough ... for the sake of "the market"!

But clearly these two views are incompatible. Even a complete revocation of copyright would still result in -some- production of content, and you would clearly have -some- companies competing to bring this content to customers (just as plenty of for-profit publishers make money on public domain works, despite the existence of libraries and Project Gutenberg). If competition between two government-backed cartels is enough of a market for him, why wouldn't that be?

Baffling.

Actually, it's not really baffling. The explanation, of course, is that the use of "market" is pure rhetoric. The bottom line has to be something what content would actually be produced and delivered to people. And Mr. Ross clearly has rather implausible views along the lines of "without DRM, no digital music would ever reach consumers" ... but misusing the term "market" lets him avoid making clear the absurdity of the causal mechanisms he has in mind.

Re: Maginot Line. We'd have to do a large survey to get reliable data here, but I for one interpret allusions to the Maginot Line as being entirely about the futility of the thing being compared (and the folly of those who support it) rather than implying anything about those who are trying to defeat it. Who on earth takes the Maginot Line to be about anything except French silliness? Again, this IS an empirical question, perhaps I'm in the minority, although clearly Tim Lee is with me.

I strongly suspect it's more the tautological point than the causal one; success -just means- balance sheet impact. What's particularly interesting to me is how many pro-IP sorts are intimately familiar with Bastiat's broken window fallacy in other contexts, but don't see it operating here.