PeterWellington: liberty student:I think Jeffrey Tucker has made the point that Mises sells more books by having online and ebook copies available. If you are like me, it is hard to read ebooks, I prefer the physical thing, and will pay for it. I do too, but I was talking about physical copy vs. physical copy. I'm sorry if I didn't make that clear. liberty student: Sure you can't think of what the publisher could offer you. Except feeding the author and giving them the rewards and resources to produce more books. You already know what the incentives for buying from the creator are, you've been arguing it in this thread. Now suddenly you're saying that without law, you would act in an opposite manner to your current position? You would buy the cheap no-name book rather than reward the creator? Come come now. A publisher like the Mises Institute is near and dear to my heart, so I'm willing to shell out the extra cash. But this is the exception, not the rule. Most of the time I just don't have any personal attachments to the author or publisher. Honestly, I'd rather save hundreds or even thousands of dollars now than worry about the long term success of those companies, and the value they may or may not provide me with in the future. I'm definitely not alone in this. Now you can say that's foolish of me, that's it's not in my best interest, but I would say you can't really calculate that for me. You can't know that the present value of the long term benefits I'd receive from buying from the publisher is any greater than the value I'd receive by getting it for free or buying from a cheaper source. The better test would be, have the Mises Institude give me full rights to freely reproduce any of their works (digital or physical). I'll re-create them at my own expense but I don't owe them any type of royalties. Let me sell them or give them away and see what happens to their revenues.
liberty student:I think Jeffrey Tucker has made the point that Mises sells more books by having online and ebook copies available. If you are like me, it is hard to read ebooks, I prefer the physical thing, and will pay for it.
I do too, but I was talking about physical copy vs. physical copy. I'm sorry if I didn't make that clear.
liberty student: Sure you can't think of what the publisher could offer you. Except feeding the author and giving them the rewards and resources to produce more books. You already know what the incentives for buying from the creator are, you've been arguing it in this thread. Now suddenly you're saying that without law, you would act in an opposite manner to your current position? You would buy the cheap no-name book rather than reward the creator? Come come now.
Sure you can't think of what the publisher could offer you. Except feeding the author and giving them the rewards and resources to produce more books.
You already know what the incentives for buying from the creator are, you've been arguing it in this thread. Now suddenly you're saying that without law, you would act in an opposite manner to your current position? You would buy the cheap no-name book rather than reward the creator? Come come now.
A publisher like the Mises Institute is near and dear to my heart, so I'm willing to shell out the extra cash. But this is the exception, not the rule. Most of the time I just don't have any personal attachments to the author or publisher. Honestly, I'd rather save hundreds or even thousands of dollars now than worry about the long term success of those companies, and the value they may or may not provide me with in the future. I'm definitely not alone in this. Now you can say that's foolish of me, that's it's not in my best interest, but I would say you can't really calculate that for me. You can't know that the present value of the long term benefits I'd receive from buying from the publisher is any greater than the value I'd receive by getting it for free or buying from a cheaper source.
The better test would be, have the Mises Institude give me full rights to freely reproduce any of their works (digital or physical). I'll re-create them at my own expense but I don't owe them any type of royalties. Let me sell them or give them away and see what happens to their revenues.
I think you can already reproduce their online articles under the creative common attribution, which allow you to do what you proposes.
Anyway the fact that you're willing to shell out the extra for the Mises Institute is not a unique pheonomon per se. People all over the world do it for their favorite authors, musicans, and artists. Webcomic like Megatokyo are availiable free online yet enjoy great sales in their dead-tree formats. Giving away infinte goods and sell the physical goods is a proven business model.
In anarchy, we will see a flood of books being avialiable on websites free to read and the actual physical books will be quite cheap. In fact, US history has already demonstrated this. During the era of no foreign copyright, books of foriegn authors, especially british authors were cheap and plentiful. British authors, meanwhile got paid for their manuscripts by American publishers, jockying for the right to print first.
http://libregamewiki.org - The world's only encyclopedia on free(as in freedom) gaming.
liberty student:All I am saying, is that this sounds very hypocritical. And I don't mean that pejoratively, but you argue for the protection and then admit you would buy strictly based on nominal price. How can you in good faith argue that a creator should fight to maintain control, when you admit if there was less control you would exploit it and that authorship is irrelevant to you?
I can understand why you think it sounds hypocritical, but let me explain a bit more. If I see a bag of money on the sidewalk that's been laying there for days, I may just take it. But if that money were in someone's possession or in someone's house, I wouldn't. I'm not saying people should or shouldn't take the money on the sidewalk. I'm just saying a lot of people *will* take it (relative to the number of people who'd rob someone). And I'm not arguing that people should or shouldn't leave their money on the sidewalk. I'm arguing that if they value their money, they probably shouldn't leave it on the sidewalk, and they'd be well-served to analyze the cost/benefit of various ways of protecting it.
liberty student:As far as Mises, their digital content is distributed freely. I recently bought a CD archive from another firm, which had loaded all of the Mises digital content into a searchable database. Value added.
Sure, but again, this type of thing doesn't address a lot of cases. Let's say we have a free market and a popular author just released a new book. What's to stop bookstores and other publishing companies from literally copying the book and reselling it in stores? What's to stop them, or anyone else, from selling it online? You can say he just needs to add more value, but what's to stop others from copying that as well? At some point, things need to be protected or the potential profits will be lost. There are of course things that are unique (like a personalized token or service), but that seems to suggest we wouldn't see *just* a book or *just* a software program being sold much at all on the free market, and I find that hard to believe seeing as though people have demonstrated they're willing to pay for *just* those things.
liberty student:As far as Mises, their digital content is distributed freely. I recently bought a CD archive from another firm, which had loaded all of the Mises digital content into a searchable database. Value added. Sure, but again, this type of thing doesn't address a lot of cases. Let's say we have a free market and a popular author just released a new book. What's to stop bookstores and other publishing companies from literally copying the book and reselling it in stores? What's to stop them, or anyone else, from selling it online? You can say he just needs to add more value, but what's to stop others from copying that as well? At some point, things need to be protected or the potential profits will be lost. There are of course things that are unique (like a personalized token or service), but that seems to suggest we wouldn't see *just* a book or *just* a software program being sold much at all on the free market, and I find that hard to believe seeing as though people have demonstrated they're willing to pay for *just* those things.
I believe this issue is already addressed in my last comment. Look at history and comtemporary examples. Heck, this is true even for the 9/11 Commision Report.
PeterWellington:I can understand why you think it sounds hypocritical, but let me explain a bit more. If I see a bag of money on the sidewalk that's been laying there for days, I may just take it. But if that money were in someone's possession or in someone's house, I wouldn't. I'm not saying people should or shouldn't take the money on the sidewalk. I'm just saying a lot of people *will* take it (relative to the number of people who'd rob someone). And I'm not arguing that people should or shouldn't leave their money on the sidewalk. I'm arguing that if they value their money, they probably shouldn't leave it on the sidewalk, and they'd be well-served to analyze the cost/benefit of various ways of protecting it.
So you would only steal if it was unprotected (based on your own arguments). You're a low risk thief? You're a conservative looter?
I think you have a lot of internal contradictions and might want to invest some time in checking your premises.
PeterWellington:Sure, but again, this type of thing doesn't address a lot of cases. Let's say we have a free market and a popular author just released a new book. What's to stop bookstores and other publishing companies from literally copying the book and reselling it in stores?
It depends on how the author is being renumerated. I would guess that publishers would not open bookstores and bookstores would not install printing presses, because it is inefficient and works against the division of labour.
PeterWellington:What's to stop them, or anyone else, from selling it online?
Nothing, but why would you pay for something in electronic format online?
PeterWellington:You can say he just needs to add more value, but what's to stop others from copying that as well?
You mean they could pretend to be him and do interviews on the book, and dress like him and do bookstore signings? You're missing the point. completely on adding value.
PeterWellington:At some point, things need to be protected or the potential profits will be lost.
No they don't. You keep insisting that the creative process has value, absent of production. It does not. When you sit around commanding a high salary to write software, your output only has value when it is brought to market. Not when it is 99.99% done, and it has no fixed value until the market shows demand for what you have created. You can design an office suite for 3 years, and if someone beats you to market by 6 months, with a better and cheaper product, all of your creative costs are sunk.
PeterWellington:There are of course things that are unique (like a personalized token or service), but that seems to suggest we wouldn't see *just* a book or *just* a software program being sold much at all on the free market, and I find that hard to believe seeing as though people have demonstrated they're willing to pay for *just* those things.
You keep arguing in circles. You expect authors to be paid, but you would steal from them if you could. You buy from Mises because you think it has value, and then say you don't think people would pay for value.
Your own actions defeat your argument. What else can I say?
ML does a similar thing. He looks for examples, and wants to create hypotheticals to test for a proof or failure in the argument. Eventually, all you end up doing is creating fantasy scenarios that only confirm your pre-conceived beliefs under the weakest analysis. Like the idiot who spends $100,000 on development of a product his competitor can copy and sell for $5. That's a moron, not a victim.
If you find something evil that wobbles, push it. - Gary North
PeterWellington:Let's say we have a free market and a popular author just released a new book. What's to stop bookstores and other publishing companies from literally copying the book and reselling it in stores?
Just like anyone can produce a copy of Shakespeare or Mozart without any problems. Ok, it happens all the time with works that are not under copyright restrictions.
You are specifically talking about new production and an author getting paid, but in the same kind of environment. Well, let's look at what happens now.
No one pays Linus Torvalds for their copy of Linux. Linus doesn't ask for money, yet he does get paid. A consortium of companies who benefit from his work was formed, which hired him to continue doing what he was already doing.
So that is one way authors can get paid.
There's also the serial production method I previously mentioned, that Dickens used. He utilized time preference and his unrivaled "time to market" with his own stories to make money. An author could set up just such a subscription service, where anyone who pays him will get on a preferred mailing list to get the story sent directly to them before anyone else.
Sure, someone could "cheat" and have someone on the list forward them a copy, and get it some time later, but for a truly popular author or musician that time preference could be sufficient to keep them employed doing what people love them to do.
Sponsorship also exists. "The Rich" have sponsored artists, authors, sculptors and the rest throughout history, and I see no reason for that not to continue.
Lastly, examine your own motivations. If you liked an author, say Carl Bussjaeger, and someone offered for nothing a copy of his book Net Assets that you knew he was charging $5 for, would you take it rather than pay for it? (not a rhetorical question, real person real book. Great book, BTW, which I gladly paid for. See Bussjaeger.org where the book is now offered for free.)
PeterWellington:but that seems to suggest we wouldn't see *just* a book or *just* a software program being sold much at all on the free market, and I find that hard to believe seeing as though people have demonstrated they're willing to pay for *just* those things.
There are many, many people like me, and you, who can and do afford those kinds of things right now. Today.
Imagining a world without the crushing overhead of government, where the full wealth I produce is available for me to spend, and directly paying an author who has produced a work that I enjoy, or subscribing to a consortium such as the Open Source Development Labs, is even more likely.
Not less.
liberty student:So you would only steal if it was unprotected (based on your own arguments).
liberty student:I think you have a lot of internal contradictions and might want to invest some time in checking your premises.
I don't see any contradictions. I'm talking about cause and effect, not what you or I must do in a moral sense. I'm just examining certain business dynamics and forming an opinion as to how they might change or stay the same under anarchy. Any "shoulds" I've spoken about have been in terms of cause and effect. I'm not demanding behavior out of anyone. It's the difference between saying "You should lift weights" and "If you want to get physically stronger, it's generally a good idea to lift weights". By that same token, I'm arguing "If you want to maximize your profits as a software company, it's generally a good idea to protect your product from being copied."
liberty student:You expect authors to be paid, but you would steal from them if you could.
I thought you didn't recognize intellectual works as property. And if they're not property how can they be stolen?
PeterWellington: liberty student:You expect authors to be paid, but you would steal from them if you could. I thought you didn't recognize intellectual works as property. And if they're not property how can they be stolen?
I don't, but you do. This is what I mean about our arguments being circular. You don't want to defend that IP is property, and yet you insist that the market must treat it as such.
Very simple Peter, is IP property, yes or no? Not for argument's sake. Not hypothetically. Do you believe IP is property or not?
PeterWellington:By that same token, I'm arguing "If you want to maximize your profits as a software company, it's generally a good idea to protect your product from being copied."
Which is a poor business model, if your competitor prices a similar product at free. You can protect a smaller market share all you want, all you are doing is driving your customers to your free competitor.
You need to differentiate your product by ADDING VALUE not SUBTRACTING IT.
But whatever. People with your approach cannot survive outside the state paradigm, because you think the investment and creative stage is worthy of renumeration, regardless of the quality of the good or it's price as determined by the market. I don't care if you spend $1 trillion dollars, and employ 10,000 people making a product, if Joe Blow comes along with a free copy, and you have no additional value, welcome to bankruptcy.
CurtHowland:No one pays Linus Torvalds for their copy of Linux. Linus doesn't ask for money, yet he does get paid. A consortium of companies who benefit from his work was formed, which hired him to continue doing what he was already doing.
The last I checked, Linus was trying to collect on his "Linux" trademark: http://digg.com/linux_unix/Linus_trademarks_Linux_
CurtHowland: Sponsorship also exists. "The Rich" have sponsored artists, authors, sculptors and the rest throughout history, and I see no reason for that not to continue. Lastly, examine your own motivations. If you liked an author, say Carl Bussjaeger, and someone offered for nothing a copy of his book Net Assets that you knew he was charging $5 for, would you take it rather than pay for it? (not a rhetorical question, real person real book. Great book, BTW, which I gladly paid for. See Bussjaeger.org) PeterWellington:but that seems to suggest we wouldn't see *just* a book or *just* a software program being sold much at all on the free market, and I find that hard to believe seeing as though people have demonstrated they're willing to pay for *just* those things. There are many, many people like me, and you, who can and do afford those kinds of things right now. Today. Imagining a world without the crushing overhead of government, where the full wealth I produce is available for me to spend, and directly paying an author who has produced a work that I enjoy, or subscribing to a consortium such as the Open Source Development Labs, is even more likely.
Lastly, examine your own motivations. If you liked an author, say Carl Bussjaeger, and someone offered for nothing a copy of his book Net Assets that you knew he was charging $5 for, would you take it rather than pay for it? (not a rhetorical question, real person real book. Great book, BTW, which I gladly paid for. See Bussjaeger.org)
I wholeheartedly agree. Still, and I hate to beleaguer the point, but I think we'd continue to see see a significant market for proprietary commercial software. The model just has certain advantages, just as free and open source has its own advantages.
PeterWellington: I wholeheartedly agree. Still, and I hate to beleaguer the point, but I think we'd continue to see see a significant market for proprietary commercial software. The model just has certain advantages, just as free and open source has its own advantages.
What are the advantages? Name them. Because proprietary vs. common licensing is just another version of the state vs. market scenario.
N
liberty student: PeterWellington: liberty student:You expect authors to be paid, but you would steal from them if you could. I thought you didn't recognize intellectual works as property. And if they're not property how can they be stolen? I don't, but you do. This is what I mean about our arguments being circular. You don't want to defend that IP is property, and yet you insist that the market must treat it as such. Very simple Peter, is IP property, yes or no? Not for argument's sake. Not hypothetically. Do you believe IP is property or not?
No, and if you can't point me to anywhere I've said that I'll gladly concede that point. I don't believe something needs to be "property" for it to be protected. An idea is not property, yet I can protect it by never reveleaing it. I can also sell the idea to my friend under the contractual condition that he doesn't reveal it.
liberty student: PeterWellington:By that same token, I'm arguing "If you want to maximize your profits as a software company, it's generally a good idea to protect your product from being copied." Which is a poor business model, if your competitor prices a similar product at free. You can protect a smaller market share all you want, all you are doing is driving your customers to your free competitor. You need to differentiate your product by ADDING VALUE not SUBTRACTING IT. But whatever. People with your approach cannot survive outside the state paradigm, because you think the investment and creative stage is worthy of renumeration, regardless of the quality of the good or it's price as determined by the market. I don't care if you spend $1 trillion dollars, and employ 10,000 people making a product, if Joe Blow comes along with a free copy, and you have no additional value, welcome to bankruptcy.
That is all unfounded speculation. I've worked in the software industry for years. I've done contracting, consulting, and I've sold my own products. I know a lot of people who've done the same. I can tell you that, from my experience and that of others, we've found that a degree of protection has increased profits. I've never sued anyone for copyright infringement nor have any of the others I'm referring to. So we're all making a good living, most of it selling proprietary software, and none of us have used government violence.
I'm not saying that any of that *proves* I'm right, again it's just my experience, but it's also been supported in market research others and myself have done. I'm genuinely curious if you have information that says otherwise.
PeterWellington: No, and if you can't point me to anywhere I've said that I'll gladly concede that point. I don't believe something needs to be "property" for it to be protected. An idea is not property, yet I can protect it by never reveleaing it. I can also sell the idea to my friend under the contractual condition that he doesn't reveal it.
You didn't answer the question. Is IP property or not?
PeterWellington:The last I checked, Linus was trying to collect on his "Linux" trademark
I would have thought you were reading some of the other lines of argumentation in this subject.
Linus had to "defend his trademark" in order to prevent abuse of the law. That particular story is many years old. Was that really the last time you checked in on F/OSS?
As others have pointed out, because we live in an environment where those laws exist, people are forced (there's that word again) to abide those laws sometimes even in self defense against the abuse of those same laws. That was the reason given for his "defense".
PeterWellington:...and I hate to beleaguer the point...
Please forgive me for not believing that particular sentence fragment.
liberty student:What are the advantages? Name them. Because proprietary vs. common licensing is just another version of the state vs. market scenario.
I'll gladly answer your question but I'd first like to know how open source is any less state-privileged than proprietary software when we've already established they both use copyrights and patents.
Enormous waste of time. Feel free to continue without me.
liberty student: PeterWellington: No, and if you can't point me to anywhere I've said that I'll gladly concede that point. I don't believe something needs to be "property" for it to be protected. An idea is not property, yet I can protect it by never reveleaing it. I can also sell the idea to my friend under the contractual condition that he doesn't reveal it. You didn't answer the question. Is IP property or not?
My first word was "No" (as in "No, it's not property"), but there is meaningful typo in that sentence, sorry about that. It should read "No, and if you can point me...".
CurtHowland:As others have pointed out, because we live in an environment where those laws exist, people are forced (there's that word again) to abide those laws sometimes even in self defense against the abuse of those same laws. That was the reason given for his "defense".
So when Linus or the open source community does it, it's in defense, but whenever a proprietary company does it, they're abusing the system? If that's not what you're saying, I'm sorry, but that's what it sounds like. How does one differentiate between offensive and defensive use?
CurtHowland: PeterWellington:...and I hate to beleaguer the point... Please forgive me for not believing that particular sentence fragment.
I've acted in good faith throughout this entire discussion. If I've misconstrued anything, it hasn't been intentional. If you want to believe otherwise, I don't know what else to tell you.
liberty student: Enormous waste of time. Feel free to continue without me.
Because I want you to clarify your position before I answer you? I can give you an answer right now, but it won't be of any use if you claim that those advantages come from government privilege.
PeterWellington:So when Linus or the open source community does it, it's in defense, but whenever a proprietary company does it, they're abusing the system? If that's not what you're saying, I'm sorry, but that's what it sounds like. How does one differentiate between offensive and defensive use?
If you read what I wrote, I said "sometimes". Not "always". If you want to read into everything I say some attack on proprietary software, go right ahead, but I dearly wish you would read what I write instead of what you want me to write.
Offensive vs. defensive? Ok, why did Linus have to defend the "Linux" name? Because until that point he had not defended the name, and it was in danger of being taken over, within the law, by other people unless he did so. Just like I defend my toaster by grabbing it from someone who otherwise would walk away with it even though I never defended it before.
PeterWellington:If I've misconstrued anything, it hasn't been intentional.
Obviously even putting a smily on something cannot communicate sarcasm. The serious part of my comment was the fact that you have proven to have no qualms about beleaguering. Neither have I.
PeterWellington:If you want to believe otherwise, I don't know what else to tell you.
By Cromm, good sir, can you really tell me that you have misread, misattributed and misunderstood all but two of the postings I've made in this subject, and still want to claim you're the victim?
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap