Why do free market capitalists support the RIAA?

[Eeezee]

Basic supply/demand economics:

The RIAA distributes a good with an infinite supply. Since the supply is infinite and the demand is finite, the price must be zero. An infinite number always beats a finite number, and there's no getting around that fact. In a truly free market, the cost of music is nil. Musical performances and merchandise, however, are in finite supply, and therefore maintain nontrivial value for the artists.

How can a free market capitalist tout the benefits of a free market and support the RIAA's campaign against free market capitalism at the same time?

I'm interested in seeing any counterpoints someone can come up with. You may claim downloading MP3s is stealing, but I claim it's free market forces at work; the product has infinite supply, therefore its value is zero, much like the air we breathe (but not the water we drink - that has a finite supply).

 

[blackangst1]

What free market capitalist does, out of curiosity? I sure as hell dont.

 

[ProfJohn]

The premise that the RIAA distributes some thing with an infinite supply your problem.

The supply of music may be infinite, but the supply of good music is not. Therefore good music has economic value. After that your whole argument falls apart.

 

[Eeezee]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
The premise that the RIAA distributes some thing with an infinite supply your problem.

The supply of music may be infinite, but the supply of good music is not. Therefore good music has economic value. After that your whole argument falls apart.

Wrong; there is no difference between good music and music in general when it comes to supply. Both are infinite. Once the first copy of a song is produced, the supply is then infinite. Someone will get their hands on the album, rip it, and provide unlimited copies on the internet.

Imagine if I had the power to clone bananas and teleport them to anyone on the planet in the blink of an eye. I give everyone on the planet a magic button that provides them a banana whenever they press it. How much could a street vendor sell bananas for in this case?

The supply of good music is infinite. It is trivial to upload any music file to the internet and have it be downloaded by thousands of people that very day. The cost to do so is effectively zero.

The supply of any digitally distributable media is infinite. If it is a trivial matter to copy and send elsewhere, then the supply is infinite.

 

[videogames101]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
The premise that the RIAA distributes some thing with an infinite supply your problem.

The supply of music may be infinite, but the supply of good music is not. Therefore good music has economic value. After that your whole argument falls apart.

uh, no? because, there is infinite copies of good music. hence, concerts with good music have economical value.

 

[nonameo]

OP, producers make enough of a product that will give them the greatest profit on the demand/supply curve. Just because you can supply more doesn't mean that you will.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Eeezee

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
The premise that the RIAA distributes some thing with an infinite supply your problem.

The supply of music may be infinite, but the supply of good music is not. Therefore good music has economic value. After that your whole argument falls apart.

Wrong; there is no difference between good music and music in general when it comes to supply. Both are infinite. Once the first copy of a song is produced, the supply is then infinite. Someone will get their hands on the album, rip it, and provide unlimited copies on the internet.

Imagine if I had the power to clone bananas and teleport them to anyone on the planet in the blink of an eye. I give everyone on the planet a magic button that provides them a banana whenever they press it. How much could a street vendor sell bananas for in this case?

The supply of good music is infinite. It is trivial to upload any music file to the internet and have it be downloaded by thousands of people that very day. The cost to do so is effectively zero.

The supply of any digitally distributable media is infinite. If it is a trivial matter to copy and send elsewhere, then the supply is infinite.

I suspect your Banana Button would produce cheap knockoffs. The guy on the street would fill the void for those looking to not eat crap.

 

[sandorski]

You raise an interesting question though.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: Eeezee
Basic supply/demand economics:

The RIAA distributes a good with an infinite supply. Since the supply is infinite and the demand is finite, the price must be zero. An infinite number always beats a finite number, and there's no getting around that fact. In a truly free market, the cost of music is nil. Musical performances and merchandise, however, are in finite supply, and therefore maintain nontrivial value for the artists.

How can a free market capitalist tout the benefits of a free market and support the RIAA's campaign against free market capitalism at the same time?

I'm interested in seeing any counterpoints someone can come up with. You may claim downloading MP3s is stealing, but I claim it's free market forces at work; the product has infinite supply, therefore its value is zero, much like the air we breathe (but not the water we drink - that has a finite supply).

Music is not in infinite supply, any more than artwork is.

 

[Lemon law]

I can follow the basic premise that once there is one copy of a "good piece" of music, technology of today allows that piece to be cheaply copied as many times as desired.

But the joker in the deck is that someone should compensate the creator of that good piece of music. Which is why we have copyright laws. That sadly has not been updated to reflect technology and are hence outdated. Blame US politicians for that bit of incompetent negligence.

But the RIAA total screw the pooch fantasy is that have any right or ability to set themselves up as an organization to champion the rights of artists when they have been the traditional exploiters of these artists is the great absurdity in this whole argument. Why the RIAA has any legal standing is beyond me?

At least in the case of the RIAA, the world would be far better off if they were declared illegal on the ground of existing anti trust laws and sued to extinction.

But its still important to update the copyright laws so things will get better defined.

 

[Nobuo]

The "infinite supply" part is the fallacy. It implies that the content has no value. While it may be free and limitless to copy digital content, it is not free and limitless to create. If the artists stop creating the work, the supply becomes 0. To make a million additional copies of an mp3 can be said to cost nothing, but to make the first, original copy of it costs a great deal (paying the artist, paying the studio, paying everyone else involved in the production of good music). It's the same principle as the cost of medicine: mass producing a pill of a certain formula can be ridiculously cheap, but the cost of the medicine reflects not the cost of mass producing it, but in the initial R&D and efforts by high-paid specialists to create the very first one. Copying is cheap, creating is not.

On top of that, you want the market to reward those who make good content versus those who produce crap. To do so, you have to have some sort of revenue stream that expands based on popularity (with the assumption that popularity = quality), which means paying a certain amount per copy unless you can think of a better way to do that. Musical performances and merchandise are one way, but that doesnt work for all types of digital content or even all types of music.

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: Eeezee
Basic supply/demand economics:

The RIAA distributes a good with an infinite supply. Since the supply is infinite and the demand is finite, the price must be zero. An infinite number always beats a finite number, and there's no getting around that fact. In a truly free market, the cost of music is nil. Musical performances and merchandise, however, are in finite supply, and therefore maintain nontrivial value for the artists.

How can a free market capitalist tout the benefits of a free market and support the RIAA's campaign against free market capitalism at the same time?

I'm interested in seeing any counterpoints someone can come up with. You may claim downloading MP3s is stealing, but I claim it's free market forces at work; the product has infinite supply, therefore its value is zero, much like the air we breathe (but not the water we drink - that has a finite supply).

Music is not in infinite supply, any more than artwork is.

Indeed. The ease of distribution alone does not determine the supply of that product - it's called intellectual property for a reason. If we had infinite numbers of popularly acclaimed music artists who were recording their work in digital form with a cost of production of zero, you'd have a case.

I'm not a supporter of the RIAA, but the entire premise of this thread is mind numbing. Wouldn't the same logic of "infinite supply" apply to computer software as well? Although Microsoft has spent billions employing hundreds of people to develop Windows XP, shouldn't the price of that software be zero too?

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Nobuo
The "infinite supply" part is the fallacy. It implies that the content has no value. While it may be free and limitless to copy digital content, it is not free and limitless to create. If the artists stop creating the work, the supply becomes 0. To make a million additional copies of an mp3 can be said to cost nothing, but to make the first, original copy of it costs a great deal (paying the artist, paying the studio, paying everyone else involved in the production of good music). It's the same principle as the cost of medicine: mass producing a pill of a certain formula can be ridiculously cheap, but the cost of the medicine reflects not the cost of mass producing it, but in the initial R&D and efforts by high-paid specialists to create the very first one. Copying is cheap, creating is not.

On top of that, you want the market to reward those who make good content versus those who produce crap. To do so, you have to have some sort of revenue stream that expands based on popularity (with the assumption that popularity = quality), which means paying a certain amount per copy unless you can think of a better way to do that. Musical performances and merchandise are one way, but that doesnt work for all types of digital content or even all types of music.

I disagree. "Creating" it has cost, for sure, but making Copies has always been a large part of the expense. Now that making Copies is virtually Free, a major part of the Cost has been removed. Artists can make their $$ doing Live Performances and from what I understand that's how they make the bulk of their Income already.

Record companies have become obsolete.

 

[Nobuo]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Nobuo
The "infinite supply" part is the fallacy. It implies that the content has no value. While it may be free and limitless to copy digital content, it is not free and limitless to create. If the artists stop creating the work, the supply becomes 0. To make a million additional copies of an mp3 can be said to cost nothing, but to make the first, original copy of it costs a great deal (paying the artist, paying the studio, paying everyone else involved in the production of good music). It's the same principle as the cost of medicine: mass producing a pill of a certain formula can be ridiculously cheap, but the cost of the medicine reflects not the cost of mass producing it, but in the initial R&D and efforts by high-paid specialists to create the very first one. Copying is cheap, creating is not.

On top of that, you want the market to reward those who make good content versus those who produce crap. To do so, you have to have some sort of revenue stream that expands based on popularity (with the assumption that popularity = quality), which means paying a certain amount per copy unless you can think of a better way to do that. Musical performances and merchandise are one way, but that doesnt work for all types of digital content or even all types of music.

I disagree. "Creating" it has cost, for sure, but making Copies has always been a large part of the expense. Now that making Copies is virtually Free, a major part of the Cost has been removed. Artists can make their $$ doing Live Performances and from what I understand that's how they make the bulk of their Income already.

Record companies have become obsolete.

An artist should still be able to get paid without having to do live performances (although maybe a lesser amount) if their work is popular for private use. Some musical genres dont lend themselves well to live performance (electronic music, etc), many of my favorite artists have never toured.

Saying "artists make money on live performances" is not the end-all solution, you need to have a system in place that pays artists and everyone else involved regardless. You can make the argument that it should be cheaper than it is now (due to the ease of distribution compared to times in the past) but to argue that high-quality music for private use should be 100% free is illogical.

 

[MovingTarget]

Seems that the point of contention is the distribution method. Sure, once the intellectual property (song) is authored, the distribution costs are nil. Used to be that the distribution via cassette, vinyl, cd, etc. was cost prohibitive. Electronic distribution was once out of the question as the internet wasn't always around or speedy. This is no longer the case, so the RIAA's members would of course be having trouble if their sole business model is based on distribution. However, it is not.

The purpose of copyright/IP law is to encourage the creation of new works while balancing the common good of being able to reuse/reproduce the old ones as it is culturally valuable. That is why copyright was initially set up to be for a limited time so that artists can produce new works while making a living off of it. Beyond a certain point (which number can be argued), the value of a work to society is more if it is in the public domain.

IMHO, the RIAA should only be in the business of supporting artists new works, getting them "out there" and ensuring that artists can make a living. Call it a trade union off music artists. However, once the copyright term has passed, they should just let it go. There is no reason today why the works of Elvis or the Beatles shouldn't be public domain. The modern RIAA would simply be happy to rake in all the money it can at the expense of society, as the current copyright law (that THEY wrote) is in their favor to where we would hardly see any of the works made in our lifetimes lapse into public domain. Old Mickey Mouse cartoons anyone?

The same can be said for software patents, but to a greater extent. Once a piece of software is completed, distribution cost is nil. However, it takes a lot of time and money to create it, so the authors (programmers) should be compensated fairly. After a number of years, the software becomes obsolete, but the code itself can be reused in the creation of other programs. There also is the added issue of legacy support or archive integrity. Remember that old copy of windows 3.11? Good luck trying to buy a legit copy today. Unless you had a new program (or whatever) that has PERFECT backward compatibility, you cannot fully use all your old programs and/or data. What about that perfectly usable piece of 386 hardware? Its junk now unless you can get ahold of some shady copy of some software that is no longer legitimately sold. What about the same data 10, 20, or 30 years from now? Should these still be patented and/or copyrighted? I would say no.

Do you apply the same arguments of your OP to software? What about other forms of copyright/patent law?

 

[Wreckem]

Originally posted by: Eeezee

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
The premise that the RIAA distributes some thing with an infinite supply your problem.

The supply of music may be infinite, but the supply of good music is not. Therefore good music has economic value. After that your whole argument falls apart.

Wrong; there is no difference between good music and music in general when it comes to supply. Both are infinite. Once the first copy of a song is produced, the supply is then infinite. Someone will get their hands on the album, rip it, and provide unlimited copies on the internet.

Imagine if I had the power to clone bananas and teleport them to anyone on the planet in the blink of an eye. I give everyone on the planet a magic button that provides them a banana whenever they press it. How much could a street vendor sell bananas for in this case?

The supply of good music is infinite. It is trivial to upload any music file to the internet and have it be downloaded by thousands of people that very day. The cost to do so is effectively zero.

The supply of any digitally distributable media is infinite. If it is a trivial matter to copy and send elsewhere, then the supply is infinite.

So basically you dont agree with intellectual property rights, trademarks, or patents...

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Eeezee
Basic supply/demand economics:

The RIAA distributes a good with an infinite supply. Since the supply is infinite and the demand is finite, the price must be zero. An infinite number always beats a finite number, and there's no getting around that fact. In a truly free market, the cost of music is nil. Musical performances and merchandise, however, are in finite supply, and therefore maintain nontrivial value for the artists.

How can a free market capitalist tout the benefits of a free market and support the RIAA's campaign against free market capitalism at the same time?

I'm interested in seeing any counterpoints someone can come up with. You may claim downloading MP3s is stealing, but I claim it's free market forces at work; the product has infinite supply, therefore its value is zero, much like the air we breathe (but not the water we drink - that has a finite supply).

First, I don't care for framing the discussion in an ideological context. I'm not a big fan of the 'how do you deal with this issue in the strict guidelines of a certain ideology' limits.

I think it's better to just look at the merits of the issue.

Second, having said that, there is a glaring flaw in your assumptions - the cost of the original creation of music, whether in the past or future.

A secondary interest of society is in there being a reward for the creation of new art. If old art is all 'infinitely cheap', that's a question whether it harms future culture.

But sticking to the main issue, you don't have 'infinite supply'. If you do, send me a new song by The Who, please. Oh, you can't, because for them to make a new song, they need to be paid (a lot)? How are you going to pay them? One way is through planning to sell CD's with the new song, so they get paid, even if the CD's become online sales instead with 'zero cost'. Piracy of that online sale = zero dollars = no new song.

Now, it may be the case that technology has destroyed the ability to have a practical copyright system, and music will move to a different model of delivery; I heard an interview last night with someone on this, that they might make the music free but pay for it with ads and such when you get it. That's a little like tv shows being likely to put advertising in the shows, to get around people with technology that skips ads, reducing (eliminating for those people) the value of the ads; no ad revenue = no new shows.

No, what you're calling 'zero cost' isn't; it's merely one part of the cost, the distribution, being reduced.

Our founding fathers created copyright protections and patent protections because they understood that society won't have the new creations if the creators aren't paid.

Technology undermines some means of their being paid, and our choices are to find solutions to protect the rights, or give up the new music etc., or find alternate funding.

I don't see any value to the whole 'free market capitalist' angle in trying to squeeze the discussion into that category. It doesn't seem to offer any help keeping things working.

 

[punchkin]

Originally posted by: Eeezee
Basic supply/demand economics:

The RIAA distributes a good with an infinite supply. Since the supply is infinite and the demand is finite, the price must be zero. An infinite number always beats a finite number, and there's no getting around that fact. In a truly free market, the cost of music is nil. Musical performances and merchandise, however, are in finite supply, and therefore maintain nontrivial value for the artists.

How can a free market capitalist tout the benefits of a free market and support the RIAA's campaign against free market capitalism at the same time?

I'm interested in seeing any counterpoints someone can come up with. You may claim downloading MP3s is stealing, but I claim it's free market forces at work; the product has infinite supply, therefore its value is zero, much like the air we breathe (but not the water we drink - that has a finite supply).

The RIAA does not distribute a good with an infinite legal supply.

 

[Lemon law]

The RIAA is the odd one out and need to be removed as an unneeded anachronism before we can progress. The RIAA is the real problem that is the problem itself and has no part in any future solution. The means of production and distribution has and should shift to the creators of music.

 

[punchkin]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
The RIAA is the odd one out and need to be removed as an unneeded anachronism before we can progress. The RIAA is the real problem that is the problem itself and has no part in any future solution. The means of production and distribution has and should shift to the creators of music.

Absent a foolproof, piracy-proof method of distribution (which seems impossible), we need some way of enforcing the laws, which probably means a powerful interested party-- like the RIAA is-- to bring lawsuits in civil court, as well as government support on the criminal end, which is growing. I think the means of production and distribution already have shifted to the creators of music, although not necessarily the means of enforcement and maybe marketing.

 

[jjones]

I think the music industry, specifically marketing and distribution, is in transition and I quite honestly do not believe the RIAA will be around very much longer. One point I would like to mention that seems to be overlooked here is that there is a great deal of marketing that goes into the making of popular music. Marketing and distribution is what has given the RIAA it's stranglehold over the industry in past decades. With distribution becoming nearly free and immediate, what is left is marketing, which is still quite important. Quite simply, if you are not exposed to new music and new artists, you will not buy the music nor will you go to the concert.

However, everything is in place now to transition over to a new means of discovering music and for distribution of that music. This is where the RIAA has failed miserably because they continue to be stuck in their old business model. This failure to adapt to current pressures will mean their demise as new methods of marketing take over which will exclude them. Artists have already begun to slip away as they pursue other means of getting the public's attention. As for distribution, the RIAA has already begun to capitulate in this area and I think they have hit a point of no return now. I give it another decade or so and the RIAA will be a memory.

 

[Lemon law]

To punchkin,

We seem to be locking horns over this whole RIAA issue. But I think you are a good and honest advocate of your position while somewhat honestly acknowledging my position while you minimize my position.

Damn damn triple damn you, you are going to be a tough and a slippery fellow to demolish logically. Get with the program and fall down and worship me. But bad humor aside, this is really a technology issue.

Traditionally, on copyright issues, the legal onus was on the creator of copyrighted material to defend their patient as a civil lawsuit. And the test was its a civil matter and not a criminal matter to make a profit off of the intellectual property of others. And courts have traditionally always respected the rights of an inventor to receive just compensation for such a for profit theft. But at the same time, the inventor of such copyrighted ideas was powerless to prevent individuals from stealing his ideas and making a copy for their own use. But that making one copy was something that 99.9% of people did not have the means to do. With the for profit motive being almost the sole distinction.

Now here we are many years later and the RIAA almost asserts the power to criminally prosecute. And worse yet, to fine those who made no profit because they failed to adequately secure their own computers from the unauthorized use by the neighbors children. Something is a wee might out of wack now with our copyright laws.

 

[miketheidiot]

this is why free markets don't work, and the governemnt has interfered into the market to create property rights where none naturally exist

in a free market fantasy land, the op describes how it woudl work out, which is better than the current setup but not quite optimal

 

[Tab]

I don't see anything wrong with the RIAA promoting or trying to lobby for the arrest of those whom participate in software piracy. I do have a problem with the way they're going about it.

 

[punchkin]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
To punchkin,

We seem to be locking horns over this whole RIAA issue. But I think you are a good and honest advocate of your position while somewhat honestly acknowledging my position while you minimize my position.

Damn damn triple damn you, you are going to be a tough and a slippery fellow to demolish logically. Get with the program and fall down and worship me. But bad humor aside, this is really a technology issue.

Traditionally, on copyright issues, the legal onus was on the creator of copyrighted material to defend their patient as a civil lawsuit. And the test was its a civil matter and not a criminal matter to make a profit off of the intellectual property of others. And courts have traditionally always respected the rights of an inventor to receive just compensation for such a for profit theft. But at the same time, the inventor of such copyrighted ideas was powerless to prevent individuals from stealing his ideas and making a copy for their own use. But that making one copy was something that 99.9% of people did not have the means to do. With the for profit motive being almost the sole distinction.

Now here we are many years later and the RIAA almost asserts the power to criminally prosecute. And worse yet, to fine those who made no profit because they failed to adequately secure their own computers from the unauthorized use by the neighbors children. Something is a wee might out of wack now with our copyright laws.

I agree with you. At least two things intensified the copying problem: digital formats introduced the possibility of limitless perfect copies, and the internet provided an easy method of distribution for illegal copies.

I forgot to mention before that one reason I think a unified representative party is needed (which need not be the RIAA) is that no single artist has the resources to pursue the many small offenders properly, or see that they're pursued.