Re: Obsolesence of Intellectual Property

From: Paul Hughes (
Date: Thu Aug 03 2000 - 00:41:48 MDT

Max Moller Rasmussen wrote:

> In the music industry like any other kind of business 90% of everything is a
> flop. Probably even more so in the music industry. 85% of all music you see
> in the stores never makes back the production costs.

Then why are these idiots at the RIAA using the current brunt of IP laws to
protect this antiquated way of doing business? You would think they would get a
clue, and use the internet to streamline their business and minimize such
financial losses.

> Oh and there is adult people in the music business making money .. uhhh bad
> bad.


> >Lets not forget those multi-million
> >dollar hyping budgets in order to get N'Sync and Brittany Spears albums to
> >market. Give me a friggin break!
> Is marketing Unethical? You are not allowed to tell that you have something
> to sell .. it is evil ???

Again huh? I see nothing wrong with advertising. But when that's all I see,
because their using IP law to maintain their monopoly on music distribution then
I see a big problem. Where is the competition? When are we going to see music
that is determined more by market forces than market budgets?

> Not if we let it destroy the economical system.

Destroy no, change yes.

> If it is possible and legal to just copy something for free we will never
> know it's actual worth. How much would people be willing to pay for it. And
> also how much is it worth for society. Forget about the free market. There
> will be no market... only free.

Its time we all faced the facts, as technology gets better, things get cheaper.
Deflation is ultimately the sign of an advancing economy. Just look at the
amount of computation a dollar buys now a days. Amazing! Follow the fill
circle of this argument. If people are making less money from the acts of
creation, and those things are costing less then where is the harm done? At
some point such an economy is inevitable, and there probably will be severe
dislocations and destabilization's along the way. What we are experiencing now
is the equivalent of two revolutions exceeding all the changes that were brought
with the agricultural and industrial.

> Oh but you are not able to listen to it on a walkman. You have to use a
> videotape to play it back which is a hassle. And there are several other
> reasons why you would want you music on a CD. Those reasons sort of
> dissapear on MP3. It is a better medium in many regards than any other there
> has been for music. Excluding sound quality. In short in the other mediums
> there are barriers to entry that most people don't record their music that
> way. At least not in a big way.

So its legal to copy as long as its a hassle, and illegal as long as its
convenient. I can see it now, inconvenience becomes compulsory! Wait a second,
I'm experiencing Deja Vu!!! (please see my last post)

> >> No one has proven that Napster is going to result in better music or ...
> >No one has proven that its going to make music worse either. Nothing can be
> >worse than the over-marketed hype they call music now-a-days.
> That is your taste you are stating. Not really a valid argument.

The first part is a valid argument, the second is my opinion - have a problem
with that?

> Oh artist cannot make money???

I'm not stopping them.

> Oh yeas ... let's destroy the economic system right now, so that we can
> prepare for something that might happen sometime in the future. Remember
> Nano is not here yet. It might never be or maybe only partial.

I'm not advocating that we destroy the economic system. These technologies are
going to advance whether you or I like it or not. What I am advocating is that
we better get real about obsolete laws that neither function or are enforceable
in an age of cheap duplication costs. Think of the internet as a rehearsal.
When nanotech arrives, we better have worked these issue out.

> It is a big world with many people making a living in different stages of
> technological savy. We have to change the system slowly enough as not to
> destroy it.

I agree with you in principle. However time is running out. Nanotechnology is
coming, and probably sooner than later. I would rather we experience some
severe economic instabilities if it means that we have a chance of navigation
the nanotech waters without an apocalypse. Please see the extensive arguments
that I and many others made on about open-sourcing nanotech
research and development.

Paul Hughes

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 17:35:32 MDT