[seriously serious sirius XM radio] IP reform thread

[Kuciwalker]

It works well FOR MUSIC AND TV WHICH IS RUN OF THE MILL/FUNGIBLE.

It does NOT work well for OTHER STUFF.

HBO's entire business model puts the lie to your claims.

It has worked well. It is slowly beginning to work less. It will continue to work less and less as more people are able/willing to pirate music. Even if the system itself doesn't fall apart (which it almost certainly wouldn't), it will be underfunded.

[Kuciwalker]

I have no idea what this has to do with valuing the stuff. Either way, most would be put in the public domain.

The current copyright system means that anyone offering an all-you-can-eat service has to DRM the stuff in order to get some assurance that your music disappears if you stop paying.

[Kuciwalker]

In my proposed system the government would have some bureau with which all recordings would be registered. This bureau would license companies to distribute the tracks (on the condition that they report # of downloads per track). The companies would then charge consumers for the cost of providing the files and for any additional services like recommendations (a la Pandora).

The bureau would compensate artists according to the proportion of total downloads out of some (fixed?) budget, or some other scheme for determining how much money should be allocated.

[KrazyHorse]

If most music is available conveniently and legally at zero cost, there will be basically no market for music at nonzero cost and the prices will be highly depressed. Because, as you observed, music is fungible.

The fee for play is paid by the gov't not the listener

And people being willing to pay only very low fees are indicative of low marginal value, by the way

EDIT: in the absence of piracy, of course

[KrazyHorse]

I thought that was clear. In the case that the ownership is not transferred to the gov't and the owner so wishes, my solution devolves to yours.

[KrazyHorse]

The difference is that in cases where there is something to distinguish the valuable work from the dross, bidding will drive the price above the price set by the value as part of the gov't repository. Such works still go in the repository if the government is assigned the patent, but do not if the lottery says that the highest bidder is assigned to rights (or if the originator refuses all offers)

[Kuciwalker]

I thought that was clear. In the case that the ownership is not transferred to the gov't and the owner so wishes, my solution devolves to yours.

OK, that works.

[MORON]

A different question.

For things like works of art, utility (or at least demand) does not seem like solely innate value but also effect by how society evolves. Assuming that private industry have a means of manipulating the demand of a item regardless of its innate value, they asymmetry of buy outs may result in over production.

For example, if we have 5 pieces of interchangeable music that is almost perfect substitute to each other, and buy out system on average buys 4 out of 5 songs. A private marketeer may use its marketing apparatus to increase the socially perceived value of pieces and gain revenues similar to that value. On the other hand publicly owned music without such backing have a lower socially perceived value and the government have thus overpaid for them and there is a potential for overproduction.

-------------
Of course, the idea that utility is not a innate value of a product or service raises far more problems to economic theory than this.....but is any considerations of this sort addressed?

[Japher]

Yes, perceived vs. actual value is a conundrum.

What would a company with user generated IP look like? Given the internet and the plethora of user generated content, even if in the form of self-copyright material, or in the form of some sort of viral, self inflicted meme can we define these movements/tribes in such a way that we could apply this to an open source of IP that would created tangible value/utility for all? Linux tries, but how can this be modeled and applied to other industries? Should it silo itself into industries? Or should the bounds of industry be blurred, pushed, marred, erased?

If you do this should material gain be sacrificed to achieve maximum utility? Does it need to be? Is every "give a penny take a penny" jar in the US funded by a mathematically impaired clerk?