Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Send Them Your Money: A Campaign to Send The RIAA/MPAA Billions

sendthemyourmoney.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 135 posts

Re: Send Them Your Money: A Campaign to Send The RIAA/MPAA Billions

#81

Post by cgray4 »

corin_ wrote: post #31

Seeing the title, here's what I was expecting to read: "They think illegal downloads happen because people want to steal, we think they happen because people what better digital distribution. Send them money [real, actual payments] so they think 'holy shit, look how much money we just got sent, think how much more we could make by offering good digital distribution'." Which would be a more interesting, more thought-p…

This is actually an idea that I've been kicking around for a couple of weeks. My idea is slightly more complicated, but this is the gist.

I would call it a digital media consumer's union, where a person pays in a certain amount per month and then the total is allocated to the copyright holders proportionally to the amount that their media are consumed by the members of the union. Consumption statistics for music are already tracked by things like last.fm (and libre.fm), and it would not be hard to build a tracker for things like movies, books, and possibly websites and computer programs.

The monthly bundle of money would obviously be the carrot, and if one of the companies getting the money decided to sue a member for copyright infringement, then the money would be coverted into a stick in the form of a legal defense fund.

What about free riders? There would obviously be some, but I think a lot of people really do think that digital distribution is terrible and would pay if given the chance.

What about trust? Whoever was doing the collecting would have to have a great reputation and be completely transparent. It should probably be a non-profit and regularly audited.

Would it be be sued into oblivion? IANAL, but it seems like giving people money should not be actionable. The big guys would probably try to get the list of members, so being paranoid about privacy seems like it would be a good idea.

What would it do to the incentives? This is my favorite part. Instead of the publishers attempting to lock everything up, the incentive would be for them to make content that is as consumed as possible. That is, the publishers would want their stuff to get out there so that people see it and give some of their share to the publisher. Things like digital locks would become counterproductive.

Things like flattr provide some precedent for this idea, though they obviously don't go track down people that aren't part of the system.

I'd love to hear critiques of this idea, because if it can't work, then I can stop thinking about it.

Re: Send Them Your Money: A Campaign to Send The RIAA/MPAA Billions

#82

Post by pdonis »

zeteo wrote: post #62
CWuestefeld wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good old Adam Smith teaches us that value in exchange is often the opposite of value in use. (His example is that we pay very little for water, which is vital for survival, but lots for a diamond that has very limited value in use, in comparison.) That's because, as brilliantly as Smith was able to demonstrate his ideas, the concept of marginal utility wasn't among them. Nearly a century later, Jevons, Wenger, and Wa…

Ah, but I didn't say anything about the reason why water is so cheap. (Smith would explain it takes little effort to procure it - not that different from the marginalist argument.) What matters for the issue at hand is that its utility can be a very small factor in its price .

You're missing the point of marginal utility. Because the price of water is so low, the marginal use of water is not for purposes vital to survival. People water their lawns, fill swimming pools, wash cars, etc. In other words, they use water for things whose utility is equal to its current price, because there's plenty of water left over at that price after all the vital-to-survival needs are met.

If the price of water went up, people would stop using it for purposes with lower utility, in order to be sure to have enough for purposes with higher utility (like drinking and cooking). So the marginal utility of water would still be equal to its price.

See David Friedman's text, Price Theory; in particular Chapter 4:

http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Price_Theory/PThy_Cha...

He discusses this exact case (diamonds vs. water).

Re: Send Them Your Money: A Campaign to Send The RIAA/MPAA Billions

#84

Post by wiredfool »

tibbon wrote: post #70

By doing this you're clearly stealing money by making digital copies of it, devaluing money for everyone and making the maker of the money (US Mint) bankrupt.

We need a snappy name for it. Lets call it Quantitative Easing 3.

(hollywood likes sequels, doesn't it?)

Re: Send Them Your Money: A Campaign to Send The RIAA/MPAA Billions

#85

Post by zeteo »

seertaak wrote: post #78
zeteo wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>you're not stealing a thing when you copy it, but you are stealing the utility that it confers [...] that you would otherwise have had to pay for. You're taking value and not compensating for it, aka theft. I think our metaphors of property and theft are stretched to the breaking limit with digital content. When social rules first appeared, it was clearly wrong if Fred Flintstone made himself an awesome hat and Barn…

> Copyright and patents only appeared in the 18th century. I find the argument that copyright and patents appear only recently in historical terms unconvincing. Following that line of reasoning shoudln't we be even more wary of e.g. universal suffrage and civil rights laws? Moreover, that these laws occured relatively late in human history is IMO unsurprising, even to be expected given the state of human evolution. A…

> Following that line of reasoning shoudln't we be even more wary of e.g. universal suffrage and civil rights laws?

Far from me the idea that "younger" laws and institutions are suspect. I was just arguing that (unauthorized) reproduction of ideas and designs has been around for a long time, without being perceived as immoral. As you show, various interest groups have sometimes tried, and even succeeded, in legally banning certain forms of it. But it was never seriously accepted that duplication is somehow morally equivalent to theft.

Re: Send Them Your Money: A Campaign to Send The RIAA/MPAA Billions

#86

Post by chii »

dkersten wrote: post #71
joshaidan wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about some kind of model where the artist gets paid before a work of art is created? Say in the style of Kickstarter. The artist does not create the work until their desired threshold is reached. Or another alternative is to create an adopt an artist program where people can sponsor artists to create their work--the more sponsorships an artists gets, the more and better work they can create. In either case, once…

Perhaps this might make it difficult for new artists to get off the ground or discovered. Form organizations which take the money and pay the artists salaries. Now becoming a new artist becomes similar to becoming a new programmer or architect or whatever.

And then how do you determine how much to pay each artist? You have the same problem with programmers, but at least its not as pronouced.

I think artists should be paid by endorsements - like the old times, when barons would pay an artist to create a work of art. Only now, we can have people from the internet chip in small amounts. I.e., an artist proposes some art, and those who wants it can promise payment. Once the art is made, an infinite copy can be created, and every and anyone can access it.

So what incentivizes people to pay that initial bit, i hear you ask? Some people, especially fans, don't mind paying it. And that is where the value is extracted from.

Re: Send Them Your Money: A Campaign to Send The RIAA/MPAA Billions

#87

Post by rdtsc »

maeon3 wrote: post #10

Very creative and thought provoking, but wrong. A DVD version of avatar sells for say $20 and Riaa gets some percentage of that. Joe blow downloads avatar for free from google or some other website, ptp or sneakernet. Joe blow sends the riaa some percentage of $20 in photocopied money. That does not provide the same utility for riaa as the avatar.mp4 did for Joe blow. Whether or not Joe blow's download of avatar for…

> The question comes down to how much Joe blow WOULD have paid for avatar.mp4 had his only option been to purchase a DVD, wait and rent it, or watch it at a friends house.

So how do you answer that question. I would argue that many a Joe blow would have payed exactly $0.

I used to see a lot of free movies because my friend worked for the local movie theater. And there were a good number o f movies after which I wanted my "free" back. Yes a good amount of media is so close to garbage that the cost is negative (they would have to pay me to watch).

So assuming that pirate copy = a lost sale is a ridiculous argument.

Re: Send Them Your Money: A Campaign to Send The RIAA/MPAA Billions

#88

Post by zeteo »

pdonis wrote: post #82
zeteo wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah, but I didn't say anything about the reason why water is so cheap. (Smith would explain it takes little effort to procure it - not that different from the marginalist argument.) What matters for the issue at hand is that its utility can be a very small factor in its price .

You're missing the point of marginal utility. Because the price of water is so low, the marginal use of water is not for purposes vital to survival. People water their lawns, fill swimming pools, wash cars, etc. In other words, they use water for things whose utility is equal to its current price, because there's plenty of water left over at that price after all the vital-to-survival needs are met. If the price of wa…

An introductory text - thank you, but I've taken microeconomics in college. After carefully considering both points of view, I tend to rather agree with Smith, for the following simple reason. Suppose the more frivolous uses of water were somehow restricted. (There are cities that do pass such regulations sometimes.) Its marginal utility would increase, but its price would most likely drop, due to lower demand. Alternatively, consider that blood plasma and many life-saving medicines that have no other use are still cheaper than diamonds.

In any case, let's go back to the original issue. And, for the sake of argument, let's agree with the marginalists. Aren't all the marginal values and costs for a digital creation, which can be easily replicated millions of times, practically zero?

Re: Send Them Your Money: A Campaign to Send The RIAA/MPAA Billions

#89

Post by Shum »

seertaak wrote: post #78
zeteo wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>you're not stealing a thing when you copy it, but you are stealing the utility that it confers [...] that you would otherwise have had to pay for. You're taking value and not compensating for it, aka theft. I think our metaphors of property and theft are stretched to the breaking limit with digital content. When social rules first appeared, it was clearly wrong if Fred Flintstone made himself an awesome hat and Barn…

> Copyright and patents only appeared in the 18th century. I find the argument that copyright and patents appear only recently in historical terms unconvincing. Following that line of reasoning shoudln't we be even more wary of e.g. universal suffrage and civil rights laws? Moreover, that these laws occured relatively late in human history is IMO unsurprising, even to be expected given the state of human evolution. A…

> Agreed, sadly, none in the filesharing camp has offered anything even remotely resembling morality. You tend to see something along the lines of "I'm not talking about morality, I'm just giving you reality etc" (followed by "want some of my cash? dance, bitch!").

How about this? Without copyright we could make the collective cultural works of mankind instantly accessible to every internet-connected person in the world, all the time, for free. Every book, every film, every recording. Would this be a good thing or do you think we should shutdown libraries as well?

If you think I'm being hyperbolic read-up on Google Books and Google Library. It's depressing the damage these laws have already done.

Re: Send Them Your Money: A Campaign to Send The RIAA/MPAA Billions

#90

Post by sha90 »

rdtsc wrote: post #87
maeon3 wrote: post #10

Very creative and thought provoking, but wrong. A DVD version of avatar sells for say $20 and Riaa gets some percentage of that. Joe blow downloads avatar for free from google or some other website, ptp or sneakernet. Joe blow sends the riaa some percentage of $20 in photocopied money. That does not provide the same utility for riaa as the avatar.mp4 did for Joe blow. Whether or not Joe blow's download of avatar for…

> The question comes down to how much Joe blow WOULD have paid for avatar.mp4 had his only option been to purchase a DVD, wait and rent it, or watch it at a friends house. So how do you answer that question. I would argue that many a Joe blow would have payed exactly $0. I used to see a lot of free movies because my friend worked for the local movie theater. And there were a good number o f movies after which I wante…

> So assuming that pirate copy = a lost sale is a ridiculous argument.

This seems like a ridiculous counter-argument to me. You are basically trying to say that because a pirated copy is not exactly equal to one lost sale, then it's not an issue at all... forgetting the fact that the ratio doesn't need to be 1:1 for money to be lost. Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that "100 pirate copies = a lost sale", on average. That's still a lot of lost sales in the grand scheme of things, and that's a very conservative number.

As a sidenote, your anecdotal evidence is just that-- you got lucky having a friend with connections, most people without said friend would probably bite the bullet and make the purchase if they couldn't get it online. Let me inject my own anecdotal evidence for a second: before the internet, I remember renting a lot more movies than I do now. The internet has cut down on the amount of money I give to these organizations, fact.

And finally, whether or not Joe Blow got his money's worth is irrelevant, so who cares if you wanted your "free" back? The argument about value has little to do with the economic stance, unless you're trying to say, "it's ethical to steal if what you are stealing is crappy". I'd disagree with that statement too. I think most sane people would.

Post reply on HN