From: Petter Reinholdtsen Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2012 18:54:41 +0000 (+0200) Subject: Another index entry. X-Git-Tag: edition-2015-10-10~2168 X-Git-Url: https://pere.pagekite.me/gitweb/text-free-culture-lessig.git/commitdiff_plain/844635c2eccbe557a30c22181cf815800e6c4733?ds=sidebyside Another index entry. --- diff --git a/freeculture.xml b/freeculture.xml index ecf7db8..dc23423 100644 --- a/freeculture.xml +++ b/freeculture.xml @@ -3305,11 +3305,12 @@ less money than they otherwise would have had. For an analysis of the economic impact of copying technology, see Stan Liebowitz, Rethinking the Network Economy (New York: Amacom, 2002), -144–90. "In some instances . . . the impact of piracy on the copyright holder's -ability to appropriate the value of the work will be negligible. One obvious - instance -is the case where the individual engaging in pirating would not have -purchased an original even if pirating were not an option." Ibid., 149. +144–90. "In some instances . . . the impact of piracy on the +copyright holder's ability to appropriate the value of the work will +be negligible. One obvious instance is the case where the individual +engaging in pirating would not have purchased an original even if +pirating were not an option." Ibid., 149. +Liebowitz, Stan @@ -3580,60 +3581,53 @@ wants to give away. How do these different types of sharing balance out? -Let's start with some simple but important points. From the - perspective -of the law, only type D sharing is clearly legal. From the -perspective of economics, only type A sharing is clearly harmful. +Let's start with some simple but important points. From the +perspective of the law, only type D sharing is clearly legal. From the +perspective of economics, only type A sharing is clearly +harmful. See Liebowitz, Rethinking the Network Economy,148–49. - -Type B sharing is illegal but plainly beneficial. Type C sharing is - illegal, -yet good for society (since more exposure to music is good) and -harmless to the artist (since the work is not otherwise available). So -how sharing matters on balance is a hard question to answer—and - certainly -much more difficult than the current rhetoric around the issue -suggests. - - -Whether on balance sharing is harmful depends importantly on -how harmful type A sharing is. Just as Edison complained about - Hollywood, -composers complained about piano rolls, recording artists -complained about radio, and broadcasters complained about cable TV, -the music industry complains that type A sharing is a kind of "theft" -that is "devastating" the industry. - - -While the numbers do suggest that sharing is harmful, how - harmful -is harder to reckon. It has long been the recording industry's - practice -to blame technology for any drop in sales. The history of cassette -recording is a good example. As a study by Cap Gemini Ernst & -Young put it, "Rather than exploiting this new, popular technology, the -labels fought it." +Liebowitz, Stan + +Type B sharing is illegal but plainly beneficial. Type C sharing is +illegal, yet good for society (since more exposure to music is good) +and harmless to the artist (since the work is not otherwise +available). So how sharing matters on balance is a hard question to +answer—and certainly much more difficult than the current +rhetoric around the issue suggests. + + +Whether on balance sharing is harmful depends importantly on how +harmful type A sharing is. Just as Edison complained about Hollywood, +composers complained about piano rolls, recording artists complained +about radio, and broadcasters complained about cable TV, the music +industry complains that type A sharing is a kind of "theft" that is +"devastating" the industry. + + +While the numbers do suggest that sharing is harmful, how +harmful is harder to reckon. It has long been the recording industry's +practice to blame technology for any drop in sales. The history of +cassette recording is a good example. As a study by Cap Gemini Ernst +& Young put it, "Rather than exploiting this new, popular +technology, the labels fought it." -See Cap Gemini Ernst & Young, Technology Evolution and the Music - Industry's -Business Model Crisis (2003), 3. This report describes the music - industry's -effort to stigmatize the budding practice of cassette taping in the -1970s, including an advertising campaign featuring a cassette-shape skull -and the caption "Home taping is killing music." -At the time digital audio tape became a threat, the Office of Technical -Assessment conducted a survey of consumer behavior. In 1988, 40 percent -of consumers older than ten had taped music to a cassette format. U.S. -Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Copyright and Home Copying: -Technology Challenges the Law, OTA-CIT-422 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. -Government Printing Office, October 1989), 145–56. - -The labels claimed that every album taped was an -album unsold, and when record sales fell by 11.4 percent in 1981, the -industry claimed that its point was proved. Technology was the - problem, -and banning or regulating technology was the answer. +See Cap Gemini Ernst & Young, Technology Evolution and the +Music Industry's Business Model Crisis (2003), 3. This report +describes the music industry's effort to stigmatize the budding +practice of cassette taping in the 1970s, including an advertising +campaign featuring a cassette-shape skull and the caption "Home taping +is killing music." At the time digital audio tape became a threat, +the Office of Technical Assessment conducted a survey of consumer +behavior. In 1988, 40 percent of consumers older than ten had taped +music to a cassette format. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology +Assessment, Copyright and Home Copying: Technology Challenges the Law, +OTA-CIT-422 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, +October 1989), 145–56. +The labels claimed that every album taped was an album unsold, and +when record sales fell by 11.4 percent in 1981, the industry claimed +that its point was proved. Technology was the problem, and banning or +regulating technology was the answer. Yet soon thereafter, and before Congress was given an opportunity @@ -14238,6 +14232,7 @@ Liebowitz's careful analysis is extremely valuable in estimating the effect of file-sharing technology. In my view, however, he underestimates the costs of the legal system. See, for example, Rethinking, 174–76. +Liebowitz, Stan They see a system that has been around for hundreds of years, and they assume it works the way their elementary school civics class taught