![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
elfsIt occurred to me yesterday as I was cooking dinner that there is a similarity between the copyfight and globalization, that both cases are primarily moral in their approach, but that while globalization is going to win, the copyfight is going to lose. The difference between these two positions rests with the minority stakeholders.
The argument for globalization is that as states impose tarrifs and taxes on cross-border transactions, they reduce the efficiency of the marketplace and, in consequence, disrupt the market signals that inform the actual prices of goods. Globalization's proponents would rather reduce the cross-border inefficiencies. (Globalization is not the integration of the marketplace as in the European Union, where currency generalization has made it impossible to invest the viablity of local markets en masse. This inability to price currency relative to a local market is part of the reason why Italy has started to shy away from the European common market.) For the most part, globalization has been a good idea: prices on everything from wheat to televisions are lower across the world, even when measured in terms of the hours one must work to afford one in his or her own local market.
The argument for the copyfight is similar: as nations impose greater and greater copyright restrictions on one's ability to mix and remix popular culture, pop culture itself is disrupted. An article in the New York Daily News last month shows how the RIAA created a massive disruption in the hip-hop economy by raiding stores and outlets that distribute "one shot" mixtapes of remixes and live performances, an essential component of hip-hop. It's sand in the gears of a thriving economy that musicians adore but distributors detest precisely because it goes on without their getting their own cut. The power of the RIAA to conduct private raids, to summon police forces, interferes with the actual value of market that deals almost completely in freely reproducible stuff. For the most part, our culture is made up of free stuff, remanufactured and retold.
The problem with both globalization and copyfight is that there are minority stakeholders who will lose big if either succeeds. Although most of us enjoy the benefits of globalization, we don't associate globalization with the $29 DVD player or the $0.05 kilocalorie. What we do associate globalization with is the loss of jobs, which the news finds because the news like bad news: it creates anxiety, and anxiety sells. Overall, the benefit is a plus; it is not a non-zero-sum game. But for that minority, it's a loss.
And although most of us enjoy the benefits of culture very few of us would associate Shakespeare with "Ten Things I Hate About You," (say it fast to get the joke) or "Kiss Me Kate". Yet if Shakespeare's copyright were in effect those two movies and thousands of other movies would never have been made-- the holders of the originals would have sued. If copyright were loosened, many of us would benefit from the rights to use, say, Mickey Mouse or Elvis, the way we now use Alice in Wonderland-- freely.
The minority stakeholders in the globalization fight are those who've lost their jobs. They're sorta irrelevant to their legislative representatives except perhaps as a photo op. The minority stakeholders in the copyfight, on the other hand, are powerful recording and distributing interests who are very relevant to legislative representatives. Globalization will go on, and the minority will lose because, overall, the job market will improve and it will be hard to argue with that. Copyright restrictions will get tighter and the majority will lose because, overall, the "benefit to culture" is nebulous, but the lobbying of copyright interests is not, and they'll claim that strong copyright protects the economic interests of (their stable of, but they won't say that) musicians, and it'll be hard to argue with that.
The argument for globalization is that as states impose tarrifs and taxes on cross-border transactions, they reduce the efficiency of the marketplace and, in consequence, disrupt the market signals that inform the actual prices of goods. Globalization's proponents would rather reduce the cross-border inefficiencies. (Globalization is not the integration of the marketplace as in the European Union, where currency generalization has made it impossible to invest the viablity of local markets en masse. This inability to price currency relative to a local market is part of the reason why Italy has started to shy away from the European common market.) For the most part, globalization has been a good idea: prices on everything from wheat to televisions are lower across the world, even when measured in terms of the hours one must work to afford one in his or her own local market.
The argument for the copyfight is similar: as nations impose greater and greater copyright restrictions on one's ability to mix and remix popular culture, pop culture itself is disrupted. An article in the New York Daily News last month shows how the RIAA created a massive disruption in the hip-hop economy by raiding stores and outlets that distribute "one shot" mixtapes of remixes and live performances, an essential component of hip-hop. It's sand in the gears of a thriving economy that musicians adore but distributors detest precisely because it goes on without their getting their own cut. The power of the RIAA to conduct private raids, to summon police forces, interferes with the actual value of market that deals almost completely in freely reproducible stuff. For the most part, our culture is made up of free stuff, remanufactured and retold.
The problem with both globalization and copyfight is that there are minority stakeholders who will lose big if either succeeds. Although most of us enjoy the benefits of globalization, we don't associate globalization with the $29 DVD player or the $0.05 kilocalorie. What we do associate globalization with is the loss of jobs, which the news finds because the news like bad news: it creates anxiety, and anxiety sells. Overall, the benefit is a plus; it is not a non-zero-sum game. But for that minority, it's a loss.
And although most of us enjoy the benefits of culture very few of us would associate Shakespeare with "Ten Things I Hate About You," (say it fast to get the joke) or "Kiss Me Kate". Yet if Shakespeare's copyright were in effect those two movies and thousands of other movies would never have been made-- the holders of the originals would have sued. If copyright were loosened, many of us would benefit from the rights to use, say, Mickey Mouse or Elvis, the way we now use Alice in Wonderland-- freely.
The minority stakeholders in the globalization fight are those who've lost their jobs. They're sorta irrelevant to their legislative representatives except perhaps as a photo op. The minority stakeholders in the copyfight, on the other hand, are powerful recording and distributing interests who are very relevant to legislative representatives. Globalization will go on, and the minority will lose because, overall, the job market will improve and it will be hard to argue with that. Copyright restrictions will get tighter and the majority will lose because, overall, the "benefit to culture" is nebulous, but the lobbying of copyright interests is not, and they'll claim that strong copyright protects the economic interests of (their stable of, but they won't say that) musicians, and it'll be hard to argue with that.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-06-16 05:50 pm (UTC)The tighter they squeeze, the more will slip thru their fingers.
no subject
Date: 2005-06-16 07:15 pm (UTC)I hope the copyfight will not be lost to such a degree.
no subject
Date: 2005-06-16 09:48 pm (UTC)Admittedly most of it is crap, and would never be picked up by the distributors anyway, but that's really the whole point. Distributors are now fundamentally unneccessary. You don't need a contract with a big label to build a fan following, though maybe that would bring you more money if you did.
The point being is that is actually impossible for big business to 'win' in that way without making itself irrelevant to the culture.
no subject
Date: 2005-06-16 10:34 pm (UTC)Unlikely. A couple of years ago the Economist ran a comparions of a hypothetical average popular regionally touring "bar gig" band against a hypothetical big-label signed band that had platinum smash hit right out of the gate.
The signed band made more money in total, yes, but all the money got made by other people. The actual muscians/performers made quite a lot more money if they were in the small touring bar band than if they were the platinum rockers.