I don't think I have ever heard Taylor Swift sing a song. But she is apparently very big.
She did not release her latest album, 1989, on streaming video. But the thing went Platinum its first week out as a CD.
I don't think I will be one of the buyers. I listened to parts of a clip on CNN and it didn't sound that interesting to me. But I do like her take on IP. She wrote an op-ed in July about it, at WSJ:
Piracy, file sharing and streaming have shrunk the numbers of paid album sales drastically...Music is art, and art is important and rare. Important, rare things are valuable. Valuable things should be paid for. It's my opinion that music should not be free, and my prediction is that individual artists and their labels will someday decide what an album's price point is. I hope they don't underestimate themselves or undervalue their art.From a technical economics perspective, I would tweak a bit what she wrote, but she has the spirit and essence correct. A song she creates is her damn song and I think it is the height of arrogance for anyone to tell her under what terms it should be released and when it becomes "free to the world."
Her creation is scarce and valuable and she should get every penny she can for it.
-RW
Wenzel: "Her creation is scarce and valuable and she should get every penny she can for it."
ReplyDeleteWhen I make a copy of my CD that I purchased, and give it to my friend, are you okay with the fact that the state will initiate force against me and violate the NAP when they find out that I violated their statist copyright laws?
"When I make a copy of my CD that I purchased, and give it to my friend, are you okay with the fact that the state will initiate force against me and violate the NAP when they find out that I violated their statist copyright laws?"
DeleteSpeaking for RW, I don't believe he is "alright" with that.(he can correct me if I'm wrong) That's why the issue of private security was discussed by Rothbard.
Hell ya for Taylor Swift!
ReplyDeleteA 24 year old pop star talking about "value" and scarcity. Throw in a EULA comment to make RW even more happy and she goes from hitting a double to a walk off homer!
When i read about that a couple of days ago, I knew rob would be all over it.
ReplyDeletehowever its noting to do with her art (such as it is).
Her new album is the the only one that is going to sell significant volumes this year so they don't need Spotify, who pays out next to nothing for a ton of plays.
So the marketing people created a little spat to goose up sales among the less preceptive of her fans that the album is the only way you are going to get Miss Swifts stuff.
@Freedom Mom 1 who burns CDs these days? And 2 tell your friend to go and buy it If they value the artists stuff they should be happy to hand over the cash for it.
Well, I've got to admit that I burn CDs. My car does not have a method by which to play anything but a CD....and I'm sure I'm not the only one. :)
Deletea good point. my cd player has never been used, I prefer the bluetooth from the stereo i put in.
DeleteYawn. Music is not scarce. There are tens of thousands singers just as talented (if not more talented) than Ms. Swift. What she represents is triumph of marketing over musical taste.
ReplyDeleteIf there was no IP regime for music, music would return to its creative roots: the local artists interacting with their audiences in live performances. As opposed to over-marketed auto-tuned mediocrities with their vapid meaningless songs being hyped and promoted into "stardom".
Exactly.
DeleteI would argue that piracy is a misnomer. Taylor Swift sells a copy of her music. That copy is now the property of the purchaser. If that customer wants to make copies of his copy and give it to his friends or cut samples of it out and add it to his own creativity, that should be his right as owner of his property.
Deleteit would depend on the contract. If the contract forbade duplication then no you couldn't.
DeleteIt all depends on the EULA Ryan, or what terms the purchaser agrees to in advance in order to buy said copy of Swifts music. (Rothbardian contract theory)
DeleteNick, under what theory of contract can you force someone to become party to it?
DeleteSummit,
DeleteThis has been discussed over @ EPJ(I'm not being snotty, just get tired of repeating), but the short of it was one example being a car lease agreement when a party outside the contract steals a car, it doesn't mean that "A" can't go get his car.
The usual a-IP response to that is "but IP isn't property", to which my response is "I subscribe to Bastiat's theory of property, which treats "value" as property."
Most of the time the debate ends there, but one person claimed that value doesn't exist.(but occurs)
He never explained how something that doesn't exist can "occur"...
Nick,
DeleteYou didn't answer my question. So I suppose this will have to end here.
sounds good
DeleteSwift - Nobody is forcing the song purchaser to be a party to the contract. When you buy the song, you click "I agree" and that binds the purchaser to the contract. If a third party has actual or constructive knowledge of the contract, and conspires with the purchaser to violate the contract, the seller should be able to go after the third party and the purchaser for damages. Just like in the lease hypothetical Nick cites.
DeleteRW "Her creation is scarce and valuable and she should get every penny she can for it."
ReplyDeleteHow many pennies did you pay for the photo used in this post? Is that not scarce as well?
You need to read more Wenzel and listen to the Wenzel-Block debates. Wenzel has pointed out the flaw in your argument many times.
DeleteThink about that the next time you wipe your ass with toilet paper in a hotel you are not staying in.
It's so cogent you can't repeat it here...
DeleteRW you are sinking to new lows. There is no reason for this comment to be deleted so I will make it again.
DeleteWhy is it ok to steal in this instance? Is it because of how easy it is to do? Is it because of the fact that it is online? Is it because of the number of people it is expected to reach/?
Can ESPN and some of the most heavily trafficked websites do it?
If RW decided to put Target Liberty in print format can he put this picture of Swift on the cover without paying? (of course he would never do this because he knows his theft is more likely to be discovered and is more likely to punished for it)
Can Sports Illustrated start stealing photos and put them on the cover?
Where is the arbitrary line arbitrarily drawn when it comes to stealing photos? What are the factors to determine when it is acceptable and when it isn't?
LOL, RW disabled anonymous commenting after I made this point and he deleted it. Had to sign into google to make it again.
If you're going to delete it please have the decency to explain why it is deleted.
RW you are sinking to new lows. There is no reason for this comment to be deleted so I will make it again.
DeleteWhy is it ok to steal in this instance? Is it because of how easy it is to do? Is it because of the fact that it is online? Is it because of the number of people it is expected to reach/?
Can ESPN and some of the most heavily trafficked websites do it?
If RW decided to put Target Liberty in print format can he put this picture of Swift on the cover without paying? (of course he would never do this because he knows his theft is more likely to be discovered and is more likely to punished for it)
Can Sports Illustrated start stealing photos and put them on the cover?
Where is the arbitrary line arbitrarily drawn when it comes to stealing photos? What are the factors to determine when it is acceptable and when it isn't?
When does stealing photos become unacceptable by this RW "philosophy"?
DeleteIts ok for him to do it. can ESPN start doing it?
Can Sports Illustrated steal the photo used for the cover of the magazine?
Is there a difference between print and online stealing?
Does the number of people it reaches play a role in determining when stealing is acceptable and when it isnt?
"When does stealing photos become unacceptable by this RW "philosophy"?"
DeleteWhen the creator, owner, etc. make a claim.(of course the claim has to be proven, but that's a separate issue)
Nick, you are saying its acceptable to steal until it gets noticed. You are placing a burden on the "intellectual property" owner. They must be aware of the "theft."
DeleteIf you are walking down the street and manage to steal a $20 from your pocket without you noticing is that acceptable?
"Nick, you are saying its acceptable to steal until it gets noticed."
DeleteNo, please don't put words into my mouth, just focus on my points. If the creator makes a claim, it has to be answered, that is all.
Nick,
DeletePlease be aware of the assumptions in your statements. The creator needs to be aware before he can make a claim.
If the creator is unaware, no claim can be made. Therefore it is acceptable to steal provided that the creator is unaware that his "IP" was "stolen."
"If the creator is unaware, no claim can be made. Therefore it is acceptable to steal provided that the creator is unaware that his "IP" was "stolen.""
DeleteNo, it's not...lol...and where you get that I have no idea. It's just a fact of circumstance, not a moral or philosophical stance.
Nick,
DeleteMe: "When does stealing photos become unacceptable by this RW "philosophy"?"
You: " When the creator, owner, etc. make a claim.(of course the claim has to be proven, but that's a separate issue)"
Please read what you said. I asked when does it become unacceptable. You said when the creator makes a claim. Therefore it is acceptable if the creator does not make a claim. (a failure to make a claim could be a conscious choice or being unaware of the "theft")
I am not putting words in your mouth. This is your argument.
This position amounts to nothing more than "i will steal as much as I want, in whatever form (print, online...) so long as no claim is made.
"I am not putting words in your mouth. This is your argument.
DeleteThis position amounts to nothing more than "i will steal as much as I want, in whatever form (print, online...) so long as no claim is made."
If it's "my argument", why you you have to say "amounts to nothing more than"? It should just stand on its own, right?
Look, believe whatever you want. If you want to believe my argument is that stealing is "ok" if you're not caught, fine...I'm telling you it's not my position, but you believe whatever you want.
This has already been gone over, but let's do it one more time. When one uses TP in a hotel lobby, you usually don't come out of the bathroom wondering if the hotel is going to make a claim on said TP. The hotel could, but everyone knows it won't.
Same goes for pictures of Taylor Swift. Odds are she's not gonna sue you for that and everyone pretty much knows it.(in fact, hotel's letting you have TP for free or Taylor Swift letting you use her pictures for free could help the, but in the end it's their decision)
Obviously, she feels different about her music and has told everyone that. So if you appropriate her music without her permission, she might come after you. If it's just you, it's probably not worth her time, but if you create a big server and then distribute it to thousands she and her agents are probably gonna track you down and make you reimburse them for the market value of her songs.
But whether she does or does not make a claim doesn't mean appropriating her stuff without a permission is acceptable, or not for that matter. It's a subjective matter.
Whenever you appropriate someone's property, you risk them making a claim on it.(and that includes TP!) So the "philosophy" is one of common sense.
Many libertarians would like to eliminate subjectivity in our lives & philosophy as much as possible, but in the end it is impossible to eliminate it completely. (see Mises, Rothbard, especially Bastiat, etc.)
Nick,
DeleteHow can you say that stealing is only unacceptable when " the creator, owner, etc. make a claim." and then scoff at stating the logical application of this argument is that stealing is acceptable so long as it goes unnoticed by the creator because he needs to be aware of the "theft" before he makes a claim. Where is my logic wrong?
You again bring up the TP/hotel analogy. I think its incredibly weak which is why I asked:
Why is it ok to steal in this instance? Is it because of how easy it is to do? Is it because of the fact that it is online? Is it because of the number of people it is expected to reach/?
Can ESPN and some of the most heavily trafficked websites do it?
If RW decided to put Target Liberty in print format can he put this picture of Swift on the cover without paying? (of course he would never do this because he knows his theft is more likely to be discovered and is more likely to punished for it)
Can Sports Illustrated start stealing photos and put them on the cover?
I cannot tell if you are ignoring these questions or if you believe you answered them by stating stealing is unacceptable only "When the creator, owner, etc. make a claim." Please clarify your position.
Nick,
DeletePlease explain how this
Me: "When does stealing photos become unacceptable by this RW "philosophy"?"
You: " When the creator, owner, etc. make a claim.(of course the claim has to be proven, but that's a separate issue)"
is consistent with this statement:
"But whether she does or does not make a claim doesn't mean appropriating her stuff without a permission is acceptable, or not for that matter. It's a subjective matter."
I believe you are clearly contradicting yourself. First you say that acceptability depends on the creator making a claim of ownership, then you say acceptability does not depend on the owner making a claim.
"Many libertarians would like to eliminate subjectivity in our lives & philosophy as much as possible, but in the end it is impossible to eliminate it completely. (see Mises, Rothbard, especially Bastiat, etc.)"
Are you willing to admit that there is arbitrariness to your determination of when stealing a photo is the equivalent of using TP and a hotel you aren;t staying at and when stealing a photo is clearly theft and not acceptable?
I am looking for you to describe where and how that line is drawn.
"Where is my logic wrong?" (first, I'm not scoffing-I don't intend to offend, second I'm going to demonstrate it below)
Delete"I believe you are clearly contradicting yourself. First you say that acceptability depends on the creator making a claim of ownership, then you say acceptability does not depend on the owner making a claim."
No, I'm not, here's a better explanation:
"Therefore it is acceptable if the creator does not make a claim."
That is a false conculsion on your part.
You are not considering that it(the act of appropriation) could be "unacceptable" as well even though a claim has not been made, BECAUSE it was an unknown theft for example. In fact, it's strange you bring it up as your logical progression in "acceptability", but it was never considered intitially to be an option as well.
There's the subjective notions of both the creator/owner of said property AND the appropriator to take into account.
The creator/owner might not mind if his property/value is being appropriated, and it's not always clear when that is or isn't the case and it could also change situationally.
The same exact thing happens when the appropriator is using his subjective judgements in determing if to appropriate as well.
Sometimes the two may conflict, sometimes they may not.
You have made the situation an "either/or" proposition in terms of acceptability without regard to the subjective nature of the proposition, it doesn't reflect reality.
My point is simply that once the owner/creator makes a claim, it has to be answered by the appropriator and the natural assumption is that the creator/owner finds the appropriation "unacceptable" using your term, otherwise a claim wouldn't be made. (and the "answer" could even be a non-answer, if you get my meaning)
"Are you willing to admit that there is arbitrariness to your determination of when stealing a photo is the equivalent of using TP and a hotel you aren;t staying at and when stealing a photo is clearly theft and not acceptable?"
Of course, that's my whole point.
"I am looking for you to describe where and how that line is drawn."
That is an impossibility, per my comments above. It is on a case by case basis.(hence my "common sense" statement)
Sometimes it might be "acceptable", or "unacceptable" regardless of whether a claim is or is not made based on the values of both the creator & appropriator.
That doesn't mean in this case that RW using Swift's photo is "unacceptable", we don't know exactly how Swift might feel about it at this time, but as of this moment in time I'm not familiar with her suing anyone using her public images of her in respectful discussion of her viewpoints. One has to assume at this point in time, based on our subjective opinion, our "common sense", that she's not going to object by making a claim.(In contrast- she has clearly stated her opinion on her music and there are contractual obligations made on those buying her CD's)
Because this "reality" is not always clear, we have "cease and desist" letters.
"I cannot tell if you are ignoring these questions or if you believe you answered them by stating stealing is unacceptable only "When the creator, owner, etc. make a claim." Please clarify your position."
I sincerely hope this has cleared it up. I didn't see your responses when I went to bed last night(a bit early), so I'm up early this morning and getting ready to take my kids to my Waffle House this morning in a few hours as Sat. mornings are "Daddy time" to give my wife a break. :)
I'll respond to any more questions/comments you have on this topic tonight around midnight.
Poor Taylor. I guess she'll just have to get by on the mega millions she makes on her concerts and endorsements. Dont people know her art is so important she needs even MORE mega millions? If she doesnt get those moneis she might quit! :P
ReplyDeleteAnother poor case. Look at the wording here:
ReplyDelete"Piracy, file sharing and streaming..."
So now streaming is lumped in with piracy, while piracy was never the problem. Coming from an RIAA member, forgive me for thinking this misleading choice and association of words was not an accident.
Besides, however did the music industry survive radio? Science will never be able to explain it!
"...shrunk the numbers of paid album sales drastically."
Again, misleading choice of words to drum up sympathy for the poor, starving RIAA.
The music industry has had no problem growing. As CD sales shrank, digital sales took off. Digital sales finally dropped for the first time in 2013. And now streaming, vinyl, and who knows what are moving in.
Despite two terrible recessions over the last 15 years, or one long depression, depending on how you want to look at it, the little guy has never had it better. Numerous innovative forms of distribution continue to appear, and they do actually sell music, not give it away.
This is the same tired line from the RIAA dinosaur, whining that they don't know how to compete with a constantly evolving world.
If a new model appears that successfully sells albums for $100, look for them to whine about that, too, much as they whine that they can't sell vinyl $20-30 vinyl albums like indie labels.
Please, please, please stop using RIAA "arguments" in favor of IP. Come on, it's not that hard.
And if you you really needed a swift fix, its on youtube....for nothing.
DeleteTaylor Swift's music is not the product. Taylor Swift is the product. Her music is the advertisement.
ReplyDeleteSomeone should tell all those people buying Swift CD's that it's not a product.
Delete"Scarce" in the Misesian/Hoppean/economic manner, does not mean rare, it means not able to be used, i.e., controlled, by more than one person. Things that can be instantly copied at no cost aren't scarce in any sense of the word.
ReplyDeleteI can't believe this is so difficult to understand.
"Things that can be instantly copied at no cost aren't scarce in any sense of the word.
DeleteI can't believe this is so difficult to understand."
I think the confusion lies in what is being referred to as "scarce".
In this instance, Swift is referring to her ability(and others) to make music that is popular to the degree that people value it and are willing to pay for it.
Some might feel as Averros stated above:
"Music is not scarce. There are tens of thousands singers just as talented (if not more talented) than Ms. Swift. What she represents is triumph of marketing over musical taste."
It's not Averros that Swift is concerned over, as he doesn't see the value in her music and would never appropriate it because he doesn't value it. But like you, Averros is referring to the music itself initially, but switches-then referring to talent in his next sentence.(not drawing a distinction)
I think that's a problem in that talent is separate from the music.
While the CD's/music themselves are not that scarce(to an extent), I would contend that Swift's ability to make music that has value to a substantial number of people(which probably doesn't include most of us here...lol) to the degree they will pay for a CD is certainly more scarce than the music itself.
Of course, in the big picture I don't see scarcity as important as value and opportunity cost when talking about IP infringement...but that's a whole different issue.
edit: "opportunity loss", not cost
Delete:)