Partially because it’s too difficult to keep up with complete and snarky commentary every time there is a development or anecdote of intellectual property’s use and abuse, and partially because it seems more asinine and important when these anecdotes are collected together, I will start a monthly (maybe weekly in the future) list of IP developments. In this past month:nike air jordan 16
- Keurig automatic coffee machines copyrighted their coffee packets and implemented DRM software to ensure that no non-Keurig-licensed coffee packets can be used. In response, copyright hacktivists uploaded a video detailing a simple fix to trick the machine into accepting generic coffee, to some appropriate music.
- As part of an obvious ploy for protectionism, the Spanish government passed a new law requiring Google to pay domestic content producers to include their content (local news). Google announced it would cancel its Spanish news service. The rest of Europe, struggling to keep up with U.S. tech firm dominance, is paying close attention to the results. Speaking of which…
- This is from November, but important for its sheer ridiculousness: Taking a photo of the iconic Eiffel Tower in Paris at night is a criminal violation of copyright. During the day, you’re good. Good thing international copyright law is becoming increasingly based off of the French conceptions of copyright…
- NASA recently emailed a wrench to the International Space Station. “Emailing,” means emailing the design for the wrench, which was fed into and printed from a 3D printer in the ISS. How long until consumers have 3D printers, and the copyrights and copyfights over the “blueprints” become the next legal arena?
- In the aftermath of the Sony hack attack, we find out that the company itself violates copyright while producing movies, and would face the same punishment as a pimply teenager downloading a few songs. The system works!
- Apple has recently patented a “pen-like device” indicating they may try to get into the note-taking business.
- We find out that Miley Cyrus’ famous “Party in the USA” was actually written by Jessie J, who was able to pay her bills for 3 years with the rights to those transcendent lyrics.
- The big kahuna, the galactic haven for filesharers, the Pirate Bay has been taken down after a raid by Swedish police. The actual domain remains online, with a pirate flag waving defiantly along with a clock counting the days since the raid. Of course when you take down one head of the Hydra, two more appear, though it’s anyone’s guess which ones are good and not malware-plagued. TPB themselves finally made a statement saying their future is uncertain, but their original task was accomplished, hopefully a new and better system can take its place. They opened up the source and made it freely available to all, so that millions of people can make their own “Open bay.”
Oakley sunglasses Discount Code
- And, what else is new, Game of Thrones is the most pirated show of 2014.
- If you’re a more legal minded court-follower, here’s a list of the top 10 major IP cases of 2014 from someone more qualified than me.
air max barkley
This will be the first of a two or three part series on public goods as inspired by Santiago’s recent post about the argument that entrepreneurship is a public good that is under provided by markets.
Canada Oakley sunglasses
I argue in “Public Goods” or “Good for the Public?” – Endogenizing Public Goods (currently under review) that our view of “public goods” as economists is fundamentally incomplete.
women ray ban sunglasses
Typically, we define public goods technologically, as any good that exhibits non-rivalry (my consumption does not prevent you from also consuming) and non-excludability (I cannot prevent you from consuming). Look in every economics textbook and this is what you will find, along with examples of parks, national defense, tornado sirens, etc. I call this the “exogenous” theory of public goods — we automatically know what goods are “public” by the very way we define them. Public goods theory and welfare economics argues that in the presence of goods with these features, markets under provide them and therefore the government must intervene somehow to increase provision because they are socially valuable.
nike air max Korea
There are a number of problems with this view that many scholars have already found. I won’t spend much time on them, and simply catalogue them as follows (for references and elaboration, see the paper):
- Private markets and voluntary organizations do provide public goods
- Governments largely provide private goods, not public goods
- Many historical cases of government correcting market failures were just ex-post facto justifications for rent-seeking
- Impracticalities of mundane positive externality compensation
- Distortions of taxation and political allocation
- How do we know what is efficient/optimal?
One of the more fundamental issues is that somewhere along the way, economists in public finance and welfare economics conflated positive explanations of what government actually spends its money on with the theory of public goods–a normative theory of what government should do. (Perhaps here is where Santiago will argue this is precisely why we must jettison the normative theory entirely.)
What is a public good, much like the degree of the externality it poses, is often subjective. Suppose Bob is a fervent vegetarian, and does not believe anyone should be allowed to slaughter animals. Ann, on the other hand, is carnivorous and believes that everyone should be allowed to consume meat. To Bob, a law that prohibits slaughtering animals is a public good (under the exogenous definition): everyone can simultaneously enjoy living in a society where animals are treated ethically, and (assuming perfect enforcement) no one can prevent others from that enjoyment. Ann on the other hand, would view this law as a public bad, as it creates a negative externality (from her view) on everyone. Perhaps a law affirming meat-consumption, maybe even a subsidy to meat-producers, would constitute a public good for her.
Perhaps that example is silly and hyperbolic. But it can be applied to nearly any partisan wedge issue today and be perfectly accurate. Take gay marriage: opponents of gay marriage argue that a law permitting it would be a public bad and harm the very moral fabric of society, while proponents argue that having such a law would be a public good because everyone would live in a tolerant society (not to mention the concentrated benefits upon gay couples). Both of these arguments fit perfectly well within the exogenous framework of public goods (nonrival, non-excludable benefits/harms), but they reach contradictory conclusions (perhaps because they are arguing over different goods).
Wholesale nike air max
For a more robust (and positive) view, I argue that we need an “endogenous” theory of government activity, that incorporates the fact that what goods are provided by the state is a complex product of political entrepreneurship and the very heterogeneous preferences I just described:
In laying out a theory of public goods, it might be useful to start with an analogy to the theory of private goods which may seem tedious at first: Oil in the ground is mere black goo. Were geologists or physicists to discover it first, they may derive technical and conceptual definitions for oil based on its chemical content, fluid dynamics, or other objectively verifiable characteristics. It takes a subjective act of entrepreneurship, however, to make that black goo into something of value for society (beyond mere scientific study). An enterprising individual must recognize, and personally bear the risk to bring about, in hopes of personal profit, the potential benefits of extracting, refining, processing, and selling oil and oil by-products to consumers and other firms as a fuel source to be used to power automobiles, factories, and the modern world. It requires integration with the current capital structure of complementary goods all calibrated to serve the demands of consumers through time. Entrepreneurship is what creates value from land.
occhiali ray ban
I propose that there is a similar analogy for those types of goods we colloquially call public goods. Welfare economists have formally conceptualized a type of good that exhibits certain technological features (jointness in consumption, high costs of exclusion), and defined it as a “public good.” Operationally, however, there is an implicit understanding that those goods that government provides are public goods, with the technical definition is not necessarily overlapping. Instead, it requires the acts of choice by individuals, that will affect others externally, to consider a good to be worth producing politically or privately. It takes an entrepreneur, often in the political realm, to recognize and bear an opportunity for personal gain, to convince members of the public (as voters, bureaucrats, legislators, firms) that a good must be provided by the government to meet the needs of society. As the realm of politics is largely one of language, it requires considerable rhetorical investment in the scientific language of public goods (the exogenous definition) in order to convince a sufficient number of people that they are “good for the public.” Thus, just as oil in the ground is only given value by private entrepreneurship, I argue that goods only take on “publicness” attributes by public entrepreneurship.
ray ban sunglasses australia
This comes as a little late, but since I am the occasional fan of T-Swift (much to the chagrin of my girlfriend; haters gonna hate…) and an enormous fan of Spotify, I feel the need to comment. Recently, Taylor Swift has pulled all of her music off of Spotify. She has also taken what appears to be the moral high ground, claiming in a prior op-ed, as so many others have, that music should not be free, and that streaming services like Spotify, Pandora, Grooveshark, and the like are contributing to the music industry’s decline.
nike air griffey max
Some have argued that Swift’s move is a shrewd monetary calculation. Billy Bragg argued that she is merely a part of a corporate stunt to exclusively join Google’s new streaming service, though the facts don’t seem to line up. Others say this benefits Apple, who is supposedly about to launch its own streaming service to rival Spotify. In any case, let’s take T-Swift at her word.
oakley sunglasses uk
In response, Spotify has published a website detailing how its royalty payments work, and how it contributes to the music industry by monetizing would-be pirates. Spotify has already paid about $2 billion in royalties to rights-holders.
polarized oakley sunglasses
Roughly, Spotify pays artists a royalty of between $0.006 and $0.0084 per instance played. (In truth, it’s not a flat rate, but is adjusted for certain factors like popularity and country of origin.) Let’s do a few back-of-the-envelope calculations: Take the conservative estimate of Spotify paying artists 0.6 cents per play. Let’s further make the best-case assumption for the artist by saying that if you were to buy that same song on iTunes for $1.99, the artist gets that entire $1.99. Assuming people actually like the song and will replay it on Spotify, it would take about 332 plays to equal that revenue from one person. The upside for Spotify, however, is potentially limitless – assuming someone will play that song many many times over their lifetime, as opposed to the one-time fee for iTunes.
polarized oakley sunglasses
When we relax the assumption that the artist gets all iTunes revenue, and bring it down to a realistic 10%, that one-time purchase gives the artist about $0.20 per person. This would only require about 33 plays to match. Granted this is a highly simplistic analysis which would obviously differ with bands and their popularity.
Oakley sunglasses Sale
Is this enough for the artist? Probably not. A lot of people have complained about Spotify’s paltry revenue to artists. I don’t know what the “optimal” price for a song is, much less how much is “fair.” But it is clear that Spotify’s model clearly adds value to the industry, and probably even to artists.
nike air max running shoes
What Spotify is actually hinting at, is that artists are not being hurt as much by streaming services or even by pirates, as they are by their own studios. Artists taking only 10% of the revenues of digital sales is a pretty raw deal. As I mentioned before, perhaps studios serve a legitimate economic function of lowering transactions costs of tapping into economies of scale for distribution. The problem is by concentrating all the money and power into a small handful of firms that control all of the distribution rights in our crazy copyright system is that they end up having the influence to negotiate their massive cut of the rents (and use the political system to do so when the market won’t oblige). This is precisely why Spotify (and iTunes for that matter) can only pay artists such a low royalty. Spotify pays 70% of its revenues to rights-holders, who are are often the studios, with artists getting whatever is left. Despite the value that Spotify seems to be bringing, the company allegedly has yet to make a profit because of these immensely high costs, and some say their model could be inherently unprofitable no matter how many subscribers they win.
Oakley sunglasses Coupon
Which brings us back to Taylor Swift’s stand. Time correctly argues that even if Swift’s strategy works, it will not have a wider impact on the music industry. Only someone with who is already successful and has the level of clout equal to Swift’s could hope to make a living solely on digital sales. Streaming helps bands get discovered, and tap into the real money which comes from touring and merchandise. More fundamentally, however, is that streaming services like Spotify are actually incentivizing people to switch from openly pirating music. Forcing people to return to paying for downloads will encourage them to return to piracy, whereas the “freemium” option to stream music for no monetary cost (but suffer through ads) encourages legal discovery and consumption. The sheer convenience might even convince many consumers (as it did for me) to pay for the premium subscription, where Spotify actually earns revenues to pay to artists. Hell, even Pink Floyd, Led Zeppelin, Metallica (!) are now on Spotify.
nike air jordan iii retro
Please consider the following argument in abbreviated form (original here).
ray ban sunglasses On Sale
“Information is a public good because its consumption is nonrivalrous and it is very hard to exclude nonpayers from acquiring it once it has been generated. Thus in equilibrium the market will tend to provide too little information. When an initial entrepreneur discovers a new profitable product (the smart phone or the personal computer for example) he generates information on the profitability of this new product. If there is free entry, other potential entrepreneurs will use this information and will enter the market as producers of this new product. Because the information generated by the initial entrepreneur on the profitability of the new product is non rivalrous and it is very difficult to exclude others, the information generated by entrepreneurship will be under provided. In other words, in a free market, in equilibrium, entrepreneurship will be underprovided. Hence government must subsidize entrepreneurs.”
wholesale oakley sunglasses
What can be said in terms of Public Choice? What can be said in terms of pure theory? Please be social and answer in the comments!