Morosoph's Journal: What Capitalism Is, and its Connection With DRM

This JE grows out of this post of mine.

We are facing the steady erosion of the free use of our property both through legal, and through technical means. I reproduce my post (in response to this post) below, although I have cleared up a few typos on the way:

The brief answer to your point is that Capitalism isn't what you claim it is. Maximum property is not the rule in capitalism, rather, law has evolved in order to recognise that property is not absolute, for example that one, or a collection of people, can attain ownership over land through use, and lack of enforcement. This recognises that the principle of capitalism is a codification of natural behaviour, rather than being an abstract system based upon the absolute value of property.

Look closer, and you find that the deeper principle of capitalism as codified by common law (that is the natural evolution of law according to the rule of precedent, rather than industry lobbies), is far closer to a principle of maximum freedom, than the application of an axiomatic set of rules.

Additional to this, it is worth noting why "fair use" rights exist in law: real value, and freedom is won, in particular by creating derivative works. The restriction of rights that is property can create an incentive, but also creates restrictions, that impede the creation of derivative works in particular. The creation of "intellectual property" clearly has costs and gains to freedom, and in particular to the creative freedom that is the root of the creation of wealth, with is a far vaster concept than money (in truth, the real wealth will be more than the money wealth, for that "imbalance" is what causes the trade to be made in the first place). Investment selects ideas to build on; it is our creativity that causes them to be. To undermine creativity so as to provide "an incentive" is to get things back-to-front.

Personal use is just the tip of the iceberg. Furthermore, you don't get that companies simply don't want to provide fair use. It gets in the way of the greater plan to deny the user as much property as possible, so as to extract more of the value that would otherwise accrue to the customer by eg. having the file in several formats, or playable after a licence runs out. If fair use can be undermined by DRM "so much the better!"

I agree that we already have limited rights of ownership, but the principle that underlies law and practise should still be that of maximum freedom, that is: allowing the right degree of property and enforcement, so that positive freedom (incentive) and negative freedom (lack of obstruction) are in balance. As long as there remains profit in production, negative freedom is worth having. What's more, it's not worth trading freedom so as to ensure the security of the creation of wealth beyond a certain point. Besides, as you must be well aware, the connection between the abuse of freedom through copyright infringement, and the loss of income of artists is tenuous. It might affect the income flowing to music companies, though, but there are evolving far more efficient distribution mechanisms, that can give the artists more 'cake' in absolute terms, even though the whole cake is smaller. Think of the savings in eliminating wasteful administration!

No. The real issue is that of maintaining old business methods and practises. One that will keep certain sectors of industry in business, rather than protecting the creative output that is the economic purpose of these companies. The entire argument about "capitalism" and "communism" is a smokescreen for a far more old-fashioned and tradition argument: the special pleading of outdated industries against forces that threaten to displace then, which require convenient restrictions of freedom.

I know that it took me a few days to reply. I just didn't see the point. But this argument needs to be won again and again, for our conception of property is changing, in part because of the deliberate and systematic misuse of language by those who wish to keep more power to themselves, and their allies. Some of their allies are in government: quite apart from unholy alliances, there is the simple fact that governments, by their very structure, think like large companies, or rather, one set of bureaucrats is much like another, and so their natural instincts will be to protect what they deem to be "stability". Ie. restrictions of freedoms that appear to threaten the relevant establishments attempting to do what they see to be their job. They almost never think of the same outcome being brought about by other means.

My real interest in all this is in the matter of patents, rather than that of copyright. But both are important, and copyright has a wider interest, and (with the GPL version 3 specifically addressing DRM) appears to be very much an issue of the moment.

Footnote: Above, I should really be referring to the free market, rather than to capital; Capitalism is by definition the doctorine of property. Free-marketry is the general rule of freedom in the marketplace. I reverted the article heading, as I'd used "Capitalism" throughout, in the sense that a libertarian would use it, and the post of mine that I quoted cannot be edited.

Ps. DRM and the Death of Culture.

Well said

[Concern]

You put it well enough to really clarify the issue.

Outstanding JE.

Delayed Reply to Ring Dev

[Morosoph]

Vis: this post [slashdot.org] in his JE. [slashdot.org]

I disagree greatly with you. Not only do I think the legal rights of the copy right holder are important to protect, but I also believe large copy right owning companies(RIAA members) are greatly responsible for the creation of wealth. They may be vile, offencive, greedy ass hats, but they are extremely effective at selecting, marketing, distributing and profiting from their intellectual property.

Where do I start? Wealth is not synonymous with profit. In fact, all else being

Communist music sucks.

[RingDev]

"Even if you don't find inherent wealth in diversity (as I do), you have the admit that stronger Darwinian pressures are going to lead to better product."

I agree absolutely. I think the worst thing that could come about from this is socialization of the music industry (IE: free content, yearly tax)

"Someone in going to "make it"; the selection process is simply different. Rather than "getting lucky" with a record contract, you need to steadily win fans."

Is it possible? Sure, maybe. But it would still favor t

Anarchism != Communism

[Morosoph]

Not that I'm an anarchist, although I have anarchic tendencies. I think that there is a bit of a straw man in your argument.

I agree absolutely. I think the worst thing that could come about from this is socialization of the music industry (IE: free content, yearly tax)

Okay, let's look at the evidence to date:

• F Oberholzer-Gee, K Strumpf [google.com]
• Piracy On The High Cs (Abstract) [nber.org]
• Eric S. Boorstin [google.com]

If this is to be taken seriously, the need for tax is moot. Anarchy appears to work. There is no need to "so

Re:Anarchism != Communism

[RingDev]

"It may surprise you, but I am a free-marketeer. I do not think that fairness is the highest good, favouring freedom"

I agree with you there. I have no problem rewarding successful people for spending their money.

"Structurally, a few large entities selecting who they think is the best (or rather most easily marketted musician) isn't so far from a single entity: a monopoly, or the state."

I disagree. a few large entities/Monopoly will be looking for the best profit margins. They make their millions off of succ

Re:Anarchism != Communism

[Morosoph]

Structurally, a few large entities selecting who they think is the best (or rather most easily marketted musician) isn't so far from a single entity: a monopoly, or the state.

I disagree. a few large entities/Monopoly will be looking for the best profit margins. They make their millions off of successful artists. A State is loosely accountable for the citizens, which will lead to a dangerous road between conservative values and free speach[...] Nah, there is a huge difference between a for profit entit

Re:Anarchism != Communism

[RingDev]

"A few large entities will find a middle way between the diversity of anarchy, and the order and predictability of carefully judged risk and returns."

So true. People like to speak in absolutes, but the underlying industries will always find a balance.

"Where does derived work come into this, for example? "

I'm not talking about changing laws, I'm talking about changing technology. If you create your own masterpiece, there is nothing preventing you from publishing it yourself. The purpose of a DRM in my mind s

iE Spel God!

[RingDev]

I totally forgot to hit the spell checker before submitting that post, my apologies for making you read it in that state.

-Rick