http://wrathfuldove.org/2007/04/17/saving-pandora/ An e-Rant about Politics, Religion, Software, etc. Thu, 03 Nov 2011 00:43:10 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3 http://wrathfuldove.org/2007/04/17/saving-pandora/comment-page-1/#comment-12 Josh Fri, 20 Apr 2007 01:56:25 +0000 http://test.wrathfuldove.org/2007/04/17/saving-pandora/#comment-12 I mostly agree with this line of rant. I do feel that, in a market-based economy such as ours, patent laws serve a purpose to drive innovation. But in many ways they are abused (particularly pharmaceuticals). I would definitely agree that the mechanisms currently in place have, generally, failed - the music industry most notoriously. Musicians that create music that people want to hear can make lots of money by putting on concerts, and many do. And the success of concerts is assisted by promoting the music, which is abetted by widely distributing that music for free (which is why struggling bands rejoice when they start getting national radio play). The artists that do nothing but collect royalties for income are, as you aptly put, parasites. I think, in fact, that elimination of music royalties and copyrights would help to democratize the industry and afford lots of independent producers (folks at home who have a computer and mid-range recording equipment and mixing software) the ability to attract talent and make the recording industry much more competitive - which is supposed to be a goal of a market economy, right? Remove barriers to entry/exit/participation in the market to improve competition and then let the consumers (aka "market forces") decide... I am, personally, still split regarding software. I think it is important to protect one's ability to market and profit from personal innovation in the industry - at least in a market-based economy. Otherwise you are reducing some people's ability to succeed in that type of economy. How to protect that, however, is hard to perfect. I see the benefit and the general good afforded by free and open-source software. But I also feel that someone who creates a new and innovative piece of software (or a new use for the personal computer) should be allowed the opportunity to use their innovation to succeed in an entrepreneurial sense. And patent laws at least attempt to do this... though their effectiveness is arguable. Your point about art and artists and motivations was right on the money, but perhaps falls short when describing "inventors and innovators". The latter category of folk are often driven by the goal of financial independence - not the need for personal expression. I mostly agree with this line of rant. I do feel that, in a market-based economy such as ours, patent laws serve a purpose to drive innovation. But in many ways they are abused (particularly pharmaceuticals). I would definitely agree that the mechanisms currently in place have, generally, failed – the music industry most notoriously. Musicians that create music that people want to hear can make lots of money by putting on concerts, and many do. And the success of concerts is assisted by promoting the music, which is abetted by widely distributing that music for free (which is why struggling bands rejoice when they start getting national radio play). The artists that do nothing but collect royalties for income are, as you aptly put, parasites. I think, in fact, that elimination of music royalties and copyrights would help to democratize the industry and afford lots of independent producers (folks at home who have a computer and mid-range recording equipment and mixing software) the ability to attract talent and make the recording industry much more competitive – which is supposed to be a goal of a market economy, right? Remove barriers to entry/exit/participation in the market to improve competition and then let the consumers (aka “market forces”) decide… I am, personally, still split regarding software. I think it is important to protect one’s ability to market and profit from personal innovation in the industry – at least in a market-based economy. Otherwise you are reducing some people’s ability to succeed in that type of economy. How to protect that, however, is hard to perfect. I see the benefit and the general good afforded by free and open-source software. But I also feel that someone who creates a new and innovative piece of software (or a new use for the personal computer) should be allowed the opportunity to use their innovation to succeed in an entrepreneurial sense. And patent laws at least attempt to do this… though their effectiveness is arguable. Your point about art and artists and motivations was right on the money, but perhaps falls short when describing “inventors and innovators”. The latter category of folk are often driven by the goal of financial independence – not the need for personal expression.

]]>