Somewhere in the depths of the internet there lie complete copies of all art, all music, all literature, all video games, all tv shows, all movies, ever made. The cost to transfer this copy from the 'web' to a personal hard drive, or even a more temporary simple stream/view of the information, is extremely small. It includes the cost of the behemoth server complexes, stacks upon stacks of computers in giant warehouses constantly needing coolant and electricity, and the cost of the wire (or wireless bandwidth (a fixed amount physics has provided us with)) that transfers information from those servers to the home or mobile device.
There are ways to decrease the initial cost even further. A) More efficient server warehouses, that are located in already cool areas and built with sound architectural design that increases air flow, cold air from deep underground, etc. B) More efficient computer chips that consume less electricity to do their thing -- memristors are one great example, but truthfully energy efficiency has been increasing virtually every year for computer chips under Intel's magic touch. C) Laying down more fiber optic cables to replace antiquated phone/cable tv lines to deliver internet connectivity. D) More competition among internet providers to help drive down price, the breaking up of artificial one city, one company natural monopolies. E) Provisions that require all new homes and office buildings to have pre-installed fiber optic lines just like you would have electricity and sewage needs met ahead of time. F) Economies of scale. The more people who use high speed internet, the cheaper marginal price to provide the next person asking for said internet access. One way to quickly ramp up economies of scale is to introduce high speed internet in the public workforce -- schools, courts, departments, city councils, libraries, military bases, whatever. Internet is useful everywhere.
Most of the developed world already has faster and more prevalent high speed internet than America for cheaper. Like usual, socialism is more efficient at providing public goods like nation-wide fiber optic cables than capitalism, which operates haphazardly and luxuriates in monopolies rather than finding ways to cut costs. America also has the excuse of being bigger than its competitors, for what that's worth.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/04/1gbps-symmetric-fiber-us26-in-hong-kong.ars
Hong Kong is offering 1 gig/s download speeds to the Hong Kong public at a mere $26 a month.
Here in America, Comcast is offering "12 megabytes/s for $20 a month." That's almost 100 times as slow, but advertises itself as "the fastest of the fast."
It should be unacceptable for Americans that we have 100 times as slow internet as other places in the world offered at the same price they pay. This proves, definitively, that it is possible to make a profit while offering a product 100 times as good as the one currently being offered, and that there are no fundamental reasons why America is being held hostage by our internet service providers. It is only because we put up with it.
Most of the world now agrees that the internet is a 'human right.' Like clean water and health care, it is an essential part of someone's quality of life.
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9168118/Worldwide_poll_4_of_5_call_Internet_access_a_basic_human_right
Ensuring basic human rights, a minimum standard of living, to all members of a community is one of the best uses of government. When everyone agrees something is fundamentally good, and when it can be provided 100 times as cheaply as the capitalist industry is providing it, the government would be the hero of the people to socialize this enterprise and provide it for free at taxpayer expense. In short, we have been gouged, we have been played for fools, and it would be a good time to try something new.
The second barrier to providing infinite digital wealth to the people is copyright laws. Currently, copyright laws can extend as far as 100 years, or further, in a seemingly endless maze. Why, for example, is Beethoven's music still being sold for profit, when Beethoven died over a hundred years ago? This is because the exact performance of the musicians isn't over one hundred years old, and this clock can be reset each time a new copy of the performance is released -- for instance from vinyl record to cd, to dvd, to whatever. Apparently even ancient books can be renewed for copyright via 'new editions with commentary', 'a new translation,' or whatever. Anything to keep their hands in the pot of the gift that keeps on giving. The first change we could make in copyright laws would be that no one can prevent or criminalize the dissemination of information that is not their original work. If there is some fear for 'widows and orphans' of intellectual property workers, they could be compensated in some other way (like social security compensates widows and orphans), and leave the holding hostage of information via copyright laws out of it.
With just this law change, we could open up the free broadcasting of A) Most major literature ever published. B) All classical music. C) Many early movies. D) All the non-modern art in all of our museums. Imagine how many kings and popes of previous eras would gnash their teeth in envy at the riches any lowly commoner would have access to today. Art that cost millions to stow away into private collections could become the common property of humanity. Timeless works of beauty like Plutarch's Lives or Homer's Iliad would adorn everyone's digital book shelves for free. Itunes, winamp, or what have you could have 'schubert' or 'mozart' as a playlist in the background of every home computer or in your ipod as you drive or take a walk. It may even be enough entertainment/thought food to occupy someone's whole life, without ever having to pay a living artist/thinker to augment it.
Even though this would already be much better than the current cost of upholding intellectual property rights, it's an impatient era and waiting for content creators to die before having free access to their content still seems too long. How do we shorten this curve yet further?
One, largely costless change we could make, is to simply ignore piracy by poor people. Odds are, a poor person who can barely make payments on his house, car, food and utilities would not seriously be making entertainers any profit. Supposing there were perfect security and anyone who pirated copyrighted material would be instantly executed, does anyone think intellectual property holders would start receiving a massive influx of funds and purchases from this class? The reason they pirate the good is they can't afford it for anything less than free. If they had to pay the 20, 40, 60, or 100 dollar fees commonly requested from them, they would instead just forgo the pleasure and pursue something cheaper -- like alcohol, sex, gossip, a game of cards, etc. The continent of Africa currently pirates more intellectual property, listed at the asking price of the seller, than the entire continent's GDP. The idea that if only we could stop piracy, all Africa would spend every last penny it has for the same intellectual content they pirate, is mathematically impossible. The same is true, though to a lesser degree, for poor people everywhere, including those who live in America. Piracy is not a 1 for 1 loss. Money 'lost' to piracy probably would never have been 'gained' through being purchased. Furthermore, the same money not spent on intellectual goods is usually spent somewhere else, like on food or housing, so the economy is just as healthy either way.
There's another subtle option we could attempt -- anything not released in the 'current standard format' could be removed from copyright protection. Since technology keeps changing the format information is stored upon, pirating retro goods that people would probably sniff at if offered for sale is another 'costless' way of increasing access to copyrighted material.
This would be true of music released on vinyl records or cassette tapes instead of CD's, video games released to any console before the current generation (Xbox 360, PS3, Wii, DS, and PSP), movies released to vhs instead of dvd, and increasingly, movies released to dvds instead of hd dvd/blu-ray dvds. The same for old software that has ten new generations released since, like windows 98 or something. If people could choose inferior quality pirated, 'outdated' products for free, or choose to buy the new, highest quality 'current' goods at premium price, you would capture most enthusiasts who are more than willing to pay, and able to pay, without losing much cost in abandoning old, unsold, unsellable copies of previous products.
Another method would be moving intellectual property to 'paid for by advertising' content, like the business model of Hulu (or TV shows, newspapers, and magazines.) I'm not sure how advertising makes a profit out of this, but it seems to work on someone, so by all means go ahead. If everything is provided for free, but the consumer must view some advertisements, I'm sure they would be more than willing to make that deal.
Another method would be for the government to collect statistics on the number of downloads or views of a digital product, and then directly reimburse the company out of a common taxpayer fund, like the national endowment of the arts. The 'national endowment for digital content creators' could then pay all the costs involved in making these nice things, while the people could enjoy them freely. One thing we must stress is that the cost of creating a digital product is much cheaper when combined with the fact that only one copy needs to be made, it requires no natural resources, and it can be copied infinitely for free, as well as delivered at near light speed for almost free as well. Basically, digital content does not follow the same rules as all other products. Aside from meeting the initial cost of building the initial copy, everything else in the business is free. This means it would be easy for the government to support if it so desired, unlike providing free houses or free health care, which involves lots of physical necessities. The benefit of infinite mental stimulation should not be underestimated, it's no less important for people to have their minds engaged than health care or food. Study any animal trapped in a zoo or human stuck in prison to see why. That the government could provide such a benefit at such a lower cost than its decision to provide other important benefits like health care, food, and housing proves this should be a no-brainer.
Companies that offer their products for free but solicit donations to support their operating costs might also give it a whirl.
Another option could be simply shortening copyrights on digital content. If we shortened the copyright to, say, ten years, how many customers would really hold out until then to download their copy freely? Not many people have the kind of unearthly patience to want to see or read something, but wait ten years until it is out of the copyright shield to download it. Just look at how many people go to movie theaters, or buy hardback copies of their favorite books. I think companies could trust in the impatience of the consumer, and the hype around a product like 'the new harry potter' that usually sees customers lining up to purchase on the midnight chime, much less being willing to wait ten full years to view. most money that can be squeezed out of a ten year old product already has been. Giving the rest away for free would not hurt the bottom line.
The goal here should not be 'fairness' or 'justice,' but happiness. We want to deliver these free, infinitely replicable products to as many people as possible, while at the same time supporting the livelihood of the people who provide our digital content, and keep the pipeline of continuous new products coming. Current copyright laws, largely ignored by the public because they are seen to be too draconian to be taken seriously, help neither faction. Perfect enforcement of current copyright laws may somewhat enrich digital content providers, but it would drastically lower world happiness. A complete dismissal of intellectual property rights could well bankrupt digital content providers. Finding a zone of comfort for both sides, or helping relieve pain to either the public or the companies by introducing subsidies, is a good role for government intervention.
Let's go with the last proposed idea, that people would have access to all information the world has ever output 10 years ago or older, for $26 a month, at one gigabyte/s download speeds. ((For instance, it would take ten seconds to download an HD movie.)) Does this seem like paradise? (Obviously, since it contains virtually all truth and beauty ever made, and especially for children being born into this massive inheritance, which would automatically grow every generation) Furthermore, would this bankrupt either internet service providers (obviously no, since it's already being done), or digital content providers? (Obviously not, since people are far too impatient to wait ten years to buy something they want to watch/play.)
Due to recalcitrant companies not laying enough fiber into our homes, and recalcitrant copyright laws that haven't been adjusted to the existence of the internet and stem from hundred year old legal environments, America is digitally impoverished compared to the rest of the world. We languish in the dungeons of internet speeds that can't download anything of worth, and draconian penalties that catch innocent college students for million dollar fines when their smuggled copies of the Beatles are found on their guilty computer hard drives. The situation is absurd. The internet changed the world, it's time for government to admit this, and admit that legal changes, and economic changes, need to proceed apace.
If piracy were seriously treated as a crime, everyone in the country (or at least everyone under age 40), would have to be thrown into prison. Adjusting to the new reality, instead of living in denial, would take these innocent Americans 'out of the shadows.' Finding new business models that make friends out of consumers instead of enemies could even improve sales of digital content. For instance, itunes' apple stores, that sell music digitally instead of from antiquated cd stores, is making more sales than the old business model. Kindle ebooks is another innovative solution. Both offer products at large discounts by admitting the cost of producing and transmitting digital copies of digital information is lower than the previous cost of physical shipments, paperbacks, and stores. Business can prosper in a way that doesn't involve gouging or threatening consumers into submission. The FCC has said it wants to expand internet access in America. I suggest it lowers the price of server warehouses, computer chips, fiber optic lines, and drastically reduce copyright laws, to do so.
No comments:
Post a Comment