Bregmata

They‘re getting closer and closer. Soon we shall move into the 1990’s.

I have a row on Monk peas growing in the lower garden this year. I had to obtain a new supply because the squirrel (cf.) performed attrition on the previous lot. Monk peas are an heirloom soup pea that can trace its provenance back to 14th century Netherlands.

The bill has finally been introduced. It’s definitely been shaped by a very limited viewpoint built around the specific business model currently dominant in the entertainment industry, but it does try to address a few specific consumer concerns.

I say it’s shaped by the entertainment industry, but it appears it’s really just the music distribution industry. The wording of the amendments deal almost exclusively with sound recordings and the transmission of sound recordings and recordings of live performances, although some attention is paid to recording and distribution of broadcast signals, which would conceivably also include more than just sound (eg. video, still or motion pictures).

The problems I’m having with this new bill are this.

1. It does not deal with the new economic reality of digital distribution, and
2. It tells me what I can and can’t do in the privacy of my own home.

Sure, you might ask just what the heck I mean. Let me try to exlain.

Economics is the study of the distribution of scarce resources. Basic economic theory says that the price of a good is a function of it’s relative desireability and scarcity. If a good is relatively scarce, a high price means that only those with greater means can acquire the few items of that good.

The new economic reality of digital distribution is that there is an infinite amound of a digitally distributable good. That means the marginal price of a digitally distributable good is zero (ie. the limit as quantity approaches infinity is zero). The new economy says that once a digital good has been created, it’s natural price is free.

What has to happen for the old-economy businesses to thrive in the new economy is to introduce artificial scarcity into the system. They (the multinationals that belong to the old-economy entertainment cartel) are trying to impose this artificial scarcity through legislative means. It’s like the local thug sharging protection money, and they get the mayor and police to enforce thrie racket.

One of the arguments that spring up is that no new works will be created if the distribution and use of a work is not strictly limited and controlled by a distributor. This is the old economy talking again. The implicit assumption is that the way to finance the creation of work is by profiting from the distribution of the work, and it’s true that that was an effective way to profit from a creative effort in the old economy. Problem is, there is no natural right for a creator to profit from the distribution of his work. We’d all like to profit from something we like to do, just ask stay-at-home parents. That doesn’t make it a right.

So, if generating a profit through artificial scarcity is not going to compensate a creator, how will we get new works created? I’m not so sure about that (although I will point out that recroding musicians have not traditionally profitted directly from the distribution of their recorded work). A lot has been said about this in a lot of places and I still have some thinking to do on that question. My point here is that, like forcing water uphill, forcing people to act against natural economic laws is a losing proposition. Look at the drug trade for an example.

Why should I fund the enforcement of an outdated econmic model through my tax dollars?

As to what I can do in the privacy of my own home, I’m talking about the TPM clauses. They make it illegal for me to open certain files on my own computer even if I legally acquired them. If I use a byte editor to examine a file containing technical protection measures, I’m breaking the law. I will have to get one of those bandit masks to hack on some files.