Make something and sell it

http://www.johndcook.com/blog/2010/01/22/make-something-and-sell-it/

by J3L2404 • 17 years ago

21 19 17 years ago

jluxenberg• 17 years ago

Physical objects that are handmade or manufactured have the advantage of not being easily reproducible. Rights management is easy in the physical world; I own an object if I posses it. The object can only be in one place at a time, because it is unique.

Digital goods are inherently more difficult to sell because it is so cheap to copy and distribute them. "Information wants to be free" has a kernel of truth in it; "free" is the most natural state for information. It can be copied easy, quickly, and cheaply.

DRM technologies feel draconian, but probably only because they restrict legitimate fair-use in addition to protecting information from unauthorized distribution. Ultimately, I think more DRM is going to be necessary to protect IP. Fairly soon, all IP is probably going to be distributed online (books, music, movies, etc). If piracy isn't kept to a minimum, it will eventually cannibalize the IP market.

dustingetz2• 17 years ago

"If piracy isn't kept to a minimum, it will eventually cannibalize the IP market"

meh, smart people will find a way to make money, even when economies shift.

actf4• 17 years ago

If that's the case then why haven't smart people figured out a way for game developers to make money while releasing their software as open source? Point me to an example that illustrates how this is possible and I will concede that you're right.

richcollins• 17 years ago

Smart people will find ways to make money. If they stop making things of value that are easily stolen, everyone else will suffer.

cschwarm• 17 years ago

> "Information wants to be free" has a kernel of truth in it; "free" is the most natural state for information. It can be copied easy, quickly, and cheaply.

The argument basically says "what is, ought to be, too!" But there's no logical relation between 'is' and 'ought' and this has been known for over 250 years. [1]

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is-ought_problem

alanthonyc• 17 years ago

True. And that applies to the opposing argument as well. As in: copies of music and other IP ought to be paid for since that is the way it's always been.

actf4• 17 years ago

I think this article presents an interesting argument, even though much of it is anecdotal. Some of the author's points are very interesting:

> He says he’s an empiricist and that data have convinced him he was dead wrong. He now says that the idea of giving away intellectual property as advertising bait is unsustainable and will have dire consequences.

It's too bad the author doesn't go into more detail about this. I'm curious to see his "data".

>It’s OK for a potter to sell pots, but a musician should not sell music.

I think I agree with the author - why should a musician not be able to sell their music if they choose. Those who choose to give their music away for free can do so, but suggesting that it's morally wrong to sell music seems, ironically, morally wrong itself.

Not that I necessarily agree, but just to play the devil's advocate - there a really easy solution to the fact that it's so easy to copy intellectual property. The solution is for our governments to disallow it. I'm willing to bet that if the government began criminally prosecuting those who pirated music, movies, and software the problem would significantly decrease.

I'd argue that the real problem isn't that it's too easy to copy intellectual property, but that it's too easy to copy intellectual property over the internet. Intellectual property has been copied for thousands of years, it's only very recently that it became _so_ easy to do it though. 15 years ago there would have been a lot more effort required to copy music than there is today. The problem is that today anyone can copy intellectual property from everyone else on the planet in a matter of seconds. In the past copying intellectual property would have required a much more physical connection to the source: For example exchanging cassette tapes with a friend, or going to the library to checkout a book and photocopy it. These barriers were enough to prevent casual piracy. The barriers today are so insignificant though that casual piracy has become a real problem. I don't think piracy by those who are motivated enough will ever be stopped (just like crime by those who are sufficiently motivated will never be stopped), but I think that curtailing this casual piracy would be enough to solve the problem.

After reading that article I'm very interested in checking out Jaron Lanier's book. Has anyone read it yet - is it a worthwhile read?

thwarted• 17 years ago

Pirating music, movies, and software is already illegal, and people do get prosecuted for it.

kiba3• 17 years ago

There’s an anti-intellectual thread running through these arguments. It’s a primitive way of thinking, valuing only tangible artifacts and not ideas. It’s OK for a potter to sell pots, but a musician should not sell musics.

It's a poor ad hominem that this thinking is "primitive" and "anti-intellectual".

People like the economist, Mike Masnic explains and then build on freeminum business model and the nature of non-scarce goods for years

* http://www.techdirt.com/rtb.php

Two economists wrote an entire book on why intellectual property is flawed. It's also quite a history lesson in itself since it cover century of IP history.

*http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/general/intellectual/againstfi...

generalk• 17 years ago

Musicians should give away their music and make money off concerts and T-shirts.

Why not give away the music onlne and also sell CDs?

Authors should give away their books and make money on the lecture circuit.

Or do like Doctorow and give away the actual contents of the books as well as selling printed versions.

Programmers should give away their software and make money from consulting.

Alternatively, open source the software and charge for a hosted solution. At this point you're not charging for the software, you're charging for the server resources and bandwidth that a user consumes.

I'm not a fan of creating atificial scarcity, as in DRM on bits that cost nothing to duplicate, but if you're also making available formats that cost to produce, then why not charge for those? They're not artificially scarce.

mschy• 17 years ago

I'm not a fan of creating atificial scarcity, as in DRM on bits that cost nothing to duplicate

I'm a fan of creating artificial scarcity, if it is what the seller prefers. I'm disturbed by the number of Hackers who would prefer to strip individuals of their rights to do business as they please, selling products on their on terms.

The marginal costs couldn't be more irrelevant to the discussion.

Make something and sell it

Related Stories