Cato at Liberty

>You can cite a lobbyist who actually claimed that without copyright, there was no way for any artist to make money? Or that with free sharing, no-one at all would spend money on entertainment? Or that no-one at all creates new art without the financial incentive?

I'll grant you that the phrasing of the 'myths' on the site is more absolute than is generally used by copyright proponents, but the arguments are extremely common with minor qualifiers, e.g. that free sharing causes an extraordinarily large (albeit not 100%) reduction in the amount that people spend on entertainment (see generally http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/how-copyright-industries-con-congress/), and (most importantly) the counterarguments still apply to the less absolute versions of the argument more commonly encountered in the wild.

>If there are alternative business models that really are as effective as copyright or more so in incentivising the creation and distribution of useful works, why aren't we seeing vast amounts of such work, funded by such alternative models, in the age of the Internet?

There is an extent to which we are. See: YouTube, github, etc.

But a big piece of the trouble is that if you take any given business model, chances are the artist can make at least trivially more money by exercising some of the control the copyright monopoly provides over the work. And if copyright exists, why not do that? The consequence is that most business models are seen to involve copyright, even if they…

I'm late to the discussion, but want to add a few things.

First, is there really a large group of people who think that teachers a.) are whom to blame for the state of American education; and b.) are paid too much? The only time I hear about people making such arguments is in op-eds like this one that try to refute them. I think such op-eds are battling straw men.

That said:

1. If you look at total compensation broken down by per-hour-worked (which I think is a fair metric), teachers are paid within the norms for their level of education, etc. There is a reasonable write up on this here: http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/hate-the-deception-not-the-teacher/

2. I think a growing number of people are outraged at Teachers Unions, and Teachers Unions try to associate themselves back to just being "teachers". It's a dirty trick. People don't want employment contracts dictating how their kids are taught. They want teachers to be able to work longer hours if they're inclined to, try creative strategies, etc. They want to attract and keep the best teachers by paying them more than less effective teachers. Many (most?) union contracts dictate terms that disallow this kind of stuff. People are upset at the obstacles the union is putting up, not with the teachers that often are forced to have to join that union.

3. I am upset that we, as a country, continue to spend more and more per-pupil on education and have stagnant-at-best results. Something like only 40 cents per dollar spent…

The purpose of Stuxnex was to push back Iran's progress by a few years.

Ah, but why bother? Iran's nuclear weapons are always just a few years away, in the future: http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/bad-intelligence-but-in-which-direction/

“Late 1991: In congressional reports and CIA assessments, the United States estimates that there is a ‘high degree of certainty that the government of Iran has acquired all or virtually all of the components required for the construction of two to three nuclear weapons.’ A February 1992 report by the U.S. House of Representatives suggests that these two or three nuclear weapons will be operational between February and April 1992.”

“February 24, 1993: CIA director James Woolsey says that Iran is still 8 to 10 years away from being able to produce its own nuclear weapon, but with assistance from abroad it could become a nuclear power earlier.”

“January 1995: The director of the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, John Holum, testifies that Iran could have the bomb by 2003.”

“January 5, 1995: U.S. Defense Secretary William Perry says that Iran may be less than five years from building an atomic bomb, although ‘how soon…depends how they go about getting it.’”

“April 29, 1996: Israeli prime minister Shimon Peres says ‘he believes that in four years, they [Iran] may reach nuclear weapons.’”

“October 21, 1998: General Anthony Zinni, head of U.S. Central Command, says Iran could have the capacity to deliver nuclear weapons within five…

Here is a post with many useful links from someone who was at the Overcriminalization hearing two days ago on Capital Hill that the article is talking about: http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2009/07/23/overcriminalization/. The testimonies of all involved can be found there.

Here are some quotes that IMO get to the root of the problem:

"The amount of individual citizen conduct that is now potentially subject to federal criminal control has increased in startling proportions in the last several decades, beyond any understandable interest in dealing with federal programs, truly interstate issues, or international
crime."

"The sheer volume of modern law makes it impossible for an ordinary American household to stay informed. And yet, prosecutors vigorously defend the old legal maxim that "ignorance of the law is no excuse." That maxim may have been appropriate for a society that simply criminalized inherently evil conduct, such as murder, rape, and theft, but it is wholly inappropriate in a labyrinthine regulatory regime that criminalizes activities that are morally neutral."

"When an innocent person sits down in a quiet room to assess his options following a federal arrest and indictment, you soon learn that you’ll be broken financially if you choose to fight and go to trial. The pressure to plead guilty — even if you are innocent — is enormous."

The problem seems to affect not only individuals, but also corporations, with criminal liability law growing greatly in scope,…

You make a lot of popular assumptions in your post that are not supported by reality. I would be skeptical of the value that you are getting for your tuition in "Money, Media, and Power".

>What we've seen happen in history is the massive consolidation of companies. Look at the media industry, for example.

The media market is fluid and competitive. The top players today are not the same top players of 10 or 20 years ago. The industry has also not become much more consolidated over the past few decades.

http://www.reason.com/news/show/29001.html

>we all know that once a monopoly is established, a company has no incentive to innovate.

A sluggish monopoly is a ripe target for new competitors, as long as the government or other barriers to entry don't get in the way.

See Firefox/Internet Explorer.

> If America is going to be more capitalistic, the people with the money should be driving innovation, not stifling it. They need to act responsibly with their money, and that includes being philanthropic and charitable.

I have rarely seen innovation come from philanthropic or charitable acts. The vast increase in technology, efficiency, and productivity of the last 50 years can largely be attributed to selfish, for-profit actions.

>When they just hoard it all and it becomes a competition to see who can hold the biggest pot, I don't think you deserve to have it in the first place

In the process of "hoarding" wealth, they create value. See my previous point.

> It's actually…

But they might better have first ribbonized the complaining article:

MPAA:
"Sanchez’s main argument is that theft has a negligible economic impact – only some inefficiency – because theft is beneficial"

Sanchez (http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/how-copyright-industries-con-congress/):

"Does that mean online piracy is harmless? Of course not. But the harm is a dynamic loss in allocative efficiency, which is much harder to quantify. That is, in the cases where a consumer would have been willing to buy an illicitly downloaded movie, album, or software program, we want the market to be accurately signalling demand for the products people value, rather than whatever less-valued use that money gets spent on instead."

MPAA:

"Extending this argument, shoplifting has no economic impact since shoplifters can spend the money they “saved” on other products . . ."

Sanchez:

"In many cases—I’ve seen research suggesting it’s about 80 percent for music—a U.S. consumer would not have otherwise purchased an illicitly downloaded song or movie if piracy were not an option. Here, the result is actually pure consumer surplus: The downloader enjoys the benefit, and the producer loses nothing."

(The problem with the shoplifting analogy: those pinched Mach 3 razor blades are gone, and must be restocked at some cost. And whomever uses the pinched razors, needs razors of some kind, so the theft does diminish revenue. Theft of copyright doesn't force restocking to enable a legit sale, and…