by ReverseEngineer » Sat 13 Sep 2008, 06:01:53
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MrBill', '
')So you could say that labor has no intrinsic value. It is worth whatever we are willing to pay for it. High levels of unemployment are wasted labor. In comparison some labor we are apparently willing to pay a lot for like film stars, professional athletes and famous singers and performers. We assign that value to their labor each time we pay to see them perform or buy their films and music. Why they should earn more than a coal miner is not clear other than we have collectively decided it should be so.
As I listen to music, and know how to read and write, it should be possible to pen a half dozen Top 10 music hits in a day or so. If I could I would be able to live for the rest of my life without ever working again. It is not a question of my labor, but of my talent. Another wasting asset with no intrinsic value.
I wrote an analysis of the problem of labor versus property ownership a number of year ago for my board. It is apropos to this discussion, so I will share it here. I entitled this post "The Clan of the Copyright Bear", and its is basically an indictment of the concept of ownership of intellectual property. Fun post, IMHO.
-----------------
Sometimes, because we are so immersed in the values, social system
and laws of the post-industrial society in which we live, it is
difficult to see how some of the concepts we think are immutably set
in concrete really are not that way at all. The concept of
intellectual property and ownership of ideas is one of those cases.
The issue of Musical Ownership and Copyright provides an excellent
test case for the validity of some of our current concepts. Music,
because it does not have substance, is particularly easy to
reproduce. This makes it a very difficult thing to "own", and to
have "rights" to. Technology of course has made this easier, but
this has been the case since the dawn of time.
Lets say I am a tribal flute player in post-Neanderthal France, and
go to the annual gathering of tribes at the Summer Meeting to play my
latest tune. I worked all through the cold days of winter in the
cave composing this masterpiece. It is such a moving love song that
the birthrate in the spring for my tribe is huge
We are talking
a Double Platinum Chart Topper on the Cro-Magnon Billboard. All the
flute players from all the other tribes come to the Summer Meeting,
and the teenyboppers squeal when I arrive in camp toting my flute. Of
course since writing has not yet developed the other flute players
can't buy the sheet music from me, and it is darn tough to cut a CD
out of rock. The teenyboppers will have to come to my campfire to
hear the tune also, a major league benefit. (... and this one time,
at band camp...
Reaching back into our human history, all music was heard, learned
and played by ear live, and in fact people who learn this way
generally have what we call today "perfect pitch". Anyhow, the
outcome of my performance is that now all the other flute players can
play my masterpiece. There is no way for me to "charge" them for
this knowledge. I could charge them to come listen to me around my
campfire, but I could not charge them for every time they played
their flute after that, or for teaching it to other flute players.
Of course, in a tribal society, I would have huge status from this,
and most likely I would get quite a bit of tribute, particularly from
the teeny boppers. Modern day Rock Stars have long capitalized on
this particular phenomenon as well. However, its not obligated,
because there is no way to do so. Even if I exclude people who don't
pay to hear my flute performance, they will eventually learn it from
the people who did pay. This is why traditionally, musicians earned
their money through performance, which is effectively manual rather
than intellectual labor.
On the other hand, lets say I am a first class spear point maker.
While my friend the flute player is composing his masterpiece, I am
toiling away making 10 razor sharp double edged press-flaked obsidian
blades a day, a totally revolutionary technique. With 50 blades I
can trade for a goat at the Summer Meeting. 200 blades will by me a
nice new wife. 500 blades will buy an even nicer horse
Spear
Points, unlike Music, have substance. They can be traded for other
things of substance.
Like the composer, however, I do have something about my blades that
can be copied. Other blade makers will figure out my cool double
edge technique. Before you know it, the market will be flooded with
double edge press-flaked blades. At next year's Summer Meeting, it
might take a whole winter of point making just to buy a goat. I'll
really have to save up for a couple of winters if I want to buy
another wife. I'll really need the wives if I want to buy a horse,
because I'm going to have to teach a slew of my kids point making to
have enough spear points to trade for one of those. Of course, if I
was real smart, I would have kept my special press-flaking technique
a secret, and only teach it to my kids, who I will have a ton of
because I bought so many wives
The idea of copyright on music is a relatively modern one, as is the
idea of patenting an invention. Both of these ideas have stimulated
modern creativity and invention, because they make it extremely
profitable to have an idea. It is even very profitable to steal
other people's ideas, change them enough to make them look like
yours, and corner the market. Just ask Bill Gates.
In the world of academia, traditionally no one "owned" an idea. You
publish your work to further the total knowledge of human kind.
Other academics then use your ideas to create new ideas of their
own. Knowledge expands exponentially because of the free exchange
and use of ideas. However, in recent years academics have become
jealous of engineers and industrialists who patent ideas and become
rich, while they are pulling down a professor's salary. You now have
people patenting things like parts of the Human Genome, which clearly
they did not invent, just elucidated first. Does this further human
knowledge? I hardly think so. It just enriches those who get there
first and legally bind up the ideas.
While the concept of ownership of ideas has been good for our society
in some ways, in others it is not so good. It devalues individual
work of the manual kind, because you can be paid many times over for
having one good idea. It limits the free flow and use of
information. Finally, it creates an incredibly tangled legal concept
that is extremely hard to enforce. So in addition to outrageously
wealthy "owners" of ideas like Bill Gates, you have some extremely
well-to-do patent lawyers.
What goes around, comes around. The ability to "sell" idea oriented
stuff like literature and music worked very well when the means of
producing printed material or plastic discs required large industrial
style production facilities for the printing of books or the pressing
of record albums. However, because of technology, as in the days of
the Cro-Magnon when stories were passed on orally and music was
played and listened to live by individuals, protecting and charging
for these ideas has become impractical and unenforceable, for the
most part. On the large scale, the ownership concept can still be
enforced against a service like Napster, but it can't stop the
millions of individuals burning CDs, or establishing their own small
Napster-like trading systems on the web.
As a person who values thought and ideas, and who has quite a few of
my own, I certainly try to protect my material so that it retains its
value. But I recognize also that because of the nature of technology
and communication systems in the modern era, it is quite possible for
people to copy things I conceive of. JetAerial is particularly hard
to copy in its full form, because it has many aspects which only I
can personally provide, at least at the bargain basement price I
provide them. The software is custom designed for every individual
gym. Most people don't know how to REALLY use Access, so I have to
teach that. Many people don't have quite the repertoire of drills I
have worked up over 20 years, and certainly they don't have them in
searchable MPEG digital video form. Few people have the time,
ability or inclination to do graphic layout and write promotional
material for their custom gymnastic system. Few people give bang up
clinics for gymmies that are great fun. I protect my ideas not by
using the legal system, but by providing so many things that copying
it becomes at best impractical, and in many ways impossible.
Certainly musicians should be paid for their compositions.
Choreographers should be paid for their choreography. But how many
times should they be paid? Once you put your ideas out there, you
need some other means than the legal system to protect you from
copying. Evolution of technology has made this concept simply
impractical to apply.
Reverse Engineer
