Written by: Sam Vaknin
| Sam is the author
of Malignant Self Love - Narcissism Revisited and After the Rain - How
the West Lost the East. He is a columnist for Central Europe Review and eBookWeb , a United Press International (UPI) Senior Business Correspondent, and the editor of mental health and Central East Europe categories in The Open Directory and Suite101 . |
Three years ago I published a book of short stories in Israel. The publishing house belongs to Israel's leading (and exceedingly wealthy) newspaper. I signed a contract which stated that I am entitled to receive 8% of the income from the sales of the book after commissions payable to distributors, shops, etc. A few months later (1997), I won the coveted Prize of the Ministry of Education (for short prose).
The prize money (a few thousand DMs) was snatched by the publishing house on the legal grounds that all the money generated by the book belongs to them because they own the copyright.
In the mythology generated by capitalism to pacify the masses, the myth of
intellectual property stands out. It goes like this : if the rights to
intellectual property were not defined and enforced, commercial entrepreneurs
would not have taken on the risks associated with publishing books, recording
records, and preparing multimedia products. As a result, creative people will
have suffered because they will have found no way to make their works accessible
to the public. Ultimately, it is the public which pays the price of piracy, goes
the refrain.
But this is factually untrue. In the USA there is a very limited group of
authors who actually live by their pen. Only select musicians eke out a living
from their noisy vocation (most of them rock stars who own their labels - George
Michael had to fight Sony to do just that) and very few actors come close to
deriving subsistence level income from their profession. All these can no longer
be thought of as mostly creative people. Forced to defend their intellectual
property rights and the interests of Big Money, Madonna, Michael Jackson,
Schwarzenegger and Grisham are businessmen at least as much as they are artists.
Economically and rationally, we should expect that the costlier a work of art is
to produce and the narrower its market - the more emphasized its intellectual
property rights.
A book which costs 50,000 DM to produce with a potential audience of 1000
purchasers (certain academic texts are like this) - would have to be priced at a
a minimum of 100 DM to recoup only the direct costs. If illegally copied
(thereby shrinking the potential market as some people will prefer to buy the
cheaper illegal copies) - its price would have to go up prohibitively to recoup
costs, thus driving out potential buyers. The story is different if a book costs
10,000 DM to produce and is priced at 20 DM a copy with a potential readership
of 1,000,000 readers. Piracy (illegal copying) should in this case be more
readily tolerated as a marginal phenomenon.
This is the theory. But the facts are tellingly different. The less the cost of
production (brought down by digital technologies) - the fiercer the battle
against piracy. The bigger the market - the more pressure is applied to clamp
down on samizdat entrepreneurs.
Governments, from China to Macedonia, are introducing intellectual property laws
(under pressure from rich world countries) and enforcing them belatedly. But
where one factory is closed on shore (as has been the case in mainland China) -
two sprout off shore (as is the case in Hong Kong and in Bulgaria).
But this defies logic : the market today is global, the costs of production are
lower (with the exception of the music and film industries), the marketing
channels more numerous (half of the income of movie studios emanates from video
cassette sales), the speedy recouping of the investment virtually guaranteed.
Moreover, piracy thrives in very poor markets in which the population would
anyhow not have paid the legal price. The illegal product is inferior to the
legal copy (it comes with no literature, warranties or support). So why should
the big manufacturers, publishing houses, record companies, software companies
and fashion houses worry?
The answer lurks in history. Intellectual property is a relatively new notion.
In the near past, no one considered knowledge or the fruits of creativity (art,
design) as 'patentable', or as someone's 'property'. The artist was but a mere
channel through which divine grace flowed. Texts, discoveries, inventions, works
of art and music, designs - all belonged to the community and could be
replicated freely. True, the chosen ones, the conduits, were honoured but were
rarely financially rewarded. They were commissioned to produce their works of
art and were salaried, in most cases. Only with the advent of the Industrial
Revolution were the embryonic precursors of intellectual property introduced but
they were still limited to industrial designs and processes, mainly as embedded
in machinery. The patent was born. The more massive the market, the more
sophisticated the sales and marketing techniques, the bigger the financial
stakes - the larger loomed the issue of intellectual property. It spread from
machinery to designs, processes, books, newspapers, any printed matter, works of
art and music, films (which, at their beginning were not considered art),
software, software embedded in hardware, processes, business methods, and even
unto genetic material.
Intellectual property rights - despite their noble title - are less about the
intellect and more about property. This is Big Money : the markets in
intellectual property outweigh the total industrial production in the world. The
aim is to secure a monopoly on a specific work. This is an especially grave
matter in academic publishing where small- circulation magazines do not allow
their content to be quoted or published even for non-commercial purposes. The
monopolists of knowledge and intellectual products cannot allow competition
anywhere in the world - because theirs is a world market. A pirate in Skopje is
in direct competition with Bill Gates. When he sells a pirated Microsoft product
- he is depriving Microsoft not only of its income, but of a client (=future
income), of its monopolistic status (cheap copies can be smuggled into other
markets), and of its competition-deterring image (a major monopoly preserving
asset). This is a threat which Microsoft cannot tolerate. Hence its efforts to
eradicate piracy - successful in China and an utter failure in legally-relaxed
Russia.
But what Microsoft fails to understand is that the problem lies with its pricing
policy - not with the pirates. When faced with a global marketplace, a company
can adopt one of two policies: either to adjust the price of its products to a
world average of purchasing power - or to use discretionary differential pricing
(as pharmaceutical companies were forced to do in Brazil and South Africa). A
Macedonian with an average monthly income of 160 USD clearly cannot afford to
buy the Encyclopaedia Encarta Deluxe. In America, 50 USD is the income generated
in 4 hours of an average job. In Macedonian terms, therefore, the Encarta is 20
times more expensive. Either the price should be lowered in the Macedonian
market - or an average world price should be fixed which will reflect an average
global purchasing power.
Something must be done about it not only from the economic point of view.
Intellectual products are very price sensitive and highly elastic. Lower prices
will be more than compensated for by a much higher sales volume. There is no
other way to explain the pirate industries : evidently, at the right price a lot
of people are willing to buy these products. High prices are an implicit
trade-off favouring small, elite, select, rich world clientele. This raises a
moral issue : are the children of Macedonia less worthy of education and access
to the latest in human knowledge and creation ?
Two developments threaten the future of intellectual property rights. One is the
Internet. Academics, fed up with the monopolistic practices of professional
publications - already publish on the web in big numbers. I published a few book
on the Internet and they can be freely downloaded by anyone who has a computer
or a modem. The full text of electronic magazines, trade journals, billboards,
professional publications, and thousands of books is available online. Hackers
even made sites available from which it is possible to download whole software
and multimedia products. It is very easy and cheap to publish on the Internet,
the barriers to entry are virtually nil. Web pages are hosted free of charge,
and authoring and publishing software tools are incorporated in most word
processors and browser applications. As the Internet acquires more impressive
sound and video capabilities it will proceed to threaten the monopoly of the
record companies, the movie studios and so on.
The second development is also technological. The oft-vindicated Moore's law
predicts the doubling of computer memory capacity every 18 months. But memory is
only one aspect of computing power. Another is the rapid simultaneous advance on
all technological fronts. Miniaturization and concurrent empowerment by software
tools have made it possible for individuals to emulate much larger scale
organizations successfully. A single person, sitting at home with 5000 USD worth
of equipment can fully compete with the best products of the best printing
houses anywhere. CD-ROMs can be written on, stamped and copied in house. A
complete music studio with the latest in digital technology has been condensed
to the dimensions of a single chip. This will lead to personal publishing,
personal music recording, and the to the digitization of plastic art. But this
is only one side of the story.
The relative advantage of the intellectual property corporation does not consist
exclusively in its technological prowess. Rather it lies in its vast pool of
capital, its marketing clout, market positioning, sales organization, and
distribution network.
Nowadays, anyone can print a visually impressive book, using the above-mentioned
cheap equipment. But in an age of information glut, it is the marketing, the
media campaign, the distribution, and the sales that determine the economic
outcome.
First, there is a psychological shift, a reaction to the commercialization of
intellect and spirit. Creative people are repelled by what they regard as an
oligarchic establishment of institutionalized, lowest common denominator art and
they are fighting back.
Secondly, the Internet is a huge (200 million people), truly cosmopolitan
market, with its own marketing channels freely available to all. Even by
default, with a minimum investment, the likelihood of being seen by surprisingly
large numbers of consumers is high.
I published one book the traditional way - and another on the Internet. In 50
months, I have received 6500 written responses regarding my electronic book.
Well over 500,000 people read it (my Link Exchange meter registered c. 2,000,000
impressions since November 1998). It is a textbook (in psychopathology) - and
500,000 readers is a lot for this kind of publication. I am so satisfied that I
am not sure that I will ever consider a traditional publisher again. Indeed, my
last book was published in the very same way.
The demise of intellectual property has lately become abundantly clear. The old
intellectual property industries are fighting tooth and nail to preserve their
monopolies (patents, trademarks, copyright) and their cost advantages in
manufacturing and marketing.
But they are faced with three inexorable processes which are likely to render
their efforts vain:
Print newspapers offer package deals of cheap content subsidized by
advertising. In other words, the advertisers pay for content formation and
generation and the reader has no choice but be exposed to commercial messages as
he or she studies the content.
This model - adopted earlier by radio and television - rules the internet now
and will rule the wireless internet in the future. Content will be made
available free of all pecuniary charges. The consumer will pay by providing his
personal data (demographic data, consumption patterns and preferences and so on)
and by being exposed to advertising. Subscription based models are bound to
fail.
Thus, content creators will benefit only by sharing in the advertising cake.
They will find it increasingly difficult to implement the old models of
royalties paid for access or of ownership of intellectual property.
A lot of ink has been spilt regarding this important trend. The removal of
layers of brokering and intermediation - mainly on the manufacturing and
marketing levels - is a historic development (though the continuation of a long
term trend).
Consider music for instance. Streaming audio on the internet or downloadable MP3
files will render the CD obsolete. The internet also provides a venue for the
marketing of niche products and reduces the barriers to entry previously imposed
by the need to engage in costly marketing ("branding") campaigns and
manufacturing activities.
This trend is also likely to restore the balance between artist and the
commercial exploiters of his product. The very definition of "artist"
will expand to include all creative people. One will seek to distinguish
oneself, to "brand" oneself and to auction off one's services, ideas,
products, designs, experience, etc. This is a return to pre-industrial times
when artisans ruled the economic scene. Work stability will vanish and work
mobility will increase in a landscape of shifting allegiances, head hunting,
remote collaboration and similar labour market trends.
In a fragmented market with a myriad of mutually exclusive market niches, consumer preferences and marketing and sales channels - economies of scale in manufacturing and distribution are meaningless. Narrowcasting replaces broadcasting, mass customization replaces mass production, a network of shifting affiliations replaces the rigid owned-branch system. The decentralized, intrapreneurship-based corporation is a late response to these trends. The mega-corporation of the future is more likely to act as a collective of start-ups than as a homogeneous, uniform (and, to conspiracy theorists, sinister) juggernaut it once was.
Sam Vaknin is the author of Malignant Self Love - Narcissism Revisited and
After the Rain - How the West Lost the East. He is a columnist for Central
Europe Review and eBookWeb , a United Press International (UPI) Senior Business
Correspondent, and the editor of mental health and Central East Europe
categories in The Open Directory and Suite101 .
Until recently, he served as the Economic Advisor to the Government of
Macedonia.
Visit Sam's Web site at http://samvak.tripod.com
Another side of the story? Click HERE.
Keep up with all our new articles and freebies.
Have some of your favorite ebooks quit working? Click HERE and let me GIVE you a secret that will: Fix Your Ebooks.
The Truth about Virus Dangers
There ARE ways to protect your computer!
Actually, we'll be publishing an entire series
on How to Guard, Protect and Rebuild your computer.
Productivity begins by recognizing and valuing your brilliance, time, and space. It starts with awareness of what works and what does not. It continues with examining what needs grease, or other needs. Search for the truth for what you need in order to rev up your writing.
Copyright © 2005 by
Earl H. Roberts
414 North 8th Street
Noble, Oklahoma 73068