|
Law in the Internet Society
|
|
|
-- AlexeySokolin - 14 Oct 2011
[Draft still]
Introduction
On the horizon is a world where cultural goods are distributed freely and quickly to the masses of the world without cost or hassle. But, even if society may be in transition to a system without private property in ideas, transitional stages are important. Stalinism, for example, was more than a step towards Marxist communism in that it became its own terrible creature. It matters how we choose to move from intellectual property regimes of today using today’s set of economy, politics and technology. What are the ethical ways to do business on the way to tomorrow?
Economic Axioms
Digital goods such as software, music, video and text have a marginal cost of zero. In economic parlance, this means that the cost of producing the next good is nothing. It costs nothing to duplicate and transfer an mp3, avi or ebook file. Digital goods do not have zero fixed cost. Furthermore, this non-zero fixed cost includes the normal cost of equity (or financing in general) which is a function of the risk of the venture. Higher-risk ventures involve a higher cost of equity.
Many such goods are cultural goods and enrich the lives of those consume them by anchoring them in the flow of human progress. Cultural goods exist in varying quality and significance (Bach vs. Limp Bizkit, Harry Potter vs. Picasso), which is independent from their popularity. Such goods also differ in their fixed cost and the time at which fixed costs are covered by revenue, which in turn depends on the number of consumers that pay and do not pay for the good.
Capitalist economies efficiently produce innovation, technology and new companies. Venture Capital and other financial firms efficiently calculate cost of equity for new technology and aid the creation of new companies.
The Ethics
We pick two principles that define an “ethical” approach to business. The first is Rawlsian “veil of ignorance,” which implies a set of rules that would be preferred regardless of position in the genetic and geographic lotteries. We also rely on Kant’s second formulation of the categorical imperative, which holds that no person can be used as a means to an end.
From behind the veil of ignorance it is clear that free goods should be free. We want access to music and the internet if born in New York or India. Less clear is how much access we want—perhaps there is a line to be drawn between necessity cultural goods (learning the classics) and luxury cultural goods (StarCraft? ). One empowers, lifts people from their station into the flow of human progress; the other entertains and distracts. The two are not synonymous in function and moral imperative. The problem encountered in this distinction is who decides, and how.
Kant’s categorical imperative has several restrictive implications. A business may not use the information and data of users without their express permission and approval. Advertising and data mining may not be used unless consented to, with full knowledge and understanding, a priori. We postulate that few people would opt-in to being sold as audience or data to other corporations, even if this funds the consumption of their favorite media junk food. Second, a business may not charge one set of users for one thing, and then arbitrarily give that thing away for free to everyone thereafter. Such a scheme (e.g., taxing American users to subsidize Indian users) would use one set of people as a means for others.
Onto Business
Goods with marginal costs of zero can be defined as pubic goods. They are nonrival and non-excludable, and can be subject to free ridership and such that they are not optimally produced. While some cultural public goods may indeed be emergent (perhaps music and literature), others require significant capital investment and equity returns in order to be produced. Examples of such goods are blockbuster Hollywood movies (Harry Potter), high-end video games (Blizzard), and professional software (Adobe Photoshop). These goods cost nothing to distribute, but each require a large sum of money to build initially, requiring employees, office buildings and financing.
One approach to making money from public goods is turning them into “club goods,” meaning layering on top of them a power to exclude others from consumption. Venture Capital firms look to invest in such endeavors, focusing on building barriers to entry, platforms to keep value, monopolistic potential and long-term profitability above normal returns. This is needed as insurance against the chance of failure of a company or project, which in a software context can be quite high. On average, the evidence shows that VCs achieve normal or below normal returns, which may justify the types of businesses they invest in. The economic rents a winner like Facebook may extract is a subsidy for all the Facebooks that failed. Without such cases, financing costs would be much higher and would be added to the initial fixed cost of production.
Still, this breaches our ethical compass, at least for cultural necessities. It may not breach our ethics in the case of superfluous goods—it is one thing to provide Chinese students with textbooks, and quite another to give them movies that costs millions of dollars to produce.
But, we cannot coerce businesses to generate cultural goods and then distribute them for free without covering fixed costs and financing costs. Arbitrarily charging those first in line and distributing for free to the rest of the world is unethical. If advertising and data-mining are unethical as well, we must fund the product by user contributions and bifurcate paying users from non-paying users. There must be enough paying users to get the product to the point where MC=0. Two acceptable models have emerged: (1) auction, and (2) freemium (up-sell, cross-sell or marketing).
In the auction set-up, people bid up to their willingness to pay for the free good. For some this is zero, for others it is a positive value. There are no ethical problems if people self discriminate, and there is evidence that established musicians are able to net significant returns in online auctions. Examples of this are Radiohead’s “In Rainbows” (1.2 million downloads), Nine Inch Nails ($1.6 million in one week), and Kickstarter ($75 million raised). Inherent in the auction model is a utility from the cultural good so positive that people pay a creator to express gratitude. The creator should be particularly good at signaling the quality and differentiation of the good from a commodity such that price does not equal marginal cost.
The second approach builds on the idea of differentiation, marketing and tiering value. Technology commentators advocate connecting with fans and generating a reason to buy. Again, the creator must prove that their good holds value separate from that of the free digital file or service. That value is either a truly superior experience that deserves compensation by choice, or comes bundled with a physical items whose marginal cost is not equal to zero (e.g., limited edition collectible sets /prints, t-shirts or signed items). Similarly, many technology start-ups use a freemium model to charge for superior service (which often is nearly identical to the free service) and provide the core service for free, which allows users to self-discriminate. We will thus continue to see core free offerings, bundled with highly targeted value propositions to fans and power-users.
Still, these models do not guarantee that fixed and financing costs are covered, especially for capital intensive and highly experimental projects that can have extremely positive payoffs but are not easily marketable and come with significant chances of failures. In that case, we need public subsidy to offset the innovator’s temptation to convert the public good into a club good. The categorical imperative does not allow us to use movie studios as a means to enrich others. A hybrid solution could involve some indication of private interest (via Kickstarter), a significant public subsidy once a goal is reached (how many people must want an Avengers movie?), and a Creative Commons license on the final good produced.
Paper Title-- By AlexeySokolin - 17 Oct 2011Section ISubsection ASubsub 1Subsection BSubsub 1Subsub 2Section IISubsection ASubsection BYou are entitled to restrict access to your paper if you want to. But we all derive immense benefit from reading one another's work, and I hope you won't feel the need unless the subject matter is personal and its disclosure would be harmful or undesirable. To restrict access to your paper simply delete the "#" on the next line: # * Set ALLOWTOPICVIEW = TWikiAdminGroup, AlexeySokolin Note: TWiki has strict formatting rules. Make sure you preserve the three spaces, asterisk, and extra space at the beginning of that line. If you wish to give access to any other users simply add them to the comma separated list |
|
