in progress

taking "creative efficiency" a step back.

-- By AnilMotwani - 26 Oct 2011

for non-functional goods with zero marginal costs, property rights are bad as they lead to inefficient distribution. the non-observance of property rights thus leads to superior distribution.

my paper will argue for a reexamination of the word "efficient." surely, it doesn't just mean "reaching the most people possible."

in the realm of music:

Subsection A

- there are musicians who might like their songs to be heard start to finish (pink floyd's the wall, the beatle's sgt. pepper's, radiohead's ok computer), as this would give the work a particular conceptual unity. chopping up songs into mp3s and encouraging their piracy seems to undermine this wish. perhaps this means the musician's vision isn't "efficiently" distributed, although deconstituted fragments of it are ---+++ Subsection B

Subsection B

- consider perpetually in-production albums (like dre's detox). clips have been leaking to the interwebs for nearly ten years. if listeners know they are getting unfinished, often purely experimental cuts, that'd be okay; but certainly some users think they're getting 'the real thing.' as such, fans throughout the globe often receive and package together drastically different variations on a single album - and form drastically different impressions. this whole arrangement seems anarchic rather than efficient

in the realm of film:

Subsection A

- certain films are firework-heavy and therefore are best appreciated in proper theatres (i'm defining "best" subjectively, as in, most in accordance with the producer's intentions). it seems, however, that with the easy of file-sharing, many would-be theatre-goers stay at home and watch (summer blockbusters) on their laptops. "avatar" is now the most heavily pirated movie, despite the great concern james cameron gave to tying his film around the latest technology in theatrical display. i feel that "film" is more than just sounds & images - and i'd argue that film-going is a rich communal experience. much of that is lost via piracy, and this loss perhaps represents a distributional inefficiency

Subsection B

- bollywood is all song-and-dance. mumbai theatres are designed with this in mind. the audiovisual systems are crazy advanced; the bass literally thumps through your skin, and the screens reach wall-to-wall, floor-to-ceiling. the architecture itself is a sight - a gorgeously gothic reminder of india's history under the brits. all this for $4 or so. moreso than in america, piracy is a huge concern in india. and as it gets easier to obtain watchable-quality copies of bollywood films, i fear that less indians will find the strength to get out and see a film in a theatre. as this occurs, bollywood's crucial distinctive feature of flashy song-and-dance numbers will go uncommunicated - even if these films technically reach a bigger, broader audience

concluding thoughts

part of this debate might reduce to semantics. i should prob'ly address that concern head-on. i'll spend time researching instances of artists describing their work (and their need for integrity in controlling the means of conveyance) using the language of economics, "efficiency," and so forth

the end. for now.

---

It does make sense to consider distributive efficiency in terms of what it means for the authors of creative works. Users are only one piece of the puzzle - and any system should take into account the desires of creative producers. There are certainly musicians who want only the final versions of their song heard, and to be heard in sequence so as to make an impact when the album is released to the world. I disagree with you when you say that "if listeners know they are getting unfinished, often purely experimental cuts, that'd be okay." If distributive efficiency focuses on the artist's goals, then even if an experimental version is released, fans are previewed to what the song might sound like - they are previewed to lyrics, to a message and feel of the work. If the goal of the producer is to make a dramatic impact upon release of his work, then hearing even an experimental version is detrimental to his goal and would thus be distributively inefficient.

I think Kanye West is a good example to illustrate my point (obviously this won't be true for all artists, but certainly for some). When My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy was nearing release, versions of some songs on the album leaked online. Kanye was pissed about it mainly because he wanted to wow the world with his album, at once, in one dramatic release. He didn't want people to hear it fragmented, and he certainly didn't want people listening to the final versions of the song before they were released (for monetary and intellectual/conceptual reasons). After the songs were released online, he went back into the studio and re-recorded the songs that were leaked online, and completely transformed them. He clearly believed distributive efficiency, from his perspective, was about conceptual unity, and his focus was on himself as a creator. He stated "It's a piece of art that just can't be unveiled until it's completed." This demonstrates that had fans received unofficial versions, or even final versions of single songs, that it would have been distributively inefficient (in terms of your definition of efficiency) because it was against the author's will and his goal

(On his next album, Watch the Throne, Kanye and Jay-Z decided to release the album first only through iTunes in an attempt to prevent leaking of the album and individual songs before its release. Their plan was successful - Watch the Throne, one of the most anticipated hip-hop albums of all time, did not leak at all before the release date. This demonstrated that the leaks were coming from someone in the distribution chain of the physical CD manufacturing. Its somewhat ironic that the internet was actually used as a means of preventing a premature leak.)

While authors/creators and their artistic goals/values are certainly a concern, we must also ask what the users want. I wanted to watch Avatar in theaters because I cared about the spectacle of it. I wanted to watch it the way it was intended to be watched. But, not every user cares as much and is willing to pay the massively overinflated price to go to the theater and watch it. So, if you're arguing for a re-examination of the word "efficient" by saying it also means artistic integrity, where does the balancing come in? If someone doesn't really care if they hear 1 leaked kanye song at a time, or see a film on their 11 inch laptop screen instead of in IMAX, then how will the term "efficient distribution" address that fact. It might be inefficient from the author's perspective to have the film leaked, but it might be 100% efficient from the user's perspective. Where does the balance come in?

-- AustinKlar - 19 Oct 2011

---

You 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, AnilMotwani

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