addition to the panoply of subsidies and other protectionist measures, the Government provided a further twist to his remarks in favor of the bureaucrats of cinema with the "Law Sinde.
Under the noble intention of protecting intellectual property rights, hides the advocacy of a group that aspires to the impossible: force others to pay for seeing things that do not want. To make matters worse, attempts to bring the Internet to police practices or witch hunt will have no effect.
The market will look for new ways to distribute movies or other cultural product likely to be digitized. The technology break down any barrier regulation that is trying to impose. This is, in short, the position behind intellectual testament Alex de la Iglesia in his speech at the Goya Awards.
the outset, information is costly to produce and cheap to reproduce. Films that cost millions of euros may be copied at a bargain price. Economists say that the production of an information good involves high fixed costs but low marginal costs.
Thus, the cost of producing the first copy of such goods can be substantial, but to produce or reproduce additional copies is negligible.
Desde esta perspectiva, los cambios tecnológicos han destruido la estructura tradicional del marco jurídico sobre el que se sostenía la protección de la propiedad intelectual.
La información digital puede ser perfectamente copiada e instantáneamente transmitida a todo el mundo, y al ser gratuita los productores podrían no ser capaces de recuperar sus costes de producción. En el caso del cine, esta hipótesis teórica no se ve apoyada por la evidencia empírica.
En ese sentido, los intentos de prohibir la piratería en la red para salvar al cine español de sus depredadores es absurda por una sencilla razón: apenas se descargan national films. Among the most downloaded 20 films over the Internet in 2009 and 2010 finds no English and vampirism of Internet has not prevented leaders tapes obtained spectacular box office revenues.
So Avatar raised U.S. $ 2,880 million despite being the most pirated movie on Internet in 2010, and so did Star Trek in 2009, he joined a similar amount.
On average, the theoretical economic loss, loss of income for producers of major films downloaded from the network does not exceed 5 per percent of box office, ie a percentage irrelevant. Moreover, no one would be shocked that the viewers go down free movies, like the English, who have already paid their taxes, subsidies and tax.
From this perspective, the content owners exaggerate the risks of technological innovation and on intellectual property piracy. The history of the video industry is a good example. Hollywood
panicked when the appearance of the videos allowed to copy movies broadcast on television and launched an aggressive legal campaign to prevent such phenomenon. obviously did not achieve its objective.
addition to undesirable is impossible to stop innovation and technological change when it occurred. The irony is that today, many of the productions from the Mecca of the Movies are made through the sale and rent videos has made for years, and still is, a huge source of revenue for the studios.
In a scenario of technological revolution, the smart strategy of those who defend intellectual property should be to choose the terms and conditions that maximize their value , instead of insisting to maximize the terms and conditions of their protection.
Services like iTunes let people buy songs efficiently and at a low price. The artists have begun using YouTube and other sources to offer free music as a way to generate interest and referrals to pages where you can purchase your music.
This makes the artists more accessible and provides them with wider audiences. In short, market forces themselves will eventually discover new methods and procedures to combine the desires of producers and consumers, as has always happened throughout history.
Finally, intellectual property is a different animal to the physical property. This, by definition, is weak, and the first is not as images, ideas, sounds etc. can be played endlessly.
Somehow, has features very similar to those of so-called public goods: non-rivalry in consumption, ie listening to a radio station does not prevent others from doing so, and the inability to exclude consumers use or enjoyment, ie I can not prevent access to a movie that is being offered for free on the Web
As Benjamin Tucker said late nineteenth century, if someone wants to monopolize their ideas, the only way is to keep them out of business.
In practice, Sinde Act, in addition to its inability to protect intellectual property rights of bureaucratic culture, creates the basis for triggering a real witch hunt against internet. is a clear example of the reactionary nature of socialism prevailed.
Lorenzo Bernaldo de Quirós. Editorial Board Member of elEconomista
The market will look for new ways to distribute movies or other cultural product likely to be digitized. The technology break down any barrier regulation that is trying to impose. This is, in short, the position behind intellectual testament Alex de la Iglesia in his speech at the Goya Awards.
the outset, information is costly to produce and cheap to reproduce. Films that cost millions of euros may be copied at a bargain price. Economists say that the production of an information good involves high fixed costs but low marginal costs.
Thus, the cost of producing the first copy of such goods can be substantial, but to produce or reproduce additional copies is negligible.
Desde esta perspectiva, los cambios tecnológicos han destruido la estructura tradicional del marco jurídico sobre el que se sostenía la protección de la propiedad intelectual.
La información digital puede ser perfectamente copiada e instantáneamente transmitida a todo el mundo, y al ser gratuita los productores podrían no ser capaces de recuperar sus costes de producción. En el caso del cine, esta hipótesis teórica no se ve apoyada por la evidencia empírica.
En ese sentido, los intentos de prohibir la piratería en la red para salvar al cine español de sus depredadores es absurda por una sencilla razón: apenas se descargan national films. Among the most downloaded 20 films over the Internet in 2009 and 2010 finds no English and vampirism of Internet has not prevented leaders tapes obtained spectacular box office revenues.
So Avatar raised U.S. $ 2,880 million despite being the most pirated movie on Internet in 2010, and so did Star Trek in 2009, he joined a similar amount.
On average, the theoretical economic loss, loss of income for producers of major films downloaded from the network does not exceed 5 per percent of box office, ie a percentage irrelevant. Moreover, no one would be shocked that the viewers go down free movies, like the English, who have already paid their taxes, subsidies and tax.
From this perspective, the content owners exaggerate the risks of technological innovation and on intellectual property piracy. The history of the video industry is a good example. Hollywood
panicked when the appearance of the videos allowed to copy movies broadcast on television and launched an aggressive legal campaign to prevent such phenomenon. obviously did not achieve its objective.
addition to undesirable is impossible to stop innovation and technological change when it occurred. The irony is that today, many of the productions from the Mecca of the Movies are made through the sale and rent videos has made for years, and still is, a huge source of revenue for the studios.
In a scenario of technological revolution, the smart strategy of those who defend intellectual property should be to choose the terms and conditions that maximize their value , instead of insisting to maximize the terms and conditions of their protection.
Services like iTunes let people buy songs efficiently and at a low price. The artists have begun using YouTube and other sources to offer free music as a way to generate interest and referrals to pages where you can purchase your music.
This makes the artists more accessible and provides them with wider audiences. In short, market forces themselves will eventually discover new methods and procedures to combine the desires of producers and consumers, as has always happened throughout history.
Finally, intellectual property is a different animal to the physical property. This, by definition, is weak, and the first is not as images, ideas, sounds etc. can be played endlessly.
Somehow, has features very similar to those of so-called public goods: non-rivalry in consumption, ie listening to a radio station does not prevent others from doing so, and the inability to exclude consumers use or enjoyment, ie I can not prevent access to a movie that is being offered for free on the Web
As Benjamin Tucker said late nineteenth century, if someone wants to monopolize their ideas, the only way is to keep them out of business.
In practice, Sinde Act, in addition to its inability to protect intellectual property rights of bureaucratic culture, creates the basis for triggering a real witch hunt against internet. is a clear example of the reactionary nature of socialism prevailed.
Lorenzo Bernaldo de Quirós. Editorial Board Member of elEconomista
0 comments:
Post a Comment