Apologies,

Casey

With that attitude they wouldn’t want you as a fan anyway.

Mr Flibble stated, “The entire article is a marketing ploy and you’re sucking it up like it’s gospel.”

I do agree that articles like these can inadvertently advertise for bands. To be clear, this is not my desire at all. I don’t think that information about/by musicians should inform who people listen to. If that were the case, I would not listen to Wagner or X Raided, two composers whose music has inspired me for periods of time in my life..

Let me state that NONE of us in the band feel the need to have more fans, sell more records, or make more money. 3 of us in the band have been making music and touring for 10 years before this band, without any notice from more than a handful of people. A decade of being ignored didn’t discourage us from making music and being ignored now wouldn’t hinder our creative output.

Furthermore, I think discussing these topics can be very unappealing to a lot of people potentially interested in our music. Regardless, Mr Flibble, you have a good point that anyone reading this article can or should proceed with caution.

Your comments are rife with confusion, incoherence and ignorance. Furthermore, you apparently did not carefully read what I wrote or viewed Dean Baker’s analysis.

Anonymous stated, “the costs of production are not the primary expenditures for most IP. development is. pharmaceuticals especially, cost a fortune to develop.”

If you studied the links I posted above, you would observe that 2/3 of Pharmaceutical Industry development spending goes to COPYING copyright protected drugs. So the “primary expenditures” that you speak of are actually not developing anything new or creative at all. The 2/3 of the expenditures are the product of copyrights and an uncompetitive market. Patent protection promotes the development of drugs that behave like other drugs, steering research into non-inventive directions. If copyrights didn’t exist, and a free market did, you would see very different research patterns occurring.

Such problems are no different in the music industry. I see plenty of copycats being developed by labels. That is why a lot of the ‘development costs’ in the music industry are advertising and publicity, not artist development.

Anonymous stated, “…it’s hilarious that you simply bring up production cost as if that should be the only factor in determining price…”

Anonymous, you need to learn basic reading comprehension. I stated, “For example, one harmful effect to people/consumers is the divergence of price and the marginal cost of production for any “protected” product, be it music or pharmaceutical drugs etc….”. I did not refer to production costs “as if that should be the only factor in determining price”. I do believe that it should be a factor. In the case of music and prescription drugs, such divergences (which are an order of magnitude) are not the products of a competitive market, but a monopolized market. Furthermore, I do believe in “revenue” and “making a profit on your time, money and talent” but not at the expense of a free market. Again, copyrights are by definition antithetical to a competitive market. I do believe that the enforcement of copyrights and patent protections are demonstrably harmful to societies and their associated markets. Again look at the cost of prescription drugs in America and people’s ability to receive affordable prices. If there was a competitive, free market, citizens could opt to create a public program to research prescription drugs and sell them for prices that citizens can afford. This is not what occurs in my native country. Incidentally, in the US, public tax dollars generally do fund technologies before they are privatized/monetized with out reaping any of the benefits (eg, lasers, computers, medicine etc).

Anonymous stated, “…delusions of Stalinist grandeur…”

I am not quite sure what you mean by “Stalinist grandeur”, but I believe you are accusing me of not wanting free markets. Either way, your statement is again, confused and uninformed. If anyone is deluded by “Stalinist Grandeur”, it is you, Anonymous.

Copyrights and Protectionism IS GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION and thus ANTITHETICAL TO A FREE and COMPETITIVE MARKET. As a copyright advocate, you want the government to intervene into the market and give certain people/entities monopolies and protection FROM competition. I agree with you that the government and associated tax dollars should have a role in stimulating the creative producers of an economy. I hardly think copyrights are the best instrument for such stimulation. Again for some alternatives, please see the links that I provided above.

Anonymous stated, “…oh yeah? is that why we have such a wide and varied dispersal of every kind of art you could imagine, today? because copyright has been so restrictive and harmful?”

First, not all of the art that I can imagine exists today. You must not be very creative to think such a notion, Anonymous. Second, people, not copyrights are responsible for creativity. I think that is pretty obvious. Look at the era of Hip Hop that depended on sampling and see if you are so sure about your presumed relationship between copyrights and creativity. I think you are like a lot of people that think that copyrights are human rights. Copyrights are not human rights.

As an aside “Anonymous”, at least post your name if you are going to engage in debate. I am holding myself responsible for what I say. You should as well.

SubTitle: 

learn why it helped shape their music

FP Article Image: 

Lead Image: 

…

oh yeah? is that why we have such a wide and varied dispersal of every kind of art you could imagine, today? because copyright has been so restrictive and harmful?

please.

“For example, one harmful effect to people/consumers is the divergence of price and the marginal cost of production for any “protected” product, be it music or pharmacutical drugs etc….”
———————-

the costs of production are not the primary expenditures for most IP. development is. pharmaceuticals especially, cost a fortune to develop. it’s hilarious that you simply bring up production cost as if that should be the only factor in determining price. do you even believe in revenue? in making a profit on your time, money, and talent invested?

if you don’t, if all the patchouli and hipster narcissism has clouded your brain with delusions of Stalinist grandeur why don’t you just move into the mountains and get your “deliverance” on? it wouldn’t be that hard of a transition, your whole band already looks the part…

SQUEEEEEEEEEL!

I would like to echo Robin’s by stating that Copyrights and other forms of Protectionism have harmful effects on the social, creative and economic output of societies.

For example, one harmful effect to people/consumers is the divergence of price and the marginal cost of production for any “protected” product, be it music or pharmacutical drugs etc….

For an economist’s analysis, please view the following seminar and debate from Economist Dean Baker at the center for Economic Policy Research (CEPR):

Copyrights, Patents, and other Protectionist Barriers:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4350628825865768738

Copyrights: Do They Have a Future in an Economic Age?:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8649304946052446035&ei=Gk41SoW3GoSv-Ab_tLWwCQ&q=dean+baker+cepr&emb=1

Reading the above comments, it is reassuring to see others are concerned about the harmful societal effects of protectionism. I also think that is important for us that care to begin identifying alternative solutions/programs to rid our societies of copyrights and other feudal structures in the hope of vibrant democratic societies and associated markets.

Casey Wescott
Fleet Foxes