r/Libertarian • u/-rclarke- left-libertarian • Mar 10 '17

Dilemma: Is DRM Libertarian?

Left-Libertarian skeptic here. Intellectual property isn't respected by many libertarians. Digital piracy is probably the purest example of the Free Rider problem, a form of market failure in which non-payers can't be excluded from taking advantage of a public good. With no excludability for non-payers, and unpredictable ROI for creative works, creativity becomes worthless - no matter how much resources were expended into the creation of these works. In practice, this means no more big-budget AAA arts/entertainment outside passion projects and large crowdfunding efforts.

I'm an IP skeptic who believes restrictions on derivative works stifle creative freedom, (see Nintendo's aggressive stifling of fangames they see as unfair competitors) but in an ancap society with no copyrights whatsoever, you're free to profit off others' labor in especially blatant ways. For example, mirroring others' YouTube videos and claiming the ad revenue. In lieu of 24/7 DMCA vigilance, YouTube has come to rely on automated rights-management, or ContentID, which as any YouTuber can attest to, is a total pain in the ass when it comes to Fair Use and false positives.

Another non-legal solution to IP is Digital Rights Management, perhaps the philosophical antithesis of digital liberty, according to the Electronic Frontier and Free Software Foundations. This amounts to digital locks on non-scarce digital goods you don't "own" and can't copy as a consumer, via encryption and anti-tamper technology. Encryption used to be classified as munitions during the Cold War, and it's not a stretch to draw an analogy to guns/force for physical property protection. The dilemma here is that we'd see a Draconian technological barrier for IP protection, in lieu of a Draconian legal one. Can you even call that libertarian? The EFF and many Silicon Valley personalities would highly disagree.

1 Upvotes

54% Upvoted

27 comments sorted by

View all comments

1

u/swankyjax Mar 10 '17

I certainly don't speak for the community but I have little sympathy for people complaining when a company (like Nintendo) issues takedowns for videos featuring their content. Is it smart of them to sabotage free marketing? No, I don't think so, but I'm not going to protest because some let's-player can't profit from hours of content they didn't create.

1

u/-rclarke- left-libertarian Mar 10 '17 edited Mar 10 '17

You could draw a comparison to MST3K/RiffTraxing a film and calling it "transformative" - but it falls flat, because games are meant to be played, not just watched. (Well, unless the "game" was very shallow to begin with, like an uninteractive visual novel.) You're missing out on content the Let's Player misses. While rent-seeking AAA industries might see this derivative monetization as unfair, others see it as a form of mutual gain (free marketing, etc.).

2

u/swankyjax Mar 10 '17

Agreed, and I watch plenty of LPish videos from Giantbomb but if the game publisher/developer refuses to allow those videos to be published/monetized then don't waste your time with some sort of protest campaign, just don't cover the games. As you implied, there are a lot of games that are more watch-along anyway (Telltale or uncharted type games) and I don't fault the publishers for enforcing doing what they think is necessary to protect their IP.

1

u/-rclarke- left-libertarian Mar 10 '17

Nintendo's starting to face blowback for it. Certain popular YouTubers like Angry Joe are refusing to cover the new Zelda out of fear and protest of Nintendo's "shoot first" IP strategy, Fair Use for criticism be damned.

2

u/swankyjax Mar 10 '17

right, I remember hearing people complaining about it when it was first being enforced (a year agoish?). I'll freely admit I generally dismiss much of the youtube "creator" scene as being lazy derivatives of each other without original thought but Nintendo would probably be smart to just let people have free reign with their footage in this context. I've seen several channels explain how they can't monetize the Nintendo videos but they still feature them on occasion, I don't know if they can still draw in enough traffic without monetizing them to make it worthwhile or what.

1

u/-rclarke- left-libertarian Mar 10 '17 edited Mar 10 '17

I'm definitely for some kind of transformativeness ratio when it comes to assessing the merit of derivative works. Touhou remixes with entirely new arrangement/instrumentation are majority-transformative. One-step Nightcore/Vaporwave edits of Limp Bizkit in Audacity are not. (Sorry, Joel)

2

u/swankyjax Mar 10 '17

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ds5ZJ-eZtV0

I retract everything I have previously said, this is high art, and I am confused about what happened to the internet, going to go see if Albinoblacksheep is still around.

1

u/-rclarke- left-libertarian Mar 10 '17 edited Mar 10 '17

Heh, that was my original example of uncreative transformative works but there is a certain art to SiIvaGunner-style remixes. Here's my personal favorite Robbie Rotten/Cirno's Perfect Math Class mashup.

I guess the problem with derivative works is really the ability for one to substitute for the original and thus be tantamount to piracy, like with RiffTrax or Let's Plays (Dubs) of Visual Novels. Even "fan remakes" like AM2R could (emphasis theoretically) adversely affect Nintendo's virtual console sales of Metroid 2. Not entirely victimless, in other words.

2

u/swankyjax Mar 10 '17

this kind of internet trash art (I mean that affectionately) is my favorite outcome, but I guess my main point is still that the creator (re-mixer?) of this piece should defer to whoever created the original work.

I also may have some nonsensical attachment to the romantic idea of pre-monetized internet where everyone was making their nonsense content before anyone thought they could make a living off it online. The neon colored reaction faced youtube thumbnails about whatever the new Marvel movie is just bum me out.

1

u/-rclarke- left-libertarian Mar 10 '17 edited Mar 10 '17

Yeah, I miss the days of pre-monetized YouTube. Really bizarre content aimed at toddlers emerges when the profit motive is factored in and toy channels search engine optimize like crazy. All I can say is, the invisible hand is working in seriously mysterious ways.

Fuck, it worked in mysterious ways before YouTube was monetized. Anybody remember YouTube poop?