Yo Ho Ho!

I am astonished. What is so tough about understanding “mine” versus “not mine”—the fundamental element of property rights? But a few conversations of late have me shaking my head in perplexity, as I find myself hearing strange things coming from individuals who claim to be pro-freedom and pro-property rights.

The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) grabs headlines regularly as it goes after—in law courts and the court of popular opinion—individuals who share files online using peer-to-peer (P2P) networks. By targeting pirates, as file-swappers are called, RIAA hopes to make such sharing so socially unacceptable that it eventually withers away. The fact that file-swapping is illegal under copyright law sure doesn’t seem to be persuasive.

One reason why legality isn’t persuasive is that pirates don’t view their activities in the same light as RIAA does. Most share files not because they’re trying to profit from them, nor claim credit for them, but simply to share them with others who want them. To pirates, file sharing is like loaning out a book, or recording a favorite TV show on video to watch at one’s convenience. It’s “fair use”, they claim. But is it really fair use when the scale changes from one or two people sharing information, to thousands of people sharing information? What about those who created that content, usually with the expectation of customers paying for access to it? Don’t creators have rights over the distribution of the works they create?

Shift of scene: a woman is working late at home, when she realizes she left a vital file on her office computer. Since they’re networked, it should be no big deal to download the file. Her attempt fails. Thinking it’s a glitch in the file, she tries to download the software she used to create the file. That also fails.

Welcome to “digital rights management” (DRM). In part due to piracy concerns, software companies are controlling the use of digital files, through various mechanisms that restrict access, file use, modification, and printing, among other things. The new Microsoft Office suite uses DRM. Whether “locking” files is an answer to unauthorized copying is unclear. Critics of this approach claim that the technology can be used to lock individuals in to brands of hardware and software, and force them to remain locked in. It gives the seller unprecedented control over an individual’s computer and the files he creates. What about the people who need flexibility in creating and using files among machines and applications? Shouldn’t the owner of a computer be able to use his machine the way he wants to?

These scenarios highlight just a few of the many complexities surrounding intellectual property issues: creator rights and user rights inevitably collide. Teasing out the details, and the market principles underlying them, is torturous.

Even so, many have waded into the murky waters. Stephan Kinsella wrote a thoughtful analysis [essay no longer available] of various approaches, and concluded lawyers are too financially invested to be unbiased. Douglas Clement examined a controversial economic analysis that rejects the need for copyright and patent protection, and labeled the theory “a formidable attack” on the validity of intellectual property concepts. Roderick Long and John deLaubenfels engaged in an interesting exchange of essays debating this issue, while a popular discussion forum wrestled with the question of music piracy and crashed repeatedly due to high interest.

David Freddoso claims that allowing unfettered copying will “destroy civilization” [essay no longer available]. But many of the artistic works prized today were created without the protectionism offered under copyright, patent, or trademark law. As mentioned earlier, most P2P sharing can be viewed as large-scale fair use, while in places like China pirated content is packaged and sold as legitimate material. Are there attempts to bring the perpetrators to justice? Arguments like RIAA’s would be much more convincing if those pirates, not college students, were their targets. Unchecked, the control offered by DRM would create real market monopolies, and a digital divide far higher than the access-based one, as individuals are both locked into and out of software, systems, and hardware choices.

Ilana Mercer disparages copyright protections as “nonsense on stilts”. The realities of easy file-sharing and the continuing ability of people to crack security systems necessitate acknowledging that current legal systems are inadequate to deal with the challenges they bring.

Artistic creations may not be the same as physical property—in many respects they aren't property—but there must be a market willing to exchange value for the value artists create in order for them to have incentives to create. Direct sales between artists and consumers are blossoming on the internet in large part because of the flexibility of the free market; it provides an easy way to bypass record company bureaucracy and desire for control. Other voluntary means, such as donor-funded projects (like JPFO’s documentary film Innocents Betrayed) or a private patronage system (which still exists, but on a much smaller scale than existed during the Renaissance) are two other possibilities that avoid much of the conflict between creator and user rights that exists today.

However, solutions that work for the artistic world will likely not work well for other industries struggling with copyright and patent issues, such as the pharmaceutical industry. In both areas, onerous regulations help create conflict between creator and user, and highlight the need for private solutions rather than regulatory ones to the challenges illuminated by new technologies. State intervention, whether by RIAA’s attacks or DRM’s looming techno-totalitarianism, will only serve to widen the chasm between market players.

A colleague and too-infrequent correspondent of mine in the freedom movement has, for as long as I’ve known him, signed his emails with the line “Only interested in freedom”. The first time I saw it, my immediate response was, “Well, duh!!”, but over time I’ve come to appreciate some nuances inherent in the phrase. At the risk of sounding like a purist who wants to herd the cats, I’ve been finding myself wishing more liberty-lovers would adopt the line and its implications.

Anyone who’s been in the movement for more than a day knows that we are often our own worst enemies. Far and above all the divisiveness separating Objectivists and Libertarians or anarchists and minarchists is the human tendency to put our own personal interests or desires ahead of freedom. Thus one can find examples of individuals who say they’re anarchists supporting laws that coerce individuals into certain behaviors, or that prohibit nonfraudulent, voluntary transactions. In recent conversations with individuals, I’ve been surprised by emotionalism that often appears to be guiding their thinking, and the negative responses to even hypothetical situations that would challenge the world they want to see.

My recent time in the southwestern desert reaffirmed and refocused my commitment to the freedom movement. I discovered that I am, at heart, “only interested in freedom”. To me, that phrase has become a simple metric against which to measure any plan: will this increase individual freedom or decrease it? If it’s the latter, I’m against the plan.

I had no idea how unpopular such a simple thing could be.

If no one takes an extreme position for freedom and considers the possibilities, how will we know that our progress is truly that? Without a vision of total freedom to guide our day-to-day choices and thinking, it’s all too easy to be sucked into the quagmire of today’s unfree systems. I’m not arguing for a utopian solution, nor saying that a Grand Unified Plan for Freedom must be spelled out in excruciating detail before we act. Considering the “impractical extremes” that some libertarians dismiss is essential to our cause, and to our progress. So, for me, thinking about what kinds of justice services might be offered in a free society is just as important as opening individuals’ eyes to the current sham of justice under the so-called “rule of law”.

I’m only interested in freedom. That means that, as far as I’m able (and fortunately, I’ve a number of good friends who help me when my thinking gets muddled), I don’t let personal preferences cloud my thinking about freedom.

Thus, though I despise physical or psychological abuse, I do not advocate more laws to help solve those problems. There’s no “solving” something that is part of human nature (which is an animal nature, after all), and I firmly believe that we’d see far fewer cases of infanticide, fratricide, and related horrors in a free society. Similarly, while I don’t use many mind-altering substances, I see no reason why my preferences ought to dictate what any other responsible person can do in the privacy of his own home.

I long to see truly free markets. Consumerism has been an evolving process for millennia—why on earth should we think that it would stop simply because some don’t like the thought of “big-box stores” replacing smaller-box stores? Farmers used to sell their wares from their farms, or haul them to markets in the nearby towns to sell; then merchants came along to do that task. Then, “Mom and Pop” stores were largely swept aside by supermarkets that were able to offer greater variety and better prices, largely due to technological innovations and economies of scale. WalMart is carrying on the proud economic tradition of supplying consumer demand—something that I won’t shed a tear over. I’m happy to shop at WalMart because they offer a lot of what I want—decent merchandise at low prices. When I want something special, or a higher level of customer service, I patronize a specialty store, and happily pay for getting what I want. [Addendum: at the time I wrote this, I chose not to address the other side of the issue, viz. WalMart’s use of eminent domain and other laws to acquire property for stores. That has always been problematic for me. More importantly, as I have embraced the Discordian philosophy, WalMart has become part of the consumerist system I try to avoid feeding as much as possible.]

Zoning regulations that are thinly disguised protectionism for some special group or cause, laws that create artificial scarcity or monopolies, prohibitions on how an individual can earn a living—they’re all cut from the same statist cloth, and I want nothing to do with them. This has apparently horrified some self-proclaimed freedom lovers, for I’ve been called amoral and disloyal, among other things.

I’m only interested in freedom. What that means is that I don’t care what anyone thinks of me, and I don’t much care what anyone thinks of my ideas unless he can show me—with clear, reasoned arguments free of loaded definitions—where I’m wrong. If your view will help get us to a freer world, then I’m all for it. I don’t care if I’m right or if I’m wrong—I just want freedom.

What that means, though, is that no appeal to public good, general interest, or some other group-based outcome or situation will hold any truck with me. Individual liberty is always usurped under those banners. Far too long have they flown, keeping creative, innovative individuals in the thrall of the collectivists who would steal their labors for the benefit of others, under the guise of “public welfare” or some other convenient fiction. It is precisely this sort of horridly misguided justification of the theft of others’ time and labor that has enabled and encouraged the statists to continue to steal from each of us, under the guise of “doing good”.

It is not good to be a thief—which is what everyone becomes, whether he wants to or not under the state’s programs of welfare and other “services”. It is not good to be the recipient of stolen goods—which is what everyone becomes under as widespread a system of looting and redistributing as we see in the United States today.

I’m only interested in freedom. I’m not interested in dredging up all history’s mistakes and seeking retribution for them—there are too many, and no innocent parties among adults. I’m only interested in the past insofar as it sheds light on failed solutions, so that we may find better ones to light our way. Patents and copyrights try to create artificial scarcity—where, thanks to technological advances, none need exist in most areas. A state-supported monopoly is a monopoly of the worst sort; thus I embrace the changes that are coming to creative endeavors that seek to shrug off these outmoded monopolies. The change is going to be chaotic, and likely very difficult for many, as they adjust to the reality that their preferred way of earning a living will not suffice any longer. This has had personal implications for me, as I had the goal of supporting myself via my writing. But I’m more interested in freedom than serving my short-term wants.

I welcome the future, for all its chaotic change, because I’m confident that freedom will win. There’s nothing that the state need provide for us—private markets unfettered by taxation, state-driven artificialities, or other interference can meet human needs. Indeed, they can do so better, cheaper, and much more reliably.

It’s easy for an individual to say that he or she is interested in freedom—many people profess to be, every day. But many seem to want to be granted permission to be free—as if any state would voluntarily free all its slaves. Others agitate for freedom in some areas, while overlooking coercive measures that supposedly work to their benefit, or which allegedly help create a nicer world.

We can’t break free of our shackles if we don't have our hearts firmly committed to working toward total freedom. We won’t create a totally free utopia—but we can’t make as much progress as we might if we don’t set our sights on the highest goal possible.

I’m only interested in freedom. What about you?



Author’s note: This essay was inspired in part by Iloilo Marguerite Jones, to whom it is admiringly dedicated.

You are a pirate

and talk like a pirate day comes tomorrow.

Still a small bit of time away, until then you might check out my latest movie review at Endervidualism, which also gets linked from my latest Ender's Review.

It is a real challenge for someone who has grown up in servitude, and received an education tailored to keeping them in that condition, to think like a free person. This is often apparent in the writings of libertarians, who think freedom consists of having a longer leash, or a master with velvet gloves. Even among people who style themselves "anarchists" it can often be observed, frequently in a form that I call the "master-behind-the-curtain". The author will obviously feel the need for some control over those "other people" which they believe can only come about through the application of an external coercive force, but since they don't believe in the legitimacy of government they will attempt some slight-of-hand to sweep that force behind the curtain where they can ignore it.

The article on children's rights that Sunni pointed to recently is a good example of this. The author of that piece feels the need to ensure that "other people" care for their children the way the author would like to see them cared for. They imagine a utopia where parents are forced to treat their children like self-owners, with some additional coercion in the form of one-sided "contracts" to keep them from utilizing neglect as a control mechanism. All force involved to be provided courtesy of the master-behind-the-curtain.

This argument is kicked off by the author defining self-ownership as a basic right that all humans possess, starting at birth. Now anytime you see a professed anarchist talking about "rights" you have a good chance of detecting the master-behind-the-curtain. "Rights" is usually used by libertarians in the negative "Bill of Rights" or "Rights of an Englishman" sense: a list of prerogatives that the serfs insist their masters not exercise upon them, upon penalty of revolt. For example: "master shall not piss in our water bowl and make us drink from it". Self-ownership never appears on these lists: if the revolting slaves wanted to be free they would just kill their masters, or have nothing further to do with them, rather than demanding concessions. Since the article in question was supposedly an anarchist's view of child-rearing, this sense wouldn't seem to apply.

I suspect that the author means "right" in the newfangled positive sense: a privilege that a master grants over their slaves. Monopolies of all sorts fall into this category, where the "right" consists of the owner ordering their chattel to buy only from, or refrain from competing with, a certain party. "Entitlements" are another form, where a master transfers some percentage of their slave's output to the privileged party. It has become common for owners to grant such privileges over their chattel to their chattel's children, regularly insisting that their youngest slaves have a "right" to various things at the expense of their parents. "Self-ownership" for the child in this context consists of the parent being ordered to treat their offspring as their master's property, rather than as their own.

Realistically, in a free country a parent would have no externally-imposed obligation to treat their children in a particular fashion. Free-market law-providers would recognize dependent children in exactly the capacity that they would be paid to recognize them in. I suspect that few parents would be willing to pay for a policy that treated their offspring as independent agents. If they signed up for such a policy by accident, the first time they got hauled before a court and fined for placing their kid in "time-out" would be the last time they would pay that premium. Most parents would pay to have their children protected as their most precious possessions: not as "self-owners". Children would achieve recognition as self-owners when they were ready and able to pay for such recognition.

Strong feelings about desired outcomes make many "anarchists" reluctant to discard their masters. Leftist "anarchists", with their concern with social outcomes label the curtain their master hides behind the "collective will". On the right you can see authors struggling with social control mechanisms that will make those darned "other people" behave properly without the strings being so obvious that their audience can follow them to the not-so-invisible hand of the puppeteer. A feeling of personal dependence on a master's beneficence makes it even harder to shake off. Many authors, for instance, can't imagine a world without (their) monopoly privileges. To really think like free people we need to check behind all of our curtains to make sure master isn't still hiding somewhere.

That’s what Michael Kanellos asserts in Why I love patents and copyrights, at c|net. A snippet:

Although it's not a really popular sentiment these days, I think patents, trademarks and copyrights are simply fantastic and a primary, necessary driver of the world economy. Without them, the rapid pace of technological innovation around the world would slow to a crawl. And frankly, without them, most open-source projects would rapidly wither away: without an intellectual property behemoth like Microsoft to fight, what would be the point?

Why all the frothy sentiment? Intellectual property provides one of the most dependable means toward wealth and independence in the world today. In the Dark Ages, one could obtain wealth by raising an army and burning someone else's kingdom to the ground. In the Gilded Age, those on the fast track had a secret weapon of success: they bribed state legislators to obtain canal and railroad contracts.

Unfortunately, those career options just aren't as viable as they once were. Instead, we have to invent stuff, and thus people should get compensated for the effort.

And it does take effort. Think of Larry Page toiling away on the early PageRank patents. Think of Mark and Colleen Hayward. Imagine all those evenings they had to spend listening to Donovan spout Celtic gibberish or helping get John Bonham out of hotel security custody during those years they amassed their photo and video collection. Surely some reward is in order.

His examples crack me up ... and of course, he tosses out the usual, lame observation regarding those who have “strong, emotional reactions against patents and copyrights” in his conclusion. This piece is rather akin to an attention-whore type post, and I’m sure he’ll be getting plenty of comments from c|net readers on it.

All the same, his piece does raise some good starting points for a more serious conversation. Does intellectual property protectionism – which is what patent, trademark, and copyright law is – drive the economy overall, or is it a net drag on it? Is it the driving force behind most technological innovation? Would there be no open source coding if Microsoft weren’t around?

Remember the guidelines for conversation here: be civil; attack ideas, rather than the person; and if you want to include hotlinks to source material (encouraged), I think you can include three in a comment without triggering the comment-spam daemon.

The USSA fedgov certainly doesn’t have a monopoly on legislative stupidity, but all the same it’s a bit surprising to see that a few states are apparently trying very hard to match its record. And they have arguably succeeded.

In his recent essay, The Pirates of Scandinavia, Per Bylund discusses recent developments in Sweden, and closes with an excellent observation [all links in original]:

In a recent raid against a Stockholm-based company Swedish government goons were explicitly (illegally) directed by representatives of the Hollywood guild, acting on the guild’s and US government’s mandate (official comments), ensuring everything on the premises was confiscated. Surveillance cameras, before being covered or destroyed by the government hat people and representatives of the guild, caught the anti-pirate mob on tape making sure no equipment was left behind. ....

Piracy, in this case, is simple sharing of information, often movies, music, or images, over computer networks. Such file-sharing violates copyright laws and such actions are thus claimed to be "theft" (even though nothing has been forcefully taken from the creator). A cartel of governments and mega-corporations are working to ban technology and the free exchange of information in order to protect the state-granted privilege of "intellectual property."

In a not too distant future this cartel is very likely to put an end to piracy and through it increase its own powers. Rights have never been a core concept in Swedish legislation, and the encumbrance the few existing rights are to the government in exercising its important authority needs to be done away with. As always, the "threat" of new technology is used to boost government power, and ordinary people are the ones who end up paying the bill.

So one better choose side; either you’re with the government or you’re against it. Pirate or civilian alike.

The attempts to muzzle information exchanges aren’t happening just in Sweden, of course; whether under the guise of “copyright/patent protection” or DRM, my guess is that any country that is sufficiently technologically advanced is wrangling with these issues. But I’m not so much interested in what governments are doing ... I am wondering what side various pro-freedom individuals will choose.

Mostly because these items aren't likely to get posted elsewhere ...

Not that I like Oprah, but Margaret Carlson has a good point in Bush, Like Frey, Should Come Clean With Oprah. Several worthwhile points, actually.

Haven't heard the Arctic Monkeys yet, but I like the way they've risen without monopolistic protectionism: Arctic Monkeys take to the stage as Web hype swirls. The second half of the article has the real information.

Last, I think Wisconsin is trying to become the home of political correctness. How else to explain all the fuss about high school mascot names? If I were a high school administrator [like that's ever gonna happen], I'd change my school's mascot to the Blazing Bureaucrats or somesuch. Heh.

Okay, back to it. I am making progress ... just not enough.

I recently posted a reply to this post over at Jacqueline's blog. The first item of my reply was:

-- Eliminate patents which are an immoral grant of monopoly, thereby drastically lowering the cost of vaccines.

This has prompted quite a reaction. Given that I decided to elaborate my view of patents.

Say what you will about Microsoft, but they are terrific at one thing: highlighting the absurdity of state-sponsored protectionism of ideas. Why Bill Gates wants 3,000 new patents -- what that c|net news headline doesn't reveal is that he's ordered 3,000 new patents to be sought per year, up from 2,000. From the long and worth-reading article:

It must feel like a bit of a stretch to come up with 60 fresh, nonobvious patentable ideas week in, week out. Perhaps that is why this summer's crop includes titles like System and Method for Creating a Note Related to a Phone Call" and "Adding and Removing White Space From a Document."

Lest you think the author's just beating up on Microsoft, another choice bit:

But patent protection for software? No. Not for Microsoft, nor for anyone else.

The article explains why. Another bit that seems to fit well here:

The moral of the story is that if you give people freedom, they will work out how to exercise it just fine. If you are inexperienced with freedom, you may be retarded in its exercise.

From the excellent St George blog.

I think everybody's seen that news story already, so I'll spare you a recounting, and just point you instead to Butler's thoughtful take on it in his latest LRC piece, Saving a Dying Corpse. One snippet:

With its newly-concocted perpetual war upon an unseen enemy -- combined with greatly expanded police powers -- the established order seeks to force free men and women back into the herd upon which its violent control over life depends. That we may take our places in the serried ranks set out for us by the state so that we remain subservient to the state, is the purpose underlying the present 'war on terror.' As with the sheep in Turkey, the consequence will be that we will follow one another over cliffs leading to our mutual destruction. In the tapestry of human history, it is but the latest expression of the state's continuing war against life.

Also worth noting is a rather separate point he makes, which strikes to the heart of my disdain for the music monopoly:

Creativity has always posed a threat to those who refuse to adapt themselves to more productive alternatives. Because we have learned to regard institutions as ends to be preserved, rather than tools to be utilized, fundamental changes that threaten the institutional order must be resisted. Such is the case with the worldwide shift from vertically-designed and hierarchically-structured systems of centralized control, toward more decentralized, horizontally-networked social systems. Feudalism -- grounded in politically-defined privileges, rights, and status -- was unable to sustain itself in the face of an industrial revolution that rewarded people on the basis of exhibited merit in a free marketplace. So, too, the neo-feudal, politically-structured institutionalized order will be unable to resist the oncoming liberalizing trends.

Have I mentioned that he's agreed to do an interview with me? :) I'm really looking forward to that one ...

I'm still intending to follow up on the SaltyPig's thoughtful inquiry on intellectual property/copyright issues on a recent post here, but it may be longer than I'd like. So, in the meantime, I offer some further reading for those interested.

First, I've added my old FMN Spotlight, Rights in Conflict? here; as far as I know it isn't available elsewhere. And just yesterday, Cory Doctorow had a nice piece examining American versus British entertainment industry players' takes on IP published at Wired: The Beeb Shall Inherit the Earth. Earlier, InformationWeek had an interesting article on the development of software that sniffs through code, looking for "open-source code being used improperly". It's a harbinger of what might not be that far off for some businesses, and possibly even personal computers (think Microsoft and their already-snoopy software): Intellectual-Property Threats Open The Market For Detection Software.

[Added: Can't believe that I forgot about this Wired article: Give your DVD Player the Finger -- RFID tags become digital rights management guardians.]

If you're not into exploring such complex subjects, how about Tom Ender's review of The Edge? I'd heard a lot about the movie before; now I want to see it even more than ever. Alas, we don't have TV reception here, but if you do, you can check his new issue of This Weekend to see when it -- and a bunch of other freedom-related and/or individualist movies -- will be playing. [I swear, either Tom never sleeps or he's got a successful cloning lab hidden somewhere.]

I hope you'll pardon me tossing together another brief post this morning; I'm still seriously behind on Salon work and need to finish that today (it should be published tomorrow, if we stay on schedule). I do have something really good for you, though, and will add a link to this site once I'm finished with my Salon work.

From The Voluntaryist, Copywrongs by Sam Konkin III. A taste to entice you:

No, copyright has nothing to do with creativity, incentive, just desserts, fruits of labour or any other element of the moral, free market.

It is a creature of the State, the Vampire's little bat. And, as far as I'm concerned, the word should be copywrong.

And much more similarly clear-headed thinking awaits your discovery at that site.

First, though, I need to make this clear: I do not support the theft of someone's work for another's profit.

I touched on aspects of China's economy that seem better than elements of our market in a previous post, Free Market Musings. A USA Today article focuses on the music industry, and shows pretty conclusively why the RIAA's approach is backhanded, and ultimately will fail (though not without very high prices exacted first): If pirating grows, it may not be the end of music world. Well, it already isn't the end of it, but headline writers aren't known for being big of brain, so I'll let that pass and cut to the chase. An extended quote, with some irrelevant bits lopped out:

Yu Quan, like every music act in China, gets almost no income from CD sales, even though millions of its CDs have been sold. As soon as a CD is made, the pirates are on the street, offering them for a fraction of the retail price. Stores sell pirate copies. Legitimate CDs all but vanish.

So artists have to regard CDs as essentially promotional tools, not as end products. Yu Quan makes money by performing concerts, getting endorsement deals and appearing in commercials. If people hear and like Yu Quan's songs on pirated CDs, at least they'll be more likely to come to the concerts and buy what the duo endorses.

It's possible that this is the future of the global music industry. And even though that sounds dire for music and musicians, surprisingly it might not be. ....

Music pirating is so rampant and so entrenched in China that it's unlikely to ever be eradicated. Chinese consumers have come to believe that music is worth, at most, a few cents a song, and that copying and sharing music are totally acceptable. In all probability, no company will ever be able to sell $15 CDs or 99 cents-a-song downloads in the world's most populous nation.

The International Federation of Phonographic Industry, which tracks music copyright issues worldwide, agrees. It figures 95% of music sales in China are of pirated copies. Instead of predicting that China will change as it engages with the global economy, the federation warns that China is, in fact, the leader. The federation's chairman, Jay Berman, has been quoted as saying, "The business model for the record industry worldwide is moving toward resembling what we see in China today."

In the USA, free downloads of copyrighted music are driving the recording industry to sue teenagers and holler about the morality of obtaining songs for free. But if China is the future, that's all in vain. The genie is out of the bottle. Eventually, recorded music will no longer make money.

That would be nice for consumers and really bad for record companies and retailers. But the biggest concern is that this will be terrible for artists. If artists can't earn money, economic logic says they might stop making music, which would be a major loss for society.

But is that equation true? While visiting USA TODAY last week, Roger McGuinn, who led the Byrds in the 1960s, said he earned just 0.0007 cents on each early Byrds album sold. He adds that although Arista Records sold 500,000 of his solo album, Back From Rio, McGuinn never got a penny. In other words, thanks to the machinations of the recording industry, McGuinn has never made any real money on even his most popular recorded music.

Yet he's done OK and now has a forward-thinking business model. He has a Web site, www.mcguinn.com, where he posts free songs. McGuinn made his most recent solo CD by recording it on his laptop and paying to have copies produced and packaged. He sells the CDs online and at concerts and says it's the first time he's ever made a profit on an album. [Emphases and hyperlink to Roger McGuinn's site mine]

Need I say more? Well, perhaps: adapt or die.