logictortured.com Blog

Why Do Tube Amps Sound Louder Than Solid State Amps?

It’s a common belief among guitarists that tube amps are louder than solid state amps. I’ve seen little 30 watt tube amps blow away ginormous 100 watt solid state amps. This is not a myth, it’s a fact. Here’s why.

First, it must be pointed out that watts are watts. Tube wattage is not different from solid state wattage. It’s simply ohm’s law.

W = I2 x R

By any objective measure, 50 watts from a tube amp is identical to 50 watts from a solid state.

So why do tube amps sound louder?

It comes down to two things. How the wattage of amps are rated and how tube amps clip/distort differently from solid state amps.

An amplifier’s wattage rating is not a measurement of its maximum output. The wattage of an amplifier is rated at its highest output without clipping.*

Here’s a picture to show what clipping is:

As the wattage is increased, the amplifier reaches a threshold where the highest outputs are clipped off. This clipping causes distortion. In a PA system, it would suck. In a bass amp this would suck. But guitar players use this clipping to modify and add to their sound.

The next part of the puzzle is this: tube amps clip different than solid state amps.

Tube amps clip gradually as the wattage is increased while solid state amps remain clean until they’re suddenly very clipped/distorted.

The gradual clipping of a tube amp adds to the flavor of a guitar. A guitar player using a tube amp can play harder to get more clipping and play softer to play smoother. These subtle nuances add character to a player’s sound. The sudden massive clipping of a solid state simply sounds like shit. There are no subtle clipping nuances with a solid state amp, it’s either not clipped or fully clipped.

Based on the foregoing, manufacturers of solid state amps set their volume knobs to nearly 10 before the clipping starts. So to get a 50 watt solid state to full wattage, you have to turn it up nearly all the way.

Manufactures of tube amps know that guitar players want clipping, so they take that into consideration when they set their volume knobs. So a tube amp reaches its maximum wattage at a much lower volume setting. Probably 3/4 of the way up. Sure it’s clipping past that point, but it’s a warm and good sounding clipping.

So if you turn up a solid state and a tube amp to 10, the solid state is pushing its full 50 watts, and probably sounds like shit because that bad clipping would be starting (unless its a very high quality solid state amp such as a Fender or a Roland**). while the tube amp would be pushing more than 50 watts. The tube amp would be clipping, but it would be that good sounding clipping.

And of course a 50 watt tube amp set to 5 is putting out more watts than a 50 watt solid state amp set to 5.

I should point out that I’m not arguing that tube amps are “better” than solid state amps. I’ve owned plenty of solid state amps in my life and only a few tube amps. And furthermore, objectively speaking, solid state amps are cleaner and are less prone to clipping. However, subjectively people like the sound and warmth of tube amps more, despite their objective faults. Well, that’s not right. People like the sound and warmth of tube amps more because of those faults.

*This is how the wattage of quality amplifiers are rated. Measuring the maximum output including clipping is one way how low-quality amplifier manufacturer’s cheat. Another way they cheat is by measuring the peak and not the average (RMS) wattage. Thus you can find 2000 watt amplifiers for only 77 bucks on Amazon. If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.

** Speaking of high quality solid state amplifiers, back in the early 90s I used a Fender Princeton Chorus. It was only 50 watts, but it rocked. Actually, it was even less than 50 watts. It was actually two 25 watt amplifiers in stereo. So basically I was playing through two 25 watt amps each into its own 10″ speaker.

But it was loud. Not as loud as the singer’s tube Fender Twin (which I think was rated at 25 watts), but plenty loud enough. I never had any problems at any show we played.

Generally speaking, the vast majority of tube amps are of a high quality. There simply is not a market for low quality tube amps.

However, the vast majority of solid state amps sold are of a lower quality. A 25 watt Crate solid state from the 80s would never have been loud enough to play in a band. I know because I used an 80′s built 75 watt Crate 2×12 combo in the early 90s and it was not loud enough. (Luckily some one gave it to me for free.)

So if two guitar players are in a room, one with a tube amp and one with a solid state amp, statistically speaking, the tube amp is going to be of a much higher quality than the solid state. As I explained above, that’s going make the differences in volume much more apparent.

However, if the solid state was a Fender or a Roland, there would be no discussion of, “Why is your little amp so much louder than mine?”

Share this:

Geek Defined

A non-geek uses technology to better or improve his life.

A geek modifies technology to better or improve his life.

A non-geek modifies his life to fit around technology.

A geek modifies technology to fit around his life.

A non-geek asks, “What does this do?”

A geek wonders, “What can I make this do?”

Share this:

Microsoft’s Bing does not read minds

Microsoft has a new advertisement about its search engine Bing. The ad has two guys shopping. One guy asks the other guy whether they should get salsa. The other guy starts talking about salsa dancing.

The point of the ad is that language is ambiguous. And due to that ambiguity, internet searches can be filled with irrelevant results.

The selling point of the ad is that somehow Bing cuts through the ambiguity inherent in language and somehow “knows” what you’re really searching for.

My hypothesis is that Microsoft has developed mind reading technology. To test that hypothesis I’ve decided to do three searches of the word “salsa.” During the first search I’ll think about how delicious salsa is to eat. During the second search I’ll think about how sexy salsa dancers are. And during the last search I’ll think about pink elephants. Here we go….

Ok, I’m back. I did the three searches and got the exact same results each time.

As you can see, Bing did not read my mind. Despite the fact that I was thinking about salsa to eat and sexy salsa dancers, I got results about bicycles. What’s up with that?! What does bicycles have to do with eating salsa or sexy salsa dancers?! And not once did I get any results about a pink elephant eating salsa or a sexy pink salsa dancing elephant.

Share this:

Review: Ubuntu Linux 10.10

My son has an AspireOne netbook which came with Windows XP installed, but it ran like a dog. It was slow like running Windows 95 on a 486 with 4 megs of ram. (Remember those days?!) Plus, despite the fact that it had almost no software installed, XP took up nearly the entire 8 gigs of its internal flash drive.

I thought about installing Windows 98se or Windows 2000 Professional on it, but those OSes wouldn’t have the drivers to run the netbook’s hardware such as the networking, camera, blue-tooth, and touch-pad.

This past weekend I finally decided to try Ubuntu. I first tried the live CD of the latest version 10.10.

(I should point out that a live CD is a CD with the entire OS burned onto it. You simply boot to the CD and you can use the OS to test it out. I actually used Universal USB Installer to install the ISO to a flash driver and booted from there.)

Anyway, I’ve tried Linux before on other systems. The problem with Linux, in my view, is that its users treat it like a rite of passage. Nothing is easy. Nothing is consistent. No one is helpful. Their attitude is that since they had to suffer through everything, you should too. Something simple such as installing new software is a mess in Linux. In Windows you download what you want to install, double click it, and follow the prompts. In Linux it’s mostly a command based process. And of course it’s inconsistent. Some versions of Linux use APT, some use yum, some use tarballs, it’s a real mess.

Here’s another example from Ubuntu. Changing your workgroup name is pretty simple in Windows. If you don’t know where the dialog box is, you can type in help for “change workgroup” and it’ll tell you how and where. In Ubuntu, as all Linux variations, you manually edit files for such mundane tasks. But you can’t simply just find the correct file, open it, edit it, save it, and be done. Nor can you simply right click on the file, chose “edit as root” to edit it. No, you have to use the command line because system files are protected against modification. That’s what makes Linux so secure… and so annoying.

The only luck I’ve had with Linux in the past is when some company, I think it was Mandrake, offered a free download of their professional version of Linux. That version came with a hand to hold onto. It had built in MP3 and DVD support. It had an easy to use interface for installing software. It had dialog boxes for changing your screen resolution and the like. I got pretty comfortable using it to the point where i could intentionally fuck it up, but still boot into the command-line to fix it. Unfortunately, I had to stop using that system because my dad wanted a computer to use, so I formatted the drive, installed XP, and gave it to him.

Anyway, I decided to try Ubuntu on my son’s netbook because it’s marketed and designed for idiots like me. And over all, Ubuntu succeeds as a replacement for Windows, but you still have to be a nerd to get it to work.

The live CD of Ubuntu set up all of my hardware. It automatically detected my wireless connection. It was much more peppy than XP. That was great. However, there were problems I could not fix without being able to edit files, and I couldn’t edit those files because it was a live version of the OS, not an installed version. In other words, nothing was saved from boot to reboot. Because it was peppy enough and because all the hardware worked, I decided to go for it and wipe XP and install it. The installation went off without a hitch.

One problem with Ubuntu is that it won’t nicely connect to Windows PCs on the network. When you navigate to Windows computers you’ll get an error saying that it can’t mount that resource. In searching for a fix for this I found this goes back way before version 10.10.

This is complete BS. Ubuntu is supposed to be a consumer OS. It’s going to be used by people with Windows systems on their network. I’ve never had a problem navigating Windows computers with any other version of Linux I’ve tried. So it seems to be Ubuntu specific.

I tried fixing it by changing the name of the workgroup Ubuntu uses to match my network. So I had to find the correct command to use, open the file, edit the file, and save the file. The command to restart Samba (software Linux uses to connect to Windows’ networks) didn’t work. So I had to reboot the netbook. That fix didn’t work.

To make a long story short, I ended up getting around the problem by using the Windows PC’s specific IP address. This is not a solution. I had to set up my Windows server to a static IP address which is not very consumer friendly. And most consumers would not have thought about using IP addresses or figured out by poking around on Ubuntu how to do it. And this is a netbook, so it should be easy to take with you and access other Windows networks without much difficulty. My work-around is sort of like using a crow bar to open the glove box in my new car and then closing it by using duct tape. Sure, it’d work. But it’s not a solution.

Anyway, my son loves Ubuntu. He agrees his system is much faster than before. He’s able to get on his flash gaming sites, e.g., Poptropica and Not Doppler. Skype works great. He’s able to download tons of free games such as Alien Arena and Freedoom. (Get it? Freedoom, an open source version of Doom. Those open source guys are so clever! Seriously, what’s the emoticon for rolling your eyes?)

As I said, XP took up nearly the entire 8 gig internal flash drive, despite having hardly any software installed. Ubuntu takes up about four gigs, and that includes its own office suite. That left plenty of space left over for those games I was talking about.

And the best thing about Ubuntu, is that they finally fixed printing. I use a network printer and Ubuntu found it and installed it. Anyone who has tried to print in Linux knows it’s generally a fricking pain in the ass. Thanks Ubuntu for finally getting that right.

What I’d like to do is install Ubuntu on my wife’s computer, which currently runs Windows 7 x64. Because it’s centrally located, everyone uses it, and because of that, it tends to get viruses. Ubuntu’s security would put an end to that. But there is no iTunes client for Linux, and my wife has a fancy new iPhone 4, so that option is a no-go for now. However, I’m still considering it. I could keep iTunes on one of the other computers for loading up stuff. I also have to find some easy to use graphic programs to use with my scanner which is connected to my wife’s computer.

What I find most interesting about this Ubuntu experiment is the discovery that we really don’t use software anymore. Remember in the old days when Best Buy had isles of Windows specific software? That’s almost all gone. Facebook, gmail, Twitter, bittorrent, etc. doesn’t care what OS you’re using, as long as you have a browser. Any cool software is usually open sourced and cross-platform, e.g., VLC. And anything that remains is still cross platform, e.g., Skype. This also makes it much easier to try alternative operating systems.

What’s interesting is that it was Microsoft which killed off the third party PC software market. Anytime a third party introduced successful Windows software, Microsoft would enter the market with its own product. It didn’t take long for companies to realize that writing software for Windows was a losing proposition. Even if you succeeded with a great product, Microsoft would simply enter the market and wear you down until you were gone.

So I have to love the irony. Because Microsoft’s greed killed off the third party software market, we are now free to stop using Windows. Thanks Microsoft! Thanks a lot!

Share this:

Too Smart for Me

Apparently you can solve any Rubik’s Cube™ in no more than 20 moves. I wish I was smart enough to understand the mathematics behind this.

Share this:

How can people afford cell phones II

I thought about getting my wife an iPhone for Mother’s Day. I researched getting a smart phone when the Droid was released. So I was sort of prepared for the cost, but even so I was still shocked.

The 16gb iPhone costs 200 bucks. That doesn’t sound too bad. But you also need a voice/data plan. That’s about $70 per month. Despite the fact that texting is nothing but data, you also need a separate texting plan for about $20 per month.

So adding it all up you’re paying about 100 bucks per month for nearly $2,400 in total over the two year plan.

I realize I’m an old fart. I realize this post makes me look completely out of touch. But I used to pay less than 100 bucks a month for rent back in the 90s.

I remember back in the bad old days when AT&T was a pure monopoly. Back then you paid a nominal amount for local calls. However, you were utterly reamed to call long distance.

AT&T’s monopoly was broken up and suddenly it became real cheap to make long distance calls. VoIP made it even cheaper.

Yet after deregulation AT&T is still reaming us. In the bad old days you could always lower your bill by making fewer long distant call. You can’t do that any more. You’re paying a ton each month even if you leave your phone turned off and never use it. And the worst part is that people are lining up to be reamed. It simply makes no sense to me.

I think a good definition of “being old” is when you’re utterly perplexed by the activities of the young. That fits me perfectly.

Share this:

Will Google become a TV network?

After watching NBC screw up yet another Olympics, refusing to show the events in real time, making it difficult to watch online, etc, it occurred to me in passing that Google could “broadcast” the Olympics on YouTube. Every single event could be streamed live. Or you could watch them when it’s convenient for you. Everyone would be happy.

The more I think about it, the more I think it’s a fantastic idea. In fact, I think eventually Google will turn YouTube into a broadcasting juggernaut.

The first problem to overcome is getting YouTube in your living room. However, that problem is already solved. There are plenty of devices in your living room which can already stream YouTube. PS3, Xbox 360, and the Wii, just to name a few. And just in case you cannot access YouTube on your living room TV, Google is building their own set-top box to make it easy.

Second, Google certainly has the technological backbone to handle the audience the Olympics would demand. If it could handle the Olympics, it’d have no problem handling a normal night’s programing.

And I have to admit that YouTube’s 720 and 1080 HD video options look pretty damn good. Not as good as blu-ray discs, of course, but way better than SD cable or satellite. While cable and satellite providers are holding onto HD programing with an iron fist and making viewers pay extra for the privilege of watching it, YouTube has the technology to put all their programing in HD.

And I’m sure some of you are thinking that YouTube uses a lot of bandwidth that costs Google a ton of money. Think again, Google has so much fiber optic cable around the country that Google essentially pays nothing for YouTube’s bandwidth.

A third problem is programing. I’m sure plenty of you are thinking, will the big four broadcasters let their shows air on YouTube? To me the question is irrelevant and incredible short-sighted.

The vast majority of programs only survive three years tops. Sure, CBS, ABC, NBC, and Fox might have tons of cools shows right now. But will those same shows be cool in three years? Probably not.

To get next years’ cool shows Google would not have to pay anyone. Google would simply let the producers put their own shows up and take a cut of the advertising.

Instead of the big four’s approach of throwing out a hand full of shows each season and seeing what sticks, Google could throw out hundreds of new shows every day.

And while the networks are constantly accused of pulling shows prematurely, before they can build up audiences, Google could let any show run its course until the producers get tired of doing it.

And let’s face it, niche programing is in. Back in the old days of television, it was about getting the largest audience possible. Shows were dumbed down so every idiot could watch. Now it’s about getting specific and narrow demographics for advertisers to target.

It simply will not matter if Google does not have even one huge hit. Because it will have hundreds of niche hits that advertisers will kill to be involved in.

And YouTube eliminates the old networks’ problem with DVRs. Remember, they live and die by ratings. Thus, the networks want you everyone to watch at the same time. All Google cares about is views. It does not matter when someone views, just that he does.

So let’s recap, chances are that YouTube is already available in your living room. YouTube has the infrastructure in place to make it possible. And there are thousands of creative people chomping at the bit to get their shows in our living room, so Google has the programming.

The question is not really whether this will happen, but when.

Share this:

The Copyright Industry and the Three Stooges

Right now the copyright industry, music, books, movies, etc., are cruising along in sinking ships. Some ships are sinking faster than others. The movie industry has record ticket sales this year while the music industry is shadow of its former self.

The “problem” of the internet as a means to cheaply distribute copyrighted material has been around since the early 90s. It’s been about two decades later and still very little action has been taken.

In watching the inaction take place I can’t help but think of the Three Stooges. Remember the Three Stooges bit where they are in a sinking row boat? They get the idea to drill another hole to let the water drain out. It was pretty funny. But it’s not that funny when it’s taken seriously and is used as a part of a business plan.

Music Industry’s Sinking Ship:

The music industry finally allowed Apple to open its iTunes music service in April 28, 2003. Windows users were not allowed in the store until October of 2003. iTunes has been very successful. But it was too late to stop piracy. Much too late.

People were sharing music online since the mid 90s. Back then they used IRC and Usenet. Those services were hard to use and were avoided by most people because of the difficulty.

The original Napster solved the difficulty problem when it was released in 1999. Suddenly, it was easy for everyone to share music.

In the four years between Napster and iTunes, people were used to downloading DRM free music for no money. If iTunes had been released in 1998, before the floodgates of Napster had opened, the music industry would be in a much different situation right now. (But let’s not forget that iTunes really only works with iPods. Those millions of people who use non-Apple MP3 players could not take advantage of iTunes and were forced to use P2P services because there were no legitimate services available to meet their needs.)

But I don’t blame Napster. I blame the music industry’s refusal to take action in providing a service people were willing to use.

Book Publisher’s Sinking Ship:

A similar thing is happening with eBooks. There are publishers and authors who are refusing to release eBooks out of fear of piracy. Think about that for a second. They refuse to give customers a legitimate eBook option because they’re afraid someone else might choose to download it from a widely available and free illegitimate source.

People were sharing music for a decade prior to iTunes opening. The delay in releasing legitimate music did not delay or impede pirated music. It caused and facilitated pirated music. When consumers were faced with no legitimate option, they used Napster.

When a Kindle owner looks for his favorite book in eBook form and is unable to find it on Amazon, where is he or she going to look? The Pirate Bay? Most likely, or somewhere else.

How does not providing a legitimate eBook for customers stop piracy? How could anyone think something so completely ludicrous. I actually think this refusal to sell legitimate eBooks is more asinine than drilling a second hole in a sinking boat.

Movie Industry’s Sinking Ship:

A similar problem is happening with the movie industry. DVD sales are sinking and blu-ray sales are not taking off. It’s partially the fault of the economy, but it’s also a simple fact that the vast majority of people have no need to own a copy of a movie.

Sure you might be a huge fan of the Godfather and maybe you watch it every month. But who really needs to see Paul Blart: Mall Cop more than once? The vast majority of movies are at best, one time events. The vast majority of people who enjoy movies do not obsess over them to the point of watching and re-watching them. The entire business model of people buying hard copies of movies was nothing more than an anomaly.

You might remember an advertisement from several years ago, I think it was for a company called Quest, about a little motel offering every movie ever made. That service is technically possible. Who would not love a service where they could instantly rent any movie or any TV show ever made for a couple of bucks. A few bucks for high def.

But the movie industry is paralyzed. There’s the old DVD/Blu-ray division that is trying to prop up that dead model. There are theater owners worried about their business being marginalized. There’s actors, producers, music people, and the studios all fighting for their cut. And everyone is demanding too much of a cut.

While the movie industry spins its wheels, you can currently get nearly any TV show or movie via bittorrent in about an hour or two. Heck, you can get the entire series of any TV show you want in about 6 hours.

By the time the movie industry finally gets its act together and provides the service I described above at a fair price, will it be too late? The longer they wait, the lower the “fair” price will be. If this service had been introduced back in the early 00s when downloading a movie was unheard of, they probably could have charged a 10 buck rental rate for the privilege of getting it instantly without leaving your house. But now that people are used to getting movies they want without any DRM restrictions, they’d only be willing to pay less. My guess is that $5-6 for a HD rental and $3 for a SD rental.

But of course someone within the industry would complain that the price would cut into its DVD sales and would interfere with its broadcast licensing deals. And they’d be afraid of piracy if they put their movies online. And they’d be afraid of marginalizing some other profit area. So even if this system is ever opened, I highly doubt the prices charged will be considered reasonable.

Cause and Effect:

Of course the copyright industries will bitch about piracy. They’ll blame the immoral pirates and downloaders. They’ll claim we need new draconian laws to prop up their business models. They’ll eventually turn copyright laws in to our next drug war. Already people are being ordered to pay millions of dollars merely because they have 24 dollars worth of music on their computers. (For those not familiar with the Jammie Thomas case, there was no evidence presented at trial that she shared any music with anyone unauthorized to have it.)

But the problem was not caused by piracy. Piracy was caused by the copyright industries’ refusal to provide what customers wanted. In the 90s, music fans wanted to buy MP3s. The music industry did not let them. In the 2000s movie fans wants wanted portable movies, or to stream movies from their PCs to their TVs, or to watch movies on their laptops without discs, etc. But the movie industry refused to offer such services. As we speak book authors and publishers are forcing eBook fans to go to the Pirate Bay because the authors and publishers refuse to provide any legitimate option.

I’ll say it again, pirates did not cause piracy. The internet did not cause piracy. Piracy was and is caused by the lack of any legitimate, reasonably priced, and easy to use alternatives. It’s their fault, not ours. But we’ll probably end up paying for it. I only wish this comedy was a joke.

Share this:

We are the enemies of the RIAA, let's hope we win the war!

We all know about the RIAA’s legal onslaught against its fans, suing people who download and share music.

In a related situation, Canadian copyright organization Access Copyright had this strangely paranoid thing to say about its customers:

It’s a simple fact that users outnumber us. But Canadian users involved in the online debate are so adept at leveraging the internet and social networks to their advantage, there’s a danger that your voices as Canadian creators and publishers will be drowned out by the chatter.

It seems bizarre to treat your customers as enemies. To sue them for loving your music. To think of them in “us versus them” terms. Why can’t the copyright industry get along with its customers?

The reason is that the copyright industry doesn’t really have customers. And because we’re not customers, the copyright industry exists solely because the government forces us to pay. And lastly, if the copyright industry gets its way, copyright will eventually trump our rights guarantied by the United States Constitution. if I’ll explain all that in a bit.

Copyrights are not property:

Someone will argue that the RIAA and Access Copyright are forced to treat some customers as the enemy because the users are stealing their content. Some might analogize that the RIAA suing a customer for stealing music is no different from Wal-Mart having a shoplifter arrested.

Of course the problem with the argument and analogy is that copyright infringement is not theft. The United States Supreme Court specifically held that in Dowling V. United States, 473 U.S. 207 (1985). It’s going to take some time, but I have to explain this to better explain my point.

First, copyright is not a property right. Copyrights and patents are government granted monopolies. These monopolies are granted by the United States Constitution in Article I § 8.

The Congress shall have Power to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

If copyrights and patents were property rights, there would simply be no purpose served by Article I § 8.

Property rights are a part of those “unalienable rights” mentioned in the Declaration of Independence. In other words, property rights are not given by the government, they exist naturally. So the purpose of government is not to give property rights, but to protect them. That was why Article I § 8 was included in the Constitution. Without it, the monopolies given for copyright and patents would not and could not exist.

Second, here’s a fantastic quote from one of the founding fathers explaining my second point:

If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of everyone, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density at any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property. — Thomas Jefferson

What Jefferson is saying is that unlike property, ideas can be shared without depriving anyone. And because ideas can be shared, and because ideas are useful, they should be shared.

Imagine if I stole your car. You’d be unable to use it, sell it, or lease it. You’d be deprived of your property.

However, imagine that I somehow made an exact copy of your car. You could still use your car, sell it, and lease it. You’d not be deprived at all. We’d both benefit from the cars.

That’s analogous to copyright and patents. There is no deprivation when a song is downloaded. The holder of the copyright still has every right and ability to use, sell, or lease the song. Of course he might be deprived a sale. And that’s exactly why infringing is illegal under the law. But merely being illegal does not make it theft.

Anyone still reading might wonder why I spent so much time talking about property rights. I could have just cited the United States Supreme Court case and been done with it. But I had to fully explain the issue before explaining my next point.

Copyrights do not exist in a free market:

When you buy property, the physical kind, not the imaginary kind, you do so mostly because the property is scarce. You don’t buy air, because currently there is enough to go around. If you go to the store to buy Pepsi, you probably won’t buy any if the store owner is giving it away. Markets exist because of scarcity. Prices are set by the demand and scarcity of the product. My shit might by relatively scarce, but there is no demand, so the price is zero. Diamonds are scarce due to a cartel and are in high demand due to advertising, so the prices are high.

However, the artificial scarcity and sale of copyrighted material is not natural. It’s fake. It’s a legal fiction enacted to create a market where one does not naturally exist.

We did not recognize this back when we bought our music on vinyl and plastic discs. Back then the labels, the distributors and retailers provided a reasonably efficient system of distributing music. It was cheaper and more efficient to simply buy an LP rather than copy an LP onto a cassette from your friend’s LP collection.

We only recognized how artificial the scarcity of copyrighted materials is when the internet came around. Suddenly everyone on the planet could download the same song with minimal costs. We all thought, “Why am I spending nearly 20 bucks for a CD when I can download the handful of songs I like for nothing?”

And here’s the deal. We were spending 20 bucks on a CD not because a free and open market demanded that price. It was because the government mandated that price by giving the labels nearly complete control over the music via very strong monopolies.

In other words, it took the internet to make us realize that we’re not customers of the labels by choice, we’re customers by government fiat.

To hammer my point here‘s an argument by copyright supporter Ben Sheffner about why we should pay for copyrighted product:

So everyone wants the product — but too many don’t want to pay for it. Hell, I don’t want to pay for it. I would love it if I could get all the movies and music I want for free. And I would love it if I could get all the BMWs, houses in the hills, and meals at Urasawa I want for free as well. But of course I realize I can’t.

He says “I can’t” but that’s simply not true. We can and we are. The reason I can’t make an exact copy of your car out of thin air is because it’s impossible. But everyone on this planet can have a copy of a song. Once again, there simply is no scarcity with copyrighted material. And the sole reason a market exists is because the government creates artificial scarcity by giving monopolies. The only real reason we can’t get songs for free is because the government created a law that says so.

The RIAA and Access Copyright understand that. That’s why they treat their customers like the enemy. Because they realize that we’re not really customers.

They’re also used to treating us like shit. Because for the past several decades we’ve only paid because we had too. The music industry did not have to give us a reason to buy, the government took care of that for them.

Freedom or totalitarianism:

However, now the music industry is faced with a situation where there is no longer any artificial scarcity. They’re faced with a situation where selling music on plastic is an utterly inefficient system of distribution. They’re faced with a situation where the current laws cannot help them.

So they’re faced with either moving their business model into the future and giving us a reason to spend money or with living in the past and having new laws created to protect a business model that is no longer relevant. It’s not surprising they’ve chosen the latter.

But I’ll go on record now to say that it won’t work. As I’ve written about previously, the reason there is so much copyright infringement going on right now has nothing to do with our failing morals or with the internet, it’s because copyright law has been expanded to such an extent that it’s nearly impossible to go a single day without accidentally and unintentionally infringing a copyright. And yet the copyright industry wants to makes these laws tougher?!

The only way the copyright industry could win this battle is if our country is turned into a totalitarian system of government. Where every bit of data and every expressed thought is analyzed by the government in order to protect the monopolies of the copyright industry.

Of course I might be wrong that the copyright industry will fail to turn our government into a totalitarian form of government. Right now our basic freedoms are being destroyed to protect the copyright industry.

You might have heard about the three strikes laws the copyright industry wants passed. These laws would force ISPs to kick users off the net who have been accused three times of copyright infringement. The copyright industry is adamant that due process is too time consuming. Which means that proof of the infringement is not necessary, merely the accusations are sufficient.

So the RIAA wants you kicked off the net for three unsupported accusations of copyright infringement. That’s three songs. The songs sell for a buck on Amazon and iTunes. So for a mere three bucks the RIAA wants you banned from the net for eternity.

Let’s imagine a different law. Let’s imagine that the banking industry gets fed up with people stealing pens out of their lobbies. These pens are expensive, a buck each. Imagine that a law is enacted stating that any person accused by a bank of stealing three pens is banned from the entire banking industry for the rest of his or her life.

Does anyone think such a law has any chance to be passed? Does anyone seriously think that such a law makes sense? Of course it would not and of course it does not. But in the crazy world of copyrights, people actually take the proposed three strikes law seriously.

If eliminating due process isn’t enough, it gets worse. The copyright industry has actually convinced judges to ban books. Yes, in America. The land of the free. Where the Bill of Rights says that the government shall make “no law… abridging the freedom of speech.” In this country copyright now trumps the First Amendment.

And here’s one last example. We’re all outraged over large jury verdicts in tort cases. Such as the infamous McDonalds hot coffee lawsuit where someone was awarded nearly three million dollars because the coffee she had between her legs spilled and burned her. Because of verdicts such as that, laws were passed placing caps on damages to keep plaintiffs from receiving windfalls for their injuries.

In my state, for example, people who are injured in automobile accidents cases can only sue for economic damages. Which is another way of saying actual damages. In other words, you can only recover for lost wages and medical expenses.

In my state people suing for medical malpractice can recover no more than $349,700 in non-economic damages. This includes death. So if a doctor slowly and painfully kills your mother through malpractice, the most her estate can get for pain and suffering is $349,700.

While some think that these caps are unfair, we generally support them because we also do not like greed. We realize that justice is about making someone whole, not giving someone a windfall. In only rare circumstances, where the behavior of the defendant shocks the conscience of the community can a plaintiff recover punitive damages. And in that case, you can only get treble damages, i.e., three times your award. (I want to stress that punitive damages are very rare. First, you cannot even request them in automobile accident, malpractice, or contract cases. Second, proving a situation that shocks the conscious of the community is a very high burden. For example, my state’s appellate court has determined that a woman being raped by an employee with a propensity to rape is not worthy of punitive damages. Apparently, rape no longer shocks the conscience of my state.)

In the criminal realm, my state requires that criminal defendants pay restitution. But, no matter how heinous the crime, the defendant can only be made to pay actual costs and expenses. He might have raped and murdered your mother, but he only has to pay for her funeral.

However, such limitations and caps are tossed aside when copyright is involved. In the famous Jammie Thomas case, wherein the RIAA sued her for downloading and sharing 24 songs, the RIAA was awarded $1.92 million. That’s $80,000 per song. Think about it, that means those 24 songs were worth more than your own life!

And if Thomas had stolen those songs on CDs in an armed robbery, the most she would have to pay is the actual cost of the CDs, about 30 bucks! Why is downloading more deserving of punishment than sticking a gun in someone’s face?!

And as I’ve pointed out, the songs only cost a dollar. That means the RIAA is not getting three times their damages. They’re getting 80,000 times their damages! Of course some will argue that Thomas has to pay for the multiple copies people have downloaded from her. However, there was no such evidence at trial that anyone actually downloaded a single song from her without permission. The songs were in a shared folder on her computer, and the public could access them, so that was enough to prove guilt. Normally plaintiffs are not allowed to speculate about damages and the like. “Could” and “possibly” are not enough. But in the wonderful world of copyrights, speculation is perfectly acceptable.

So bit by bit our rights are being destroyed all to protect the monopolies of the copyright industry. Due process, free speech, and guarantees against excessive punishment all fall under the might of copyright. Given the choice of the copyright industry creating a new business model or protecting their old business models under new draconian laws, which option do you think better serves our country’s citizenry?

Share this: