Speaker: ACTA: Don't sell us down the river
526 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 5 6 7 8 9 … 22 Newer→ Last
-
My market, however, would remain, possibly less-satisfied than it is at present, but exist all the same.
Much much less satisfied if orthodox economics is anything like correct.
I think you are using `market' to mean `demand', which is wrong. One can have demand without a market existing if there is no supply, which is rather the point at hand.
(The gatekeeper/consumer stuff is all rather tangential to this.)
-
But the blacksmith/cars comparison remains pretty useless. Culture and horse modes of transport don't really match up. It's a line for the media but it doesn't really become useful at second glance.
Kyle, the analogy is useful inasmuch as it shows how nonsensical it can be if you allow vested interests to dictate restrictions on the use of technology. And that is what ACTA and s92A are all about - vested interests seeking restrictions on utility of new tech, to further their existing business models. Note that a lot of creators, as opposed to their titularly representative mouthpieces, are not terribly supportive of things like s92A. There was a pretty significant creator backlash against s92A, quite contrary to the protestations of the likes of RIANZ that it was all about the artists. The artists want to talk to their fans, that's why they create. They don't create in order to enrich a bunch of suits at a label. If they can make money other than through the established order, they'll take it.
If, and I emphasise the "if", we discovered that technology meant that writers were just not earning as much and therefore were being turned off writing, that would be a concern.
Yes, but measured how? Currently-published writers? Total income across the market? If more authors are getting smaller slices of an increased aggregate income, is that a good thing or a bad thing? If the handful of really successful authors see their income diminish, but dozens more authors start making a meaningful income through increased exposure, is that a good thing or a bad thing? These questions actually matter, and matter a lot, if you want to look at technology as anything other than a tool that is entirely neutral. As soon as you start wanting to examine the economic impact of a particular technology, you get into some fairly metaphysical questions about positives and negatives. If it's bad for the existing order but good for the un- or under-exposed, is it net bad or net good? If aggregate income for the creators doubles but mean income halves, is that net good or net bad?
-
I think you are using `market' to mean `demand', which is wrong.
Only if one is rigidly adhering to a particular economics definition of market, which I quite clearly was not. Rather, I was using the word as per the definition "the customers for a particular product or service". That's no less a valid use of the word market than in the economic sense, so please don't tell me that I'm "wrong" to use market as synonymous for demand.
-
Well, no, you are wrong. Markets require a buyer and seller; that's just what a market is. Colloquial usage might differ, but when discussing public policy involving economics, colloquialisms are to be avoided.
You can hardly start going on about free market economics and then get miffed when people start talking about markets the way a free market economist would.
-
Humbly begging the gracious forgiveness of Your Pretentiousness for daring to use "market" as shorthand for "consumers willing and able to purchase the product".
For fuck's sake! -
And that is what ACTA and s92A are all about - vested interests seeking restrictions on utility of new tech, to further their existing business models.
But also to try and uphold their legal rights, not something that the blacksmiths had in their back pocket.
Yes the world has to change, but there aren't any useful comparisons because the transmission and copying of 'stuff' has never been basically free before. I don't particularly care about the blacksmiths because we have cars instead of them. I care more about musicians and writers and movie makers because we're not talking about replacing something old with something new, we're talking about trying to keep the same thing - literature, music, movies, tv shows - but in a different way. Saying "would you let the blacksmiths decide..." doesn't advance that discussion.
Yes, but measured how?
The fact that it's difficult to measure doesn't change my point - that the government should take an interest in how technology and the way it is being used impacts upon the people who create culture in our society and their ability to keep on doing it. That seems like a sensible thing for the government to be doing rather than tying us to this new international law.
-
Kyle, the technology of distribution doesn't impact on the creative urges of the creators. It doesn't change their desire to produce things for consumption by others. It changes how the consumers access the work, not the work itself. These are separate things, but it is the gatekeepers, the distributors in the current model, that are most stridently fighting to restrict this new technology.
If it was artists supporting, en masse and identifiably, s92A, I might be of a mind to view things differently, but when the artists do not support something that the distributors do it says to me that it is the distributors fighting for their very existence, not for any kind of protection of the creators. The same is seen when one looks at how little money makes it back to the artists in traditional CD transactions, which again says that the labels exist to support themselves rather than for any purpose of supporting the artists.If the government wants to investigate ways to facilitate the commerce of connecting consumers and creators, I'll be all for it. I would consider that to be a much better use of public funds than trying to find an objective measure for the "goodness" or "badness" of the applications of a particular technology.
-
Humbly begging the gracious forgiveness of Your Pretentiousness for daring to use "market" as shorthand for "consumers willing and able to purchase the product".
Er, no, that's not what you were using it to mean either, because in that case a `market' only exists when there is also supply, in which case it can't exist prior to the decision to supply a certain good, which rather contradicts your assertion that the market somehow exists independent of the supply side of the question.
-
because in that case a `market' only exists when there is also supply, in which case it can't exist prior to the decision to supply a certain good
I'd buy a legitimate Ferrari for $500. That means there is a market for a legitimate $500 Ferrari. That nobody will supply one doesn't make the demand any less real. Consequently, that means there is a market, based on the "consumer[s] willing and able to purchase the product" definition, for a $500 legitimate Ferrari.
The classic economics definition of market does indeed require both supply and demand to be fulfilled. The ordinary-English definition, however, does not. I demand the good, therefore a market exists.This has turned into a debate on semantics, with you insisting that the only valid use of the word "market" is when it is consistent with the economics definition of a structure for bringing together the supply and demand sides of a transaction.
-
Kyle, the technology of distribution doesn't impact on the creative urges of the creators. It doesn't change their desire to produce things for consumption by others.
Yup. But it could change their ability to earn money from their creations, particularly for literature, as there's not much of a live gig as a major source of income.
All the desire in the world won't keep the wolf from the door, hence it being a valid question to ask.
-
Yup. But it could change their ability to earn money from their creations, particularly for literature, as there's not much of a live gig as a major source of income.
This is very true. However, the risk with trying to determine impact is that becomes easier to just decide that there will be a negative impact on existing, established authors and that the technology must therefore be curtailed. You cannot get empirical evidence without allowing the tech to flourish, after all. All you can do is model and guess. Guessing isn't a good basis for formulating policy.
So, we come back to how to determine if it's good or bad. If we go from a million dollars a year divided amongst 20 authors to two million divided amongst 50, the existing 20 are probably going to complain loudly but the new 30 will likely be totally stoked. Society will also be culturally enriched to the tune of another 30 published authors. However, until we can find out if that's what will happen...The risk is that people look only at the existing model and say that the technology will be bad for people working inside it, ergo the technology will be bad for all creators of this kind. Except that that's not necessarily the case, and if a technology is forced to remain immature in a particular industry because of fearful reactions to disruption then it is impossible to find ways to make money from that disruption.
If the movie industry had succeeded in knocking back the VCR (cue "Boston Strangler" references from Jack Vallenti), we wouldn't have home theatre. The box office would have remained king, instead of being subsidiary to DVD and merchandising as sources of income for the studios. That is a very real, very recent example of how very, very wrong it can be to try and restrict technology because it disrupts your existing model. -
You aren't able to purchase a $500 Ferrari because it doesn't exist, so, no, in fact a market doesn't exist even in the sense that there is a `customer willing and able to purchase'. (There is in the sense of `market' in which market means `demand' but that definition is pretty lacking.)
If you are going to invoke the free market you can't then start playing fast and loose with the word `market'. In a free market system the word market has a particular meaning, and if we're going to discuss the free market you have to accept that.
-
Keir, we're going to have to agree to disagree. You want to insist on a very strict, narrow definition of a six-letter word. I want to use it as a shorthand for "demand that exists, whether or not it is met by supply", and also want to use it as part of the term "free market". The dictionary allows me to do precisely that. This is the English language, the wonderful beast that gives rise to the question "How many definitions can dance on a single word?"
I am not precluded from using the word in one sense just because I used it in the other. I refuse to allow you to circumscribe my language simply because you don't want to argue the point. -
So, I come back and the room is full of strawmen. Matthew, you have been busy.
To address one point you made that everyone else will have forgotten:
Getting people exposed to a quality product, which they then recognise as being of utility to them, is not the same as creating a new market. The market for books is not new. The market for fantasy books is not new either. The market for books based on the vampire myth is, clearly, not a new market, because the readers were very likely already reading fantasy books. Rather, there is a new interest in supplying an under-serviced market.
No. Vampire books are a long established genre. Vampires with feelings are not. Interview with a Vampire probably started this sub-genere; Buffy certainly made it cool; Twilight took it to a new audience, teenage girls. It is not a new interest in supplying an under-serviced market, but a new market.
That is all; please carry on with whatever you were talking about.
-
I do not think that expecting a consistent use of terminology is at all over the top, especially given that every time you try and define `market' you give it a different definition. I don't like being a bitch about definitions and all that but if you are going to use a term as central to your argument and yet not be able to use it coherently that really is an indication you have a bit of a problem.
I mean, this idea of a `market'? You seem to want to mean an audience, or at least a demand for a certain product, but at the same time you also use it to mean the market in the sense of `let the market decide'. But of course it can't mean both things at once. In particular, the second sense of `market' is deeply problematic when applied to culture, both on a moral and on a purely economic level*.
-
Matthew- the techology of distribution impacts HUGELY on this writer.
Cory Doctorow? - he not only has his own site, is web-savvy, but also has a very popular connect ("BoingBoing.)Neil Gaimond - I mean that author is *everywhere* And good on him.
BUT - most of us arnt like that. We dont have/want/desire that kind of
intereaction. And we sure as shit dont want to be forced into it. AND
-most importantly - our readers dont want it either.There is no way - without large amounts of $$$- any of my books are put into e-formats. The whole thing - ereaders/downloading/et al just doesnt work for the kind of stuff I write.
-
Matthew
the technology of distribution doesn't impact on the creative urges of the creators. It doesn't change their desire to produce things for consumption by others. It changes how the consumers access the work, not the work itself.
the technology of distribution impacts in so far as if the creators are not able to feed and clothe their children because people are stealing their work, they simply will not make it.
If it was artists supporting, en masse and identifiably, s92A, I might be of a mind to view things differently, but when the artists do not support something that the distributors do it says to me that it is the distributors fighting for their very existence, not for any kind of protection of the creators.
This is exactly the point I've been trying to make. Filmmakers are overwhelming against piracy and concerned about the impact on their livelihoods. I can see why other artists who have less production costs may feel otherwise. But it does rather get on my wick to see suggestions that professional filmmakers are being placed in the 'pro internet freedom' camp, without any real indication that's the case.
Finally, we are not just talking about a new form of distribution, we are talking about PIRACY. The anti-piracy measures are not about cutting off the new form of distribution altogether. Indeed, many people in the film business see the advantage of the new distribution medium, which is exactly why the writers strike happened.
The attempts of the studios and ISPs to retain control the new distribution methods are more under the problem of 'net neutrality', which is where the filmmakers are actually fighting, and where I wish the debate was more about here. But somehow we are caught up in defending the pirates, rather than looking at how we can make sure independent distributors (ie artists) can actually gain a foothold in the new medium.
Which depresses me somewhat.
-
@ Peter: Excellent to hear from a screen writer about the realities of getting work made and seen and what the copyright/piracy debate means for you. Do you see a way forward? Any blend of possibilities that could work for the artists/creators?
I don't agree with Matthew that "artists don't support something that distributors do". I'm in touch with a fairly broad spectrum of creatives - painters, writers, mostly - none of whom wish to relinquish copyright, but nor do they want to see people prosecuted for making music mashups etc. What most see is, somewhat hopefully, an opportunity to make the whole system work better for artists. It used to be somewhat easier to make the space and time necessary to create, let alone fund projects. That space has dwindled. Couple that with piracy and .... sounds like a death spiral to me.
-
Cheers Kerry.
Well, yeah, it's tough, and to be honest I don't have anything especially new or clever to say.
I'm not sure about the situation for artists that work in mediums that requite less production investment. Common sense tells me piracy will damage them too even as they take up the net as distribution. And, in fact, if recent history is anything to go buy, the more successful you are with your distribution online, the more you will have your art stolen, and the less likely you are to make a living from your additional effort. It's debatable whether to what extent the advantages of direct distribution may make up somewhat for that, depending on the production costs, etc.
At any rate, there are 3 major issues for me.
1. The technology. Is there are way to effectively limit piracy without intruding on the rights of regular users? The right to the internet is vital, and people should not be cut off unreasonably, so really, the million dollar question is constantly: can we be sure that it actually pirates we are cutting off? The MPA (which is basically the Producer's/Studios Lobby group) are constantly suggesting that they can be 100% certain, but I personally trust very little of what they say. On the other hand, the internet freedom groups can be prone to rhetoric over how much they will be damaged. So the first thing is to be clear about the technology of how things will be policed, and how much that will effect legal use of the internet.
The debate shouldn't be: should piracy be policed or not? It should be: yes, it sure as hell should, but how can we do it reasonably weighing up the rights of *both* sides?
2. How can artists become the distributors?
Firstly, let's not pretend that just because something is on the internet that the distribution is free: you still need servers, marketing, etc. So it will be very difficult for the individual artist to compete in the diverse market of the internet, when they are the 4872nd hit on google. Getting out there on facebook ain't going to cut it when there are thousands of others in the same situation. So collectives and new distribution network will be formed that will ultimately be similar to what we have now: there will always be gatekeepers. But, if we play our cards right we can have better access to the gatekeepers, and there will be more gatekeepers with more diverse interests, and hopefully less overheads.
Music is a bit of a different beast at least when it comes to the marketing/collective side of things, as it's easy for consumers to quickly sample something and decide if they like it. 'Free' radio and MTV has helped people find new music for years. Films, painting and the like are a different story in that regard. Also, music tends to be listened to over and over, whereas films and books not so much. So getting a once off free listen of a song streamed over the net is not so much of a big deal.
Anyway, one good thing in all this is that distribution will be more efficient which is good for artists with niche markets, particularly when they have a limited population such as NZ.
Given all this, the real problem is making sure that the market for distributors needs to be an even field, so that quality can actually rise. Currently, the old distribution networks (ie major studios) want to make deals with the ISPs to guide traffic to certain sites more quickly than others. So, as you can imagine that's going to cause problems for independent niche distributors who will find that if they're not able to compete reasonably as their websites are streaming more slowly and consumers will move to the big companies.
So if the distributors aren't competing it's bad for the artist (whose work they're competing for) and the consumer (whose money they're competing for).
This is why I wish we were more concerned about 'net neutrality' in this regard, because that is the sneaky issue that is going to cause us real damage if we don't keep and eye out for it.
3. Artists concerned about piracy have to make their voices heard. The people who steal our work seem to be under the impression that it is only hurting 'men in suits' somewhere, so they don't feel guilty. We need to let people know that's not the case, and that the ability for artists to create the work is being damaged, and we're not terribly thrilled about it.
-
So much to agree with there... I loved this little typo though
if recent history is anything to go buy
Very contextual!
-
Keir, I just went back and read all of my posts. My terminology has been thoroughly consistent, bar one slip where I was parroting you and said "the market" when I meant "a market". I have referred to "the market" and "a market" with absolute consistency, up until I started having to debate semantics with you because you don't appear to have a real argument. I had assumed, obviously incorrectly, that the good burghers of PAS were capable of picking up on that distinction.
If you want to sit there with a stage-one economics text in your hand and wank on about my language, go right ahead. I'll stick to a dictionary, thanks, and use "market" in ways that are perfectly, absolutely acceptable to anyone who's not desperate to play the man and not the ball. -
I don't agree with Matthew that "artists don't support something that distributors do". I'm in touch with a fairly broad spectrum of creatives - painters, writers, mostly - none of whom wish to relinquish copyright, but nor do they want to see people prosecuted for making music mashups etc.
Kerry, you just supported exactly what I said. The distributors do want to see people prosecuted for mashups. They want those dirty, rotten consumers to use the product exactly as directed and in no other manner. The artists don't, largely, and I understand that. I even said as much.
-
So collectives and new distribution network will be formed that will ultimately be similar to what we have now: there will always be gatekeepers.
Oh, totally. But that's still an adaptation to a new reality, rather than trying to enforce the status quo through statute.
I've already said that I don't quite know how we need to deal with movies. They cost more to make, though quality can be had on a low budget. As much as anything, the current system has so thoroughly entrenched its cost structure that it is impossible to make any steps toward accepting a reality that doesn't involve absolute control of every last eyeball and eardrum. This is the industry that has found it possible to "lose money" on takings of hundreds-of-millions of dollars, for crying out loud.
I also think that you're very quick to dismiss suggestions that consumers will pay for things they can get on the 'net. iTunes lends the lie to that argument. What people want is convenience, and a reasonable price. They don't want endless restrictions and crippling and all the other nonsense that the studios are trying to enforce. Your language implies that you think that anyone who's advocating for the rights of the consumer is pro-piracy. We're not, but we are against having it dictated to us how we will make use of, frequently, very expensive home theatre systems and other crap that the studios attempt to force on consumers.
-
Islander, I don't think books are going anywhere in a hurry. I happen to like them a lot, and they're the media on which the most of my purchasing dollar is spent. Please don't think I'm arguing this corner as someone disdainful of the joys of consuming the written word as ink on paper.
With respect, though, you are not the future of writing and I am not the future of reading. What works for you, and your readers, is not necessarily what will work for future authors and their readers. It is the height of arrogance (and I'm not accusing you of having this position) to say that the only way things can be done, and should be done in future, is the way that they have been done in the past and are done by you (in the royal "you" sense). Authors beginning their craft now, or in school, or not yet born, are being raised in a world far, far different to the one in which you, and even I, were raised, as are their future generations of readers. It is those generations to which we must look when we consider technology's place.
-
I've already said that I don't quite know how we need to deal with movies.
Movies are probably 5 years behind music in this issue, because of the size of their product digitally. It's only the past 5 years or so that downloading movies and TV has become common, that was 10 years ago for music.
Books currently don't seem to be on the path much at all, it'd be scary to see how powerful all three sets of publishers would be together at full court press.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.