Posts by Rob Stowell
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
The "fairness" of the business model that sells people copies is simply that it means people pay for what they consume. Under that model, noone gets paid for creating content noone wants to consume: brilliant or not (funding that sort of content is traditionally the role of the Creative NZ </tee hee>- or patrons or enthusiasts or artists).
Of course I'm not advocating that content creation be limited to 'professionals'. It's a stupid position on so many levels.
I'm just standing up for the quaint old notion that people who create content should have the right to profit from other people's use and enjoyment of it.
And that we all benefit from there being a financial incentive to create content: basic copyright 101.
Let's say we limit copyright to the supposed societal maximum benefit of 14 years. Accepting that this is the best for society, if not for creators, would you be willing to accept a strictly enforced 14 year term?
Because it's easy enough to see that eternal copyright that's unenforced is worth less than 14 years with strict policing.
I suspect you wouldn't. Bbecause it's claimed (not, it has to be said, with any empirical evidence) that any strict enforcement of copyright will break our new techno-socio-cultural marvel, teh intertubes.
I think of this perspective as Internet Absolutism.
Nothing that threatens the free flow of the new God WWW is to be countenanced- whatever the consequences.
So you all support copyright- but only if it's unenforced!
Yeah? -
Sacha, that's not what the figures say, unless you speak some statistical language I am unaware of. For a start, it's a phone survey- so it's not a record of what happened, but of what people told researchers over the phone. Second, it was intended to look at trends relating to general economic health- not absolute numbers. Third, it would seem quite unsurprising that people who are interested in music, both download and buy more music than people who are not. Not that the figures tell us this- but it's a possible interpretation.
It's amusing to hear the repeated assertion there's no credible evidence anyone's sales are being hurt by downloads- yet it's simultaneously urged "the creative community" is foolishly hiding its head in the sand for not embracing the 'digital culture of abundance' and looking for new business models- essentially based on giving their content away.
If there's no credible evidence sales are being hurt, they'd be pretty stupid to change a business model based on sales, wouldn't they? -
Not a lot of film and television is made by amateurs, Mark. Some. Music, yep- but not that much that I'm listening to at present ;-)
Novels? Well, some, for sure. But even when the odds are low, the possibility of making money is quite a motivator, even for artists.
And then there are newspapers and magazines, software, games... mostly currently produced by professionals who do- or hope- to make money.
I'm quite aware that currently "content creation' is funded by a melange of funding models. I just favour the last, because it seems eminently the fairest on all concerned- and I think it'll be a shame if it's over.
The 'scarcity' model you're talking about is based on the scarcity of copies. Yes, that's over. There are amazing opportunities to lower the cost of copies, cut out middle-men and reach wide audiences. Some of these have been completely missed, or mis-managed- granted.
The cost of production, however, has not changed much. Mostly it's people's time. The question you've rather failed to answer is- how else do we fund that?
Seemed like a simple enough question.
I can't see any reason in principle why consumers can't get much lower prices, and creators also still get a reasonable return- since copying and distribution costs have been so reduced.
As it happens, I'm more on the consumer side of things than you think- and yeah, I've got my head around it. Like tussock- and, let's face it, probably half the 5-year-olds out there- I have the 'professionalism' to make digital copies of other people's work. Click, click.
Mark, you said you were a creative, and didn't download copyright material yourself because you thought creative work deserved a fair return.
So how do we pay content creators fairly?
Your answer is simply that we don't. Sorry. That's yesterday's model.
I think you're naive to think that won't have profound effects on what culture gets produced, by whom, and for what end.
And I also think whenever we give up being fair for convenience, we lose something else with it. -
I know Simon will immediately say it's not this simple ;-) -but remember, we're not just talking about music.
Here's a question-
Do you want all this wonderful content- books, films, music- to be mostly created by amateurs?
Or should it be funded by Govt grants?
Or funded by a tax or levy on internet use, distributed by a Quango?
Should 'creative content' be carefully crafted to incorporate a sponsor's message?
Or how 'bout the people who consume it pay a reasonable price back to the content creators?
The last seems so evidently the best option in so many ways, I'll be sorry to see it go. -
People want to have the real thing simply because it's much cooler. It's simply not cool to own the pirated version if you're a 'fan' and you aspire to a legit copy.
Interesting. I haven't been to Indonesia, but talking to folk who've travelled in the region, it sounded like a job to buy legit (especially movies). The pirated versions were everywhere, and many looked so good, even the "legit" outlets are said to sell them.
Question: is this what the kids think too?
My feeling is there's a generational change. That's why I'm sceptical of the "it's not hurting sales at all" line. My kids listen to a lot of music, and they used to buy it- or ask me too.. but they don't any more. I've mentioned it before, but one got a music voucher from a relative for (a few back) Xmas, and gave it away- why would you need to buy music?
Trend-shifting, they listen on-line more and more, as opposed to down-loading, though. Bands may glean something back. Not great for the family bandwidth. -
... and it means you simply cannot read Huck Finn - IMHO one of the greatest books ever- aloud anymore. That's a shame...
-
Sounds nice and simple, Don, but it raises a host of moral, legal and practical questions that are, ahem, just as tricky as the current situation.
Eg: it seems morally questionable to tax everyone (including Mark) for copyright infringements they personally ain't indulging in. If we tax it, aren't we telling the people who don't do it- it's ok, you're paying for it- go ahead?
That raises the legal question: does it then become legal to download? Anything? The latest windows OS? MS won't love NZ... and linux won't necessaily benefit, unless MS just curls up in a ball and dies...
If it's legal, we're talking about a very different world (and NZ way out in front). What is then to stop people from copying and on-selling? Does that become a legit business model?
If it remains just as illegal, but we don't prosecute... won't the big corporates still have the RIGHT to prosecute? What will stop them?
Especially since... you're assuming a solution to a practical problem you and Mark have declared to be intractable: to fairly distribute said internet tax to those who've had material copied, we need a system that tracks downloads- that knows what people have copied. Otherwise it's just a guesstimate bunfight- and assuming "independents" will win that is naive.
So let's say we can get that data... what's to stop those who still wish to pursue their legal rights using that same data to sue? It'd be fairer, assuming such data, for those who download to be "micro-charged" specifically for what they DL. But then... we again incentivise people to encrypt their downloads and not pay....
Doesn't seem so simple to me. And that's before we've even started down the line of applying to a Govt Dept to be paid for one's music/programme/software/game/widget. -
Don't know how many of those opinions you looked at Mark, but I thought about half sounded (at least mildly) enthusiastic. Though, ahm, wary. Which makes sense to me.
Music is one thing. Film and television are also staring this in the face, and books may well be too.
t's all very well to talk about "new models" but what if it's just too close to impossible to compete with free?
It's gonna change "culture" considerably. Who'll bet on it mostly being good?
Simon, licencing deals are grand, for those who can get them. But at the least, if that's the primary means of recouping, it's going to mean a change in what gets (funded to be) recorded. Might be good, might not. WTR people chosing not to own, but listening on-line: my kids listen to music on youtube. Hardly ever watch the video, just have it playing... Unintended but quite pervasive, I think.
Copyright still "works" *ok* (for the copyright facists who think they can claim *ownership* of their cultural creations;-) when there's an entity big enough to be worthwhile suing. Licencing deals aren't in much danger. Is that where copyright will sit? Free to consumers, but cost to businesses?
And in the meantime, we have who- Simon Power? beavering away to come up with new law. Anyone willing to bet it's something Mark and Don love? All paua too him, but it'll be truely astonishing if he takes copyright in NZ in a bold new direction. I wouldn't put a lot of money on ISPs being completely off the hook. -
Thing is, Mark, finding a 'business plan' in recorded music- and even more in film and tv- when its value to the consumer is 0c is... not simple.
The "pay per play" idea- or everyone having a vast digital collection online for a small access fee- both offer possibility. But it's worth noting the scepticism of some of these "players" about the eventual ability of such services to pay a price both sides can live with. (That's already apparent with the youtube debate.)
As Glenn Peoples says in the Billboard piece linked to,... just as he did in "The Long Tail," Anderson did not draw enough distinction between marginal cost – which in the case of digital distribution is zero – and average cost. When Anderson writes that "the marginal cost of digital information comes closer to nothing," what he means is the marginal cost of distributing that digital information. There are significant costs in recording music. The cost of creating a brand and inducing awareness, other considerations Anderson understates, are both unavoidable and considerable. An insignificant cost of creating and distributing one more digital file does not reflect the amount of investment to be recouped.
There's a little more in this than "industry people" wanting to (further) feather their nests. It comes back to robbery's original feelings of misgiving: "free" sounds great, but it'll have down-stream effects we may not like so much.
Personally, I have a very low tolerance for advertising wrapped round my culture.
I'm not robbery ;-) Unlike him, I tend to agree that free is not just where it's at, but where it's likely to stay. Like him, I'm not prepared to call it a great leap forward. -
For some sober assesments of where free music is heading, this Hypebot page pulls together a good range of opinion.