The Many Battle Fronts of Content Owners

museumpeace writes "This community constantly chews on stories like the first sale doctrine and the endless maneuvering of RIAA, MPAA, follies of DMCA and DRM in general. I think of each of those stories as like trying to make sense of a particular earthquake. In the Huffington Post, blogger Jonathan Handel succinctly lays out six tectonic market and technology forces that provide a map for all of this. Sample his point #5, the media is the money: 'Fifth is market forces in the technology industry. Computers, web services, and consumer electronic devices are more valuable when more content is available. In turn, these products make content more usable by providing new distribution channels. Traditional media companies are slow to adopt these new technologies, for fear of cannibalizing revenue...'"

Comments

What?

[esocid]

It's true that people still consume media the old-fashioned way -- but fewer and fewer do so every day. Most of the content industries are seeing flat or declining revenues and audiences.

I'm sorry but you sir must not be aware of what is going on in the world.

1. Movie ticket sales at record high.
2. Cable company reports record sales.
3. Digital sales boost music industry.

Should I go on?
He may be correct about newspapers declining, but the other points I believe are false.

Re:What?

[jedidiah]

Well, for cable you figure they already have a saturated market. All they can really
do is tread water. They continue to provide what they have always provided to whom
they always provide it (much like Microsoft).

The status quo is for cable companies to stay more or less in the same place.

If people were really doing what the commentator says then you would see a sudden
drop in cable revenue as people begin to cancel their cable subscriptions. I know
torrent freaks that have done this.

However, this is a relatively rare thing.

This article also ignores the possibility of people buying conventional
content for the express purpose of using it for thier new technology. A
bunch of DVD's ripped into a media center can be a thing of beauty.

Ultimately all content has to compete with each other. One game studio
owner once said that their games have to compete with everything else
a person could do including sex. So their games have to be better than
sex.

One part of the media market could be getting sacked by another. If the
RIAA is whining it could be because of the rise of DVD collections and
video games. It doesn't even need to be due to some other sort of "sea
change".

As I often like to say... I got distracted on my way to the CD aisle
buy that big bin of $5 DVDs and those racks of $7.50 DVDs...

Re:What?

[PopeRatzo]

I've learned that generally, I'm not very exceptional. It may be true that movie ticket sales are at record highs and digital sales are boosting the music industry revenues, but I'm guessing that a growing number of people are finding "alternative" ways to see movies and hear music. And let me tell you, the movie and music "industries" are not gonna get rich if lots of people start getting their movies and music the same way I do.

And that, more than anything else, is my hope. I haven't needed cable or satellite television for a couple of years now, yet I still see all my favorite shows (The Wire, South Park, etc). In fact, my television probably hasn't even been turned on since the Super Bowl, and before that, the World Series. I haven't set foot in a theatre except my local Imax for over a year and yet I see a couple of movies a week. Music is ubiquitous in my life, but I only buy music directly from the creators.

Good riddance, I say.

Free Market Economy

[PC and Sony Fanboy]

If companies won't provide the goods the market (read:the population) desires, then someone will. And if necessity is the mother of invention ... and the market isn't supplying what 'we' want - then someone will find it necessary to modify the offerings of various companies to fit our 'needs'.

Plain and simple, if you aren't supplying a product that people want ... then don't complain when people use alternatives (legal or not!)

Content value = zero

[cdrguru]

What has happened is a complete disconnect between the content producers and the consumers. At least most of the content producers view their material as something extremely valuable that took their time, energy and creativity to produce. Consumers are looking at it thinking that anyone could produce this, maybe even their neighbor in his garage.

The problem as the article points out, is there too much, too low quality and too easily sampled content out there. In this glut we have Darwin Reedy (of American Idol fame) and every other self-produced, self-promoted "artist" out there thinking they are what the world has been waiting for. Too much!

So you have a truely talented artist or performer and their stuff is dumped in the bin with all the rest. We've moved beyond the point where people are looking at professionals for guides to quality. Instead, we're looking at blogs and overloaded paid shills and seeing that they have no monopoly on the truth.

Where does this go? Well, content has zero value today is a good start. If you are thinking of a career in something involving creativity, forget it - it isn't a career but only a hobby. Copyright is probably dead because it is hoping we will respect something as a treasure when it is clear it has no value. Software, books, movies and music are now going to be created by unprofessional folks that will occasionally turn out a gem. But there aren't going to be any more reviewers or awards that mean anything so they will likely be overlooked.

Think of it as the open source revolution for content. Most of it, like open source software, will be unfinished and unpolished. Sometimes, there will be something great that comes of it.

But the fact that will remain is that no matter how great it is, the value will still be zero.

Re:the term "disruptive technology"

[nine-times]

i think the music industry would never have been able to get in front of this steamroller

I think your point would be better served to agree that the music industry could have gotten in front of this steamroller, but they would have gotten run over anyway.

I half agree with you and half disagree. The music industry cannot survive as-is in the Internet-age because their business model, centered around distribution, is obsolete. However, that doesn't mean that they can't survive in some form. There's still room for them to act as agents, marketing/branding whatever they can, and making money of merchandizing and general crap.

Also, there can be a business model from the Internet distribution. Being the content host (or even just the tracker site) and providing recommendation engines can still be a feasible business. Whether you charge a nominal fee per transaction, a small subscription fee, or live off ad revenue, there would be a business model there.

Think of it this way, if copyright law was dismantled tomorrow, Apple could still make money off of iTMS. Not having to pay labels, I think they could still have a viable business. You might think people would just find other free sources, but the fact is that customers are willing to pay a little bit of money (at least a little) in order to have a site that's easy to search, has good/uncorrupted content, a good shopping experience, and a decent recommendation engine.

Re:the term "disruptive technology"

[multisync]

there is simply no way for the music industry to harness the internet to their continued existence. the internet, the substance of it, is simply anathema to what they do: charge a fee for music distribution. the internet is simply replacing them. effortless free distribution has no economics too it. there's no money to be made

But distribution isn't all the "music industry" does. From my perspective, that's a relatively small piece of the puzzle.

Someone still needs to scout talent; just because you can pound out off-key versions of your classic rock favorites, that doesn't necessarily mean anyone else wants to listen to it. Someone needs to work with artists, to help them develop and hone their craft. Someone has to put up the money needed to record CDs and produce videos, and put the artist together with the right producer, the right engineers.

A&R people take the 40 or 50 half-finished songs the band has been working on and help them select the one's they believe people are more likely to pay to listen to. Others promote the band, pay off radio stations to play them, do advance work in cities the band will be performing to create a buzz and drum up ticket sales.

These are all services music fans value and as such would be willing to pay for. Traditionally, these services have largely been financed through the sale of plastic discs, and that may no longer be possible - at least on the scale the industry is used to. That's why the need for a new business model.

But it is no more correct to say you can not make money off music in the Internet age than it is to say you can not make money off software in the age of FOSS.

Barrier to entry...

[argent]

There's a barrier to entry for bloggers who do want to do legwork. They don't get the same access as reporters. Can they get into the city council meetings to report on them? Council meetings, probably, but there's lots of other places they can't.

As I said in another message: the question isn't whether bloggers will have to do the work reporters, the question is will they be allowed to?