Slashdot Mirror
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...'"
But I loved that huge headline on the article: "Vanilla Ice Arrested."
Absolute power corrupts absolutely. indymedia
- Movie ticket sales at record high.
- Cable company reports record sales.
- Digital sales boost music industry.
Should I go on?He may be correct about newspapers declining, but the other points I believe are false.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely. indymedia
is often used, like the phrase "paradigm shift" to give oomph to other wise boring corporate blather
however, in this case, the term disruptive technology is entirely functional: the internet is completely destroying the music industry
the book industry and the movie industry are standing in handcuffs on the stairs to the guillotine, helplessly watching their brethren being beheaded. they watch in disbelief as the cheering masses they used to lord over relish the sight of the bloodsport of their demise
i'm sorry, but a free and open network where any media can be transmitted effortlessly and without interception is not a business opportunity. its a replacement for an industry based on distribution. people keep talking about the fact that the music industry could have gotten in front of changing technology and used it to their advantage, rather than change taking place without them while they sat in denial. i have the contrary opinion: i think the music industry would never have been able to get in front of this steamroller
they were never able to, no matter how much time they had to prepare. 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
of course there is money to be made in related industries: concerts, advertising tie-ins, band and brand building, etc. but anything having to do with distributing media is simply a free advertising platform, nothing more. the anicllary businesses is what the music industry will morph into, a decimated diminished form of its former self
the only way the music industry could survive unaltered by the internet is to invent a time machine and go back to the 1960s and murder the arpanet researchers. you cannot harness that which means your doom. asking or expecting the music industry to get in front of technological change and make it work for them is like asking the incan and aztec nobility to get in front of the spanish conquistadors and use them to their advantage. as in: no way that's going to happen
your doom is your doom. music distribution conglomerates are simply a business model for the historical dustbin. there is no other way to interpret what the internet means to them. the internet is not a "business challenge" for them to meet with fast footwork and fancy innovative thinking. it is simply an appointment with death. and i will be mourning their passing just as soon as i get over my shock and pain over the passing of the dtuch east india company. as in: who cares. the world keeps turning, life keeps changing. its a done deal. the story is over. goodbye sony bmg, bertelsmann, et al. buh bye. stop banging on your coffin. your dead. realize it
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
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'.
... then don't complain when people use alternatives (legal or not!)
Plain and simple, if you aren't supplying a product that people want
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.
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?
Over all a good article, but could have mentioned other things the content companies are doing which devalue the content they have. Take movies. I used to enjoy going to the movies. Now it easily costs $30 per person (much higher admission and exorbitant charge for food) to be jammed into a theater of inconsiderate people and then herded out as quickly as possible so the next showing can start. While I'm waiting for the movie to start, I'm bombarded with advertising telling me how great of time I'm having or telling me I need to buy something. It's no longer worth it.
For those that don't know, The studios (content owners) take almost all of the admission revenue and the theaters (content packaging) make their money on concession and other sales. In an effort to squeeze every last cent they can out of the goer (customer) they've lost many customers. To try to subsidize revenue, 'lost' from customers they drove away, they squeeze some more, driving even more away (snowball). How many mega-plexes have you seen closed down. Many drive-ins still offer a good experience for a reasonable price.
When a customer no longer finds going to the theater worth the cost/hassle, they might wait till it is released on DVD. If they still remember they wanted to see a particular movie they buy the DVD, pop it in their player and are blasted with an advertisement telling them not to steal the DVD they just paid for. They then have to wait through another notices about not copying the movie before waiting through the same notice in another language.
Do the studios actually believe that bombarding someone, who already paid, with irritating threats and warnings is going to increase the odds they will spend hard earned money the next time they want to see a movie?
Now it's the next time and wouldbe customer has to decide it they want to
1. Spend more money, which is harder to come by, to be inundated with advertisements and other baggage, just to have a less enjoyable experience seeing the movie. OR
2. Download it where they won't have all the other bothers. They may think it's wrong, but it doesn't matter as much to them because the perceived victim (the studio) was trying to take advantage of them and the the RIAA is mean/greedy the way they aggressively go after poor college students
The more the content provider does to irritate the customer, the more the customer will cease to be a customer.
I used to be one of the movie business' biggest customers. Now I go hiking, and the Internet gets the blame.