I have to agree with this. In fact, I think one of the best solutions to the problem of selling digital media is to price is significantly lower. I think the consumer is smart, and knows that, in this case, we aren't laden with the overhead of paper costs, artwork, binding, shipping, marketing materials, etc... Consequently, many of those jobs would have to go away. Consequently there is no reason for an E-Book to cost as much as a hardcover. You'd think this would be a boon for publishers, actually. They could churn out more product with less work. They could have a much wider array of authors on their roster, because if someone isn't selling, it really isn't costing them nearly as much (especially taking into account strips and remainders.)
There is very little involvement necessary at this point in creating a book and selling it electronically. The author -- The file -- The publisher -- SOLD -- The reader. In many cases, the author might do better serving as their own publisher if they have sufficient notoriety to support themselves and market their work. Either way, there is very little physical cost in that chain. You're not paying for all those things I mentioned above.
Except that unlike the switch from Horse & Carriage to Automobile, many (not necessarily the parent) are advocating the continued presence of the content without the continued presence of the revenue. Publishers help authors by doing much of the dirty work so that authors can get on with doing what they do best...writing books. People in this chain should get paid for their work if people want the content. I don't give a damn what format the content is presented in, whether it be electronic or paper...it's the content that I'm interested in...it's the content that has value to me. Unless I plan on using the book as a paperweight, or burning it as fuel, the paperback has no value to me, and nor do ones and zeros. It's the content we pay for.
If people could get past the notion that this argument is about the container and start realizing that it's the content that the creator is trying to sell, and it's the content that the consumer is trying to buy, then maybe we could stop having these ridiculous arguments.
Trading buggy whips for manual transmissions is not analogous in this discussion to trading paperbacks / hardcovers for e-books. In the former it is the physical objects and the work they accomplish that gives them value. In the latter, it is the content of those objects, and not the objects themselves (those are another discussion entirely) that hold the value in this discussion.
I don't pay taxes on my Playstation 2, or on my couch.
You are not making money off of your PS2 or you couch. But I will pay income tax on my "intellectual property" when it sells. Or should I be taxed twice for creativity?
Wait...are you saying the creators don't deserve limited time exclusive rights on the distribution of their creations any more because they "sold out"?
People, I know we all want to "fight the man" and stick it to him, but let's not forget the people that are actually hurt here. If the corporations actually played fair and just, I say let's have them involved in this system. For those that don't, and that probably is the majority of the big guys, off with their heads, and let's return control to the people at the beginning of this chain of production...the content creators.
But while we're doing that, let's not allow them to be stomped on while we rewrite our way of looking at things. Plain and simple, if you agree with supporting those limited time exclusive rights on distribution granted by copyright law, DON'T REDISTRIBUTE THE CONTENT until such time as is appropriate per the law and the content creator. While you're at it, write your congressmen / ministers / etc... and keep bugging them to change the laws. Write your authors and ask them to push for similar things to make this fair for all.
Otherwise, sooner or later, the money is gonna stop because some people don't want to pay for their content (ever), and a lot of that content you value is gonna stop, too. Will people always write for pleasure? Sure, but from Shakespeare to Stephen King, don't tell me pleasure was the sole motivation. Don't tell me they would have had time to create their more amazing works had they also had a "day job." And let's not take that all out of context as if they never did. Sure, many of us require multiple sources of income while we're starting out...but if at some point we don't have the time, energy and money to really devote to something, it can be very difficult to produce high quality work.
I'm not saying that all aspects of the profession tend toward high quality, but I will say that moving in the opposite direction will tend toward overall mediocrity.
Embed advertising in ebooks, the same as in magazines and newspapers, and give the ebooks away. Frankly, so long as actual books are still available in their traditional form, I think this is a perfectly logical approach. You get the convenience of storing multiple texts on a single display, with the inconvenience of advertising, for the convenient price of "free", and can conveniently distribute it to whoever you like (doing double duty...promoting the work on behalf of the publisher, and sharing material that you enjoy or found useful.) If you don't want the advertising, you spend money on the hard/soft copy, get to "own" the copy, and get first sale rights.
The end-user (reader) is happy, the author and publisher get paid, and the advertisers get additional exposure via technical media - and at a reasonable gamble if they advertise on something they think could be the next big thing. I'm not really sure anyone loses in this deal.
People require air to live. Given that we are dealing with a commodity here that is not required to live, and in fact not required at all, that people desire anyway, I think compensation from those who desire it is due if they intend to use it.
If you had read my entire post, you might have noticed that context.
True, unless the RIAA can find some incentive to offer the Telecom industry...a compromise they are probably more likely to make than one with their consumers and content creators.
I could just as appropriately cite the analogy of not wanting to pay for national highways that I don't drive on, but my taxpayer money goes there anyway...or for wars I don't believe in, etc...
I would go for that provided:
A) The majority of the "fee" goes to the performers/writers (at present the majority goes to the labels/RIAA and the people that actually MAKE the music get tossed a few pennies if anything).
Much as I'd like to see that happen, I don't think the RIAA will ever allow it. Performers/Writers simply lack the negotiating power (ironic, since they are the content creators) to convince the major labels. I agree with your notion wholeheartedly, though. I'm all for paying the marketers, and those who maintain the websites, file containers, etc...but the content creators really should get the top of the compensation.
B) No DRM, or cross-platform DRM. Of what is out there (allegedly) free, I often get left out if I can't play it, or it is in a format that hacks and sputters as it chews all of my CPU. My linux machine will play DVDs, but my windows machine (with more CPU) never was able to keep up. No DRM would be preferable, but if not, at least make it functional.
I think if there was a way to support a flat fee for media, DRM should become compltely unnecessary. Here's what I suggest. For those that only use the internet for e-mail, chat, and very basic functions, leave dial-up out of the deal...i.e., no fee for dial-up customers. Tack on the fee for broadband customers, instead, who are far more likely to be using their service to exchange media. What small amount of media gets shuttled around on dial-up overnight should be irrelevant and a fair "loss" to the media companies. Not sure how to deal with claims by companies that require broadband for moving large quantities of data around, but it does seem unlikely that their employees aren't using the internet for media at some point during the day...whether for entertainment or research.
The media companies get paid, hopefully the content providers and the customers can provide enough pressure to make sure the content creators get their fair share, and everyone can share their media around as much as they want...DRM free.
C) Host rate able to keep up with my connection. Constantly buffering while streaming is not cool. I don't care if it pushes 600k/sec, but if the stream wants 100k/sec at least be able to push that. If they can't push that much, then that is what P2P is made for. Don't want Pirate Bay? Run your own tracker/seeds. (Give better quality and they will flock to YOUR tracker as opposed to others.)
I say just leave the streaming behind. It's a little inconvenient, but I think streaming just gobbles bandwidth unnecessarily. If DRM is done away with and we're paying a flat fee anyway, let's just own the material. Those that like it will try to keep it around, backing it up on HDs, CDs and DVDs, and those who are done with it will delete it. If they want it again later for some reason, they can always retrieve online for free. Again, the customer pays, the providers are paid, and everyone is happy.
The whole flaw with this model simply comes down to tracking who deserves to get the money. If the media companies put their money into simple, fast distribution networks (instead of into legal fees and legislative "inspiration"), people will most likely come to their sites to download the material. I presume that's basically how Netflix tracks their on-demand stuff. If you want to watch Heroes, you'll know you can get it quickly and easily at NBC.com. Or perhaps they contract the work out to other networks, the way they do iTunes. The first way they have some control over "brand loyalty" (and yes, I feel dirty even thinking that way), but the second way makes it simple for the consumer to find what they want without having to remember whether Paramount or Warner "produced" the content.
There may be other flaws associated with such a model, but given the state of the current system, I think it's a discussion wholly worth having. I only wish the RIAA, the MPAA and other such organizations would follow suit and a
Couldn't agree more. With the power and clout of the RIAA, you'd think the big 4 and those smaller member labels could gang up and construct the ultimate online powerhouse production, distribution and marketing system. It would be simple, accurate, safe, and would serve as a huge promotional tool for the selling of merchandise, concerts, and music licensing (merch and licensing, as opposed to the music, being the two things the record industry really cares about anymore, anyway.)
Seriously. People could still P2P, but as long as they could support the bandwidth, I think the average user would just get their music from "the RIAA store.com" or whathaveyou. And if people did get their music from P2P, it wouldn't matter because it would be paid for by this "subscription" fee anyway.
Of course, the odds of such a thing happening are astronomical, and that is the real reason members of the RIAA are losing money. This opportunity is huge. The writing is on the wall. They simply choose to ignore it.
otherwise let the free enterprise system work the way its supposed to. Except it's not working the way it's supposed to. People are exercising rights they do not have in copying-and-distributing works they do not have such rights for. You can make copies for yourself, as backups, or for private use, but you do not have the right do redistribute those copies...hence the term, "copyright." We can get all semantic about the relevance and history of copyright, but that's where the notion currently stands. This unauthorized distribution is denying artists and writers of fair compensation. For those that say, "I wouldn't buy it anyway," why the hell did you download it? Short of "research", I can think of no reasonable excuse that does not somehow consist of personal entertainment, or some use of the work for personal profit.
Remember, it's not the copy that's the commodity here. It's the music itself that people desire. The fact that it's just a bunch of easily duplicable ones and zeros is irrelevant. Music itself is just a pattern of waves over air. That people derive satisfaction from it is good reason for the artist / writers to receive compensation for it if they so desire.
Of course, this entire argument is complicated by the fact that the RIAA is a demonic monster, completely uninterested in the welfare of it's constituent's artists and writers. I have no sympathy for their position. I do however sympathize with many of the indy labels that are trying to do different things to get their artists and writers, as well as themselves, compensated for their time, effort, energy and creativity. Frankly, the RIAA is ruining the pudding for everyone.
The industry has no right to survive, just an obligation to provide something 'we' like to ensure their survival, exactly the same as my customers Poster is correct on this point, of course. The record industry has about as much right to survive as the salt industry of ancient times, the weapons "industry" of the medieval era, or the horse and buggy industry at the advent of the automobile. The customer should be the one dictating whether or not the industry is allowed to continue, not the supplier by way of extortion. Of course, those unauthorized persons who copy-and-distribute or accept such material without compensating the originators of the work are not customers. They are merely unleashing their own style of extortion...by denying fair compensation. They can have their free lunch, but the nature and quality of the work will eventually change if that model continues. I, for one, prefer to support the creators of music I enjoy by (voluntarily) providing them with compensation. If that model dies, then I will have been in the minority. Damn the RIAA for unwittingly contributing to the very model they are trying to destroy...and destroying the very model they think they are defending.
Right, but the simple idea of doing this presumes that the ISPs would go along. I think that if the cost of internet went up by much my Mother would cancel her ISP and do without. Add to that people who cancel because it is offensive, and then multiply each by thousands, and you have ISPs loosing tons of money. Let's be clear on something, here. The RIAA doesn't make ISPs do what it wants. The RIAA makes Congress make the ISPs do what it wants.
Which raises a great point. What if you only purchase your music "legally" on CD? Why should you have to pay a mandatory fee? Wouldn't this be punishing the innocent? I really don't think the RIAA would attempt to punish innocent people!
But not at $5/month. I haven't averaged spending $5/month on CDs since about 1993. I suppose the question is, might you if you could download whatever you want, whenever you want? If the record companies made it easier to discover new music that might be up your alley? Personally, I'd be all for an extra $60 annually on music downloads to stock up on anything I was actually interested in. Of course, I'd be more for spending the money directly on the bands I liked...but I guess we're not supposed to do it like that anymore...
Then again, if you simply aren't listening to music anymore, then I suppose it would be unfair for your ISP to charge you a mandatory media fee.
They won't. This was the biggest year for the MPAA evuer. It is, in part, due to a rise in ticket prices rather than a significant rise in number of tickets sold.
Mod up. I agree completely with the poster. I think we have deluded ourselves into thinking the only measure of intelligence is one that shares a tempo and process with our own. I am skeptical of humans discovering successful computer intelligence until we change the way we think about what we're looking for.
GP said -
The last time this came up on slashdot, a point was made that until some income is derived from a copyrighted work it has no value[Emphasis mine]. Thus taxes paid on such works are via income tax. I think the point was that until the "property" had value, it was considered untaxable.
Would that mean that unless my business is profitable, I don't have to pay property taxes on the warehouse, factory, or store?
Does that also mean that if I own an unoccupied residence I don't have to pay property taxes on that? Your warehouse, factory, or store would all have recognized value, as would your unoccupied residence, regardless of the profitability of your business, and thus would be taxable. How that value is derived, and whether or not the principle is valid is another story entirely.
Can we *PLEASE* have an MMORPG in which character development is more than just acquiring new gear? But then it wouldn't be realistic, like character development in RealLife(tm).
I personally think that the GIMP's major problem is that it's interface is different from Photoshop, which is a problem given its target audience is Photoshop users. I would claim that it's not more complicated than Photoshop, just different. I learned GIMP first and found Photoshop awkward to use. Agreed. I also learned GIMP first. That's not to say Photoshop is poorly designed in anyway. I just have a preference for the one I used first and am more familiar with.
That said, I do agree with the pros (and I'm not one) that GIMP could really use a few more of the features in Photoshop to give it the legitimacy to convince them to switch (or at least those that would like to switch.)
I'm curious how many professional slashdot photographers and image manipulators would be willing to contribute time, money or promotional support to GIMP if the project began adopting features like those above. Coding, testing, "marketing", writing help files, etc...would go a long way to making GIMP competitive with Photoshop.
Slashdot Mirror
I have to agree with this. In fact, I think one of the best solutions to the problem of selling digital media is to price is significantly lower. I think the consumer is smart, and knows that, in this case, we aren't laden with the overhead of paper costs, artwork, binding, shipping, marketing materials, etc... Consequently, many of those jobs would have to go away. Consequently there is no reason for an E-Book to cost as much as a hardcover. You'd think this would be a boon for publishers, actually. They could churn out more product with less work. They could have a much wider array of authors on their roster, because if someone isn't selling, it really isn't costing them nearly as much (especially taking into account strips and remainders.)
There is very little involvement necessary at this point in creating a book and selling it electronically. The author -- The file -- The publisher -- SOLD -- The reader. In many cases, the author might do better serving as their own publisher if they have sufficient notoriety to support themselves and market their work. Either way, there is very little physical cost in that chain. You're not paying for all those things I mentioned above.
Except that unlike the switch from Horse & Carriage to Automobile, many (not necessarily the parent) are advocating the continued presence of the content without the continued presence of the revenue. Publishers help authors by doing much of the dirty work so that authors can get on with doing what they do best...writing books. People in this chain should get paid for their work if people want the content. I don't give a damn what format the content is presented in, whether it be electronic or paper...it's the content that I'm interested in...it's the content that has value to me. Unless I plan on using the book as a paperweight, or burning it as fuel, the paperback has no value to me, and nor do ones and zeros. It's the content we pay for.
If people could get past the notion that this argument is about the container and start realizing that it's the content that the creator is trying to sell, and it's the content that the consumer is trying to buy, then maybe we could stop having these ridiculous arguments.
Trading buggy whips for manual transmissions is not analogous in this discussion to trading paperbacks / hardcovers for e-books. In the former it is the physical objects and the work they accomplish that gives them value. In the latter, it is the content of those objects, and not the objects themselves (those are another discussion entirely) that hold the value in this discussion.
Accurate. Mod up.
Wait...are you saying the creators don't deserve limited time exclusive rights on the distribution of their creations any more because they "sold out"?
People, I know we all want to "fight the man" and stick it to him, but let's not forget the people that are actually hurt here. If the corporations actually played fair and just, I say let's have them involved in this system. For those that don't, and that probably is the majority of the big guys, off with their heads, and let's return control to the people at the beginning of this chain of production...the content creators.
But while we're doing that, let's not allow them to be stomped on while we rewrite our way of looking at things. Plain and simple, if you agree with supporting those limited time exclusive rights on distribution granted by copyright law, DON'T REDISTRIBUTE THE CONTENT until such time as is appropriate per the law and the content creator. While you're at it, write your congressmen / ministers / etc... and keep bugging them to change the laws. Write your authors and ask them to push for similar things to make this fair for all.
Otherwise, sooner or later, the money is gonna stop because some people don't want to pay for their content (ever), and a lot of that content you value is gonna stop, too. Will people always write for pleasure? Sure, but from Shakespeare to Stephen King, don't tell me pleasure was the sole motivation. Don't tell me they would have had time to create their more amazing works had they also had a "day job." And let's not take that all out of context as if they never did. Sure, many of us require multiple sources of income while we're starting out...but if at some point we don't have the time, energy and money to really devote to something, it can be very difficult to produce high quality work.
I'm not saying that all aspects of the profession tend toward high quality, but I will say that moving in the opposite direction will tend toward overall mediocrity.
The end-user (reader) is happy, the author and publisher get paid, and the advertisers get additional exposure via technical media - and at a reasonable gamble if they advertise on something they think could be the next big thing. I'm not really sure anyone loses in this deal.
People require air to live. Given that we are dealing with a commodity here that is not required to live, and in fact not required at all, that people desire anyway, I think compensation from those who desire it is due if they intend to use it.
If you had read my entire post, you might have noticed that context.
True, unless the RIAA can find some incentive to offer the Telecom industry...a compromise they are probably more likely to make than one with their consumers and content creators.
Um...well, you buy their CDs, I think...which is what you did.
In all seriousness, though, I think you're right...the trickiest obstacle to the idea is figuring out how to distribute the money.
I could just as appropriately cite the analogy of not wanting to pay for national highways that I don't drive on, but my taxpayer money goes there anyway...or for wars I don't believe in, etc...
I would go for that provided: A) The majority of the "fee" goes to the performers/writers (at present the majority goes to the labels/RIAA and the people that actually MAKE the music get tossed a few pennies if anything).
Much as I'd like to see that happen, I don't think the RIAA will ever allow it. Performers/Writers simply lack the negotiating power (ironic, since they are the content creators) to convince the major labels. I agree with your notion wholeheartedly, though. I'm all for paying the marketers, and those who maintain the websites, file containers, etc...but the content creators really should get the top of the compensation.
B) No DRM, or cross-platform DRM. Of what is out there (allegedly) free, I often get left out if I can't play it, or it is in a format that hacks and sputters as it chews all of my CPU. My linux machine will play DVDs, but my windows machine (with more CPU) never was able to keep up. No DRM would be preferable, but if not, at least make it functional.
I think if there was a way to support a flat fee for media, DRM should become compltely unnecessary. Here's what I suggest. For those that only use the internet for e-mail, chat, and very basic functions, leave dial-up out of the deal...i.e., no fee for dial-up customers. Tack on the fee for broadband customers, instead, who are far more likely to be using their service to exchange media. What small amount of media gets shuttled around on dial-up overnight should be irrelevant and a fair "loss" to the media companies. Not sure how to deal with claims by companies that require broadband for moving large quantities of data around, but it does seem unlikely that their employees aren't using the internet for media at some point during the day...whether for entertainment or research.
The media companies get paid, hopefully the content providers and the customers can provide enough pressure to make sure the content creators get their fair share, and everyone can share their media around as much as they want...DRM free.
C) Host rate able to keep up with my connection. Constantly buffering while streaming is not cool. I don't care if it pushes 600k/sec, but if the stream wants 100k/sec at least be able to push that. If they can't push that much, then that is what P2P is made for. Don't want Pirate Bay? Run your own tracker/seeds. (Give better quality and they will flock to YOUR tracker as opposed to others.)
I say just leave the streaming behind. It's a little inconvenient, but I think streaming just gobbles bandwidth unnecessarily. If DRM is done away with and we're paying a flat fee anyway, let's just own the material. Those that like it will try to keep it around, backing it up on HDs, CDs and DVDs, and those who are done with it will delete it. If they want it again later for some reason, they can always retrieve online for free. Again, the customer pays, the providers are paid, and everyone is happy.
The whole flaw with this model simply comes down to tracking who deserves to get the money. If the media companies put their money into simple, fast distribution networks (instead of into legal fees and legislative "inspiration"), people will most likely come to their sites to download the material. I presume that's basically how Netflix tracks their on-demand stuff. If you want to watch Heroes, you'll know you can get it quickly and easily at NBC.com. Or perhaps they contract the work out to other networks, the way they do iTunes. The first way they have some control over "brand loyalty" (and yes, I feel dirty even thinking that way), but the second way makes it simple for the consumer to find what they want without having to remember whether Paramount or Warner "produced" the content.
There may be other flaws associated with such a model, but given the state of the current system, I think it's a discussion wholly worth having. I only wish the RIAA, the MPAA and other such organizations would follow suit and a
Couldn't agree more. With the power and clout of the RIAA, you'd think the big 4 and those smaller member labels could gang up and construct the ultimate online powerhouse production, distribution and marketing system. It would be simple, accurate, safe, and would serve as a huge promotional tool for the selling of merchandise, concerts, and music licensing (merch and licensing, as opposed to the music, being the two things the record industry really cares about anymore, anyway.)
Seriously. People could still P2P, but as long as they could support the bandwidth, I think the average user would just get their music from "the RIAA store.com" or whathaveyou. And if people did get their music from P2P, it wouldn't matter because it would be paid for by this "subscription" fee anyway.
Of course, the odds of such a thing happening are astronomical, and that is the real reason members of the RIAA are losing money. This opportunity is huge. The writing is on the wall. They simply choose to ignore it.
Remember, it's not the copy that's the commodity here. It's the music itself that people desire. The fact that it's just a bunch of easily duplicable ones and zeros is irrelevant. Music itself is just a pattern of waves over air. That people derive satisfaction from it is good reason for the artist / writers to receive compensation for it if they so desire.
Of course, this entire argument is complicated by the fact that the RIAA is a demonic monster, completely uninterested in the welfare of it's constituent's artists and writers. I have no sympathy for their position. I do however sympathize with many of the indy labels that are trying to do different things to get their artists and writers, as well as themselves, compensated for their time, effort, energy and creativity. Frankly, the RIAA is ruining the pudding for everyone.
The industry has no right to survive, just an obligation to provide something 'we' like to ensure their survival, exactly the same as my customers Poster is correct on this point, of course. The record industry has about as much right to survive as the salt industry of ancient times, the weapons "industry" of the medieval era, or the horse and buggy industry at the advent of the automobile. The customer should be the one dictating whether or not the industry is allowed to continue, not the supplier by way of extortion. Of course, those unauthorized persons who copy-and-distribute or accept such material without compensating the originators of the work are not customers. They are merely unleashing their own style of extortion...by denying fair compensation. They can have their free lunch, but the nature and quality of the work will eventually change if that model continues. I, for one, prefer to support the creators of music I enjoy by (voluntarily) providing them with compensation. If that model dies, then I will have been in the minority. Damn the RIAA for unwittingly contributing to the very model they are trying to destroy...and destroying the very model they think they are defending.
Which raises a great point. What if you only purchase your music "legally" on CD? Why should you have to pay a mandatory fee? Wouldn't this be punishing the innocent? I really don't think the RIAA would attempt to punish innocent people!
Erm...Motown, anyone? An entire "genre" of great rock, blues, soul and R&B built on a model of separate writers and performers.
Then again, if you simply aren't listening to music anymore, then I suppose it would be unfair for your ISP to charge you a mandatory media fee.
Mod up. I agree completely with the poster. I think we have deluded ourselves into thinking the only measure of intelligence is one that shares a tempo and process with our own. I am skeptical of humans discovering successful computer intelligence until we change the way we think about what we're looking for.
The last time this came up on slashdot, a point was made that until some income is derived from a copyrighted work it has no value[Emphasis mine]. Thus taxes paid on such works are via income tax. I think the point was that until the "property" had value, it was considered untaxable.
Would that mean that unless my business is profitable, I don't have to pay property taxes on the warehouse, factory, or store?
Does that also mean that if I own an unoccupied residence I don't have to pay property taxes on that? Your warehouse, factory, or store would all have recognized value, as would your unoccupied residence, regardless of the profitability of your business, and thus would be taxable. How that value is derived, and whether or not the principle is valid is another story entirely.
I dunno. By that time, we'll all be so entrenched in our virtual little worlds, I think we'll welcome one that's like "life." =D
Come on...we're slashdotters. Aren't we all students of the everything?
That said, I do agree with the pros (and I'm not one) that GIMP could really use a few more of the features in Photoshop to give it the legitimacy to convince them to switch (or at least those that would like to switch.)
I'm curious how many professional slashdot photographers and image manipulators would be willing to contribute time, money or promotional support to GIMP if the project began adopting features like those above. Coding, testing, "marketing", writing help files, etc...would go a long way to making GIMP competitive with Photoshop.