-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Jason Joel Thompson writes:
> > Sounds like we need to go back to the drawing boards to come up with a
> > new idea to pay for IP.
>
> Of that, I can honestly say, I had no doubt.
Gah. Let's see who'll be affected. We're talking about digital or
digitizable content, preferably low-threshold digitizable
content. We're talking software, music, video, books.
Software. I don't care about this too much: I already use OpenSource
software. In fact I think the world could use more OpenSource
software, not less of it. Revenues of OpenSource software developers
can come from support, and in fact they currently do. Look up Ars
Digita and Zope. Revenues of closed source software developers can
come (hardware tokens and crypto-authentication, watermark and
"phone-home"-assisted) licensing and subscription model. I don't see
software people hurt in the slightest.
Music. p2p share plus low-threshold small-grain payments will
noticeably *increase* the total revenues effectively reaching content
producers, and shift the distribution from few biggies (who will have
to skip the occasional Ferrari) to less known musicians. Oh my god,
this will actually increase diversity, on the costs of Britney Spears
& Co. How very horrible. Most of the cash flow comes from current
music pieces, you can as well download the latest opus for a cyberbuck
from the artist's site directly, instead of napstering the same stuff
from the network (notice that most stuff on Napster is of inferior
quality, and that the CD sales are *up*, not down, as a result of free
advertisement via word of mouth) -- paying in the process, as the
payment model a la MojoNation is clearly the way to go. A large
fraction of distributors and marketers will need to learn a new
trade. You can believe that my heart is bleeding for them.
Video, this might make production of very expensive movies
impossible. An alternative fully authenticated reproduction
infrastructure may be deployed (decryption of movie within the
unique-key display), provided the user base will accept the subsequent
loss of privacy. A considerable fraction of users will not. Movie
industry might see an impact, but this is really difficult to
predict. I have to admit I'm not caring overmuch either.
Books: see music. Provided, we're talking about already digitized
books. Putting paperbacks into a scanner is a chore. I will certainly
do that to my rarer/out of print volumes, because I expect others to
do the same. I would really like to hear what Damien Broderick has to
say about this. He'll be directly affected, after all.
I have probably overlooked something, as this post is a reflexive
jerk. Doubtlessly, other people will chime in, and mention stuff I've
overlooked.
> Anyone who has sat through the annoying pledge
> > breaks on PBS will know that it's not easy to get people to pay for
> > something they can get for free.
>
> Further, I predict additional fall-out from attempting to turn an industry
> into a charitable organization: societal de-valuation of the work,
Turn industry into charitable organization? What the fsck are you
talking about?
Devaluation of work? An artist wants to produce content which will
reach the maximum appreciative audience, or so I've thought. It is
prestige, though you sure don't want to have to be distracted by
realities of life. I don't think Stephen King will notice much if he's
to lose 80% of his revenues, unless he's collecting aircraft or
yachts, or small islands in the Caribean. (Personally I think King
sometimes writes with the power of a gold bullet plowing through your
brains, and deserves to be paid (directly. without paying the
lumberjacks, and the paper pulp, and the printers and the marketing
weasels and the rest of the merry bloodsucker crew), but that's just
me).
So, if your stuff is really widely valued, these single cyberbucks do
add up. And now and then there's an occasional windfall from a
maecene. (You're rich, you like the stuff, you want to see more of it
in future, so what do you do? Fork over the cash, of course). If your
stuff is not widely read, you can't expect to be able to live from the
revenue. However, because of the lower threshold of accessibility, you
can be sure that your content will find the widest possible
audience. Some of which *will* pay slip you the occasional
cyberbuck. Which *will* increase your total revenue (by giving you a
cash trickle instead of having to publish and distribute your stuff on
your own budget -- this can become real expensive if your audience is
negligeable).
> subsequent loss of interest, inability to attract strong talent to the field
> (independent of it's profitability.)
I wonder what makes you say that. Remember, we're talking only about
digital content, not physical objects. Digital content which is craved
by a considerable fraction of online users, and which has a high cost
of production. Right off the cuff I can only think of movies. Please
show up the logics of your analysis, because your results are far from
being obvious. Mildly put.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.5 and Gnu Privacy Guard <http://www.gnupg.org/>
iEYEARECAAYFAjok05EACgkQhudim1f5z9MtgQCgg4UNP86HkaOdHKHe+RTqVVgq
zf4AmgNkyxrP1XS11/Feps4rJTBbmfDO
=y8iM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:50:32 MDT