Posts by Mark Harris
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
You talk blithely of the "culture of abundance" as if it has to be a good thing.
Whether I think it's a good thing or not, it's here. Your failure to deal with that simple fact leads you into convoluted and self-contradictory arguments.
Yeah, digital content is dead simply to multiply.
And say stuff that makes no sense at all. What does this mean?
My fear- (and yeah, it may be a little irrational, but I'm not alone in feeling this, and the whole notion of copyright is based on it)- is that unlimited copying will result- not now, maybe not for decades- in a culture where great new content TO copy gets scarce. That's another culture of scarcity.
Based on what evidence. There's more content than ever available and more gets created everyday.
The "whole notion of copyright" is not based on irrational fear, as you assert. It's based on the right of a creator (or their assignee) to control the copying of their work. If you're arguing otherwise, it may be the real reason that this thread has gone on so long- that, like those others you mention, you don't really understand what copyright is.
-
Giovanni
It's been the basis of my gripe with Mark's position throughout.
And my gripe with your criticism is that you haven't understood my position, yet you continue to bag it.
One of the responses to this changed environment has been to claim that copyright is too restrictive anyhow, and not serving society nor the creators, so let's do away with it, take the guilt out of the downloading and embrace the new.
Copyright is not too restrictive, as a concept, but it doesn't do what you seem to think it does - it doesn't guarantee revenue (see previous comments). The application of copyright law, on the other hand, is too restrictive and getting more so, as outlined in my previous comments. It's the overzealous enforcement of copyright law to support broken business models purely because the advocates can pay for that to occur that will poorly serve both creators and society.
Which never made a lot of sense to me: even if it were true that new technologies don't hurt creators in the pocket, why would you respond by taking measures - shortening copyright terms and reducing copyright provisions - designed to do just that?
You're conflating a bunch of things.
I do believe copyright terms are too long. There is research to show that shorter terms are more optimal for society, and that, in the main, the majority of revenue earned is in the earlier part of the life of a work. Fine art seems to be the exception there, as most artists become much more valuable after their death.
There appears to be a belief that someone who has created something is entitled to an income from that for the rest of their life. This is reinforced by the mis-use of the term "intellectual property" which implies property rights for creative works in the same fashion as property rights for land or physical objects. Despite a small use of the term prior to 1960, this mis-use stems from the creation of WIPO and the economic theory from the Chicago School that everything is for sale, and that the price you can get for it is the only value it has. This was reinforced by the Sonny Bono Copyright term extension Act which, let's face it, was about preserving Disney's monopoly on the Mouse, but which has had major impacts on the US creative scene where lawsuits are a way of life.
Copyright law does not ascribe property status. It's about the right to make copies. That's it. That's all it does. Many mountains of material have been written about it making all sorts of claims but that's the basis of it. It was written in an environment where relative scarcity was the fundamental basis of commerce (and that scarcity was often artificially maintained). That's the fundamental change the digital environment makes. Scarcity is no longer easy to maintain, even artifically.
That's not advocacy - that's just recognising the reality of the situation. It seems to me that you have assumed that, because I have analysed it, I'm in favour of it and any conclusion that you can draw out of that is then justified.
I haven't haven't requested changes to copyright provisions - the publishers have. They've been pushing copyright more tightly into a corner in order to make as much money as they can. What I've seen disappearing are rights that we used to have as consumers and as society. Everything is in the favour of the publishers. And they've persuaded some of their creatives that it's all for their benefit, because creatives don't usually want to think about the business they're in, they want to create stuff. So those creatives stand on their hind legs and say "you're stealing my pension!", a pension that didn't exist 40 years ago before this sustained attack on the public domain started.
I oppose the changes the publishers want because I believe it's not healthy for the creative or consumer aspects of the game.
-
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.
Pretty much how EMR did their survey as well. The industry doesn seem to have a problem with methodology when they get the result they want.
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.
Well, I've asked and have yet to see any evidence of sales being hurt by downloads. Only generic anecdotes. You'd think if the industry had credible data, it would be all over the place, but it's not.
I'm not saying that the internet hasn't changed business practice - it manifestly has. But the publishers are saying "doom and gloom" without presenting evidence, and they're persuading lawmakers to buttress their failing business models. It the publishers, in any format, that I accuse of having their heads in the sand, not content creators.
<quote>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?<quote>
In music, for example, sales of CDs are down. I accept and admit that. But music sales are not. Revenue is, possibly, because the market is shifting from CD-based packages of music to individual tracks that are downloaded. Individual tracks sell at a lesser amount than CDs (duh) which may well have a downward impact on revenue.
If you look at the stats that are available, you can see a large spike in CD sales around 1993-2003 when it starts to taper off. The music industry attributes that to "piracy", specifically file-sharing. I and others disagree with that assessment or, rather, ask for some proof that so far has not been forthcoming. When evidence appears, like the Norwegian study (and it's not alone, just the latest), the industry (and you, it seems) pooh-pooh it as unconvincing.
What I have said, again and again, is that old business models are broken, not because they're based on sales, but because they're based on scarcity. What creators and publishers need for the future is to base their business models on abundance.
-
Rob, you also wrote:
Your answer is simply that we don't. Sorry. That's yesterday's model.
No, it's not my answer. My position is that we shouldn't break the social contract that is copyright in order to allow the old business models to continue. Ultimately, that will be at a cost to the content creators.
I think you're naive to think that won't have profound effects on what culture gets produced, by whom, and for what end.
Ri-ight. You assert that only "professionals" are allowed to create culture. Sorry for forgetting that. Tell, me Rob, who are these professionals? Where do they come from? What qualifies them to be professionals?
And I also think whenever we give up being fair for convenience, we lose something else with it.
Define "fair" please.
-
Rob
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.
Costs have changed and continue to change. Funding models will change too, as people look for new ways. The Metric example I posted is one of those ways. The arguement against costs coming dow seems to revolve around doing things the way they were always done only with downloads instead of CDs. Digital distribution can mean doing things differently to achieve a similar end, i.e. revenue. This is called the business model and the old ones don't work any more. The problem I rail against is that the industry is not in the main fixing their broken business model. Instead, they're using copyright to try to prop it up and that has significant flow-on effects for society. They don't care about that.
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?I don't have all the answers to funding music creation - I'm not in the music business, and I've never pretended to be. I do note that there appears to be more music being created than ever, so I have to wonder where this fear that no-one will create music is coming from. The people who succeed will be the ones who find new methods. I think it will be a grass-roots approach, as I can't see a top-down government-based approach being ultimately successful (I used to be in the government business), despite the luminaries that might favour it.
You use the word "fairly"? What has "fair" ever had to do with content creation and remuneration??? Stuff gets bought because people want to buy it. There's nothing fair in that. Some music has sat unlistened to because it was ahead of its time or behind its time or people didn't like the fact that the lead singer was a screaming queen or that the bass player had the wrong sort of guitar - all sorts of reasons. It' might be very good music - some of it undoubtedly is genius. Where is the fairness in that? Answer: there isn't any.
When you introduce "fair" to the argument, rational analysis tends to go begging. What does "fair" mean? Should we reward people because they painted a picture? Which begs the question, should we reward everyone who paints a picture? What criteria would we use to evaluate that picture and thus the amount of recompense? Should a picture that took 7 years to complete be worth more than a picture that took an afternoon? How do we judge quality? Do we pay a stipend to anyone who says they're an artist on their census form?
This may well be a valid argument to have, but it has nothing to do with copyright. As long as people regard copyright as an earner of revenue, instead of what it is (see comment to Stephen Walker above), this issue will never be resolved.
-
the Norwegian research is useful in that it suggests that the reality of unpaid downloads is that it results in higher levels of purchased music. i wonder why this type of consumer research is so difficult to find in other markets? is the research really so expensive to undertake? seems unlikely to me.
Most of the information required to verify or disprove such a connection is in the hands of the industry who really don't want the connection to be made, as it spoils completely their argument against piracy.
-
Stephen
ah, yeah, right. taking something you haven't paid for is so irresistible even for those who can afford to pay.
How does recognition that a fundamental principle of economic exchange (i.e. that scarcity is inversely proportional to value [or at least price]) has changed become advocacy for not paying for content. Hint: it doesn't, and I haven't said so.
Copyright law has been about restricting other people's ability to copy your work, not about getting paid. You might get paid if enough people decide to pay money to obtain your work, but that's not guaranteed by copyright. It only guarantees that other people can't profit from your work without paying you or gaining your permission (or both).
In an analogue world, wholesale copying of any work is a commercial prospect. You need equipment (a printing press, a manufacturing facility, a large-scale CD duplicator - depending on whether you are copying books, handbags or music) which means a capital outlay- in effect, you are a "rogue" publisher. Copyright law is built with this in mind - to maintain your desired level of scarcity by punishing or preventing others from producing work based on yours and thus diluting your value.
In a digital world, everyone has the capability to be a publisher. No special equipment or huge capital outlay is needed (other than a computer and Internet connection), and each copy will be exactly the same as the original. Most of the infringing will be done by individuals with no commercial infringement (i.e. making copies for sale).
To note this is not advocacy of one position or the other. It's merely to acknowledge that scarcity no longer exists, and this is the main problem that faces publishers - they can't control scarcity and therefore revenue streams. The clock isn't going to be wound back to a point where they can - you can't do that without destroying the Internet and the value it has created far outweighs even the losses the industry says it has sustained.
-
I catch most of my news from the 10" screen of my ASUS which is much admired by my age group.Two of us have had them for a few months and two of my friends are planning to buy them.
Welcome to the EEEPC team, Bruce! They are magic little machines. I can't wait for the day I can run OSX on mine ;-)
Just curious: Is yours running Windows or Xandross Linux?
-
Mark Harris - you really believe that justice, as delivered through our current court system, is IMPARTIAL??? Let alone 'on the impartial side'?
And, 'objectivity' and the legal system arnt exactly mates either.What Steve said. (Thx Steve)
What has been missing for a long time in our legal system (which is almost wholly statute-based now, but contains a sort-of-healthy dose of English common law)is recognitions of 'offended parties other than the state." Whoa back, lawyers! But you know what I mean-
Bollocks. If it ain't written down, it ain't law. I do not want to go back to a situation where the law is whatever the judge at hand wants it to be. Our statute law is written on top of the base of common law, so I really don't see your point there. There is recognition of other parties (e.g. victim impact statements) but who do you think the state is? It's us as a collective entity.
and that is where whanau/victims/other 'offended parties' (we can skid this stuff under the heading of utu) *must* be considered.
They are considered, but they do not have control. I believe that's a good thing..
-
I know Simon will immediately say it's not this simple ;-) -but remember, we're not just talking about music.
Not just Simon, it's not that simple, and I've never just been talking about music. It's others who tend to drag the conversation in that direction ;-) (and then complain that all we ever talk about is music - ah, the irony)
Here's a question-
Actually, it's a bunch of questions.
Do you want all this wonderful content- books, films, music- to be mostly created by amateurs?
FFS Rob! Everyone's an amateur until they get that first paycheck, regardless of the training they've had, their passion to succeed, whatever. Some never move beyond that in their chosen field, because they have other priorities, because they don't want the thing they love doing becoming a drag through having to be done to pay the bills, or for an absolute multitude of reasons.
Most of that wonderful content you refer to is created by people who have 'day jobs', mainly because content creation, except at the very peak of the business, doesn't actually pay that well consistently.
Or should it be funded by Govt grants?
I think grants can have a big enabling place in the scheme of things. It's not an either/or proposition.
Or funded by a tax or levy on internet use, distributed by a Quango?
Total strawman, not even going to bother with this.
Should 'creative content' be carefully crafted to incorporate a sponsor's message?
If you want to, as a creator, it's your choice. If your question is "should it be required?", then that's as silly as your last point.
Or how 'bout the people who consume it pay a reasonable price back to the content creators?
That happens too, but as a business model, it's based on a paradigm of scarcity which doesn't pertain any more, and not just on the Internet. If we're restricting the discussion to just digital material, it doesn't pertain at all. The playing-field has changed and the goalposts ar on a different paddock. You want to continue playing rugby, but this field has been set up for bull-rush.
The last seems so evidently the best option in so many ways, I'll be sorry to see it go.
It won't go, but it must change. That's the whole point. Regardless of Tussock's cri de coeur , he's got a good point: The Internet allows much opportunity, for creatives as well as "consumers". The "consumer side has got their head around the difference, the creative side (the business part of it) have theirs buried in the sand hoping for it all to go away.
Sad, Rob, because I think you're smarter than this naive little piece suggests.