Piracy is Progressive Taxation, and Other Thoughts on the Evolution of Online Distribution
Pages: 1, 2
Lesson 5: File sharing networks don't threaten book, music,
or film publishing. They threaten existing publishers.
The music and film industries like to suggest that file sharing
networks will destroy their industries.
Those who make this argument completely fail to understand the nature of publishing. Publishing is not a role that will be undone by any new technology, since its existence is mandated by mathematics. Millions of buyers and millions of sellers cannot find one another without one or more middlemen who, like a kind of step-down transformer, segment the market into more manageable pieces. In fact, there is usually a rich ecology of middlemen. Publishers aggregate authors for retailers. Retailers aggregate customers for publishers. Wholesalers aggregate small publishers for retailers and small retailers for publishers. Specialty distributors find ways into non-standard channels.
Those of us who watched the rise of the Web as a new medium for publishing have seen this ecology evolve within less than a decade. In the Web's early days, rhetoric claimed that we faced an age of disintermediation, that everyone could be his or her own publisher. But before long, individual web site owners were paying others to help them increase their visibility in Yahoo!, Google, and other search engines (the equivalent of Barnes & Noble and Borders for the Web), and Web authors were happily writing for sites like AOL and MSN, or on the technology side, Cnet, Slashdot, O'Reilly Network, and other Web publishers. Meanwhile, authors from Matt Drudge to Dave Winer and Cory Doctorow made their names by publishing for the new medium.
As Jared Diamond points out in his book Guns, Germs, and Steel, mathematics is behind the rise of all complex social organization.
There is nothing in technology that changes the fundamental dynamic by which millions of potentially fungible products reach millions of potential consumers. The means by which aggregation and selection are made may change with technology, but the need for aggregation and selection will not. Google's use of implicit peer recommendation in its page rankings plays much the same role as the large retailers' use of detailed sell-through data to help them select their offerings.
The question before us is not whether technologies such as peer-to-peer file sharing will undermine the role of the creative artist or the publisher, but how creative artists can leverage new technologies to increase the visibility of their work. For publishers, the question is whether they will understand how to perform their role in the new medium before someone else does. Publishing is an ecological niche; new publishers will rush in to fill it if the old ones fail to do so.
If we take the discussion back to first principles, we understand that publishing isn't just about physical aggregation of product but also requires an intangible aggregation and management of "reputation." People go to Google or Yahoo!, Barnes & Noble or Borders, HMV, or MediaPlay, because they believe that they will find what they want there. And they seek out particular publishers, like Knopf or O'Reilly, because we have built a track-record of trust in our ability to find interesting topics and skilled authors.
Now, let's take this discussion over to music file sharing. How do people find songs on Kazaa or any of the other post-Napster file sharing services? First, they may be looking for a song they already know. But such searches for a known artist or song title are fundamentally self-limiting, since they depend on the marketing of a "name space" (artist/song pairs) that is extrinsic to the file sharing service. To truly supplant the existing music distribution system, any replacement must develop its own mechanisms for marketing and recommendation of new music.
And in fact, we already see those mechanisms emerging. File sharing services rely heavily on that most effective of marketing techniques: word of mouth. But over time, anyone who has studied the evolution of previous media will see that searches based on either pre-existing knowledge or word of mouth represent only the low-hanging fruit. As the market matures, paid marketing is added, and step by step, we build up the same rich ecology of middlemen that characterizes existing media marketplaces.
New media have historically not replaced but rather augmented and expanded existing media marketplaces, at least in the short term. Opportunities exist to arbitrage between the new distribution medium and the old, as, for instance, the rise of file sharing networks has helped to fuel the trading of records and CDs (unavailable through normal recording industry channels) on eBay.
Over time, it may be that online music publishing services will replace CDs and other physical distribution media, much as recorded music relegated sheet music publishers to a niche and, for many, made household pianos a nostalgic affectation rather than the home entertainment center. But the role of the artist and the music publisher will remain. The question then, is not the death of book publishing, music publishing, or film production, but rather one of who will be the publishers.
Lesson 6: "Free" is eventually replaced by a higher-quality paid service
A question for my readers: How many of you still get your email via peer-to-peer UUCP dialups or the old "free" Internet, and how many of you pay $19.95 a month or more to an ISP? How many of you watch "free" television over the airwaves, and how many of you pay $20-$60 a month for cable or satellite television? (Not to mention continue to rent movies on videotape and DVD, and purchasing physical copies of your favorites.)
Services like Kazaa flourish in the absence of competitive alternatives. I confidently predict that once the music industry provides a service that provides access to all the same songs, freedom from onerous copy-restriction, more accurate metadata and other added value, there will be hundreds of millions of paying subscribers. That is, unless they wait too long, in which case, Kazaa itself will start to offer (and charge for) these advantages. (Or would, in the absence of legal challenges.) Much as AOL, MSN, Yahoo!, Cnet, and many others have collectively built a multi-billion dollar media business on the "free" web, "publishers" will evolve on file sharing networks.
Why would you pay for a song that you could get for free? For the same reason that you will buy a book that you could borrow from the public library or buy a DVD of a movie that you could watch on television or rent for the weekend. Convenience, ease-of-use, selection, ability to find what you want, and for enthusiasts, the sheer pleasure of owning something you treasure.
The current experience of online file sharing services is mediocre at best. Students and others with time on their hands may find them adequate. But they leave much to be desired, with redundant copies of uneven quality, intermittent availability of some works, incorrect identification of artist or song, and many other quality problems.
Opponents may argue that the Web demonstrates precisely what they are afraid of, that content on the Web is "free", that advertising is an insufficient revenue model for content providers, and that subscription models have not been successful. However, I will argue that the story is still unfinished.
Subscription sites are on the rise. Computer industry professionals can be seen as the "early adopters" in this market. For example, O'Reilly's Safari Books Online is growing at 30 percent a month, and now represents a multi-million dollar revenue stream for us and other participating publishers.
Most observers also seem to miss the point that the internet is already sold as a subscription service. All we're working on is the development of added-value premium services. What's more, there are already a few vertically-integrated ISPs (notably AOL Time Warner) that provide "basic" connectivity but own vast libraries of premium content.
In looking at online content subscription services, analogies with television are instructive. Free, advertiser-supported television has largely been supplanted--or should I say supplemented (because the advertising remains)--by paid subscriptions to cable TV. What's more, revenue from "basic cable" has been supplemented by various aggregated premium channels. HBO, one of those channels, is now television's most profitable network. Meanwhile, over on the internet, people pay their ISP $19.95/month for the equivalent of "basic cable", and an ideal opportunity for a premium channel, a music download service, has gone begging for lack of vision on the part of existing music publishers.
Another lesson from television is that people prefer subscriptions to pay-per-view, except for very special events. What's more, they prefer subscriptions to larger collections of content, rather than single channels. So, people subscribe to "the movie package," "the sports package" and so on. The recording industry's "per song" trial balloons may work, but I predict that in the long term, an "all-you-can-eat" monthly subscription service (perhaps segmented by musical genre) will prevail in the marketplace.
Lesson 7: There's more than one way to do it.
A study of other media marketplaces shows, though, that there is no single silver-bullet solution. A smart company maximizes revenue through all its channels, realizing that its real opportunity comes when it serves the customer who ultimately pays its bills.
At O'Reilly, we've been experimenting with online distribution of our books for years. We know that we must offer a compelling online alternative before someone else does. As the Hawaiian proverb says, "No one promised us tomorrow." Competition with free alternatives forces us to explore new distribution media and new forms of publishing.
In addition to the Safari subscription service mentioned above, we publish an extensive network of advertising-supported "free" information sites as the O'Reilly Network (www.oreillynet.com). We have published a number of books under "open publication licenses" where free redistribution is explicitly allowed (oreilly.com/openbook). We do this for several reasons: to build awareness of products that might otherwise be ignored, to build brand loyalty among online communities, or, sometimes, because a product can no longer be economically sold in traditional channels, and we'd rather make it available for free than have it completely disappear from the market.
We have also published many of our books on CD ROM, in a format referred to as the CD Bookshelf, typically a collection of a half dozen or so related books.
And of course, we continue to publish print books. The availability of free online copies is sometimes used to promote a topic or author (as books such as The Cathedral and the Bazaar or The Cluetrain Manifesto became bestsellers in print as a result of the wide exposure it received online). We make available substantial portions of all of our books online, as a way for potential readers to sample what they contain. We've even found ways to integrate our books into the online help system for software products, including Dreamweaver and Microsoft's Visual Studio.
Interestingly, some of our most successful print/online hybrids have come about where we present the same material in different ways for the print and online contexts. For example, much of the content of our bestselling book Programming Perl (more than 600,000 copies in print) is available online as part of the standard Perl documentation. But the entire package--not to mention the convenience of a paper copy, and the aesthetic pleasure of the strongly branded packaging--is only available in print. Multiple ways to present the same information and the same product increase the overall size and richness of the market.
And that's the ultimate lesson. "Give the wookie what he wants!" as Han Solo said so memorably in the first Star Wars movie. Give it to him in as many ways as you can find, at a fair price, and let him choose which works best for him.
Tim O'Reilly will be participating in the upcoming Emerging Technology Conference, April 22-25, in Santa Clara, CA.
Return to OpenP2P.com.
You must be logged in to the O'Reilly Network to post a talkback.
Showing messages 1 through 177 of 177.
-
piracy?
2007-08-30 20:04:39 atr124 [Reply | View]
It is a pity that I never came across this incisive article which opened my eyes about the real meaning of "piracy", something which is hotly debated in India. Even though this article has been written in 2002--I wonder whether there was any update or any other related work--it is pretty relevant to date especially in countries like India where the laws ony now been enacted to check "piracy" and ensure digital rights protection and protection of copyrights for books. India has all the three types of piracy rampant, software, books and music and legislation and enforcement is the route the authorities are takinig to curb this without much success. People like O'Reilly who are thought leaders on Internet and also in publishing seem to know better as to what approach one should take while one considers what constitutes piracy and how this can be checked. In a market where even big brands put out their PCs without bundled software to offer "cheap PCs" you will compell the users to become "pirates" when they figure out that software would cost half the price of PC or even mroe. Likewise CDs are sold for equivalent of $ 10 or more--the average weekly take of young worker--he wont bate an eyelid to "borrow" music. Books are outof question as even paper backs cost upwards of US$10 while they are available on the street for as little as US$2! Besides pirates of music,films,software and books seem to be hitting the markets faster than the original which is another incentive.
The way out for authorities and pressure groups is to sit with software makers to design software suited to markets such as India at a price which is affordable, bring down CD prices, printed book prices, facilitate portals that sell legitimate copies at much lesser price than now. Legislation and its enforcement is far more expensive than education and cr creating wareness
-
Reality at Last!
2005-11-02 05:51:14 Beatz [Reply | View]
Great Article I have to say. I too could be guilty of such piracy, being new to computing in 2001 I have explored and tried so much software using an array of File share programs (including Kazzaa) only to discover new personal talents and mediums for creativity.
Naturally an artist, graphically, musically and otherwise I have tested, pocked, and explored just about every piece of code ever written. All these while on studying and with no money available to even replace my failed bulging hard drive!
Now that I am employed I can buy those pieces of code or applications that I have found to be of benefit to me and are more than just a mere gimmick. I found some are better than others despite popularisms and cultural iconism. I mostly create music and love a vast array of music, genre's and styles.
Of those I found value in I simply purchased as funds became available. I now own every piece of software and music I have (Ever heard of Dino Zaluzzi?) and the inventive, progressive and beautiful locally made FL Studio, which I have watched turn from a drum sequencer to a full-blown music creation suite. Cheaper than most but intuitive and graphically pleasant to work with I found it perfect for what I needed. I would never have found it without file sharing and I would never have found the difference either! I could have paid more for allot less! I soon hope to produce my own MP3’s for downloading using a site I created and graphics I made. None of this would have happened without File sharing and I can only hope to use file sharing as a means of greater market impregnation. I can’t loose really especially if the big 4 record producers never hear of me, it makes no difference now if they exist or not, I expect that the market will soon grow beyond them without them as they will be too busy fighting reality than taking notice of popular trends!
-
Good Article
2005-01-13 16:18:25 meika [Reply | View]
What file sharing means is that the distinction between the product and the marketing of the product is now blurred.
The file sharing is the market, one may hear about a new hot thingo, but one can be aware of what is popular through the 'vote' of the number of downloads/copies available for a song, movie, application...
One downloads something new, one tries it out, one decides, likes, rejects the whole of it, not just the advert or a demo...
The product is the advert, the advert is the product, the only marketing left will be the invisibe marketing of cute chick paid to chat loudly in bars about some new band... easily to avoid if you avoid the bar/clubs marketers think peope hang out in.
the product is the advert, the advert is the product
the symbol has become the symbolised, the signifier is now one with the signified
that sort of chaos will really scare corporates who live by marketing the difference between the the product and he advert
what will happen to the "brand" I wonder??
-
I'm not easily impressed, but...
2004-01-09 14:44:51 cyr [Reply | View]
This is the best written article I've read in years. The arguments Tim O'Reilly offers are logically reasoned (pardon the redundancy), cogently presented, and compelling - which I'm certain is an understatement.
Well done... extremely well done.
-
Accept the inevitable
2003-10-01 23:44:51 anonymous2 [Reply | View]
The issue at hand, if one stands back and looks at the big picture, is not about whether one should or should not share files, or copy them.
Remember the big furor ages ago about the illegality of copying tape cassettes? In short, it couldn't be stopped. No matter what the 'Big 5' or the RIAA are doing now to try and prevent copying and sharing, they will eventually lose the battle. It's inevitable. It's a matter of time. It doesn't matter whether you agree that sharing is ethical or not. The recording industry will change, is changing, for better or worse (depending whose side you're on) in the wake of digital music.
Of course, there are new paradigms springing up for purchasing music... but artists are going to have to (as they have for aeons) continue to rely on deriving their primary income on performing live. The Pandora's Box is open: people will forever copy and share their digital music, it's just too vast to control.
In the very near future, CDs will be obsolete, just as all previous forms of recorded music have become obsolete. Recorded music will soon be solely recorded, sold, stored, and shared in 0's and 1's... and in that form only. Even record stores will be unnecessary. It's all going to be online, and online only. (of course DVDs and DVD burners will remain, as a way for all music owners to store their libraries as they wish). Whatever concerns there are now about the legalities or illegalities of music sharing, are temporary. It's time for everyone to just accept the inevitable.
-
Protect me from what i don't want
2003-08-01 05:56:13 anonymous2 [Reply | View]
Since i was working and having money
i used to buy 2nd hand CD searching for them
and spending time to get special offer on albums.
Since i can't listen to CD i bought on my PC because there is a "carbon" or something else protection, the first thing i done was:
-ok can't listen my cd that i paid for.
-no problem i'll get them with P2P
-since, i don't have bought no CD....
and according to Tim the problem is
from publisher and not author....
maybe a day i'll send gift to author no to publisher.
...since i P2P i'm really open minded and up to date spending more and more hours enjoying
music.
-
Software piracy is different
2003-07-29 06:55:59 anonymous2 [Reply | View]
I would like to point out that software piracy is different from copying music, books, or movies.
Many people use the "I wouldn't have bought the application anyway" argument for justifying software piracy, and Mr O'Reilly points out that if anything, piracy may be even good for your sales since it gives you free advertizing.
My point is that piracy indeed doesn't bother the author of the pirated program much. Instead, it's a problem for competitors, since competing on price is no longer possible.
Suppose I make an image editing application which focuses on simple web grapics, doesn't offer all the bells and whistles of Photoshop, but for $19.95.
People who already have a pirated version of Photoshop will also not buy my image editing application, even though they probably would have in a world without piracy.
Books, movies, and music rarely competes in price/performance ratio, so this is a different matter.
-
Phantom cash and real time
2003-07-28 18:25:47 indulis [Reply | View]
I think it is well recognised that as you have more money, you generally have less time to enjoy it. Certainly this has been my experience. Whatis the point of counting the copies of music made by people with no money as "lost revenue"?
Why doesn't the music industry do something proactive like offer student discounts for CDs, just like they are offered for travel, movies, and other goods? They'd be making lifelong loyal customers instead of sworn enemies...
A while ago, I spent a weekend playing with Kazaa and Limewire and after spending a full day and a half managed to cut a single CD. Yes, a lot of this time was getting familiar with the tools, and then searching, and getting around minor problems, downloading and installing new software etc.
But by the end of the day, I had decided I would never again spend hours of my time reproducing something that is available in the stores.
Another thing that annoys the @#%! out of me are the statements by the music industry's tame copyright spokespeople that "the number of blank CDs show just how much music is being pirated". They can come to my house and have a look... I have maybe 3 CDs of music which are on CD-Rs (out of 250 legitimately bought CDs), the rest of the 200-300 CD-Rs I've bought are all photos, backups and software (mostly Linux or backups of my own legit software).
Finally, you should be grateful if you live in the USA- for all of the evils of the DMCA, at least you have the legal right to timeshift programming, and to media shift. In Australia this is specifically forbidden by copyright laws which while they purport to balance the interests of the owner and the consumer include *NO* right for the consumer at all (besides paying up and shutting up)!
Cheers,
Indulis
-
Why "flat" display of comments is necessary
2003-06-03 23:20:28 anonymous2 [Reply | View]
Strange that you at O'Reily don't understand it with all the IT expertise...
It takes 5 seconds and 35Kb of traffic just to download one comment. There are nearly 150 comments on this article. To look through all of them would take me 12.5 minutes just for loading. The total traffic would be more than 5Mb. At the same time, average comment is just about 500 bytes (100 words). It would probably take from 10 to 20 minutes to look through all of them and total text content is only 75Kb.
So the reader has to spend nearly half of the time waiting for the page to finish downloading and has to download 5Mb of unnecessary HTML code for only 1% of valuable content.
Amazing how you can get so many things right and still get as many of them wrong. -
Why "flat" display of comments is necessary
2003-09-11 21:18:53 anonymous2 [Reply | View]
What on earth are you talking about? This page took seconds to download. Even if it does take 20 minutes to download you can always go do something else whilst you are waiting, then no time is wasted. -
Why "flat" display of comments is necessary
2003-06-11 02:05:05 anonymous2 [Reply | View]
It sounds like you spent more time doing all those nerdy calculations then actually digesting the article. :)
Why don't you just hit the stop button and then hit the "Topics" or "Main Titles" links. Or better yet, get a broadband Internet connection and stop asking everyone to dumb down their content for your crappy dialup.
In any case, isn't complaining to Tim O'Reily about the web site's message board software kind of like complaining to Stephen King that you don't like the paper they used to publish his last book? Are you picturing Tim sitting behind the computer coding his own web site??? Why don't you find a feedback link or send e-mail to webmaster@oreillynet.com. Then at least your complaint might get read by someone who can do something about it. -
Why "flat" display of comments is necessary
2003-10-15 18:28:19 anonymous2 [Reply | View]
Why is it unreasonable to ask a website owner to make thier pages "dial-up friendly"? Is it any worse than a blind person asking for it to be text-to-speech reader compatible?
One of the main arguments about file sharing and web publishing is that you want to make the content available to as many people as possible. And that includes people who don't have broadband access (whether it is due to economic, social or geographical reasons) and people who may be sharing a high speed link with hundreds or even thousands of other people.
-
Revenue "Loss"
2003-05-26 19:15:38 anonymous2 [Reply | View]
Wonderful article. Spot on, and from such a respectable source!
O'Reilly mentions the dubious nature of "loss" estimates due to piracy. They are also dubious for the rarely mentioned reason the the people who download music in mass do not have money to spend on many CDs or movies. The "lost" revenues often did not exist at all. But those playlists and Divx movies may translate to purchases as the "pirate" increases his or her earning power, and wants to own favorite media with liner notes and dvd extras.
-
Wookie quote is wrong
2003-04-28 14:07:45 anonymous2 [Reply | View]
I beleve that Hans Solo says "Let the Wookie win." not "Give the Wookie what he wants.". -
Wookie quote is wrong
2003-07-28 16:26:34 anonymous2 [Reply | View]
C3P0: He made a fair move. Screaming about it won't help you.
Han: Let him have it. It's not wise to upset a Wookiee.
C3PO: But sir, nobody worries about upsetting a droid.
Han: That's 'cause droids don't pull people's arms out of their sockets when they lose. Wookiees are known to do that.
C3PO: I see your point, sir. I suggest a new strategy, Artoo. Let the Wookiee win.
-
Value "lost" to piracy = free marketing
2003-04-25 11:48:44 anonymous2 [Reply | View]
Record companys should get with the program & realize what game making software companys figured out long ago. Write off the loss, due to piracy & revel in the free press.
It can cost more in "marketing" to create a buzz about a product, than letting the product & the users "create" the buzz.
Case in point, the same year that Napster was starting to be slammed by RIAA, & they were claming such "harm" to their supply chains, they were turning in bumper sales reports..
Why you ask? Billions worth of free press.
It wasn't untill there was suffient public backlash against RIAA, that collective sales went down.
IT manager
BKB
-
peer to peer file sharing
2003-03-11 08:20:00 anonymous2 [Reply | View]
I am very impressed by the article and you have given me valuable viewpoints that i had over looked in terms of the implications of p2p file transfers on industry. I agree with your view that software such as Kazaa acts as a new age middleman for distributing and marketing but feel that this type of software does pend a big problem on music and film industries.
I for one have been using Kazaa and like for over 2 years and have never brought a CD, DVD or book since. The loyalist or Nostalgic segments of many markets are a very small percentage and with the addition of new devices that support these downloads such as mp3 players customers are less concerned with the traditional hard copies.
Personal computers are more and more becoming as essential as the mobile phones and are a key tool in more and more peoples lives. They can store 1000's of file of music books making accessibility and storage of software much more attractive than other methods. Thats one major reason why peer to peer transfers are so strong. Not only because they are free, but because they are compatible with media players on computers. Computers are huge media devices for watching films and listening to music. They combine a tv, video and hi fi into one. So why would i want to have to save a cd on to my hard drive when i could save time just downloading the songs to the needed file type (mp3, wma). It is about conveniance and compatibility and storage.
If Industries are going to save them selves from further revenue loss, they must stop complaining about copyright infringment and start to look at ways to compete, a point that you clearly stated.
In conclusion i would like to say that i am doing my final year University project on this topic and this article has been a breath of fresh air from the tons are articles i have already looked at in this area.
Thank you -
peer to peer file sharing
2003-06-11 00:21:48 anonymous2 [Reply | View]
"I for one have been using Kazaa and [the] like for over 2 years and have [not bought] a CD, DVD or book since"
As the article points out, people in your position often eventually grow into paying customers. Had file-sharing services been around when I was at school, I would have taken the same position as you.
But now I'm a little older, in the work-force and making good money. As a consultant who bills by the hour, I am constantly putting a dollar-value on the time I spend doing mundane activities. I ask myself for example, "Why should I spend an hour painting the hallway when I could pay someone $20/hr to do it and spend the time doing billable work for $100/hr?" The issue isn't the money. If I enjoyed housepainting as much as my work it might be a fun diversion.
Similarly, I'd rather pay to download MP3s with consistent quality, accurate tags, etc., then spend the time doing the cleanup myself.
I currently subscribe to several services including Audible.com and PressPlay. I go to them first for content because the quality of service is higher than P2P. Note: I would not give them one cent, however, if it wasn't for the fact that as an engineer I was able to crack the DRM schemes and convert the content to MP3s. It's not that I have any interest in pirating their content. I just want the ability to exercise my fair use rights, including keeping copies of the files on the numerous computers my family and I use.
I'm sure for every person like me, there are ten others who would also be willing to hand over their money but are unable or unwilling to spend the time to figure out how to get the flexibility out of these services that would justify the cost.
-
not really
2003-02-16 16:24:13 anonymous2 [Reply | View]
Piracy is obviously not progressive taxation , nor does its market impact resemble a system of progressive taxation. Firstly theft isn't a tax , it's theft. Secondly a system of progressive taxation imposes progressively graduated costs based on income or value. The 'piracy tax' on artists is actually parabolic , imposing the highest net relative costs on those artists in the middle ( ie. lost sales will represent a greater proportion of income relative to the total ). Once again the middle class gets screwed.
* I think that Tim knows that his argument is specious. You don't see O'Reilly putting new titles on Kazaa in anticipation of benefiting from promotion through piracy do you ?? -
not really
2008-04-19 09:31:54 swing_developer [Reply | View]
Progressive taxation is taxation graduated to a person's ability to pay. If you have a lot of money, then you pay more. That's the point, I think. People who have more time than money are exactly those people who can't pay US $500.00 for Photoshop or $500.00 for 35 CDs. These are the people who pirate. As you get older and make more money, you can afford to buy it and you like the convenience and a good conscience, so you buy it.
People thought nothing of making mix tapes in the 80s. Those same people bought a fair share of tapes by the same artists who were on those prirated mix tapes- to the limit of their financial ability. Now those same people just buy CDs or download tunes from Apple.
What is the point of cracking down on the poor? Spending all that time on lawyers and courts and jail and the enforcement of fines and witnesses and forensic experts and in the end creating millions (as the RIAA would have it) of people whose fines are so high, they're economic basket cases for life- no longer able to contribute to society and the larger economy?
Why should society spend those resources just because an industry can't figure out a viable economic model for their goods and services?
If you don't want people to pirate, then you just need to calm down on your pricing scheme.
The majority or people are genetically engineered to want to get along in society and follow norms- that's why there IS a society, not because there's laws.
Look, think clearly: the reason, say, your neighbor doesn't sneak into your house at night, kill you and take your things isn't because there are laws against doing that.
It's because your neighbor doesn't WANT to do that. The impulse just isn't in your neighbor's heart.
If it were in your neighbor's heart, if that sort of impulse was something that the average person had to fight off by intensely reflecting on the consequences of their actions, then society wouldn't be able to stop it and we'd have all chaos, all the time. In fact, we wouldn't even have survived as a species. Some small percentage of people run afoul of the laws. Small percentage.
On the otherhand, if you charge too much for food, you'll turn everyone into a criminal. Now you're essentailly criminalizing the need to eat.
The record industry needs to take a hard look at how much money people really have. Not as much as they did in the 50s and 60s aor even 70s and 80s.
They outsourced their CD production, their marketing, their manufacturing and so did every other industry. Guess what. If you want customers you need employees. If you want to dump Americans as employees, then plan on selling into those countries whose people you are willing to employ, and at prices they can afford.
Industry has been playing a game for quite a few years called "fire your customers". The first companies to do it made a bundle. They sold to people employed by other, sucker, companies.
As more and more companies jumped ship, the standard of living of the average American and concomitant disposable income has gone down.
As disposable income goes down, the amount of discretionary income devoted to buying CDs for 17.98 goes down. Way down.
Industry in general needs to face what it's done to its own customers, and quit hankering after days gone past. If you don't employ people, you turn them into poor people. Poor people- e.g. students- steal because they have to have those things to participate in society and they can't afford them. Think developing photoshop skills.
As for music, the impulse to participate and posses is even stronger, although it's not future-job-skill based. It's driven by the need to reproduce.
Participating in what's cool, what's going on with your peers, demonstrating you can decode, complex social signals and creatively and meaningfully send those signals back, is to signal your fitness as an aware, creative, discerning and fully functioning potential mate all of whose working parts are in fine form.
It's called "youth culture", and if you're inclined to sneer at its importance, it's only because you're not young anymore.
So stealing the "now" music if you can't afford it is an absolute imperative if you're a part of a subculture that values and is united by that music, and in fact you find that students who wouldn't steal anything don't think twice about stealing THAT.
If you want to stop people from stealing, you need to price things appropriately to their income and the imperatives and pressures on them to gain access to the thing you're selling.
$17.99 is the price you can charge for a CD when you don't have Communist China acting as your jack-booted enforcer of 100 hour weeks for 12 year old girls working in your sweat-shop factories churning out your CDs and slipping the art work into sleaves.
Now that you have that, and you unemployed all your Americans, it's time to rethink your pricing scheme.
-
Re: not really - proof?
2003-03-27 12:05:31 soopahman [Reply | View]
Obviously the term "tax" was metaphorical - to scoff at this much was trivial. Call it "Progressive Reduction in Revenue." My understanding is that the scale in "progressive" is the popularity of the author (and thus their average income... as in a progressive tax).
What proof do you have that this is a bell curve, in which those authors in the middle lose the most money, rather than those at the top? I find your observation highly illogical as it only makes sense the most popular authors would sell content that is mostly dearly pursued (and so, most likely to be pursued until it is obtained for free). -
not really
2003-03-01 11:44:24 Tim O'Reilly |
[Reply | View]
Actually, I think the analogy is pretty good. Did you read Janis Ian's essay on the impact of Napster/Kazaa on her sales? See http://www.janisian.com/article-internet_debacle.html. Note also the experience of Baen Books, as described at http://www.baen.com/library. They don't have Robert Heinlein or Michael Crichton for free download, but they have a lot of people who are trying to make a name for themselves (and succeeding, with the help of free downloads to spread the word.)
And in fact O'Reilly has made quite a few books available for public download as a way of boosting their visibility. As noted in the article, we believe that the positive impact is greatest for little-known works. For works with high visibility, such as most O'Reilly books, there is a "progressive tax" which we would prefer to avoid. But my point is that these should be individual decisions by creators, not wholesale decisions by a publisher cartel who profits disproportionately from a very small number of high profile acts, and is keeping down the greater number of people who could benefit (consumers and lesser known artists) from a new medium.
-
not really
2003-04-28 04:35:38 jwenting [Reply | View]
Where you go wrong though is drawing the parallel between authors making their failed works available online freely to gain exposure (which might lead to future sales being better) and people making the work of others which is still available commercially available without prior consent (and sometimes benefitting financially from doing so).
You're comparing giving freely of your own things with selling (or giving away) stolen goods and concluding they're pretty much the same thing, when they're clearly not.
I don't argue about the POTENTIAL for higher sales due to filesharing technology, but the current practice is that it caused a sharp drop in sales of music CDs and movies over the past few years while at the same time the sales of blank CDs has risen sharply.
Software piracy has now risen to such excessive amounts that companies are sometimes spending more money on preventing it and prosecuting the guilty parties than on the development of the software itself. If they don't, they're forced out of business and if they do product development suffers.
This is not as much an issue in the US as it is in Europe and especially Asia where (at least in the games market) in some countries over 90% is pirated.
The situation in the music industry isn't (yet) as bleak, with piracy accounting for maybe 30% of the market (and some people indeed buying more because they hear a few tracks of low quality reproductions and wanting the real thing, but many people now rip entire albums at near the original quality which are made available and CDs burned from it all over the world).
In stores, the sad result is racks of CDs for sale the boxes and booklets of which have been stolen by people who have burned the CD after downloading it via filesharing. That never happened on such a large scale in software, but might start happening now that software too is being ever more distributed in smaller boxes.
You say the artists should decide whether to make (some of) their work available over the internet and I agree.
But it's the artists who should make that decision, NOT the end users! -
not really
2003-04-28 07:17:15 Tim O'Reilly |
[Reply | View]
I agree very much that the artists should make the decision, not the end users. But in the current legal climate and sea of misinformation put out by the music cartel, it's very hard for artists to make that choice, even if they want to.
I believe you make a serious mistake equating file sharing with software piracy. Software piracy is organized duplication of software for sale -- and that's music (or DVD) piracy as well. It flourishes only in countries without much in the way of copyright protection. It doesn't require additional draconian laws.
Meanwhile, you missed the real point of my article, which is that after a period of possible disruption, some form of publishing infrastructure will inevitably arise again, leading to opportunities for profit. If the music companies and artists fight that evolution, they will be left out. If they embrace it, they can be the ones to leverage the new medium. -
not really
2003-04-29 04:39:17 jwenting [Reply | View]
I hope you are right about the industry being able to survive in the long run in an economic system where filesharing as it is today is an accepted phenomenon by that industry, but I have serious doubts.
There have been several initiatives to sell MP3 or other music files over the internet by record companies, AFAIK none have been successful.
Here in the Netherlands a chain of music stores last year (or maybe 2001) started a largescale pilot together with record companies where people could assemble their own CDs with a selection of music (current and older) and have it burned for them in the store (or order online and have it delivered to their door), which goes a long way towards destroying the claim of "I do it only to see if I like the artist before going out and buying an album", yet the piracy of music (both largescale by people leeching music off the web and selling it and smallscale by people leeching a few CDs for their own use) has risen sharply (keeping track with both the drop in sale of CDs and the rise of the number of highspeed internet connections).
Industry initiatives to sell music in electronic format are met with "why should I buy it if I can get it for free", not with "that's a good initiative, now I don't have to resort to pirated music anymore", despite reasonable prices (€1 or so per track, a bit more for physical distribution).
The problem is indeed in part the lack of industry understanding of the current technical and social-economic climate, I don't deny that.
But in large part the problem is more about the lack of respect among the averate end-user for the intellectual rights of others (coming at the same time as a marked drop in the respect for physical ownership of items).
The industry embracing new technologies won't cure that, and unless means can be found to both combat the illegal use of those technologies and protect the legal use the embracing of those techs will likely backfire. -
not really
2003-04-29 12:02:26 Tim O'Reilly |
[Reply | View]
I don't think that €1 per track is a reasonable price Evidence from markets like cable television show that subscription packages are more attractive than pay per view. What I've always wanted to see in a music service is a basic service with lots of current content (equivalent to radio, just as basic cable is equivalent to broadcast television) with "all you can eat by genre" premium packages.
According to George Riemann's analysis of RIAA figures, at the peak in the year 2000, the music industry sold something like 900 million CDs at an average list price of $14. But remember all the intermediaries in the channel and the discounts given to those intermediaries. If discounts are anything like they are in the book business, this would suggest that the RIAA members themselves took in something like $6 billion (900 million times $14 times a 50% discount). That is somewhat less than the revenue that you'd get from about 1/3 of Kazaa's 230 million users paying $9.95 a month for unlimited legal downloading of high quality copies. And while it may seem unlikely now, I sincerely believe that a legitimate high quality product at the right price (which we haven't yet seen) will drive out the user file sharing services. -
not really
2003-07-28 15:14:37 anonymous2 [Reply | View]
I was thinking that perhaps there are some differences between music and television and the way people interact with them that you didn't consider.
1) People sit down and watch TV. Because Music is only an auditory experience, many people listen to music while doing other things (such as working etc). Most people do not interact with TV in the same way. This may be completely irrelevant, but I think most people feel an individual song might not be worth as much as an entire movie, and this effects how much they'd be willing to pay for a subscription service.
2) There is a difference between on-demand and broadcast. TV Cable and Radio are both broadcast.. the schedule is not controlled by the user.. People are less willing to pay-per-view when they cannot control when their enjoyment takes place. Contrast this with Video store rentals and purchased (to own) content which are enjoyed at the users whim. People are happy to pay-per-view when they can control the time of enjoyment.
Also - don't forget that there's no expiration period on file-sharing. You download it and you've got it till you delete it. It's not like radio, which we have internet versions of already.
-
not really
2003-09-10 12:24:40 anonymous2 [Reply | View]
I think that you're missing the big picture here. The music industry does not necessarily face a threat to the sales of its music across the board - only a threat to the sales of its music promoted under the current marketing scheme. It is way too expensive - utilizing today's marketing model - for the industry to equally promote all of the bands that it signs, especially if those bands REALLY DO represent a wide range of original and eclectic musical tastes. Personally, I'm a little sick of their marketing scheme. This is what they do (and all of the time): they sign a big name that they think that they can sell (Brittany Spears) and promote this name till the cows come home. I mean, they just throw so much money at this name that it's a surprise that their big name artist doesn't drown in it. And then, rather than doing this for every artist, they sign a bunch of other similar and smaller name artists that can ride on the bigger name's coattails. This practice is becoming more and more prevalent. Do you really wonder why music sales have declined? I mean, have you actually listened to some of the music that is featured in the bigger music stores? It all really sucks. It is all bland, unoriginal, and lacking in meaning. I am a very avid file-trader, but I also buy plenty of music. The only reason I download songs is because I like new stuff. I have discovered many bands by listening to my local (and only one left) public radio station and hearing something I like. I then listen closer for the name of the artist of the song. When I get home I plug these factors into Kazaa and download a few of their songs. When I find that I like most of it, I (usually because I can't find them in a local store) log onto Amazon or something similar and buy the disc. That is how it is done. If the music industry could sign some better artists they may not have this problem. -
not really
2003-06-11 00:43:26 anonymous2 [Reply | View]
Tim,
It's great to see you participating in these threads. Your defense of article is as eloquent as the article itself. I'm excited to see someone with your reputation and inside knowledge of the publishing industry commenting on these issues!
Thanks!
-
Progress at all cost, please
2003-02-04 15:11:14 anonymous2 [Reply | View]
... technology has finally caught up with us and our demand is being satisfied in a manner it is difficult to extract money from ... we are free at last to gorge ourselves on culture, music, films, literature, education, learning, knowledge ... and there is not a buck to be made from it ... look at MIT and the online publication of their entire campus syllabus ... the 'content industry' has matured, and the above average returns are now history ... destructive technology not only replaces the old and tired and weary and overworked and crowded, it prepares fertile ground for the new and innovative and creative and horizon-busting and what-the-hell did anyone imagine 10 years ago that this would be so big? they sure as hell didn't ... move over grandpa and give room to the new brains on the block, you are history ... alanjohnwhite@hotmail.com (I am convinced that the majority of noise about this advancement is old-fashioned whinging and complaining and someone is paying for it)
-
Progress at all cost, please
2003-02-04 15:11:06 anonymous2 [Reply | View]
... technology has finally caught up with us and our demand is being satisfied in a manner it is difficult to extract money from ... we are free at last to gorge ourselves on culture, music, films, literature, education, learning, knowledge ... and there is not a buck to be made from it ... look at MIT and the online publication of their entire campus syllabus ... the 'content industry' has matured, and the above average returns are now history ... destructive technology not only replaces the old and tired and weary and overworked and crowded, it prepares fertile ground for the new and innovative and creative and horizon-busting and what-the-hell did anyone imagine 10 years ago that this would be so big? they sure as hell didn't ... move over grandpa and give room to the new brains on the block, you are history ... alanjohnwhite@hotmail.com (I am convinced that the majority of noise about this advancement is old-fashioned whinging and complaining and someone is paying for it)
-
Progress at all cost, please
2003-02-04 15:11:00 anonymous2 [Reply | View]
... technology has finally caught up with us and our demand is being satisfied in a manner it is difficult to extract money from ... we are free at last to gorge ourselves on culture, music, films, literature, education, learning, knowledge ... and there is not a buck to be made from it ... look at MIT and the online publication of their entire campus syllabus ... the 'content industry' has matured, and the above average returns are now history ... destructive technology not only replaces the old and tired and weary and overworked and crowded, it prepares fertile ground for the new and innovative and creative and horizon-busting and what-the-hell did anyone imagine 10 years ago that this would be so big? they sure as hell didn't ... move over grandpa and give room to the new brains on the block, you are history ... alanjohnwhite@hotmail.com (I am convinced that the majority of noise about this advancement is old-fashioned whinging and complaining and someone is paying for it)
-
OK in theory, but...
2003-02-02 20:11:44 anonymous2 [Reply | View]
It seems that this article, although well thought-out in the book arena, doesn't apply straight across to the music arena.
Please consider:
1. As simple as it may seem, the vehicle is what's important here.
The book reader reads a book. The book itself is a part of the equation. The paper and ink. Online downloads of Palm-based books are minimal in the industry, let alone downloads of stolen e-books. A book reader reads on his lap, on the couch, the bus, the train, in the bathtub, etc. Note no outcry by Random House, no complaint about the destruction of book buying as we know it. And yet many books I buy, new hardbacks by major publishers, cost more than the CD's I buy. I just spent $27 on a book on Saturday, but about $20 for a CD on Friday.
In contrast, the mp3 "thief" downloads an mp3 top 100 hit and immediately drops it into an mp3 player or an mp3 list on their PC. This is the vehicle, electronic media. No one cares about the magic of sitting in a hi-fi listening room and enjoying a symphony on LP. That's a different day and age. It's about wanting the latest hit on their mp3 player. Although people who are a part of an older generation feel that they would of course never steal if given the choice, this isn't relevant to many young people who are "stealing" mp3's. They don't feel like they're stealing. "What?" you say, "that's ridiculous!" Not really. Look into it, ask around. It's reality.
The bulk of mp3 theft is in the late-teen to early 30's age group and they don't feel it's theft. They aren't waiting for a CD to come down to a reasonable price when they'll jump back on the bandwagon and buy once more. They have been pulling down movies, video games, and music from peer-to-peer networks for years now on high-speed networks.
I can tell you from the inside, Hollywood is pale-faced about the development of high-speed networks world-wide. Why? Because of the vehicle. Again, it's not a book, it's a medium that's translated electronically by it's nature. And once speed is no longer a factor, Hollywood is well-aware that a certain chunk of theater viewers will be lost to downloaded movies, burned onto DVD's, shown on home theater systems that now cost less than a grand to enjoy sometimes better quality than the local theater chain.
2. Numbers don't lie.
Look at the numbers from the sales of top-100 singles and albums (2 different categories) from 10 years ago versus today. Heck, even a year ago versus 10 years ago. You will be staggered if you understand economics and what these numbers represent in an irreversible trend. Yes, there's always going to be room for a local band to drum up a regional following and sell a dozen records to their fans. (Say, 5,000 records or so.) But the "industry" in the news is the CD project that sells 100,000 records, a million records, or even more. This is what's caught up in an irreversible downward trend. That is the industry that's dying and will not be saved through another distribution network. There's nothing wrong with a band and their small following, it's great. It's culture at its finest. But to assert those principles apply to the music "industry" misses what the industry actually is.
3. But you're making our point...if we just make a quality product and offer it for a reasonable price online or in the record store, we will see sales come back up.
Actually, that's proving very un-true. The hopes of the industry have recently rested upon various versions of inexpensive mp3 download sites. All kinds of sliding scales, memberships, and per-download fees have all failed. Again, not talking about the "indies," rather the majors. To that end, large industry giants have recently come out and voiced a need to figure out the "new" way to capture what's called "non-traditional marketing." But they've yet to find the magic pill.
4. Whether we like it or not, it's big news in our culture and it is what it is.
We have for decades been using a particular distribution system for CD's and movies, which is why it's such big news that they're failing. It's akin to if all of the sudden our large grocery stores are all losing money and getting ready to go out of business. Their CEO's are all over the news talking about people stealing their wares and effectively shutting their doors. Sure, we can bring up how special it will be to go back to old-time farmer's markets, that kind of idea is very popular to espouse. But it has nothing to do with our large supermarkets shutting down, if farmer's markets were going to take the business of a supermarket, they would have already, but they're very different and not filling that need.
No, this analogy isn't perfect, it's meant to paint a basic picture. But this is the kind of business catastrophe that would make big news and cause people to wonder what's going on with the grocery "industry." So we wonder about the music industry.
I mean no disrespect, I just want to provide some facts that may sway the discussion toward a more informed take on the commercial music industry, which is greatly different than the commercial book industry.
-
Right on
2003-01-29 13:18:50 anonymous2 [Reply | View]
Excellent presentation of the issues. Lesson 1 couldn't be more right. Lesson 5 - well, who can sympathize with a whining middleman?
-
Your customers _know_ what you think of them
2003-01-27 15:33:56 scottellsworth [Reply | View]
I wish more publishers considered reputation as something to be earned, and something which their own actions can harm.
Some time ago, I lobbied MacSoft for a removal of CD copy protection on several computer games, as I do not like carrying CDs in my briefcase, nor do I want to carry every CD I have bought on the chance that I will want to play a game. My example was a notebook sans CD on a cross country flight. I also noted that it makes me quite angry when a company acts as if I am a thief.
A senior MacSoft staffer replied that anyone who was angered by having to use a CD should consider anger management, and that while he would help a legitimate customer happily, he was not about to help someone break their copy protection. This memorable comment is something which I have borne in mind ever since when buying games. He earned honesty points, but he still is in the "our customers are thieves" camp.
Similarly, Sony Music, who distributes all of Danny Elfman's music, has chosen to implement Mac-hostile copy protection. I have not bought an Elfman soundtrack since that announcement last year, despite enjoying movies such as "Spiderman", because I could not be sure that the CD would work. No retailer accepts returns on opened stock, and thus it is clear that Sony and Tower consider their customers as thieves.
Again, I remember this when buying products.
I listen to all of my music (all legit, I might add) on my iPod, as then I can carry roughly three days of music on a cross country drive. If we decide to listen to Nik Kershaw while driving up the coast, we can. Even if I had forgotten that I had the album. This would not be possible with copy protected DRM music.
I have contacted artists to tell them that they made a poor choice of label, and I have given thousands of dollars to the EFF in hopes that the damage these rogues have done can be reversed. I have no idea if there is still hope, but I do know that publishers unable to adapt to the future will lose to those who can do so.
These companies have not lost just one sale or two, they have lost my respect, and whenever there is an alternative product, my money.
Scott
-
The value of value in a land of extremeism.
2003-01-18 12:56:16 anonymous2 [Reply | View]
Since I haven't figured out threading on this forum. I did want to make a small statement about this:
"When people, in general, respect the quality of music that's put out they'll more likely buy it. If there's less perceived value to it then they'll be tempted to take it. (Like REM vs. Christina Aguilera.)
http://www.poochkiss.com/blog.asp?Link=126"
This is specious logic in effect. If people like something (perceive that it has value) and will purchase it? Then wouldn't refusing the content and telling the author, send a clearer message about "less perceived value" than simply copying it. By copying something of a "less perceived value", and keeping it , isn't one saying that in actuality it does have enough value? Is it any wonder the battle has gotten ugly.
-
The value of value in a land of extremeism.
2003-01-23 18:40:12 anonymous2 [Reply | View]
selecting 'full text' will give you one long nested page list of the comments, the you can select 'oldest first' if you want to review all the comments in the order of posting. Took me a few clicks on the links to figure it out. It is a bit puzzling, especially when you are in individual comment mode, and don't get the links to reply or get out. -
The value of value in a land of extremeism.
2003-01-19 09:57:41 Tim O'Reilly |
[Reply | View]
I agree with you that the logic of the quote you cite is specious. But I think that what the poster was getting at has a germ of truth. What I see my daughter and her friends doing is a lot of *sampling.* That is, they hear about a song or an artist, and download the music to listen to it -- think of it as user-controlled radio, where you no longer need to call in your requests, but can simply program them yourself. They may even burn a few CDs from the net, but as enthusiasm grows, they go out and buy more stuff. Then, if they really like the artist, they go out and buy some CDs. The sequence goes like this: internet, burn, buy... For example, I guarantee you my daughter owns a lot more David Bowie CDs and records than she would have in pre-Napster days (all of them, versus 0), and probably as many as the most enthusiastic fan from Bowie's heyday. Not to mention lots of custom mixes that she's burned herself.
-
copyright > 28yrs is THEFT
2003-01-08 13:14:08 anonymous2 [Reply | View]
The founding fathers got it right. We tolerate temporary monoplies a.k.a copyright for a reason. And it is due the the greed of the corporations in extending the term beyond 14 years that to the so obviously unreasonable 100 year terms that brought the system into disrepute.
-
copyright > 28yrs is THEFT
2003-07-10 12:48:48 anonymous2 [Reply | View]
I agree with you that this is a MAJOR issue, and that the change in copyright laws that changed copyrights from 28 years to life of author plus something pretty long was a major theft from the public...with no justification other than greed of publishers. Can we really imagine, for example, that Dr. Seuss in 1937 would not have published "To THink that I saw it on Mulberry Street" if he had thought that after 28 years it would enter the public domain? Or 56 years with renewal?
The present situation is that anything published after 1923 is subject to ridiculously long copyrights, and it would be good if a movement were to arise to challenge this matter, both through legal appeals and through legislation...after all, there are far more who will benefit from shorter copyright periods than those who will lose.
-
Piracy is Progressive Taxation
2002-12-22 09:25:36 anonymous2 [Reply | View]
Tim, you aught to be a carpenter. You hit the nail right on the head everytime.
-
Online distribution
2002-12-19 09:48:25 anonymous2 [Reply | View]
I believe my adamant opposition to information theft comes from years of listening to its apologists.
I accept that the economics cited in the article might be correct and to the advantage of artists and content producers, but I also think it should be exclusively their right to decide whether to participate or not. Pirates remove their right of choice. Pirates then come up with nice-sounding rationalizations for doing so, hoping to pass off their self-interested behavior as something enlightened.
If the price is too high, do without; the "cult of entitlement" excuses get old really fast. -
Online distribution
2008-05-18 07:11:49 swing_developer [Reply | View]
What you're forgetting is that the artist's *right* is not a natural right, it's one created by society for the purpose of benefiting society.
To the extent that it does benefit society, then those *rights* represent good law. To the extent that those rights start to harm society, then those *rights* will be rescinded.
The same is true of patent law. We the people through our laws grant inventors some *rights*, but they're not on par with the right to assembly, the right free speech the right to be free from unjust imprisonment. They're *rights* that are granted solely for the purpose of incentivizing a certain kind of activity.
If an artist or other creator wants to retain perpetual and sole authority over his works, then the artist can keep them to his or her self. Beyond that, it becomes a matter of public policy who gets to use what in what fashion.
The problem with your argument is that it was a form of assuming the consequent. You assume a conclusion to the argument and use that assumption as if itself were a valid argument. You assumed that artists get to impose restrictions on other people's behavior because the artist took the step of exposing the art to the larger society. But that's a conclusion, not an argument. It's just your point of view on the matter, and not a reason why your point of view is valid.
-
Online distribution
2003-06-11 01:44:46 anonymous2 [Reply | View]
As you say "the cult of entitlement excuses get old really fast", I agree. I am sick content producers thinking they are entitled to make money on their works forever.
As you are sick of "Piracy Apologists", I am sick of "Copyright Entitlists"--that is, people who think the right to a perpetual monopoly is something that's been around since the beginning of time and is somehow an unalienable right like free speech.
Copyright (in the US) is set out in the Constitution with the following paragraph:
The Congress shall have Power ... To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries
First, the key words here are "To Promote the progress of science and useful arts". It doesn't say "To promote the profit of authors".
Second, it reads "By securing for LIMITED times". With copyright terms now at 99 years and set to only climb, when are we going to decide we've exceeded the framers intent? As it is now, someone alive today is not likely to have the chance to create a derivative work based on today's modern works before they die.
If that doesn't seem important to you, consider that Disney got their big break by creating a derivative work of the Brothers Grimm in the form of the feature animated film: "Snow White". Wouldn't you agree that the world is a better place with Disney's Snow White in it?
Society has been very good to Disney. We've made them into the media powerhouse that they are today--it's a true story of the American Dream. Disney ought to be required to pay it's debt to society back by putting these stories into the public domain before today's young authors grow old and die.
This discussion is continually framed in the form of the author's rights as the seller versus the consumer's rights as the potential buyer. This is valid but it's not the whole story. There is a greater issue of control over modern culture. -
Online distribution
2002-12-21 08:42:38 Tim O'Reilly |
[Reply | View]
As I've said in other contexts, I also believe strongly in the right of creators to choose the terms on which their work can be distributed. (See My Definition of Freedom Zero.) But I will point out that the RIAA and others don't speak for artists--they speak for themselves and their shareholders, and there are many artists who would benefit from more liberal policies.
I'd love to see the RIAA polling their artists, using an "opt in" mechanism for file sharing. Then we'd be able to move towards a fair marketplace, rather than a controlled one. -
Online distribution
2003-04-28 04:47:19 jwenting [Reply | View]
Only if combined with a vigorous policing effort to stamp out piracy (which I fear may be impossible).
Most users (especially teens and early adults) are not going to pay $1 per track (to give a figure) downloaded from the official website if they can just fire up Kazaa or whatever P2P client and download the entire work of that artist for free.
The respect for ownership has gone down that much, it's no longer a cost issue but principle.
I've met people who were actually PROUD of not having any paid for music or software, but having it all pirated and leeched off the web.
Looking at what that software was a lot of it were programs costing $5-$25 each, not applications costing thousands which they might not be able to afford on their income/allowance.
Then there's the software engineers (individuals and companies) asking around for cracked versions of anti-piracy tools because they want to protect their own product (commercial...) from being pirated.
IMO that's the ultimate irony as well as the ultimate example of the mindset of many people these days. -
Online distribution
2003-04-28 07:26:36 Tim O'Reilly |
[Reply | View]
At this point, I agree that many people have been conditioned to think of music as free. But I think you overstate the case. In the early days of the Internet, everyone was conditioned to think of net access as free, but before long, they were all paying $20/month (or more) for it. In a similar way, once there is a market-priced service that people like, they will convert to the convenience of it.
You've got to remember that there is no legitiamate alternative to Kazaa and its ilk. 99 cents a song -- which pretty much preserves the pricing of CDs -- is not the answer, especially if it's coupled with copy protection. This is a new medium. But I'll bet that there is a profitable price that will spur demand, with a lot more freedom to sample and try new music.
I'll also point out that there are a lot of us who've suffered sales declines in the current downturn without the excuse of free redistribution of our product. What's more, George Riemann of Mac Wizards music has analyzed their sales figures and points out that the RIAA members have collectively produced significantly fewer releases in the past two years, and have actually pushed UP their revenue per SKU. So there's really something fishy about their claims that file sharing is the cause of their woes.
I am almost certain that all of the hand wringing is a delaying tactic till they can get their house in order, understand this market, and make their own offerings competitive. If they had more courage and leadership, they could be breaking the back of illegal file sharing today, by beating it at its own game. -
Online distribution
2003-10-31 02:22:53 anonymous2 [Reply | View]
i think there are two points that seem to be missed.one,thieves can't complain about pirates.being a musician i can tell you dozens of horror stories of bands that worked hard,got signed,had good sales,only to see not one cent in profit and to be told by their lawyer that they will never see a dime or even get the rights to their own songs back without a major lawsuit(and major upfront legal fees).if you think it's just dumb kids,remeber meatloaf had to sue for 17 years to get a lousy 7 mil for bat out of hell one,and that thing sold more product than tide!and there was no internet to cause "loss of sales".i get my music online(and freely offer my own)because i don't have a problem taking from thieves.the last album i purchased was the stones sticky fingers two years ago and it cost me MORE than when i bought it in 1985!There is no excuse for charging new prices for 30+ year old music and until the record corporations stop trying to extort new prices and treat the artists fairly(metallica gets $2.50 on a $22+cd?give me a break!i'll just keep downloading and support the artists i enjoy by going to their shows and buying straight from them. And i hope the big 5 go the way of the dinosaurs.one more thing,NO WAY am i paying a buck a song for old music.a dime to a quarter,maybe,but not as long as the riaa is going around suing 12 year olds and taking high school kids college funds.it's nothing but legalized extortion!give us money or we'll bust you.the only ones they'll bust is kids and the stupid.i've got my high speed going through enough proxies and firewalls all they'll find when they look for me is a server in hong kong. -
Online distribution
2003-06-18 22:09:04 anonymous2 [Reply | View]
Isn't it ironic that we're talking about an industry where a majority of the time, the people who created the product, don't even end up owning the rights to make money with it, or do anything with it all? I know so many people who have had to buy their stuff back, so they can at least sell two dozen copies to faithful fans or whatever. The record company, after not adequately promoting it, would have just let it sit in a vault somewhere and die. So I mean, who's stealing from whom?
You are right, this is only a threat to EXISTING companies. Those companies have been doing such a piss poor job. I think it went south when they never really came up with a decent replacement for the forty-five. One hit wonders were just what they were. You bought one hit, and that was it. To get someone to buy an entire album, you actually had to make a decent, or dare I say it, great one. And guess what? Those artists still have decent selling catalogues. Chances are they were nurtured along a little too. Elton made better albums over time, at least the first ten years anyway. Most of today's pop acts won't even produce a catalogue because the music won't stand the test of time. They got greedy when they knew they could force us to pay $14 for the single, or one good tune and nine crappy ones. Why does everyone think the NOW... MUSIC series does so well?
They are blowin' it big time. They should analyze the service and do it better, faster. And don't give me this bull about teens not being able to afford it, or not respecting the music. When I was 18, I gladly forked over my portion of the cable bill every month because the "free" channels were just not gonna cut it for me or my roomates. And it was my waitressing money, not my parent's, paying for all my living expenses. Now I pay for satellite because basic cable doesn't cut it, and I want better service than what my crappy cable company seems to want to offer. The jury is out on the service quality of the satellite companies, but one can see my point. Which was also your point. The file sharing experience has much to be improved on.
The current record companies have the means and the power to make such awesome downloading sights. They could provide access to so much of what they're already sitting on, and turn a profit on stuff that's already been recorded. They had to digitally remaster everything they've been willing to reissue on CD, why not make the entire motherload available?Why not make it a goal to make everything available, to design a sight that is convenient to use and affordable? Do it better.
I mean, when I was fourteen, it didn't take me long to figure out that my own copy of EXIT STAGE LEFT or whatever was better than my friend's cassette recording off her stereo. I wanted my own copy, with the words and the art and all of it. That could all be incorporated into a web site. I think the record companies have lost sight of how to make things appealing. Everyone sees through the BS. People think they are being ripped off, and if you bought a CD in the last ten years hoping to have ten or twelve great tunes to listen to, or a great concept to check out, chances are, you were.
Thanks for making some great points!
-
You just gained a customer!
2002-12-18 09:54:12 jamesg [Reply | View]
Thank you for your article. You made many great points and clearly understand the issues. One area that you briefly discussed involves reputation. In any business revolution there is a time - initially - when low cost providers rule. I believe that reputation will soon become a prime mover in all internet business models.
Do you want a product that's cheap or "free", or would you prefer something that works? Do you want to pay money to a fly-by-night operator or someone with a reputation for integrity?
I have a (low-cost) cell phone service that was I subscribed to based on cost. Their service is horrible (fraudulent billing, dropped calls, etc). Unfortunately so is the service offered by their competitors. When a cellular service company demonstrates that they are good company to do business with I will gladly pay them twice what I currently pay. This is what you have already achieved in publishing. Businesses in many other fields would do well to follow your lead.
You can choose to see "piracy" - or anything else - as a problem or an opportunity. You see opportunities and I look forward to watching your continued success.
James Gregory -
You just gained a customer!
2002-12-21 08:38:02 Tim O'Reilly |
[Reply | View]
I've been thinking about reputation and related topics a bit lately, and I agree, especially if you broaden the term "reputation" to include related features like brand, aesthetics.
In his book Air Guitar, Dave Hickey has a great essay about how the automobile industry moved from being a manufacturing industry to a design industry. It strikes me that whenever an industry becomes commoditized, "intangibles" become more important as differentiators.
-
No Zero-sum Game
2002-12-17 20:39:19 sjcole [Reply | View]
It's a pleasure to read such a thoughtful reflection on the place and future of DRM in the distribution of digital goods.
Our company struggles with the clunky logistics and also the ethics of DRM on a daily basis.
One thing is certain: this is no zero-sum game. Lending libraries and photocopiers were hailed as the death of book publishing. Clearly, somehow publishers have struggled on.
The worrying thing for me is that some publishers don't grasp the fact that the onus is on commercial operators to anticipate and present compelling commercial features and business models.
The book industry is in a state of slow transition. We should be patient; publishers have been operating roughly the same business model for about 500 years. It's reasonable that they should tread warily. Still, we may be witnessing the extinction of the more timid publishing behomeths. I'm just not sure what their fleet-footed replacements will look like.
Much appreciated.
Stephen Cole
CEO
www.ebooks.com
-
Copywrong in Canada
2002-12-17 07:30:44 anonymous2 [Reply | View]
I just read this piece (directed to it by
the Inquirer) on Piracy is Progressive Taxation,..
Brilliant! It addresses the issue in direct terms
that sum up the "problem" and its solutions in
two pages.
We're currently waging a battle here in Canada
against the Copyright Dudes who have managed to
get the government to impose a duty on ALL
memory items -- blank CDs, tapes, DRAM(!), and
hard drives that will drive their prices
through the roof. Who gets the money from this?
Lessee here --- software companies? No.
Photographers? No. Independent musicians? No.
Big record companies. Wow.
Keep writing; we need considered insight like this.
Regards,
Robert Bernecky
bernecky@acm.org
-
most important words: FAIR and REASONABLE price
2002-12-17 01:33:47 anonymous2 [Reply | View]
Dear Mr. O'Reilly!
As a scientific librarian I think, the most important sentence in Your article is: '...to give those customers a legitimate alternative, at a FAIR price.'
Yes, we want to buy content and licenses, but at a reasonable (!) price. Personally I don't want to buy an office suite which uses hundred of megabytes storage space on my harddisk, costs a few hundred dollars and has zillions of functions I never need; only to write somes letters to grandma.
Yes, I don't want to pay the 'marketing overhead' for such stars as Britney Spears, which are hyped with zillions of marketing dollars in all media and publish only 'stream-lined' albums with a few hits.
And I don't want to buy from companies who see all their customers as potential pirates and are greedy to sqeeze out the last cent of every customer only for the sake of shareholders value.
But Yes, I want to abide to copyright law if the products are sold at reasonable prices and the customer has fair use rights.
Best regards,
- Karl-Josef
-
Per-channel?
2002-12-16 23:21:03 anonymous2 [Reply | View]
"Another lesson from television is that people prefer subscriptions to pay-per-view, except for very special events. What's more, they prefer subscriptions to larger collections of content, rather than single channels."
That's not always true. It usually is just that it's cheaper to buy in bulk. How many people who have cable or satellite, with their 100+ channels, actually watch even 20 of those channels in any given month? The problem tends to be that you get a channel or two in this package that you actually *want*, but can't get it otherwise. It's a perceived improvement in service, mixed in the reality of a degradation of service. I don't want the evangelical channels, or the MTV crew, or the shopping channels, or... I want this, that, and the other. But I can't have them alone. I have to get all of the others. And if I see another channel or two I would direly like, I have to buy the $10 add-on package of 20 channels, rather than paying $0.50 per channel to choose what I want.
At least, this has been my experience in the US, and the experiences of many others. I am aware of a couple Canadian TV content providers which actually let you choose the channels you want. I'm a white mid-20s male with a technological orientation. I don't want MTV, BET, gardening, jewelry-shopping, Lifetime, etc. I want TechTV, the NASA channel, Discovery Science, TLC, Disc. Wings, Fox, FX... but to get those, I have to purchase at least 4 times as many channels I'll never even consider.
I would rather be able to compile my own CD of 12 songs and have it sent to me by the publisher, paying per-song (or per-CD, even), rather than having to purchase 7 CDs for *just* those 12 songs. A huge waste on everyone's side.
I pay $9.95/mo to access several hundred technical documents and books, only to actually ever look at 2 in any given month. (Of course, this is hypothetical and unfair; I haven't checked out O'Reilly's online alternatives.) Sure, if you're going to read 50 in that month, it's worth it. It's like telephone usage. Certainly, people purchase plans which give them a wide range of usage for a single price - but because they don't know if they're going to use the phone for 5 or 500 minutes this month. In that respect, a flat rate is desirable.
If you had to pay for your television per-hour of viewing, then most likely you'd switch to a flat rate. Though, personally, I could actually budget out a typical month and stay pretty much on track, so if per-hour would be cheaper, there ya go. I pay a flat rate for my cable Internet connection; partially because per-minute would bankrupt me with my usage. Ah, but some months I'm not home very much, and my usage is less than half. Therein lies the possibility of gain, because I wouldn't be paying as much as that flat rate. But on average, I would be paying more, so I choose the flat rate.
And I've started to lose my thread, so I'll just press 'submit' and leave you to it. -
Per-channel?
2002-12-21 08:34:46 Tim O'Reilly |
[Reply | View]
I don't disagree that being able to choose your own assortment of channels would be a good thing. I was just making the observation that in most equivalent markets, it hasn't worked out that way. There's a tendency towards larger aggregations. And yes, it does theoretically impose an extra cost on the consumer, but in practice, the individual songs (or channels, if TV) would be sold at a sufficiently higher price as to even out the difference. -
Per-channel?
2003-07-28 15:38:30 anonymous2 [Reply | View]
Isn't the tendancy towards larger aggregations really just the providers way of inflating the value ?
As you point out, the individual channels would "be sold at a sufficiently higher price as to even out the difference".
The cable companies purposely separate the popular channels and bundle them with the less popular ones so that you get some "perceived" value out of your cash. It's basic marketing strategy.
And since at least some of their advertising revenue is based on the number of subscriptions they sell to a particular channel, its a good way of getting money for a service no one is really using.
-
Piracy is Progressive Taxation, and Other Thoughts on the Evolution of Online Distribution -
2002-12-16 16:03:26 anonymous2 [Reply | View]
You must work for a record Company.......the word is FREE .........and that is what people want and will get........how much did you pay to watch the Olympics on TV>>>>>>>>>>>>> -
Piracy is Progressive Taxation, and Other Thoughts on the Evolution of Online Distribution -
2003-07-28 22:28:34 anonymous2 [Reply | View]
Nothing. So there. -
Sorry Nothing is free
2002-12-17 07:30:01 tschmidt [Reply | View]
You can either pay directly or indirectly wasting your time watching/listening to advertising.
I'd much prefer a low cost distribution channel and pay directly. I don't know how you value your time but renting a video, for $1.25 US is a bargain compared to spending half an hour or more watching commercials to get the movie "free" not to mention destruction of any sort of dramatic flow when interrupted by commercial messages every few minutes.
-
Piracy as progressive taxation
2002-12-16 14:44:15 anonymous2 [Reply | View]
I just read your article on "Piracy is progressive taxation" and found it very thoughtful and insightful, and will try to keep my eyes open for articles of yours in the future.
I'm a small publisher of poetry (my own), and it called to mind the "controversy" of a year or so ago when everybody was upset that Amazon.com was offering used copies of books along side new... like one or two being sold is going to impact my sales overall! And like you, I find myself buying a lot more books now than I ever did before, because of the accessibility ofwhat I want online... it's gotten me so into the habit that I'll even buy a brand new full price hardback, something I NEVER would do in the old days except under extreme circumstances!
-
On Progressive Taxation
2002-12-16 13:52:42 anonymous2 [Reply | View]
Open comments to Tim O'Reilly regarding his article:
Great article on intellectual property and what constitutes "piracy."
The one thing I might add is that greed has a lot to do with this. As the United States gets out of the manufacturing business (sadly, I must admit), it is only "content" that we produce now and it is one of our biggest exports. So, the copyright owners seem to feel that this is the only way to squeeze every penny out of their customers.
I would also add that your observation about your daughter's music listening and buying habits is dead on. CDs are way overpriced to begin with and more kids are spending their money on video games (two to four times the cost of one CD) and DVDs. Why not try before your buy?
One of the other great ironies of this whole debate is that US law is the strongest in the world when it comes to copyright infringement, but piracy is truly a problem in other lands. When you can buy a copy of the new Harry Potter movie in the streets in Beijing for $1.25 a week before it comes out, that should be a sign that there is a problem there.
There was another interesting article I read to today on the subject which might interest you.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/1216/p11s01-wmcn.html <http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/1216/p11s01-wmcn.html>
-
Why the suits are unconvinced
2002-12-16 06:50:13 David Sims | [Reply | View]
Tim,
Not to break up the party, but let me play the devil's advocate and speak for a moment for the suits. I agree with most of your major points, especially that online exploration generates paid sales & services, and that given a viable legal alternative most customers (well, enough to make the difference) would opt for it.
But amidst all this back-slapping, it seems to me like we're missing an obvious point. You're a better businessman than I am, so check me on this, but I don't think the money guys in Hollywood are going to "let go and trust" until they see a business plan that offers a real chance at profitability. They can't; unlike a privately held company, which can take risks based on the instincts of a smaller group of owners, media giants are publicly held. They have a legal responsibility to try to improve profitability and preserve the share price. Letting go and trusting is a good personal philosophy, but it'll get you sued in the board room, since that's not why thousands of investors are trusting them with their money.
We offer Hollywood no more assurance than our good wishes, and maybe the example that it worked out once before with VHS. We preach to them, starry-eyed, about the wonders of the web, explaining the power of eBay, Google and Napster. They scratch their head and look at the billions of dollars lost in web ventures over the past few years, and think, "Gee, I dunno..."
Until we can offer them something better, can we blame them as business people for taking a course of caution?
Wandering in the Land of Suits,
- Dave Sims
-
Why the suits are unconvinced
2003-03-27 12:23:49 soopahman [Reply | View]
dave of Suits wrote:
unlike a privately held company, which can take risks based on the instincts of a smaller group of owners, media giants are publicly held. They have a legal responsibility...
There are 2 angles to this. First, if this threat of legal repercussion is in fact enough to impede any member of Hollywood and the RIAA to enter a premium Kazaa into the market, then it will indeed be up to private companies - like Kazaa - to dominate this market until buying a company like Kazaa is no longer too scary for media giants to realize the potential profits of leveraging such a product. -
Why the suits are unconvinced
2002-12-16 17:01:35 tschmidt [Reply | View]
I'll bet incumbents will never change, just like vacuum tube manufactures were not successful making transistors. It is very hard for an incumbent to embrace disruptive technology.
The same digital technology that threatens incumbents with peer-to-peer distribution is also a production threat, by lowering cost. Digital technologies threaten all scarcity driven business models. New artists will create and drive the new distribution model. Eventually incumbents will embrace it after someone else proves it works, and they can no longer ignore it. Don't expect leadership from folks invested in the status quo – it has to come from elsewhere.
-
Why the suits are unconvinced
2002-12-16 15:58:22 Tim O'Reilly |
[Reply | View]
Dave, I agree that there's a real problem here. It's clear to me that the change will happen when, as my friend (and business consultant)-
Error in previous post
2003-03-27 12:17:17 soopahman [Reply | View]
Tim, you missed a " at the end of your href attribute in your link tag, so the end of your post
(says, "the pain of changing is less than the pain of not changing. A transition to new markets isn't without pain, but it's also not without opportunity.)
got lost. May wanna edit that fix in :o)
-
Napsters threated rating companies, not music.
2002-12-15 04:44:48 blaquesmith [Reply | View]
To Tim O'Reilly,
In your article "Piracy is Progressive Taxation", you noted that your daughter and friends sampled many bands from the last 40 years, and that prompted them to look for, and buy more CD's. This is similar to my musical experience. When I was in high school (1972 grad), I listened to albums that my friend bought. I when I went to college I swapped cassette tapes with dorm-mates. Also, FM radio was on the rise during those years, but the major ad money was still going into AM. FM radio station owner were willing to experiment and let DJ's play what they wanted, as long as surveys showed there was a growing audience. That produce "Underground" radio stations that played whole albums instead for repeat play lists. The overall effect for me was I bought a greater diversity of albums, not 45's or 8 tracks.
Fast forward through the 80's and 90's, and then Napster happened. I didn't bite at first because I was conscious of piracy issues. Then one night I was searching the Internet for the theme song from a 1980's British Sci-fi show. Web search engines came up blank, so I submitted and inquiry to a newsgroup, (when automation fail, talk to real people.) Sure enough I got two answers back that gave me the author and the song title. But, the respondents told me the song had only been available for three months one summer in England as an EP CD. No chance of finding this, I though, it's long out of production. Then I remembered Napster. Sure enough I found a passable copy of the song. That sold me. While Napster was active I bought several CD's that I would not have normally purchased. The whole idea of a music archive and sampling system was proven to me and many other. And yes, it is too bad the record labels believe their own BS, or do they?
The music and television industry lost contact with there customers decades ago. For me this was evident in the migration of 'Top 40 Radio' from AM to FM in the 1980's. They were willing to kill a new market in order to graph on their known market. Broadcast programing is hooked into a loop hunting advertising dollars. For example, the broadcasters promote programing that their market surveys endorse. The rating companies rank the broadcasters ability to match the requirements of the market as outlined by marketing surveys. The advertisers put their money into the high ranking broadcasters that fit their market demographic surveys. At all points the system is justified and rational. But where is the customer really given a voice? No where. Once the system is primed, it is self sustaining. But this is more like a confinement fusion reaction than a fission reaction. While the pressure is on, the reaction is self sustaining, but if something upsets the confinement field, the reaction goes away. (This explain not only all the me-to programing, but also the occasion upset a fresh voice produces.) Napster had the potential of upsetting this whole process. It could have become the biggest and best market survey engine going. I think that was a greater danger to more people than the "lost CD sales".
Ruben Jeffries
-
O'Reilly will do great!
2002-12-14 23:52:02 anonymous2 [Reply | View]
If this is the marketing philosophy of O'Reilly, then they are gonna be around a long time and be a very profitable company, with many many happy customers. Great Article! I have just become a customer because of it.
Alan from Knoxville TN -
O'Reilly will do great!
2002-12-16 15:59:51 Tim O'Reilly |
[Reply | View]
Thanks! I like to hear that.
-
Piracy........
2002-12-14 12:39:22 z0phi3l [Reply | View]
Great article, there should be a way of getting this to the RIAA, and the MPAA. Or maybe to Polititians. This article is exactly what I've discussed with other people, but not so elucuently. If the right people in power were to read and understand these principles the so called problems with P2P would disappear.
-
various replys
2002-12-14 10:31:01 anonymous2 [Reply | View]
Tim, I would like to point out why "infringment" is the term used instead of thief. ALL works that are copyrighted belong to the public. We grant the copyright to the artist because the inspiration for that artist is his culture and that culture is owned by all. Not the recording industry nor the government. It's the governments job to maintain the status of the copyright and it's the artists job to release it back to it's owners after a limited time of ownership. Franklins two terms of 14 years was plenty for copyright.
-
Astounding
2002-12-14 09:52:15 anonymous2 [Reply | View]
What an enlightened and refreshing piece. I wish more fiction publishers had Tim O'Reilly's insight.
-
Piracy is Progressive Taxation, and Other Thoughts on the Evolution of Online Distribution -
2002-12-14 09:40:42 anonymous2 [Reply | View]
Excellent. Makes many very valid points.
-
Excellent
2002-12-14 06:34:47 anonymous2 [Reply | View]
Perhaps the best analysis of the surrent situation and the possible solutions. Unfortunately those who can make decisions are unwilling to listen.
-
Your article on File Sharing, etc.
2002-12-14 06:32:56 anonymous2 [Reply | View]
Finally someone has written an intellectually sound, rational, & dispassionate look at the entire picture.
Your article eloquently brings light to this complex subject, while putting into words what many of us know but may not have been able to describe.
Your comments on obscurity and lack of availability for all but the most commercially popular music are particularly well-done, and very accurate in my experience.
Thank you for writing this...
-
Very good
2002-12-14 05:11:13 anonymous2 [Reply | View]
I totally agree with all of what you say here.. :)
Exellent piece to read..
-
YASWN
2002-12-14 04:56:44 anonymous2 [Reply | View]
Which stands for "Yet Another Star Wars Nerd" - I just HAD to say it - the correct quote WAS "Let the wookie win" (as pointed above), but it was said by C-3PO, not Han Solo ;o)
As for the article - I enjoyed it greatly, and I will recommend it to my friends.
Great points and very well presented!
-
10 for $30 or 1000 for $9?
2002-12-14 03:11:59 anonymous2 [Reply | View]
If the Music industry is worried about multi-billion dollar losses to piracy then they must lower the price of their product to one that the public feels is fair.
I would happily buy more CD's if they retailed for less, but at present I just don't think the current price is warrented for Compact Disc where I'll only end up liking one or two songs.
Now you can tell me all you want about how much it costs to make a CD and market it etc but you'd better start cutting out all the middle men if you want me to care.
What makes more sense -
- Selling 100 CD's at $24.95 or selling 1000 at $9.95?
Now apart from the manufactouring cost (which is well below artist fees and marketing) not much profit is lost at all.
And in encouraging people to take more risks on new (cheaper) CD's the music industry will open their market to entirely new types of music. I must admit through file sharing I have been introduced to entirely new genres that I wouldn't normally risk $24.95 to 'see if I like it'. At a lower price point I’d be happy to experiment with some new music.
If you walked into your local CD shop and found all the CD's selling for $9.95, even new releases, wouldn't you be tempted to pick up a couple of extra CD's too? And as your collection expanded and your music tastes diversified wouldn't you like to be able to afford to experiment with some new and different artists who you've only heard a little of.
Music Industry - Lower your price to meet customer expectation, CD's are over 10 years old. I can buy DVD movies for cheaper already. Price them lower and watch your sales increase. Cancelling out any 'losses' your making on manufacturing.
-
of course most people would pay for better service...
2002-12-14 01:09:25 ntguru5 [Reply | View]
and quality. If you don't think so take a closer look at the bottled water in your hand or fridge. I've been sharing files since the pre-Napster days and I have more purchased cds now than I've ever had, for some of the reasons he pointed out in the article. Well done...
-
$10,000 fine for copying a CD! $35 to buy it!!
2002-12-13 20:54:06 anonymous2 [Reply | View]
Sounds like the terrifying headline of some dark future for all music lovers, but it's actually all true, right now! It is the reality of New Zealand's BRN>BRNT campaign.
The current campaign slogan of the RIAA in New Zealand has no vowels, which is to say it's designed to be um, cool. If you haven't realized, BRN>BRNT translates to "Burn and Get Burnt" - get it? RIAA's focus group wanted some hip moniker for a philosophy deemed necessary to instill in that out-of-control "15 to 24 age group" (and apparently vowel-challenged) brats (or should I say BRTZ)?
Many NZ music cds now have a red sticker right on the front clearly stating the $10,000 penalty for copying the CD. Some of New Zealand's most well known artists are the poster boys and girls lending a personal touch to the campaign's sub-slogan "Its A Crime Against Our Music".
OK, so the $10,000 is the maximum single penalty but there's the potential for $150,000 in aggregate penalties and up to 3 months imprisonment. I don't know of anyone who has been prosecuted under these terms yet let alone handed down such a penalty but still.....
http://www.rianz.org.nz/publish/detail.cfm?item=129&page=burn.cfm
How does $32.92 for Britney Spears' "Oops I Did It Again" sound? An album title the RIAA might benefit from profoundly meditating on should introspection ever begin to govern their myopic paranoia.
http://www.marbecks.co.nz/detail/detail.lsd?-Token.sid=116476.12.14&catalogID=243131
Americans have it easy...$9.99 is the maximum you'd expect to pay @ say, Tower. Maybe $18 on a new release.
http://www.towerrecords.com/product.asp?pfid=1868667&cc=USD
So, in the current climate of piracy paranoia, you can be fined $10,000 for "burning" a CD in New Zealand while simultaneously a new CD will cost you $30 to $35!! Oh well, that's NZ dollars, not US dollars and with the $NZ worth only half $US, it's about the same right? Wrong. If you are receiving a wage or salary in NZ, you are earning $NZ, not $US. A Loaf of bread costs about the same in NZ as it does in the USA, in the respective currencies, and wages are not that different either, if not actually far lower in NZ.
Yes, well maybe the multinational recording labels are just trying to get back what they lose in the foreign exchange rate (half). But that doesn't figure, because even the local, completely home grown and produced New Zealand music on say Sony Music NZ or EMI NZ etc is also $35! Why they insist on making music less affordable in NZ than the USA is anyone's guess. Maybe New Zealander's are easier to push around. Apparently so, if the recent multi state price fixing settlement with the five major record lables is any indication (and which received little coverage in the media)...
http://xpress.sfsu.edu/storys01.php?storyid=5542
New Zealand, beautiful as it is, (and overflowing with artistic talent!) has always dabbled in all kinds of socio-economic experiments, given it's cohesive society, small population etc (basic mathematics). It can make for a somewhat useful laboratory for other nations and coorporations to observe an ddraw conclusions from. I mean that quite literally, in all sorts of areas, not just music piracy. I challenge anyone to find a more draconian circumstance in the music publishing industry today. There are other approaches...
http://www.forrester.com/ER/Research/Report/Summary/0,1338,14854,FF.html
-
The real quote is even better
2002-12-13 18:46:40 anonymous2 [Reply | View]
Han Solo didn't say "give the wookiee what he wants," he said:
"Let the wookiee win."
and
"It isn't wise to upset a wookiee."
Both of which play well into your essay if the word "wookiee" is replaced with "customer".
Great essay! -
The REAL dialog is even better
2003-04-16 10:41:21 anonymous2 [Reply | View]
Not only did Han not say "give the wookiee what he wants," but he also didn't say "Let the wookiee win." 3PO said that after Han mentioned something about the risk of dismemberment associated with beating Chewbacca at the chess-like game.
Perhaps the real dialog makes Tim's point even more strongly. Maybe businesses should consider the needs of their customers more than the goal of winning and profiting. Otherwise they risk metaphorically having their arm pulled out of its socket by the larger and stronger entity that is consumer market.
-
piracy?
2002-12-13 16:43:19 anonymous2 [Reply | View]
Personally I have downloaded a lot of copyrighted programmes to try and because of the limitations of the trial software have used cracks to get full use of the software. The thing is after extended use if I like the software I buy it, if I don't like it I uninstall it. For those programmes without a crack or serialkey generator, if the trial is too limited to test properly I don't buy it.As far as music goes I have discovered some new bands that I didn't know about through file sharing and for those I like I go and buy the cd's. That is if they are available here in Aus. For those that are not available in Aus I have to use the downloaded "pirated" version as the major music companys won't import them.
It is about time the Riaa woke up to the new world and moved outside their comfort zone. They are missing out on market opportunities. And after all Riaa is US based, supposedly the land of free enterprise, but apparently only if it doesn't rock the establishment boat.
So there.
aliali
-
Great text.
2002-12-13 16:15:11 migueldeicaza [Reply | View]
It is always a pleasure to read Tim's opinions based on his vast experience. I loved it.
Miguel
-
19 year old exploration
2002-12-13 13:47:12 anonymous2 [Reply | View]
have watched my 19 year-old daughter and her friends sample countless bands on Napster and Kazaa and, enthusiastic for their music, go out to purchase CDs. My daughter now owns more CDs than I have collected in a lifetime of less exploratory listening. What's more, she has introduced me to her favorite music, and I too have bought CDs as a result. And no, she isn't downloading Britney Spears, but forgotten bands from the 60s, 70s, 80s, and 90s, as well as their musical forebears in other genres.
A little too anecdotal, why?
That's about the time of life when you go for greater exposure in general. College folks maybe exposed to stuff in dorms, working stiffs hear stuff from a wider variety of coworkers.
The dorm is often a big cross-pollination arena -- the kid with the guitar down the hall turns you on to Robert Johnson, you figure out how to use a bong, you actually look old enough to use your fake ID.
Musical exploration in late teens and early twenties is pretty much the default.
Does file sharing lead to more diverse musical tastes? I guess we can't really say without a controlled study.
Anecdotally, I haven't seen it. The demographics at places like Yoshi's hasn't changed.
19 year old's are in the middle of an "awakening"
-
This pseudo piracy is not a cost it is an opportunity
2002-12-13 12:55:08 thundarr [Reply | View]
He has it spot on about filesharing is a revenue opportunity for both the artists and for publishers if they would get their act together and quit being so greedy. I have been buying music for decades (since the 8 track). I would have bought more if I had the ability to search for music I liked and had the ability to pay for only the songs I wanted on an album. There is so much filler and just plain crappy songs whenever you buy music that only buy a few CD's a year.
The publishers are missing the boat if they offered a subscription service they not only would reduce their costs they would find more people buying songs. This will take years to happen since most entertainment execs are in love with how the things are today. Big budgets to produce and sell music at way too high prices. The lawyers love it because they are going to continue rake in the money with the lawsuits to shut down these filesharing networks. What the artists don't understand is that if they supported these networks by joining an independent filesharing subscription service they would get paid the same if not more. All of the money that goes to the big music and movie industry studies and the lawyers would instead go into their pockets and their audience would get to listen to their music at substantially reduced rates.
-
Amen.
2002-12-13 12:49:40 anonymous2 [Reply | View]
Thanks Tim. I'm sending this onto over a dozen friends who all share similar views.
-Raven
-
online music distribution
2002-12-13 12:39:24 anonymous2 [Reply | View]
I personally would be willing to pay - say $.25 or $.50 per song to download them from a music-industry-endorsed server.
The music industry attempts to stifle any company or idividual who allows for distribution of their works. I personally use Kazza(Lite), and yes I have downloaded songs i do not own (legally). However, if they had worked WITH Napster instead of more or less killed them, there are many MANY people just like me who would pay per song or perhaps a monthly charge to download songs and own them legally.
I just got an mp3 CD Player for my car and I love it. I can put 140+ songs on a single CD and have hours of music on each CD. mp3's are easy to download and work with, have great quality, and as i mentioned before, are of a manageable file size.
Music industry kazaa/napster-type servers would be a relatively inexpensive method to distribute music. Instead of physically shipping products, they could instead send them over the internet. This would require a few servers with large amounts of storage, some decent bandwidth, and a few support techs. Last i remember, there was an average of 1-4 million users on Kazaa, and assuming that even a small percentage of those users are like me, that should cover those costs quickly. If 250,000 people download 10 songs at $.25 per song, that's $625000. $625,000 should cover a very impressive internet connection for at least a few months, and if more people sign up and download more songs, then they will pull in even more money.
Keep in mind that with online distribution, there would be less cost in retail distribution and the actual cost of pressing the CD's. (And since when did a blank CD, the case, the inserts, the time it takes to make the CD, production, etc etc etc, cost $19.99? If it cost more than $5 per CD to find the band to making the CD (i.e. from start to finish), i'd be amazed.) Plus, why should people be forced to spend $20 per CD when they like only one or 2 songs on that CD (perhaps not available as a $6 single)...?
Music companies keep crying about losing money, yet online distribution could be a cost-effective method of distribution. This article was more aimed at books, but since I tend to have hard copies of books and know more about online music distribution, i ended up commenting all about music.
sorry if all this was said before - i couldn't read all the comments. great article btw :) (I'm not saying that anyone should pirate music/videos/text/software/etc, but that the (music) industry indeed should embrace the internet as a new distribution method)
-DV
-
Piracy
2002-12-13 12:12:17 anonymous2 [Reply | View]
While Mr. O'Reilly's viewpoint on piracy is interesting, for me, the reality is different.
I produce and distribute a television-magazine style program on VHS and DVD - about model airplanes. Modestly successful in that they're available via just over 400 hobby shops across the nation, I nonetheless suffer from piracy. This despite the fact the 2-hour long videos sell for the princely sum of $6.99 each . . . so much for consumers doing the "right thing" if the price is fair.
How do I know about piracy? In part, it's because I sometimes see them pop up on E-Bay - and have even bought a few just to see what I'd get, and lo and behold, once it was a copy! I also have dealers who complain about model airplane club members who start a "club library" of my videos and loan them around (to the detriment of sales of course). It bothers me somewhat, but I can't do anything about it.
What bothers me more though are the occasional phone calls that go something like this, "A friend made them me copy of one of your videos, but it's a bit blurry and I can't read the part number on the servo you used . . ." What's worse is they ask would I mind telling them which it is! I tell them, of course, as insulting them is counterproductive, but all the while, I'm really wishing I could do a Bugs Bunny, i.e. travel through the phone line and choke them senseless through their handset!
Recently I started offering my wares on DVD. Guess what? I've already received a couple of messages from a folks telling me about their availability on the internet!
Do the right thing? Nah, folks would rather steal. Thus, Mr. O'Reilly, I think you are wrong.
Rant mode off,
John Beech - GM (and janitor)
http://www.modelsport.com -
Piracy
2003-01-20 10:52:12 conureman [Reply | View]
An interesting point on a complex subject. Some years ago I worked in a television repair shop. I often recieved phone calls that would have to be classified as "time wasters". Much time was spent explaining (and justifying) our basic minimum charges for diagnosis, and I also found myself listing possible diagnoses as per symptoms described over the phone. Aside from the lost time and occasional free repair- "Is the (dead) set plugged in?". I feel that the goodwill generated was a positive component of our business, and that very often it was the deciding factor on customer's decisions as to whom they would trust their repairs to. My point is that I saw overwhelming evidence that the majority of the time-wasters would never have been cash customers anyway, or that my free phone help was by far the cheapest way of getting rid of them. I readily referred the cost shoppers to my competitors, and let them have that segment of the market. We also had a rather unconditional Guarantee, which could be taken advantage of by the unscruplous, or extremely ignorant, for free service and repair. While I have noticed that morals seem to have declined recently here in the People's Republic of California, one of the cornerstones of our society is the actual fact that the majority of people will in fact try to do the right thing if it is not too unreasonable for their flexible morality to bear, as the warez guyz always claim- "If (insert name of popular Redmond WA company here) software was reasonably priced and bug-free (and standards-based?), then I'd be willing to pay for it." Personally, I'd just write those guyz off and stop losing sleep over their "business". While I don't expect to convince anybody that this is the way to do business, the public should protect itself from further harm by the Greedmeisters and Protectionist Weenies busy restricting and outlawing Common Law and Basic Human Rights. This is fundamentally more important than maximizing the profit margins of a few. Any how I agree with Tim's logic, that in fact the old laws were perfectly adequate for protection of property rights, and the new ones are stifling creativity and innovation as well as reducing actual revenues. Mutiny on the Ship Of Fools, anyone? -
Piracy
2002-12-16 15:46:52 Tim O'Reilly |
[Reply | View]
I'm not saying that no one will take infringing copies without paying, just that the marginal number is less than the marginal benefit of the additional publicity. What I can't figure out is why you didn't take the opportunity to sell a video to the guy who called you! There's something between just rolling over, and wishing you could go through the phone and choke him! I would have reminded him that you depend on your sales, and offer to sell him a clearer copy.
But I'll lay odds that what you did, helping him, might well lead him to buy from you in future.
-
More foolishness
2002-12-13 12:07:28 gecampbell [Reply | View]
Perhaps you're right, Tim. Justice Blackmun called it "trespassing". I used trespassing in my example. Let's call it property trespassing. The real issue, as you point out, is "fair use". The fact is, sharing files on Napster is NOT fair use (at least, according to the US court system). I still take issue with the hordes of people who say that, because it's easy to make a copy of something, it should be legitimate to do so. That's a level of moral corruption that I simply don't understand. When you do that, you are trespassing on the rights of the holder. I agree; it's stupid for the record companies etc. to fight this in this manner. They do not understand the conversation that is the Internet, and how that could benefit them. They do, however, have one indisputable fact in their favor (as much as I hate to admit it). Sales of music have declined, and use of it has gone up. Is this all "fair use"? Somehow, I doubt it.
My son is 11. Many, many of is friends have CD collections for which they have paid NOTHING. One of the children in his school has 40-50 complete CDs which he has acquired by either downloading from the Internet or being "loaned" the music from a friend. In my mind, that's $300 (or more) that he's taken from the record companies, who are entitled to it by contract and law.
Are they being harmed? That's beside the point. They have the right to choose how their property is copied. Is this fair use? Again, I doubt that the courts would agree to that. The fact is, this 11-year-old kid sees absolutely nothing wrong with this; this is how he aquires music. And it's that attitude that is wrong. -
More foolishness
2002-12-13 13:48:46 anonymous2 [Reply | View]
I think you're underlining one of O'Reilly's points rather than disproving it:
I believe the friends of your son have their ripped cd-collections precisely because of the fumbeling of record companies. Their fumbeling and disrepect for consumers is what causes the ripping of content in the first place (often by persons quite a bit older than 11, not to mention the insiders making content available before official release dates).
The result of the increasing hostility in tactics from RIAA and similiar "organisations" force people to change sides:
- a 'light' example: buying a cd just to discover it will not work in the audio systems (in the car or at home) because it was "protected"...
- a 'heavy' example: anybody aware enough to be scared my industry-backed propositions such as TCPA/Palladium/LaGrange ( http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rja14/tcpa-faq.html ), these are driven by the "RIAA version" of the copyright issue.
The record and movie industries are slowly asphyxiating trying to choke the rights of their consumers, not realizing that the neck (consumers) supports the head (themselves).
This has gone on for quite a while, so long that disrespect for said companies has become a norm in most parts of society. Norms are more powerful than laws, which do you think a kid would intrinsically follow? So your kid has hopefully learned that norms are not to be followed blindly (and maybe that the same applies to laws?).
...n...
-
Note the paradigms shifting...
2002-12-13 11:59:47 anonymous2 [Reply | View]
Or not, actually. The 'big stink' is that the artists will be missing out on revenue if file-sharing continues. In all actuality, it isn't the artists that lose out. They actually don't make much money on the sale of books or CD's. It's the PUBLISHERS that rake in the cash. And therein lies the problem. The RIAA is well aware that file sharing <> piracy. But they also know that file sharing and 'home publishing' make them OBSOLETE, or at least highly redundant.
So it's not surprising they're bringing as much time, effort, and money to bear on the issue, solely to defend their own interests. Unfortunately, most consumers aren't aware of this (yet) so they accept the hue and cry being raises by the media companies.
-
Brilliant!!!
2002-12-13 10:37:47 anonymous2 [Reply | View]
Tim O'Reilly's essay is the most common sense and economically sound analysis of the current intellectual property dilemma that I've seen. It only leaves out one thing... The social contract that the framers of the constitution had in mind when they empowered congress to grant copyrights. That social contract was intended to grant the creator of an original work an exclusive right to profit from their creation for a limited time in exchange for turning it over to the public domain at the end of that space of time. As examples you can now buy cars, televisions, and computers from anyone that is willing sell them. This competition has brought prices down to where ordinary people can afford them. Imagine if the only car you could legally buy was a $150,000 Mercedes...
Anyone can sell make and sell cars, airplane, and televisions because the patents have expired. Most patents expire in less than 20 years. Copyrights were intended to expire after a limited time as well - however corrupt and just plain ignorant politicians have extended copyrights (and in so doing stolen your rights from you) to lifetime plus 70 years for individuals and 95 years for corporation. Copyrights should expire in no more than 25 years!
It must also be noted that if you see an invention that you like but cannot afford, that you have every right to make a copy for your own non-commercial use. You can't resell it or make money from it without paying royalties but it's just fine for your own use. Music used to be the same...
Personally I like buying and owning CD's, and if CD prices reflected real world competition, costing say $8 - I'd go from my present one or two a year to one or two a month. No body likes feeling ripped off and the price fixed price of $18 is a rip-off. File sharing exposes one to music that they were previously unaware of and has prompted me to buy CDs from artists that I would have never has given a chance untried at $18.
Thank you Mr. O'Reilly!!!
-
Again, readers miss the point
2002-12-13 10:17:33 anonymous2 [Reply | View]
What endlessly amazes me is the skewed view that some individuals take as they read an article that they perceive to be contrary to their opinion.
Tim wasn't even remotely suggesting that piracy was something that he condoned. Rather, he was pointing out (amongst other things) that while theft of such intellectual property is wrong, it per-force actually strengthens the ability of content authors to sell their wares.
What amazes me even more is the outright condemnation of all individuals as having criminal intent. It's simple B.S. to suggest that given a choice of free, stolen material vs. paid-for content any individual would choose the illegal option. That's not my approach and it certainly isn't the approach of the vast majority of the people that I associate with. Indeed I know people who take such theft in stride and who make no legitimate effort to right the matter. But I can tell you categorically that those folks are in the minority.
I'll point out again (as many have in the past) that the same outcry was heard when VCRs became widely avilable, when audio cassette became available and when CD-R evolved. Yet, there remains a multi-billion dollar music and movie industry. Those markets in fact are growing.
More to the point: The argument from the media giants (and some of Tim's readers) seems to be that given a choice everyone will steal and that theft is causing irreparable harm to those industries. The facts are that such copying has in each case helped the very industries that raise such a stink. No one suggests that it's ok to steal (not here and not in Tim's article). Instead, the truth is that such illegal activities will always occur by a small minority, when access to a rich variety of legal materials is restricted. The record and movie industry is starting from the wrong perspective. What they should be doing is assuming that people really do want to buy what they have to sell (or they wouldn't be in business) and that they will pay for quality material that they can conveniently get at a good price.
Is acquisition of materials without the consent of the author illegal, immoral and condemnable? Absolutely. Time suggests the same. Does the theft of that property materially threaten the very core of those industries? That's silly.
Make a variety of materials (not just what the companies deem "marketable") available to network consumers at a good price and I'm convince (as are many, many others) that the record and movie industries will immediately and ultimately benefit. -
Thanks. You nailed it.
2002-12-13 11:15:23 Tim O'Reilly |
[Reply | View]
You're absolutely right that I wasn't encouraging people to go out and infringe other people's copyrights. I was urging the industries that are afraid of new media to embrace them instead, so that we can create a paid online content industry that works. I am quite confident that we'll get there eventually in any case, but we can get there more quickly, with less pain, and without training people to infringe (because their choice is not between paying and not paying for online music, but between listening and not listening.)
-
Foolishness
2002-12-13 09:23:04 gecampbell [Reply | View]
Tim, your daughter is a thief. She took something without the owner's permission, and you condone it. It does not matter if file sharing doesn't hurt the publisher; if the owner doesn't want to share it, you shouldn't take it without permission.
See http://mypencil.org for my complete message to you, Tim. -
Foolishness
2002-12-13 11:08:17 Tim O'Reilly |
[Reply | View]
I agree very strongly with the belief that respecting the wishes of content creators is critical. I've written about this extensively in the free software context. (See My Definition of Freedom Zero.)
But I don't think it's right to equate what current file sharing users are doing to "stealing", for two reasons:
1. As Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun explained back in 1985, in Dowling v. the United States":
It follows that interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion or fraud. The Copyright Act even employs a separate term of art to define one who misappropriates a copyright: "Anyone who violates any of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner," that is, anyone who trespasses into his exclusive domain by using or authorizing the use of the copyrighted work in one of the five ways set forth in the statute, "is an infringer of the copyright."
In short, I'll grant you that my daughter is a copyright infringer, but not that she is a thief.
2. Just what are the boundaries of fair use? Someone has just bought a CD. Clearly, it's not right for them to manufacture and sell copies of the work. But it's clearly legitimate to copy it to another device (such as a tape, or a computer) for purposes of device-shifting. It's also legitimate to loan it to a friend. Where is the boundary between loaning it to a friend, who makes a copy so he or she can listen to it on another device, and copyright infringement? Is it OK if the person deletes the copy after they listen to it, and before they give it back? What if they just leave it on their hard disk and never listen to it again. What if they delete it but leave it in their computer's trash bin (so they still really have a copy)? Now imagine a CD that is commercially unavailable. Under the first sale doctrine, used works are still available, and all of the above can happen with absolutely no compensation to the artist. I could go on and on, creating more shades of grey.
We're in a period of great legal uncertainty, brought on by changes in technology. There was a time when it wasn't clear that it was legal to broadcast music over the radio; that was solved by compulsory licensing. There was a time when it wasn't clear if it was OK to make a videotape of a TV show for time-shifted viewing. Similarly, the internet creates problems (and opportunities) that we, as a society need to resolve.
Existing rights holders are lobbying for one solution (strong digital rights management, and criminalization of many activities that were formerly considered fair use.) Others (like myself) are arguing for policies that will expand the market.
Once their are legitimate alternatives, I will be the first to urge everyone to use them, and to eschew infringing copies. But I think it's the height of foolishness to try to criminalize your customer rather than giving her what she wants.
-
Nonsense
2002-12-13 08:29:10 anonymous2 [Reply | View]
His arguments mainly apply only to undiscovered artists that have nothing to lose because they're starving anyway. I'm all for using the net in order to increase distribution of music, and to make different formats more easily available. But copyrighted material cannot be distributed by third parties for free without the permission of the owner. Especially in this medium, where the material can be so easily mass distributed.
To argue that this "MAY shave a few % points off of sales" is the author's way of justifying it. It's simply not true. For example, I received burned CD copies from my friend that contain new and old material from bands we both like. I have real demand for these, and would probably get around to buying legitimate copies of them. Now I don't have to and the artists have lost out.
His comparison of free airway TV broacasts to cable and satellite TV is invalid. The reason is that the QUALITY of the product received via these methods is not comparable. Nor is the number of channels you can tune in via air vs. cable media (ie, the QUANTITY of the products differs too). But for digitized music, the quality of the freely given away product (stolen, if it's copyrighted) and that of the legitimately purchased (regardless of the medium: tower records vs. downloaded) copy are identical. The former is comparing walnuts to apples, the latter apples to apples. Furthermore, the TV programming is paid for local and national advertising sales, so it can be broadcast for free. You're actually paying the cable company to aggregate channels and distribute signals with high fidelity. So his argument that pay services replace free services does not apply when the product is identical. No one pays if they don't have to. The demand is VERY high at a price of nothing.
The author also conveniently fails to mention the frequency distribution relating the number of downloaded (or burned/shared) copies of CDs vs. the popularity of the artist. It stands to reason that the more popular the artist, the more illegal copies will be downloaded/distributed, and the more financial loss they (or whoever owns the rights) will experience. His idea that the free distrubition will increase volume only applies to starving artists. Those that are doing well do not need any additional exposure, and thier volume cannot increase to any significant extent. I guarentee that even if his daughter is not downloading Brittany Spears (sp?), the masses are. That's the definition of popular music (ie, it's popular).
His "customers want to do the right thing" argument is rediculous. How many people would choose to pay for something that they can get for free if they know that law enforcement is nonexistent. What is this "legitimate alternative, at a fair price" he mentions? Let me suggest one. The artists/record companies set up their own on-line distribution. They already have it, and there is still mass copying/piracy. His poll is also heavily sample-biased. The customer survey almost exclusively included people who downloaded it (and the key) and of course THEY wanted to do the right thing. Also, since it was key-protected, they had no real easy means of obtaining access to their copy without asking someone else to break the law (perhaps the person they got their copy from). Napster and others have no such hurdle. You download the stuff and you can run it unimpeded. No special unencryption, etc. required.
My point is simple. The owners of private property must be paid for their product, regardless of the medium. If they voluntarily give it away, that's their right. But the decision must be theirs, not some third-party who decides without their consent. How would you feel if you were selling a commercially valuable software package (and you did this for a living) and someone bought a copy and placed the code up on his website for all to download free of charge? Or maybe 10% of the copies were paid for and all others out there were copied and distributed among users for free? The way free markets work is that genuine demand is met by supply. If the users wanted/needed to accomplish what your software could do for them, why shouldn't you be compensated? If you wanted to give it away, that's cool. But no one should be able to steal your blood and sweat and give it away without your permission.
It doesn't matter if you are physically missing something (like a car) or not. Your creativity and effort (literally your time) has been stolen. The time it takes you to produce enough work to purchase another car and the time it takes to be compensated for the same dollar value for your software are identical. When someone steals from you like that, it is equivalent to them imposing a devaluation of your time. What used to earn you $200/hr now gets you $175/hr. Is that right?
Also, in the private sector, when a product is freely given away (ie, not a promotional venture or a product dependent on another one to work; the other one being purchaseable for a non-zero sum), it implies something about its quality, namely that it is of poor quality. Sure, I can come and perform for you at the Carnegie Hall for free, but I probably won't be as good as a professional musician that you pay. If you have value for the quality of the musical experience, you'll probably go with the pro for some payment. If you don't like the price structure, don't buy the product. If it's not worth to you what they're asking for it, don't buy it. If enough people think as you do (and act on it) it will put downward pressure on prices and/or cause format changes (eg, from whole CDs to single songs).
-
Nonsense
2003-07-28 19:28:06 anonymous2 [Reply | View]
What is needed are new ways for creative people to get paid. Suppose a musician simply released his music for free, and each file contained a link allowing the listener to donate to the artist directly? This way, each copy of the file is a potential revenue-generator; the more copies, the better. Or, perhaps artists could hold listeners hostage: "We've got a great new album ready, and we're going to release it free forever to the world - but not until we get $3 million worth of PayPal donations at u2.com!
Record companies need to realize that the revenue they are losing from reduced CD sales can easily be replaced with online sales. There are billions of songs downloaded every month...even at a few cents per song, that's hundreds of millions of dollars in potential revenue per month. -
Nonsense
2002-12-13 12:54:30 anonymous2 [Reply | View]
I'll be kind:
I'm surprised this person actually has enough IQ to post a reply. He or she did not comprehend anything stated in the article, in any of the links (including those in the discussion, especially the ones to legal definitions), or the other posts made.
Simply incredible (and very sad - I pity you).
...n...
-
Amen and hallelujah
2002-12-13 08:27:16 everdarkliz [Reply | View]
As an electronically published author I am constantly responding to questions about security and potential copyright infringement. Those for whom ebooks are a foreign concept are always shocked when I tell them I don't lose a moment's sleep worrying someone will pirate copies of my novels--for all the reasons listed in this article.
I think anyone capable of logical thought understands that the RIAA/APA/MPAA's campaign isn't about piracy or protecting the rights of artists. It's about money and power and control. Ask any midlist author who didn't sell the requisite 50,000 copies of his or her first novel and now can't get any of the major houses to even acknowledge their existence.
-
TIM is right
2002-12-13 08:25:22 anonymous2 [Reply | View]
I have the CD bookshelf from Kazaa. Its great to be able to read it on the go or while listening to music, but I loved the warez copy so much that I went out and actually got the nice bound edition. It allowed me to preview the books and get the ones I wanted.
-
Property tax on IP ?
2002-12-13 08:15:54 anonymous2 [Reply | View]
One thing I fail to understand about the intellectual property business is why it does not pay property taxes ...
If a landlord pays property tax on his buildings, and income tax on his renting profits, why does a movie/music/etc company pay only the second kind of tax on its intellectual property ? After all, both get the same protection for their property from the State.
I'll accept the argument that limited-time copyright protection is equivalent to taxing, in that N years of 0% tax, followed by reversal to public domain, are equivalent to X% yearly tax.
Making that clear, and giving definite values to X and N, would probably enlighten us all about who's getting tax breaks. And, somehow, I suspect the State would find it more profitable to collect the property tax if the property owner is really bent on keeping perpetual control ...
-ABL
-
Commercial P2P
2002-12-13 06:05:42 tschmidt [Reply | View]
I agree with the points you made. One of the most troublling aspects of the P2P debate is the limited range of opinion.
RIAA and MPAA framed the debate, as primarily property theft, rather then an innovative distribution mechanism. They have reason to fear the Internet is a disruptive technology, scarcity based distribution will not survive. In a previous life I worked at a crypto startup interested in DRM. That experience taught me two things 1) DRM will not work, 2) it is the wrong thing to do.
What isn't being hear are alternatives that take advantage of the potential unleashed by digital technology:
1) Perfect copies
2) Low cost distribution
3) P2P low peak demand - eliminates server farms and high speed net connection
4) Low inventory cost - works never need go out of "print"
5 Closer relationship between creator and patron
I took a shot at what a new distribution model would look like. One that empowers artists/authors reduces prices and encourage rather then punish patrons to do the right thing.
I posted my thoughts; let me know what folks think. We need to prove alternatives work or the incumbents win by default.
http://www.tschmidt.com/writings/CommercialContentDistribution.htm
-
David Weber paradigm
2002-12-13 02:22:27 anonymous2 [Reply | View]
Have you actually read that treacle? I have;
the first of those lagniappe "Honor" novels on the Baen CD was digestible juvenilia, but every one which followed was gaggingly more puerile, even for space opera.
Lumbering corporate atavism is not required to generate or purvey schlock.
-
steal this exegesis
2002-12-13 02:09:38 anonymous2 [Reply | View]
I mirrored this article on my own website. If my past such plagarism is any indication, I will be a source for this selfserving irrelevance long after it is gone from its creator's inventory.
-
straight on
2002-12-13 01:55:10 anonymous2 [Reply | View]
Unlike most, you have very well grasped the benefits for p2p sharing. Like you and your daughter, my cd collection has grown exponentially since becoming involved in online sharing. Groups I never heard of with songs I had never heard of now flourish by my stereo in the form of cds bought and paid for because I had the opportunity to try something new without loosing anything. Tired of paying for tapes and cds with only one decent song on the whole thing, I had all but stopped buying new music. I listened on the radio for free. Then I discovered online trading. I could hear what was on before I bought and make an informed decision. I started buying cds again.
Currently the mpaa is playing the bully in the online sharing community. I stopped going to movies for the same reason I stopped buying music. I was tired of the hype that promised more from a movie than it was able to deliver. The days when a name 'makes' a movie are gone. It is time for the producers to start looking to content or step aside and let the newer production companies step into the light. I download movies online. If I like the movie, and it has merit I spend the time and the money to take my family to see it. That is 6 more people that are movie-going. I also like being able to see if it is something *I* feel is appropriate for the younger members of my family to see. My daughters wanted to go see 8 mile. I downloaded it, and there is NO way we are going. It runs contrary to the ideals and way of life that I wish to expose my family to. Thank God for online sharing that helps me make informed decisions for my family.
-
Easy to say when you titles have a 6 month shelf life
2002-12-13 00:30:21 anonymous2 [Reply | View]
Tim,
It is easy for you to talk about how copying and wide distribution helps increase awareness and does not cause a significant hit to your bottom line when your catalog of titles is composed primarily of technical reference books and pop-culture-meme du jour that are the literary equivalent of yogurt. You live or die by moving a lot of volume quickly and need to make sure that everyone knows what you are pushing this week, this is not the standard publishing model. Let's see you convince one of _your_ peers that online copying of their works is a good idea, it would make your argument more convincing if someone from a publishing house that distributed a book that had multiple print runs over a five or ten year period would validate your conjecture. Online "maintenance" updates and collections are viable for technical subjects and reference works (particulary in fast-moving fields such as the ones you cater to) but I doubt that it is going to keep many poets fed or let truly creative people keep a roof over their head. -
Easy to say when you titles have a 6 month shelf life
2002-12-13 09:29:11 Tim O'Reilly |
[Reply | View]
I don't know where you get the idea that O'Reilly books have a 6-month shelf life. That actually describes the vast majority of publishing, but O'Reilly less than most. A few representative titles that are still going strong (selling tens of thousands of copies a year) after ten to fifteen years:
Unix in a Nutshell - first published in 1984
Learning the Unix Operating System - 1985
Learning the Vi Editor - 1986
Sed & Awk - 1990
Programming Perl - 1991
Essential System Administration - 1991
Sendmail - 1993
DNS and Bind - 1993
Java in a Nutshell - 1995
And these aren't just a few outliers, though they are some of the best known. We have hundreds of books that sell year in and year out. And it's precisely because we engage with our community of users and keep awareness of our backlist that this is true. It's the frontlist publishers, who rely on marketing and store placement, who are living with short shelf life.
Unfortunately, what you say "is not the standard publishing model" IS the standard publishing model, and that's the problem. -
Easy to say when you titles have a 6 month shelf life
2002-12-15 17:44:17 tlilley [Reply | View]
Indeed. Just ask fans of Jonathan Carroll (http://jonathancarroll.com/), who have historically had the option of buying his books new within about 6 months of their publication, or getting gouged on the aftermarket once they've passed off the radar of the big houses.
Fortunately for him and his fans, he seems to be in better hands now (Tor), with an actual publicist, promotional tours, and so forth.
I personally would love to see the new petitioners to the traditional publishing house's role succeed. Print-on-demand, micropayments, direct contact with creators, and so forth could make all the work we're doing worthwhile.
Fortunately, companies like O'Reilly "get it", and will likely weather these changes, understanding that their role, at the end of the day, is to facilitate the relationship between the creator and the customer. The megacorps forget this every day. Sadly, so do most customers.
-
Compare to Asimov --
2002-12-12 23:40:27 anonymous2 [Reply | View]
Great essay ! I think you had Isaac Asimov whispering in your ear ! Your projection of current models into the future rings true. The transition is happening so quickly that entrenched publishers who don't have a progressive outlook are doomed. I made numerous notes (well, cut & pasted url's) to follow up on many of the references you made.
Thanks for a thorough analysis as opposed to a "headline"... I think one of the current drawbacks to the web publishing model is that people tend not to read more than 1 (screen) page of "news" before bailing out.
Curt Arrowsmith --
-
Thank you! Now if only...
2002-12-12 21:03:45 anonymous2 [Reply | View]
you could convince the RIAA and MPAA members and all the congressional representatives that what you say is literally true.
What you say is, in a way self-evident. You only have to look at the history of the Micro software industry to see that. There were hundreds of companies that tried to limit copying by various copy protection methods.
The only company that survived and prospered was Microsoft which, until recently, paid little or no attention to casual copying.
It makes no sense to me to refer to someone who can only afford to own a program by copying it from someone else, as a pirate. No sale would have been made to begin with. But your program gets better distribution- and perhaps you keep a competitor from prospering in a market which you cannot afford to service because it simply would not pay.
Just ask all those companies MS put out of business by bundling an inferior work-alike with the operating system. It cost them money to develop every one of those programs, or buy them, but they made that and more back by ensuring that their operating system was the winner in the distribution wars. That was creative marketing and licensing agreements more than anything else.
Now that Linux is threatening, MS is suddenly scared to death that somebody somewhere is running a copy of Windows that they don't make money off of.
So they proceed to piss off existing customers and scare away possible new ones with draconian licensing agreements and audits that make Linux look all the more attractive.
That brings up a corollary to your points which is: GOOD ENOUGH WILL WIN OUT OVER BETTER IF IT'S CHEAPER, MORE CONVENIENT AND SIMPLER TO USE.
Microsoft won their crown by making it possible for the average person to use a computer. They simplified all that complexity and made it as simple as point and click. Now they are making things difficult and complicated for their corporate customers and the seams in their software are showing as viruses and exploits of every shape and kind proliferate freely over the net.
Now Linux shows up and has better security, is mostly free, or at least very cheap, and is making great progress at simplifying that computer interface and hiding all that complexity. It's already good enough for many people and that number grows every day, and those who do adopt it, proselytize to the unconverted.
It's already demonstrably cheaper, no matter how many questionable TCO studies MS funds, so how long before Linux just becomes "good enough" for everyone?
When it does, all of Microsoft's riches will not be able to recover their lost monopoly.
THAT's why Linux will win the game. They will be "good enough" for most and, eventually, for everyone. Good enough for most is quite enough to kill a company like MS though.
Those recording and movie companies had better watch out. No lawyer can sue enough people to change human nature.
As long as the commercial distribution network works WITH their customers they will willingly pay the price, but if they muck it up enough, people will go elsewhere for their entertainment.
Cheers,
Frank
-
Publishing *is* Changing
2002-12-12 20:58:10 anonymous2 [Reply | View]
The problem for the media moguls is that they no longer own the playing field, and are trying to change the rules so they don't have to change the way they operate.
Do I have to explain that this is not a viable long term choice? I didn't think so.
Tim's excellent seven points may have missed one: Making product more easily available generally means you will sell more of it. I believe that O'Reilly is in the process of proving this in real life.
But the media moguls are repeating what movies did when TV got popular: First ignore them, later fight them, and finally cooperate with them. They're slow, but they finally got there.
Will they make that transition this time? I don't think so. Two reasons - first the current heads of the enterprises and their puppet Valenti seem to be totally disconnected from the real world, using tactics that would work only in the early 1900s.
Second, they face the problem of Internet time. No longer do they have years and years to try and beat the new distribution medium. In fact, it may be too late already. If the bosses said tomorrow "Let's go full blast on the Internet," by the time it got done (large corp inertia & politics) several operations like Amazon and O'Reilly would already be operating in the web space.
The moguls are fighting a rearguard operation primarily because they do not understand computers and the Internet, and they fear it as a consequence.
I believe that Tim has sucessfully drmonstrated a vision and method of making it work, free for anyone with the guts to take the risk. And risk is just what those media chiefs have forgotten or are unwilling to take.
I wouldn't be surprised to see something like what Tim has described six months from now.
Bill Nicholls
http://www.billswrite.com
-
Big Media and the RIAA just don't get it
2002-12-12 19:59:21 anonymous2 [Reply | View]
On 12/12/02 8:58 AM, "Bret Rekas" <> wrote:
Tim,
Great essay dissecting the P2P/piracy debate in your piece "Piracy is Progressive Taxation, and Other Thoughts on the Evolution of Online Distribution"...Enjoyed your insights as a publisher of copyrighted material...
Big Media and the RIAA just don't get it...I've been arguing with friends that the record companies should put up MP3's of their entire catalogs and charge per song...I and many other people would be happy to pay for the MP3s from the legitimate publishers rather than from a P2P network with uneven quality...The record companies could tier prices for different quality (ie sampling rates) MP3 encodings...they could provide discount 2-fer bundles with a high and low bit rate encoding for customers who want to use the music on hi-fi home audio systems which demand high bit rates (256Kbps+) and low end portable devices where 128Kbps...Few people really enjoy or more importantly have the time to rip their own MP3s from their CD collections...I'd much rather pay a reasonable per song charge and download legitimate copies...The record companies would actually get repeat business as we all buy legit MP3s of songs we already own on CD...
anyway...nice piece...maybe Mr. Valenti and Ms. Rosen will see the light,
> but I doubt it.
-
God Bless Tim O'Reilly
2002-12-12 18:45:53 anonymous2 [Reply | View]
Or Buddha or whomever.
This is seriously the best considered piece on the subject that I have ever read. I am nearly aching for the day when file-swapping services exist as justly-recognised distribution channels. I have "pirated" literally gigabytes of movies and music, in some cases because it is the only way to get the works, in other cases to "try before I buy", and in a few, rare cases just to spite the RIAA and MPAA for their treatment of all consumers as suspected criminals.
I absolutely would pay for a reasonable (customer-oriented) download/swap system and gladly put my pirate days behind me alongside the cigar-smoking. The catch is that the MPAA, RIAA, Microsoft, Congress, et al. first must learn to distinguish between people who actually violate copyright law and try to profit from the works of others and people like me who want to make that copy in order to play the PADI-FOR content on another device.
E-mail was the killer business app the the net, but this is the killer app for home broadband.
-
http://www.oreilly.com/ask_tim/osbooks_0302.html
2002-12-12 18:40:54 chriscera [Reply | View]
More on Tim's experiences with making his books freely available. This is "old-news", but very relevant, and an excellent read. Thank you for your time.
-
Electronic publishing and "piracy"
2002-12-12 18:32:12 anonymous2 [Reply | View]
Tim, I'd be quite happy to come to one of your conferences, assuming the time and place was one I could fit into my schedule. If you'd like to pursue the possibility, please send me an email at: eflint@attbi.com
I think it'd be easier to handle it through email than here.
Eric Flint
-
About time someone made this point...
2002-12-12 16:47:03 anonymous2 [Reply | View]
(Re-posted from an email I sent earlier to Mr. O'Reilly...)
==================================================
Dear Mr. O'Reilly,
I am writing to thank you for your recent piece about Online Distribution. I have enjoyed your essays and other publications in the past (I frequently mention that bizarre interview you did
with Q. Todd "Never trust a man who doesn't part his name in the middle" Dickinson, then head of the USPTO, in which he basically denied that the PTO had any problems handling emerging Internet-
related issues due to lack of examiners' numbers and technical literacy), and I liked this article very much.
In today's piece, you mention a particular idea that I've been expressing to colleagues for quite some time when discussing similar issues. Unfortunately, this idea virtually never gets
broadly heard.
Specifically, I have always had a problem with the **AA's concerted PR campaign designed to equate copyright infringement with theft, and to characterize (sometimes subtly, usually not) anyone who has the temerity to disagree as an evil pirate/academician/l337_h4xx0r/anti-business zealot. You never hear about U.S. vs. Dowling, for
example (relevant parts quoted in a related case, U.S. vs. LaMacchia, transcript at http://philip.greenspun.com/dldf/dismiss-order.html), in which Justice Blackmun forcefully argues that the distinction is not semantic, but fundamental. (For the record, I think both defendants in those cases clearly violated the law, and deserved to get nailed for their actions -- but that does not change the underlying argument.) Instead, you hear the ridiculous analogy that illegally copying a music file or book is precisely equivalent to walking into a store and shoplifting a copy of the physical item. Apocalyptic predictions of lost profits, failed businesses, and a general deviation from The American Way invariably follow.
As you correctly observed in your essay, this argument presupposes that each instance of copyright infringement is correlated one-to-one
with a lost sale. If that were always (or even mostly) true, this line of thinking would have some merit -- but it's not. I have been asking friends and colleagues informally about this for several years now, and the clear impression I get is that in most cases, if it were not possible to download (say) a single mp3, PEOPLE WOULD SIMPLY NOT BUY THE ALBUM.
(Aside: This is particularly true of music files. People do not like spending $18-20 for a CD only to find that they only like one or two songs on the album, but more importantly, people consume music and movies in fundamentally different ways. I have probably listened to my favorite songs thousands of times, but I have only ever watched a
favorite movie, or read a favorite book, five or ten times at the most. Of course, you will never hear the MPAA acknowledge this, as it weakens
their argument when placed alongside that of the RIAA.)
In any case, Lesson 4 of your essay makes the first mention of this I have seen in any publication, anywhere. I just wish that solid,
balanced arguments such as yours were given at least some consideration (or at least acknowledged) in broader, less technical fora, particularly the major news media. I sincerely believe that a wide swath of middle ground exists between the warez d00dz and the copyright maximalists; I just hope people realize it's there before it's too late.
Again, thanks for your thoughtful piece. Keep up the good work!
Sincerely,
SM
-
About time someone made this point...
2002-12-12 17:15:32 Tim O'Reilly |
[Reply | View]
"Never trust a man who doesn't part his name in the middle"! Love that line, even if it isn't quite fair, since there are probably some great people who have horrid first names. But I guess they could just leave off the initial and go by whatever name they really use.
Personally, I'm rather fond of all my names, like Bilbo in the Hobbit. (After the escape from Mirkwood, he added "Barrel Rider" as one of his middle names.) So far, I've collected Timothy Michael Brendan Feldmann O'Reilly. Timothy Michael my parents gave me; Brendan I took as a "confirmation name" when I was 12 or so. (If you want to know what that is, google for it.) Then when I got married, I took my wife's maiden name as my middle name, so my legal middle initial is now F instead of M. And that's probably more than you wanted to know.
-
I'll put a quarter into a Juke Box
2002-12-12 15:49:47 anonymous2 [Reply | View]
I've put quarters into Juke Boxes to see what a song sounded like. I will not spend $9 - $20 on a CD for one song. I might pay $0.25 to download a song. Then I can get the song I like. I won't pay the exhorbitant prices of a CD though. Oh, and if I happen to like the song and lose my downloaded copy then I will likely pay the $0.25 again.
-
Electronic publishing and "piracy"
2002-12-12 15:33:42 eflint [Reply | View]
My name's Eric Flint. I'm a science fiction author myself and also handle the Free Library for Baen Books. I just read Tim's article with great interest. I agree with all the basic points he makes, and have made many of them myself in my own essays (entitled "Prime Palaver") in Baen Books' Free Library. If you're interested, you can find the essays and the Library by going to www.baen.com and then selecting "Free Library."
At this point, something like half of the novels I've written are available in electronic format for free, either in the Free Library or in the CD which Baen included with the latest novel in David Weber's popular Honor Harrington series. And all of them are available in a cheap, completely unencrypted electronic edition. If that's resulted in a drop in my income, it's news to me. In fact, my income as a writer has been rapidly growing for the past few years. I'm not only able to write full time, but I'm earning about twice as much as I ever did as a machinist.
Electronic publishing will remain small potatoes until and unless publishers give up their obsession with encryption and provide their customers with what they want: user-friendly, cheap, and no-hassle electronic texts. If they do that, they will discover -- as Baen has, and O'Reilly also -- that the problem of so-called "piracy" just vanishes as anything other than a minor nuisance.
(And, as Tim says, really only happens on a large scale in countries where people are too poor to be buying your books anyway. So who cares? Hopefully, if economic conditions improve in those countries, you will have built up a potential paying audience down the road. And, even if that doesn't happen, you aren't losing anything anyway.) (Besides, in my opinion you have to be a real jackass anyway to be getting upset over the fact that people whose lives are hard enough already are getting a little pleasure from reading one of your books.)
"Piracy" is a labor-intensive enterprise, even leaving aside the potential legal risks. That's why pirates rob bullion ships, not grain ships. If publishers stop making their product artificially expensive and a headache to use, they will discover that "pirates" lose all interest in them. Why "pirate" something that's already available for no more than $4 a book? (Especially when many of those books can be looked at ahead of time, at no cost, so the potential customer can gauge whether it's something they'd be interested in buying.)
Eric -
Electronic publishing and "piracy"
2003-04-28 05:01:14 jwenting [Reply | View]
""Piracy" is a labor-intensive enterprise, even leaving aside the potential legal risks. That's why pirates rob bullion ships, not grain ships. "
I've known one person who used 3 PCs to do it for him while he slept.
2 of them were set to download movies 24/7 and the 3rd controlled them and processed orders via a website. Website was automatically updated from the catalogue of downloaded stuff, script took maybe a few hours to write if it wasn't ripped somewhere.
All he had to do was burn the CDs and ship them off, which took 2-3 hours a day.
He's no longer in business, his ISP caught up with him when he got greedy and put a 3rd PC to leech movies causing him to exceed his bandwidth limits so much he tripped a warning several months in a row.
"If publishers stop making their product artificially expensive and a headache to use, they will discover that "pirates" lose all interest in them. Why "pirate" something that's already available for no more than $4 a book? (Especially when many of those books can be looked at ahead of time, at no cost, so the potential customer can gauge whether it's something they'd be interested in buying.)"
I've heard (via other software companies I know people in) of people pirating software costing under $5 a copy.
Some even go as far as to offer illegal compilations of freeware without asking consent from the authors where the authors specifically state that such consent is needed and distribution outside approved channels is not allowed (in this case, the authors can get into legal trouble if their work is distributed commercially because of 3rd party artwork and production tools which are not allowed to be used commercially without consent and/or extra license fees). -
Electronic publishing and "piracy"
2002-12-12 17:09:39 Tim O'Reilly |
[Reply | View]
Hey Eric, nice to meet you. Sounds like you're the guy I ought to try to get together with, not necessarily Jim Baen. Maybe you could give a talk on your experiences at one of our conferences... -
Electronic publishing and "piracy"
2002-12-13 08:42:23 everdarkliz [Reply | View]
Actually, this isn't news to the thousands of authors who started _out_ being published electronically. Few if any of the successful epublishers--Hard Shell Word Factory, Awe-Struck eBooks, DiskUS--bother with encryption for the simple reason it's a waste of time and money.
But, you argue, that's not the same as Stephen King or Patricia Cornwell or [insert huge money-making author's name here]. No, it's not. But behaving as if every reader is a potential thief isn't exactly good customer relations. It's rather like a department story insisting on having every departing customer undergo a body search.
-
Paper is not dead
2002-12-12 15:30:57 anonymous2 [Reply | View]
Never underestimate the attraction of the paper book.
I publish a very long series of novels (comfortably more than a million words) on the Web. Clear HTML, totally free. A friend has kindly made downloadable files of the text in a variety of ebook formats. Again, totally free.
And what happens? In spite of the mind-boggling cost of the consumables required, people print it out! And email me all the time positively BEGGING for the opportunity to go into a bookshop and pay money for the thing in paperback. (Never going to happen, as neither I nor the author owns the rights to the characters.)
This mindset isn't going to change overnight. The on-line electronic text, given the chance, is an advertisement for the paper product, not a substitute.
-
VERY well stated and explianed!
2002-12-12 15:22:53 anonymous2 [Reply | View]
I could not agree more. I happen to have been part of an over 300 member warez group. Do the legals EVER publisize the REAL reason there are warez? NO! When companies offer us REASONABLY priced software at decent quality THEN the majority of warez trading will stop. I do not know one single warez trader who hasn't bought those titles he likes best and considers to be worth the money it's company is asking for said software. As for MS losing revenues? Like Bill Gates isn't rich enough already... I NEVER hear about MS giving anything back to the people, just restricting it's customers more. Example: Did you realize that WinXP purposely DOWNGRADES the quality of any MP3 you make on it? What if I am making a CD for my MP3 player in my truck from CDs I won? Is this not an injustice done to a legally owned copy owner of the WinXP OS? I mean why do we pay a fortune for purposely downgraded software?
-
shoplifting yes, but
2002-12-12 15:06:00 anonymous2 [Reply | View]
Great article.
Nevertheless, I'm wont to quibble the term "shoplifting." Should I lift a novel from a bookstore's shelves, they are denied inventory. But if I copy an ebook, someone's denied a quanta of scarcity.
I have written a couple novels and I'd dearly love to have a million people "pirate" copies of my work. You nailed it: obscurity is my enemy. And when obscurity isn't an issue (e.g. Stephen King) any pirated copy impacts the bottom line. You nailed it again: it's a progressive tax.
This levelling effect is a profoundly Good Thing. I sure hope the Powers That Be don't kill it off. -
shoplifting yes, but
2002-12-12 17:06:49 Tim O'Reilly |
[Reply | View]
I agree that shoplifting isn't the right term. My point is that online copyright infringement is analogous to shoplifting in its impact. That is, not negligible, and something we wish would go away, and might want to put in some safeguards against, but not something so earthshatteringly destructive that we need new laws, including draconian new laws that require third parties to become enforcers.
BTW, someone sent in a GREAT link on the right term for what the music industry likes to call piracy. It's simple, and legally accurate: "copyright infringement." There's a great summary by Supreme Court justice Harry Blackmun at http://philip.greenspun.com/dldf/dismiss-order.html in which Blackmun makes clear why copyright infringement is not the same as theft, for much the same reason you outline in your posting.
-
tx for the level headed view
2002-12-12 14:19:30 anonymous2 [Reply | View]
it is nice to hear someone in an industry that could potentially be affected by piracy speak about the issues in a level headed, open minded, and progressive fashion....
made my day... i hope O'Reilly continues to see success in the future....
-
Excellent essay
2002-12-12 14:03:49 anonymous2 [Reply | View]
Thanks for the outstanding essay. The key ideas expressed here need repeating, as often as possible, in the most public (and non-technical) forums available.
-
"wookiee" has two "e's"...
2002-12-12 13:34:59 anonymous2 [Reply | View]
otherwise, BRILLIANT article...
-
'all-you-can-eat' music downloads
2002-12-12 12:40:09 anonymous2 [Reply | View]
there's EMusic.com. form $10/month (for a 12 month commitment) you have unlimited access to their entire library. of course they dont have distribution rights to everythng, but they are getting more and more bands all the time. a lot of it is not mainstream, but i've found dozens of new bands that i like through this service.
-
Good Points, but what about Baen?
2002-12-12 12:07:47 anonymous2 [Reply | View]
It was a very good essay, but it left out one of the success stories of internet publishing. Baen Books (www.baen.com) is a science fiction and fantasy publisher with a strong online presence. They not only have a "webscriptions" service that provides several of a current month's releases (hardcover and paperback) for $10 or so a month, but also the the "Baen Free Library" where they post some 30 or more novels for free unencryped download and redistribution. One of their latest hardcovers, "War of Honor," by David Weber contained a CD with the entire content of the ten volume series and some 30 other novels.
Baen books are doing their best to prove the accuracy of your thesis. -
Good Points, but what about Baen?
2002-12-12 17:02:56 Tim O'Reilly |
[Reply | View]
You know, I keep meaning to get together with Jim Baen when I'm next in NY. I agree that they are a pioneer in this space. And unlike many O'Reilly books, science fiction isn't driven by some external force (i.e. I REALLY need to find out how to make FOO work, so is there a book on Foo?) but solely by marketing, so my thesis applies even more strongly over there.
-
Many good points
2002-12-12 11:08:56 anonymous2 [Reply | View]
You bring up many good points. I have for years wondered what the music and movie publishers are thinking. Yes, online sharing is rampant. Naturally it is, what other way is there?
I can't be the only one to suddenly realize I'd like to hear a certain song, see (part of) a certain movie, show or documentary? And how can I do this? Well, I can go to Kazaa and download it, or... Well, that's it. The publishers give me no alternative.
I have no idea what the average CD or DVD buying rate is, but I suspect it's less than 1/month on average. It certainly is for me. But I'd be happy to pay 20 bucks a month to have access to a large library of movies and music. And note, those 20 bucks would go straight to the publisher, with no cut for retailers and distributors. (There'd be a certain cost for providing the service, no doubt, but I'm sure the publishers would end up with more of the money than when they sell me a CD/DVD.)
But what if I share what I download with my friends? Well what about it? If the service is convenient and reasonably priced, the only ones with an incentive to get things from friends would be those who could not afford it anyway - no loss there, just more incentive to get the service when they can afford it.
-
Great Essay
2002-12-12 10:51:05 stan_krute [Reply | View]
Thanks for a great essay,
and a great publishing company.
I own far too many of your books.
-
Messages to the Dinosaurs
2002-12-12 10:30:36 anonymous2 [Reply | View]
The prime and most simple reason that RIAA/MPAA have been and are "buying" pet lawmakers is out of fear. The fear of losing a business model they thought, until the explosion of the internet, gave them total control over both artists and the marketplace.
Message One: You don't have control; you never did have control; you never will have control.
Whenever you think you have everything tied up real nice and tight, people will come up with a new way to "slip the knot". To paraphrase another notable "Star Wars" quote, "The tighter you try to grasp control, the more will slip through your fingers".
Executives in both the music and movie industries seem to think that just because they have a business model that has worked "so far", that they have a God-given right to perpetuate it forever. Nothing could possibly be further from reality. Mr. O'reilly put it very well "No one promised them tomorrow".
Message Two: The only thing you can count on as absolutely certain is that everything changes. Adapt or die!
What got you where you are today will not work tomorrow. Business survival (let alone growth) demands that you change with the times. Any company (or even and entire industry) that can't or won't change deserves to go under. The clock can't be turned back and nobody can legislate "tomorrow is yesterday".
-
New Take on Piracy
2002-12-12 10:25:42 anonymous2 [Reply | View]
When people, in general, respect the quality of music that's put out they'll more likely buy it. If there's less perceived value to it then they'll be tempted to take it. (Like REM vs. Christina Aguilera.)
http://www.poochkiss.com/blog.asp?Link=126
-
The real problem
2002-12-12 10:23:28 anonymous2 [Reply | View]
Just don't want to take the time to register. Call me Sid.
The real problem is with that of the publishers themselves, particularly in the Music market. Recording companies have little idea what will/can sell. They wouldn't knw a good band if they smacked them in the face. Every once in awhile, purely by chance, they sign an excellent artist, who the people love and sells well. The next few years will follow with every recording company trying to find a band that sounds or looks exactly like that band. See the Seattle scene of a few years ago as an example. This breed mediocrity, and good bands that could find a larger audience waste away in obscurity.
Honestly it is a control issue. The record execs want the power, to give that over to either the artist or the listener would be to de-value themselves. They want to be Richard Branson, not some rich geek in Mateo making money of the internet.
Books have a different issue. Book publishers of fiction have a different taste than Mr. and Mrs. Smith of Topeka. The Publishers read the high falutent authors who make littel sense and are difficult to read for precisely those reasons. Mr. and Mrs. Smith want Stephen King, but book publisher almost ban new Stephen Kings and Tom Clancy's and the like because they are pulp. That Popular authors make it into main stream is almost a mistake.
In short. Book publishers and Record companies flourish in spite of themselves, not because of themselves.
-
Audio publisher brand loyalty
2002-12-12 09:49:25 sevenoftoine [Reply | View]
Hi,
One thing missing is that a publisher like O'Reilly has instilled brand loyalty by virtue of adherence to quality. With music, the publisher is barely ever mentioned. In the music business, it's all about the "author". Yes, there are some authors of technical books whose book I might go purchase just because they wrote it. But if I don't know the author, but see that it's an "O'Reilly", I can guess that it will be pretty good. This does not apply to music, except for maybe a couple of exceptions, such as "Real World Music" whose CDs are almost always interesting. But at the same time, they crank them out at a much more fiendish pace than books, so I can't keep up.
There was also mention of "the sheer pleasure of owning it". Well, that was much more true in the days of the LP, where you had great cover art. Now, most CDs have just a bit of insert, and barely any art at all. What's the point of owning a silly chunk of plastic? I think to make owning CDs attractive, you have to do what Radiohead did with the limited edition version of "Kid A" (IIRC) was brilliant: it's something I can keep and cherish. It's cool, unusual, and downright elegant. And you absolutely can't get it from downloading!
-- Antoine Durr
-
Building Brand Loyalty
2002-12-12 09:21:22 mattcaron [Reply | View]
One thing that might bear mentioning is that the sword cuts both ways;
just as making content available at zero cost, and being a benefit to
the community causes people to think of you first (I must have over $500
of O'Reilly books on my reference shelf, and I'm just out of college!),
a company's actions can build brand hatred. For example, all the CD's
I've bought in the past two years or so have been either used (so they
don't get any more money from it), or from indie bands that are
self-financed and produced. Why? Because I refuse to do business with
the RIAA, and this includes anyone who is an RIAA member, because they
are a bunch of troglodytes. I want to deal with hip and trendy
publishers who are in the know about how we geeks live, work and
communicate. If I want to spend a couple hundred bucks on one of those
sweet Mini-ITX boards and a sound card with an fiber-optic connection to
my thousand dollar reciever so I can play .ogg files on my stereo, then
I want to be able to rip all my CD's to .ogg format. If publishers
aren't going to play by the rules (I buy it, you get paid, then I can
port it into any format I desire, because I bought the content, none of
this DRM bullshit), then I'm not going to do business with them. Period. -
Building Brand Loyalty
2003-01-20 23:41:33 conureman [Reply | View]
I too feel Brand Hatred every time I have to format and reinstall a Microsoft OS , when I enter the 25 or so "We Know You're Thieving Scum" digits into the system. Also I experience Brand Embarrassment when my friends see the multiple copies of Windows that I have purchased for home use. Although it feels like I am tithing the Antichrist, I refuse to violate the EULA. And, is it just my imagination, or is it really the encryption stuff that keeps locking up my DVD player?
-
This is exactly what's happened with The Free Library
2002-12-12 08:53:17 anonymous2 [Reply | View]
Jim Baen of Baen books has discovered exactly the same things with his experiment with Webscriptions and The Free Library. In fact he ahs seen back catalogue sales go up, and even weirder, in a number of ebook priacy sites, they tell people off for requesting Baen Books, telling them to buy them from Baen because 'Baen does it right'
of course, all Baen Books are published in open, unencrypted formats.
http://www.webscription.net
http://www.baen.com/library
The Crazy Finn
-
Have to agree
2002-12-12 08:47:41 anonymous2 [Reply | View]
I went looking for a copy of Danzig "Black Aria", and noone had it. I checked borders, Amazon, Wherehouse, Tower, as well as a host of other places. And not only did noone have it, but noone could get it - out of print. Was looking off and on for 2 years. Looked online - there it was.
-
Whither go the publishers?
2002-12-12 08:41:59 grepsedawk [Reply | View]
I don't think you're thinking far enough ahead Tim.
Publishers are in danger in a future where individual people and their skills can be matched to individual people and their needs.
Take a look at the traditional book process. Acquiring Editor gets and author who works with a developmental editor who passes the book to a copy-editor and artist who pass the book to a printer who gives it to a distributor who sells it to the retail store who sells it to a consumer.
That's a lot of people to have to support on the sale of a book. Imagine that there are no publishers, no warehouses, and possibly no printers. There is just a website that links people together and Amazon with a lot of print on demand press thingies.
Here is how that can play out. An author wants to write a book. He knows it has a limited audience, but he wants to do it anyway. He goes to the skills trader website and finds that there are several editors who want to edit books like his. He finds one with the appropriate time, skills, fess, and reputation, and he teams up with him. They produce a book that they need to have copy-edited. The author goes back to the website and hires a freelance copy-editor. Then they apply a template that they purchased from an interiors person and give the finished PDFs to Amazon. Through Amazon, and some good search technology, the author's book can now have the widest distribution possible to its limited audience.
You argue that publishers like O'Reilly have reputations that help to sell books. I argue that Author/Editor comibinations will be new brand names. Movies are already like this, you watch because of the story and the star. Books are also, does any child care who publishes Harry Potter books? Likewise music. I'm not going to stop buying Sting music because he now works with Sony. It's still Sting.
The change will go further than you think. P2P will not only enable niche products to get maximum distribution, it will also enable skill sets to be matched to skill needs without Labels or Publishers getting in the way and taking a cut.
-
Whither go the publishers?
2002-12-12 09:11:56 Tim O'Reilly |
[Reply | View]
I don't disagree -- remember, I'm one of those author/editor combinations myself -- and I grew into a publisher. David Pogue is following the same path right now. An author becomes successful, and they try to extend their leverage. Not all do, but the possibility is there. Tom Clancy has a game publishing company, a film production company, and so on.
Not every artist wants to go this route, but many do. But in a rich media ecology, you have the opportunity to choose which pieces of the problem you want to own. David Pogue wants to own his editorial and production, but doesn't want to go all the way to building his own sales force, so he works with O'Reilly as a packager. In my early years, I made deals with other publishers to distribute my books internationally. Now I do it myself.
The self-published author you describe above *is* a publisher. There have always been lots of one-book publishers. The new medium hasn't changed that. Nor has it changed the fact that, having had one successful book, a self-publisher seeks another, and another, and another...and after a while, doesn't write them all him or herself.
The web is a perfect petri dish for watching all this in action. Yahoo! was once two guys at Stanford, not all that different from a whole bunch of other early websites. Now they are a major hub in the web content distribution chain. Whether you call them a publisher or a distributor is somewhat irrelevant. The point is that distribution hierarchies don't remain flat. Once they get large, nodes of specialization emerge. One of those nodes we call a publisher. -
Whither go the publishers?
2002-12-15 17:59:30 tlilley [Reply | View]
Consider also that there will remain a role for "publishers" as aggregators of all of that nasty production beyond the actual writing.
As a writer, I may not care to post my potential idea to a service brokerage in order to find competent editors, illustrators, designers, print-on-demand houses, distributors, online vendors, and so forth.
I might just want to punt and sign on with O'Reilly because "I know their work; it's good."
Now, granted, big changes come with all of this ability to make ad-hoc interconnections without the traditional trusswork. What it means to be a "publisher" changes in mechanics, but I don't think it appreciably changes in spirit.
To expand on what I said in another post, the role of the publisher is to connect creators (with other creators and then connect those creators) with customers.
The biggest changes are to the scales at which activities become practical to undertake "solo". I can see a day when William E. Gates' (not the Microsoft one) self-published[1] magazine "Midnight Engineering" isn't such a novelty.
[1] By "self-published" I mean he ran the web press solo. The web press that he moved across the country with his dad, a forklift, and a flatbed tractor-trailer. That's the sort of nuttiness I admire :) -
Whither go the publishers?
2002-12-12 10:03:17 grepsedawk [Reply | View]
I like your point that people will have the opportunity to choose which pieces of the problem they want to own.I think that is very true and not everyone will feel comfortable going to solo route.
I didn't get your 5th point the first time. You are saying "A publisher by any other name is still the person or technology that makes a work available" O'Reilly itself may be in danger of someday becoming irrelevant, but publishing itself will still exist.
I agree with that. What I find sad is that many of the existing industries are using legal manuevering to extend their existance beyond it's useful life.
The Mickey Mouse Copyright Extension
Microsoft's Software Choice
The RIAA and it's DMCA stuff
-
Excellent article
2002-12-12 08:24:34 anonymous2 [Reply | View]
This is exactly what Im looking for! Someone with great commuication skills to logically point out (in plain english) what all us 'geeks' have been saying all along.
-
Excellent summary
2002-12-12 08:20:05 anonymous2 [Reply | View]
Just as I thought that American business was being run by what Berke Breathed would refer to as "corporate booger-heads", along comes someone who really seems to understand the opportunities of the new marketplace.
Up to now, this point of view has been tainted (in the eyes of the aforementioned corporate types) by the fact that it has been presented by the users of P2P networks, or by academics and free-speech hacktivists. These could easily be dismissed as not being seriously involved in "the realities of business life".
So, Mr. O'Reilly, thanks for showing us that there are people seriously involved in the realities of the content creation business who have a clue.
Sean Ellis, UK
-
Perfect!
2002-12-12 08:12:23 anonymous2 [Reply | View]
In the slang vernacular of the day, Tim...
"Word, yo!"
Well written and to the point. It's too bad that we can't get this through people's heads. :(
-
Financial cost of copying without paying
2002-12-12 08:10:44 jasonfriedman80206 [Reply | View]
I liked the article generally. One argument which I thought was less strong than the others, however, is that copying without paying does not actually cost the producer of the content much money because (1) the people copying without paying likely would not pay under any circumstances, and (2) wider distribution increases awareness which increases sales.
This may be true in some cases, and it may be true for O'Reilly products, but it's a mathematical and business question. Micros**t, for example, is probably in a better position than any of us to determine if _Micros**t_ would make more money by clamping down on copying without paying. -
Financial cost of copying without paying
2002-12-12 09:34:53 Tim O'Reilly |
[Reply | View]
I think you've stated a position rather more strongly than I did in the article. There are certainly cases where free copying is bad for the content producer -- but my point in "piracy is progressive taxation" is that the damage happens most to people who can most afford it (i.e. those already well known), while there is a benefit to those who are not well known. As with the taxation system, it *may* be worthwhile to trade off the harm to one for a greater benefit. And if you're a publisher, the benefit in distributing your sales over more product may lead to a stronger business overall. "Frontlist" driven publishing, where you have to create new product all the time to get revenue, is much less profitable than "backlist" publishing, where products whose development costs have been recouped, keep on selling. And those are the kinds of sales that are increased by better exposure and availability of older product.
I'm not saying any of this is simple. There will be lots of disruption. But eventually, systems find a new equilibrium. I'm mainly speaking out against those who say the sky is falling. Just that inevitably, publishers will survive because they play an important role, not because they protect an entrenched position with draconian contracts and draconian digital rights management initiatives.
-
Several comments
2002-12-12 07:30:01 anonymous2 [Reply | View]
I like the comparison between illicit copying for gain, and shoplifting. "Piracy" is a word which commands attention, but it really doesn't apply here. Piracy is armed robbery, and is especially hated because pirates tend to murder their victims as a matter of course. Regardless of how much or how little some publisher loses to illegal copies, nobody is getting killed here, and that makes it a different class of crime.
I suspect that the established movie/music publishers really understand their situation very well. They are hoping that *I* don't, and will believe the proposition that their industry will dissolve if I don't hand over to them complete control of the information-processing artifacts in my life. They need that control in order to limit the entry of new players in their markets. Too bad for them; I have better things to do with a computer than watch TV or listen to music, and I resent their interference in my pursuit of those other things.
Good companies command respect, not only because they gain a reputation for good products and services, but because they *give* respect. Companies which treat customers as the enemy are digging their own graves -- the customers will quickly bolt if someone new offers to treat them decently.
-
Several comments
2002-12-12 09:36:55 Tim O'Reilly |
[Reply | View]
Amen. You echo one of my favorite quotations from Lao Tzu: "Fail to honor people, they fail to honor you."
(Witter Bynner translation.)
-
Piracy is progressive taxation
2002-12-12 07:20:49 skymante [Reply | View]
That was the most well thought out essay on this subject that I have ever seen. I do hope such cool heads will prevail.
Some of the actions of the 'music industry' are absolutely reprehensible. I do not steal music. Nor do I give it away. But I DO make copies for my own use. The activites of the record companies are interfering with what I view as my right as an owner.
Justin Skywatcher
-
Piracy and Copyright
2002-12-12 07:19:53 choppy [Reply | View]
Agreeing with the article, I'd like to add another concern. I help prepare candidates for Holy Orders largely with materials mailed or from the Web. There are useful books long out of print, but still protected by copyright,available only occasionally from rare book dealers. I'd like to be able to scan some of these and provide them to candidates.
Seems to me a reasonable book copyright limit might be some number of years after the book goes out of print and is no longer sold.
Thus the author and publisher would not loose
revenue, but the books would be widely available.
I could even live with a modest royalty policy
for electronic copies of out of print books.
Louis Chopin Cusachs, M.Div., Ph.D. -
Piracy and Copyright
2002-12-12 09:36:47 Tim O'Reilly |
[Reply | View]
Getting works such as these clearly into the public domain, and fighting the extensions of copyright that have diminished the public domain, is the aim of a great outfit called Creative Commons. Check out creativecommons.org, and see what you can do to help.
-
Re: Thanks
2002-12-12 06:40:12 anonymous2 [Reply | View]
I agree!
First, great post. VERY well said said indeed, esp about piracy vs. the ease of getting what content is needed as a user.
I've said it once, and I'll say it again. I have 0, none, zip, zilch MP3/Ogg files on my server that haven't been ripped from a CD I own. BUT, I would be inclined to do so because CDs are expensive and contain only a song or two that I like.
What would happen if I could go into a CD store, page $10 for a CD containing ~15 songs of my choosing from any artist/label? I would be all over it, and record sales would go through the roof IMHO. Everyone's happy. Always seemed simple to me as a consumer. But what do we know, we're just a bunch of pirates.
-
Congress
2002-12-12 06:27:18 anonymous2 [Reply | View]
Uhh, so when are you going to present this to congress? Perhaps slow the juggernaut that has been trying to keep old media in business by denying new media entry into new markets? If your average Joe (me) tried to tell congress this, chances are I would be ignored. If successful and reputable Mr. O'Reilly told congress this, chances are they might sit up and listen.
-
Bingo....
2002-12-12 05:41:09 anonymous2 [Reply | View]
Nice to see a well thought out, forward looking article on the topic.
Also nice to see a publisher/distributor see and recognize the opportunity, as opposed to those which only care to focus on the dangers presented to their current system. Most companies tend to focus on preserving the "Status-quo". Companies hate change, especially if it's a decrease in the profit from an established market (while ignoring any opportunities the change creates).
A company which can recognize the potential, and prepare to harness it should do well as the Digital Age evolves....assuming everything isn't legislated to death.
Cheers to O'Reilly...
-
Well stated
2002-12-12 05:39:36 ellyssian [Reply | View]
Hopefully, the people who need to read that will (RIAA and so forth). As a musician, poet, and author I see the web as an opportunity. A few select people think it will take a few pennies from their pocket, and they complain loudly and pump out misinformation to slant the laws in their favor at the expense of everyone else.
-
Thanks!
2002-12-12 05:34:15 anonymous2 [Reply | View]
You very nicely stated what my own feelings are on this subject! In further support of your comments, I can give you a real life example: I stopped buying CDs years ago. In fact, the last CD I bought in a store was Thomas Dolby's "Astronauts and Heretics." (That should date that statement). I just wasn't hearing anything that inspired me enough to want to go out and actually buy the CD. They were too expensive, and chances were I would only like the one song on the album. $18 for one song, and a half dozen tracks of junk was too much for me.
Come along Apple's iTunes and internet radio! All of the sudden, I was able to listen to music that I would have otherwise missed out on because I never hear it on the radio! I heard one song from an artist that so struck me, I went on a music safari trying to find other songs by him. After listening to MP3s of his music, I knew I liked it enough to buy his music. ALL of it! I bought his entire catalog! Six disks in one shot! A sale that otherwise would never have happened if not for an alternative channel of distribution.
-
New Forms Will Emerge
2002-12-12 05:21:22 loca [Reply | View]
I thoroughly agree with Tim about the need for the Music industry in particular to grow up and address the needs of the customers who buy the records. It is ridiculous to try to legislate customers as criminals just because they want the flexibility to use and remediate the music they buy.
If you want to listen to your favourite CD in your car, fine, if you want to listen to it on you laptop fine. And if that involves transfering it to a new medium (for instance, MP3, tape) then that should be fine too. Most people want good quality music and are willing to pay for it. There will always be people that do not and *will* not pay but I think they will always remain a minority whilst a viable alternative exists.
And I think that is the danger. Customer need is not being addressed and if people get used to using Kazaa or other file-swapping software in order to get the music they want in the format they want then it will be increasingly difficult to stop them.
The time to act is now. Introduce a convenient equitable and efficient network that allows people to use music how they want. And stop trying to restrict their freedom after they have purchased it.
I own thousands of CDs, and continue to buy them. Yet I am sick of owning so many. So I transfer them into iTunes and use its library on my Mac. Easy, convenient and much faster to find them than in a room full of CDs. However I *still* pay for the music and would online if the quality of downloads was excellent and added benefits were there (eg. Posted sleevenotes, info etc).
I run my own record label called LOCA RECORDS:
http://www.locarecords.com
And we are experimenting with releasing Open Audio in just this open way. Whether this extreme form of open licensing will be effective who can say, but in the meantime people can listen to the music, use and reuse it and hopefully people will like it enough to support the label to release more.
If nothing else I hope that Open Media will shake up the dinosaurs of the music industry and reinvigorate it with new music and new life.
-
Error in previous post






This is a good approach to handling that kind of piracy because that will invoke more creative thinking on a mass scale which will mean that the creative markets will be enriched.
However, there are other forms of piracy that will not fit correctly with your ideas.
For example, the fact that a book is tangible could be a reason why somebody might want to buy an O'REILLY book or anything that is tangible and that is also pirated. What if you couldn't buy an O'REILLY book because it was not published in print and that you can only buy it in digital print. And when you realised that could get it for free, you wouldn't really bother paying for it. O'REILLY would simply have to rely on ad revenues - just like newspapers do!
Soon the quality of knowledge in O'REILLY's books will become poor because they've become a company that sells ad space to other companies rather than good quality knowledge.
Software piracy is not the same as publishing piracy. Software, when it is pirated, is a potential customer lost to a company. Because if that customer can't get that software through piracy, he will have to pay for it.
Affordability is something companies will need to consider then because if they don't make it affordable to their customers, it won't be bought and they will move onto something that is free (like Open Source).
You're right O'REILLY, There's more than one way to do it. Except, some ways are better than other ways