- Joined
- Jul 21, 2005
- Messages
- 10,478
I disagree. If someone invents a car-copying machine, the world needs it yesterday. We should never ever hold back such innovations so that people can adjust their livelihoods. Heck, they can all have cars now for free. I'm sure they'll get by just fine.1.) The car-copying machine: good or bad? From my eyes (and I realize this was purely an analogy) I think this actually touches on an even broader issue of global economy. I don't think I need to harp on the obvious; there are literally millions of people around the world who make their living thanks to the Auto industry (manufacturing or sales). So of course obliterating that industry in one fell swoop would have cataclysmic effects on them, which of course would in turn lead to further cataclysm. This said I'm not opposed to such an invention, only that it be revealed carefully, timely, so as to allow all those millions of people to adjust, to find a new livelihood.
I emphasized a line from your comment here. That is absolutely wrong. What people are afraid of is the ability to make money directly from the digital content. Sure, it'll become impractical to sell information in discrete units, but that's not what you said. You made a broad statement, which I've heard many times before: "less chance there is for money to be made". On the contrary, more money is made the freer information becomes. I'm sure you've heard of the authors/musicians/comedians who ended up making more money thanks to their content being spread freely among fans. If you want specific examples, I would be more than willing to cite them. The freer information becomes, the revenue streams adjust to alternate sources, but the content definitely remains as the driver of profits.If we take this analogy back to its source, we see why RCA, Sony, et al have fought so vigorously to hold onto their old business models as set forth decades ago with the invention of the record, and then radio, TV and finally the Internet. The big issue here is money. The freer information exchange becomes, the less chance there is for money to be made. Sure people can make money the old fashioned way, by toiling. But that's what White Collar existence is about. It's about making oodles of money without ever breaking a sweat.
Where do you get this perception from? The world will always be a sea of faces, but the Internet still enables people with otherwise niche audiences to connect directly. Even amidst the hundreds of options, fans can still find that particular artist that really speaks to them. Sure, the big corporations who really get the Internet will definitely make big bucks, but little guys are really scoring big as well. Julian Smith? Toby Turner? iJustine? Rhett and Link? They all seem to doing just fine (probably making way more than I am), and they live their entire existences on YouTube... making people laugh... for free...What I'm seeing in this article, what I'm feeling from it... is that to suggest these business models be scrapped is to suggest that Corporations be scrapped. And of course this leads back to global economy, and how it would be impacted. It's bad enough that iTunes started off as a way for no-names like myself to "get out there" and get paid a bit on the side, but now it's just another sea of faces with no real expectation of stardom to be had. In other words, the Internet may have granted a temporary alleviation of Big Business holding all the cards, and the little guy taking it up the ***, but it didn't stay that way for long, and with each new iteration of the Internet, comes a landslide of new angles, get-rich-quick schemes, and ultimately leads us to the same place we've always been in: little guys, taking it up the ***.
By that logic, buying a dog for my daughter is stealing? She didn't pay for it. Oh, but you were talking about permission. I share my Wifi all the time. Sure, people have the right to not share their Wifi too, but someone breaking in is not "stealing". Seriously, keep that word out of digital discussions. It simply does not belong. People paying for Internet are paying for a service, not the Internet itself. I mean seriously, do you charge people that want a glass of water?To combat this, you and me and millions of others have banded together to declare ourselves free of the tyranny of Big Business -because we can-. But is that not Windows you're running on your PC right this second? Okay maybe you're really good, and using an open source OS, and an open source browser to read this post, and perhaps you built your own PC using cheap(er) 3rd party parts... I find that no matter how you slice it, we'll still be entrenched in this Internet-thing, that's not built on freedom, but built on billboards. I have to pay for my access! Sure I can... "pirate" my neighbor's WiFi, but that IS stealing, and not because they're harmed necessarily, they may never notice a difference given we're all DOCSIS 3.0 in this neighborhood... they're harmed because they'd be paying for my access.
This is why it is inappropriate to drag these businesses entrenched in the 70s into the Internet era. It's only "wrong" due to legacy copyright culture. Do you realize how many content creators produce stuff for free today? (And don't you dare assume that means they have foregone the ability to make money! Having a free component != making no money.) Have you heard of Creative Commons? Have you seen the new crowd-sourced films today? Have you seen the increase in free indie films (where the director still made money)? The content culture is changing drastically. The current big dawgs like RIAA/MPAA will die a very slow and painful death, but it will happen (unless someone intelligent takes charge in those organizations). You seem to have your mind entrenched in this "copying is always evil" mentality. The big content businesses are so afraid of the changing tides that they made a move to make things like Creative Commons ILLEGAL. That's right: they are all about "rights" up until other artists exercise theirs and put out content for free. Then it's an unfair attack on their business model.So how do we really break these chains? No matter what we do... imagine: We start sharing our vast CD libraries from the 90's as MP3's ... using our PCs as servers and P2P sharing all these songs, entire albums. Because it's the Internet, people who have never originally paid for the CD are also listening to these works of art. Is that right? Is it just? Should it be allowed? Who should be punished, them for being inquisitive, or us for allowing them the access? Remember the start of just about every VHS in history... it cites an Interpol resolution regarding "piracy" alongside a chapter/title quip and an FBI warning. Granted this is mainly to prevent people like you or me, "commoners" from making our own Movie Theaters, and charging others to attend public viewings. Private Use Only. But it does serve a more general purpose of indoctrinating society into recognizing the difference between acceptable and non-acceptable use (by their standards, of course).
I can't speak for everyone obviously, but I want many industries to die in their current forms. I want new ones to rise. I want new industries that understand how bits really work and understand how people want to consume their content. For example, it astounds me today that photographers still have the audacity to charge tons of money for a photo shoot and still retain the copyright on the images. Really? What was all that money for? I purchased the opportunity to buy images of myself. Wow. That made sense back when photographers had to invest time/money into converting all those shots into prints for me to pick through. Today, we can make unlimited digital copies. I only hire photographers now who release the copyright. (I am even OK with a dual copyright where the photographer just wants to use the pics for advertising/sampling purposes.) The money is for the photographer's time and talent, not so he/she can turn around and offer to sell me the pictures. I can come up with similar endless rants about movies, music, and games.
It's time to change. More to come.