Downoading communism - The sad future of the business model of today's video industry - a look from history
Another controversial post from my technical blog
One of my colleagues in the office hung a poster: the bespectacled man bent over the computer and was about to press the Download button, behind him a huge shaggy Cossack with black shaggy hair, bulging eyes and huge crooked teeth, in a fur coat, girded with machine-gun belts, with a huge red star on hat approvingly pats the boy on the back. All this is accompanied by the signature “When you download the music, you download communism!”
Yes, again the cross-post <A class="" href= pas www.eldar.com/node/152 "mce_href= www.eldar.com/node/152 "> from a personal blog ...
')
As promised, this is the second article in the series about the fact that traditional television and the current business model of the video industry are doomed, this time in terms of history and business. At first I planned to translate my own article in English, but then I decided that it was easier to write anew, at the same time and in context.
Short and to the point
Honestly I will warn: the article is large. So, I will first express my thought briefly and to the point, and for those who need details, read to the end. So briefly and to the point. If you take the history of the entertainment industry from Egypt and Babylon, and not from the appearance of Hollywood, as some would like, it turns out that almost all of its history of copyright and intellectual rights had no special meaning for it. More specifically, over seven thousand years of human history, copyright had at least some significance only for the last couple of hundred years. And even this couple of hundreds of years, it was used exclusively by players in this market for fights among themselves, without touching the venerable public. And at the same time, it has never been a central part of the business model of the entertainment industry — what is music, what is video.
From here conclusions:
In the end, I will also give my opinion on what this new business model will be like.
Detailed and tasteful
So, today's television and video industry are hysterical about copyright and intellectual property violations. In principle, they can be understood - copyright and intellectual property are at the center of their current business model. Only copyrights and intellectual property are legitimate only insofar as there are laws that legitimize them, and laws are created, at least in theory, for the sake of society as a whole, and not for the private interests of a particular group of people or industry.
For example, laws against robbery strongly interfere with the industry of robbers on the high road, but society weighed the losses of robbers from these laws with the losses of the whole society from robbers and concluded that it is impossible to rob, which is reflected in the relevant laws.
Not always the law is on the side of protecting property. For example, if there are archaeological or paleontological finds in your land, the state has the right to conduct excavations in spite of all your rights as an owner. In this case, the public weighed your potential losses against the importance of the findings for science and society, and decided that your property right “is not yet a reason.”
So far, I explain clearly? So, what did I say:
By the way, for more information about this, you can read in Lessig's outstanding book “Free Culture” (<A class = "" href = " www.amazon.com/gp/product/0143034650?ie=UTF8&tag=thewisemoney&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN = 0143034650 "target = _blank mce_href =" www.amazon.com/gp/product/0143034650?ie=UTF8&tag=thewisemoney&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=932&& creativeIsIN=0143034650>> "Culture: The Nature and Future of the Grant for Australia, but it is not free for the future that the future of the future that the future of the future that 30% has been divided into"> ), I highly recommend it.
And when considering the interests of society, a natural question arises: what does the video industry give to society, what justifies its existence, and can society not get the same with less costs? Yes, it could mean the end of television and video industry as we know it. But in the history, not once and not two whole industries went into oblivion and were not just undermined by unfavorable laws, but simply explicitly prohibited. For example, the slave trade industry was completely legitimate for a long time, and then the society banned it. Or piracy, which in the days of the pirates of the Caribbean could get a royal patent.
A more modern example is the video industry itself and its center - Hollywood. You know that Hollywood has become the center of film making because Edison’s agents could not reach him, who demanded obscene bribes for using Edison patents and thereby making film production on the east coast unprofitable. Isn't it funny to hear the squeaks about the protection of intellectual property rights from representatives of an industry that has grown up on the violation of intellectual property rights?
However, we digress. Let's go back to copyright as the center of the business model of the modern video industry. Now it seems to be an integral part of it, without which we instantly find ourselves without entertainment, music, films ... but only people suffering from sclerosis or who do not have a history of the issue. The fact is that copyright has become the center of the video industry business model recently. What happened before that? Let's see!
By the way, what does society need to get what the video industry gives?
Pay attention, in fact, the modern video industry and television are first of all (4), that is, they are generally on the side-side. Moreover, television just appeared only in the middle of the twentieth century, and films at the end of the nineteenth, which gives a legitimate reason to say that “you didn’t stand here.” And what did “stand”?
Shakespeare and Rogue Theaters
At the time of Shakespeare with intellectual rights everything was very simple. They simply did not exist. Shakespeare wrote the play and it turned out a sort of brick of sheets of paper. Shakespeare sold this brick to the director (or rather to the owner) of the theater and he staged a play. Or Shakespeare and the owner of the theater could also come to a gentlemen's agreement that instead of paying the master immediately, he simply paid his salary to Shakespeare to write plays on a regular basis, or that he would pay Shakespeare a share of the fees. But again, no rights here lay, it was a matter of personal agreement between Shakespeare (or another author) and the specific owner of a particular theater. If another company could steal the manuscript, neither Shakespeare nor the owner of the theater could do anything about it, except to complain to the local feudal lord and count on his favorable decision.
However, the business model then did not require copyright. The business model was not based on copyright, but on real estate rights, whether it be a theater building or temporary rights to a stage on the market square. The spectators paid for the right to be within the limits of this property at the time of the performance, and the actors and authors were paid from the fees.
It is in this state that the industry has been for quite a long time, including the time of already normal theaters. And even today, many theaters stage the same plays, arguing that the rights of the authors of the plays are certainly not so essential for the survival of this industry.
You may ask, why would the authors write for the sake of, if their rights are not guaranteed? Many reasons. Jonathan Smith and Daniel Defoe wrote to promote their political views. A published book or a film made according to your script helps to hire a full-time writer or editor in any company. Finally, just mortal earthly glory. I assure you that the overwhelming majority of writers work for this now. Already. Now. Stevens Kinga and Rowling are statistically insignificant random emissions. In addition, Rowling's first book was written on a completely different model - on a grant, and the last, to be honest, and not sorry. As well as the products of Stephen King.
Movies and cinema
No matter how ridiculous, with the advent of movies and cinemas, nothing much has changed. It was difficult and expensive to make a copy of the film, and even if someone did it, showing it somewhere in the country club didn’t affect the rental network profits. Relationship studio and rental network specified in the contract and they also determined. Copyright was essentially used only for fights between rolling networks and studios, and it didn’t touch at all ordinary citizens. The real business model was still tied to real estate - cinemas. You pay to sit there while they are turning the movie.
This is a very important point - the fact that ordinary citizens are not concerned. The society then did not have the means for the products of the authors, actors, producers and studios to become available to the audience on its own, therefore a mediator was needed - rental networks. The rental networks performed a useful function for society - delivering films to viewers . For this function, they received their profits. Copyright was used to close the chain in the opposite direction and provide a means of subsistence to film creators, and not to distributors at all.
That is, the copyright was not used to protect the lobbying industry, but for a positive social goal - to provide a bridge between filmmakers and viewers in the only possible way at that time.
A television
And then for the rental network came a terrible time - television was invented. The time was so terrible that many talked about the end of cinemas.
By the way, heart-rending squeaks about the end of the industry and in general “the end of time” are far from the invention of the modern video industry. The rental networks have already played it more than half a century ago. But these are details. And the essence is simple, who will go to the cinema, if you can see the same movie at home?
From the point of view of rental networks, a malicious violation of their “rights” to profits and control over filmmakers. From the point of view of society, a cheaper, efficient and popular delivery method has emerged. In general, "the violinist is not needed."
By the way, pay attention, despite all these squeaks, the rental network is not extinct. Yes, they had to adapt, abandon the nauseous documentary films in front of features, to understand how they can be valuable in the new environment. I myself go to the movies sometimes. Sit in front of a huge screen, so you have to twist your head to see all the details, immerse yourself in the sound that you can’t create at home, it's all in the company and under popcorn or nachos - all this is well worth it. But to get to this state, the rental networks had to find a new business model. Not an arrogant monopolist, a single sales channel for film producers from which viewers cannot go anywhere, but as a place for “events”, “access to people” for viewers and a very effective way of making a profit from showing films for filmmakers.
Meanwhile, progress has continued and a television business model has been formed.
What is the positive social function of television? Movie delivery to the audience, and much cheaper in the calculation of "on the nose" than it did the rental network, and much more convenient - home!
What did television make money on? On the sale of advertising inserted in the programs shown.
What was key to the functioning of the business model? Control over the screening of the film - the ability to insert advertising, which will see everyone who watches the movie.
What was the copyright function? Make sure the middleman, television, pays filmmakers so that they can make more films.
Again, pay attention, the disassembly takes place exclusively between large intermediary firms - television - and filmmakers. Ordinary viewers have nothing to do with it. The existence of a mediator is justified only by the fact that the society is cheaper and more efficient, alas, is not yet able. For its costs for broadcasting networks, television towers, etc., the mediator receives his bribe, again, since the society is better yet does not know how.
VCRs
It was a heart attack, stroke and insult (insult) of the video industry and television in one person. When Sony released the first video recorder to the market, it was sued for the Record button. The argument was roughly the same as that of the modern industry. Oh! Oh! Rogues, thieves, freaks !!! The film can be recorded and viewed at least ten times ??? Yes, and cut advertising ??? The industry is cut without a knife !!! TV right now will die and splash you with its black blood!
It is good to. But not dead. Despite all his squeaks.
What turned out to be in practice?
First, it turned out that although people actually record and watch, it does not particularly affect the income of television. The real problem occurs when someone writes, and then tries to copy and sell. That is, the problem was not in individual viewers copying films, but in “left-wing” businesses trying to sell illegal copies. Feel the "trend"? The copyright still worked, and still not touching ordinary viewers. It was a showdown with underground business selling illegal copies.
The next is better. It turned out that video recorders can make a completely legitimate video rental business, which in many respects is even more efficient than television. Well, maybe not in terms of profitability, which is so transcendental in television. Although, on the other hand, hold a cassette with a cost of less than a dollar for a couple of days for five dollars ... I don’t know what other business can be more profitable if you count the joint profits of rentals and what they donate to the studios.
Thirdly, copying from cassette to cassette led to a terrible decline in quality, thereby limiting the possibilities of underground businesses. If someone wanted a poor quality video, he could get it cheap - remember the first years of adjustment? But it turned out that bad quality films are not particularly needed by anyone. And the business of the video industry has become the delivery of good quality films to the audience .
And most importantly, the court against Sony listened to the arguments against and said, guess what? Well, yes, "the violinist is not needed." According to the court’s decision, the “Record” button had a number of socially important functions, and prohibiting it for the sake of everyone’s profits there ... well, wrong! By the way, the truth is wrong! In general, the video industry, which does not want to adapt to the present, once again received a face, and quite deservedly. And it was good.
Again, ordinary users were left alone; copyright was used to control the business.
the Internet
Please note that copyright was used all the way to regulate relations between businesses and protect the rights of authors from these businesses, and not to bully viewers at all. First of all between studios and intermediary businesses, without which society could not deliver films to viewers. And then a terrible thing happened. Interet appeared and society learned how to deliver films to viewers quickly, cheaply and efficiently.
From the point of view of these most mediating businesses, it is a blatant violation of their rights. From the point of view of society - the destruction of the very reasons for which they exist. What should society do in such cases?
Yes, yes, Captain Morgan. Thank. You violated the glory, battered the Spaniards. No one is going to take away the title of Lord. But no more, thanks. We have a world with the Spaniards now.
No, no, Mr. slaver. You have earned a good time, be happy with what you have. We no longer need slaves in the southern plantations, we need cheap workers in the northern factories, which we do not need to feed at our own expense.
Will the Internet become the grave-digger of the current video industry, as predicted? Take a look at the story. Cinema, television and video recorder have already buried outdated business models, but not the video industry. The video industry simply created a new business model on which it began to live. The same thing will happen now.
Wait, didn’t I say in the first article that television is cranky? He said. And that's why. The television business model is too inflexible. By and large, it sounds like this: “We are the demigods of television networks — we decide what will be awesome.” Now "People" got the opportunity not to "hawk", what the "demigods" let them go. So, with this business model there will definitely be some pretty problems. Already, cable television frantically rebuilt on on demand models and Internet connection. Will live television disappear? I do not know, but in general, terrestrial television is a very expensive pleasure. Although, let's say, for Russia with its spaces, it may be a long time the only possibility. Although for the ever-decreasing rural population, it’s still a question of how interested businesses will be in this audience. In general, "the violinist is not needed."
New business model?
At the beginning of the article, I promised to share my thoughts, but what kind of business model would it be? Delivery of high-quality films is no longer “rolling,” authors and viewers can do this without intermediaries. Stephen King already a few years ago conducted a large-scale experiment to sell his new book through his website in electronic form. Movies are simply "heavier" in size, but this is not so important and there are no easy delivery methods yet - all the same, loading an ISO and burning a disc is a bit complicated for the mass audience, but methods will appear. Already appear.
And what are the needs of the audience the society is not yet able to satisfy without auxiliary businesses? Think for yourself. Suppose for a moment that there is no copyright and you can download any movie. Download and burn to disk. First, it takes time and effort. Pay the disk and get it by mail is much easier. Of course, if the price is right. Secondly, well, you burned one hundred discs, another, a third ... And the modern video industry is prolific as I don't know who ... Even if you buy all these films for your hard-earned money, it cannot last forever. Gradually, drives start living in your house, not you. I know that books live in my house ... Moreover, the desired film is simply not to be found in all this rubbish, which you bought or produced. What does this mean? And that means being a pirate is not interesting. This means that there is a legitimate business niche for companies that will take over the management of your collections or those available to you and the prompt delivery to you of the films you want. For this, such a business must provide the following services:
Actually, for 1-3 there are already businesses that do and thrive. Have you heard about Netflix? This is it. And 4 they have so far by mail, which, with their network of warehouses and the efficiency of the American postal service, delivers the films the next day. By the way, I actively use them and I am very pleased. And I buy and keep at home only those discs that I want to watch again and again, which are already small enough to not be confused in them, and not regret buying completely legitimate, say, on Amazon.com - another example of a business from the same category which in this case makes 2, 3 and 4.
And with the development of Internet television, successful businesses will appear that will make 4 instantly, via the Internet. Actually, the very same Netflix already does this - a fair share of its collection can be viewed immediately via the Internet, only the quality is not the same. Well, yes, it is fixable, they are working on it. Actually, I myself am working on it now. Here is such a deal. And notice who after this will need television?
One of my colleagues in the office hung a poster: the bespectacled man bent over the computer and was about to press the Download button, behind him a huge shaggy Cossack with black shaggy hair, bulging eyes and huge crooked teeth, in a fur coat, girded with machine-gun belts, with a huge red star on hat approvingly pats the boy on the back. All this is accompanied by the signature “When you download the music, you download communism!”
Yes, again the cross-post <A class="" href= pas www.eldar.com/node/152 "mce_href= www.eldar.com/node/152 "> from a personal blog ...
')
As promised, this is the second article in the series about the fact that traditional television and the current business model of the video industry are doomed, this time in terms of history and business. At first I planned to translate my own article in English, but then I decided that it was easier to write anew, at the same time and in context.
Short and to the point
Honestly I will warn: the article is large. So, I will first express my thought briefly and to the point, and for those who need details, read to the end. So briefly and to the point. If you take the history of the entertainment industry from Egypt and Babylon, and not from the appearance of Hollywood, as some would like, it turns out that almost all of its history of copyright and intellectual rights had no special meaning for it. More specifically, over seven thousand years of human history, copyright had at least some significance only for the last couple of hundred years. And even this couple of hundreds of years, it was used exclusively by players in this market for fights among themselves, without touching the venerable public. And at the same time, it has never been a central part of the business model of the entertainment industry — what is music, what is video.
From here conclusions:
- Copyright is not an essential requirement for the existence of the entertainment industry.
- Copyright was never created to rip off poor students, which seems to be turning into a new business model for the old video industry. He is simply not invented.
- Copyright cannot function as a backbone of the business model of the video industry, it is simply not adapted for this.
- Finally, copyright will return to its modest place of protection for authors against fat cats of the video industry and will not be a key part of the new video industry business model.
In the end, I will also give my opinion on what this new business model will be like.
Detailed and tasteful
So, today's television and video industry are hysterical about copyright and intellectual property violations. In principle, they can be understood - copyright and intellectual property are at the center of their current business model. Only copyrights and intellectual property are legitimate only insofar as there are laws that legitimize them, and laws are created, at least in theory, for the sake of society as a whole, and not for the private interests of a particular group of people or industry.
For example, laws against robbery strongly interfere with the industry of robbers on the high road, but society weighed the losses of robbers from these laws with the losses of the whole society from robbers and concluded that it is impossible to rob, which is reflected in the relevant laws.
Not always the law is on the side of protecting property. For example, if there are archaeological or paleontological finds in your land, the state has the right to conduct excavations in spite of all your rights as an owner. In this case, the public weighed your potential losses against the importance of the findings for science and society, and decided that your property right “is not yet a reason.”
So far, I explain clearly? So, what did I say:
- Copyright and intellectual rights themselves are not a legitimate “long-playing” argument.
- I did not say that the interests of the video industry should be ignored,
- But the interests of society as a whole should not be ignored.
- Moreover, it is the interests of society as a whole that should determine the legality or illegality of intellectual rights.
By the way, for more information about this, you can read in Lessig's outstanding book “Free Culture” (<A class = "" href = " www.amazon.com/gp/product/0143034650?ie=UTF8&tag=thewisemoney&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN = 0143034650 "target = _blank mce_href =" www.amazon.com/gp/product/0143034650?ie=UTF8&tag=thewisemoney&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=932&& creativeIsIN=0143034650>> "Culture: The Nature and Future of the Grant for Australia, but it is not free for the future that the future of the future that the future of the future that 30% has been divided into"> ), I highly recommend it.
And when considering the interests of society, a natural question arises: what does the video industry give to society, what justifies its existence, and can society not get the same with less costs? Yes, it could mean the end of television and video industry as we know it. But in the history, not once and not two whole industries went into oblivion and were not just undermined by unfavorable laws, but simply explicitly prohibited. For example, the slave trade industry was completely legitimate for a long time, and then the society banned it. Or piracy, which in the days of the pirates of the Caribbean could get a royal patent.
A more modern example is the video industry itself and its center - Hollywood. You know that Hollywood has become the center of film making because Edison’s agents could not reach him, who demanded obscene bribes for using Edison patents and thereby making film production on the east coast unprofitable. Isn't it funny to hear the squeaks about the protection of intellectual property rights from representatives of an industry that has grown up on the violation of intellectual property rights?
However, we digress. Let's go back to copyright as the center of the business model of the modern video industry. Now it seems to be an integral part of it, without which we instantly find ourselves without entertainment, music, films ... but only people suffering from sclerosis or who do not have a history of the issue. The fact is that copyright has become the center of the video industry business model recently. What happened before that? Let's see!
By the way, what does society need to get what the video industry gives?
- Some opportunity for authors to make a living with their works. Not necessarily good, if we take the average earnings of the author, then this figure will not convince anyone. If we take only the "stars", then for the economy this is not an argument, the industry will not survive on some stars, and the process of becoming a "star" raises many questions.
- Some opportunity for the actors to make a living by playing. With the same limitations.
- Opportunity to companies, organizing the production, and producers to earn on the production of films or music.
- The opportunity to earn on support services for the delivery of products (3) viewers and listeners, if the company can not receive these support services in other, cheaper ways.
Pay attention, in fact, the modern video industry and television are first of all (4), that is, they are generally on the side-side. Moreover, television just appeared only in the middle of the twentieth century, and films at the end of the nineteenth, which gives a legitimate reason to say that “you didn’t stand here.” And what did “stand”?
Shakespeare and Rogue Theaters
At the time of Shakespeare with intellectual rights everything was very simple. They simply did not exist. Shakespeare wrote the play and it turned out a sort of brick of sheets of paper. Shakespeare sold this brick to the director (or rather to the owner) of the theater and he staged a play. Or Shakespeare and the owner of the theater could also come to a gentlemen's agreement that instead of paying the master immediately, he simply paid his salary to Shakespeare to write plays on a regular basis, or that he would pay Shakespeare a share of the fees. But again, no rights here lay, it was a matter of personal agreement between Shakespeare (or another author) and the specific owner of a particular theater. If another company could steal the manuscript, neither Shakespeare nor the owner of the theater could do anything about it, except to complain to the local feudal lord and count on his favorable decision.
However, the business model then did not require copyright. The business model was not based on copyright, but on real estate rights, whether it be a theater building or temporary rights to a stage on the market square. The spectators paid for the right to be within the limits of this property at the time of the performance, and the actors and authors were paid from the fees.
It is in this state that the industry has been for quite a long time, including the time of already normal theaters. And even today, many theaters stage the same plays, arguing that the rights of the authors of the plays are certainly not so essential for the survival of this industry.
You may ask, why would the authors write for the sake of, if their rights are not guaranteed? Many reasons. Jonathan Smith and Daniel Defoe wrote to promote their political views. A published book or a film made according to your script helps to hire a full-time writer or editor in any company. Finally, just mortal earthly glory. I assure you that the overwhelming majority of writers work for this now. Already. Now. Stevens Kinga and Rowling are statistically insignificant random emissions. In addition, Rowling's first book was written on a completely different model - on a grant, and the last, to be honest, and not sorry. As well as the products of Stephen King.
Movies and cinema
No matter how ridiculous, with the advent of movies and cinemas, nothing much has changed. It was difficult and expensive to make a copy of the film, and even if someone did it, showing it somewhere in the country club didn’t affect the rental network profits. Relationship studio and rental network specified in the contract and they also determined. Copyright was essentially used only for fights between rolling networks and studios, and it didn’t touch at all ordinary citizens. The real business model was still tied to real estate - cinemas. You pay to sit there while they are turning the movie.
This is a very important point - the fact that ordinary citizens are not concerned. The society then did not have the means for the products of the authors, actors, producers and studios to become available to the audience on its own, therefore a mediator was needed - rental networks. The rental networks performed a useful function for society - delivering films to viewers . For this function, they received their profits. Copyright was used to close the chain in the opposite direction and provide a means of subsistence to film creators, and not to distributors at all.
That is, the copyright was not used to protect the lobbying industry, but for a positive social goal - to provide a bridge between filmmakers and viewers in the only possible way at that time.
A television
And then for the rental network came a terrible time - television was invented. The time was so terrible that many talked about the end of cinemas.
By the way, heart-rending squeaks about the end of the industry and in general “the end of time” are far from the invention of the modern video industry. The rental networks have already played it more than half a century ago. But these are details. And the essence is simple, who will go to the cinema, if you can see the same movie at home?
From the point of view of rental networks, a malicious violation of their “rights” to profits and control over filmmakers. From the point of view of society, a cheaper, efficient and popular delivery method has emerged. In general, "the violinist is not needed."
By the way, pay attention, despite all these squeaks, the rental network is not extinct. Yes, they had to adapt, abandon the nauseous documentary films in front of features, to understand how they can be valuable in the new environment. I myself go to the movies sometimes. Sit in front of a huge screen, so you have to twist your head to see all the details, immerse yourself in the sound that you can’t create at home, it's all in the company and under popcorn or nachos - all this is well worth it. But to get to this state, the rental networks had to find a new business model. Not an arrogant monopolist, a single sales channel for film producers from which viewers cannot go anywhere, but as a place for “events”, “access to people” for viewers and a very effective way of making a profit from showing films for filmmakers.
Meanwhile, progress has continued and a television business model has been formed.
What is the positive social function of television? Movie delivery to the audience, and much cheaper in the calculation of "on the nose" than it did the rental network, and much more convenient - home!
What did television make money on? On the sale of advertising inserted in the programs shown.
What was key to the functioning of the business model? Control over the screening of the film - the ability to insert advertising, which will see everyone who watches the movie.
What was the copyright function? Make sure the middleman, television, pays filmmakers so that they can make more films.
Again, pay attention, the disassembly takes place exclusively between large intermediary firms - television - and filmmakers. Ordinary viewers have nothing to do with it. The existence of a mediator is justified only by the fact that the society is cheaper and more efficient, alas, is not yet able. For its costs for broadcasting networks, television towers, etc., the mediator receives his bribe, again, since the society is better yet does not know how.
VCRs
It was a heart attack, stroke and insult (insult) of the video industry and television in one person. When Sony released the first video recorder to the market, it was sued for the Record button. The argument was roughly the same as that of the modern industry. Oh! Oh! Rogues, thieves, freaks !!! The film can be recorded and viewed at least ten times ??? Yes, and cut advertising ??? The industry is cut without a knife !!! TV right now will die and splash you with its black blood!
It is good to. But not dead. Despite all his squeaks.
What turned out to be in practice?
First, it turned out that although people actually record and watch, it does not particularly affect the income of television. The real problem occurs when someone writes, and then tries to copy and sell. That is, the problem was not in individual viewers copying films, but in “left-wing” businesses trying to sell illegal copies. Feel the "trend"? The copyright still worked, and still not touching ordinary viewers. It was a showdown with underground business selling illegal copies.
The next is better. It turned out that video recorders can make a completely legitimate video rental business, which in many respects is even more efficient than television. Well, maybe not in terms of profitability, which is so transcendental in television. Although, on the other hand, hold a cassette with a cost of less than a dollar for a couple of days for five dollars ... I don’t know what other business can be more profitable if you count the joint profits of rentals and what they donate to the studios.
Thirdly, copying from cassette to cassette led to a terrible decline in quality, thereby limiting the possibilities of underground businesses. If someone wanted a poor quality video, he could get it cheap - remember the first years of adjustment? But it turned out that bad quality films are not particularly needed by anyone. And the business of the video industry has become the delivery of good quality films to the audience .
And most importantly, the court against Sony listened to the arguments against and said, guess what? Well, yes, "the violinist is not needed." According to the court’s decision, the “Record” button had a number of socially important functions, and prohibiting it for the sake of everyone’s profits there ... well, wrong! By the way, the truth is wrong! In general, the video industry, which does not want to adapt to the present, once again received a face, and quite deservedly. And it was good.
Again, ordinary users were left alone; copyright was used to control the business.
the Internet
Please note that copyright was used all the way to regulate relations between businesses and protect the rights of authors from these businesses, and not to bully viewers at all. First of all between studios and intermediary businesses, without which society could not deliver films to viewers. And then a terrible thing happened. Interet appeared and society learned how to deliver films to viewers quickly, cheaply and efficiently.
From the point of view of these most mediating businesses, it is a blatant violation of their rights. From the point of view of society - the destruction of the very reasons for which they exist. What should society do in such cases?
Yes, yes, Captain Morgan. Thank. You violated the glory, battered the Spaniards. No one is going to take away the title of Lord. But no more, thanks. We have a world with the Spaniards now.
No, no, Mr. slaver. You have earned a good time, be happy with what you have. We no longer need slaves in the southern plantations, we need cheap workers in the northern factories, which we do not need to feed at our own expense.
Will the Internet become the grave-digger of the current video industry, as predicted? Take a look at the story. Cinema, television and video recorder have already buried outdated business models, but not the video industry. The video industry simply created a new business model on which it began to live. The same thing will happen now.
Wait, didn’t I say in the first article that television is cranky? He said. And that's why. The television business model is too inflexible. By and large, it sounds like this: “We are the demigods of television networks — we decide what will be awesome.” Now "People" got the opportunity not to "hawk", what the "demigods" let them go. So, with this business model there will definitely be some pretty problems. Already, cable television frantically rebuilt on on demand models and Internet connection. Will live television disappear? I do not know, but in general, terrestrial television is a very expensive pleasure. Although, let's say, for Russia with its spaces, it may be a long time the only possibility. Although for the ever-decreasing rural population, it’s still a question of how interested businesses will be in this audience. In general, "the violinist is not needed."
New business model?
At the beginning of the article, I promised to share my thoughts, but what kind of business model would it be? Delivery of high-quality films is no longer “rolling,” authors and viewers can do this without intermediaries. Stephen King already a few years ago conducted a large-scale experiment to sell his new book through his website in electronic form. Movies are simply "heavier" in size, but this is not so important and there are no easy delivery methods yet - all the same, loading an ISO and burning a disc is a bit complicated for the mass audience, but methods will appear. Already appear.
And what are the needs of the audience the society is not yet able to satisfy without auxiliary businesses? Think for yourself. Suppose for a moment that there is no copyright and you can download any movie. Download and burn to disk. First, it takes time and effort. Pay the disk and get it by mail is much easier. Of course, if the price is right. Secondly, well, you burned one hundred discs, another, a third ... And the modern video industry is prolific as I don't know who ... Even if you buy all these films for your hard-earned money, it cannot last forever. Gradually, drives start living in your house, not you. I know that books live in my house ... Moreover, the desired film is simply not to be found in all this rubbish, which you bought or produced. What does this mean? And that means being a pirate is not interesting. This means that there is a legitimate business niche for companies that will take over the management of your collections or those available to you and the prompt delivery to you of the films you want. For this, such a business must provide the following services:
- Free you from storing movies in any form
- Give you the ability to find the movie you want quickly and easily.
- And it is also advisable to give you sensible advice to see the “new one”?
- Finally, it would provide fast, efficient delivery of your chosen films.
Actually, for 1-3 there are already businesses that do and thrive. Have you heard about Netflix? This is it. And 4 they have so far by mail, which, with their network of warehouses and the efficiency of the American postal service, delivers the films the next day. By the way, I actively use them and I am very pleased. And I buy and keep at home only those discs that I want to watch again and again, which are already small enough to not be confused in them, and not regret buying completely legitimate, say, on Amazon.com - another example of a business from the same category which in this case makes 2, 3 and 4.
And with the development of Internet television, successful businesses will appear that will make 4 instantly, via the Internet. Actually, the very same Netflix already does this - a fair share of its collection can be viewed immediately via the Internet, only the quality is not the same. Well, yes, it is fixable, they are working on it. Actually, I myself am working on it now. Here is such a deal. And notice who after this will need television?
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/24025/
All Articles