How pirates will change the entertainment industry
The Internet is young and actively growing. Electronic information is still traveling along the copper wires left over from the industrial revolution, but the information age has almost reached maturity. Fiber optic cables creep into unexpected places.
Piracy and chaos, through which we are now passing, bring unpleasant experiences
For several hard years, the situation only worsened. But soon enough, labels, studios and all other paranoid owners of media resources will no longer behave like absurd teens. The time has come to respond to piracy with real, proven solutions that consumers will support. It's time to grow the entertainment industry.
ACT I: INSTALLATION
')
The current system is going to hell. Heads tucked deep in the sand.
A few months ago, a writer and professor at New York University Clay Shirky told me that in his opinion, DRM was a “nostalgic” idea. “Nostalgic” is the best adjective I've heard to describe how most entertainment companies control their content in the digital age. Large media companies look through rose-colored glasses, while consumers see red. While piracy is the easiest way for people to get the content they want, in the form they want, something will remain very, very wrong.
From a moral point of view, in most cases there is no justification for theft. But it also does not have to pursue piracy and to establish draconian laws in defense of old-fashioned, crumbling business models. Audio and video piracy is thriving, since over the past ten years the market has absolutely not provided a wide range of necessary legal solutions. If this continues, while the channel capacity and download speed will increase, the entertainment industry will turn into ruins. Many believe that this should happen in order to form a new business model. I think that those who are in power now just need to grow up and withstand the situation.
Until now, the search for new sources of income by large firms and studios has given only one result that seemed appropriate to them: the legal department. To use legal music in podcasts, on sites, in remixes or, for example, in public speaking is incredibly difficult and expensive for the average consumer. But if you decide to use music illegally, it is likely that a large crowd of lawyers will appear to you, like a flock of angry monkeys. Instead of looking for normal solutions, firms seem to be doing everything to aggravate the problem.
Attempts by existing legislation to provide legal opportunities for consuming music and movies online, designed to somehow prevent piracy from turning the entire entertainment industry into a huge unorganized market, are like trying to stop global warming by just recycling plastic bottles.
The problem is that the entertainment industry doesn’t see what it really is in a huge unorganized flea market: a great way to make a lot of money.
ACT II: CONFRONTATION
Licenses replace sales. Firms accept reality or die.
CD sales are falling rapidly (the Mac Book Air appearance without a CD / DVD drive may have been the last death knell ), and the legal department is certainly not a long-term and viable source of revenue. A more effective way to make a profit from online music consumption (and other products with zero initial cost) is to think about revenue based on licenses, rather than sales.
This has already begun to occur. Transactions similar to Comes With Music, concluded between Universal and Nokia last month, can be described with the words “ one step forward, two back, ” but we at least know that we are moving in the right direction. It is encouraging that all major firms have started working with legitimate file-sharing models like iMeem .
We are slowly moving towards a general voluntary music license when consumers choose whether to pay or not, and this is a great solution. It should be all over the world. State boundaries are no longer an obstacle for this kind of information, claiming the opposite is just as nostalgia as DRM.
Organizations like ASCAP or BMI can take on this responsibility. There should be no levies in the system; no limit on the amount that an artist or company can earn; innovations should not be stifled in the bud. Bennet Lincoff wrote his thoughts on this, which I hope are the solution. The EFF also supported the solution that was described in 2004:
“The concept is simple: the music industry forms a community that then offers free music exchange lovers the opportunity to legally exchange it for a moderate regular fee, say $ 5 per month. As long as these people pay, they can continue to do what they will do anyway — change the music they like, use any software they like for it, on the platform they prefer — without fear that they are breaking law. The money received is divided between the owners, based on the popularity of their music.
In exchange, music lovers are free to download whatever they like using any software that works better than others. The more people involved in the exchange, the more money goes to copyright holders. The stronger the competition of data exchange programs, the faster innovations and improvements appear. The more people have the freedom to lay out what they like, the wider the catalog.
In accordance with this scheme, the Internet will be similar to the radio. EFF spoke as follows: “The authors of the songs look at the radio in the same way as the music industry looks at the KaZaA users - like pirates. After trying to sue the radio, the musicians were forced to form ASCAP (and later BMI and SESAC). Radio stations interested in broadcasting music increased their rewards and got permission to transmit the music they were going to on equipment that works better. ”
In its current state, piracy undermines the ability of right holders to legally license music in several media companies that can afford it. We need a distribution model in which several pirates cannot prevent the copyright holder from licensing music to many law-abiding broadcasters who want to use it.
Of course, good money can be earned from making it very difficult to acquire a license for music and to give all the privileges to a limited circle of people. But even more money can be earned by making music licensing a little bit simple, but for more people.
It will not be just permission for individuals to legally distribute songs - it will create an opportunity to start selling music to many sites, which is certainly good. The entertainment industry will make it clear that it is preferable not to be tied to tiny music depots like iTunes, which have no competitors (which is very bad for any consumer). This is a monumental task, but its solution can create jobs, an abundance of resources and, probably, many opportunities that we have not yet seen.
ACT III: THE DECISION
A viable entertainment industry is developing. There are new revenue schemes.
The truth is that we still need an intermediary in show business. They stopped doing their job properly - we decided not to pay them. If the industry understands the thoughts of millions of people who have been using their products over the past decade, consumers will have no reason to protect piracy. The incomes of artists will rise. There will be more commercial opportunities to distribute a wide range of content. Increase the number of works. The entertainment industry will expand and increase the number of sources of income, bringing more money than now. Once the benefits of free content distribution are universally understood, our definition of fair use is likely to change for the better, which means that many new non-commercial initiative projects will be created at the same time. I think this definition will be somewhat similar to Tim Wu's definition: “It is time to recognize the simpler principle of fair use: it is a work that adds value to the original, as opposed to replacing it. From my point of view, these principles are already beyond normal limits. ”
Confronting a reality in which traditional rules operate and in which a new one is created by consumers (people who actually create rules) is the only long-term solution to the pirate dilemma for the entertainment industry. In this case, this is the only way for the industry to stop piracy. This is the right thing to do and the rest will do the right thing. When the industry decides to grow in its views on the distribution of files, the rest will have no choice but to do the same.
The translation is made by arestov 's and me.
Translation would never take a sane look without sunnyfox
Many thanks to them, working in a team was very nice.
Piracy and chaos, through which we are now passing, bring unpleasant experiences
For several hard years, the situation only worsened. But soon enough, labels, studios and all other paranoid owners of media resources will no longer behave like absurd teens. The time has come to respond to piracy with real, proven solutions that consumers will support. It's time to grow the entertainment industry.
ACT I: INSTALLATION
')
The current system is going to hell. Heads tucked deep in the sand.
A few months ago, a writer and professor at New York University Clay Shirky told me that in his opinion, DRM was a “nostalgic” idea. “Nostalgic” is the best adjective I've heard to describe how most entertainment companies control their content in the digital age. Large media companies look through rose-colored glasses, while consumers see red. While piracy is the easiest way for people to get the content they want, in the form they want, something will remain very, very wrong.
From a moral point of view, in most cases there is no justification for theft. But it also does not have to pursue piracy and to establish draconian laws in defense of old-fashioned, crumbling business models. Audio and video piracy is thriving, since over the past ten years the market has absolutely not provided a wide range of necessary legal solutions. If this continues, while the channel capacity and download speed will increase, the entertainment industry will turn into ruins. Many believe that this should happen in order to form a new business model. I think that those who are in power now just need to grow up and withstand the situation.
Until now, the search for new sources of income by large firms and studios has given only one result that seemed appropriate to them: the legal department. To use legal music in podcasts, on sites, in remixes or, for example, in public speaking is incredibly difficult and expensive for the average consumer. But if you decide to use music illegally, it is likely that a large crowd of lawyers will appear to you, like a flock of angry monkeys. Instead of looking for normal solutions, firms seem to be doing everything to aggravate the problem.
Attempts by existing legislation to provide legal opportunities for consuming music and movies online, designed to somehow prevent piracy from turning the entire entertainment industry into a huge unorganized market, are like trying to stop global warming by just recycling plastic bottles.
The problem is that the entertainment industry doesn’t see what it really is in a huge unorganized flea market: a great way to make a lot of money.
ACT II: CONFRONTATION
Licenses replace sales. Firms accept reality or die.
CD sales are falling rapidly (the Mac Book Air appearance without a CD / DVD drive may have been the last death knell ), and the legal department is certainly not a long-term and viable source of revenue. A more effective way to make a profit from online music consumption (and other products with zero initial cost) is to think about revenue based on licenses, rather than sales.
This has already begun to occur. Transactions similar to Comes With Music, concluded between Universal and Nokia last month, can be described with the words “ one step forward, two back, ” but we at least know that we are moving in the right direction. It is encouraging that all major firms have started working with legitimate file-sharing models like iMeem .
We are slowly moving towards a general voluntary music license when consumers choose whether to pay or not, and this is a great solution. It should be all over the world. State boundaries are no longer an obstacle for this kind of information, claiming the opposite is just as nostalgia as DRM.
Organizations like ASCAP or BMI can take on this responsibility. There should be no levies in the system; no limit on the amount that an artist or company can earn; innovations should not be stifled in the bud. Bennet Lincoff wrote his thoughts on this, which I hope are the solution. The EFF also supported the solution that was described in 2004:
“The concept is simple: the music industry forms a community that then offers free music exchange lovers the opportunity to legally exchange it for a moderate regular fee, say $ 5 per month. As long as these people pay, they can continue to do what they will do anyway — change the music they like, use any software they like for it, on the platform they prefer — without fear that they are breaking law. The money received is divided between the owners, based on the popularity of their music.
In exchange, music lovers are free to download whatever they like using any software that works better than others. The more people involved in the exchange, the more money goes to copyright holders. The stronger the competition of data exchange programs, the faster innovations and improvements appear. The more people have the freedom to lay out what they like, the wider the catalog.
In accordance with this scheme, the Internet will be similar to the radio. EFF spoke as follows: “The authors of the songs look at the radio in the same way as the music industry looks at the KaZaA users - like pirates. After trying to sue the radio, the musicians were forced to form ASCAP (and later BMI and SESAC). Radio stations interested in broadcasting music increased their rewards and got permission to transmit the music they were going to on equipment that works better. ”
In its current state, piracy undermines the ability of right holders to legally license music in several media companies that can afford it. We need a distribution model in which several pirates cannot prevent the copyright holder from licensing music to many law-abiding broadcasters who want to use it.
Of course, good money can be earned from making it very difficult to acquire a license for music and to give all the privileges to a limited circle of people. But even more money can be earned by making music licensing a little bit simple, but for more people.
It will not be just permission for individuals to legally distribute songs - it will create an opportunity to start selling music to many sites, which is certainly good. The entertainment industry will make it clear that it is preferable not to be tied to tiny music depots like iTunes, which have no competitors (which is very bad for any consumer). This is a monumental task, but its solution can create jobs, an abundance of resources and, probably, many opportunities that we have not yet seen.
ACT III: THE DECISION
A viable entertainment industry is developing. There are new revenue schemes.
The truth is that we still need an intermediary in show business. They stopped doing their job properly - we decided not to pay them. If the industry understands the thoughts of millions of people who have been using their products over the past decade, consumers will have no reason to protect piracy. The incomes of artists will rise. There will be more commercial opportunities to distribute a wide range of content. Increase the number of works. The entertainment industry will expand and increase the number of sources of income, bringing more money than now. Once the benefits of free content distribution are universally understood, our definition of fair use is likely to change for the better, which means that many new non-commercial initiative projects will be created at the same time. I think this definition will be somewhat similar to Tim Wu's definition: “It is time to recognize the simpler principle of fair use: it is a work that adds value to the original, as opposed to replacing it. From my point of view, these principles are already beyond normal limits. ”
Confronting a reality in which traditional rules operate and in which a new one is created by consumers (people who actually create rules) is the only long-term solution to the pirate dilemma for the entertainment industry. In this case, this is the only way for the industry to stop piracy. This is the right thing to do and the rest will do the right thing. When the industry decides to grow in its views on the distribution of files, the rest will have no choice but to do the same.
The translation is made by arestov 's and me.
Translation would never take a sane look without sunnyfox
Many thanks to them, working in a team was very nice.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/31393/
All Articles