Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.
Concerning Copyright and "free-media"
Currently listening to the latest Geek Nights. This is a question for Rym and Scott and anyone else who wants to join in.
Please correct me if I'm wrong but it seems that while you're not against copyright - you seem to view a song or a video on the computer as nothing more than a "digital file." I think this issue transcends the traditional black-and-white view of "supply and demand" where, although the supply is infinite, the original artist should still be compensated for the creation of the work in question.
Your argument that "you do a podcast four times a week" doesn't really hold up because although it works for you, it doesn't work across the board.
I do mostly agree with what you're saying and I think that the Creative Commons practice should be promoted more - but along with the theory of the CC license, I think it should be up to the artist of the work to choose their means of distribution. Yes, it's idealistic and raises a lot of problems but so does limitless supply leading to digital art and commerce as a free market.
(Again, correct me if I'm wrong), Obviously there needs to be a middleground as modern-day intellectual property rights sometimes borders on the militaristic, but I get the suspicion that because your primary focus is not on the arts, you're really arguing for something to happen without a total grasp of the situation. You're seeing this primarily from an "audience" perspective and not the "artist" perspective.
Yes? No?
Please correct me if I'm wrong but it seems that while you're not against copyright - you seem to view a song or a video on the computer as nothing more than a "digital file." I think this issue transcends the traditional black-and-white view of "supply and demand" where, although the supply is infinite, the original artist should still be compensated for the creation of the work in question.
Your argument that "you do a podcast four times a week" doesn't really hold up because although it works for you, it doesn't work across the board.
I do mostly agree with what you're saying and I think that the Creative Commons practice should be promoted more - but along with the theory of the CC license, I think it should be up to the artist of the work to choose their means of distribution. Yes, it's idealistic and raises a lot of problems but so does limitless supply leading to digital art and commerce as a free market.
(Again, correct me if I'm wrong), Obviously there needs to be a middleground as modern-day intellectual property rights sometimes borders on the militaristic, but I get the suspicion that because your primary focus is not on the arts, you're really arguing for something to happen without a total grasp of the situation. You're seeing this primarily from an "audience" perspective and not the "artist" perspective.
Yes? No?
Comments
There is absolutely no technological means to restrict the distribution of digital information. No matter what laws or barriers are erected, technology can and will overcome them. The issue has nothing to do with what we'd like to see: the issue is very simply "how do we deal with this new reality?"
People need to understand that, for better or worse, the world has changed in a very fundamental way, and there's no turning back the clock. Rather than fighting to slow this transformation, people need to come to terms with it and work toward finding ways to adapt.
The industrial revolution destroyed countless jobs. Many former crafts and professions were lost to time, and the world was thrown momentarily into chaos. The Luddites tried to destroy this advancing technology in order to preserce their untenable existence. The industrialists understood that technology will advance regardless, and thus embraced it. There was great trouble and hardship during the change, but in the end new jobs appeared, and the world was overall a better place.
The moral considerations do indeed go well beyond "black and white," and artists should be compensated for their work if they wish to be. The world, however, is a brutal, real place, and the market concepts of supply and demand are very clear and very distinctly "black and white."
My personal position is that there is no way to undo this and the world, for better or worse, is going to have to deal with the fact that there is indeed infinite supply when it comes to anything digital.
I see this from an audience perspective only because they represent the vast majority of people. Consider magic tricks. There are very difficult and challenging tricks that appear simple to the audience. There are very simple and easy tricks that appear amazing to the audience.
If you attempt a trick, the audience doesn't care how difficult it -actually- was to pull off: they only care about the end result. The vast majority of people are audience members, not magicians. The opinions of the magicians are insignificant from their perspective.
I believe that I grasp the situation perfectly. I'm well aware of the dire consequences that can and will arise for artists. I understand all too well that the decades to come will be increasingly difficult for content creators, and I wish there were an easy solution.
In a perfect world, everyone would be rewarded justly for what they've done. The world, however isn't perfect. Reality is often sad, brutal, or injust. Regardless of any of my feelings on art, literature, music, or movies, there is not a thing in the world that can be done to stem the tide of the information revolution.
"Your argument that "you do a podcast four times a week" doesn't really hold up because although it works for you, it doesn't work across the board."
Nothing holds true across the board. This won't work for a lot of people. The current system, however, also doesn't work for a lot of people. The world isn't an easy place in which to live. All we demonstrate is that content can and will be created even in a world where there is no direct compensation. This is a crucial point, as that world will come no matter how anyone feels about it.
This is the same as my feelings on gods. I'd love to live in a world where there were dragons and magic and adventure, where I could pray to a god and cast a spell. It's heartbreaking to accept that I can't have those things, but I accept it and move on. I can't will the world to be the way I want it to be, so I'm forced to adapt to how it is.
It's sad, but that's reality.
On that day, will you say we shouldn't all replicate Ferraris without paying Ferrari themselves? Ferrari will just have to change their business model. They will have to sell the designs of cars to people rather than the cars themselves. Artists of today need to adapt their business model the same way Ferrari of the future will adapt.
I need a big yellow sign with a picture of an "invisible" hand that says "Caution: Capitalism at Work".
Resources, however, are limited. Deciding how to distribute limited resources is the primary and sole purpose of economics, and is a problem that has NEVER been solved. Control of resources has been the driving force in the vast majority of conflict in the history of humanity (religion being second). These are complex issues. So long as resources are limited, so too are human endeavors.
We're at the cusp of a world where one resource, information distribution, is unlimited. This is a tremendous revolution, an Earth-shattering possiblilty. The idea that something could be distributed infinitely at no cost, replicated at will, and held for eternity is akin to magic.
Imagine the possiblities of human advancement when the barriers to sharing it disappear.
Content, information, and art still require resources to create, this is true. But the cost of entry, the barrier to entry, has lowered substantially with each passing year. For a pittance, I can send my voice to the corners of the Earth. In the years to come, the same will be true of my likeness, in video. Someday, in the far future, the cost of creating content will approach zero just as the cost of distributing it has.
The information revolution is a test. This is the first time in human existence that people have had to grapple with the idea of an unlimited resource. If all resources were unlimited, there would be no need for economies, markets, commerce, or even nations.
If you think there are problems with intellectual property, imagine the problems that will arise if and when real, physical goods attain the same status. This is by no means out of the realm of possibility. It will not likely happen in our lifetimes or in lifetimes to come, but it will happen.
We as a race must deal with this issue now while the stakes are still low. How mankind handles the IP revolution is a taste of how we will handle future ones.
As an artist and an audience member, I tend to see it from both sides. Obviously, yes, the audience cares mostly about the end, not the means. Let's bring back your analogy of the magician. Although it may seem that the opinion of the magician is otherwise worthless, he still has control and pride over his act. If he feels that he isn't being represented properly, he will stop doing magic tricks. His one decision affects the huge number of audience members and gives him equal, if not more, power. This rings true for artists as well, if they release a song and they aren't compensated for it, what incentive do they have to make more songs?
It comes down to incentives, which is what human beings are primarily motivated by. Besides altruism, what incentive would a car designer have to design a better car if it's just going to be replicated for free with infinite supply?
With this, we're not taking about individual jobs or even whole trades dying out. We're talking industries falling apart if this isn't done right.
I put this question to the two of you, is there a way to preserve art as an occupation for the artist even as we enter into a world where art is seen as nothing but a digital file?
Here's what I see happening as the change for "supply and demand" - it's more of a post script on the principles of "demand." It really comes down to value - which is not created by the product, per se, but rather the consumer, or the "audience" - obviously, an MP3 of, say, a Rolling Stones song has more value than an MP3 of three minutes of white noise. They're both simply digital files, but the audience places much more value on the Rolling Stones song, even though it is in infinite supply, and will therefore pay gladly for it. Now, understand this is just my own justification for why I think it's fine for people to charge for digital content, not my argument of the moral standings of piracy.
I suppose I just see a backlash coming on all of this. Things can't be progressing in the current way because people will become rebellious towards it. Although a world of free art and free information is a wonderful theory and I'd love to see it put to good use, I see a lot of artists will start to privatize their own work for the sake of authorship. Art and true self-expression will move underground so although, the majority of the world will be practicing in a free distribution of art and information, what will they be distributing if everything new is underground?
There is one thing you guys say that is unsettling and kinda out of character. It seems that you're arguing that "this is just the way it is" and we just have to "adapt." C'mon! Since when is your opinions based on "just the way the world works" You two are among the most opinionated and idealistic people I've ever met - I know this because I'm also very opinionated and idealistic. Your show is a 4-hour-a-week block of vocal opinion. So how, for this one topic, do you justify a neutral "just the way it is and nothing we can do about it" position? Surely you actually have opinions about this that transcend what one would write for a standardized essay paper.
As a technology professional, I submit that there is no possible technological way to prevent digital sharing. Distinct digital information is unlimited in supply. Short of a neo-Luddite revolution coupled with a global world order of anti-technologists, there is absolutely no way to change this. There is really no debate on this point.
If he feels that he isn't being represented properly, he will stop doing magic tricks. His one decision affects the huge number of audience members and gives him equal, if not more, power.
If he stops doing magic tricks, and 10 other magicians continue to do their own tricks, then market forces decide what happens. If the audience will settle for the free tricks, then the magician is out of a job. If the audience will not settle for the free ones, then the market compels them to expend resources on the magician in order to ensure a continued stream of tricks.
The audience is the market. No matter what fancy rhetoric I spew, they decide what is viable and what is not. If all of the magicians refuse to turn tricks, then one of two things will happen depending on the audience: It all comes down to how much the audience (market) values the magicians' work (content). They will either expend resources or not expend resources, and there is no way to coerce the former in a free society.
Besides altruism, what incentive would a car designer have to design a better car if it's just going to be replicated for free with infinite supply?
Enjoyment. Boredom. A desire to become famous. There are many incentives other than direct resource compensation.
With this, we're not taking about individual jobs or even whole trades dying out. We're talking industries falling apart if this isn't done right.
Entire industries collapsed during the industrial revolution as well.
There was once a world trade in ice. This was a thriving industry that employed a great many people. This industry was completely and utterly eliminated by the technology that allows us to create ice easily and cheaply. There was once a massive industry in book copying. The printing press destroyed this.
I could list countless large, powerful, important industries that have been destroyed, lost, or forgotten as technology has advanced. While many people, myself included, have emotional attachments to the content creation industry, these emotions cannot be allowed to alter the facts of the matter.
is there a way to preserve art as an occupation for the artist even as we enter into a world where art is seen as nothing but a digital file?
Here's a better quesiton: will the market, the masses, the people of the world, be willing to expend resources in order to preserve art? How many resources will they be willing to expend? At what price will they simply no longer care?
If all of the art in the world disappears as direct monetary compensation dries up, people will be forced to make this choice. It's not up for me to decide. If society decides that art is not valuable, then there is nothing any of us can do to the contrary short of coercian by force.
It is my opinion that there will be a dark age of content creation as professional art all but disappears, replaced by free amateur content. Once the body of existing works is exhausted, society will collectively and indirectly make a choice: to expend resource for the sake of art, or to accept whatever the free market will provide.
It may very well be possible that art alone will no longer be a viable means of sustenance. Or, perhaps patrons will expend resources on their own in order to have works created on a commission basis, their desire to consume the work being greater than the care that the rest of the world will have it for free. Maybe technology will advance to the point that professional content creation becomes so cheap and easy that there is practically no barrier to entry whatsoever.
I can't say. There isn't enough data. I can not know how highly society and the market value art, and thus cannot put forth a useful opinion.
When supply is infinite, then there can be no inherent value in either file. The audience doesn't actually place more "value" on the song as opposed to the static: they both exist for free. People purchase that song regardless for many reasons: fear of punishment, desire to compensate the artist, ignorance of the methods of obtaining it for free.
When the value of a song is zero (from a resource perspective), then the only possible value is in the potential for future songs. The only song worth a damn thing is the song that doesn't yet exist, the song that needs to be played live, the song that needs to be written. You can charge for the making of the song, but the market will not allow you to charge for the written song.
Art and true self-expression will move underground so although, the majority of the world will be practicing in a free distribution of art and information, what will they be distributing if everything new is underground?
Underground? If even one person with an inclination to do so gets ahold of any media, it will spread around the world in a matter of days. The closest thing to an underground distribution mechanism was and is the hardcore fansub culture. They created fansubs in a tiny network, refusing to allow the outside world to see them for fear of free distribution.
What happened? Outsiders created their own fansubs, and in many cases even the secret underground ones were acquired and released by meddlers or turncoats.
Regardless, underground distribution provides no more direct compensation than mainstream distribution: it doesn't solve the problem.
It seems that you're arguing that "this is just the way it is" and we just have to "adapt."
What if this were an argument about gravity? No matter how eloquently I spoke about how it was a burden, or how much I'd like to stop it, it still exists. The facts of the copyright situation are very simple: the problem is that they are uncomfortable and scary.
I have countless opinions as to various ways art can survive, but they are just useless opinions and posits: there isn't enough data to know what will happen, and nothing I could say would be more than conjecture. The only force in all the world that can make the decision is the market, the people, society as a whole. I've merely laid out the parameters.
The only question is "how much does society value art, and how many resources are people willing to expend for it?" The details do not matter, as they're merely a consequence of time. The facts are for the most part not up for debate.
I refuse to debate practical matters in terms of idealism or vice versa. I place a value on art. Currently, I am able to acquire all of the art I desire at or below that price. If the price of art ever rises beyond that value, then I will either re-evaluate it or shun it.
The issue's root is so simple that I have real trouble caring about the branches and leaves: they're all too ephemeral to grasp.
I think a lot of people share this fear that free content distribution will kill off content creation. I mostly see this fear in older people who don't see what is already happening in a lot of places. When I think of this, I think of it from the software industry as well. I am a programmer, and I think that programming involves some artistic expression. It is a skill, like playing an instrument or drawing/painting art that not everybody can do as well as others. This by itself is what presents its value.
I look at how the software industry has progressed over the years. Software started before the Internet but not by much relatively speaking. Once computers became personal and the Internet took off we started to see movements where a lot of content (eg. software) was being created by people in their spare time for free or little money. Now the open source industry is huge, and it is full of people that not only don't receive money but in many cases spend a good deal of their own money to generate something that everybody else enjoys for free. Sure, much of it has copyright attached to try to control it but most people understand that once it is out there it can't be controlled. Most of the time the point of the license is just to prevent some company from picking it up and selling the work.
Most of these content creators make a living doing the same type of t hing. They might work making closed source software, or they might even be paid by companies that use their work in order to keep it going. Even if suddenly all software was open source and/or freely downloadable companies will recognize the need to spend money to keep things maintained and to get new works created.
No amount of free distribution will prevent this, in fact I think that the more it becomes the easier it is to create more content. The barrier for entry into the programming world is very low. There is freely available operating system platforms, compilers, etc. All you need to do is bring your own computer.
I think that other artistic industries can move in this same direction. Plenty of artists out there make music and perform concerts just because they enjoy doing it. Many people paint/draw art just because they enjoy it. Sometimes they can make a bit of money selling it, other times it is just a hobby. Some will even make a living off of it.
I think in the end, the one thing that will always have the limited supply is the people that have the skills to create.
I'm only really interested in your opinion of the matter. That's really what I've been trying to get out of you. What do you think of all this? Do you think it's right? Do you think it's fair?
I'm not playing the boy scout card here, I also pirate. Not as much as I see most people do, but I do partake.
But what say you, one who seems to have strong true opinions on this matter but seem to be withholding them, think about all this? If you think it's wrong but there's nothing we can do about it, why shouldn't we fight against it? What point is there to just lay back and let this culture wash over us?
Yes, industries have gone away before - but can you tell me that if you were alive then, you wouldn't have fought to keep those industries alive?
I live my life by the principles of game theory, at least in practice. I weigh anything and everything rationally, assess the risks and rewards of possible courses of action, and then act accordingly. From a purely logical standpoint, I see no good reason to artifically limit the supply of a limitless resource.
Had I been alive during the industrial revolution, I would have found nothing more deplorable in all the world than the actions of the Luddites and anti-technologists, and I would have fought alongside the industrialists to the end. Keeping a useless industry such as ice harvesting around, propping it up with otherwise valuable resources, is a hinderance to the betterment of mankind.
My optimism for the ability of man to overcome all obstacles with science, rationality, and openness is limitless.
Good, I'm glad I have your opinion about it - now, at least, I have something to debate about.
With that said, I really don't agree with your position on this ...at all. Losing the arts in benefit of having freedom to information is nothing like hateful speech to free speech - they don't even compare. The risk of misinformation comes with the benefit of information freedom.
Game theory and looking at risks and rewards, ideally, are fair. But you fail to realize that personal lists of risks and rewards are heavily bias towards one's oiwn point of view. Of course you don't see the risk of losing the arts, you're not an artist.
And yes, art will still be made out of "boredom and fame" but if you can't make a living while being a filmmaker of musician, the amount of good art is going to fall dramatically. How about a different kind of art? What major incentive is there for being an author if the future is in e-books? Or at least selling books for cost only?
Exactly what industries will be left? Once you make the number one industry in America (Entertainment) a free market - art will take a major blow. And if art is mainly fueling this free market and limitless distribution, what exactly are you left with to fuel this information freedom?
You say that the world is a "brutal, real place, and the market concepts of supply and demand are very clear and very distinctly 'black and white.'" and yet you're optimist for man to overcome this with rationality and openness? Those seem counter to one another.
And yes, I see things moving underground - just not in the way that you've seen before. I see art devolving into very small community settings. Small-town festivals of live music of no more than a couple hundred people in attendance. Where all their artistic media (mostly music and short film) will be back to analog formats. 16mm prints or vinyl records. Or maybe not even film - live one-act stage plays.
And I say all of this as an artist who doesn't sell his work. My art is available online for free and I take great pride in that. But I still see the benefit of paying for certain types of art, even though it has infinite supply.
People who think that a change in business models means the end of art have no imagination. Back in the day, artists used to be payed via a patronage model. If you told them that one day musicians would record and distribute music and make money based on royalties, they would not be able to even fathom that idea. I am confident that business models for the information economy do exist. I can even think of a few good ones. I think that people who are standing to protect the current system are the people who simply can't imagine the world working in a way other than the way it works now. You wrongfully assume that without the current system the only alternative is doom.
If you want to have your mind changed you should read some books by the expert on this subject, Lawrence Lessig. He's way smarter than we are, and he says a lot of things I would never think to say.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0143034650/sr=8-1/qid=1151030298/ref=pd_bbs_1/102-4978085-0692138?%5Fencoding=UTF8
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0375726446/sr=8-2/qid=1151030298/ref=pd_bbs_2/102-4978085-0692138?%5Fencoding=UTF8
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1594200068/sr=8-5/qid=1151030298/ref=pd_bbs_5/102-4978085-0692138?%5Fencoding=UTF8
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0814788076/sr=8-6/qid=1151030298/ref=pd_bbs_6/102-4978085-0692138?%5Fencoding=UTF8
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00005U7WO/qid=1151030298/sr=8-7/ref=pd_bbs_7/102-4978085-0692138?%5Fencoding=UTF8&v=glance&n=551440
Don't get me wrong, working for free is essentially the basis of art. Art for art's sake without the goal of fame and fortune. Certainly, most of the art that I produce is out of enjoyment of the craft. I'm just saying that it shouldn't be all like that.
I'm in no way trying to protect our current system - I'm just not completely in favor of an all-out free market of the arts. As you said, there's got to be a good business model for this new information economy - I'd actually be interested in what your ideas of it are, Scott.
It is funny you bring up Lessig though because I actually are in favor of what he advocates. I'm definitely all for free culture. But I'd also feel like a hypocrite if I didn't try to pick apart his model as well, at least just to look for t he worst case scenario of all things and not just blindly agree with him - I would never do that towards any ideaology.
"You wrongfully assume that without the current system the only alternative is doom."
Rarely do I see any issue as black and white as this. I actually loathe our current handling of the arts and copyright. It's just that, without knowing what the alternative is and without experiencing it firsthand, I'm forced to be critical of it. Especially when we're talking about a free art market while I'm studying to become a filmmaker.
I'm all for what the future holds, but I'm also against progress for the sake of progress.
Digital piracy has really only existed for the last ten years, but the history of producing art goes back thousands. It's because of this sudden culture change for why I think we may be jumping the gun a little bit on the whole issue. Obviously something needs to be done, but as drastic as a free market of arts? Just seems too quick to tell.
Certainly, I love books over e-books, as most people do. I'm just surprised that he wouldn't allow his work to be in both mediums considering that's what he advocates.
uhhh... http://free-culture.cc/freecontent/
His site also links to just about everything he has ever produced. Although most of his work is not found under CC, I would consider his digital archive a step in the right direction. Also, Lessig has stated (in one of his audio lectures) his disgust for the copyright terms associated with some of his work. Keep in mind, those who pay one to produce content influence the artist's choice of copyright terms; i.e. publishers want to guarantee a return on investment before they allow a work to move to another publishing house or whatever.
Good to see that I was wrong! Makes me like the guy even more.
Alright, you're in a world where the music and movie industries have folded. Everyone else's favorite guy, Joss Whedon comes along with his Firefly. He makes an episode for free and it gets out on the net. All you nerds watch it and go OMG OMGOMG. You want more, desperately. He refuses to make more until he gets $XXXX in his paypal. If enough people like his work and enough people want to see him make more work, then he will get paid. Even if he never reaches the point where he can afford to make another episode, he still gets a pile of money from those donations.
I'll use one more example. A full length motion picture. Much more expensive to make than a tv show. No way you can make one for free as an example. What you do is pitch your idea either to the Internet, to rich people or to corporations. Find someone who thinks that your movie is a worthy investment, or get enough people on the net to donate beforehand. Make the movie and put out a trailer. Then say that this movie will be released on the net either one year from now or when you recieve $X. If there is enough excitement about your movies, then you're all good. If nobody cares about your movies because they suck, you'll never work again.
This model actually has some benefits in that it is insanely more profitable than the current system. Let's say you make Lord of the Rings. That movie made more in ticket sales than it cost to make, for sure. Now assume that of those ticket sales, the really passionate fans donate more than the ticket cost and the not-so passionate fans don't pay. Comes down to about the same total money. But the expenses associated with making film and sending it to a hojillion theatres and making DVDs are all gone. Yes, this is a pretty optimistic view.
Lastly, look at webcomics. Offer art for free and sell merchandise. Offer something tangible related to the art. We don't have replicators yet. Open up a fancy old-style movie theathre that is also a fancy restaurant which serves alcholic beverages. Have intermission, have cartoons before the show, and don't have ads. People will pay for the experience that they can't have unless they are rich and built their own movie theatre. It's the same for having concerts.
Yeah, gotta go to work.
As an Example of Games, I "borrowed" a copy of Neverwinter Nights from a friend and when it came down to it I enjoyed the game enough that I eventually when seeking out the other expansions ended up buying the whole package of the game.
Currently I have "come across" the two past Elder Scroll Games, Daggerfall and Morrowind. In the hopes that I would try the two older games out before I decided to buy Oblivion. However in this case it worked against them because those games really suck....
In the end I'm still a consumer Whore and if you release a good product I'll still run out and buy it.
Even with the ability to Download everything in the world I also still have netflixs....(though someday someone might start burning those DVD's).
In the end People want to award people who are doing a good job entertaining them. That's why Rym and Scott got 50 dollars donated to them.
It will not be a world where art is no longer made. It will not be a world where artists have no incentive. It will not be a world where only shitty amateur low-skill art exists. But it will be a world where artists are no longer stupid-wealthy. There will be more artists, creating a wider variety of art. But individually each artist will be less famous and less rich. If you ask me, I'm all for a world without People magazine.
Sure it's got his holes in it - the biggest one being that you'll probably end up spending even more money trying to get the word out about the film you want to make. However, submitting it to corporations to finance is more or less how the independent film community operates. Obviously, "Big Media" doesn't work like this which, I suspect is what you actually have a problem with (as do I). I say this because you bring up the fact that all of the people who make these things are super rich which I'm also against. Especially considering that it's only within the past 25-30 years that its been happening.
Sure, your business model won't exactly work (but you're on the right track) and it's mainly because the time between the fans/financiers first hear about the movie and the time when the movie will actually get made is too far to keep interest alive. Then again, I don't think movies have to cost over $100 Million to make.
Speaking from experience as a webcomicker and a filmmaker, I can tell you that they are two different beasts. Which tells me that for other forms of media, it's different too and one business model can't work across the board (it especially falls apart when put next to stage plays where you can't show people a trailer of it). My last short film cost $1000 to make (it was 10 minutes long). My webcomic costs... about $20-30/month to keep alive. That last film took about a month and a half for total completion, so we're talking the same time frame here. But the difference is, I can sell merchandise on the comic and have it pay for itself because there are characters and stories and it's a living franchise. The short film is in and of itself - it's not a franchise, it's a 10 minute film. So the only thing I can sell based on that is the DVD of it, which, of course, is mostly digital files. So... I win?
It's about convenience to the audience to access the work (which, despite its obvious good traits, the internet doesn't grant) and it's about being able to constantly produce art (instead of waiting around for the money to come in to finance it - plenty of directors have tried this and have failed - Orson Welles, anyone?)
We're not even arguing the original point anymore, but I gotta say, I'm still enjoying the discussion fully!
You do awesome stuff, man.
The entertainment industry has always been shortsighted and hesitant to change their business model. Back in the 1920s, when radio was starting out, record companies did NOT want their songs played on the radio.
The suits thought that if people could hear music on the radio for free, they would no longer buy music. They were too stupid to realize that having their music played on the radio would expose their product to new customers who would want to purchase their product.
Fast forward several decades to the start of the VCR era. The industry did not want people to be able to record stuff at home. Nor did they movies released on VHS. They thought people would no longer go to the movies.
Again, they were too shortsighed to realize that this would open up a brand new market, as well as make all of their film and TV libraries worth a fortune as the now had a new way of selling an already existing product. Now studios make more money off of the DVD market than they do from the first run of films.
That same shortsightedness is in effect again with digital audio. The real world is brutal. It is survival of the fittest, adapt or die. The music industry needs to realize this and start adapting.
http://creativecommons.org/
Now you know.
However, the pattern you bring up is a different point entirely. Those were all conflict with competing a new market versus the old. Record Companies Vs. Radio Industry. Hollywood Vs. The Home Video Market. So now, Record Companies Vs. ???.
The others are about two competing markets, competing for the same pot of gold. This is about a market trying to keep it's pot of gold. Two different ballparks. There's noone for the Record Companies to sit down with and negotiate.
Its only the 'pop' music that suffers from this type of thing, because most pop albums have a couple of singles and filler on their albums so if you want one song you just download that song but for groups that actually produce quality music people will WANT to support it, they will WANT to buy the albums, buy the t-shirt and go to the live show.
As far as movies go, I could download a movie but if its something good I will go and see it in the theatre, because of the screen and the atmosphere etc. I don't imagine me ever not buying DVDs (or whatever technology replaces it) because I like the extra features, I LOVE audio commentaries and I wouldn't download the movie for free if I can buy it with extra features. I also look through ex-rental and sale bins because I will spend $5 for a DVD rather than download it just because it is easier.
What people in the industry need to realise is that if you give people a bit of what you are selling for free, and they like it, they will be willing to spend their money. I think all bands should have websites and on that website should be a download section where you can download one or two of their songs and a place where you can buy the cds online. Most people, if given a hassle free, legitimate way to get something they like will go the legitimate way.
Free downloads really only harm the shit artists who care more about making money than about making music, and those people like that should be harmed anyway.
Since people can now download virtually any song they'd like for free, the record companies need to come up with reasons why people would want to pay for this product.
What can record companies do today?
How about offering liner notes in CD singles with the artist telling people what inspired them to write that song?
How about holographic, or quality, cover art?
How about a coupon code in each CD single good for a free download for any song in the library of that record company?
How about a coupon code good for a discount on a T-shirt, poster, etc. featuring the artist who made the single?
If it is a CD by new artist, how about a coupon code good for a free poster?
How about record companies offering streaming audio featuring songs by the artists in their library? They could have shows dedicated to each of their genres; call in shows with the artists; streaming concerts...you get the idea.
Downloading is here to stay. Record companies need to learn how to work with this technology. They can't put this genie back in the bottle.
Except for holographic cover art. As a designer, I favor bold designs over design gimmicks. But that's just a little thing
NOT.