The question facing the Entertainment industry is quite simple – lock down content through DRM and punish everyone by default or keep content free from a technical restriction and punish those infringing on a corporate scale.
Just because you technologically can doesn’t necessarily mean you should. Technically you can seek to enforce proper speed limits – and save lives – by getting into the engine in every car, but just try it! People accept a certain element of control, with speed limits and speed cameras, but it would be considered an assault on personal freedom to take the ultimate decision from the person behind the wheel. And this is with real lives and real consequences.
You have to have a massive mistrust of the consumer to not believe that ultimately they know the difference between right and wrong. In the 1980s you could get a copy of Microsoft Office with viral ease. Today all the same people happily hand over their cash to Microsoft by the truck load. Nobody ended up inherently believing that they had a right to free Microsoft Office products for life.
Why the Entertainment industry thinks that current crop of digitally-savvy, computer-literate consumers will end up believing that they will have a right to free content forever baffles me.
The way to approach this area is to follow Nolan’s Stages of Growth model: Initiation – Contagion – Control – Integration – Data Administration(read commercialisation) – Maturity
We are at the beginning of a new age and people just want to play and see how far they can stretch their creative muscles.
The time for moving further along the growth model comes when people start to realise that the tools they are playing with are more than just mere toys but commercially applicable components and outputs.
Relax people – when the time comes everyone will make lots of money. The real smart move now is to get your stuff out there for people to play with. There a whole new generation who just want to see where they can go with this digital idea – and most of them are doing it just for the sake of doing it. There is no point in trying to map your existing business models on to their behaviour. They’re just having fun!
The worst thing the Entertainment industry can do is hand over the keys
to their content to the IT industry through DRM.
BT in the UK are going completely IP on their network infrastructure. So you get a double whammy when the Entertainment industry then has to have that content delivered by the Telecoms industry.
Telecoms and IT massively outweigh the Entertainment industry economically. Add in the fact that users are creating their own Digital Online Content and seeking their own methods of distribution – YouTube, Video.Google, WordPress, Blogger, Flickr, Photobucket, etc. . Triple whammy.
What I lack is time not content. Locking the content down with DRM makes you beholden to the software industry and if it gets cracked, it’s your service that has to come off the air, not theirs. And if the consumer has to patch their playout platform then it’s you they blame, not the IT industry, if that patch breaks their platform or their content. A lose-lose scenario.
What I need is Pathfinders not Gatekeepers. Get your content out there and add value on your own site.
Make me come to you and then give me a reason to spend my money. Just because I have the content doesn’t mean I won’t want to buy a physical reproduction of it – either as a present or because I want to.
Give me a reason to come to your site and then add to my knowledge – I’ll keep coming back – cash in hand!
The “art” of recording, re-authoring and redistributing digital content is one that perplexes many in the content industries. The tool that they have for protecting their product is copyright – but when the only tool you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Is copyright the problem or is it the lack of a business model to fit this new digital age?
I fear people are getting too caught up in the copyright issue and not
enough in the business model issue – trying to persuade those, who live in fear of losing their livelihoods, that they are holding on to an outmoded legal concept will lose you both the argument and the attention of those who want to listen.
This is an exciting time to be involved in digital media because the
opportunities are there for those who are bright enough to
come up with the new ideas.
People will listen because their livelihoods depends on it.
There are new business models which will drive the new digital age – we just have to sell them properly to those who have a vested interest in buying into them.
- A recommendation that the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) bring forward appropriate labelling regulations so that it will become crystal clear to consumers what they will and will not be able to do with digital content that they purchase.
- A recommendation that OFCOM publish guidance to make it clear that companies distributing Technical Protection Measures systems in the UK would, if they have features such as those in Sony-BMG’s MediaMax and XCP systems, run a significant risk of being prosecuted for criminal actions.
- A recommendation that the Department of Trade and Industry investigate the single-market issues that were raised during the Inquiry, with a view to addressing the issue at the European level.
- A recommendation that the government do not legislate to make DRM systems mandatory.
- A recommendation that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport review the level of funding for pilot projects that address access to eBooks by those with visual disabilities and that action is taken if they are failing to achieve positive results.
- A recommendation that the Department of Trade and Industry revisit the results of their review into their moribund “IP Advisory Committee” and reconstitute it as several more focused forums. One of these should be a “UK Stakeholders Group” to be chaired by the British Library.
- A recommendation that the Government consider granting a much wider-ranging exemption to the anti-circumvention measures in the 1988 Copyright, Designs and Patents Act for genuine academic research.
- A recommendation that having taken advice from the Legal Deposit Advisory Panel, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport hold a formal public consultation, not only on the technical details, but also on the general principles that have been established.
As people have an ongoing issue with the use of the phrase User Generated Content(UGC), I would like to propose an alternative – Digital Online Content (DOC).
No one gets up in the morning and says “Today I shall create some User Generated Content!”
But it’s not beyond the bounds of possibilities to get to grips with – “Today I shall create some Digital Online Content!”
The joy of this is that you can then have derivatives such as:
DOCument – an idea, image or sound.
DOCumented – an idea, image or sound recorded in history.
DOCumentor – the author of an idea, image or sound.
DOCumenting – the act of recording an idea, image or sound.
Try it. Repeat it a couple of times and see how it feels. Then DOCument your response!
Well a couple of things.
Firstly, I want to play with a blog before installing the software on my server.
Secondly, I have the mail running on Google’s Apps for Your Domain– so I am interested to see how much I could run on seperate platforms but make them all appear to be from the one domain name – the intention would be to run a blog as digitalrightsmanifesto.com/blog if I were to commit to running it from my site.
Thirdly, and most importantly, I am going to put ads on the website – and I would like to be clear from the start that anyone blogging on the site would, in effect, be affiliated to those ads on the site. This also would mean that anyone advertising on the site would be affiliated to the blog entries. Neither of which I’m comfortable with at the moment.
So let the fun begin.