[d@DCC] Re: p2p sharing - techcircus

[Russell McOrmond]

Note to d at DCC list participants:  This subject/thread started in 
admin at linux.ca . The rest of the thread can be picked up at:

  http://www.mail-archive.com/admin%40linux.ca/msg00487.html



  I have one point I wanted to add to the thread.

  When a private citizen (IE: not someone doing this for a profit) shares
a music file, it can affect the copyright holder (often not even the
artist these days) in 3 possible ways:

  a) It can reduce revenue.

     The assumption here is either that a 'copy made is a lost sale'.  It 
     is an assumption that I simply don't understand.

     For new music it can also happen that by listening to the music first
     (try before you buy) that you will decide you don't like the artist.
     In this case, the Radio is also considered a negative thing.

  b) It will have no affect at all on revenue.

  c) It will increase revenue.   This could be sales of separate products 
     and services from concert tickets to T-shirts or other Fan-club 
     stuff.  It can also be additional CD's, or full CD's based on a 
     single song someone heard for free and really liked.



  Common sense to me suggests that (c) greatly outweighs (a), and I have
yet to see any evidence to contradict this. We even have folks like Roger
Ebert with considerable experience in the entertainment industry warning
the industry not to confuse fans with pirates
<http://weblog.flora.ca/article.php3?story_id=130>.  We have a whole 
history of radio and music television based on the idea that allowing 
people to listen to the music without paying will encourage the listener 
to buy other products, and there is no logic to believing this can't apply 
equally to private-copying the music over the net.

  The Internet *IS* going to change business models.  Something that
forces the obsolescence of outdated business models is pretty much the
definition of a transformative technology, which people have been widely
accepting for years that the Internet is.


  There is an obvious reason for the nastiness of this battle, and that is
that the middle-men are replaceable.  These middle-men (RIAA, MPAA, etc)
know this, and are trying to gain absolute power in areas where they
shouldn't even have a say.

  Artists need to realize this, and become less dependent on the the
mega-merged-media (and largely obsolete) parts of the publishing industry.  
They need to become more flexible in their business models and
relationships with their fans.


  Please note that I totally separate "private copying" of works without
paying, and for-profit commercial copying without paying royalties.  I
believe that if any money is made off of the work of an artist, that the
artist should receive a cut.  I also believe that if no money is being
made (IE: private copying) then the artist should not have the ability to
claim theft. Economic rights should apply when there is some actual money
changing hands, not simply because the artist (and more often the
publisher) wants the power to restrict communications.

---
 Russell McOrmond, Internet Consultant: <http://www.flora.ca/>
 See http://weblog.flora.ca/ for announcements, activities, and opinions
 Submission to Innovation Strategy         | No2Violence in Politics
 http://www.flora.ca/innovation-2002.shtml | http://www.no-dot.ca/

--
For (un)subscription information, posting guidelines and
links to other related sites please see http://www.digital-copyright.ca