New media model needed

Kevin McLauchlan had some very interesting things to say in a recent thread on copy protection (from the Techwr-L mailing list), which I reproduce here with his permission. I'm trying to encourage him to start blogging, BTW.

[. . .] what your argument fails to consider is that there was a large mainstream(ish) demand for movies, music, and other such product (including good ole text-and-pictures, otherwise known as books), in modern formats (computer and portable) that people preferred them, and that the traditional media empires were not meeting that demand. For the first few years, they weren't even aware of it.

There was really no squawk from the traditional media when the first hackers came up with the first methods of recording and presenting audio and video on computing devices, because they were doing it for their own pleasure and convenience, and that of a small circle of their geeky friends.

Much like Bill Gates ignored the internet while concentrating on his then-traditional (office and home-island users of software), the studios and publishers ignored the web and the culture that was rapidly growing it . . . and being grown by it.

When they finally did notice that there was some potential loss of revenue happening to their existing model (in which they'd prospered for decades), they reacted by whining and hollering "Don't do that!", and allowing years to slide by before introducing their own services.

When those services appeared, they were already outdated, and they annoyed people because it was profoundly obvious that their major premise was enforcement, while the minor focus (the needs and desires of customers) was given short shrift at best. That is, they have far less interest in serving their customers than in preventing rip-offs.

Let's see:
- paying customers are made to jump through hoops and are treated like dirt
- non-paying "customers" get variety, convenience, ease-of-use and responsive "providers"

I had some sympathy for producers and distributors when audio and video "piracy" meant that somebody made physical copies of tapes and DVDs and sold them for money. It was supportable that the media companies would go after the makers and sellers of such "pirate" goods. Notice that they didn't go after the consumers of such goods.

But these days, most of the copies being distributed are free. Somebody might be losing some revenue (though there are convincing arguments that it's the old formats that are losing out and the studios/distributors just didn't jump fast enough to be ready for the current formats), but nobody is directly gaining illicit revenue when another bittorrent completes. Yet notice that the industry heavyweights are going after users/consumers, now.

As for all the creative work going away if studios and 20-million-dollar-a-film actors can't get their exclusive rights enforced, not everybody thinks that's such a bad thing. Lots of craftsmen were displaced when horse-and-buggy went out of fashion. Some whined and pouted (and died broke). Some found different ways to make a living or found new industries to use their same skills (like high-end auto-makers still needed people who could work in leather and fine woods).

You might have noticed that there are increasingly high-quality "movies" being produced for YouTube distribution (among all the dreck, of course), and that's with the studio blockbusters still in theatres (and people still paying to see movies on the big screen). Lots of smart, talented people are simply bypassing the corporate model of entertainment and information, and taking their own work to the masses.

That is, the problem — too easy distribution of works in digital form — is also the solution. People who would once have been content to "distribute" their labors-of-love to just a few friends now have the ability to reach everyone on the planet who is interested, and beyond.

It's a solution from the perspective of the people who are driven to produce art and from the perspective of people who want access to art.

Have you noticed that bands and performers that are already richer than god, and who can count on selling millions of copies of their next studio-made album, are still willing and eager to take their show on the road? There are two forces making that work. One is that the performers crave a live audience. As good as it is to polish off a new CD and get paid royalties, they still feel the need to get out where real live audiences are. At the same time, "consumers" who enjoy a studio album are still prepared to shell out big bucks (often hundreds of dollars per ticket) to experience live performances.

If all the major studios and distribution labels were to close tomorrow, I'm confident that there would still be touring rock bands, and there would still be talented people in their own studios creating recordings for internet distribution. It might be a different crop of productive talented people. It might be some of the ones who are already famous and rich — those who didn't go into a big sulk about the departure of the corporate recording business.

The same would apply to film. There'd be an upsurge of live theatre, and there'd be some real gems of recorded video drama appearing among the YouTube crud. True artists and performers simply can't just stop. They are driven. Only the mostly-mercenary ones would fold up their production companies and go away. Maybe they've had their day and rightfully so.

Have you noticed that TV shows like "American Idol" and "So You Think You Can Dance" are not running out of talent? They tour the same big cities year after year, culling from the tens of thousands of people who choose to show up. Yet each year, there are more extremely gifted people among the also-rans and losers. It's not that new kids are growing up and becoming ready. The people who show up are all ages. For whatever reason, they didn't enter the contest previously. And that's just the ones who want fame and fortune (or the chance of it) via that particular route. There are tons and tons more talented artists of all kinds out there . . . I should say, out here, where we real people are. It's only the major studios and the top 2% earners among the "stars" who have a lot to lose if the world's entertainment-delivery model moves on . . . or moves back to an earlier model based on performers getting paid by the number of tickets they can sell to personal, live performances.

The same general argument applies to the written word and to other forms of art. If the concept of copyright was struck down tomorrow, some writers would stop writing. Most would keep doing what they are driven to do.

Yes, there's a shift in fortunes when there's a shift in paradigm. Some people drop out of sight. Some people adapt and continue to prosper. Some people find opportunity that wasn't there before.

There's a certain degree of success at selling MP3s, when the price is low enough. Nobody bothers to build timed expiry or number-of-playings expiry into simple recordings of songs. So people willingly pay a buck or two to download them, even though they could find free copies if they cared to look.

But the example was paying for a video download that was designed to die after 24 hours, whether it was convenient for you to view it within that time or not. That's just sick, and people have no sympathy. Theatrical and DVD releases still pay the production costs and generate profit for deserving movies. Demanding to get more than a buck or so of profit off a file that costs you nothing to serve, and using artificial methods to boost your revenue is ugly, and people shy away from it. The people who dreamed up that scheme are deliberately driving away potential customers; driving them into the open arms of the very "pirates" they vilify.

If people suddenly stop wanting the big-screen experience, then the model has finally changed, and first-run theatrical release will no longer pay the production costs of a blockbuster. Maybe the new model will no longer support $250-million dollar production costs. So be it.

It was a good ride for some people. The next wave will be a good ride for a different gang.

Maybe the new model will support only movies whose cost can be recouped by low-price, paid-for downloads, low enough in price that people will gladly pay the couple of bucks for a cupful of databits that they are going to show in their homes, on their equipment, using their electricity.