Google presents a far greater threat to the livelihood of individuals and the future of commercial institutions important to the community. One case emerged last week when a letter from Billy Bragg, Robin Gibb and other songwriters was published in the Times explaining that Google was playing very rough with those who appeared on its subsidiary, YouTube. When the Performing Rights Society demanded more money for music videos streamed from the website, Google reacted by refusing to pay the requested 0.22p per play and took down the videos of the artists concerned.Sigh.
According to the author, Google is "a parasite that creates nothing" and "has known nothing but success and does not understand the risks, skill and failure involved in the creation of original content."
We desperately need copyright reform that takes seriously the information ecosystem of the 21st century. That said, the creation of content has undergone a fundamental and structural change. And while violation of copyright must be taken seriously, it's also clear that industries with skin in the game are going to fight tooth and nail to avoid admitting that they simply don't create the value that they used to.
Sadly, with newspapers in decline, much of the media old guard seems sympathetic to just this sort of desperate clamoring.
[Via Kevin Drum]
"[I]ndustries with skin in the game are going to fight tooth and nail to avoid admitting that they simply don't create the value that they used to."
ReplyDeleteThis seems like a strong statement to me, and I'm not so sure commons-based peer production is relevant here. Is it really that they don't create the value that they used to, or that the value itself has changed? It seems to me that the essence of the product has not changed; rather, the perception of that product has changed. Or perhaps it has not changed at all (I'm thinking of using a tape recorder to make mix tapes in middle school) but rather the degree of that perception has grown.
On a different note, you might find this piece interesting (and maybe insane): http://www.projo.com/opinion/contributors/content/CT_google3_04-03-09_EODRCTK_v10.3e67c3b.html
(Yay projo! And yay Bridget for getting that printed!)
Here's my basic point:
ReplyDeleteContent is abundant. And distribution of that content has gone from quite expensive to extremely cheap.
So if you're in the business of creating and distributing content, like music, you can't expect to command the same sums as you did back when content was scarce and distribution was expensive.