I Could Be Down With That
September 20th, 2006 by Andy |
 |
|
|
In all honesty, I think the way copyright and digital ‘ownership’ are being handled currently is going to go out the window in a few years. I think that the whole business model will change soon from ‘purchasing’ to ‘renting’. This is how I see it working: when you want to listen to any song in the world, or watch any TV show, or movie, or short film, or play any game, you will pay a tiny fee to do so, each time you do it. These tiny pay-per-view style payments add up and are billed monthly, and at the end of the day you enjoy the same amount of entertainment, and you spend the same amount of money, if not less. What you gain is significant, what you lose is the ambiguous concept of ownership that so many people cling to currently. I know people want to own things, but honestly, its an illusion- do you own a movie when you go watch it in the theater? Why is watching it at home any different? Do you own the TV shows you watch? The music at a live concert? No, you own the experience of having seen them. If you get rid of all of the money you spend on buying CDs, DVDs, video games, going to the movies, paying for cable, downloading (legally) from the web every single month, and spend the same amount if not less on enjoying the exact same songs, shows, and movies. And think of it this way- if you hate any of it, hey, you only spent 3cents on that song, and you didn’t have to pay for the rest of the album! Once people get used to this idea it will be a much better world- we will only pay for what we use, DRM and other bullshit won’t exist, and we will be able to truly watch whatever, whenever, wherever. Amen. Update: There is a raging and applicable conversation going on over at Engadget, check it out. |
||
 |
 |
A German music downloading service, 
September 21st, 2006 at 5:38 am
I so dearly hope you’re wrong on this. The whole idea of copyright (as it exists now) is wholly outdated and needs to be changed. The concept of fair use is getting kicked around by the publishers, and at no point should the consumer be seen as a renter.
If I buy a CD, I own that particular copy of the work. If I decide that I want to have a digital copy of it, that’s my perogative. If I buy a toaster, I’m not renting that toaster. It’s mine to do with what I will, as long as I don’t knock out copies of it and hand them out at the next bake sale.. Why should music, film, and books be any different?
Most importantly though, I think that current copyright (and DRM) laws are more focused on shareholder value than promoting the public good. There’s a reason the initial copyright laws were limited: We understood then that, after a point, art should become the property of the public it was created for. Can you imagine if paintings had copyright laws like film and music do? Our museums would fucking suck, that’s for sure.
From an artistic standpoint, I really shudder at the single song/renter approach to music. It’s part of what’s destroying the craft of making an album. The labels don’t give a shit anymore if you’ve only got three hit songs and the rest is total ass, and nor (it seems) do a majority of the artists. Why? Partially because of the model you speak of. I want albums that are coherent statements from start to finish.
Of course, I realize that I care about music much more deeply than the average listener, but dammit bands used to knock out stellar albums not even 12 months apart. None of this 3 years in the Spanish wilderness shit.
I need more coffee, and I recommend you take a gander at Cory Doctrow’s excellent article on the subject. (http://www.locusmag.com/2006/Issues/09DoctorowCommentary.html)
September 21st, 2006 at 1:03 pm
i need to respond to this in pieces:
1) i am very aware of cory doctrow’s views on this, am a proud member of the copyleft movement, i even own a creative commie shirt. a lot of the issues currently being bandied about will have to be rethought under a pay per view system, as they will no loger apply, since most of the focus is on the concept of ownership and the right to copy, when really the core issue is enjoyment. its not the medium, its the content that matters, and too much focus is being spent on controlling and fighting for the freedom of the medium. this is wrong.
2) when we buy a cd, we do not own the songs, we own the right to play them, and according to the interpretation of the law as it stands, you may or may not have the right to make copies for personal use (i am on the side that you can, the RIAA seems to be ever more on the opposite side, the government is still deciding which one to go with). so really, my concept of renting is no different, it does require a shift in behavior and perception, but look back on this in 10yrs and see how you feel about it. under the system i foresee being implemented, you purchase the right to listen to the music, it is not renting per se, it is the same as going to a movie or a concert or ordering something on ppv, you don’t own the music or movie you enjoy, you don’t own anything, you are paying for the experience. our concept of ownership is antiquated and incorrect- we like to “own” things, but that’s just silly and unnecessary. look at how people reacted to itunes music store: “i would never want that, i like to hold the cd…etc” and now they are slowly growing into the biggest music distributor in the world.
3) copyright and public domain and fair use are all in desperate need of a big revisit. under the system i propose, copyright is still applicable, in that the distributor is technically distributing copies, and must therefore obey copyright. but under that system, public domain works are still able to be distributed, just not for a fee. any work can be distributed for free, the charge is up to the copyright holder and the distributor, hell they could charge $500/song if they want, the market will determine price. as for fair use, that just needs a massive revisit, and until it is revisited i can’t even comment on how it would work under a pay per view system.
4) i also hate that modern bands produce 1-3 good songs every 3 years. i think it is a crying, screaming shame. a pay per view system will hopefully cut down on the ‘filler’ music that crap bands pump out. likewise, if an album is great, people will buy the whole album. i listen to full albums on itunes ALL DAY every day. ditching cds has not gotten rid of the ‘album as a complete work of art’, but it is threatening the ‘crap band with one hit putting out a full cd that people have to buy just to listen to the one they want’. i will say that content is king, and if you produce a fantastic album, people will listen to the full album, regardless of distribution method.
September 22nd, 2006 at 4:04 am
While I don’t agree with some of your conclusions, I’ll certainly acknowledge a well reasoned argument.
My only nagging question is this: Do you feel that work should eventually become public domain? I’m of the opinion that yes, it should. Allowing artistic, technological, and design work to eventually enter the public domain is what allows those fields to continually innovate themselves. By allowing a copyright holder to exert influence in perpetuity the goal of copyright becomes protecting revenue, not the holder and public’s rights.
September 22nd, 2006 at 9:58 am
oh i absolutely think that copyright still needs to expire, and that public domain works definitely will and should exsist in such a system. in fact, creative commons licenses and copyrights will not go away in this system, they will just become a little less of a focus. public domain and some create commons licenses will be very important, because distributors will want to offer as much content as possible to attract users, and even though they cannot charge for it, they will want to distribute such works.
and again, fair use… that is a biggie, and it will have to be worked out as things evolve; right now i have no coherent ideas on what to do about that.