|
Friday, September 27, 2002
Previous topic
|
Next topic
|
|
 Friday, September 27, 2002
started 9/27/2002; 2:14:56 AM - last post 9/27/2002; 10:05:33 PM
|
|
Doc Searls - Friday, September 27, 2002 
9/27/2002; 6:14:56 AM (reads: 5163, responses: 7)
|
|
Thank you, Mr. Sensenbrenner 
| | Wonder if this means we'll have KPIG back? |
Turn on, load down, turn in
| | Copyright law is changed from time to time to reflect the emergence of new information technologies and the changing ways in which our culture uses information. The DMCA was the first re-write of the copyright law in decades, and was intended to address what was perceived by the Congress (with the generous help of record companies and movie studios) as a growing problem of digital piracy. I'm not saying there is a problem of digital piracy, Congress says there is a problem. |
| | Copyright law will probably change again. In last week's column, Mark Ishikawa (not me) speculated that the law might get another rework in eight or nine years. So the key to changing the DMCA is to get that next rewrite to happen sooner. And the only way to ensure that happens is through massive civil disobedience. |
Attached earlobes to follow
| | The last natural blondes will die out within 200 years, scientists believe. |
Now hear these
Action on the bored level
| | A global study conducted by KPMG, in association with the Economist Intelligence Unit, revealed that media companies, in an effort to stop piracy, are spending far too much time on encryption and other defense technologies while losing billions in revenues each year. Companies are failing to develop proactive strategies to recognize and leverage their online intellectual property assets. A full 57 percent of media execs say their firms do not even have a process for classifying online intellectual property. |
| | (Aside: What's a "full" 57 percent? Why not call it "partial" or something?) |
| | The study, in the form of a .pdf file, adds this: |
| | Responses indicate that the media industry has yet to find its footing in the digital age. Rather than embracing the Internet as an inexpensive means of delivering top-quality creative content to the consumer in a highly customized format, industry executives remain mesmerized by the destructive potential of online piracy. Rather than go on the offensive, the industry has hunkered down in a defensive stance. |
| | ...The bottom line is that media companies need to shift their focus from a circle-the-wagons defense of digital intellectual property to innovative strategies for managing online content as a core revenue source. To achieve this shift, digital intellectual property needs to be valued properly, just like other assets on the balance sheet. Also, its protection needs to be treated as a key issue of corporate governance and given sustained and dedicated board-level attention. |
| | More from the Reuters piece: |
| | "What we don't see is a real questioning of business models," said Ashley Steel, a partner in KPMG's Information, Communications and Entertainment practice. |
| | "They complain about the Napsters," she said, referring to the bankrupt music swap site that was found to violate US copyright laws. "But why do the Napsters exist, because the marketplace wants them." |
| | Steel said that if the issue "is not on boardroom table... then that boardroom has problems". |
| | But KPMG is calling for something like a sex change for the entire industry. It ain't gonna happen. |
| | It was clear to me at Digital Hollywood this week that Hollywood — at least at the top level — has no clues about what the Net is, much less about how to exploit its nature, which puts demand in direct contact with supply and gives both equal power to work things out. Together. |
| | One non-Hollywood panelist said something like "When old industries meet new technologies, they always come up with wrong answers." Which is why we're probably not going to see better answers coming from boards than we are from levels below. |
| | These companies are used to treating their markets like fish in a tank, hungry to consume whatever gets sprinkled on the surface. That worked as long as "consumers" swam around in the old media environment. But when consumers got a chance to swim in the Net as well, they suddenly grew lungs and legs, crawled ashore, started walking upright and evolved into that superhuman race we call "customers." |
| | In aggregate, they're what we call "markets." Until Hollywood finds ways to satisfy them, they're going to go ahead and satisfy themselves. |
| | Thanks to Hanan for the links. |
discuss
|
|
Lee Joramo - Book Publisher's fought against Libraries
9/27/2002; 2:06:59 PM (reads: 538, responses: 0)
|
|
|
This whole problem with the media not groking the internet reminds me of the history of the book publishing industry. The best analysis of this I have read recently is in the book Information Rules, A Strategic Guide to the Network Economy by Carl Shapiro and Hal R. Varian.
Back in the late 1800's a growing literate middle class arose who had free time to read, but not much money to purchase books which were very expensive. In America, we developed a system of Public Lending Libraries to give people access to books. In England, the concept of a lending library was slow to take off, so book stores began to rent books. Publisher's where quite upset with this perceived loss of book sales, and the attempted to bring book lending to a halt.
Overtime, the publishers learned how to thrive in a market where books could be read freely. First as more people decided that they enjoyed spending their free time reading books as a result of free access to books, the market of potentially book purchasers exploded. Second, the publishers realized that they needed print books more cheaply to sell to this new market. In England, you could still rent books until the 1950's when the creation of the paperback book finally destroyed the book rental market.
There are many parallels to the current situation, and of course there are many differences. Today the most notable difference is that the marginal cost of unit production and distribution is approaching a very low number for both the original firm and for pirates.
discuss
|
|
Lee Joramo - Book Publisher's fought against Libraries
9/27/2002; 2:08:58 PM (reads: 501, responses: 0)
|
|
|
This whole problem with the media not groking the internet reminds me of the history of the book publishing industry. The best analysis of this I have read recently is in the book Information Rules, A Strategic Guide to the Network Economy by Carl Shapiro and Hal R. Varian.
Back in the late 1800's a growing literate middle class arose who had free time to read, but not much money to purchase books which were very expensive. In America, we developed a system of Public Lending Libraries to give people access to books. In England, the concept of a lending library was slow to take off, so book stores began to rent books. Publisher's where quite upset with this perceived loss of book sales, and the attempted to bring book lending to a halt.
Overtime, the publishers learned how to thrive in a market where books could be read freely. First as more people decided that they enjoyed spending their free time reading books as a result of free access to books, the market of potentially book purchasers exploded. Second, the publishers realized that they needed print books more cheaply to sell to this new market. In England, you could still rent books until the 1950's when the creation of the paperback book finally destroyed the book rental market.
There are many parallels to the current situation, and of course there are many differences. Today the most notable difference is that the marginal cost of unit production and distribution is approaching a very low number for both the original firm and for pirates.
Lee Joramo
discuss
|
|
Lee Joramo - Book Publisher's fought against Libraries
9/27/2002; 2:09:01 PM (reads: 505, responses: 0)
|
|
|
This whole problem with the media not groking the internet reminds me of the history of the book publishing industry. The best analysis of this I have read recently is in the book Information Rules, A Strategic Guide to the Network Economy by Carl Shapiro and Hal R. Varian.
Back in the late 1800's a growing literate middle class arose who had free time to read, but not much money to purchase books which were very expensive. In America, we developed a system of Public Lending Libraries to give people access to books. In England, the concept of a lending library was slow to take off, so book stores began to rent books. Publisher's where quite upset with this perceived loss of book sales, and the attempted to bring book lending to a halt.
Overtime, the publishers learned how to thrive in a market where books could be read freely. First as more people decided that they enjoyed spending their free time reading books as a result of free access to books, the market of potentially book purchasers exploded. Second, the publishers realized that they needed print books more cheaply to sell to this new market. In England, you could still rent books until the 1950's when the creation of the paperback book finally destroyed the book rental market.
There are many parallels to the current situation, and of course there are many differences. Today the most notable difference is that the marginal cost of unit production and distribution is approaching a very low number for both the original firm and for pirates. Still a believe that media companies need to look to economic history for ideas for the future path. The book Information Rules would be a great place for them to start.
Lee Joramo
discuss
|
|
Michael Bernstein - "Full 57 Percent"
9/27/2002; 3:49:10 PM (reads: 514, responses: 0)
|
|
|
I beleive that the word 'full' is being used here as a more dignified alternative to 'whopping', as in 'a whopping 57 percent'.
discuss
|
|
Brian Cheesman - "blogging in audio"
9/27/2002; 4:03:07 PM (reads: 930, responses: 0)
|
|
|
Ok, with all the new terminology that's sprouted around blogging, how about blaudio?
discuss
|
|
Fred Grott - The New Recording Industry
9/27/2002; 5:49:11 PM (reads: 512, responses: 0)
|
|
|
What I see is some smart internet group of people banding together to creater a new record lable that exists on internet and P2P and takes advantage of the old record comapnies and delivers a first gold or platinum hit fromone of its bands within the next 5 years. By then the old record companies will be so bankrupt that goolge.com wil buy them fro mere pennies on the dollar..
discuss
|
|
lou josephs - Re: Friday, September 27, 2002
9/28/2002; 2:05:33 AM (reads: 535, responses: 0)
|
|
|
Let's see we have should homeland security be a unionized department, and should be turn Iraq into a parking lot and 435 folks are all up for re-election, think any bill favorable to webcasting stands a chance in hell of passing this session?
Finland, Finland, Finland, the last blonde ever born. Shame you can't hear the BBC World Service anymore in the US...And you won't be able to hear when he or she is born in Finland because there off the air to the world shortly.
discuss
|
|
|
Copyright 2009 The Doc Searls Weblog
|
