_____
From: Mario Menti [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 28 February 2007 22:59
To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
Subject: Re: [backstage] Percentage of License fee going towards DRM?
On 2/28/07, Dave Crossland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The claim is partly misleading because the word "loss" suggests events of a
very different nature--events in which something they have is taken away
from them. For example, if the store's stock of DVDs were burned, or if the
money in the till got torn up, that would really be a "loss."
I'm sorry, but this sentence is patent bollocks. To define "loss" in these
narrow terms is utter nonsense. In just about every definition, "loss" can
mean being deprived of something, regardless of whether you physically
possessed that thing in the first place.
By all means keep arguing about the pros and cons of DRM, but spare us
stupidities like this please.
Cheers,
Mario.
I have to agree that this line of thought is not without its own flaws, but
you have to agree that the term "loss" has been manipulated somewhat by the
incumbent film and TV studios; they've subtly changed its meaning from that
of a physical loss to that of a loss of potential income on their
intellectual property. This is where we begin to get very abstract here with
our definitions of 'loss' and 'theft'.
So it's not complete nonsense, it's interesting to see how the classical
definition of loss has been altered by the studios to fit their way of
speaking - reminds me of past RIAA publications where they've mentioned xyz
millions of dollars "lost through piracy" - when in fact it's not REALLY
loss, it's just money they thought they would be getting whilst relying on a
predetermined profit curve (basically, they're not factoring into the
equation that people won't continue to purchase at the same rate they may
initially, or a service selling content might lose 'cool' factor and become
less profitable... Or, as I suspect they're actually doing, they're taking
an average of figures over the past 10 years and then using those as a basis
for their loss - when in fact the music industry has been in decline for a
long time, and the Internet has NOT been the sole cause of its wider
financial downturn). I'm not saying unlicensed redistribution of content
isn't to blame at least in part, but the industry does have this habit of
twisting the truth, flipping and adjusting the wording and meaning somewhat
to meet its own ends. I've done a lot of research into the music industry as
part of my Uni course so I know I'm not talking completely out my arse here.
Thus, the industry's argument for slapping rights restrictions onto
everything in sight is largely based on these continuing assertions that
they are losing money through piracy which they would otherwise be receiving
into their coffers, and these assertions are in turn originated on financial
data and trends which tend to not factor into account these new forms of
distribution.
We had a lecture from two people at our Uni late last year; one person from
EMI and one person from the IFPI. Even though it wasn't billed as a "this is
why piracy is bad and killing the music industry" lecture, it was exactly
that - but during the Q&A session I asked a few pointed questions. One
included, "why don't you change your price points to price pirates out of
the market, follow a business model like allofmp3 where you give the
customers MP3s or their own choice of formats, for a fixed price per
megabyte, and there we go - the unlicensed distributors can't survive in
that kind of market, where it's just as easy for the consumer to go legit as
it is for them to break the law..." To which the man from the IFPI answered,
"because we just can't, we don't, trust our consumers." I was basically
stonewalled, they didn't even acknowledge that any model aside from the
current one would work. I thought it was a very arrogant approach, they
presented loads of stats, figures, past trends, statistical analysis of
Internet bandwidth usage etc... And it was all based on the assumption that
users only 'steal' music because it's part of their mindset now.
So, for me, this entire matter boils down to trust; the industry's lack of
trust for consumers, and in turn, consumers' lack of trust in their rights
restriction schemes. They alter the meaning of established words, and
somehow they manage to lobby the US Government to codify their 'modified'
meanings in law! That's what really riles me, and why I don't like DRM. I
won't trust a 'trust' mechanism which is run by untrustworthy people, and
it's also why I don't entirely agree with the industry's version of 'loss'
due to x or y reasons.
If only it were clear cut enough that by not purchasing music, you were
directly depriving artists of a large amount of revenue from what would
otherwise be a unit sale, but in reality that's so infrequently the case.
Even before the advent of Internet sharing, it was the same for many artists
- large advance, then work their arses off to break even if they get lucky,
then do the promo tours, which don't make any money for the artists, in
order for the record company to market the brand and shift more units over a
longer period of time... In the end, the percentage of any sale of an
artist's work which goes to the artist is pitiful, unless they're either
extremely influential or the label values them as an asset, in which case
they can negotiate a bit...
Trying to find the root cause of all these kinds of discussions is like
trying to pin the tail on a donkey whilst standing on a merry-go-round,
we've all circled the issues so many times it's making it harder and harder
to pin down the primary reason for all of this, at least for me!
