Richard Lockwood wrote:
This is the argument that always crops up: "Use a different business
model". I've yet to hear someone come up with a workable one. Giving
the end product away - and allowing everyone else to do the same - is
*not* a workable business model.
I wonder if there really is that much of a workable business model for
entertainment anyway, even if we constrain ourselves to 20th century
entertainment technologies. While some people have made a lot of money,
it's rarely the artists and a lot of that money is made by very sharp
accounting practices (ie, Hollywood Accounting). Lord Of The Rings has
been mentioned - look at the arguments between Peter Jackson and New
Line for an example of the artist not getting his fair share (or at
least not feeling that he is getting his fair share). There's a book on
the music industry (whose name escapes me, I can look it up if anyones
interested) that goes into some detail on how dubious an industry it is.
I even knew someone who was once in a band that got signed, sent to the
Bahamas to make a record and then the record was never released, and
when they asked why, they were told that they were being used as a
writeoff (which is exactly one of the sorts of practices mentioned in
the book).
I think it's this fundamental lack of a real business model that's
driving the calls for DRM - the entertainment industry's business model
is mostly smoke and mirrors, and easy copying takes away some of the
mirrors.
Scot
-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
