Sorry, I forgot the diagram... On 19/11/2007, Brian Butterworth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On 19/11/2007, Michael Sparks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On Monday 19 November 2007 14:58, Dave Crossland wrote: > > > GOODS THAT HAVE NO COST > > > OF MANUFACTURE AND DISTRIBUTION > > > > Television programmes have zero cost? Crikey, I didn't realise people > > were > > so civil spirited. Incidentally, where can I get zero cost internet > > connectivity with unlimited upload bandwidth? > > > > I think the phrase should be "towards zero cost", because it's clearly not > ever actually. But it is how certain companies got it into their heads to > provide "free broadband". >
because it's clearly not ever actually ZERO. > It's an economic version of Moore's law, which is normally "doubles X > every 18 months". If you think of a mathematically, the reciprocal of this > is the "cost of X". If it's £1 per Mb at the start, then it's 50p in 18 > months, 25p in 3 years, 6½p in 6 years, 1½p by year nine, and 0.4p by year > 12. > > So, if we consider the "lifetime of the licence fee", 10 years, what cost > £1 at the start drops to .78p by the end. > > It's easy to see how this applies to distribution and storage, less clear > about TV production. > > Here is an illustration, which shows Moore law working on a "nominal > average" broadband speed. > > > > More seriously... > > > > Yes, businesses must change -- we all know that. Until you have a better > > way > > of funding it than the current model then you're demanding one thing: > > less to > > be made _at the same quality_ or lowering of quality. The current model > > is > > predicated on distribution being a scarce resource, remove that and you > > eradicate or cripple the majority of current income schemes. > > > > Funding for commericial players comes from investors. Investors look for > > a > > return on their investment as income. If you can actively show they can > > make > > more money from a non-DRM world (which creates an artificial scarcity of > > distribution), they'll fund it. Since also from *that* perspective the > > aim of > > DRM is to create an artificial scarcity that doesn't have to be perfect > > it > > just has to be sufficiently good to make a sufficiently good scarcity to > > make > > a suffiently good income. > > > > There is logically a time that will come when even a DRM'd world is no > > longer > > viable as an artificial scarcity, at which point the companies involved > > will > > either evolve or die. So as I say, if you can actively show they can > > make > > more money or even just equal money, given the long term view, from a > > non-DRM > > world, investors will bite your hand off to help you. (hmm, badly mixed > > metaphor) > > > > If you can't, they won't. If you don't like that your only alternative > > is > > to legislate or wait. Stamping your foot in public without addressing > > this > > is simply wasting your (and everyone else's) time. > > > > Incidentally, I'd like to see someone address this because in the long > > term > > it is a real issue, and I would personally like to see quality > > maintained > > or go up, and the volume of stuff produced either stay the same or go > > up. > > > > (It's also why the foot stamping is sooooo annoying since it's just > > shouting > > "IT'S BAD!IT'S BAD!IT'S BAD!IT'S BAD!IT'S BAD!", without actually > > offering > > a *real* alternative that will actually move things forwards.) > > > > Richard Stallman could've stood and shouted "It's Bad!" about > > proprietary > > software for the past 23 years, but instead he decided to say "no, > > whilst I > > won't be a part of that world, I'll create a viable alternative". Surely > > > > that's more productive. (and yes, I know he's done his fair share of > > shouting > > "It's bad!" too, but if someone offers a realistic alternative they're > > generally more worth listening to) > > > > Incidentally, it's probably worth observing that the key thing that > > makes open > > source and free software REALLY work is networked source control (well, > > "diff" + the internet actully. Remove "diff+internet" and life gets real > > > > hard, real fast (you can do it of course)). The equivalent doesn't exist > > for > > media yet as far as I know. If someone REALLY wanted to make a change, > > that's > > where I'd start. You've probably got 20 years or more work ahead of you > > if > > you do though :-). > > > > Now to my mind, though, that'd be REAL innovation in the industry... > > > > > > Michael. > > -- > > (all personal views) > > - > > 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/ > > > > > > -- > Please email me back if you need any more help. > > Brian Butterworth > http://www.ukfree.tv -- Please email me back if you need any more help. Brian Butterworth http://www.ukfree.tv
<<attachment: bb%20speed%20vs%20tv.png>>
