On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 12:04, Sean DALY <sdaly...@gmail.com> wrote: > How can they be compensated fairly for their work? A watermarking > scheme which counts downloads or views, and apportions revenues > accordingly? That would possibly mean a shift away from > overcompensation of big names and a reduction of middlemen, not bad > things
What, in your mind, are they being (additionally) compensated for? Bearing in mind that in this context, the broadcasts are being made to about 50 million people freely over the airwaves and the rights-holders are already paid for this. Anybody within that group of 50 million has already been compensated on behalf of through the commissioning process. If a significant proportion of the downloaders of your FTA UK content are themselves within the UK, as a rights-holder I’d be asking myself why they’re having to resort to illicit means to obtain content they already had rights to receive and time-shift. Then I’d try to fix it. Once you start going outside of the UK, things are more complicated. One thing is critically evident as things have changed over the past few years: artificial geographically-based restrictions are doomed to failure. If you have to wait weeks, or even months (and sometimes years) to get the same content legally in your region, the rights-holders have shot themselves in the foot. The broadcast industry would do well to learn from the mistakes the music industry made: artificial scarcity, legal threats, hyperbole and DRM only actually achieve the intended results for a painfully short period of time. M. - 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/
