On 8-Oct-2009, at 10:25, Alia Sheikh wrote:
Unfortunately, that discussion isn’t really one which is at all
technical in nature—it’s broadly a matter of legal and business
strategy. Not quite so interesting to the kinds of smart people who
tend to have an interest in the technical stuff! There’s some
cross-over, though… ;)
It is an interesting issue.
Also known as "why everything you know about copyright is wrong !"
It needs a new thread and perhaps a new day, but please start
without me, (I won't be able to resist commenting) You may find my
views radical as my suggested title implies.
I think everyone can get caught up in finding a technical solution
that doesnt exist. There might not be a technical solution. There
is probably a solution.
Okay, I’ll bite.
(Background: my views on copyright in general I’ve previously written
up: http://nevali.net/post/162726923/c — I won’t repeat it all here as
everyone’s capable of clicking a link if they wish!)
On the specific issues we’ve been talking about, though…
I think Alia’s hit the nail on the head: there’s a tendency to look
for a technical solution to a non-technical problem. I don’t really
know how this came about, but there is a common misconception that all
of the wonderful advances in content distribution technology (DTT,
Internet-based delivery, DAB, Blu-Ray discs, whatever) come with a
built-in ability to drastically restrict illicit use of the content
even though this is demonstrably untrue. The sooner this myth is
dispelled, the sooner the people who are -directly- affected by it can
start focussing their efforts on the non-technical aspects of it all.
This, I think, is a Very Important Thing.
I’ve said as much to Alia off-list, but I view free-to-air TV as a
fantastic opportunity for content producers to find their feet in an
environment which is changing far more rapidly than they are: as
compared to, say, the music or movie industries, there’s far less to
lose if initiatives have no effect on piracy whatsoever.
Now, this is complicated by secondary distribution rights—whether it’s
worldwide distribution, or post-run sales, but any tangible success
which doesn’t cost vast sums is only beneficial to these (and,
arguably, is the point of it all).
As it stands:
1. Content is broadcast free-to-air. Anybody -can- get it, and as long
as there’s demand, people will upload it to file-sharing networks and
the like.
2. Casual piracy, for all its zero-cost and convenience, isn’t -that-
convenient compared to many potential alternatives. People don’t
download stuff via BitTorrent if watching a stream in the browser
meets their needs, for example.
3. The needs of the consumer are varied and wide. Not meeting those
needs encourages illicit distribution, for as long as the illicit
channels exist and are not so costly and inconvenient that people will
do without.
4. Although there is a proportion of people who would rather download
an old season of Buffy than buy it, the peaks in illicit downloading
relate to programmes which have _just_ aired on TV—that is, a
significant chunk (possibly the majority, when it comes to TV), is
catch-up viewing or evasion of geographical restrictions (see point #3)
5. People _will_ pay for content if it meets their needs, is priced
“fairly” (subjective, I know), and doesn’t take forever to arrive.
6. Harsh reality: people have been recording stuff from the TV and
sharing with one another it for years, and it’s how many cult TV shows
*became* cult TV shows.
(If I’m wrong about any of these, or have missed anything, please set
me straight!)
This leads me to the following conclusions:
1. Release the same content in as many different regions simultaneously
—don’t stagger releases
2. DRM and artificial “protection” are actively harmful (e.g., does
the DRM on iPlayer Desktop prevent any of that content being shared
via P2P? no. does it encourage it? arguably. so what’s the point?)
3. Make content available to buy-to-own without charging exorbitant
prices as soon as is reasonably possible. Digital distribution means
the issues here are primarily rights-related rather than lead time on
pressing/production. I’d actually support, for example, allowing BBC
Worldwide to sell content the second it goes on air, provided this
wasn’t used later as a means to restrict what can be done with the
freely-available content.
4. There will always be an element of illicit distribution going on no
matter what you do: by doing the above, you make it less worthwhile
and/or necessary, and you can capitalise on where it does occur.
Some of this obviously applies to other industries, as well as pay-
and advertising-supported TV, some doesn’t.
Of course, implementing all of this is dependent upon those being in a
position to do so being prepared to change themselves, rather than the
environment in which they operate. That’s probably the hardest part of
all.
M.
--
mo mcroberts
http://nevali.net
iChat: mo.mcrobe...@me.com Jabber/GTalk: m...@ilaven.net Twitter:
@nevali
Run Leopard or Snow Leopard? Set Quick Look free with DropLook -
http://labs.jazzio.com/DropLook/
-
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/
