Paul mate, I'm not having a pop at you in the slightest. Your video
genuinely made me chuckle so good for you, you've obviously got lots of
great ideas.
But its the aggregators of content who just sit back and rub their hands as
all this saleable creativity comes flowing in. I'm absolutely sure you have
a great time doing the video stuff for a hobby, but for the people who are
sitting on the content pile its not a hobby in the slightest - its a
business, and a big business at that.
Unfortunately if your bin idea does become a huge moneyspinner, not only do
you not get no payment, you won't actually get any credit for it at all -
because the BBC terms also take away your Moral Rights, which is the right
to be recognised as the creator of the work.
So if the bin idea gets sold to Nick Park and wins an Oscar, the credit will
say 'Based on an idea by BBC Films'. Just imagine if Nick Park had given his
ideas away when he was making silly clay models in his garage...and then
watched some other bastard lifting the Oscar.
Gutted.
If you have any ambitions to doing it for a living (and why not?), then I
sincerely hope that an industry exists in future which will provide you a
viable income.
Under this business model, that doesn't look like its going to happen.
My simple argument is this - why shouldn't you get paid for doing something
you love? I'm not talking big cash, but why should you have to spend 8 hours
per day doing some regular job, then devoting your spare time to the thing
you REALLY want to do?
That's a definition of a hobby, and hobbies have their own reward which goes
beyond money - but to then have someone else making money from your
efforts...well, thats just wrong.
People like Murdoch isn't being that smart because nothing is actually
changing.
Take away all the whizz-bang technology and he's simply exploiting forces
which have existed since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. Classic
supply and demand. When the supply of a commodity increases, its price
falls.
In this case the price is zero, or even less - because unlike the Industrial
Revolution, when smart businessmen 'adapted' to change by using children to
repair cotton spinning machines (but at least paid them), we appear to be
happy to work for nothing. The profit is made by leveraging the IP to a mass
audience.
As robert a/k/a r suggests, coming from a largely RM culture I am struggling
to understand how this whole new Web 2.0 economy works, in that like the
dot-com bust, it shows very little sign of bucking the reality that lies
behind it - which is the real economy - and the Murdochs of this world are
making sure that the new virtual economy retains similar exploitation
business models as many aspects of the real one...only worse.
Because by handing over your creativity, you're PAYING to produce a
commodity, not getting a wage. You're not doing it for nothing - How much
does Final Cut cost? Your camera? Your computer? Broadband connection?
Mark Getty, the CEO of Getty Images, now the Worlds largest holder of
photographic images, said "Intellectual Property is the oil of the 21st
Century".
How right he was. He gets the corporate jet, we pay to work and pump out
that creativity like a gushing oil well.
Genius.
Apart from anything else, I thought the whole idea of this Brave New World
was to bypass the 'old media' like Murdoch and the BBC anyway, and simply
present your work to a potential audience of millions by simply hosting the
work on the Web.
No rights rip-offs required.
I think the way forward is to start collectively aggregating our own
content. Murdoch and the BBC aren't the only game in town on the web.
> Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2006 18:38:16 +0000
> From: Paul Knight <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Re: RE: It's a time to Celebrate!!!!!!
>
>What a shame both you and Sion don't share my opinion, I have got one
>step further to realizing a dream, I really don't care about the
>licensing aspects of this, one of my early works, it is just the fact
>that I have got one of my amateur videos on the BBC website. Please
>be happy for me, I am not in it for the money, that side of things
>gives me a headache to be honest. I am all about creativity. I
>wouldn't be angered or disdainful if this video sparked someone's
>creativity around the world and Bin's became a new character or TV
>Sitcom, I would be elated, I would be over the moon, that I had given
>someone an idea.
>
>It goes with saying that if you post anything under the Creative
>Commons License anyway it is quite similar to the BBC license, don't
>we remix stuff that other people have shot before, same thing, yes?
>
>As far as putting my videos on line for profit is concerned, I would
>love for that to happen, but as a rank amateur and one of those
>people that does it on no budget most of the time and experiments
>with different sorts of film making techniques, I am not a pro as
>yet, I know this and just enjoy the hobby that I have.
>
>I do object to the use of any of my work by a certain Australian
>gentleman who owns most of the media in the world though, but hey, I
>make this for free and people watch it for free, so to me fairs fair.
>
>I didn't want to start a discussion on how unfair it is, no I just
>wanted to share my success with you all.
>
>Paul Knight
>
>On 4 Mar 2006, at 17:48, robert a/k/a r wrote:
>
> > Correct. Times have changed.
> >
> > In the stills world, peeps who would poke out their eyes before going
> > RF have the right to do so. However RM appears to be going the way of
> > other industries
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
