This I feel is one of the main sticking points which leads to the
current trends in litigation. Media groups tend to equate a download
with a (potential) lost sale. This is just not the case. Many people who
download, especially cross borders may discover television from other
countries to which they had no access. If they are sufficiently
impressed, this may actually result in INCREASED sales as they find a
way to import the DVD. It is also easier to download something which you
may have missed airing in the previous week, or became talked about
among friends. Again, this may result in potential extra DVD sales if
the rest of the series is out on DVD.
Many other people who download are of course unable to afford the vast
majority of what they download due to sheer quantity. They may therefore
buy DVD's of their favourite shows but be unable to buy much else of
what they download. This group is also not equating with lost sales, as
the money would not be there in the first place. They may be getting
something for free, but still are not lost sales.
Another point to consider is that the vast majority of downloads are
related to programmes aired on television, either as free to air
services, or subscription. In both models you are not paying for content
directly, and indeed can record the programmes you yourself have access to.
It is my opinion therefore that a lot of the counted 'sales lost' or
'potential sales lost' are based upon estimations that just do not hold
water. I would estimate less than 10% of potential lost sales are indeed
lost. I also believe that sharing within friends or private recording
makes little difference.
Of course, the easiest solution is to make all programmes available to
download directly from the programme maker or distributor, for a price
of £4 or less, with adverts at the start, the end (and possibly the
middle). The combination of advert funding and the small takings from
sales to a global audience should be sufficient to fund the media. This
has the added advantage of being able to provide funding more directly
to programme makers.
Sadly, it is rare that media institutions are forward looking, nor wish
to reconsider their current policies to take into account recent
technological developments. What makes this worse is that a large number
of people within their companies are likely to be 'illegal' downloaders,
and there will be some that also know distribution protocols such as
bittorrent, and the necessary economics to distribute in this way. I
doubt however, any such people would find it advantageous to reveal this
to their employer, unless they already held a large amount of influence
in the company.
James Cridland wrote:
On 1/31/07, *Dave Crossland* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>
wrote:
> > If you make furniture, the fact that furniture-duplication
wands are
> > invented does not give you the right to restrict people from
> > duplicating chairs.
>
> No, but I should have the rights to restrict people from
duplicating MY
> chairs.
I'm sorry I wasn't clear, because that's what I meant. Restated:
If you make furniture, the fact that furniture-duplication wands are
invented does not give you the right to restrict people from
duplicating the chairs you made. Restricing commercial duplication
might be okay, but not non-commercial in-the-public-view duplication,
and certainly not private between-friends duplication.
Don't agree.
No duplication is truly non-commercial; every act of duplication still
results in the loss of a potential sale (assuming that I am selling
these chairs). Given that, I am well within my rights to, if I choose,
wish to prevent duplication - whether it's private-between-friends, or
private-between-anyone on the internet, or anything else.
If you don't like that, you don't have to buy my chairs!
--
http://james.cridland.net/
___________________________________________________________
All new Yahoo! Mail "The new Interface is stunning in its simplicity and ease of use." - PC Magazine
http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html
-
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/[email protected]/
