James Cridland wrote:
This is a splendidly informed debate, incidentally. I'm enjoying it.
On 1/31/07, *Stephen Miller* < [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
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.
Example: The Daily Show was sold to More4 as an exclusive purchase for
within the territory of the UK. The production company is selling
something that commands a good price because it is selling the rights
to exclusively show this programme in the UK.
If the majority of people were watching it via BitTorrent et al, then
the value of the show to the More4 is much less. This is the problem.
Not a missed sale; but a very badly harmed value of a product.
That may well be the case, but why should it be so? Surely the whole
point of this debate (at least from my point of view) is that this kind
of thinking is in the past. As stated on other threads on the list, this
kind of thing happened with DVD sales, many people now have region free
capability to get round the regions as they are inconvenient.
What needs to be developed is new distribution systems, not excuses for
old methods, nor seeing any form of global market as a problem. If
content is available at a fair price globally and simultaneously, the
advertising markets and audiences should greatly expand.
I disagree also with your assertion that bittorrent devalues the market
place for the distributor. Possibly the end broadcaster may suffer
depending on how new distribution methods are arranged. However, if the
distributors were to stop fighting bittorrent et al, instead embracing
it, I believe a lot of their problems would disappear overnight.
By a combination of launching their own service for free torrent
downloads, coupled with (non distracting) product placement and
traditional advertising to fund the shows, this factor can be negated.
Don't forget that torrent sites rely on viral marketing to even begin
their swarms. In contrast, a major media company need only advertise in
the mainstream press and television as a legal alternative for their
online distribution to quickly take off. Further to this, and most
importantly, by including advertising and a free (non-DRM) source of the
show officially, you negate the 'need' for people to obtain unauthorised
copies. Sites such as thepiratebay would not gain any advantage for
offering a freely available show through their site. If this were to
happen, there would be little to worry about either. With an advertising
based funding system and unencrypted shows, any secondary sharing just
increases the exposure to the adverts. In turn, advertising companies
could pay a small amount per unique download, as opposed to just buying
space on a show. This figure could come mainly from the official
distributor source, but any large secondary tracker could also be
factored in.
I admit the main problem with this is a reedited torrent or other
download with the adverts stripped out. However, this still cannot strip
product placement, and with a freely available source should be limited
to an extremely low number of people.
Many other people who download are of course unable to afford the vast
majority of what they download. They may be getting
something for free, but still are not lost sales.
"I nicked it because I can't afford it" is an interesting claim when
talking about downloading via computer and broadband connection (two
luxury products), and it still doesn't recompense The Daily Show for
lost value for its product, or More4 for lost advertising revenue.
Remember, More4 and their advertisers are paying for the programme, so
you don't have to.
This is also an interesting claim, as I would counter that broadband and
computers are now so ubiquitous so as to not neccesarily be a luxury
item. It is of course possible to build or obtain a computer sufficient
for internet access and basic word processing applications etc. for less
than £200. Whilst this is a large single outlay for poorer incomes, I
would argue it is not above their means, and certainly is becoming
increasingly necessary even to search for jobs. Your computer can then
be used for other means. It is not solely a way to collect media.
Contrary to this, buying DVDs at £20 a pop, you would only be able to
afford 10 or so on the same budget.
This doesn't excuse the 'nicking' of the material as you put it, but
does I hope highlight my point, which was that it is not a lost sale,
the potential sale never existed. I focus mainly on visual arts, TV and
movies, as due to product placement and adverts, these offer the most
viable free distribution options with current methods of funding. I
think the internet should be looked upon as a place to expand the free
to air television market, with funding provided solely through site and
media advertising. I do not view this as wishful thinking, and do not
think that bittorrent downloading precludes this.
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.
Well, all media institutions have people that research new technology
within them. I'm paid to do that. I have used BitTorrent, Kazaa and
Napster (all of which are/were possible to use legally, incidentally);
I have hacked subscription television; and have done a variety of
other entertaining things on and offline. I expect (and hope) the rest
of my team have done so as well. Blimey - imagine what you'd be saying
if we didn't bother to research?
[I ought to point out that I haven't, though, shared any substantive
amount of other peoples' material; because I don't own it.]
Finally: you claim media institutions aren't forward looking. If
you've not realised, you're arguing with someone who works for a
commercial radio station, on a mailing list run by the BBC for
developers to mash-up their content. Excellent. ;)
I do realise who you work for, but don't think that is hugely relevant
to the debate. As mentioned in my last email, I'm not saying that people
like you do not exist in commercial companies, merely that research is
seen more as an interesting aside and future possibilities, as opposed
to something that can be realised within the next year or so. Media
companies are, somewhat understandably cautious, but this will do them
no favours. The cat is already out the bag, Napster saw the end of music
distribution as we knew it. Bittorrent is causing television to go the
same way. It is possible for the media companies to take advantage of
this, however, I cannot see it happening fast enough at current.
--
http://james.cridland.net/
I realise I may be in the minority with my views, however I do believe
quite strongly that it is possible to sustain a rich media environment
with online distribution funded solely by advertising revenues, and any
difficulties are likely to be minor. Unauthorised distribution need not
be a bane on the industry, but a tool to further the reach of the
programmes.
___________________________________________________________
Try the all-new Yahoo! Mail. "The New Version is radically easier to use" The Wall Street Journal
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]/
