On 2/1/07, Stephen Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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.
"Fair price" - nice phrase, except we need to state who it's fair to. For example - the music companies want internet broadcasters to pay the equivalent of 0.1p per track per listener to play a song on interactive internet radio (a service like the US's Pandora, for example). That means that, typically, an internet radio station will pay 1.3p an hour per listener (if they play 13 songs an hour). All fine so far; and it appears, at first glance, quite fair. But after 30 years of commercial broadcast radio in this country, experience appears to suggest that we can expect an equivalent revenue of 2p per listener per hour. Further, broadcasting interactive internet radio isn't cheap: it demands unicast streams (which currently can cost more than 1p per listener per hour in bandwidth charges); and that's before we factor in the cost of staff for the station, and the fact that a radio station which reaches a few thousand people isn't even going to get on the advertising orders when compared with stations with many millions of listeners. So, as it currently stands, the 'fair price' ends up meaning that the costs to run an internet radio station far outweigh any possible revenue from it. Yet the content owners clearly believe that the rights costs are fair (unless you're claiming that the record companies want to stop ANY broadcasting on the internet). The 'global' issue is one here, too. Webcaster rates in the US are very different, and in some areas of the world, there are no rates at all. Currently, internet radio is a global phenomenon; but I'm unaware of any time where the UK record companies have earnt money from broadcasts emanating from non-UK places on the internet.
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. All the above problems currently occur without any DRM at all: precisely
the kind of environment you're looking for - and, as you can hopefully see, it's anything BUT viable. Should content owners suggest similarly 'fair' pricing for broadcasters for on-demand content to place on BitTorrent, then it simply won't happen. However, a system like Joost - which uses Content Restriction And Protection to a certain degree, since you can only stream not download, has more of a chance, potentially. 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.
You didn't say that at all. What you actually said was that media institutions were not forward-looking and had nobody with any say who understood new technologies - and who I work for and who funds this mailing list is highly relevant to that, since it shows that you're, to put it bluntly, wrong. To claim that nobody within the media is looking to the future is ever-so-slightly insulting, you know. In fact, I challenge you to a fight. Outside, now. -- http://james.cridland.net/
