On 19/11/2007, Michael Sparks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Monday 19 November 2007 14:58, Dave Crossland wrote: > > GOODS THAT HAVE NO COST > > OF MANUFACTURE AND DISTRIBUTION > > Television programmes have zero cost? Crikey, I didn't realise people were > so civil spirited. Incidentally, where can I get zero cost internet > connectivity with unlimited upload bandwidth?
I think the phrase should be "towards zero cost", because it's clearly not ever actually. But it is how certain companies got it into their heads to provide "free broadband". It's an economic version of Moore's law, which is normally "doubles X every 18 months". If you think of a mathematically, the reciprocal of this is the "cost of X". If it's £1 per Mb at the start, then it's 50p in 18 months, 25p in 3 years, 6½p in 6 years, 1½p by year nine, and 0.4p by year 12. So, if we consider the "lifetime of the licence fee", 10 years, what cost £1 at the start drops to .78p by the end. It's easy to see how this applies to distribution and storage, less clear about TV production. Here is an illustration, which shows Moore law working on a "nominal average" broadband speed. More seriously... > > Yes, businesses must change -- we all know that. Until you have a better > way > of funding it than the current model then you're demanding one thing: less > to > be made _at the same quality_ or lowering of quality. The current model is > predicated on distribution being a scarce resource, remove that and you > eradicate or cripple the majority of current income schemes. > > Funding for commericial players comes from investors. Investors look for a > return on their investment as income. If you can actively show they can > make > more money from a non-DRM world (which creates an artificial scarcity of > distribution), they'll fund it. Since also from *that* perspective the aim > of > DRM is to create an artificial scarcity that doesn't have to be perfect it > just has to be sufficiently good to make a sufficiently good scarcity to > make > a suffiently good income. > > There is logically a time that will come when even a DRM'd world is no > longer > viable as an artificial scarcity, at which point the companies involved > will > either evolve or die. So as I say, if you can actively show they can make > more money or even just equal money, given the long term view, from a > non-DRM > world, investors will bite your hand off to help you. (hmm, badly mixed > metaphor) > > If you can't, they won't. If you don't like that your only alternative is > to legislate or wait. Stamping your foot in public without addressing this > is simply wasting your (and everyone else's) time. > > Incidentally, I'd like to see someone address this because in the long > term > it is a real issue, and I would personally like to see quality maintained > or go up, and the volume of stuff produced either stay the same or go up. > > (It's also why the foot stamping is sooooo annoying since it's just > shouting > "IT'S BAD!IT'S BAD!IT'S BAD!IT'S BAD!IT'S BAD!", without actually offering > a *real* alternative that will actually move things forwards.) > > Richard Stallman could've stood and shouted "It's Bad!" about proprietary > software for the past 23 years, but instead he decided to say "no, whilst > I > won't be a part of that world, I'll create a viable alternative". Surely > that's more productive. (and yes, I know he's done his fair share of > shouting > "It's bad!" too, but if someone offers a realistic alternative they're > generally more worth listening to) > > Incidentally, it's probably worth observing that the key thing that makes > open > source and free software REALLY work is networked source control (well, > "diff" + the internet actully. Remove "diff+internet" and life gets real > hard, real fast (you can do it of course)). The equivalent doesn't exist > for > media yet as far as I know. If someone REALLY wanted to make a change, > that's > where I'd start. You've probably got 20 years or more work ahead of you if > you do though :-). > > Now to my mind, though, that'd be REAL innovation in the industry... > > > Michael. > -- > (all personal views) > - > 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]/ > -- Please email me back if you need any more help. Brian Butterworth http://www.ukfree.tv
