Now Milos Forman is getting into the act. I know I am on this content/IP/Piracy tear, but I guess it really is an evolutionary paradigm shift to see beyond the old perceptions of content and copyright protection.
Variety reports today (6/11/09) on the World Copyright Summit.
http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118004774.html?categoryid=18&cs=1
And here’s the link to the conference:
http://www.copyrightsummit.com/
The funny thing about this, and what clearly got Milos the headline in Variety (“Forman Flays Web Pirates”) is how he compares content piracy to Communism. And, of course, as a refugee so long ago from communist Czechoslovakia (a country, by the way, that doesn’t even exist anymore – how’s that for appropriate irony?), Milos gets to pontificate on this with some self-congratulatory sense of authority.
Wrong, Milos. Content piracy is not about redistribution of wealth, or state ownership of content. Hello-oh!
Yes, content pirates and pirate download sites are moronic, self-serving thieves. I am not defending the theft of intellectual property, or the undoing of the infrastructure that has kept us all in business.
But here’s the deal: check out this quote: “Pirates also think everything on the Internet should be free,” Forman continued. “But that is like going into a department store or supermarket, and just because you got a shopping basket for free, everything in the basket should be free, too.”
Wrong, again, Milos: Internet content isn’t at the supermarket. You don’t have to go out to get it or steal it. The analogy is flawed, deeply. The correct analogy is opening your closet, and all sorts of stuff is right there, revolving on a big, infinite motorized dry-cleaners’ conveyor rack. All you have to do is grab it. No one else is there to see it. If the internet closet that you opened your door to has price tags, then you pay. If it doesn’t, you don’t.
Remember, too, that the Internet was not initially set up as a store. It was set up by scientists who wanted a better way to communicate with one another. In order to communicate better, and exchange information and link relevant information together, they invented the World Wide Web. No one had any inkling that commerce would eventually appear on the network. People forget about this in the face of the “content wants to be free” debate. We take for granted the notion of copyright, but forget that it is a new phenomenon, dating back only to the beginnings of the 19th century. The protectors of copyright are not the creators, such as Milos and other individual artists and visionaries, they are the studios, the publishers, the media companies etc. It is the large commercial players that have the most vested interest in protecting copyrights, and for their own ends, not to protect the continued expression of the artists.
So poor Milos Forman is the unwitting dupe of the bosses. I’m sure Sumner Redstone (who, by the way, is starting to look more and more like the Emperor from Star Wars…) is thrilled to have the likes of Milos do his bidding.
While the Internet is imperfect, and free access to content is scary because it completely undermines the pre-existing marketplace, the genie is out of the bottle (as I keep saying over and over again!).
Milos: it’s too late! Stop trying to round up the pirates! It’s like trying to find out which of your family members and close friends were actually working for the Secret Police in your old Czechoslovakia.
We have to figure out a better business model. Maybe it is based on hardware and net access. Why aren’t people talking about this? I’m paying $120/mo. for cable and internet. Would I pay $130/mo. if I got all the content I wanted? Sure. Has anyone done the math here? Would I pay $20 more, $50 more for a DVD player or a AV receiver if I knew that I wasn’t going to get charged for content?
How about undercutting the Internet pirates? How about officially sanctioning free downloads and make them advertiser-supported?
How about undercutting the DVD pirates and distributing DVD’s at the same low-price that you can buy them for on a street corner in Mexico City? Or Downtown L.A.?
Wrest the market away from the low-quality, low price bandits by leveraging the media industries’ deep(er) pockets and price-war them out of business. Then, start to build the revenues back up with a new model.
It could be like the new dawn at the end of the third Matrix movie…
We’re wasting too much time on this stupid debate. Where’s the leadership we need?
JUN
Henry Jenkins
Lawrence Lessig
Richard Florida
George Lucas Educational Foundation
The Partnership for 21st Century Skills
ThinkQuest Foundation
Hi, John. I see you ARE at it again.
Yes, it is the old eyes trying to wrap around the new reality and make them fit. Works in some places, but not all; and inevitably people will find ways around the fences, or they’ll lose interest and move on to new content. In which case, the fences won’t be needed, because no one will want what’s behind them.
I hope we find ways of making stand-alone films/videos as economically viable entities in the new matrix, because there is some part of us that is hardwired to that “3-act” storytelling mode. I mean, eventually even the cavemen around the bonfire got tired of never ending cliffhangers and wanted to know what the end was.
Hope the transition is going well.
Regards,
Gregg (from FB)
I think it’s a vestige from when traditional distribution channels were dependent upon large scale privately held and controlled infrastructure involving complex manufacturing processes, large scale storage and shipping and a retail network of stores. This infrastructure not only controlled the commerce and the flow of money, it also ensured a certain level of quality.
To a large degree I think that the Hollywood economic drivers seems to have been shaped by creating lower sales numbers at a higher price point. This makes sense when the distribution involves manufacturing, shipping, warehousing and retailing. This is antithetic to the model of the web which is about high numbers at a low price point, because “manufacture”, “warehousing” and “retailing” are fundamentally different.
What would Mr Forman’s take on the whole thing be if despite the piracy he was able to enjoy the same personal income by taking advantage of distribution networks that may cut studios out of the profit chain. If the only concerns _were_ artistic and revolved around propriety, would he be as vociferous?
Unfortunately I think that right now, while there are far more questions than answers, we’re left with starry eyed dreamers and dinosaurs with firmly grounded feet. I think most of us are probably starry eyed brontosaurs hoping that someone will solve this so we can go make to making stuff.