Why Make a Sequel of the Napster Wars?

6 writes "Cory Doctorow has an interesting article over at Information Week about Hollywood's strategy of suing sites such as YouTube. Says Doctorow: 'It's been eight years since Sean Fanning created Napster in his college dorm room. Eight years later, there isn't a single authorized music service that can compete with the original Napster. Record sales are down every year, and digital music sales aren't filling in the crater. The record industry has contracted to four companies, and it may soon be three if EMI can get regulatory permission to put itself on the block. The sue-'em-all-and-let-God-sort-'em-out plan was a flop in the box office, a flop in home video, and a flop overseas. So why is Hollywood shooting a remake?'"

This is going to sound counter-intuitive...

[kebes]

Yes, the vast majority of people would give copies to a few friends... and enough people would give out copies to the world-at-large (and there are enough people who would download said copies) that these DRM-free files would spread far and wide.

Now, some would argue that this shows that people are mean or short-sighted, or somesuch. Perhaps. Another explanation is that the status-quo assumptions about ownership, distribution, and monetization of creative works are entirely out-of-sync with reality (where "reality" includes concepts like "computers", "the internet", and "sharing").

So then what's the solution? Well to me it seems obvious that domains of creativity that want to make money should just do what every other sector of the economy does: charge a price for whatever you distribute such that you actually make the profit you desire. (Rather than hoping for laws (e.g. DMCA) or technological measures (e.g. DRM) to come to the rescue.)

So, in practice this would mean that after you make a movie, you sell it, to whoever wants to buy it, at its actual cost (several million dollars or whatever). The person who buys it can do what they want with it: make copies and give them to everyone, or sell multiple copies to multiple people, or do nothing with it. Anyone who receives a copy can sell it if they want, or give it away. They bought the copy. The original creative-workers have already been compensated.

So how would this play out in an actual free market? You'd probably have commissioned works. You'd have companies setting up "donation-based content release" (e.g. "Did you like Spiderman 2? Well once we receive $X in donations, we'll release Spiderman 3 for the world to enjoy! Donate today!"). You'd have networks buying copies early on at high price, to put on TV along with ads... which is still a profitable business even if full ad-free copies end up on the Pirate Bay the following day. Then you'd have others buying copies later at lower prices. You'd have all kinds of websites set up (supported by ads or monthly fees) where you could download all the music and shows you wanted, nicely categorized. People are willing to pay for convenience and timeliness.

The point is that companies would do what they do best: figure out innovative ways to make money by giving customers what they want at prices they are willing to bear. Yes, it's really that simple. You don't need special laws for this kind of thing to take place. Copyright did a fine job encouraging the arts for many years... but that doesn't mean it's the optimal model in the modern world. It's entirely possible that special laws are no longer needed to encourage the arts. Conventional capitalism may be enough.

Now, I know I totally side-stepped the actual questions you asked... but I think I've responded to the subtext of your post. The fundamental question that people have in the anti-DRM debate is: "But without DRM, or something, then won't people just spread the copies far and wide?" The only reasonable answer is: "Yes, they will. Let them."

Re:Collapse

[bpeter3]

If you read the rest of it, the author says that shutting them down outright was a mistake. He says they should have sat down with Napster and worked out a revenue sharing/licsening deal. That way the record labels would have had a well established, well run, well liked outlet for their music. They probably would have lost some customers from Napsters peak if it went to a pay service, but it wouldn't have been completely unprofitable. Instead, the shut down Napster and all the people using it went elsewhere and nothing was solved. (Napster was revived, but it was a watered down service in comparison to the original and way too late on its return). Years later, the same issue still exists. "Pirate" clients/webpages are still the best way to get good quality music files. The "legit" offerings from the record labels are not up to par with what the original Napster offered. In fact, they're not even close (limited selection on some, DRM, format restrictions, ease of use, etc.). Suing did nothing to improve their standing.