Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
The Media Your Rights Online

The Many Battle Fronts of Content Owners 57

museumpeace writes "This community constantly chews on stories like the first sale doctrine and the endless maneuvering of RIAA, MPAA, follies of DMCA and DRM in general. I think of each of those stories as like trying to make sense of a particular earthquake. In the Huffington Post, blogger Jonathan Handel succinctly lays out six tectonic market and technology forces that provide a map for all of this. Sample his point #5, the media is the money: 'Fifth is market forces in the technology industry. Computers, web services, and consumer electronic devices are more valuable when more content is available. In turn, these products make content more usable by providing new distribution channels. Traditional media companies are slow to adopt these new technologies, for fear of cannibalizing revenue...'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The Many Battle Fronts of Content Owners

Comments Filter:
  • by esocid ( 946821 ) on Friday April 11, 2008 @11:30AM (#23037678) Journal
    But I loved that huge headline on the article: "Vanilla Ice Arrested."
  • What? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by esocid ( 946821 ) on Friday April 11, 2008 @11:52AM (#23037938) Journal

    It's true that people still consume media the old-fashioned way -- but fewer and fewer do so every day. Most of the content industries are seeing flat or declining revenues and audiences.
    I'm sorry but you sir must not be aware of what is going on in the world.
    1. Movie ticket sales at record high [latimes.com].
    2. Cable company reports record sales [primenewswire.com].
    3. Digital sales boost music industry [variety.com].
    Should I go on?
    He may be correct about newspapers declining, but the other points I believe are false.
    • Over-the-air television, too, particularly the news organizations. Cable news like CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, and even cable-company-run outfits like Bay News 9 have replaced the likes of NBC, CBS and ABC in this department.
    • The first two sentences of the 3rd link: "The music biz can't stem the bleeding, but for now, digital tracks are proving to be a secure Band-aid. Album sales dropped for a seventh consecutive year."

      That helps prove his point that fewer people are consuming music "the old-fashioned way." Their sales are compensated by newer forms of distribution.

      Your first link is broken, but the second only refers to revenue being up. That revenue for a cable company can increase by more ways than just new TV customers.
      • Re:What? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by jedidiah ( 1196 ) on Friday April 11, 2008 @12:18PM (#23038222) Homepage
        Well, for cable you figure they already have a saturated market. All they can really
        do is tread water. They continue to provide what they have always provided to whom
        they always provide it (much like Microsoft).

        The status quo is for cable companies to stay more or less in the same place.

        If people were really doing what the commentator says then you would see a sudden
        drop in cable revenue as people begin to cancel their cable subscriptions. I know
        torrent freaks that have done this.

        However, this is a relatively rare thing.

        This article also ignores the possibility of people buying conventional
        content for the express purpose of using it for thier new technology. A
        bunch of DVD's ripped into a media center can be a thing of beauty.

        Ultimately all content has to compete with each other. One game studio
        owner once said that their games have to compete with everything else
        a person could do including sex. So their games have to be better than
        sex.

        One part of the media market could be getting sacked by another. If the
        RIAA is whining it could be because of the rise of DVD collections and
        video games. It doesn't even need to be due to some other sort of "sea
        change".

        As I often like to say... I got distracted on my way to the CD aisle
        buy that big bin of $5 DVDs and those racks of $7.50 DVDs...
        • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

          by carps ( 1140441 )
          "One game studio owner once said that their games have to compete with everything else a person could do, including sex. So their games have to be better than sex."

          Couldn't they try to popularize gaming among individuals for whom sexual partnership is not an immediate entertainment alternative?

          Sometimes in business the most effective strategies are not the obvious ones!
    • Your LA Times link is broken. I imagine that article measures ticket sales in dollars. Measuring ticket sales by revenue is a terrible way to measure the success of an industry because it doesn't account for inflation. [wsj.com] After accounting for inflation, movie ticket sales have indeed remained flat.
    • Re:What? (Score:4, Informative)

      by eldorel ( 828471 ) on Friday April 11, 2008 @12:53PM (#23038584)
      I would like to point out that all of these links are using dollar amounts as a measurement tool, without accounting for changes in price.

      I can make more money selling 90 widgets at $6 than selling 100 widgets at $5.

      A quick google search for ("movie ticket sales" record high) comes up with about 600 items, most of which reference the same quote.

      "Moviegoers around the world pushed global box office revenues to a record $26.7 billion in 2007,
      • but rising ticket prices and a weakening dollar accounted for much of the increase,
      the Motion Picture Association of America said Wednesday."
      If even the mpaa has been forced to admit that the majority of the sales increase has been due to price increases, the odds are "Most" in this case means almost all.

      Another quote from the same article http://movies.yahoo.com/mv/news/ap/20080305/120477504000.html [yahoo.com]

      Revenues in the United States and Canada increased 5.4 percent to a record $9.6 billion, with
      • admissions unchanged at 1.4 billion tickets sold,
      and ticket prices 5 percent higher at an average $6.88.
      • by esocid ( 946821 )
        You are right about that article (must have been slashdotted) but it also went on to explain how producers are pumping more and more money into movies and advertising as well. It sounds like they're trying to hold onto the "old-fashioned" way to me. I would imagine the idea of spending less on fancy special effects and especially on advertisements is a crazy idea to movie studios but even cutting those costs by 20% would have no negative impact on the sales. IMHO seeing 25 commercials for something does not
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by PopeRatzo ( 965947 ) *
      I've learned that generally, I'm not very exceptional. It may be true that movie ticket sales are at record highs and digital sales are boosting the music industry revenues, but I'm guessing that a growing number of people are finding "alternative" ways to see movies and hear music. And let me tell you, the movie and music "industries" are not gonna get rich if lots of people start getting their movies and music the same way I do.

      And that, more than anything else, is my hope. I haven't needed cable or sa
  • is often used, like the phrase "paradigm shift" to give oomph to other wise boring corporate blather

    however, in this case, the term disruptive technology is entirely functional: the internet is completely destroying the music industry

    the book industry and the movie industry are standing in handcuffs on the stairs to the guillotine, helplessly watching their brethren being beheaded. they watch in disbelief as the cheering masses they used to lord over relish the sight of the bloodsport of their demise

    i'm sorry, but a free and open network where any media can be transmitted effortlessly and without interception is not a business opportunity. its a replacement for an industry based on distribution. people keep talking about the fact that the music industry could have gotten in front of changing technology and used it to their advantage, rather than change taking place without them while they sat in denial. i have the contrary opinion: i think the music industry would never have been able to get in front of this steamroller

    they were never able to, no matter how much time they had to prepare. there is simply no way for the music industry to harness the internet to their continued existence. the internet, the substance of it, is simply anathema to what they do: charge a fee for music distribution. the internet is simply replacing them. effortless free distribution has no economics too it. there's no money to be made

    of course there is money to be made in related industries: concerts, advertising tie-ins, band and brand building, etc. but anything having to do with distributing media is simply a free advertising platform, nothing more. the anicllary businesses is what the music industry will morph into, a decimated diminished form of its former self

    the only way the music industry could survive unaltered by the internet is to invent a time machine and go back to the 1960s and murder the arpanet researchers. you cannot harness that which means your doom. asking or expecting the music industry to get in front of technological change and make it work for them is like asking the incan and aztec nobility to get in front of the spanish conquistadors and use them to their advantage. as in: no way that's going to happen

    your doom is your doom. music distribution conglomerates are simply a business model for the historical dustbin. there is no other way to interpret what the internet means to them. the internet is not a "business challenge" for them to meet with fast footwork and fancy innovative thinking. it is simply an appointment with death. and i will be mourning their passing just as soon as i get over my shock and pain over the passing of the dtuch east india company. as in: who cares. the world keeps turning, life keeps changing. its a done deal. the story is over. goodbye sony bmg, bertelsmann, et al. buh bye. stop banging on your coffin. your dead. realize it
    • by nine-times ( 778537 ) <nine.times@gmail.com> on Friday April 11, 2008 @12:19PM (#23038234) Homepage

      i think the music industry would never have been able to get in front of this steamroller

      I think your point would be better served to agree that the music industry could have gotten in front of this steamroller, but they would have gotten run over anyway.

      I half agree with you and half disagree. The music industry cannot survive as-is in the Internet-age because their business model, centered around distribution, is obsolete. However, that doesn't mean that they can't survive in some form. There's still room for them to act as agents, marketing/branding whatever they can, and making money of merchandizing and general crap.

      Also, there can be a business model from the Internet distribution. Being the content host (or even just the tracker site) and providing recommendation engines can still be a feasible business. Whether you charge a nominal fee per transaction, a small subscription fee, or live off ad revenue, there would be a business model there.

      Think of it this way, if copyright law was dismantled tomorrow, Apple could still make money off of iTMS. Not having to pay labels, I think they could still have a viable business. You might think people would just find other free sources, but the fact is that customers are willing to pay a little bit of money (at least a little) in order to have a site that's easy to search, has good/uncorrupted content, a good shopping experience, and a decent recommendation engine.

      • because we both recognize the fundamental change here: you can't charge anymore. you label as "still in business" what i label as "morph into a lesser self" but this is a trivial semantic meaning versus pragmatic meaning difference
    • Yep, the invisible hand of the market moves again.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by steelfood ( 895457 )

      i'm sorry, but a free and open network where any media can be transmitted effortlessly and without interception is not a business opportunity. its a replacement for an industry based on distribution. people keep talking about the fact that the music industry could have gotten in front of changing technology and used it to their advantage, rather than change taking place without them while they sat in denial. i have the contrary opinion: i think the music industry would never have been able to get in front of this steamroller ...

      This is the wrong kind of thinking, and the exact same kind of thinking which lead to the lawsuits and attempts to stamp down on digital distribution.

      You are wrong because of the success of iTunes. That, in and of itself, shows that online distribution can be, in and of itself, a viable business model.

      You are wrong because of the necessity of value-added services that big labels currently do provide. Marketing, for example, is still necessary to gain recognition. Instead of labels taking all of the profits

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by multisync ( 218450 )

      there is simply no way for the music industry to harness the internet to their continued existence. the internet, the substance of it, is simply anathema to what they do: charge a fee for music distribution. the internet is simply replacing them. effortless free distribution has no economics too it. there's no money to be made

      But distribution isn't all the "music industry" does. From my perspective, that's a relatively small piece of the puzzle.

      Someone still needs to scout talent; just because you can pound

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Smauler ( 915644 )

        Someone still needs to scout talent; just because you can pound out off-key versions of your classic rock favorites, that doesn't necessarily mean anyone else wants to listen to it.

        What, without record companies to help us along we'd have to sift through every dross song released to find something good? Lots of new bands are being "discovered" by record companies now because of online communities that supported them, and found them, previous to their "discovery". Artic Monkeys is one such example. Wit

        • What, without record companies to help us along we'd have to sift through every dross song released to find something good? Lots of new bands are being "discovered" by record companies now because of online communities that supported them, and found them, previous to their "discovery".

          Exactly. I don't have time to listen to literally everything anyone anywhere decides to makes a permanent record of. Having someone make recommendations (which is all a record company signing a band amounts to) is a necessity.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by davester666 ( 731373 )
      I shudder to think of how 'television' would work if it was being invented now in the US. There would be multiple, competing broadcast formats (why would the FCC require the use of a single standard, because multiple standards are working so well for the cell phone industry]. Content providers [both for movies and episodic shows] would sign up for exclusive deals with specific carriers, so you would need to choose the carrier based on what content you wanted [still happens now, but is generally quite limit
    • ...with the disruptive technology of your lower-case-only keyboard?
    • "there is simply no way for the music industry to harness the internet to their continued existence. the internet, the substance of it, is simply anathema to what they do: charge a fee for music distribution. the internet is simply replacing them. effortless free distribution has no economics too it. there's no money to be made"

      It has always been possible to make copies of other people's work at no cost to the creator. This is nothing new and is the reason why copyright laws were created, hundreds of years
    • This is one of the under-appreciated aspects of the controversy. It really is about a major change in the technology base of the existing industry.

      The legacy music publishing industry is an artifact of the limitations of the manufacturing of physical media, and the brick and mortar distribution system required to supply music on physical media to consumers.

      They've exploited their control over the capital intensive means of production and distribution to the point where they have largely lost sight of the c
  • If you want to describe a feeling of comfort and satisfaction, by all means say you are "content", but using it as a noun to describe written and other works of authorship is worth avoiding. That usage adopts a specific attitude towards those works: that they are an interchangeable commodity whose purpose is to fill a box and make money. In effect, it treats the works themselves with disrespect.

    Those who use this term are often the publishers that push for increased copyright power in the name of the aut
    • by ClamIAm ( 926466 )
      using ["content"] as a noun to describe written and other works of authorship is worth avoiding. That usage adopts a specific attitude towards those works: that they are an interchangeable commodity whose purpose is to fill a box and make money. In effect, it treats the works themselves with disrespect.

      I think my view is actually superior to rms [geekz.co.uk] on this matter. I find this significant because I usually feel his positions are thought out very thoroughly (regardless of whether I agree with them). That said,
    • Thanks for that. I feel the same way about being referred to as a "consumer."

      By the way, here [salon.com] is the link to Courtney's rant on the music biz. I don't agree with everything she says, either, but I appreciate the effort she put in to imagining a system that would be fair to artists and patrons alike.
  • by PC and Sony Fanboy ( 1248258 ) on Friday April 11, 2008 @11:55AM (#23037976) Journal
    If companies won't provide the goods the market (read:the population) desires, then someone will. And if necessity is the mother of invention ... and the market isn't supplying what 'we' want - then someone will find it necessary to modify the offerings of various companies to fit our 'needs'.

    Plain and simple, if you aren't supplying a product that people want ... then don't complain when people use alternatives (legal or not!)
    • by stubear ( 130454 )
      The market is supplying a product the consumer wants, they are not distributing it in the way the consumer might prefer. There is a HUGE difference between the two. Pirates don't spend a dime creating the content, they are just a means to distribute it and people will take this avenue, not necessarily due to a preferred distribution method but because it's free. NO ONE can compete with that and it's why illegal distribution must be eliminated. There are numerous legal ways to sample and discover without
      • by s.bots ( 1099921 )
        Does it matter where you direct them if ABC is giving the episodes away for free? Obviously ABC would be preferable to YouTube since you don't need to deal with all the YouTards' yapping of "LOLZ gr8 muvee" and such.

        Ideally (for me at least) distribution would be something like Radiohead's latest: I can try it and listen for free (legally) and then purchase it at a price I feel is fair (if I like it) .

        This is roughly how I get music now, except it is try (illegally via torrent), then buy (at an inflated p
        • by stubear ( 130454 )
          Yes it does matter. ABC derives revenue through ads on their site and in some cases ads in the videos. YouTube does not pay for the right to distribute the material despite their deriving revenue through the same means (ads on the site). YouTube is making money off the illegal distribution of content, depriving ABC of this revenue. Most people will click on a link to watch a video regardless of whether it is on ABC or YouTube and it is no more difficult for a blogger to copy/paste the ABC link then it i
  • by cdrguru ( 88047 )
    What has happened is a complete disconnect between the content producers and the consumers. At least most of the content producers view their material as something extremely valuable that took their time, energy and creativity to produce. Consumers are looking at it thinking that anyone could produce this, maybe even their neighbor in his garage.

    The problem as the article points out, is there too much, too low quality and too easily sampled content out there. In this glut we have Darwin Reedy (of Americ
    • ... At least most of the content producers view their material as something extremely valuable that took their time, energy and creativity to produce. Consumers are looking at it thinking that anyone could produce this, maybe even their neighbor in his garage.

      The problem as the article points out, is there too much, too low quality and too easily sampled content out there.

      As some one who makes music as a hobby (and yes I know I'm not professional "grade"), I can see where the industry is coming from. There is investment they make in time, energy, etc. that I cannot.

      However, as a hobbiest, I've studied lyrics, song structure, and melody for many songs from the professionals. Really my material stands up well to some of it (not arrogant to say much of it, just some). What does it lack? Final polish, time to do twenty takes to get just the right sound, and, quite fra

    • by Lumpy ( 12016 )
      What has happened is a complete disconnect between the content producers and the consumers. At least most of the content producers view their material as something extremely valuable that took their time, energy and creativity to produce. Consumers are looking at it thinking that anyone could produce this, maybe even their neighbor in his garage.

      which has ALWAYS been the case. Guess what as a "artist" you are not special, tons of other people can do what you do. I listen to small bands thatbarely have $2.
      • Anyone can hit a baseball. Anyone can catch a football. Anyone can write a song. Anyone can sing. Anyone can have a "good idea" for an invention or a business. It's probably true that anyone can do a mediocre job at pretty much anything. But few actually do it exceptionally well.

        If it's so easy to paint, sculp, act, write and record music, why are you (I assume) not hugely successfully at all of these things? Do you purposefully choose to have a regular (again an assumption) day job out of a sense of person
    • I'd rephrase this argument somewhat: "Content producers", read musicians, novelists and reporters do spend a lot of time and effort producing things, and do have a reasonable expectation of being able to feed their family as a result. I doubt that most "consumers" think that anyone could produce this, but instead just want something for nothing. There are an awful lot of "fans" who don't what to support the artists that they supposedly love. Admittedly, when you talk to these people you often get nasty a
  • Well, everyone agrees that there is not much of a future for drm'd music, and that the music industry has to get used to this.

    How long until video games are all downloaded without drm?

    Everyone agrees that sonybmg/warner music/capitol are dying.

    What about EA, epic games, activision and all the rest?

    Are video game companies on their way out too?

    Will video game companies make their money off of t-shirts and merchandise sales in the future? W

    What about software companies? Should Microsoft make its profits pri
    • Will video game companies make their money off of t-shirts and merchandise sales in the future?

      I know Valve has a store with shirts and stuff. I've bought from them before simply because I like their games so much. In fact, if I hadn't spent $50 on their game, I would have spent that $50 at their store. So if they gave their game away for free, they wouldn't have lost a dime from me. Yes, it's possible for them to make money off of t-shirts and merchandise.

      As for Microsoft, they could take the exam

    • What about software companies? Should Microsoft make its profits primarily from from t-shirt and merchandise sales? And Steve Balmer touring and dancing around?

      Not so much dancing, but I'd certainly pay to see Balmer throwing chairs at a WWE or UFC match.

  • The music industry doesn't really matter, but the decline of newspaper reporting is important to society. There are too few reporters out there digging. Bloggers don't help; they're mostly mouthing off, not out gathering unpublished information.

    Call your local newspaper and ask them how many full time reporters they have on the street. If they have ten, you're very lucky. There are very few newspapers left with big reporting staffs, and it shows.

    News is what someone doesn't want published. All else

    • by argent ( 18001 )
      There's a barrier to entry for bloggers who do want to do legwork. They don't get the same access as reporters. Can they get into the city council meetings to report on them? Council meetings, probably, but there's lots of other places they can't.

      As I said in another message: the question isn't whether bloggers will have to do the work reporters, the question is will they be allowed to?
  • by Anonymous Coward
    Every day... six billion people pay nothing for the air they inhale.. so by this writer's logic... we all find oxygen to be valueless. Every day, a billion children say "I love you daddy"... and the father does not fork-over a per-statement fee... obviously he does not value the experience. Every day, there a pleasurable experiences that make life worth-living... yet do not entail a cash transaction.

    No No No Sir,... content is valued as highly as ever before... what is NOT regarded as value any longer.. a
    • by sm62704 ( 957197 )
      Thank you for that! I hope your comment gets highly rated by the mods.

      I want to add that I have a SERIOUS problem with this topic's title. NOBODY owns "content", EVERYBODY owns it. I have a legal monopoly on sale and distribution of my content, but I DO NOT OWN IT.

      Maybe in other countries one can own "intellectual property" but Article II section 8 of the US Constitution is clear enough on this point that you don't have to be a lawyer to understand it. You can own a painting, but you can't own the image on
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • by Anonymous Coward
    I always interpreted "Content is king" as a mantra which indicates that content is a value-add for devices and platforms. Having content available for your device/platform makes it more valuable, but that doesn't mean that the content itself has intrinsic value.

    You can consider content support to be like software support. There's an inherent network effect in having each for a platform, which drives consumers to it, which in turn drives more of the original draw. But (text/video/audio) content has more i
  • by Prisoner's Dilemma ( 1268306 ) on Friday April 11, 2008 @01:42PM (#23039326)
    Over all a good article, but could have mentioned other things the content companies are doing which devalue the content they have. Take movies. I used to enjoy going to the movies. Now it easily costs $30 per person (much higher admission and exorbitant charge for food) to be jammed into a theater of inconsiderate people and then herded out as quickly as possible so the next showing can start. While I'm waiting for the movie to start, I'm bombarded with advertising telling me how great of time I'm having or telling me I need to buy something. It's no longer worth it.

    For those that don't know, The studios (content owners) take almost all of the admission revenue and the theaters (content packaging) make their money on concession and other sales. In an effort to squeeze every last cent they can out of the goer (customer) they've lost many customers. To try to subsidize revenue, 'lost' from customers they drove away, they squeeze some more, driving even more away (snowball). How many mega-plexes have you seen closed down. Many drive-ins still offer a good experience for a reasonable price.

    When a customer no longer finds going to the theater worth the cost/hassle, they might wait till it is released on DVD. If they still remember they wanted to see a particular movie they buy the DVD, pop it in their player and are blasted with an advertisement telling them not to steal the DVD they just paid for. They then have to wait through another notices about not copying the movie before waiting through the same notice in another language.

    Do the studios actually believe that bombarding someone, who already paid, with irritating threats and warnings is going to increase the odds they will spend hard earned money the next time they want to see a movie?

    Now it's the next time and wouldbe customer has to decide it they want to
    1. Spend more money, which is harder to come by, to be inundated with advertisements and other baggage, just to have a less enjoyable experience seeing the movie. OR
    2. Download it where they won't have all the other bothers. They may think it's wrong, but it doesn't matter as much to them because the perceived victim (the studio) was trying to take advantage of them and the the RIAA is mean/greedy the way they aggressively go after poor college students

    The more the content provider does to irritate the customer, the more the customer will cease to be a customer.

    I used to be one of the movie business' biggest customers. Now I go hiking, and the Internet gets the blame.

It's a naive, domestic operating system without any breeding, but I think you'll be amused by its presumption.

Working...