Happy New Year
Have just trawled through the long and discursive Peter Chernin Comdex speech which contains so many issues regarding the current debate between "Big Content" (in his case, Fox), the open-source, free-internet crew, and the pirates and thieves. (here's the whole thing together with Jonathan Peterson's insightful comments).
It's daunting to wade into the middle of it, but I guess, having working in Digital Rights Management development, I can see both sides. I think both ends of the debate are mildly hysterical, and, unfortunately, both predicatable and unrealistic.
Let me also say up front that I'm emotionally and cerebrally inclined to favour the open-internet, fair-use middle ground, tilting towards the pirates rather than the big-end-of-town. The big companies have the time and resources to develop, re-develop, invent and re-invent. They must do so, whilst fighting for their version of the status quo - this is a business rule. They will bully and hassle and harass according to their Gorilla-instincts. They will kill promising technologies and ideas to survive. It's no meritocracy out there, and it's not fair, but that's how it is.
I love the idea that having easy access to digital information and the tools to manipulate it will produce generations of creative independents not dependent on big studios or big money, and that if the baddies have their way, they will feed us all encoded re-runs of the Dukes of Hazzard forever, owning our minds & souls.
In truth, there will be a pragmatic middle-ground based on at least two un-discussed factors .... time and the passivity (or just bone laziness) of Joe Public.
There is a zealous righteousness in the argument that all should be free to source and create, copy and share their own content, but in the real world (i) who the hell has the time; and (ii) who the hell can be bothered?
As part of question (ii), also add - who the hell knows how and can be bothered to learn? And the other sub-question: how many of us have even close to the amount of talent that is needed to rival the slickness and skill of the big boys in producing this stuff in anything like the quantity to really challenge their position as the producers of content to the passive masses?
("All of us!!", I hear you cry, "Liberate the Scorcese within...". Yeah, yeah - I work in Investment Banking, don't ask me if what I really want to do is direct).
After you've mucked around with some of the wonderfully simple ways of making and editing "content" (more on the crappyness of this term later!) afew times, well, really, I'd rather go outside and play with the kids, have a swim at the beach (well, it's summer and 35 degrees Celcius here in Western Australia) or even, gasp, take in a movie.
I think it was 1930's media owner Lord Beaverbrook, the original model for Rupert Murdoch, who said that "...you'll never go broke over-estimating the lack of taste of the public...". I guess that extends to our general passivity in all things and, whilst this may be shocking to internet afficionados/geeks like me (the CB radio hams of this millenium), our lack of ability, energy and engagement with the rights which the brave few are fighting to defend on our behalf will forever seal our gruesome pact with Hollywood: You make it, we'll watch it and talk about it at dinner parties.
The challenge to Big Content is to do the thing that is hardest - and the thing which geekdom should respect above all else. This is - to be good at being creative, thus producing better and better stuff that we all want to see / hear / own / play with... and therefore pay for.
I've got no problems paying for good stuff. But keep on serving me up Dukes of Hazzard and I'll find the time and the energy to devote to making my own or finding a way to acquire free stuff.
To hijack the first tennent of the cluetrain manifesto ... markets are conversations. There's commerce going on, but it's surrounded by chat. Some of it's marketing, some of it's gossip, some of it's slander, some of it's technical information, some of it induces you to buy a handful of dates, or a DVD of Reservoir Dogs. But you can't own all of the conversations, and you can't "monetize" them all, you control freaks, you just have to make sure that your stuff is good enough to buy. We're all of us out there wanting to spend, what we resent is being forced to do so on crap.
Have just trawled through the long and discursive Peter Chernin Comdex speech which contains so many issues regarding the current debate between "Big Content" (in his case, Fox), the open-source, free-internet crew, and the pirates and thieves. (here's the whole thing together with Jonathan Peterson's insightful comments).
It's daunting to wade into the middle of it, but I guess, having working in Digital Rights Management development, I can see both sides. I think both ends of the debate are mildly hysterical, and, unfortunately, both predicatable and unrealistic.
Let me also say up front that I'm emotionally and cerebrally inclined to favour the open-internet, fair-use middle ground, tilting towards the pirates rather than the big-end-of-town. The big companies have the time and resources to develop, re-develop, invent and re-invent. They must do so, whilst fighting for their version of the status quo - this is a business rule. They will bully and hassle and harass according to their Gorilla-instincts. They will kill promising technologies and ideas to survive. It's no meritocracy out there, and it's not fair, but that's how it is.
I love the idea that having easy access to digital information and the tools to manipulate it will produce generations of creative independents not dependent on big studios or big money, and that if the baddies have their way, they will feed us all encoded re-runs of the Dukes of Hazzard forever, owning our minds & souls.
In truth, there will be a pragmatic middle-ground based on at least two un-discussed factors .... time and the passivity (or just bone laziness) of Joe Public.
There is a zealous righteousness in the argument that all should be free to source and create, copy and share their own content, but in the real world (i) who the hell has the time; and (ii) who the hell can be bothered?
As part of question (ii), also add - who the hell knows how and can be bothered to learn? And the other sub-question: how many of us have even close to the amount of talent that is needed to rival the slickness and skill of the big boys in producing this stuff in anything like the quantity to really challenge their position as the producers of content to the passive masses?
("All of us!!", I hear you cry, "Liberate the Scorcese within...". Yeah, yeah - I work in Investment Banking, don't ask me if what I really want to do is direct).
After you've mucked around with some of the wonderfully simple ways of making and editing "content" (more on the crappyness of this term later!) afew times, well, really, I'd rather go outside and play with the kids, have a swim at the beach (well, it's summer and 35 degrees Celcius here in Western Australia) or even, gasp, take in a movie.
I think it was 1930's media owner Lord Beaverbrook, the original model for Rupert Murdoch, who said that "...you'll never go broke over-estimating the lack of taste of the public...". I guess that extends to our general passivity in all things and, whilst this may be shocking to internet afficionados/geeks like me (the CB radio hams of this millenium), our lack of ability, energy and engagement with the rights which the brave few are fighting to defend on our behalf will forever seal our gruesome pact with Hollywood: You make it, we'll watch it and talk about it at dinner parties.
The challenge to Big Content is to do the thing that is hardest - and the thing which geekdom should respect above all else. This is - to be good at being creative, thus producing better and better stuff that we all want to see / hear / own / play with... and therefore pay for.
I've got no problems paying for good stuff. But keep on serving me up Dukes of Hazzard and I'll find the time and the energy to devote to making my own or finding a way to acquire free stuff.
To hijack the first tennent of the cluetrain manifesto ... markets are conversations. There's commerce going on, but it's surrounded by chat. Some of it's marketing, some of it's gossip, some of it's slander, some of it's technical information, some of it induces you to buy a handful of dates, or a DVD of Reservoir Dogs. But you can't own all of the conversations, and you can't "monetize" them all, you control freaks, you just have to make sure that your stuff is good enough to buy. We're all of us out there wanting to spend, what we resent is being forced to do so on crap.
posted by michael at
8:51 PM
