Copywrongs

Thursday December 8, 2005 - 2:40AM EDT

So I hear about Warner music threating a maker of an application that searches the net for lyrics for mp3 files. This whole copyright patent thing is started to make me angry. I don't know why it is causing so much trouble. First I think about how copyrights and patents were originally created when it was far harder to duplicate things than it was today. This is where I think it all goes wrong. The original system was built with a purpose that was simple no doubt, but it may have made more sense before because it was much easier to enforce. Now it is virtually impossible to enforce copyright protection. The structure of their business is based on this per unit consumption, which incidently came to be because of recording technologies. Their business is built upon recording technologies being advanced enough to provide easy distribution of content but not so advanced that distribution can be just as easy for any person. So now recording and duplication technology is different from what they originally based their business on. So what do they do? So far they have tried two things. One is to counteract the advancement of recording technology through other technology, thats failing miserably. Other is legal recourse to try and enforce copyright laws. Also failing miserably. Download services are a slight advancement in their business so maybe it will help extend the life of per unit consumption. I feel like that is the problem. The per-unit consumption model is failing. Think about how music was before recording technologies. The per-unit consumption model was not present. So how does it change? There is some subscription based things out there but nothing very successful. That is what needs to change. The per-unit model is failing, how successful can it be going from here on. Instead of wasting money on futile legal action and DRM they should be looking for a new way to do business. The per-unit model will never be as successful as it once was. They have become used to its success and want to hold on to it. With the lifestyle of excess that has sprung up within music and entertainment they can't afford to not be as successful as previously. Does that need to change? Do they need to sacrifice their lifestyle for their music. Not their music personally but music in general. I thought the ultamite goal of music was to get people to listen. The caveat of payment for listening is something new. Now I think about it this way. They say music cost money to make. Music that is made for what purpose? For listening, for people to listen. Ok I accept that music cost money to make and it increasing complexity has increased costs. Costs that essentially must be shouldered by the listeners. The more the listener wants the more they will have to pay. Not strictly more as an amount but more as different kinds and complexity and format, etc. So this is supposed to be the pure dynamic of how this works. Listeners want more music and are willing to shift more resources to get it. This is at the core of their argument for wanting to continue to prop up the current per-unit system. However that is being ingnorant to a whole lot of details in the middle that need to be examined. So as consumers we want these increasingly complex creations and they will require more resources to make. The inefficiency of that creation is chiping away at the resources we give to have those things made. Methods of consumption has surpassed methods of creation and distribution. This sounds like some kind of economics problem and I think it is. Especially with music, now we can consume much more music than ever, however the industry is still locked into a system of creation and distribution that cannot cope with the rampant consumption. To fix this you have to change methods of creation and distribution. But the only foray into that has been the download services, which are a very small step, especially considering the DRM policies. Maybe the industry has to accept that not only does it need to change the methods of distribution but that they will never be able to command the resources it once did. The lifestyle of excess associated with the pinnacle of entertainment may have to disappear. Simply because the system will eventually not support it. Or support it at such a high price of consumption and content that it is not worth it. The forceful arguement from the industry about the reduction of content and quality of it from the lack of the same ratio of resource exchange to consumption is something you always hear. With the interconnections to so many other things not in the entertainment industry's control there is some truth to that. They would have to trade off somewhere. I keep saying lifestyle but it would probably be more than that. As far as quality of content suffering because of the differing ratio that is something that I don't think will happen. Advancements in technology has allowed us to make up such gains. The problem is one of efficient use of technology to overcome the resource loss and maintain quality. So far they are sucking at it. Right now, the artist are gaurding their lifestyle and the corporations are guarding their profits which connect back to those who are in the corporations lifestyle. One thing that gets lost is all the various smaller roles played. Those who don't have the lifestyle of excess. Often times they are the ones who take the first hit not the ones who have the excess. This makes it hard to judge the real affect on the smaller roles. Because those at top are rarely willing to sacrifice their excess to protect the smaller roles I don't have a good idea how much theses smaller roles are affected. So what to do? First is that the lifestyle of excess has to be risked. That is the first thing that has to be done. You may get it all back you may lose it all but you have to be willing to risk that lifestyle. Risk it up to a certain point. Nothing here is absolute. You can't possibly give up everything but you need to find an acceptable level. Risking the lifestyle is mainly a psychological step. Setting you up for anything. It says that you are willing to move ahead to something. Maybe you will reclaim it or something like it later. Then there is the efficiency thing.

The ultimate philosophical goal is to create music or movies or other forms of entertainment. Wrapped around that is the goal to make money to keep up the structure to make those movies and that music. This is cliche but losing sight of the ultimate goal to make movies is very damaging. Because everything is based on that. One should have the mindset to protect the movie making, not soley through protecting the money. Money is integral but is is always in flux and is unreliable. You will lose if you focus soley on your resources. Focusing on your resources with the mindset that they will always be available at a level that you've become accustomed to will lead to failure. Resources are way to fickle to rely on them being steady to be successful. This whole thing boils down to that. The non recognition that resources are not static and that you have to consider your methods of using these resources as the key to sustaining success. Resource centric thinking is not the dominant philosophy. The dominant philosophy is consumption. We find a resource and immediately go to ways to use it. Effecient use is an after thought. Just me saying that seems all wrong. Why wouldn't you immediately start consuming a resource that was available. Why worry about effeciency of consumption? It is sort of counterintuitive to think that way. But I argue that we have learned enough about consumption that we must recognize that you have to think that way. Before you consume you must try and figure out how much you are going to have and for how long. Not an exact measurement but an estimate. You must first consider things like this. The boudless bounty of our world is a farce. It isn't unlimited. You have to make an effort to think about how you consume the resource and how long it is going to last with your method of consumption.