Archive for October, 2009

Recently published at arstechnica.com, Nate Anderson has neatly quoted over a hundred years of objections to new technologies by those whose business models were perceived to be threatened by those new technologies. Starting with John Phillip Sousa having concerns for ‘the national throat’ that player pianos would cause to atrophy through the recent transition to digital television, Anderson illustrates that copyright holders have never made a significant contribution to either creation or distribution of content. The basic argument is that copyright limits innovation.
Much like the current national debates on healthcare or climate, those who benefit by the current situation are vigorously defending the status quo while stirring up as many worst case scenarios for the proposed changes as they can. While it can’t be said that the advent of mechanical reproduction of music that Sousa expressed concerns about destroyed music or even the music industry, it is true that many businesses changed or were lost and that while some benefited, others did not.

This is true of every change in our world. When the Clean Air act was passed, many predicted that our economy would be choked. And while polluters did have to spend money to adapt, they spent that money with innovators who invented and produced solutions to cleaning the outputs that had been defined as polluting. New businesses were generated, and others were reduced- in particular areas of health care that were in less demand as people suffering from asthma and other related conditions suffered less.
In the area of copyrighted content, the malaise of the music industry has not meant the end of it, much less the creation of music. New music is being produced and distributed through an explosion of new channels. While there may never again be the focused attention that the combined forces of music and television combined to make Michael Jackson the world wide phenomena of the 80s, thousands of artists are finding audiences and sustaining their existence.
The motion picture industry is continuing this pattern. Today within the industry are people who have experience with both winning and losing in the cycle of innovation and disruption. The losers include all the vendors of various analogue services that are dwindling. Kodak for instance, already dealing with the consumer shift to digital photography, is busy seeking new business supporting the new digital capture and release in the industry. On the winning side are those companies supplying new digital cameras, digital projectors and screens as well as those who are installing and servicing them.
New models of revenue at every level are being tried out, with both successful and failing results. For every iPod there are several struggling MP3 player brands, and for each Steve Jobs – now holding the single largest position and a board seat at Disney, there are VPs and vendors struggling to find a product or service that will succeed and replace the revenues lost. Not every producer of blank VHS tapes has successfully become a DVD manufacturer.
In the not too distant past, there was a ride at Disneyland, sponsored by General Electric, as it was still known, called “the Carousel of Progress”. Animatronic families demonstrated the lifestyles of the 20th century. The emergence of leisure time and how to use it is revealed as the circular building rotated the audience from one stage to the next. As each movement occurred the robot cast would sing “there’s a great big beautiful tomorrow, waiting at the end of everyday’.
This lyric remains both the promise and the problem society, organizations, and individuals face continually; how to make it through the night without going bankrupt.
What does succeed historically, as Anderson points out, is giving buyers more choice and more power. Rights holders that exploit this will always succeed. USVO sees itself as a partner with the copyright holder companies, is to make that transition profitably.
For extra insight into the issue- read the comments on Nick’s article.