I call it the Kumbaya factor.
I've been hearing, "Kumbaya" from advocates of the internet in my various jobs since 1992 or 1993. And the rhetoric -- which is every bit as self serving and myopic as anything you hear out of the record industry -- has not advanced.
I've read the submissions from places like TUCOWS who make the argument that copyright stifles creativity. I've read the silly assertions by people that it's all about giving away your primary product for free, and selling t-shirts or something like that.
Inasmuch as the Record companies try to make everything about recorded music, the lefty "copyfighters" (what a ridiculous term) just sound ridiculous any time they get talking about larger-scaled media.
In my case, as a TV screenwriter, sure, I can sit in my garret or office and bang out a script, and the outlay costs to me are very low, just as a composer or an indie artist can use new recording tools that make at home demos almost as polished as studio recordings. And yup, somebody can get a cheap prosumer like camera and Final Cut and make a low indie movie.
But so what?
What I'm asking is, simply, this: do any of you pie in the sky folk have a workable model by which a TV series, like the ones getting written about now that people watch -- HOUSE, Fringe, How I Met Your Mother, Battlestar Galactica, Two and a Half Men -- take your pick. How does one of these series get made -- with their $50 million or more annual budgets, under any of the hippie systems of "free" or "open" copyright you guys advocate?
Don't give me the same B.S. What is the model? How do you get that amount of money to lay out up front over your proposed utopian system?
It's hard and discouraging for an artist or a creative person working in film to try and come down on the side of a fairer copyright regime that deals with things that I think are really important for consumers: copyright terms that don't get extended past 50 years, enshrined parody and satire protections, some protection and redefinition of "derivative works," because most of the rest of the stuff that gets spouted is so airy-fairy, pie in the sky ridiculous that you just wind up shaking your head and thinking, "any self respecting government INDUSTRY minister is going to look at this and run screaming for DMCA and digital locks."
So I raise the challenge: what's the model for my business with no copyright?
And you can't cheat. You can't raise Joss Whedon -- who's famous and a brand because of the work he was able to do under an old style copyright regime.
"Fair Copyright" types hate digital locks, they hate copyright terms, they hate collective licensing and any kind of levy. They hate everything.
So how's it get done? How does the movie actually get made. Not ten years from now. Next year, when a copyright bill passes the House of Commons in this country.
How does it happen?
Cause I'd love to hear the argument.
I'm tellin ya. One more university kid types at me trying to explain Marshall McLuhan, and I spank him and send him to bed without any Wifi.
Get going. Convince me.
8 rumbles:
I don't know what the model is for television or film. I've figured it out for music pretty well. The math means that the days of multi-millionaire rock stars are numbered, but I've figured out the math to a point where it's possible for people in music to make a living. But for TV or Film I really don't know. I can give you bits and pieces, but not the whole $50 million annual pie.
What I do know though is that someone had better figure it out because the copyright the Government is proposing in Canada has been in effect in the US for years and it has had no impact.
There have been tons of lawsuits, a few arrests and multi-million dollar judgments (usually againsy people who won't make the amount of the judgement in their lifetimes - hence it is not collected) but it has not slowed down file sharing at all - if anything file sharing has increased globally and in the US regardless of the copyright laws in place.
The only way to effectively police it would be to set up a branch of the government with a budget roughly equal to that of the military to monitor the internet and inspect everything being uploaded and downloaded by everyone and, regardless of what it may mean for the film or television industries, I don't think that taxpayers or people who are fond of privacy are going to go along with that.
The better minds in film and television though need to work on what the new model looks like because the time and energy they are devoting to copyright reform will gain them nothing regardless of whether they win or lose.
Your right about the fines being so large that they are useless. What they have to do is lower the fines to a more reasonable sum, but hand them out to everyone breaking copyright laws. I mean, make the fine $1000.00 and just hit everyone you can. If you don't pay it hits your credit record, etc... It is a Federal Crime after all, so people would have to pay it eventually.
Don't make copyright infringement a crime on the same level as drug dealing, make it at the same level as speeding and nab thousands of people a year, not just one or two.
I don't have another model. Though I have done some illegal downloading in my time I prefer renting or paying on itunes. I will happily pay for good shows that way -as long as I don't have to sit through all those insulting, insidious soul-killing commercials. I hate them. They're revolting, and having to sit through them makes me hate television at times. That there are now ways to watch good shows without them is the great breakthrough of our time with regards to this industry as far as I'm concerned.
@mallet - the problem with what you suggest is that it must be proven in court. You can't just say someone did it and hand them a fine. It has to go to court. Records must be subpoenaed from ISPs etc., and by the time you're done the legal fees alone will have hit tense of thousands of dollars.
The reason that the record companies (apparently) have stopped suing people is it was actually dragging them down faster. The legal fees were coming to more than they were collecting. However, if you say $1000 plus legal fees you'll soon hit the level where people can't pay the fines again.
What I'm talking about here is the kinds of people who hang out and comment on Michael Geist's site.
Even accounting for, say, the smartypants university undergrads or academics who want to talk about the theory and don't feel any need to dirty themselves with actual, concrete talk about monetization... there's the coalition of people who really, honestly and truly believe that artists should be happy to create art.
These are the same people who get shirty when JK Rowling takes umbrage just because she doesn't like fanfic where Harry Potter fucks Ron Weasely.
The point I'm making is -- I don't know if the position I'm advocating, collective licensing based on a hated levy -- is the right one.
But I'm actually trying to come to a compromise position in the middle because I do believe the pendulum has swung too far against the consumer. Extending copyright past 70 years to protect corporate trademarks and such is unconscionable.
Digital locks that fly in the face of the perfectly evolutionary desire for people to be able to watch content when and where they want is bad policy.
Heavy handed copyright law that prevents me from appropriating an image or a sound in a new work that makes a strong point satirically or politically against the powerful only serves to stifle the have nots speaking back to the halves.
These are only three points I have where I think current copyright favors corporate or rights holders at the expense of the good of society.
I don't expect any of these types to necessarily understand the issue from the perspective of creators or those who make large scale works that require capitalization -- but by not even making an attempt, by in effect, making a purely theoretical and speculative argument, they make those who demand more draconian measures look reasonable.
It's a wonderful thing to be smug and right. Because when the copyright bill comes down, and it's not what it could be, and it does repeat US mistakes, and it doesn't deal logically with the real challenges of tomorrow -- these same people will be able to twist their goatees and bitch even more bitterly about the man. And an opportunity to truly find balance and a better approach going forward will have been lost.
It's an often expressed sentiment among those who hew a bit left of centre politically, but here goes --
I wish to God the people I (mostly) agree with politically weren't such fucking idiots.
I can't imagine that anyone who says artists should be happy just to make art has, you know, ever actually made any worth paying for. Snark.
I used to download and try to justify it to myself (eg: I'll just watch it now and rent the DVD when it comes out) - until someone put my husband's first broadcast documentary on YouTube. Then I was all, like, "That's my kid's education you're stealing!" And I don't download anymore. The guy making cars certainly doesn't want that product given away - or stolen - either. A different standard for art seems simply nutso.
One piece of the monetization puzzle for music, tv, film, and news that I'd like to see as a consumer is an elegant pay system. PayPal isn't it. I want to pay at one source for all the little charges. I do want to pay - I just don't want to have to subscribe to a bazillion sites and enter my credit card number for every $1 charge.
I can START to address the question by pointing you to this:
http://diydays.com/2009/08/briannewman/
Yes, it's aimed at the indie film audience. If you want a business plan that creates a "TV series" for free on the web - then give me a couple of months to finish up my proposal.
I would also point you to this:
http://lostgarden.com/2009/07/flash-love-letter-2009-part-1.html
A business plan for flash game developers covering many of the pitfalls, etc... Many of the systems here are applicable to movie / TV production via new media.
Regarding music I would point to this editorial video from Trent Reznor:
http://forum.nin.com/bb/read.php?30,767183,page=1
You know that I'm not the "artsy type" Denis. I want the money and the audience so I can tell them more stories along the way. The fact is that one way or another it's all already free. Horse has already left the stable so closing the door will do little good.
The good that will come from all of this is to discuss how to make money as easily as possible using the tools we have available and thinking about future tools.
I mean look at this:
http://twitpic.com/g450u
Levies will always be a tough sell, but right now nothing, no content, is ever "free." There's just no such thing as a free download. People pay for internet connections, so that's the point that revenue will have to be generated for the content.
For whatever reason, people are happy to pay for the internet connection but not what they use the internet to access. Okay, fine, if that's the only point where money is going to change hands then it's that money that will have to be divided up.
We're starting to see the shift already from the ability to "buy" content to the ability to "access," content whenever you want.
Have faith in capitalism, Denis, it hasn't lost yet.
Post a Comment