Writer David Gerrold Highlights Why Any Industry That Thinks File Sharing Is Bad Is Ignoring Customers
from the indeed dept
Jeff Rife was the first of a few of you to send in author David Gerrold's opinion piece on why industry's fighting against unauthorized file sharing aren't properly servicing customers. He kicks off the piece by making it abundantly clear that he does not, in any way, support the idea of unauthorized file sharing, but then points out the basic tenets of "marketing myopia," where legacy industries focus on the product they're offering, rather than the benefit they're providing consumers:After World War II, the government shifted many of its mail contracts from the railroad industry to the burgeoning airline industry. This was millions of dollars of revenue lost to the railroads. Because air travel was faster than trains, more and more people began to travel by air. As more people bought cars, and as the Interstate Highway System expanded, the railroads lost even more customers. The railroads still carry freight, but with the exception of a few high-density corridors, passenger rail travel in this country remains an intolerable mess.This is, of course, a point that we've raised for years. Gerrold then applies it to the RIAA (again, something we've tried to do a few times as well):
This is because the railroad industry thought it was in the railroad business--they're not. They're in the transportation business. But they thought they were in competition and forgot about the possibility of partnership.
If the railroad industry had thought about providing genuine service to the customers, they would have partnered with the airlines. A train station can exist in a city center, an airport can't. They could have established transportation hubs, with trains delivering passengers from city centers directly to nearby airports. By making it more convenient to use trains to connect to planes, both leaving and arriving, they would have simplified travel.
This is the same mistake that the RIAA and the SMPTP are making today. They think they're in the business of selling discs. They're not. They're in the business of delivering entertainment. And they've forgotten that. At least, their lawyers seem to have forgotten it.From there, he highlights another point that we've mentioned multiple times: if there's "piracy" going on for your products, it generally means that you -- as a content producer -- are failing to provide what your fans want. Not serving your customers needs, because it goes again the product you sell is a recipe for failure. Going one step further and suing your fans for working hard to access the content they want is even worse. As Gerrold notes:
This isn't the first time the entertainment industry has made this mistake. Almost forty years ago, Sony started selling Betamax videotape recorders for home use. Universal and Disney promptly sued, claiming that home video recording would create the opportunity for copyright infringement and they would lose billions of dollars. The Supreme Court ruled against them. Under the fair use provisions of the copyright law, it's legal to record media at home for personal use. Even if some people might use videotape machines for illegal purposes, that was not sufficient justification for denying fair use to everyone else.
After losing that lawsuit, Disney and Universal (and all the other studios as well) began selling their movies on Betamax and VHS tapes, and later on DVD. Videotape sales became an enormous market for the studios and eventually DVD sales accounted for at least half, often more, of a film's total gross income.
The only people who can benefit from that are the lawyers.If your business model is more focused on benefiting the lawyers than your fans and customers, you're doing it wrong.
Filed Under: business models, david gerrold, economics, marketing myopia
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Yay for wider awareness
It gives me hope that our future can be better and less legally entangled by those who wish to stop innovation in just about every area of possible advancement. I could go on about this but I would be veering off topic more and more.
Suffice it to say that I like these stories where others are also talking about it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Yay for wider awareness
; P
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Yay for wider awareness
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Yay for wider awareness
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Yay for wider awareness
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Yay for wider awareness
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Yay for wider awareness
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thinks File Sharing Is Bad Is Ignoring Customers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Thinks File Sharing Is Bad Is Ignoring Customers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Thinks File Sharing Is Bad Is Ignoring Customers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Thinks File Sharing Is Bad Is Ignoring Customers
David Gerrold isn't in the business of activism, he's in the business of making money. The industry in question isn't a non-profit activist organization like PETA or the EFF. Their job isn't to fight the good fight for a moral reason. Their job is to sell entertainment to make money.
So there is no "REAL" reason for a business to fight piracy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Thinks File Sharing Is Bad Is Ignoring Customers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Thinks File Sharing Is Bad Is Ignoring Customers
That is something that would fix the record labels and movie studios. If they thought like business men, "these arent pirates, these are customers we are underserving, how do we fix this?". It wont solve the problem of piracy but it would greatly reduce it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Thinks File Sharing Is Bad Is Ignoring Customers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Thinks File Sharing Is Bad Is Ignoring Customers
Thanks I am going to use that ...
"One of the disgusting things about "IP" in general is the entitlement mentality it engenders. We have content industries (and even individual creators) expecting to be guaranteed customers regardless of their poor business decisions."
The mind set is actually the entitlement that comes from IP, and a business monopoly mentality. It prevents them from being able to change. The business structures in place also play a huge role. From contracts, to business methods, to the "who you know network".
The movie industry has never had to make real business decisions or had any real vision. All the creativity has come from outside the industry. The scripts, the technology, and the talent. Until recently, the past 25 years have shown growth due to an expanding number of windows. The Time between those windows is collapsing toward zero. So they are being forced back to where they were before cable, pay cable stations (HBO etc), VCRs-DVD players, pay per view, etc. They are not adapting to the reduction in time between windows very well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Thinks File Sharing Is Bad Is Ignoring Customers
HM
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Thinks File Sharing Is Bad Is Ignoring Customers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Thinks File Sharing Is Bad Is Ignoring Customers
Problem is, that's what they think they're doing. They think that they can force customers to spend more money by threatening to beat them up if they don't. They're trying to convert "people who like our stuff but aren't paying for it" into "people who are buying our stuff" by force.
The old business model isn't working any more, but the old businessmen are afraid of change. So they grab the nearest hammer and start playing whack-a-mole on the square pegs to fit them back into round holes.
And thus do I mix metaphors with a runcible spoon.
"When your only tool is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a mole." Or something like that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What is more immoral? Me taking your song/video/book without paying you for it or you denying me the use of those media, just because you can?
Think about it: If I take your media, I *may* (or not) use it to create something new, thus producing more culture (not every pirate is a freeloader mind you...).
By shielding your media and denying it's free (as in speech) use (a.k.a. copyright), you are giving with one hand and taking with the other. You sir, are stealing from the world...not the pirates.
The fact that giving your music away might not be optimal for your business model is entirely YOUR fault.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Thinks File Sharing Is Bad Is Ignoring Customers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Thinks File Sharing Is Bad Is Ignoring Customers
What makes sense, make a competitive product people want... or sue people scrambling to get your product?
I purchase a DVD set, I get to the last DVD after a few months and lo and behold the DVD is broken. Would I be in the wrong to go download the .iso for the DVD that broke? I own a copy of this DVD, why can't I have it? Why must I buy a new DVD? Or how about over time the DVDs just break down (as they will do). Still morally wrong?
Treating everyone like criminals seem like the moral right thing to do?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Thinks File Sharing Is Bad Is Ignoring Customers
Then, point them to your MySpace page.
Until you do that, you have exactly the "moral authority" of a fundamentalist preacher who gets caught in a sex scandal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Thinks File Sharing Is Bad Is Ignoring Customers
My guess is Technopolitical has no idea what you are talking about, since he keeps that link on his profile, and keeps posting full texts from AP articles.
Would monogamy create a sex scandal for a fundamentalist preacher of the church of satan? or a fundamentalist mormon?
What is clear, unambiguous and unequivocal, however is the parallel of Arjuna from the Bhagavad Gita.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Thinks File Sharing Is Bad Is Ignoring Customers
BE WITHOUT THE GUNAS!!!
8^)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Thinks File Sharing Is Bad Is Ignoring Customers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Immoral: Hiding it.
Copyright effectively hides it. It might be a good thing for YOU, since knowledge is power. But it probably scares THE SHIT out of you that someone might pick up your song and do a better job. Can't have that...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
HM
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Your TAMhole is showing
What is not "morally acceptable" is the outright thievery of Big Media in locking our culture up behind copyright, in contravention of the CONSTITUTION, and by continually bribing congresspersons to extend copyright not only to hundreds of years, but RETROACTIVELY, thereby robbing The Public of its CONSTITUTIONALLY agreed upon culture. This is morally UNACCEPTABLE. YOU are morally unacceptable. Your corporate overlords are morally unacceptable. "Piracy", at worst, only seeks to redress the balance. Lets not even get into how Big Media/Hollywood "steals" (your concept and terms here) ideas and stories/characters from the past or other media, repurposes them, then locks them into copyright for 100+ years. This is morally unacceptable. Yet you support Big Media in ALL its forms to the exclusion of THE RIGHT OF THE PUBLIC TO BE GIVEN ITS DUE according to the CONSTITUTION. This makes you and them pirates in the truer sense of the term than the so-called "pirates" you try to make file sharers out to be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Your TAMhole is showing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Your TAMhole is showing
And as usual, you completely ignore the point and only see ONE side of the issue: that of your corporate masters.
"your "culture" isnt locked up behind anything."
Yes they are. I have already proven this. When NOTHING EVER returns to The Public, that is a LOSS. That is the very definition of "locked up."
" music, movies, and tv shows made for commercial purposes are."
Doesnt matter if they are for commercial purposes or not, the same rules apply.
" those things would not have happened without a profit motive,"
Absolute and utter bullshit. Creative works have been around, and been created, for THOUSANDS OF YEARS BEFORE COPYRIGHT.
" and that profit motive likely would not exist without some sort of system to distribute the products."
Also bullshit.
" copyright is there to assure the content producers that they can control how their work is used."
Haahahahahaaha! See, this is your problem. You see this issue COMPLETELY in a fantasy world. This is not in any way, shape or form what copyright is for. You, and your corporate masters, WISH it was this way, but that isnt reality. No where in the law, constitution, or even case law is this the case. Copyright is not to allow you to CONTROL your work, its to allow you to try to PROFIT from it, for a LIMITED TIME (funny how you utterly ignore anything having to do with this side, the PUBLIC side, of this entire argument).
" pull the rug out, and your so called culture never happened."
Patently, provably, false. Ever hear of the Greeks? We have been mining their "never happened" culture for 2500 years. Ditto the Egyptians, Asians, etc.
" so you can capitalize all the words you want, you are still too stupid to figure out the situation."
Really? Do tell. I think this might be the other way around. Pretty sure I have destroyed all your "arguments", which are nothing more than a fantasy wish-list of your corporate overlords desire for greater control of all things creative.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Your TAMhole is showing
Really?
Criminy.
HM
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hope the response is quick, because I plan to call your office in ten minutes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nail meet head
This is a KEY phrase that routinely gets overlooked by the big media corporate shill/lawyers when it comes to any new technology. Remember, and always remember, that copyright exists to enrich THE PUBLIC, not the creators. The creator gets a LIMITED, exclusive right IN EXCHANGE FOR creating more art/whatever that RETURNS TO THE PUBLIC THAT GRANTED THE RIGHT in the first place. All of this gets steamrolled under and forgotten in the relentless quest for $$$ to the complete and utter exclusion of everything else, including the public good, the law, and the constitution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The problem with all analogies...
It might be a better analogy if it involved someone hijacking the mail to take it off of trains and put it on planes against the will of the postal service.
I don't disagree that "piracy" can very well mean that your customers don't like some part of how you conduct your business with them. However, that is not a JUSTIFICATION for "piracy". If you don't like the deal, walk away. Vote with your wallet. We're not talking about a roof over your head or milk for your baby. Those are necessities, and sometimes one can justify appropriating something like that when the need is great. But we're talking about a movie (or a game or an ebook or some other form of entertainment content) - a luxury item. There's no justification for trying to take by "force" what the content owner legitimately didn't want to sell you. if the content owner says, "I'll sell you this movie for ten bucks, but it's only for you, and not anybody else," why can't you just respond, "you mean I can't make a copy so I can watch the movie on my business trip while my family watches it at home while I'm away? No way! No deal, man! No deal!"?
HM
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The problem with all analogies...
The vendor has the choice of whether or not to spray the perfume in the first place, but after it's been released, it's not up to him any more, the scent "belongs" to everybody who walks by.
The market for copies is over - they can be made infinitely at home, by anybody who wants to. They don't need justifications, as it just makes sense in terms of availability, cost, selection, you name it. Instead of trying to find reasons why people should stop, change your business model to take advantage of it. Charge people up front to create new content for everyone, Kickstarter-style, or use the infinite copies to sell scarce things. Better yet, do both - but don't waste your time trying to tell people that they shouldn't engage in an activity as fundamental as sharing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The problem with all analogies...
In your analogy, the vendor is not engaging in a transaction with anybody at all, and arguably sprayed the perfume in the air for its intended purpose - to be smelled by those nearby.
HM
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The problem with all analogies...
Since when did anyone engage in a transaction when downloading via bittorrent? Arguably when they released the digital versions of music and films, they did so for its intended purpose - to be seen and heard by others.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: The problem with all analogies...
And the fact that nobody entered into a transaction by downloading via BitTorrent is exactly the problem. Not sure why you seem to present that as supporting anything.
And everybody's free to enter into business models that are dumb and don't work. Let them fail. That's the way capitalism works. Arguably someone else will come along and figure out how to make money in that market. Good for them. In the meantime, I don't see how the fact a vendor has chosen a dumb business model somehow JUSTIFIES people stealing what he's trying to sell. Yeah, you may be dumb for trying to run a movie theatre with ineffective tools for controlling who gets in. However, that doesn't mean it's OK to sneak in without paying.
HM
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The problem with all analogies...
Doesn't matter what the intended purpose was. You're selling people a capability they can provide for themselves.
You stated:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The problem with all analogies...
If you acquire something of value that you did not pay for, when there was clearly someone with the right to charge you for what you have acquired, the difference between that and "stealing" is so negligible as to be not worth considering. You have circumvented someone else's right to charge. It doesn't matter that he still has the original copy. It doesn't matter that you would not have paid if that was the only way to get it. If you obtain a copy of a movie from some subset of your thousands of close friends via BitTorrent, then you have stolen. It jes' plain ain't honest to claim it's OK to grab something of value for which you did not pay the owner a fair/reasonable price.
Yes, it may very well be that if the content owner had a better business sense and was more responsive to the market, he'd find a way to sell his product that was so good that nobody would feel the urge to steal it and he'd also make a lot of money because he'd have even more happy customers. However, the fact that he DOESN'T do this doesn't justify stealing copies. It justifies the eventual failure of his business.
I'd have a lot more sympathy for the pro-copying lobby if its proponents actually did something constructive and perhaps sent the content owner a check for the reduced amount they felt was "fair" for the copy they took. Or sent money directly to whatever musical artist they felt was ripped off by the evil record labels. But nobody really does that, do they? The VAST majority of these folks just go on getting copies they didn't pay for, basking in the glory of the money they didn't have to spend to get the huge music or movie collection they've always wanted.
HM
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The problem with all analogies...
Which I don't agree with, and is generally up for debate here at Techdirt. Just because it's the law doesn't mean I should agree with or respect it. I should do so based on the merits of the law, not on its mere existence.
Suffice to say, selling someone a capability they can already do themselves is fundamentally bad business. They don't deserve money for copies if they had no or little hand in creating the copies in the first place. If they're business is based on selling copies, then it's a bad business model as I can do that myself.
Apart from both the quite clear legal implications and economic implications of course. Continue to ignore them at your peril.
No, I've circumvented they're belief that they're entitled to money for copies they didn't create. They can still charge however much they like, the issue is that I don't need to go to them to get the copies to begin with.
And where was this copy taken from exactly? It didn't exist before I created it. Is there a copy warehouse that I stole from?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The problem with all analogies...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I do not believe for even a moment that the movie studios and record labels have forgotten they are in the business of delivering entertainment. Yes, the means for getting their "product" to the public has changed, but their end goal...entertainment for payment...has not changed.
The rub, of course, arises when certain people want the "entertainment" part, but are not inclined to pay heed to the "payment" part.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"Pirates" are using torrent sites and those torrent sites are making money!! We hear that all the time in the comments, so what is stopping the labels from offering their own tracker with higher quality videos for a price people will pay? Nothing!!
These comments always turn into how people are "stealing" from Big Content and if something isn't done things will stop getting made and the world will probably end. The point Mike is trying to make over and over and over again is that they should be focusing their efforts on servicing their customers in a way they want and they will pay for it!
We get it, copyright infringement = bad. Now come up with a way to compete against "free" already, it really isn't all that hard, Big Media doesn't want to however. Apparently everyone MUST continue to buy shiny disc until they decide otherwise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous coward
Troll.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Take the train to the plane,
Take the train to the plane."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qkL1LIUsmqc
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Piracy On The ISP`s
And why does the RIAA not kick in my door and haul me off for recording the stones from my digital radio?
It seems insane to me that an industry which has consistently ripped of(oops I mean REimagined) many
movies and songs that were cultural icons (usually managing to ruin such classics. All because they have no taste and no clue.when they take romeo and juliet and make gnomio and juliet or romy o and julee 8.
I am sure they would have you arrested for having a bootlegged copy of their plagerized and despoiled crap,
because after all you would be taking bread out of the mouths of shakespears kids lol.in truth a copy is acopy is a copy.I it is o.k.to copy from the radio it is o.k. To copy from the internet.if its o.k. To copy from a cable program (WHICH CABLE BOXES ALLOW)then WTF
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]