Harvard Business Review Explains How Big Content Is Strangling Innovation

from the good-for-them dept

Wed, Apr 6th 2011 10:24am — Mike Masnick

John Anthony was the first of a whole bunch of you to send over this excellent article by James Allworth at Harvard Business Review, talking about how the big record labels and the big movie studios are strangling innovation with their braindead, backwards-looking, protectionist approach to anything that changes the market they've been in for years. There isn't necessarily much new in the article for folks who regularly read what we talk about here, but it does a nice job pulling the pieces together, and it's great to see HBR publish such a piece:

Many in the high technology industry have known this for a long time. Despite making their living relying on it, the Big Content players do not understand technology, and never have. Rather than see it as an opportunity to reach new audiences, technology has always been a threat to them. Example after example abounds of this attitude; whether it was the VCR which was "to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone" as famed movie industry lobbyist Jack Valenti put it at a congressional hearing, or MP3 technology, which they tried to sue out of existence. In fact, it's possible to go back as far as the gramophone and see the content industries rail against new technology. The reason why? Every shift in technology is difficult for them. Just as they work out how to make money using one technology, it changes.

The sensible thing for them to do would be to learn how to deal with the change. Instead, their approach to every generation of technology is either to attempt to stymie it so badly that nobody wants it, or to stop it altogether through their influence with lawmakers in Washington DC.

Allworth goes on to note that while it was bad in the past, now it's reaching really dangerous levels with things like COICA and other attempts to alter basic technology and cut out the "heart of innovation," by driving innovative startups -- the companies creating the technology and services "Big Content" really needs -- to start and grow outside the US rather than at home.

The result of laws like this? Startups -- the engine of America's growth -- will just go elsewhere. China and India are creating environments extremely conducive to disruptive innovation. Even Europe is benefiting -- one of the most promising recent music services, Spotify, is hosted in Europe. It's still not available to American consumers.

[...] If you're the next YouTube, would you want to locate here in the US and risk having the government simply switch off your site at the behest of Big Content? Or might it not be easier to find a more benign environment to create your business in?

The ultimate irony in all of this is that if we stop giving the content industries what they want -- sweeping, blanket protections -- we may actually be doing them a favor. They wanted the VCR banned. It turned out to be one of the most profitable technologies for the movie industry in its history. Ignoring their requests may turn out to be cruel to be kind -- instead of focusing on trying to fight the technology, they'll be forced to find ways of profitably embracing it.

Of course, this is the same point many of us have been making for years. I'm curious if now that it's in the Harvard Business Review, we'll hear about how this is all a part of the "free content astroturfing pirate conspiracy" that people have been accusing me of being a part of lately.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: copyright, innovation

32 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

another mike (profile), 6 Apr 2011 @ 10:34am

accusations
This is all a part of the free content astroturfing pirate conspiracy Mike is part of!

/sorry
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- ChurchHatesTucker (profile), 6 Apr 2011 @ 10:37am
  
  Re: accusations
  No, that was last week.
  
  This is Ivory Tower elitism. If they knew what they were talking about they'd be out there innovating. Or suing.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Frankie Johns, 6 Apr 2011 @ 1:31pm
  
  Re: accusations
  Allworth did work at Apple...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- bj upton, 6 Apr 2011 @ 2:10pm
  
  Re: accusations
  This notion really amuses me. Who is the big pocket who would spend money in a pro free content astroturfing?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - bob, 6 Apr 2011 @ 6:50pm
    
    Re: Re: accusations
    Do you think someone is going to buy an MP3 player that holds 5000 songs if they're going to have to pay $5000 to fill it up? Do you think they'll upgrade to a 10000 song version if that means spending another $10000 on music? That may be why the consumer electronics association supports the EFF.
    
    Do you think Google wants to share their revenue with the content producers when they attach ads to their work? That may be why Google supports the EFF and Masnick.
    
    Do you think that RapidShare, Megauploads and the rest want to go to jail? This may be why they support free content.
    
    If the money goes to the content producers, it can't be spent on other things. This is a battle over the disposable income.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 6 Apr 2011 @ 11:08pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: accusations
      When is it not about disposable income?
      
      The entindustry could be using or learning from those services to their advantage but fight or sue or demand the impossible from them instead.
      
      Reliance on monopoly rents has made them stupid and lazy and without the ability to respond in any sensible way to their market, thus they deserve to lose the battle over other people's disposable income.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Apr 2011 @ 10:42am

Sure. And now they're suing the hell out of Zevidia:

http://torrentfreak.com/mpaa-goes-nuts-with-new-movie-streaming-lawsuit-110405/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
:Lobo Santo (profile), 6 Apr 2011 @ 10:52am

One could argue
One could argue that only the very awesomest on new innovations survives the shatstorm that everything since the gramophone has gone thru.

Thus, despite their intentions, Big Content actually helps provide an assure of quality of those new innovations which become popular.

;-P
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- another mike (profile), 6 Apr 2011 @ 4:45pm
  
  Re: One could argue
  I'm sure the gramophone faced the same issues, what with all those numbskulls listening to prerecorded music in degenerate solitude instead of a culturally invigorating experience like going to the orchestra.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
ltlw0lf (profile), 6 Apr 2011 @ 10:52am

DIVX Stymie
DIVX (the video rental solution, not the video format, which is unrelated,) was killed because it wasn't what the customer wanted. It was, essentially, a solution to no problem. Customers had no problem renting regular DVDs and returning them to the store when finished, and most customers saw DIVX as a waste of money, resources, and a problem for logistics. The thought Circuit City had was that they could sneak their way in to the rental market and overtake the existing companies, but the problem was that DIVX required a phone line to phone home...and at the time, very few people wired telephone lines to their entertainment systems. Most of Hollywood welcomed DIVX, because it allowed them to charge money each time the movie was played, not just for the rental, used 3DES for the encryption which was stronger than DVD encryption, and some studios switched directly to using DIVX instead of DVD.

If you want a product stymied by big content, you have no further to look than the DAT (Digital Audio Tape.) Industry lobbying (Audio Home Recording Act of 1992) and vendor ham-fisting (by using "copyright bits") killed DAT before it could replace tape and reel-to-reel as a viable alternative since it was lossless, and less prone to media degradation. Of course, it's downfall did usher in CD and CD-writing technology.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
fogbugzd (profile), 6 Apr 2011 @ 11:00am

History of technology and the entertainment industry in the 20th century
We have gone through the same cycle several times.

Stage 1: Technology A is introduced.
Stage 2: Industry declares A will destroy their industry.
Stage 3: Industry learns to make money off A.
Stage 4: Industry comes to rely heavily on A.
Stage 5: Technology B is introduced.
Stage 6: Got to Stage 1, replacing A with B.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
sumquy (profile), 6 Apr 2011 @ 11:18am

"part of the "free content astroturfing pirate conspiracy" that people have been accusing me of being a part of lately. "

don't be coy, mike. i've see you at the meetings.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Hephaestus (profile), 6 Apr 2011 @ 11:52am
  
  Re:
  "don't be coy, mike. i've see you at the meetings."
  
  How could you tell we were all wearing Guy Fawkes masks ... ;)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Nicedoggy, 6 Apr 2011 @ 12:01pm
    
    Re: Re:
    By the brown jacket perhaps?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - ltlw0lf (profile), 6 Apr 2011 @ 1:00pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      By the brown jacket perhaps?
      
      Nope, you were mistaken...I was the one wearing the brown jacket.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Gwiz (profile), 6 Apr 2011 @ 1:07pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I would have been there too, but I got a bad case of "turf toe" trying to tiptoe around the issues.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Nicedoggy, 6 Apr 2011 @ 1:48pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Thanks for clarifying that.
        
        :)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
weneedhelp (profile), 6 Apr 2011 @ 11:25am

"free content astroturfing pirate conspiracy"
Must have missed that one.

Oh well, just another misuse of that word to try demonize someones point of view.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The eejit (profile), 6 Apr 2011 @ 11:47am
  
  Re: "free content astroturfing pirate conspiracy"
  Well, to be fair, it is a conspiracy, but you can't have a conspiracy without piracy.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
sumquy (profile), 6 Apr 2011 @ 12:19pm

mike was the obnoxious one, wearing the Cwf+RtB t-shirt, that kept running out to his car every time a jogger or dog walker went by, claiming the fbi was trying to put a gps tracker on it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Nicedoggy, 6 Apr 2011 @ 12:50pm
  
  Re:
  Pardon people, they were distracted by the industry plants on the reunion trying to disrupt the meeting and screaming while being tased "Don't tase me bro!".
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The eejit (profile), 6 Apr 2011 @ 1:57pm
  
  Re:
  Sorry, that was me. I also had on DMCA takedown pants.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 6 Apr 2011 @ 2:10pm
    
    Re: Re:
    I need some of those pants for going through TSA checkpoints.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Atkray (profile), 6 Apr 2011 @ 2:11pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      ^^^^^ I got logged out somehow
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Lawrence D'Oliveiro, 6 Apr 2011 @ 6:05pm
    
    Re:DMCA takedown pants
    The DMCA makes you take down your pants??
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - weneedhelp (profile), 8 Apr 2011 @ 2:35pm
      
      Re: Re:DMCA takedown pants
      No thats the TSA, I guess they are all A's.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fred Skoler, 6 Apr 2011 @ 12:30pm

Mash-up for Mega Profits
Making great content is hard and those who own it should be compensated.

Those who aggregate it and find novel ways to bring it to the consumer have the opportunity to gain as well.

There are many innovations that can help direct consumers to great content. Old media companies just need to partner with innovators and or nurture innovation within their ranks.

The consumer will decide what she likes.

It is the job of the content publisher to find distribution methods that meet the needs of the content audience. Innovators will fill the gap if the Publisher fails to.

Old Media (Publishers) need to think of new distribution mechanisms as content. If I can better enjoy a Publisher's content with feature X then it adds value. Publishers need to be on bleeding edge or open their minds to those who are and mash-up resources so that everyone wins.

Partner with the innovators and together capture a larger audience.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- robin, 6 Apr 2011 @ 2:42pm
  
  Re: Mash-up for Mega Profits
  "Making great content is hard.."
  
  depends on the artist, but overall agreed.
  
  .."and those who own it should be compensated."
  
  wrong, Wrong, WRONG.
  
  the marketplace
  
  will determine if
  
  said artist
  
  will be compensated,
  
  by whatever mysterious criteria the marketplace chooses to employ.
  
  the rest of post was excellent if i may take the liberty of saying.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
bob, 6 Apr 2011 @ 7:06pm

Free content astroturfing
I am his Highness' dog at Kew;
Pray tell me, sir, whose dog are you?
--"On the Collar of a Dog" by Alexander Pope.

Mike-- We all have to sing for our supper. Why do you think that Google News brought you in to discuss the future of the news business? Do you think they would bring in someone who might believe that maybe Google might help pay for the creation of the content that drives so much traffic to their site? They want their own dog on the pedestal.

Why do you think the Consumer Electronics Association donates to the EFF?

Allworth is not listed in the Faculty directory of Harvard Business School. Nor is there any mention on the web site of this so-called " Forum for Growth and Innovation at Harvard Business School". That doesn't mean that it's not real but it does mean that it's probably some soft money gig supported by an astroturfing company.

I won't argue with the idea that many people love the idea of getting something for free, but pay attention to the companies who want to encourage it. While it may seem to you that they "get it", as you like to say, they always seem to make more money when the people spend less on content.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Justin Olbrantz (Quantam), 6 Apr 2011 @ 7:16pm
  
  Re: Free content astroturfing
  You're quite late. That was said 9 hours ago.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 7 Apr 2011 @ 2:27am
  
  Re: Free content astroturfing
  "Do you think they would bring in someone who might believe that maybe Google might help pay for the creation of the content that drives so much traffic to their site?"
  
  I'm not sure you realize how hilarious this question is.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
iveseenitall, 17 May 2011 @ 11:18am

Can anybody name another example where the entire premise for a business model is a law sold to the people as good for the public/domain?
Only not in our lifetime. Or our children and parents lifetime.

Why don't WE sue somebody about that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]