My only problem with this post is the comment that content isn't property. I see that used as justification for downloading music and other electronic products without paying for them. I guess it's a nice little philosophical thing to ease the conscience.
Now, I will go on record as saying that ideas certainly can't be property. Ideas are unfinished and raw. However, finished content, as in a complete song or book, is the property of the creator, and the creator/owner has ultimate say over how the finished product is used.
I have heard they saying that it's not physical, but it is; it takes up physical space on a hard drive, and when utilized, it has an effect on the surrounding environment (PDFs are light on a screen, MP3s vibrate the air and the eardrum). It might not be physical in the traditional sense, but it is real.
If they content producer says they want to receive payment for a copy, that should be respected and they should receive payment. That's their choice. If you don't like it, you don't have to buy it.
There are people giving their content away. That's also their choice. They own it, so they can give it away. More power to them.
However, I do agree that companies like Sony and her CEO need to take a good, hard look at their business model. They can choose what they do with their property, and right now, there's proof that other models are workable and profitable. One need only take a look at the list of webcomic creators who make a comfortable living giving their content away for free, as well as video bloggers like Michael Buckley.
Personally, I haven't listened to Sony music for years. Most of my music comes from Jamendo, and I listen for free on Rhapsody. Until I can pay for commercial music, I'm not going to DL it, if I ever even decide I want most of the crap that's out there.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Mikelo.
Content IS Property
Now, I will go on record as saying that ideas certainly can't be property. Ideas are unfinished and raw. However, finished content, as in a complete song or book, is the property of the creator, and the creator/owner has ultimate say over how the finished product is used.
I have heard they saying that it's not physical, but it is; it takes up physical space on a hard drive, and when utilized, it has an effect on the surrounding environment (PDFs are light on a screen, MP3s vibrate the air and the eardrum). It might not be physical in the traditional sense, but it is real.
If they content producer says they want to receive payment for a copy, that should be respected and they should receive payment. That's their choice. If you don't like it, you don't have to buy it.
There are people giving their content away. That's also their choice. They own it, so they can give it away. More power to them.
However, I do agree that companies like Sony and her CEO need to take a good, hard look at their business model. They can choose what they do with their property, and right now, there's proof that other models are workable and profitable. One need only take a look at the list of webcomic creators who make a comfortable living giving their content away for free, as well as video bloggers like Michael Buckley.
Personally, I haven't listened to Sony music for years. Most of my music comes from Jamendo, and I listen for free on Rhapsody. Until I can pay for commercial music, I'm not going to DL it, if I ever even decide I want most of the crap that's out there.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Mikelo.
Submit a story now.