If a publicly funded service such as a TV channel or the like has a fantastic idea, should it be prevented from fully realising that idea so as to protect commercial interests?
If a publicly funded service such as a TV channel or the like has a fantastic idea, should it be prevented from fully realising that idea so as to protect commercial interests?
Too vague and lacking in context to allow a clear and accurate answer.
I'll go out on a limb to posit that...in most cases, no. But in some cases, yes.
Too vague, my first instinct would be no but without full info ...Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
A public service TV channel etc has different obligations than the fiduciary duty of a commercial one.
Welcome to the library!Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Are libraries really a threat to commercial books? Historically that hasn't been the case. There's tons of libraries about and my friends still mostly buy books or, lately, ebooks.
because they have been, historically, crippled. However its a lot easier to see nowadays with digital books. electronic files with due dates? libraries that have a limited a supply of electronic files? You think we do that for the patron's interest? Didn't someone post about FARTS on here?
There are entire collections my system isn't allowed to invest in because of pressure from outside sources, course specific study guides is a big one.
I don't see the distinction here. In the past libraries could buy one copy of a book, photocopy it and then give it away for free as well. They didn't for obvious reasons.
How is an e-book with a digital expiration date "crippling" the library? The library is giving someone limited access to something they would otherwise have to pay for. Sounds a lot like...borrowing a physical book for a little while.
I'm speaking of things like that BBC Jam idea, which was something along the lines of an online learning service directed at kids with learning difficulties or disabilities. Iirc one of the reasons why it was cancelled was that various companies complained that Jam would provide--for free!--a service for which schools/parents could be compelled to pay private companies.
In Sweden the govt. now wants to have total control over what gets aired on the publicly funded channels in order to protect commercial interests. I realise the info I'm providing here is limited :o
Physical media has expense limitations, digital books don't. Yet libraries are forced to adhere to the same distribution concept to protect private interests. We are distributing electronic files which cost nothing to reproduce, copy, and distribute, yet we still have holds lists several hundred people long.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
I think it's a difficult balance and a lot depends on whether the government is doing something that the private sector uniquely can't do. But how does the government controlling publicly funded channels protect commercial interests? Don't they already control the public channels?
EDIT: OG, as Minx made clear he was talking about something a bit bigger than just giving away other people's intellectual property for free. Not giving away ebooks for free isn't protecting some commercial interest, it's protecting an ecosystem that produces books in the first place.
Congratulations on completely missing the point :up: Wasn't encouraging the idea of giving away product for free, but why limitations exist; since, as I said, we already had this conversation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
Of course, saying something stupid like free digital books destroying an ecosystem is akin to claiming that Napster destroyed the music industry.
There is a connection between this and the BBC. In the digital age product can be cheap, the key is to control access to the information.
The less money in an industry the fewer producers. If you just give away unlimited copies of music, movies and books you will cause fewer people to enter those fields. I like reading books and I would hate to have authors be forced to write less because they have to financially support themselves with a "regular" job. I like special effects in movies, I would hate to have them cut them down in order to provide a cheaper film since anyone can just grab the movie for free. I don't care nearly as much about music but I'm sure other people do.
You make it sound like artists only produce when it revolves around making money. Or that their only purpose is to serve the masses (you). I think you have it backward.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Some of our most gifted artists, writers, and musicians died unknown or broke. Even more were starving artists who held second or third "regular" jobs to support themselves while they practiced their (non-paying, unprofitable) art. You really shouldn't apply your capitalistic ideals toward Art just because it's an industry that happens to make money. :bored:
True to a point. But for those that died unknown and broke...it means very few appreciated their Art... so...who cares about them?Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Congrats on your typical hostility and missing my point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
Online piracy has hurt the music industry. It's also forced it to evolve in a constructive way, but that doesn't mean it hasn't hurt. And it would be a mess if the government just gave away free copies of every album that came out. Libraries have never been about subverting copyrights, they have been about expanding access. There is a difference. Just because you have expressed a desire to not pay for stuff doesn't mean it's right.
That doesn't follow at all; many of the most known and appreciated artists were those starving artists who may have died unknown but were 'discovered' later on.Quote:
Originally Posted by Veldan Rath
Now Lewk's point isn't about artists, it's about people mass-producing entertainment. van Gogh or Nietzsche aren't what I'd call fun, and on the other hand I doubt that many starving artists would be willing to try and create The Lord of the Rings or Desperate Housewives. But reality tv is fantastically cheap and seems to sell pretty well, so there's that too.
lots of libraries have a very robust music collection, largely CD based, especially during the napster days when most stuff was copied willy nilly from that CD based media :noob:Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
Sucks thats there are no hard numbers to show how piracy hurt the music industry. Lots of "ifs" and "possibly" however. I've seen everything from loses of billions to how pirates ended up spending more on the industry.
Don't know where you are able to come off explaining my desires, looks like you are still missing the larger picture.
It's hurt the industry, sure, but what about artists? Arguably, a vast majority of the industry is made up of distribution and creation of physical media, and advertising to create 'consumer awareness', i.e. to get teenagers to buy the latest pop idol. In several cases it could further be argued that these pop artists' popularity is a fabrication, a creation of the aforementioned industry. They're selling a canned good. Which is fine and well, the teenagers get something that pleases them and the industry makes money.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
The point is, with the advent of digital content distribution, most of those aspects of the industry become obsolete, meaningless. And the industry is scared shitless about that. But would it be much worse for the end consumer, or the artists?
Many, many artists make most of their money on tour, and from merch. (These two over-lap a bit for obvious reasons.) I'd be perfectly happy to buy a few 15 € Pet Shop Boys t-shirts per year in exchange for their music, delivered directly to me in electronic format without considerable charge. (As you alluded, the industry's trying a hybrid of this and their previous, exploitative methods.) And instead of having to listen to the radio and music industry advertisements, people could just follow online distributors giving out free music and recommending bands based on your previous downloads.
If people making arguably pretty awful web comics can make a living doing that, without starving or supplementary income, I don't see how that wouldn't apply to musicians. It would remove the fabricated interface between artists and consumers, and would probably hurt those artists whose fame is industry-created, plus the people who work in physical media creation and distribution, but that's an argument that can be applied to the loom.
I don't know how this would apply to books, though.
authors have been all over the map. I've seen subscription plans where they release a book in chapters, the timing based on funding. We've had authors do readings in rooms that hold hundreds and have had to turn people away. Book signings and special editions are getting more popular and yet harder to ahold of. Digital books are nice, but few people seem willing to do away with their book cases completely.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nessus
I think some of the eBook solutions have interesting potential with this. EG last week's Google eBook reader announcement brought up some idea of advertising in books. I'm not sure if this is a good idea or even viable. Though I have read that the mobile phone application ad ecosystem is taking off. I've seen advertising in some of my phone applications and they aren't terrible.
Ultimately I think it's worth trying — imagine if the next hit book was downloadable through an online marketplace and was free, but 8-10% of the bottom of the screen was an advertisement that allowed the author to get compensated? And threw out the publishing middlemen.
Even with the advent of electronic book readers, I wouldn't renege on the paper books, and I buy all my reading material anyway. The thing is, most of the stuff I buy has been heavily subsidized by either governments or academic foundations willing to support historical research, for example. Who'd subsidize sci-fi books? I can see people buying Twilight t-shirts, but how about some more obscure and un-cool genres?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
I have bought some books as special editions, though.
It would not take very long until people hacked their hardware to remove the ads. Now, as long as the advertisers don't find out, or don't care, no problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
Where did he say "no one does this"? I saw him say "fewer people do this" which is entirely accurate. If creating that art doesn't pay for itself, than the field is immediately limited to only the people who will find a way to produce anyway, by living off an inherited fortune, dying of starvation, working two jobs and giving up sleep, etc. Lewk would like to see more people creating, so he prefers an environment which allows the creations to pay for themselves, removing a major limiting factor.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nessus
In the last farts discussion someone mentioned fan fic, and sadly I think thats where certain genres are headed for a while. There are mediums for unknown authors to use to get their name out there, indie type bundles, story writing for other industries, or magazines like Fantasy and Science Fiction (that a lot of good well known authors got their start in), but I hear even that magazine is having trouble now. Its a problem that certain genres have always faced, but the internet is helping them in the same way it helped aspiring music and movie artists.
I think the industry will be getting a lot harder for new authors to crack into and still make a living with. We may be seeing more focus on tried and true authors, even after their writing starts to suck (Harry Potter, A Series of Unfortunate Events, Sue Grafton, etc..)
I think most people implicitly understand the bargain. After all, most people don't use adblock software.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nessus
I admit my bias against Lewk from the outset. But let's revisit what he posted:Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
In his own words, he said fewer dollars means fewer artists, as if the "driver" of artistic production is only related to money. I disagree with his suggestion (or how I interpret his post). A couple of good examples to prove him wrong: skate boarding and snow boarding in sports. Anime or manga in art.Quote:
The less money in an industry the fewer producers. If you just give away unlimited copies of music, movies and books you will cause fewer people to enter those fields. I like reading books and I would hate to have authors be forced to write less because they have to financially support themselves with a "regular" job. I like special effects in movies, I would hate to have them cut them down in order to provide a cheaper film since anyone can just grab the movie for free. I don't care nearly as much about music but I'm sure other people do.
Journalism and literature has evolved from "hard print" to e-readers or web sites. They may make less money, but there are millions more authors to read.
No, as if money acts as a limiting factor.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
All those millions of amateur writers could still be writing, whether or not "hard print" were still profitable. E-readers and websites haven't done anything for the act of writing.Quote:
Journalism and literature has evolved from "hard print" to e-readers or web sites. They may make less money, but there are millions more authors to read.
That's your interpretation of Lewk's post. Mine is: he thinks money is the main factor.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
I agree. My take on Lewk's position is that a bunch of potential writers, drawers, animators etc are saying, "Fuck it, if I can't make money doing it, I just won't do it."Quote:
All those millions of amateur writers could still be writing, whether or not "hard print" were still profitable. E-readers and websites haven't done anything for the act of writing.
A bunch of them are, specifically those for whom the earnings were either a primary or a necessary part of their motivation. If you want people to do something, an excellent source of motivation is for them to be able to earn a livelihood by doing it.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Citation needed (I can buy it, though), and besides, I doubt most of them do so out of some social contract. The same people probably go pee and raid the fridge during tee-vee commercials.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught