digital vs physical media: purchase drivers
Why I buy digital media (books, music, movies)
- the content
- instant gratification
- searchability
- zero physical storage needed
- ‘feels’ less like acquiring something
- device portability
- ease of use
- minimal barriers to purchase
Why I buy physical media (books, music, movies)
- the content
- ‘feels’ more like I own something
- physical enjoyment of the packaging
- beautiful design
- relatively few technical requirements
- zero reliance on electricity (certain cases)
- ability to display ownership (badge theory?)
If there is only one point of overlap, as to the reasons I purchase media, why is this constantly being treated as a binary choice?
Downloading a book isn’t the same as buying it in a bookstore. Downloading a record isn’t the same as buying it in a record store. Watching a movie on my computer or store isn’t the same as seeing it in the theatre. Same with a concert vs a ‘live’ record.
The assumption that the consumption experience doesn’t come with its own set of purchase drivers is beyond counter-intuitive, but it’s apparently the accepted wisdom. So we have release windows, and absurd copy protection, and region locking - all of which damage the consumption experience, in the name of preserving the content.
How’s that going so far?
The Digital Content Paradox
Please explain the following contradiction:
Copyright / Free Culture advocates / activists (myself included) often decry the absurdity of assuming the logic and rules of physical goods and objects apply to digital goods and objects. At the same time, the same activist / advocate groups often insist than rights and concepts of physical ownership on the consumer end, should apply to digital ownership.
If it’s insane for companies to apply pre-digital concepts to their digital products, it’s insane for us to apply pre-digital concepts of ownership to the same products.
Kitty Hawk and Post-Digital Copyright
Letting the current generation of lawmakers decide what is and isn’t permissible online is like letting the pre-flight lawmakers decide that land ownership extends infinitely up into the air.
Which, if I’m not mistaken, is exactly what some people thought should happen, in the post-Kitty Hawk USA.
This is the level of absurdity we’re talking about, when we talk about demanding that bits be treated as the legal equivalent of atoms. We’re talking about banning air travel because a spot ten thousand feet above Jim-Bob’s cabin is somehow a key element of Jim-Bob’s day to day life, and flying over unnoticed infringes on his rights.
There’s a collapsing content business because people are still trying to legislate bits into atoms, and spending countless millions on lawsuits, lobbying and hackneyed technologies to make this happen.
It won’t work. The invention of the plane made it necessary for Jim-Bob to let go of the imaginary right he had to the space above his head, the same way content industries need to let go of the imaginary value of text and images that can be instantly copied at no cost, and transmitted at no price.
I don’t care if the world worked one way for your entire career. It doesn’t work that way anymore. Making it illegal for the world to have changed just ruins any chance of developing sustainable businesses.
Put another way, prohibition created organized crime. Endless rivers of money went to criminals because, well, people were gonna drink anyway. A law that does not change behaviour isn’t a law, it’s failed governance.
Let the planes fly, because the second we realized they could, the world changed.
[Edit: apparently I am accidentally stealing this comparison from Lawrence Lessig. This isn’t shocking, because I make a point of reading as much of his work as possible. Still, apologies.]
The Rise of the Super Fakes
If you want to feel smarter after reading something, Jan Chipcase is for you.
Greatest ‘Hits’: A Viable Pirate Myth.
[This post originally appeared on my old blog, BrokenGentleman.com, on June 28, 07]
I’ve been watching several documentaries lately on the state of copyright, onremix culture, and on the comparative bargain between rights-holders (large corporations) and the people. The problem isn’t that they are focusing on piracy, because piracy is a big issue. The problem is that piracy has been subverted to only mean ‘downloading copyrighted material from the internet’, or more specifically, music or film content, with a notable amount of software, and some print content thrown in for flavouring.
When I talk to people about my opinions on copyright, I first and foremost raise the idea of the developing nations licensing, (creative commons style) and why it makes more sense than universal price structures, universal copyrights, and unilateral laws. Developing nations don’t have money. They have economies, and funds, and purchasing power, but they don’t have money on a western scale.
Copyright is about money, primarily.
This is evident in the idea of region coding, for game systems, dvds, etc. A global price structure is an impossiblity, because it would either kill profit in the west, or eliminate the market in the global south, and Asia. So, DVDs and movies come out in formats that only work on hardware sold in certain parts of the world. Otherwise, everyone would buy legal versions for the cheapest region.
A developing nations license is more or less the same idea, but taken to extremes. Copyright is waived in countries which would not create a viable market for it. Content, ideas, patents are used for the benefit of the people who need them, rather than locked down. The net profit for the creator / owner is nothing either way, but in one instance, people are helped.
The best application for this idea is medication, specifically AIDS drugs.
However, there’s no pressure on this. The entertainment content industries are forced to at least TRY to reckon with the reality of their situation, because more people are downloading content than shaking in fear of an impending RIAA lawsuit.
There’s no one pirating patented AIDS drugs in a series of mobile African factories, and distributing them to the people. And the free culture / anti-copyright movement has a lot of people who constantly try to emanate that kind of cultural responsibility, that kind of IMPORT in what they do. The undercurrent is always that, somehow, by downloading a record instead of paying EMI, they are fighting for a better future.
We’ve got the kids signing up with Amnesty International and the Peace Corps, and we’ve got the millionaires throwing money around in an attempt to make the world a better place.
If I had to pick a place to start, I’d ask Bono and Gates to fund an illegal, patent-ignoring lab on an offshore oil rig, where we would make lab-grade medicine for the people who need it, can’t afford it, and will die without it. THIS is the kind of piracy that is only wrong according to the law, and is, or should be, a natural human right.
Instead we’re downloading Spiderman 3 and getting confused when people don’t treat us with the proper revolutionary regard.
Real World Implications of the Twitter DDoS Attack.
About a year ago, on an older, uglier blog, I wrote about the disruptive potential of nationalised botnets, in relation to the Russian / Georgian conflict.
And now, outlets are reporting that yesterday’s Twitter and Facebook outages are related to the same conflict, in an attempt to silence an outspoken Georgian blogger.
The question has to be asked, at which point is this an act of war? In a very real way, this is foreign political interests attacking North American corporations. Whether or not the damage to Twitter and Facebook is collateral, it’s still damage. And most likely, it’s damage inflicted due to assembling a massive collection of compromised computer systems.
Who is the injured party? Aligning Twitter with a country seems insufficient, but treating the internet as a commons without a nation makes it difficult to defend.
More importantly, how much longer until this tactic is ranked along with other military and political actions and sanctions as a motivator? Imagine U.S. copyright interests taking down AllOfMP3.com via DDoS attacks, instead of threatening lawsuits. An international version of the proposed French ‘three strikes’ copyright infringement law - if your country is a pirate haven, we will demolish your ability to do business online.
There are many dangerous precedents waiting to be set. And yet, this all comes back to the disruptive effect social media has had on journalism and the reporting of news. A media blackout via DDoS makes a lot more sense than sending armed combatants into radio stations, tv studios and newspapers.
We have applied to trademark Tweet because it is clearly attached to Twitter from a brand perspective but we have no intention of “going after” the wonderful applications and services that use the word in their name when associated with Twitter. In fact, we encourage the use of the word Tweet. However, if we come across a confusing or damaging project, the recourse to act responsibly to protect both users and our brand is important.
