Freedom of the Press?
Nov. 19th, 2009 08:45 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
thessalianSo it seems that Peter Mandelson, a gentleman whose credentials I'm not entirely sure of half the time, wants to amend copyright law. Basically, he seems to want to make it possible for the 'any person as may be specified' to be able to punish perceived copyright infringers, or 'pirates'. There's a lot of really weirdness going on with this, particularly the bit where it seems that Mandelson didn't even seem to care about copyright infringement until he spent a weekend on David Geffen's yacht or something. But to be honest, it all sounds horrifying.
Currently, the 'three strikes and you're off the internet' rule is totally unworkable on grounds of privacy and accountability. ISPs are not being held accountable for what passes over their network, because to be held accountable, they'd have to monitor everything that ever gets downloaded or shared, not to mention how that information was downloaded or shared. Was it paid for? Who posted it in the first place? Where did they get it from? What exactly is in that file, anyway? You'd need to know all that to know for sure that it was an illegal download, but to have all that information is a blatant invasion of privacy. Plus it would cost ISPs millions that they can't really afford. So nobody's worried. Except they should be. Because if this 'any person as may be specified' thing takes off, the people who want the monopoly are not only going to put their billions to work to ensure they keep making those billions, but they're going to have to go about the business of locating illegal filesharing as if with a shotgun, punishing innocent people in the process. What happens when people start using free WiFi at coffee shops in concert with flash cards? Will they sue until free wi-fi is no longer available? They theoretically could. 'Fair use' looks like it might go out the window at this point.
I can see where the fear comes from, to be honest. There's Rupert Murdoch trying to remove stories from Google's search index to encourage people to pay for online content. There's a whole hoopla in the comments about how this will kill off Murdoch's media empire, and a few others who are pointing out that unless there's a subscription charge, media as we know it will more or less tank because advertising revenue isn't what it used to be. The thing is, I can sort of see the point. A quality website needs to be created, maintained and redesigned every now and again. Reporters need to be paid. Advertising revenue is being spread pretty thinly right now, with so many different advertising avenues to exploit, and so no one is getting as much of it as they need to keep going. That's the major issue about a world that's changing as fast as ours is, at least in terms of getting information and entertainment out to the public. You used to have to buy a newspaper or catch the news, in which latter case there were TV ads or licence fees to pay for the content. Now there's any number of places on the internet to which advertising revenue can go, and so people aren't buying so many slots for so long in any one given spot. So what's to do?
The only thing I can think of is eliminating hard copy newspapers entirely. Let's face it - something has to go. That being the case, and given that I don't think that there are a lot of people in the UK without at least access to a computer and an internet connection via their local library, why can't the thing that goes be the wasteful, cumbersome, resource-intensive crumply stuff? Online news updates faster, just for a start, and if someone really wants to read it while on the tube? Make a text-only version and read it via your iPod's Notes section ... or even print a copy. If there were no more actual hard copy newspapers, not only would there be fewer cost implications in terms of paper, ink, printing etc, but there'd be more advertising revenue to spread around online, so there'd be more coming into each individual online publication. That would still allow for free distribution of news and paying the reporters and editors and people.
There's the problem, of course, of the loss of jobs involved in shutting down the physical presses, but that needn't be as much of an issue as it sounds. No physical newspaper means more traffic on the sites. More traffic on the sites means more hands needed to keep everything running. Establish a training programme for the people solely involved in the meatspace end, get them up to speed with what it takes to run an online publication. They don't all need to get the sack; they just need to get new skills and apply them to the job at hand.
Of course, it might help if the owners of these media and news conglomerates weren't pulling in six-figure salaries and massive end-of-year bonuses, too. That'd really help. It's not enough to make a comfortable living for these people; they have to have the yacht and the mansion and the OMFG how can you justify that kind of excess now? What the people who keep talking about how news media is doomed unless the 'common people' pump money into it don't seem to get is that most of the money the 'common people' and the advertisers are already pumping in is not going to keeping the publication going. Most of it is going to a few very greedy people who already have more money than they could spend in six lifetimes if they were being remotely sensible. If owners of these media conglomerates were content to cut their profits a little, even just from 'obscene' to 'huge', then perhaps the advertising revenue that's already coming into play would be enough. But no; apparently they have got used to their economic obscenity and they can't imagine not having it. How the hell are they needing that much money anyway? What are they spending it on?
I think I had to have this rant in order to work out both sides of this argument in my head. I know that it takes money to make these things run, but it doesn't take as much money as yahoos like Murdoch are making to make a family run unless comfort is being taken to extreme degrees. And yes, I am taking into account the need for living and security arrangements that allow a major public figure some measure of privacy.
Bottom line: the world is changing, and has been for quite some time. It'll keep changing, and people had really better keep up. If I actually cared, I'd apologise to the Old Guard, but frankly, they're going to need to change their expectations rather a lot if they want to even keep making a reasonable profit on news and entertainment media ventures.
I need to find out if it's the same in book publishing as it is for people like Murdoch, really. I don't like the idea that most of the profit from any creative venture of mine ends up going to someone who has more money than anyone reasonably knows what to do with and, more to the point, is trying to screw over the audience in a bid to make more.
Currently, the 'three strikes and you're off the internet' rule is totally unworkable on grounds of privacy and accountability. ISPs are not being held accountable for what passes over their network, because to be held accountable, they'd have to monitor everything that ever gets downloaded or shared, not to mention how that information was downloaded or shared. Was it paid for? Who posted it in the first place? Where did they get it from? What exactly is in that file, anyway? You'd need to know all that to know for sure that it was an illegal download, but to have all that information is a blatant invasion of privacy. Plus it would cost ISPs millions that they can't really afford. So nobody's worried. Except they should be. Because if this 'any person as may be specified' thing takes off, the people who want the monopoly are not only going to put their billions to work to ensure they keep making those billions, but they're going to have to go about the business of locating illegal filesharing as if with a shotgun, punishing innocent people in the process. What happens when people start using free WiFi at coffee shops in concert with flash cards? Will they sue until free wi-fi is no longer available? They theoretically could. 'Fair use' looks like it might go out the window at this point.
I can see where the fear comes from, to be honest. There's Rupert Murdoch trying to remove stories from Google's search index to encourage people to pay for online content. There's a whole hoopla in the comments about how this will kill off Murdoch's media empire, and a few others who are pointing out that unless there's a subscription charge, media as we know it will more or less tank because advertising revenue isn't what it used to be. The thing is, I can sort of see the point. A quality website needs to be created, maintained and redesigned every now and again. Reporters need to be paid. Advertising revenue is being spread pretty thinly right now, with so many different advertising avenues to exploit, and so no one is getting as much of it as they need to keep going. That's the major issue about a world that's changing as fast as ours is, at least in terms of getting information and entertainment out to the public. You used to have to buy a newspaper or catch the news, in which latter case there were TV ads or licence fees to pay for the content. Now there's any number of places on the internet to which advertising revenue can go, and so people aren't buying so many slots for so long in any one given spot. So what's to do?
The only thing I can think of is eliminating hard copy newspapers entirely. Let's face it - something has to go. That being the case, and given that I don't think that there are a lot of people in the UK without at least access to a computer and an internet connection via their local library, why can't the thing that goes be the wasteful, cumbersome, resource-intensive crumply stuff? Online news updates faster, just for a start, and if someone really wants to read it while on the tube? Make a text-only version and read it via your iPod's Notes section ... or even print a copy. If there were no more actual hard copy newspapers, not only would there be fewer cost implications in terms of paper, ink, printing etc, but there'd be more advertising revenue to spread around online, so there'd be more coming into each individual online publication. That would still allow for free distribution of news and paying the reporters and editors and people.
There's the problem, of course, of the loss of jobs involved in shutting down the physical presses, but that needn't be as much of an issue as it sounds. No physical newspaper means more traffic on the sites. More traffic on the sites means more hands needed to keep everything running. Establish a training programme for the people solely involved in the meatspace end, get them up to speed with what it takes to run an online publication. They don't all need to get the sack; they just need to get new skills and apply them to the job at hand.
Of course, it might help if the owners of these media and news conglomerates weren't pulling in six-figure salaries and massive end-of-year bonuses, too. That'd really help. It's not enough to make a comfortable living for these people; they have to have the yacht and the mansion and the OMFG how can you justify that kind of excess now? What the people who keep talking about how news media is doomed unless the 'common people' pump money into it don't seem to get is that most of the money the 'common people' and the advertisers are already pumping in is not going to keeping the publication going. Most of it is going to a few very greedy people who already have more money than they could spend in six lifetimes if they were being remotely sensible. If owners of these media conglomerates were content to cut their profits a little, even just from 'obscene' to 'huge', then perhaps the advertising revenue that's already coming into play would be enough. But no; apparently they have got used to their economic obscenity and they can't imagine not having it. How the hell are they needing that much money anyway? What are they spending it on?
I think I had to have this rant in order to work out both sides of this argument in my head. I know that it takes money to make these things run, but it doesn't take as much money as yahoos like Murdoch are making to make a family run unless comfort is being taken to extreme degrees. And yes, I am taking into account the need for living and security arrangements that allow a major public figure some measure of privacy.
Bottom line: the world is changing, and has been for quite some time. It'll keep changing, and people had really better keep up. If I actually cared, I'd apologise to the Old Guard, but frankly, they're going to need to change their expectations rather a lot if they want to even keep making a reasonable profit on news and entertainment media ventures.
I need to find out if it's the same in book publishing as it is for people like Murdoch, really. I don't like the idea that most of the profit from any creative venture of mine ends up going to someone who has more money than anyone reasonably knows what to do with and, more to the point, is trying to screw over the audience in a bid to make more.