Score 1 for Cell Phone Competition, Score 0 for Copyright Laws
I’m a fan of Jim Prentice these days. That wireless spectrum auction is a game-changer that we will look back on in 20 years and say, “If that government did everything else wrong, they sure did this right.”
There’s an opportunity for the intelligent and diplomatic Mr. Prentice to make a similarly game-changing law with copyright, which could reverberate internationally where he could go down in history, globally, as a great policymaker and visionary.
Here it is.
As technology followers know, record companies and movie studios have been pushing hard for Governments around the world to crack down on “piracy” of their products.
Fair enough. If people were stealing my stuff, I’d be mad too.
I’ve been following this for years, and wrote an article in 1996 outlining the death spiral of record companies, much as it has unfolded to date. These guys seriously don’t get the new world, and just wish they could turn back the clock. It’s sad to me that they still don’t get it, 12 years later.
Let’s start with the obvious: Generally, consumers don’t want to break the law. What consumers want is the ability to watch, read or listen to their “media” on multiple platforms (their TV, computer, iPod, car stereo, cellphone, etc.).
This means a “standard media format” that is transferable without all this “Digital Rights Management” nonsense that record companies have forced vendors like iTunes to use, which, as far as I can tell, only serves to frustrate consumers, and turn them on to illegal methods of receiving a useful version of their media. Record companies are a huge part of the problem by making the “legal” download borderline unusable.
So, here is my pitch to Jim Prentice:
The record companies want a crack down on illegal downloading, pirating, whatever you might call it. Fine. Here’s the tradeoff: all media that is made available for “legal” download is made available in a “standard and transferable” format (like MP3), at least as an option. If the media companies refuse to make it available in this format, then the law does not apply for those affected media products. So, if Disney decides not to allow a standard format download of “Toy Story 2″, then the law that goes after “illegal file sharing” does not affect that product. If they decide to offer a legal, standard format for a fee, then the full force of the law will come down upon the evildoers.
Easy, right?
Record companies would howl, I’m sure, that my idea will only facilitate further “illegal file sharing”. But let’s think about it for a minute.
I have my choice of an “illegal, questionable quality, slow, possibly virus-ridden” and “free” download, or I can spend $1 and get the same file “legally, high quality, quickly, and virus-free”? Sorry gnutty buddy, but I’m going to pay the $1 – that is, I’m going to pay the $1 if I can use this file on all my media players without a big pain in my behind.
Now, they suggest, I’m going to take my legally obtained file, turn around and “share” it “illegally” on some shady file sharing network? Please. I have better things to do with my time than save some idiots $1. Initially this might happen, but give it a year or two, and these networks will go the way of the dinosaur.
If we crack down as per the current legislation, it will be unworkable (and, frankly, silly). People will continue to “share”, and unless the record companies drop DRM on their own accord, record companies will continue to bleed, and their shareholders will lose even more money.
My proposed policy change would INCREASE online music and video sales, DECREASE pirating, and create an environment where enforcement is actually FEASIBLE, while also making consumers 1000% more satisfied with their music and video downloads.
Wake up and smell the Coldplay!
Comments
Network
