I thought I’d start off the discussion around copyright with a link I received from one of our panelists for this year’s >play conference.
It seems copyright is the one area of law most affected by technological progress. Technologists relentlessly develop new methods of creating and disemminating content. These shifts disrupt existing media business models structured around an earlier paradigm and technology.
Copyright law has always been a balance between incentives for creation and disemmination. What is clear is that technological shifts affect that balance. What is less clear is exactly how those shifts affect the balance. It’s easy to point to anectdotal evidence of how changing times have benefited one party or hurt another. A more difficult task is to take a step back and take a more comprehensive view of whether copyright is in need of recalibration, or whether forces will push the market toward a happier equilibrium. It can take years before we receive any clear sense of long-term implications.
Looking back, we’ve seen the music industry shift from targeting disruptive technologists with litigation toward finding ways to explore new distribution methods and channels. Similarly, successful technologists have been those displaying a willingness to work with content providers and share the benefits of new services. As a quick example, compare the popularity of TiVo and ReplayTV. Which one do you think was more cooperative with Hollywood?
So, where’s the lesson in all of this for current or future entrepreneurs? As much as I think it’s important to work with content providers, a contrast of the success of YouTube and more controlled sites is interesting. Allowing technology products to be designed solely by the concerns of past business models results in products consumers won’t touch.
There’s only so much we can do to change the law. A more efficient path might be to accept the law as is. It can provide a roadmap for feasible business models. An example that comes to mind is statutory fees for music - an opportunity to build a product using others’ content without having to negotiate before acquiring much leverage.
That’s my take. I’m looking forward to hearing what our panelists have to say. They are rich in experience with building businesses from the ground up. How did the law impact execution of their initial plans? What advice do they have for budding entrepreneurs? When is the appropriate time for entrepreneurs to begin thinking about how law might affect their business model? What about situations when it’s not clear what is and is not allowed?
But, nevermind what I want to hear our panelists talk about. I’d love to hear what you have to say, or what questions you have for our panelists. Feel free to leave a comment on a message or write your own post. We’ve set up a number of categories for you, and are happy to create more. This is your conference - we’re here to make it a fun experience for all.
Of the 10 things that I want to comment on in Nate’s post, I’ll start with incentives for creation. Now, 800 years ago I don’t know what the feudal lords had to say about paying royalties to troubadors, but I’m assuming its a subject that didn’t much come up–and music still got created. Artists saw mild financial gains from their wares–enough to keep themselves fed and safe–but they were more incented (methinks) by the wine, women and song part of the deal.
How different are artists today? Music is a moneymaker because some smart business people like us figured out it could be, and they preyed upon the very human impulses of musicians to get those artists to buy into the system. Should technology render moot these well established means of content monetezation will the artists simply go away? No–but will they not create the level of art (production values, scope and vision of artistic expression) that we’ve come to expect? Well, the money certainly isn’t going to disappear completely, so the “Hits” will still get made, at least in the short term. And the rest of the musicians (or film makers or whatever) can create the same quality of art for far, far less than their forbearers.
All of this is to say, particularly in the light of lowered costs to the artists of making their art, is the incentives angle as important now as it was 10 or 20 years ago?