Comments on: A Final Comment on ACS and an Initial Discussion of Other Options Blog, news, books Thu, 12 Oct 2017 05:34:00 +0000 hourly 1 By: Rolo Timassie Sat, 30 Oct 2004 15:32:48 +0000 There’s a fourth option not covered by Prof. Fisher, which is that media companies begin protecting their content using content protection systems. DVDs are an example of this (btw, DVDs were not opposed by the studios, they were enthusiastically *promoted* by the studios, starting with Warner Brothers). With the legal protections for content protection contained in Section 1201, this will obviate the need (hopefully) for more extreme remedies. The market will determine, as it has with DVDs, whether and in what form protection is optimal.

By: james Thu, 28 Oct 2004 13:01:41 +0000 I agree i think you are right about the whole thing. i am book marking this web site and telling my friends about it.Keep the blogs a coming.

By: Erik Trickel Wed, 27 Oct 2004 17:02:32 +0000 I am not sure that the music industry has seen their imminent demise because they still have outs as noted with #2 and #3. The industry will continue to seek #2 and #3 until they have found a viable alternative. I am willing to bet industry executives believe they can �win the war� through DRM and legal regulation. That means we most likely can�t implement the perfect ACS solution out of the box. An ACS will most like need the support of the music industry which would mean it will have to benefit them as much and most likely more than the current system. This ACS is a good starting point for negotiations.

I think there might be a #4 which partially follows in line with Mr. Hunt. We start to see a significant decline of CD sales and an increase in online sales. The music industry keeps pushing congress for reforms to restrict consumer rights via #2 and #3. Though the type of distribution method is changing drastically the revenue numbers don�t show an overall decline in revenues making it difficult for legislators and the public to sympathize. Once this transformation hits critical mass, it will be too late for them to turn the tide. We will have a highly effective and inexpensive distribution mechanism for artists not trapped by a contract. This will give way to a slow decline of the monopoly and provide the right timing for an alternative solution.

By: Brian Hunt Wed, 27 Oct 2004 14:50:00 +0000 On Big Government: One considerable problem inherent to a centralized system of valuation is that it is subject to corruption, and indeed, encourages it. In contrast, a capitalist model actually gives an incentive to produce, rather than corrupt. You can only sell so many CD’s.

If an ACS isn’t adopted, and Congress doesn’t give the music and film industries the legislative power to hang themselves, I suspect that the market will adequately compensate for changes.

Most probably is that digital distribution methods will become prevalent, for consumers and theatres alike. Indeed, there is nothing to say that consumers currently pirating would not otherwise pay for media, were it available in a suitable format at a reasonable price.

Alternatively, more pessimistically, and less likely, is that the major industry players will be unable to adopt a sustainable source of revenue to support their big-budget productions. This is very unlikely, but it could lead to a distributed, folk based model, that distributes money more evenly to local centers as the demand for entertainment remains steady, but the big-budget supply dries up. Local entertainment has been known to compensate for a lack of centralized entertainment. Europe, being separated by languages, is a prime example of this.

Let us not forget that the marketplace compensates. It is also unpredictable; DVD sales now outweigh theatre sales for productions of all sizes and budgets. Nevertheless, the industry was vehemently opposed to the idea from inception. The shortsightedness of the entertainment industry (excluding the pornographic branch) is astounding, having opposed every technological revolution that has consistently filled their coffers.

There is, and arguably will always be, a solid demand for entertainment, though the digital supply in adequate formats at appropriate prices has not yet taken hold. Given time, it will. The future will allow people to watch TV and movie productions on demand, downloaded from the internet on a whim, and with appropriate compensation to the authors. The incentive must be there, though, for the entertainment industry to acknowledge and adopt this model of revenue.

One interesting benefit to an ACS, however, where users choose how to compensate is that the producers are subject to zero-sum valuation. Rather than being able to dictate how much to charge for their copyright monopoly, and have users choose to buy or not, they are given an incentive to have users value their works as compared to other users. This makes for an excellent incentive to create valuable works.

By: Ian Wed, 27 Oct 2004 14:37:51 +0000 Thanks for responding to my FairShare proposal. To your first point, your assertion that people only tip waiters due to social pressure, rather than out of a desire to reward them, is open to debate. There are many examples where people reward others financially even when the person they are rewarding is extremely unlikely to notice the individual reward. Either way, the distinguishing characteristic of FairShare is that it doesn’t rely on such generosity alone.

To your second point, I fear that you have misunderstood the proposal. A comsumer’s investment in an artist is not recouped from sales of that artist’s CDs, but from subsequent investments in the artist through the FairShare system. Because of this is does not revert to a pure voluntary model just because CD sales have dried up.

I think the simplicity of setting up a system like FairShare relative to the technical, and legal complexity of your ACS proposal could well make it a more realistic alternative.