Copyright and the Concept of Ownership in the Information Age

Let's see: There are already two widely accepted alternative funding methods:

• The "TV model": Most major TV channels are entirely supported by advertisement blocks. The Live-Action TV series we all know, are being aired everywhere for free, yet they are a major industrial-quality medium. (this only pays enough for works that can be interupted by long, obnixious ads. Product Placement, or ignorable Sideline banners wouldn't pay enough.)

• The "Anime model": Just like the Live-Action TV model, the works themselves are aired for free on TV, and though the small viewerbase wouldn't pay enough from ads, but a core of devoted fans buys enough merchandise and DV Ds. While technically selling DV Ds is a form of selling fiction for money, in practice, if the work already aired on TV, where people could view and even record it for themselves, it's more like a form of merchandise, the disc itself bought as a decoration on the shelves.

• The "pay-for-performance model": Most musicians already partially rely on live performances. Even if they still demand money for albums, the market is progressively shifting away from that direction.
  • In a certain sense, cinema is also relying on that method: The only reason why people still go to ciema isn't that they can't view the movies in other ways, but that they want to pay for the seat, the big IMAX screen, the sound and image quality, and the popcorn, that can't be pirated.

In all three of the above examples, publishers still insist that piracy is hurting them, but they are already learning to work from other sources. If the pay-for-copied-data model would be entirely killed, whether by laws, or by piracy forcing publishers to give it up, these industries wouldn't fall apart, just change their priorities.

The remaining major industries that these wouldn't apply too, are Video Games, and Literature. Theoretical incomes for them:

• The "pay-for-hardware model": Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo, all make money from selling console machines, and from making games, at the same time. In the past decade, the "razor-and-blades model" was typical, (underpriced hardware and overpriced exclusive software), but it would be easy to invert it, the same companies could also sell the hardware itself for more money, and make free games, with the benefit that free games give a reason for people to buy the hardware.
  • This would also work for novels. Amazon and Barns & Noble are involved in both ebook Reader production, and book publishing. If they would witness that people don't pay for their ebooks any more, it would be their best interest to increase the hardware prices, and from that profit, pay writers to write books that will sell more hardware.
  • Sony also has an interest in both movie-making, and home theater equipment production, so even if people would stop going to cimema, being content with their home cinema and pirated films, Sony would still be forced to continue making movies, so people will buy those.

edited 27th Jul '11 4:05:32 AM by Ever9

Something that's kinda related that I've been wondering about: how many people can you invite over to watch a movie with you before it technically counts as a "public exhibition" and gives the copyright holders grounds for a suit?

I think it depends on how you invite them.

The pay-for-hardware model falls apart slightly because the most powerful piece of hardware can emulate the others, barring software locks.

edited 27th Jul '11 6:16:50 AM by Yej

Except, like I noted before, powerful hardware might suddenly vanish from the consumer market (and price range.)

Why would it vanish from the price range?

Because they would magically transform from something like a “prosumer PC” to an “officially licensed content development workstation.” For the proles? The latest generation of high end hardware would be a glorified set-top VNC terminal. For example, look at what Apple did with the G5, after over a decade of offering expandable desktop Macs for ~$1-1.5k. You want an upgradeable Mac now? You pay $2.5k+. The rest of the PC industry is itching to follow suite, especially with the (completely proprietary) laptop industry, who are moving closer and closer to cellphone-like designs.

I'm still trying to figure out why people buy e-book readers. They're nothing a smart phone couldn't be.

Don't they have larger screens?

Screens, no cell phone signal to be traced, other factors.

I don't see how cell signals figure in when virtualy everyone is always carrying one. And if you have to write & read E-Mails on the screen and surf the internet shouldn't you be able to read books? If it's to little you can always magnify.

Magnification? That doesn't really work, it's not a matter of seeing the individual words, but the size of the overall page. Scrolling sucks.

And no, not everybody wants to carry around a cell phone either. It's not an issue for most, but I have heard it come up.

Sure but that's at most 5% of everybody. Also, are you telling me that E-books force you to turn the page? Who ever made this decision? If you have to upgrade to a new medium, can't you not at least adapt the convenient things like scrolling (It's one of my favourite things in the Internet/PC)?

I do agree it's a small number of people concerned about it, but as I said, I have heard it expressed.

As for the rest, I'm saying that scrolling sucks. The more you do of it, the worse it is. E-books can either be set to change a page at a time, or scroll, if there's models that can't do one or the other, that's on them, I can't speak for them all, I'm just saying I do not like scrolling all the time. I like a bigger chunk of words. Hence why I will not use a Cell-phone to read anything if I can possibly avoid it.

Which I do. I haven't even used a cellphone in weeks myself.

edited 27th Jul '11 10:28:11 AM by blueharp

Fair enough. But that's all thing you can do on a smart phone or, say, an I Pad if you worry about visibility.

It's not that method that's the issue, per se, it's the size of the screen, which necessitates more changes. Though the iPad does have a large one, but I would hardly count it as a phone anyway.

That said, e-ink screens are much easier to read than other display types, but that's another issue.

edited 27th Jul '11 10:38:19 AM by blueharp

That's actually the main difference, I think is eye strain.

In any case, I think there's enough people who like to reward creators that they'll continue to do so no matter what happens.