Blogging, Internet Commerce and Free Rides.
The issues of art commerce on the Internet I was talking about in the former article are complex and I recommended sheer experimentation as a way to find venues for global distribution of visual art objects. Commercialization of art objects on the Internet is a complicated subject in itself. Things get even more complicated when we try to commercialize information or immaterial works of art and writing. I will start this paper by describing my personal biases on the subject of online production, distribution and consumption; after that I will go on to quote and recommend (fresh from the print) Robert Levine's "Free Ride: How Digital Parasites are Destroying the Culture Business and How the Culture Business Can Fight Back." which delves into these issues in ways I'm not able to.
First:
I like to blog because is an outlet for me. Writing, like painting, allows me to get rid of much that is inside of me and that makes me restless. But I also blog because it gives me "exposure" to certain audiences around the world that I could not reach otherwise. By blogging people get to know my visual work, the way I think and who I'm. I have hopes that someday I would make a strong connection with a person or an institution that could provide the platform for doing a show or sell some art ( I'm a professional artist after all). But I recognize that once people starts reading you in a regular base your blogging becomes more than just personal venting, it becomes a responsibility. Now you have an obligation to write systematically so that you would not let your readers down and your ratings go low. If I suddenly stop blogging that may be seem as a weakness of character and at the same time I would never know what would I have accomplished if I would have kept blogging. Unless I have a major reason, like an incapacitating illness or death, I cannot stop blogging. Or, unless I have another major reason such as realizing that I'm producing content that other people are parasiting from. And lately, I've been thinking that that seems to be the case. I've been producing so much material in the last year without earning one penny from it. I'm not sure how much money Google makes from its Blogspot venue; but I'm sure at least half of Blogspot value comes from the content its users produce for free in a regular base. If that is not a "free ride", then I don't know what "free ride" is.
So far I'm looking forward to keep blogging, although I have lost already some of the steam I had when I started since I haven't found a way to profit from my hard work and therefore have lost motivation to keep doing it -- not to mention incentives to write high quality stuff. Long ago I was venting my frustration at these issues and I was trying to find a way to make readers pay for my work. I also tried to profit from advertising, but that didn't work either. But I still write because there is hope that one day this thing will become profitable for me and not only for the Google guys. Let me said it straight: there is nothing wrong for an artist to make a living out of his art or a writer make a living out of his words. And if I can't make it I may have to go to occupy Google.
I have tried different ways to make a profit from the Internet, one of them by trying to sell prints of my original artworks. To that end I've been using sites such as Saatchionline and Ebay. Ebay never worked for me. I know Saatchi has made at least one sale of my prints but they are so slow at paying that I've been ruminating about withdrawing my images from their site.
Trying to profit from the sell of materials objects on the Internet is easier than trying to profit from the sale of information. That's why I'm trying to use information, or blogging, as an instrument to sell my objects. after all, I repeat, there is nothing wrong for an artist to make a living out of his art or a writer make a living out of his words.
What is actually happening and which is wrong is that others are profiting from my writing and the writing of thousand of others like me. While we, creators of content, are getting nothing back from our hard work. That is not fair.
Last night, with these things swirling in my mind I went to Barnes & Noble and I discovered a book that talks about these issues in a way I would never be able to. Robert Levine has written a book that could send shock waves around the entertainment and technology industries. A book that unleash the fury of its author (a technology insider) against what he perceives as the parasitic behavior of Internet content providers profiting from the works of creators and investors.
If you are angry at the major increase in inequality that is happening in American society today and want to direct your anger against a culprit other than Wall Street you should read this book. You would discover piece by piece how few conglomerates are making fortunes out of the free work of little guys like me or you; destroying the culture industry along the way: TV networks, book industry, film, journalism, you name it. It is media Armageddon caused by the likes of Google and Youtube.
Second:
Here are some excerpts from the book:
" The real conflict online is between the media companies that fund much of then entertainment we read, see and hear and the technology companies that want to distribute their content --legally or otherwise. For the past few years, helping consumers access content has been one of the best business on earth" ( Levine 4).
"Most online companies that have built businesses based on giving away information or entertainment aren't funding the content they are distributing" (Ibid 6).
'"In economic terms these businesses are getting a 'free ride', profiting from the work of others" (Ibid 6).
And now this piece of a gem of an argument:
"The term 'parasite' comes from the Greek word parasitos, used to refer to someone who sat at someone else's table without providing anything in return. It's a useful way to think of news aggregators like the Huffington Post or search engines that especialize in finding illegal downloads of copyrighted content ( Is he talking about Google?). The standard response is that they are providing 'exposure'. But they are also providing competition, by selling advertising that used to go to creators. As the old Catskills joke goes, 'You could die of exposure'. Right now that is what is happening to the culture business" (Ibid 6-7).
"The real issue is how to establish a functioning market for content online, whether that involves selling or supporting it with advertising" (Ibid 9).
"Traditional media companies aren't in trouble because they are not giving consumers what they want, they are in trouble because they can't collect money" (Ibid 9).
"Laws created the Internet as much as technology did, and the ones we have aren't working" (Ibid 10).
"The tough decisions about the future of online media don't involve the development of technology, it's inevitable that computers, bandwidth and storage will all get faster, cheaper and more accesible. What is not inevatable is how that technology is used" (Ibid 12-13).
On Bruce Lehman, Clinton's Commissioner of the U.S. Pattent and Trademark Office, which helped push the policies that became the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act: " Anti-circumvention policy he pushed up didn't make up for the devastation caused by the safe harbor provision to which the reluctantly agreed" (Ibid 16).
"The Digital Millenium Copyright Act, a compromise between media conglomerates on the one hand and telecom companies on the other, devastated the first group and helped the second soar. As Lehman recommended, the law makes it illegal to circumvent copy-protection technology, such as the encryption on DVDs and some digital downloads, or distribute a tool to do so. It also give 'safe harbor' to Internet service providers and some online companies so they are not liable for copyright infringement based on the action of users" (Ibid 15-16).
"The Internet has been an impressive engine of economic growth. But a great deal of that grow has gone to a small number of technology companies. They depend on informative journalism to make their search engines useful, and they depend on compelling music and movies to make digital players worth owning. But the companies that fund these cultural products have never been in worse shape. They are cutting jobs and with them the ability to create and market new work. Those search engines and players won't be nearly as valuable without them" (Ibid 252-253).
"The current situation is robbing the Internet of its potential, Rather than encourage innovation and excellence, it rewards cost cutting and crowdsourcing. The effects can be underwhelming" ( Ibid 253).
"No one believes that piracy could be stopped by a law like COICA or an agreement between media companies and Internet service providers. But regulations like these, whether private or public, would allow a working market to emerge. Creators would sell, consumers would buy and both would benefit" (Ibid 253).
"In a functioning market, online media would get better and just cheaper. And this in turn would fuel the growth of more technology companies. This wouldn't break the Internet: It would help it live up t its potential" (Ibid 253).
Third:
I recommend reading Robert Levine's "Free Ride: How Digital Parasites are Destroying the Culture Business and How the Culture Business Can Fight Back" in its entirety. In it you would discover or refresh how and what made the music industry collapse, what is endangering the survival of good journalism, what is threatening the life of network TV and how the days of the printed book industry may be coming to an end soon.
The conclusion and policies this book offer are not extremist at all as all good policy recommendations are. Levine advocates for an Internet that is neither totally open nor totally closed, but something between the two extremes. The best to go for media companies and telecom companies is to find common ground where there is not excessive regulation but there isn't either an environment of wild market forces and unleashed "free rides."
Note: Check this article in EL PAIS for an update on what is going on with copyright, piracy and illegal content and the U.S. Congress' about to be voted SOPA or PIPA law: La 'Ley Sinde' de EE.UU, un terremoto.
Work Cited (and promoted):
Robert Levine. Free Ride: How Digital Parasites are Destroying the Culture Business and How the Culture Business Can Fight Back. Doubleday, 2011.
First:
I like to blog because is an outlet for me. Writing, like painting, allows me to get rid of much that is inside of me and that makes me restless. But I also blog because it gives me "exposure" to certain audiences around the world that I could not reach otherwise. By blogging people get to know my visual work, the way I think and who I'm. I have hopes that someday I would make a strong connection with a person or an institution that could provide the platform for doing a show or sell some art ( I'm a professional artist after all). But I recognize that once people starts reading you in a regular base your blogging becomes more than just personal venting, it becomes a responsibility. Now you have an obligation to write systematically so that you would not let your readers down and your ratings go low. If I suddenly stop blogging that may be seem as a weakness of character and at the same time I would never know what would I have accomplished if I would have kept blogging. Unless I have a major reason, like an incapacitating illness or death, I cannot stop blogging. Or, unless I have another major reason such as realizing that I'm producing content that other people are parasiting from. And lately, I've been thinking that that seems to be the case. I've been producing so much material in the last year without earning one penny from it. I'm not sure how much money Google makes from its Blogspot venue; but I'm sure at least half of Blogspot value comes from the content its users produce for free in a regular base. If that is not a "free ride", then I don't know what "free ride" is.
So far I'm looking forward to keep blogging, although I have lost already some of the steam I had when I started since I haven't found a way to profit from my hard work and therefore have lost motivation to keep doing it -- not to mention incentives to write high quality stuff. Long ago I was venting my frustration at these issues and I was trying to find a way to make readers pay for my work. I also tried to profit from advertising, but that didn't work either. But I still write because there is hope that one day this thing will become profitable for me and not only for the Google guys. Let me said it straight: there is nothing wrong for an artist to make a living out of his art or a writer make a living out of his words. And if I can't make it I may have to go to occupy Google.
I have tried different ways to make a profit from the Internet, one of them by trying to sell prints of my original artworks. To that end I've been using sites such as Saatchionline and Ebay. Ebay never worked for me. I know Saatchi has made at least one sale of my prints but they are so slow at paying that I've been ruminating about withdrawing my images from their site.
Trying to profit from the sell of materials objects on the Internet is easier than trying to profit from the sale of information. That's why I'm trying to use information, or blogging, as an instrument to sell my objects. after all, I repeat, there is nothing wrong for an artist to make a living out of his art or a writer make a living out of his words.
What is actually happening and which is wrong is that others are profiting from my writing and the writing of thousand of others like me. While we, creators of content, are getting nothing back from our hard work. That is not fair.
Last night, with these things swirling in my mind I went to Barnes & Noble and I discovered a book that talks about these issues in a way I would never be able to. Robert Levine has written a book that could send shock waves around the entertainment and technology industries. A book that unleash the fury of its author (a technology insider) against what he perceives as the parasitic behavior of Internet content providers profiting from the works of creators and investors.
If you are angry at the major increase in inequality that is happening in American society today and want to direct your anger against a culprit other than Wall Street you should read this book. You would discover piece by piece how few conglomerates are making fortunes out of the free work of little guys like me or you; destroying the culture industry along the way: TV networks, book industry, film, journalism, you name it. It is media Armageddon caused by the likes of Google and Youtube.
Second:
Here are some excerpts from the book:
" The real conflict online is between the media companies that fund much of then entertainment we read, see and hear and the technology companies that want to distribute their content --legally or otherwise. For the past few years, helping consumers access content has been one of the best business on earth" ( Levine 4).
"Most online companies that have built businesses based on giving away information or entertainment aren't funding the content they are distributing" (Ibid 6).
'"In economic terms these businesses are getting a 'free ride', profiting from the work of others" (Ibid 6).
And now this piece of a gem of an argument:
"The term 'parasite' comes from the Greek word parasitos, used to refer to someone who sat at someone else's table without providing anything in return. It's a useful way to think of news aggregators like the Huffington Post or search engines that especialize in finding illegal downloads of copyrighted content ( Is he talking about Google?). The standard response is that they are providing 'exposure'. But they are also providing competition, by selling advertising that used to go to creators. As the old Catskills joke goes, 'You could die of exposure'. Right now that is what is happening to the culture business" (Ibid 6-7).
"The real issue is how to establish a functioning market for content online, whether that involves selling or supporting it with advertising" (Ibid 9).
"Traditional media companies aren't in trouble because they are not giving consumers what they want, they are in trouble because they can't collect money" (Ibid 9).
"Laws created the Internet as much as technology did, and the ones we have aren't working" (Ibid 10).
"The tough decisions about the future of online media don't involve the development of technology, it's inevitable that computers, bandwidth and storage will all get faster, cheaper and more accesible. What is not inevatable is how that technology is used" (Ibid 12-13).
On Bruce Lehman, Clinton's Commissioner of the U.S. Pattent and Trademark Office, which helped push the policies that became the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act: " Anti-circumvention policy he pushed up didn't make up for the devastation caused by the safe harbor provision to which the reluctantly agreed" (Ibid 16).
"The Digital Millenium Copyright Act, a compromise between media conglomerates on the one hand and telecom companies on the other, devastated the first group and helped the second soar. As Lehman recommended, the law makes it illegal to circumvent copy-protection technology, such as the encryption on DVDs and some digital downloads, or distribute a tool to do so. It also give 'safe harbor' to Internet service providers and some online companies so they are not liable for copyright infringement based on the action of users" (Ibid 15-16).
"The Internet has been an impressive engine of economic growth. But a great deal of that grow has gone to a small number of technology companies. They depend on informative journalism to make their search engines useful, and they depend on compelling music and movies to make digital players worth owning. But the companies that fund these cultural products have never been in worse shape. They are cutting jobs and with them the ability to create and market new work. Those search engines and players won't be nearly as valuable without them" (Ibid 252-253).
"The current situation is robbing the Internet of its potential, Rather than encourage innovation and excellence, it rewards cost cutting and crowdsourcing. The effects can be underwhelming" ( Ibid 253).
"No one believes that piracy could be stopped by a law like COICA or an agreement between media companies and Internet service providers. But regulations like these, whether private or public, would allow a working market to emerge. Creators would sell, consumers would buy and both would benefit" (Ibid 253).
"In a functioning market, online media would get better and just cheaper. And this in turn would fuel the growth of more technology companies. This wouldn't break the Internet: It would help it live up t its potential" (Ibid 253).
Third:
I recommend reading Robert Levine's "Free Ride: How Digital Parasites are Destroying the Culture Business and How the Culture Business Can Fight Back" in its entirety. In it you would discover or refresh how and what made the music industry collapse, what is endangering the survival of good journalism, what is threatening the life of network TV and how the days of the printed book industry may be coming to an end soon.
The conclusion and policies this book offer are not extremist at all as all good policy recommendations are. Levine advocates for an Internet that is neither totally open nor totally closed, but something between the two extremes. The best to go for media companies and telecom companies is to find common ground where there is not excessive regulation but there isn't either an environment of wild market forces and unleashed "free rides."
Note: Check this article in EL PAIS for an update on what is going on with copyright, piracy and illegal content and the U.S. Congress' about to be voted SOPA or PIPA law: La 'Ley Sinde' de EE.UU, un terremoto.
Work Cited (and promoted):
Robert Levine. Free Ride: How Digital Parasites are Destroying the Culture Business and How the Culture Business Can Fight Back. Doubleday, 2011.
posted by Renelio @ 11/13/2011 12:26:00 PM
0 Comments
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home