This is probably the post that, throughout the entire Digital Age, will probably have the fewest number of readers (due to it's incredibly boring content). However, I have spent so many patrol hours thinking about this that I wanted to get it down for posterity. So read it if it interests you, ignore it if it doesn't.
In order to answer the question of who owns information, first information should be defined. I think of information as media belonging to one of 3 categories: 1) entertainment media, such as books, movies, and music; 2) informational media, such as news (print and digital), articles, blogs, and magazines; and 3) functional media, such as software, firmware, applications, and basically media that can be used to build other media.
Of the three categories, the way entertainment media is viewed in this country makes me the maddest (I'm pointing at you, APPLE),the way informational media is viewed scares me the most, and functional media, frankly, confuses me more the others.
First, entertainment media. Let me be clear: THIS IS NOT AN ARGUMENT FOR FILE SHARING. I agree that the organizations that distribute entertainment media have a right to realize the profits from their product. I will also stipulate that attempts to circumvent paying for the use of the product is both immoral and unethical. But, I do question that they have the sole right to realize profits.
When I buy a Craftsman lawnmower, I am free to use the lawnmower to mow my home lawn OR my business lawn, and I am free to use my mower to make money mowing other people's lawns. Why is this not so with entertainment media? Why do I have to pay one small license fee to play something in my home, but have to pay ridiculous licensing fees to play the same thing in my place of business? If I purchase a song, it is mine, just as if I purchase a lawnmower, it is mine. Entertainment media companies should be prohibited from actions that artificially place value on their product, such as requiring me to pay for different uses of the same product.
A prime example of what I am talking about is the recent legal battle between Redbox and the movie studios. The studios sued Redbox for their business model of charging $1 a day (when Blockbuster et al charged more), stating "These guys are simply grossly undervaluing our content" How dare they! Redbox purchased the material, it is theirs to do with as they please. It is not "your" content, it is "theirs". Additionally, the value of a product is determined by mutual agreement between the buyer and the seller. Now that Redbox has purchased the content, and they wish to sell it at market, the studio no longer has a say in the matter about the value of the product. The only thing Redbox should be legally prohibited from doing is to duplicate the content for additional sales, as this also artificially changes the value of the product. Interestingly, the trend is along these lines with hardware as well, e.g., Microsoft says that Wal-Mart may sell the XBOX, but only at the price Microsoft allows. Sorry, M$, but you are out of the market equation now. Let Wal-Mart sell it for the price that maximizes their profits.
Typically, when a product enters the market, and a transaction is made between the seller and the buyer, ownership is transferred. The paradigm in media is that the consumer is actually purchasing a "license for use" of the product. What bothers me most about the idea that studios, labels, and publishers retain control of the product after the product has transferred from the seller to the buyer is summed up in the question "Who actually CONTROLS the content".
This is my segue into my thoughts on the 2nd type of media: informational media. The control of information is so important that the Framers listed as number 1 the right to the press and to speech. This has been interpreted that not only do persons have the right to write and say things, but other persons have the right to access it. In other words, once the media has been established, it cannot be hidden. With due to respect to Rupert Murdoch, this means not prohibiting access to those who can't pay.
His argument is that quality media is expensive to produce, and therefore he must charge. Fair enough. In the days of print news media, there was overhead associated with distribution, and typically the newsstand price (mostly) covered those costs. Revenues, however, were generated through advertisement. During those days, if someone purchased a paper, it would have been lunacy to prohibit that person from sharing the paper with his neighbor or colleague simply because the neighbor or colleague did not pay for access. Does Murdoch's plan to charge for access allow for me to copy and paste the text to my blog (as long as I correctly cite the source)? I think the answer is no. This is particularly troublesome with respect to news and information, in that I cannot share it without fear of legal repercussions.
I cannot stipulate, as I did with entertainment media, that I do not support sharing. With news and information media, I do support it. The only ethical requirement I have is that I must cite the original source, and cannot pass it off as my own.
The last category, functional media, is the category that is most difficult around which to build an ethic. I wrote previously that if I pay for an item, it is mine to do with as I please. If I buy a spreadsheet and want to put it on my home computer, or if I want to operate a business with it, that is no business of the seller once I purchase it. However, companies like M$ exist to make a profit, and if they cannot, products like Office and Windows will never be created. I will write more as I develop ideas, however, let me end by saying the open source model works, and works well. Perhaps that is a good starting point, rather than an ending one.
No comments:
Post a Comment