Blog

That is a good write up about the opening night, but it didn’t sound quite as clear cut in real life. The first panel got IT but the second seem mired in the dark ages for even considering some of the points they made. It is to be hoped this ‘universal belief’ that the country owes them a living can be explained in simple terms to them. The day of the music industry milking the artists and the consumer is over. The creative brain drain is a far more serious problem. If filesharing is stopped (which I do assure you is impossible) then korea will just take over with hard copies as it has supplied in the past. You won’t stop them either. The whole pirate issue is covering up and sidetracking the fact that the digitalbritain infrastructure is not capable of delivering next generation access. It is a straw man. Rowan is right, and I am afraid Ben is wrong. Listen to the people and the ones who know.

By cyberdoyle on 2009 10 26

I’m not sure how Cyberdoyle can make the jump from people being justly remunerated for their work to ‘being owed a living’.  We’re not talking about bits of plastic either, so I’m not sure about your assertion that ‘the Koreans’ are coming (it’s veracity or what may be the dubious intent behind it).

What is for sure is that creative people need investment in order to perform.  Whether this is an artist or someone with a great business idea, without cash you’re just a hobbyist and to be frank, most hobbyist musicians are not worth listening to.  In order to be able to be creative the time, space and in some instances some nurturing is required.  Then people need to hear the music, build an emotional connection wit the artist, all those things that the ‘mega-evil’ labels and their ilk do, marketing.

So we either work out some way of providing the required investment, or we give up the whole thing.

Anyone with any sense knows that carrot, creating products which have value for the punter is the best way, but some stick is needed, and some understanding of the thousands of jobs that have already been lost.

By Mat M on 2009 10 27

Sorry, Cyberdoyle, but I think you’re showing yourself up as being a little out on the margins here. I can’t speak for the monks but the newspaper industry never wanted to stop digital printing - digital printing was a massive cost-saving and creative boon to all media! I’d agree that times are changing and media has to change with it. Played right, the digital revolution ought to be the media’s greatest opportunity in, literally, centuries. But we part company when you start talking about the “mess” and the “gibbering wrecks” that have been created. This would be the mess that has employed hundreds of thousands of people and exported British musical culture around the world? The mess that has created content so wonderful and alluring that people work night and day to come up with innovative methods of stealing it? Yes, music costs money – money to develop, money to market, money to pay the guy who sweeps the recording studio. Is that “milking generations of youngsters out of their hard earned cash” or paying an honest fee for an honest service? You say that the current woes of the recording industry are “your own fault entirely”. This is like telling someone whose house has been burgled that they didn’t do enough to protect themselves (maybe they should have bricked over the windows?). I hate to say it but yours is a typical of the unformed anti-copyright position: a lot of vague assertions that “people have the power” and “pirates won’t be beaten” but no concrete ideas of a way forward. Or is that the evil record companies’ problem too?

By Andrew Harrison on 2009 10 28

With all due respect, I’m not at all convinced that attacking a perspective which adds a dose of realism to the proceedings is necessarily a fantastic way forward, either. As vague as they may be, assertions that the anti-piracy measures are flawed are certainly more well-founded than those proclaiming the opposite. Given that these proposals have been widely considered and are opposed by significant numbers of people, not to mention the glaring problems with them highlighted, it’s not a foregone conclusion that a half measure is better than no measure at all (noting that one of the principle objections is that of the problem of collateral damage). Moreover, the notion that the “pirates won’t be beaten” is less a philosophical one and more a logical conclusion based on the available evidence.

Historically, technological change with respect to the performance, reproduction, and distribution of creative works has always been a double-edged sword. In no case has it ever been the responsibility of the public (be they proponents of the change or otherwise) to innovate—or facilitate that innovation—rather, it’s the role of the creative industries as they encounter a changing commercial landscape.

With that in mind, it’s difficult to argue that role has been embraced properly over the course of the last decade while the change was apace, and there’s a school of thought which suggests that the current legislative changes are being brought about as a crude mechanism for counteracting this. Imagine if the recording industry had embraced the cassette tape the same way that high-speed Internet access and peer-to-peer technology was approached. How different do you think the end result would have been?

I suspect Cyberdoyle’s primary concern is the incongruous nature of an ill-conceived disconnection policy alongside the other aspects of Digital Britain, and that as a nation we’re being left behind in terms of embracing connectivity.

Modern technology provides a raft of opportunities for the creative industries to take advantage of, and scores of new ways to distribute content.  Certainly, it requires some risk-taking, but this is the same of any new technology. Failure to do this is simply perceived as complacency. I’m at pains to note that I myself earn my living as part of the creative industry, but I cannot escape the fact that illicit file-sharing is filling a void left by the unwillingness of the industry to keep pace with technological change.

By Mo McRoberts on 2009 10 28