TED Conversations

Chris Hollander

student researcher ,

This conversation is closed.

Shall We Pity the Entertainment Industry?

It may be hard to say yes or no, but what the SOPA debate and others like it have come down to is this:

1. The current media distribution model is not working for some companies.
2. They perceive their model as failing because of illegal acts.
3. These so called illegal acts are so pervasive that everyone and their brother has taken part of them on occasion, if not often, for almost a decade.

So do we then:
A. Ask the government to step in and help these companies implement their ideal business model with more crackdowns and legislation?
B. Allow the market, or some other force, to make these companies accept the current reality and either adjust and create a new model that is profitable or simply parish the way of the horse buggy and cassette tape?


Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • Comment deleted

    • thumb
      Mar 19 2012: Well that said Mark, because as we know this isn't just a problem for the entertainment industry, intellectual property rights span everything from farming to medicine, what is the way forward with copyright?

      Share and crowd source models?
      Do we need to revamp economic basics?
      • Comment deleted

        • thumb
          Mar 19 2012: Exactly!

          I must admit, I'm totally motivated by structure models. It's just the way I process life.

          In terms of IP .. well, if you take the semantic sense of property from "I own it" to "It is intrinsic to me" .. E.g. "This is my property - keep your hands off!" Becomes "This arises from my entity - pelase enjoy!"

          YOu see, I see property as being an aspect of some entity - for instance, a property of me is that I live at this address. But a property of humans is a big brain.
          From that, I argue that intellect is a property of humanity - we all have it, it therefore is not a property of a single individual. And the laws actually reflect that.

          The granting of temporary monopoly on the ideas that flow freely through humanity is like a bug-fix to encourage ideas through the incentive of monolpoly. And it's pretty clever.

          But it is fraught with flaws - one being the diminishing return of period-of-monopoly (ultimately serves to retard human progress instead of promoting it). Two being the acceleration of change exceeding the capacity of humanity to adapt. Three being the encouragement of unfair advantage that results in social inaquity.

          Things are as they are. We have to live with it. But changes increasing the IP laws can serve only to press civillisation further down the slopes of diminished returns.

          At the very root of all this is the tool of incentive - money. Money does not represent value - it represents advantage. Promotion of advantage within a social species serves to destroy the species advantage in favour of the individual.

          Instead of being the collaberative organism we evolved to be, we have now become the farmers of humans. The emphasis on personal advantage has ignited a ponzi-sheme with each individual competing to not be on the bottom layer and all risk is falling upon the bottom layer in a spiral that must collapse.

          There may be some sane ballance between self interest and community interest - but I see that that balance (if it exists) is gone.
        • thumb
          Mar 20 2012: Biggest, saddest thing about all that is we all know it.
          Well . anyone with eyes open can see it plainly.

          And now we all have in our minds "where will I be when the wheels fall off".
          We are nearly all of us thinking that now.
          The future is like a great big black wall that none of us can see surviving when we hit it.
          We are a freaking train-wreck in progress.

          So . we all know the first wheel that comes off is the money - even the economists have stopped lying about that.

          But hmm - hey, what if we just ignore it?

          WHat if .. we just keep going to work and keep going to the poxy supermarket.

          What if we just admit that money is a fiction and just say that everybody's account has infinite credit?

          What happens then?

          Well . not a lot really.

          One first thing is that half-assed products will stay on the shelves till the good stuff runs-out. THen we will put up with the crap till the godd stuff comes round again. SO nothing really changes except there will be queues at the shop-doors as soon as the good stuff comes round again. And the stores will stratify - good-stuff stores will become hard to find - and you better be committed to whatever you regard as good, because you'll be going on a pilgrimage to find it. And it will all balance out in the end.

          The only difference wil be that your money will be going to the value - and not into the pockets of bankers.

          That sounds pretty nice to me - and if you're a banker - well sucko looser! I, for one will be glad to see you in the queues with the rest of us ;)

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.