Life in the Network

I have to admit I have been torn on the copyright issue for films. Films are generally more expensive to produce than music, and there are more people to pay than the band or the artist. I was kind of shocked when my sister told me about a fundamentalist neighbor who would rent DVDs from the library, then make copies on some sort of homemade DRM breaker. But after reading Barlow's article, I am now thinking that films SHOULD be treated more like music. Barlow's statement "Art is a service, not a product." (p.4) really hit me where I live. I think he is right that film and music industry executives are using the wrong models by which to measure commercial success. Sharing does create popularity and demand.

Perhaps I was brainwashed by the FBI warnings that we all saw growing up and in the YouTube film. In addition, there is a 'digital' factor of the digital revolution to consider. When some misguided friend did *perhaps* make you a copied VHS tape the quality was invariably awful. The same conundrum existed then (as it does now) with TV and recording as Jobs mentions with CDs--there is no protection on recording TV programs. My dad was constantly recording movies on the VCR from TV ( and that was before we had cable--so the commercials are really priceless). I vaguely remember the film industry getting in a lather about VCRs--but never knew until now that they wanted to limit recording so much. Now DVD rentals and sales are what are factored into a film's profits--about half, according to Barlow. I think the film industry was, as the music industry is now, just hamstrung by fear and its cruel companion, an utter lack of imagination. True, only a true visionary would have figured that people would want to KEEP copies of films they love.

I also like Doctorow's slant that DRM and other protections treat the consumer, who is after all buying or renting the product, like a potential criminal--which is not a good way to do business. Sadly I am unable to load iTunes onto my computer as it is too old, and the computer at work will not allow such actions (more protections), but I never truly understood the limitations of DRM. I guess 5 computers and unlimited iPods would kind of be enough for me as far as sharing music, but I see the problem with depending on a single manufacturer in perpetuity once one has made the investment. That is kind of like having to choose betwen Betamax and VHS in the early 80s--my dad put all his eggs in the Betamax basket and paid the price--he was looking for beta tapes in video stores for years.

I don't know much about Apple, but it has always seemed like a strange and cool company by turns. The DRM flap seems to be a typical page from their playbook. Be there waiting for the fall of Napster, be all about creating a loyal following and forcing the exclusivity of the product (remember that Macs and PCs were not compatible at ALL until a few years ago. ) Then either create a cool new product that makes you forget the last toy, or turn everything on its head and tell everyone that the truth they knew for so long was a big lie.

Still, I like Jobs willingness, no matter how much after the fact, to create inconnectivity with other systems. He seems to realize the industry is about cooperation. He just wants to establish Apple as top dog.