Sharing

Sharing: Culture and Economy in the Internet Age

The internet and creativity debate

It takes time for technology to settle. Analysts look at computers through analytical tools used for photographing Others see it as a pure distribution medium Again others are over positive about info overload management @p21

Central question is if we assume that users are allowed to share, how will a fair amount of money be made from that? @p22

Finding such a system was done before, but without success @p23

Policy making should not be left to some international treaty where democracy has no influence on it anymore and where it will only be a sweet deal for a few copyright holders. @p24 Anti-piracy may also constitute anti-privacy

Sharing is possibly human behaviour that can't be stopped, instead we should cherish it for what it can mean for our culture @p25

Value of non-market sharing

There were always people who were against libraries, but the harmful effects upon the economy are doubtful @p27

Some people think that scarcity is a necessity for good functioning systems @p28

A big change with free distribution possibilities is that the control of publishing agencies is waining @p29

People have always longed for joining libraries together. Still there are improvements possible like filtering out the fake @p30

Sharing is useful

Sharing allows for a many-to-all kind of distribution system. People get the power to produce @p32 But are they seen? @self It also makes other people see what you see.

Uploading has bandwith limitations and although these are fading, they are still quite massive. A naive user that suddenly shares thousands of files is a fantasy. @p32

Cultural diversity

With more TV channels the cultural diversity doesn't necessarily increase. It's hard to measure cultural diversity @p33

Cultural diversity increases with sharing because more works will be available @p33

CC licensing has made billions of documents available @p35 Calculations on a eDonkey server reveil that those servers are adding to diversity on a larger scale than commercial companies

Internet media spread freely. With older media the traditional distributors convince the authors (or prohibits them) to not use the internet.

For out of fashion books there is a need for sharing since those are not commercially profitable @p36

attention diversity

We can calculate how popular a work is. It is not always reliable though @p37

With a single site 95% of the attention went to the 5% most popular singles @p39

Edonkey kind of file sharing will spread attention @p40 Once things get commercial this may change again @p41

BitTorrent is less focused upon library sharing, that's why attention is more focused on popular works@p43

The media industries opposition to file sharing

It can't be just the loss of profit, because it has been proven that the effects are mariginal It may be cultural, they are used to keeping rights for themselves @p43

They have gone into the mode of selling less titels and make a profit on that. This is counterproductive in a decentralized broadcast world @p44 Similarly they are loosing their grasp on the attention of the consumer as they also watch Youtube shit-eos They could also simply fear the unknown. @p44

Criminating sharing leads to people going to BitTorrent instead of eDonkey @p44

Very vague about non-market @p45 The Wealth of Networks is mentioned as a source on non-market

Traditional distrinbutors dislike the long tail market, while they see there "popular" work attention drop. It's hard for them to get revenue out of the rights of long-tail works @p46

Streaming (like Spotify) is a way to passivy the consumers again in centralized places @p46

Allowing sharing would dramatically change the industry for the good @p46

Sustainable resources for creative activities

Some are affraid that taking away scarcity will damage the whole market @p49 The authors don't believe that sharing will mean the end of economic systems (because everything is lost in a black whole)

!! If you look at the music industry as a whole it has not shrunk. It did partly because distributors have focussed on only a few titles leading to less artist that can have revenue. @p50

Judges are also sceptical about the idea that any unauthorized viewing is a loss of profit. @p50 Maybe people are seeing more movies than ever! @self

Very few cultural activities are profitable mostly because of private consumption @p51 For a large part it already was a non-market industry @p52 Artist down earn a lot from copyright

Mutualism is a construction where you create a pool where everybody is a user and producer @p53 Kickstarter platform is a place where a group has mutual interest in making something work and therefor buy it together.

What are consumer rights? What is the demand for creativity? How to monitor who has done what and give rewards? How to ensure democratic participation in mutualistic forms of financing? Those are the key questions for the next few chapters @p54

Everybody will benefit from an internet commons @p54

Getting people to contribute to a commons is challenging and the right foundations have to be made @p54

The value that shares get will compensate them, but they are asked to do it out of ideology @p54 This is a bit of a stretch @self Also it is thought that users should contribute to projects that are not suitable for market funding

Another important aspect is to manage the overload. People may pay for this @p55

Which rights for whom? A choice of models

A big difference between models for allowing sharing is which rights are given to whom @p59

Access without rights to share: commercial download or streaming liscenses

The fact that consumers are not buying copy protected material suggests that the industry should reinvent itself by fascilitating artist-fan and fan-fan relationships or produce quality content Live events are also often mentioned as a solution @self

Alternative methods are making blockbusters or making commercial agreements with distribution platforms @p60

A tactic is to allow viewing without sharing. This makes it easier for commercials to be inserted @p61

Oligopoly, where only a few companies set the price and determine what is published @p61 Isn't that where OPTA is for? @self

One tactic was selling a catalogue together with for instance a mobile phone, this doesn't work @p62 Another tactic is something like the iPhone with iTunes and AppStore. Sharing is allowed within this universe and control is less evident, but the danger lurs for a lock-in Spotify is a tactic where content distributors bought themselves in to share on their terms. Artists are not satisfied Another solution is letting intermediates stream the content. This will lead to a situation where the streamers get money from consumers and from producers for product placement.

There is discrepency between right for compensation and the right for economic and social benefits @p65

Compensation schemes

Compensation can be uplhold by law or insured by the government @p66

Both systems are inperfect, because government control will be floaded with request and upholding by law gives uncertainties @p66 Apart from this it doesn't take into account people who are willing to share @p67

And all this when companies are still growing @p67 A problem is that fewer artist have been promoted @p68

It isn't going well for the music producers, they earn less than minimal wage @p68

The compensation model is not good for digital native works, since it is hard to judge what was lost for it was always digital. However these works do deserve compensation for experimental work which is the foundation for future practises @p69

Social rights for all

Can we agree how much the society should invest in this and can we agree who gets what share @p70 The matter of investment is something we do with health, education and other things in life as well.

There are two rights, the right to enter the commons and the right to be rewarded for what is inputed @p71 How much one is willing to pay for these rights is a second one and will it be income dependend?

Back to copyright

The mainproblem for copyright holders came when we could take material of its carrier. @p72

Ever since the law has aided the copyright holder and not the rights for every individual @p73

Limitations of use were added at some point @p73 Many found them injust

It will take some time and effort before copyright laws can change into a new direction @p74

Compensated copyright-based reward system most popular over the world @p76 However file sharing is not going away and it is somewhat of a stallmate

The auther things that having access is a right and that there should be a flat-rate contribution and the money should be used for upkeeping the industry in a sustainable way (also the artists)Sharing: Culture and Economy in the Internet Age

The internet and creativity debate

It takes time for technology to settle. Analysts look at computers through analytical tools used for photographing Others see it as a pure distribution medium Again others are over positive about info overload management @p21

Central question is if we assume that users are allowed to share, how will a fair amount of money be made from that? @p22

Finding such a system was done before, but without success @p23

Policy making should not be left to some international treaty where democracy has no influence on it anymore and where it will only be a sweet deal for a few copyright holders. @p24 Anti-piracy may also constitute anti-privacy

Sharing is possibly human behaviour that can't be stopped, instead we should cherish it for what it can mean for our culture @p25

Value of non-market sharing

There were always people who were against libraries, but the harmful effects upon the economy are doubtful @p27

Some people think that scarcity is a necessity for good functioning systems @p28

A big change with free distribution possibilities is that the control of publishing agencies is waining @p29

People have always longed for joining libraries together. Still there are improvements possible like filtering out the fake @p30

Sharing is useful

Sharing allows for a many-to-all kind of distribution system. People get the power to produce @p32 But are they seen? @self It also makes other people see what you see.

Uploading has bandwith limitations and although these are fading, they are still quite massive. A naive user that suddenly shares thousands of files is a fantasy. @p32

Cultural diversity

With more TV channels the cultural diversity doesn't necessarily increase. It's hard to measure cultural diversity @p33

Cultural diversity increases with sharing because more works will be available @p33

CC licensing has made billions of documents available @p35 Calculations on a eDonkey server reveil that those servers are adding to diversity on a larger scale than commercial companies

Internet media spread freely. With older media the traditional distributors convince the authors (or prohibits them) to not use the internet.

For out of fashion books there is a need for sharing since those are not commercially profitable @p36

attention diversity

We can calculate how popular a work is. It is not always reliable though @p37

With a single site 95% of the attention went to the 5% most popular singles @p39

Edonkey kind of file sharing will spread attention @p40 Once things get commercial this may change again @p41

BitTorrent is less focused upon library sharing, that's why attention is more focused on popular works@p43

The media industries opposition to file sharing

It can't be just the loss of profit, because it has been proven that the effects are mariginal It may be cultural, they are used to keeping rights for themselves @p43

They have gone into the mode of selling less titels and make a profit on that. This is counterproductive in a decentralized broadcast world @p44 Similarly they are loosing their grasp on the attention of the consumer as they also watch Youtube shit-eos They could also simply fear the unknown. @p44

Criminating sharing leads to people going to BitTorrent instead of eDonkey @p44

Very vague about non-market @p45 The Wealth of Networks is mentioned as a source on non-market

Traditional distrinbutors dislike the long tail market, while they see there "popular" work attention drop. It's hard for them to get revenue out of the rights of long-tail works @p46

Streaming (like Spotify) is a way to passivy the consumers again in centralized places @p46

Allowing sharing would dramatically change the industry for the good @p46

Sustainable resources for creative activities

Some are affraid that taking away scarcity will damage the whole market @p49 The authors don't believe that sharing will mean the end of economic systems (because everything is lost in a black whole)

!! If you look at the music industry as a whole it has not shrunk. It did partly because distributors have focussed on only a few titles leading to less artist that can have revenue. @p50

Judges are also sceptical about the idea that any unauthorized viewing is a loss of profit. @p50 Maybe people are seeing more movies than ever! @self

Very few cultural activities are profitable mostly because of private consumption @p51 For a large part it already was a non-market industry @p52 Artist down earn a lot from copyright

Mutualism is a construction where you create a pool where everybody is a user and producer @p53 Kickstarter platform is a place where a group has mutual interest in making something work and therefor buy it together.

What are consumer rights? What is the demand for creativity? How to monitor who has done what and give rewards? How to ensure democratic participation in mutualistic forms of financing? Those are the key questions for the next few chapters @p54

Everybody will benefit from an internet commons @p54

Getting people to contribute to a commons is challenging and the right foundations have to be made @p54

The value that shares get will compensate them, but they are asked to do it out of ideology @p54 This is a bit of a stretch @self Also it is thought that users should contribute to projects that are not suitable for market funding

Another important aspect is to manage the overload. People may pay for this @p55

Which rights for whom? A choice of models

A big difference between models for allowing sharing is which rights are given to whom @p59

Access without rights to share: commercial download or streaming liscenses

The fact that consumers are not buying copy protected material suggests that the industry should reinvent itself by fascilitating artist-fan and fan-fan relationships or produce quality content Live events are also often mentioned as a solution @self

Alternative methods are making blockbusters or making commercial agreements with distribution platforms @p60

A tactic is to allow viewing without sharing. This makes it easier for commercials to be inserted @p61

Oligopoly, where only a few companies set the price and determine what is published @p61 Isn't that where OPTA is for? @self

One tactic was selling a catalogue together with for instance a mobile phone, this doesn't work @p62 Another tactic is something like the iPhone with iTunes and AppStore. Sharing is allowed within this universe and control is less evident, but the danger lurs for a lock-in Spotify is a tactic where content distributors bought themselves in to share on their terms. Artists are not satisfied Another solution is letting intermediates stream the content. This will lead to a situation where the streamers get money from consumers and from producers for product placement.

There is discrepency between right for compensation and the right for economic and social benefits @p65

Compensation schemes

Compensation can be uplhold by law or insured by the government @p66

Both systems are inperfect, because government control will be floaded with request and upholding by law gives uncertainties @p66 Apart from this it doesn't take into account people who are willing to share @p67

And all this when companies are still growing @p67 A problem is that fewer artist have been promoted @p68

It isn't going well for the music producers, they earn less than minimal wage @p68

The compensation model is not good for digital native works, since it is hard to judge what was lost for it was always digital. However these works do deserve compensation for experimental work which is the foundation for future practises @p69

Social rights for all

Can we agree how much the society should invest in this and can we agree who gets what share @p70 The matter of investment is something we do with health, education and other things in life as well.

There are two rights, the right to enter the commons and the right to be rewarded for what is inputed @p71 How much one is willing to pay for these rights is a second one and will it be income dependend?

Back to copyright

The mainproblem for copyright holders came when we could take material of its carrier. @p72

Ever since the law has aided the copyright holder and not the rights for every individual @p73

Limitations of use were added at some point @p73 Many found them injust

It will take some time and effort before copyright laws can change into a new direction @p74

Compensated copyright-based reward system most popular over the world @p76 However file sharing is not going away and it is somewhat of a stallmate

The auther things that having access is a right and that there should be a flat-rate contribution and the money should be used for upkeeping the industry in a sustainable way (also the artists)