I guess the bottom line is while Jeff’s theories apply well to journalism (which is an art in its own way), they break down when you apply them to other facets of media and entertainment. “House, MD” is one of my favorite shows on television right now, and “The Departed” was one of my favorite movies this year. I derived immense pleasure from both, and both were put together by crew of professionals who’ve worked long and hard to be the masters of their respective crafts. For this, they probably expect (and deserve) a little compensation.

I will now step off my soapbox.

Balderdash! I know I’m going to come across as an idealist here, but if artists stop making (big) money that’s not going to spell the end of quality art as we know it. While compensation makes it easier for artists to create by providing financially security, plenty of ordinary people everywhere, working day jobs, are still making extraordinary art without making a living off of it, and without ever expecting to. In fact, without the promise of a big pay check, a lot of the hacks populating the airwaves (radio, tv, etc.) would probably stop polluting the earth and the general quality level of music, for example, would probably increase exponentially because it would be made by people with a real passion for the medium, people unlike Scott Adams.

hahahaa…oh man, you have a 7th or 8th career as a tech comedian if the whole thing goes belly up. What say ye when Google owns the entire advertising market?

Ask the Dodgeball kids how ‘enabling’ an ‘owner’ Google was.

One problem with DRM is that it’s been cracked….well, half-cracked. Hackers have learned that the DRM protection can be circumvented, but at a price - namely, the price of the initial purchase of the file. Once the ‘primary level’ of DRM protection is bypassed with a purchase, the file can be processed for free re-distribution. What it comes down to at that point is how willing is the hacker to redistribute something which has been paid for, most likely out of the hacker’s own money? Hackers aren’t generally philanthropists, so this technique hasn’t exactly caught on in a big way, as yet.

Another excellent method of content protection has been the use of new codecs that separate streaming image from the accompanying sound. Heretofore clever people who’ve known where to look for downloaded cache files have found, to their dismay, that this new file format loads into their players and gives them a soundtrack, but no image. This is less effective than DRM, most likely, and will probably be circumvented before long.

It’s likely that Microsoft will continue to work on improving DRM, possibly by adding additional layers of encryption, or by ‘time-bombing’ the files, as Stephen King once did with an original work he made available for download - after _/_/_ the file will simply cease to be readable or usable any longer…a very clever technology, often used by software manufacturers for demo versions of their programs.

There ARE methods of content protection, for those willing to take the trouble to incorporate the technology into their file production. The OTHER problem with DRM, though, is that you have to pay to lease the rights to use the technology from Microsoft. I’ve no idea what that costs, but it’s not likely to be inexpensive. Some codecs for video and audio make similar requirements of those seeking to use the technology - but this is only fair, since, after all, the better the quality of the technology to protect content, the more worthy the creators of said technology for gaining remuneration for their efforts.

The flipside of this is going to be the widespread reporting that Jeff has been talking about in earlier posts - a news event happens, people on the scene whip out their GPS phone cameras and suddenly you have X number of live feeds of what is going on at this very second. Who owns THAT content? The owner of the phone that captures the best image? The manufacturer of the phone? The service that leases the phone bandwidth? The news service that options the content for redistribution?

One thing about all this is certain: lawyers are in no danger of losing their jobs…

In a capitalist society, it’s up to the artist to earn his pay by marketing himself. It’s what we ALL do. Why should artists get a break just because they are “artists”?

I’m an architect, and I get paid by people who appreciate my particular talent. It’s no accident. I earned it myself.

Enable, don’t control!

Good content takes ability to create. Ability takes time and discipline to create. Those who possess the ability to create good content want (and deserve) compensation in exchange for practicing their craft. In this socialist commune of free content love, who pays the artist? Or is the “starving artist” not only a cliche, but an expectation?

Scott Adams of Dilbert fame has some words on this subject… http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert_blog/2007/04/the_infamous_un.html

Jeff Jarvis has a great post up this morning that explains why cable is a dying platform for content distribution. Because of the Web, content is becoming commodified. No company can have a monopoly on great content. The new platforms are those that en…

It occurs to me, Jeff, that you really have a golden opportunity, here. You’re typically WAY ahead of the curve in terms of the thinking needed to ‘make it,’ in the current techno-cultural revolution. I really hope you’re spending some time reassessing your retirement portfolios, and you should certainly devote some time to considering a start-up of your own, in some capacity. I mean, the blog-thing is great, don’t get me wrong… but you have the potential, it seems, to create a company that would make Time/Warner look the way the horse and buggy appeared after Henry Ford perfected the automotive assembly line…

I can’t be the only person who sees this…can I?