Archive for February, 2009

Interesting links

Monday, February 16th, 2009

Below you’ll see some interesting reading material which could be useful one way or the other for our project Images for the Future (and of course other digitization projects). Click here for previous links. Some of the entries are in Dutch.

1. YouTube tests download and Creative Commons License options
2. Unlocking value of audiovisual heritage
3. The myth of the original Content Creator
4. Gebruik van open content licenties in het culturele veld
5. VVD Eerstekamer-fractie beleidsdebat Effectiviteitsverantwoording
6. Filesharing verandert auteursrecht
8. Buma/Stemra vraagt alsnog geld voor inbedden

 

Museums and the Web – Article ” Unlocking Value of audiovisual heritage” online

Thursday, February 12th, 2009

The Museums and the Web conference is a major annual event that focusses on current developments in the domain of culture, science and heritage on-line.

Images for the Future has been invited to organise a mini workshop as part of the 2009 edition, taking place in Indianapolis, USA from April 15-18. The mini-workshop will demonstrate the social and also economic benefit of digitisation, through highlighting results of a selected number of services that Images for the Future has launched until now.

The workshop presenters have written the article Images for the Future: Unlocking Value of audiovisual heritage that links the notion of service development by cultural heritage institutions to value creation by users. It combines the “business model canvas”, a model developed by Alex Osterwalder and the “Accumulation, Archiving and Construction” model by Mirko Tobias Schaefer.

Will Lion

From the introduction: “Digitization is a driver to establish new services. Distribution over networks, interoperability with other collections and flexible integration in other environments are just a few of many properties in this new era of enormous potential for audiovisual archives. Therefore, large-scale digitization efforts do not only ensure long-term access, but also have the potential to reveal the social and economic value of the collections. This paper will focus on the latter: the types of services that can be created as a result of large-scale digitization efforts and the social and economical benefits they bring. Value creation is a key notion, as it determines the factors that legitimize (and determine the level of) investments by the government and funding programs. The case of Images for the Future is exemplary: cultural heritage organizations around the globe are currently reinventing their business propositions.“

You can download the article Images for the Future: Unlocking Value of audiovisual heritage and we look forward to hear your comments.

 

Interesting links

Monday, February 2nd, 2009

Below you’ll see some interesting reading material which could be useful one way or the other for our project Images for the Future (and of course other digitization projects). Click here for previous links. Some of the entries are in Dutch.

1. Businessmodel-innovatie in de erfgoedsector
2. ‡biblios.net, the world’s largest database of freely-licensed library
3. FindAnyFilm.com steers UK users away from pirated content
4. Living Web Archives (LiWA) update
5. Google and the Future of Books
6. Websites ‘must be saved for history’
7. YouTube stuwt verkoop Monty Python-dvd’s
8. The socio-economic impact of file sharing [popular science edition]
9. Video Active gelanceerd

 

The socio-economic impact of file sharing [popular science edition]

Monday, February 2nd, 2009

I just finished reading ‘Ups and Downs – the economic and cultural impact of file sharing for music, film and games’ (see my earlier post for context). All in all the full version does not contain a lot of surprises when compared to the executive summary (which my first post was based on): It is a well written report that, although it makes a lot of sense to someone familiar with the subject, does not really come up with much new insights either. The strength of the report is that it places file-sharing within the wider social and economic context (as opposed to placing it solely within the economic logic of the entertainment industry). While they sometimes appear naive (it does not seem to occur to them that buying CDs or renting DVDs from the video-rental-shop is rapidly becoming obsolete from a technicals point of view) the researchers do seem to have a fairly good understanding of what is going on.

The core of their argument (to be found in sections 5 & 6) is that there is no direct causal relationship between file-sharing and the decline in revenues in the music industry. On top of this the researchers argue that even tough it is likely that there is a substantial decline in revenues for the recording industry as a result of file sharing, this is offset by an even more substantial increase in welfare for the general public (or at least that proportion of the general public that downloads musical works). This finding is based on an economic model that is summarized in figure 6.1:

figure 6.1 from ‘Ups and downs’ – blue boxes and grey arrows and labels mine (personally i am a bit surprised by the relative amounts of lazy and smart peple implied by this figure. life experience tells me to expect the opposite distribution).

  1. The orange block represents the revenue generated by selling recoded music in the absence of file sharing, which equals the maximum possible revenue for the recording industry. In this situation the rich people(a.k.a stupid people) profit (save money) because they would have been willing to pay more than the market price. All the people to the right of the orange colored block simply could not afford to buy recorded music.
  2. With the possibility of file sharing available to consumers we see a shift: a certain amount of people who used to buy recorded music now download it for free (’cheap people‘). In addition the smart people (a.k.a poor people) now have the same access to recorded music as all the others and finally there also is a group of lazy people who simply cannot be bothered to download because they perceive the process as too burdensome.

When comparing the changes between (1.) and (2.) in economic terms the researchers conclude that while there is a negative impact on the recording industry (caused by the cheap people) the fact that the smart people now also have access to recorded music represents a much bigger increase in economic welfare (and does not hurt the recording industry as it is ‘demand without purchasing power’ that is being met)1. As mentioned in my earlier post the researchers value the damage to the recording industry at a maximum €100 million p.a while they value the socio-economic gain caused by the increased access to recorded music at at least €200 million p.a.

Personally i am not sure if this will be of any consolation to the recording industry, but as far as i can see it is a fairly adequate description of the current transformation process: A business model anchored in an outdated means of distribution is (partially) being replaced by a social practices that are (a) more in line with the technological state of the art and (b) provide greater socio-economic benefits to society at large.

For the rest the report does not contain much news: Chapter 3 (’the legal framework’) gives a solid and up to date (it even includes last years legislative battle around the EU’s telecom review) overview of the legal implications of file sharing (in the Netherlands) and Chapter 5 gives an overview of recent studies on the economic impact of file sharing2. Apart from the economic model described above chapter 6 also lists a number of ‘dynamic and indirect’ effects of file sharing that are fairly obvious but nevertheless worthwhile to repeat: The researchers argue (p.123) that while it is likely that file sharing hurts big successful artists (as cheap people will buy less CDs from them) it has a positive impact on smaller artists (as it allows more people to sample their works, which will turn some of these people into buyers of their CDs or make them attend concerts). More interestingly the researchers also argue (p.125) that acceptance by consumers of the substantial increases in ticket prices for live-concerts has to be seen in the context of file-sharing: The increased willingness to pay high prices for concert tickets may be due to the fact that consumers are aware that they are spending less on recorded music (or the other way around: as they have to pay more for concert-tickets consumers are less willing top pay for recorded music and resort to file sharing).

When it comes to their conclusions the researchers note that file-sharing is here to stay and that we (the recording industry) are beyond the point of no return: It is impossible to build a successful business that is solely based on trading recorded music. According to the researchers is is also highly unlikely that there will be a point in the future where all music will be obtained from authorized sources (p.136). Given this they argue (inter alia, their official recommendation comes down to a pathetic paragraph where they make a plea against criminalization of end users and for more awareness building among file sharers) for a model where internet service provides offer internet subscriptions that include a fee for the access to copyright protected content (a.k.a the content flatrate).

  1. note how the rich people profit in both scenarios: they always pay less then they could (or should). this is probably why the distribution model the Nine Inch Nails used for Ghosts I-V worked so well.
  2. Chapter 4 ‘Downloading in the Netherlands’ is a bit of a disappointment. If presents the results of a representative survey that was conduced (by an external research-firm) among Dutch internet users. While the researchers repeatedly mention that the survey shows that file sharers have no clear understanding of what they are doing the data presented by them also underlines that the researchers (or the company contracted to carry out the survey) lack a clear understanding of their research object: see table 4-9 (usenet and newsgroups are two synonyms for the same source of files) or table 4-13 (most sites listed as sources for paid-for downloads do not offer downloads to users based in the Netherlands). Given this Chapter 4 casts a shadow on the otherwise high methodological standards claimed by the research team.