I just finished reading â€˜Ups and Downs – the economic and cultural impact of file sharing for music, film and gamesâ€™ (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:
- 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.
- 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 (â€™cheap peopleâ€˜). 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 â€˜demand without purchasing powerâ€™ that is being met)1. As mentioned in my earlier post the researchers value the damage to the recording industry at a maximum â‚¬100 million p.a while they value the socio-economic gain caused by the increased access to recorded music at at least â‚¬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 (â€™the legal frameworkâ€™) gives a solid and up to date (it even includes last years legislative battle around the EUâ€™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 â€˜dynamic and indirectâ€™ 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).
- 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.
- Chapter 4 â€˜Downloading in the Netherlandsâ€™ 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.
Another Wikidia-style online encyclopedia has seen the light. But Freebase is something new. Its creator, the company Metaweb is setting out to create a vast public database intended to read by computers rather than people. Users still play an important rule in Freebase. They set the types of relations between pieces of information. People add metadata instead of data. In this way, information will be structured to make it possible for software to define relationships and even meaning. In the words of TechCrunch’ Micheal Arrington: This is cool unless its get consciousness and kills us all.
How does it work?
When logged in (registration is open for the public since november), you can add information on companies, movies, places, restaurants etc, just as in Wikipedia. But you not only enter the data, but also add the types of the information. For example, we choose to add a company to the database. When I entered Knowledgeland and told Freebase it’s a company, a new template with a lot of predefined structure came up, because Metaweb has defined a whole set of additional data that is typically associated with a company. I can choose to enter the empty fields such as employees. When I then click on the name of the employee, it’s relation with the company and it’s type is automatically established. Employees become persons, places become locations etc. And all these new topics come with their own predefined fields. Searching has become a lot more intuitive because you can use the same fields for narrowing down the results. A search string such as ‘show me all the companies in Amsterdam’ is done with two clicks.
Open for everyone
Freebase has already sucked in data from Wikipedia and other sources, and user can fill in their data too. Currently Freebase counts almost 3 million topics. More than 1200 relationships in the form of types have been established between these topics within 68 domains. Just as with Google, developers can extract information from Freebase and add it to their web applications. The information users add is licenced under the Creative Commons Attribution License or Public Domain. Because the information is structured, other web applications can use Freebase to display its information in new ways.
Freebase is interesting not only for its collective intelligence. The workflow of entering metadata is highly intuitive and can function as a blueprint for crowdsourcing purposes. Archives don’t need to worry about the types of relations, users create them on the fly.
Perhaps Freebase marks the start of a new era in gathering information. Perhaps not. But one thing is sure: Freebase in potential the Google killer for harvesting collective intelligence.