Red Light Blues

It had to happen sooner or later, but the ease of content distribution has impacted the pornography industry.

Pornographic movies are presumably easy to produce and write, so the porno industry is now being hit from both ends – battling a growing army of free content providers while simultaneously fending off the standard piracy threat so pervasive with other forms of online content.  Presumably, consumers of smut will want to pay for “quality” branding as a means of wading through unappealing amateur content.  If porn actors are like rock stars, the branding could include live appearances or, more likely, increased emphasis on endorsements for the stars.  In this case (as is the case in music labels and newspapers), it is the middle-man in the content production chain who faces the most pressure from internet market forces.

(Hat Tip: Drudge)

YouTube Enhances Copyright Filters

YouTube is working to perfect technology to allow for automatic filtering of copyrighted clips on its website.  Interesting allegation mentioned in the article that YouTube purposefully turned a blind eye to copyright infringement in order to build its audience and enhance its acquisition price.  That strategy may have worked.  Google paid $1.76 billion to acquire YouTube 11 months ago.

Change of Philosophy at Columbia Journalism School?

On Forbes.com, some more bad news for journalists and those who aspire to the profession. The relevant quotes:

Another endangered species: journalists. Despite the proliferation of media outlets, newspapers, where the bulk of U.S. reporters work, will cut costs and jobs as the Internet replaces print. While current events will always need to be covered (we hope), the number of reporting positions is expected to grow by just 5% in the coming decade, the Labor Department says. Most jobs will be in small (read: low-paying) markets.

And broadcast journalists aren’t immune to this trend, either:

Radio announcers will have a tough time, too. Station consolidation, advances in technology and a barren landscape for new radio stations will contribute to a 5% reduction in employment for announcers by the middle of the next decade.

The writing is on the wall at Columbia Journalism School, where, according to one professor, even senior print faculty are stressing the need for all students to learn web skills. Ironically, some print students are more resistant to this emphasis than the professors, apparently fearing the technological learning curve or perhaps clinging to obsolete romanticisms of the profession.

The internet has changed the journalism economic model, with bloggers supplying content that journalists had previously charged for in print publication. At work here is the tragedy of the commons – bloggers and citizen journalists typically use news unearthed by professional journalists without compensation, republishing and repackaging the original news items with opinion. Each republishing and repackaging of the original reported content reduces the demand for the actual original form of the content – much like the case in the music industry and file-shared songs. With most news organizations losing money, the issue is whether an economic model can be developed to encourage reporting despite the lack of financial incentives to report. For even if intellectual property law developed in a way in which reported facts are protected by copyright, journalists would then only stand with musicians, trying to establish the fame necessary to generate ancillary income from (reporting) gigs that generate so little revenue of its own. By emphasizing New Media, Columbia Journalism School is trying to give its students the skills necessary to be one-man bands – to report and produce content in a variety of mediums for distribution over the internet. Each journalist would then be a hybrid – a reporter/publisher/producer/writer/techie – to varying degrees. To bring the analogy one step further, Columbia Journalism School is one step closer to making the logical yet startling concession – that traditional newspapers will wither like record companies, increasingly irrelevant distributors of content in the online world.

(Hat Tip: Instapundit).

Is the Internet Good for Writers?

Interesting quotes compiled by 10 Zen Monkeys. Good job.

There is an interesting parallel to law here. Commercial attorneys and those whose coin of the realm were intellectual property licenses and other commercial papers are getting killed by the internet, where their hard work gets posted and pasted by a multitude of companies who would prefer to pilfer something on the cheap rather than pay an attorney to draft the language. It doesn’t even matter that such language might be inapplicable or worse. And it doesn’t matter that using such language could get the thief in trouble for practicing law without a license – the pilfering continues unabated.

Regarding writing more specifically, it seems now that writing is merely the platform for something more lucrative – a means to an end, rather than an end in and of itself. Writers write books but earn better money speaking (or even more lucratively, consulting). Musicians make little from albums but earn great amounts of box office booty. Published lawyers become the safe pick for a multitude of high-paying gigs, whether public speaking, consulting, or straight practice of law.

In short, we’re entering a brave new world where intellectual property laws are routinely broken by common citizens. There is no stopping it. There are no easy answers, except by finding indirect ways to make money off of our writings.

Money for Nothing

In a case that no doubt sent shudders up the spines of file sharers, the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) secured a $220,000 judgment against a single mother for downloading and sharing copyrighted music online.

Jammie Thomas, 30, was ordered to pay $9,250 for each of the 24 songs that the recording industry focused on in the evidence. Thomas is alleged to have shared 1,702 songs.

The culture of sharing music and other files online is so firmly entrenched that the defendant may have felt that she could go forward, notwithstanding the evidence and law arrayed against her. Also, an industry official was cited as saying how surprised he was at the length of jury deliberations. While this comment may indicate any number of things, it is not unreasonable to think that the jurors wrestled with a law they found abhorrent.

Much like during the era of Prohibition, this is an area and time where there is a chasm between the law and what people believe the law should be. While the music industry has initiated 26,000 suits against alleged copyright violators, these actions constitute but a minute percentage of the total number of people involved in illegal file sharing. These suits are incredibly expensive, and with music sales plummeting, it may be time for the recording industry to find another business model.