Content monetization – the post SOPA perspectives – One size does not fit all ..

SOPA has come and gone. Irrespective of your perspective, many of the underlying questions still remain. This blog (and forthcoming Policy bloggers network  breakfast event) will be an attempt to address the missing perspectives on SOPA and attempt to create a rational discussion around the future of content monetization.

Here are some ideas from a content perspective.  The perspective is intentional since the idea is to move away from a dichotomy (ex all content is same, all offending sites should be blocked etc) and to move to a constructive, fact based debate.

Comments welcome on these:

-          The Content galaxy is not ‘One size fits all’:  Content types are very varied. Regulation and discussion traditionally lumps all content types together (often under threat of piracy which affects all content types) – but these content types often have different characteristics.  The cost of the production of the Titanic ($200m) cannot be recouped by advertising alone

-          The fact that all content can be digitized and distributed over networks doesn’t mean that one size-fit-all wholesale commercial and legal solutions can efficiently apply to all these very diverse industries: For example – you could give a digital version of a book for free but producing a movie like the Titanic or other most expensive films made cannot really be compared to books not just in production costs but also the ‘follow on model’ . One could argue that the digital version of the book is free but other versions could recoup costs (ex print versions). However, that argument does not apply to a high budget film i.e. once the film is ‘consumed’ there is no incentive to buy in another format. Such an approach is destined to commercial failure. It risks destroying more value than it creates and will eventually impoverish the consumers’ experience.

-          Free flow of content is a worthy objective but not feasible for all content types: Free flow of content is a worthy objective but it is not feasible in all cases due to factors other than copyright. For example, different rules on censorship by rating agencies, that restrict content to specific age groups, are based on local standards of what is acceptable and what isn’t.

-          Business models - There may be limitations and drawbacks but the market for content remain competitive ie there are no dominant players.  Professionalism is expensive. High quality content requires excellence and professionalism both in its making and in its marketing. Advertiing based business models are still not a replacement for professionally produced content especially if you consider all content types are not equal.

 

The problem with legislation like SOPA is – it attempts to be ‘one size fits all’ for both sides (Internet and content).

Here is why .. Nicholas Johnson of Street bank posted the below in a forum
The main issue with SOPA is that it shifts the entire burden of responsibility onto the distributor. I run a community website called Streetbank which puts neighbours in touch with each other. Under SOPA, if a neighbour shares a link to an illegal download with another neighbour on my site, I am responsible. To comply with this law I would need to employ someone to check every single post. It’s analogous to forcing a cafe owner to post a guard next to each table to ensure the diners don’t talk about anything naughty. The cost of this is too high. It would prevent us from doing business in America. The tech sector is expanding and creating jobs. SOPA will put a huge break on this, not just in the USA but worldwide.

See the video of steet bank below

 

 

I hope that the above will be a foundation for discussion

Thus, a rational discussion on content will benefit the ecosystem

Content monetization – the post SOPA perspectives – One size does not fit all ..