#Future of DTV?
11 messages in this thread
Paul–
I'm enjoying our dialogue!
<<<I have always said that the only people interested in doing anything
original are under the age of 10.>>
I agree with you, and it reminds me of Tom Lehrer's 1965 song on "New Math":
"It's so simple, so very simple, that only a child can do it!"
Your comments on Video PostIts, the video equivalent of sound bites, etc. are
right on the money…only complication will be the inevitable intervention of
media lawyers who are chomping at the bit to sue benign users of video snippets
for unauthorized usage.
Taking the Marilyn example, I couldn't get over the fine print that was along
the spine of the program for the recent Digital Hollywood program (which
featured a pciture of Marilyn on its cover), it read (believe it or not):
"Design 1994 The Estate of Marilyn Monroe. All rights reserved. <<<signature–
"Marlilyn Monroe", MARILYN ™ and NORMA JEANE ™ together with the name,
voice, likeness, and image are trademarks of the Estate of Marilyn Monroe.
Represented by The Roger Richman Agency, Beverly Hills, CA, Image of Marilyn
Monroe, Estate of Marilyn Monroe"
How about a "Kill the lawyers" screen saver?
–Patrick
<<the inevitable intervention of media lawyers who are chomping at the bit to
sue benign users of video snippets for unauthorized usage.>>
The same thing has already happened in the music industry. Samples of up to 10
and 15 seconds are lifted right from another artists work without even so much
as a credit on the CD jacket. It's common practice now.
I went to a seminar on using music in video. It was put on by an ASCAP raider
(you know, those guys that go around to clubs and look for copyright
violations). A part that was particularly interesting is the concept of
'personal domain'. I can, for example, video tape a program off of cable TV
and play it at any time I desire; as often as I desire, and it's quite legal.
It is legitimate usage. I just can't walk into a theater or night club and
show it; and I can't accept compensation for seeing it. Nor can I sell (or
'gift', tho this is being challenged) it to someone else.
To be fair, I honestly don't think distribution houses (Paramount, Disney,
Columbia, et al) are interested in my 4 second sample of Derrick Flint saying
'an actor as president?' from one of the In Like Flint movies. You can
legitimately copy stuff you've purchased (or was distributed to you) for your
own use. What they're interested in is protecting their revenue and keeping
their property from falling into public domain. In this context, I can
certainly see consumers 'collecting' vid-bytes for personal use.
I saw an interview vid-clip on Richman 'advocate of the dead stars'. He was
talking about the rescue of Marilyn Monroe and how her estate is struggling to
regain ownership of her. Creepy. But I must sympathize. I believe
appropriating voice, likeness, or image to make money is the same as stealing
that money.
The problem has taken a more subtle form over on AOL. I've gotten e-mail from
people I don't know; who've seen a video message clip from me to another user;
who forwarded it to someone else. I have the right to distribute my likeness
but others do not. This, I believe, will put a subtle wrench in the works of
"narrowcasting' you speak of, Patrick. Getting 1 subscription to a newsletter;
then photocopying it and sending it around the office is illegal. It is also
narrowcasting. But passing around that single copy you paid for is perfectly
legal. For this reason, I don't think 'broad' or 'narrow' will be an issue in
the future. It's the 'casting' part that will be the issue. DTV is moving us
quickly into the 'a la cart'.
Paul:
>To be fair, I honestly don't think distribution houses (Paramount, Disney,
Columbia, et al) are interested in my 4 second sample of Derrick Flint saying
'an actor as president?' from one of the In Like Flint movies. You can
legitimately copy stuff you've purchased (or was distributed to you) for your
own use. What they're interested in is protecting their revenue and keeping
their property from falling into public domain.<
Okay, but what happens when you upload your IN LIKE FLINT clip, even if you
*don't* mean to sell it but just put it there to share? In a sense, the
property then falls into the public domain, which is (inferring from your post)
a form of copyright violation… Or did I get that right?
>I've gotten e-mail from people I don't know; who've seen a video message clip
from me to another user; who forwarded it to someone else. I have the right to
distribute my likeness but others do not. This, I believe, will put a subtle
wrench in the works of "narrowcasting' you speak of, Patrick. Getting 1
subscription to a newsletter; then photocopying it and sending it around the
office is illegal. It is also narrowcasting. But passing around that single
copy you paid for is perfectly legal. For this reason, I don't think 'broad'
or 'narrow' will be an issue in the future. It's the 'casting' part that will
be the issue. <
So forwarding a vidclip you've sent to someone else *is* a copyright violation
(same as Xeroxing a newsletter and sending cc's around the office, even though
that's done routinely in large corporations?). After all, it's not exactly like
you can hand a vidclip around like you can a copy of a magazine or
newsletter…
I'm interested because a e-mail friend of mine in Norway is trying to persuade
me to try distributing some DTP work I do for my job electronically and selling
*that* instead of selling it as paper media (which is what my boss does now).
I've been reluctant, since I know how easy it would be for someone to download
it, copy the file(s) and ship it on to a friend, who'll ship it on to a friend,
and so on, and so on, and so on… She argues that you can do that w/paper
media as well–my point is, yes you can, but it takes a certain amount of time
and skill to plagarize paper media, while anyone w/a computer can copy
electronic media…
Any thoughts?
Tim
<<what happens when you upload your IN LIKE FLINT clip>>
That is clearly a copyright violation. It doesn't mean the clip has fallen
into public domain. If United Artists were to never pursue this violation, and
the clip were to fall into wide use; then public domain could be argued because
UA would have no reasonable remedy to reclaim it. But I don't sample these
works so that I can distribute them; I do it because it's the only workable way
I can file them and find them again.
One weird thing, could I e-mail a person such a clip for the purposes of
comentary? Like, "Tim, I saw the funniest thing…" Would that still fall
into personal (and fair) use?
When I mentioned public domain, I was referring to a similar problem that you,
as a writer, are always cognizant of: trademarks. You're a good guy. So, you
never write Xerox when you mean photocopy, or Kleenex when you mean tissue,
etc. Otherwise, these brand names will go the way of words like Escalator.
<<RE:"I have the right to distribute my likeness but others do not" REPLY: "So
forwarding a vidclip you've sent to someone else *is* a copyright violation">>
Not a copyright issue. A privacy issue. I inalienably own my likeness and my
voice for eternity. Only in very special circumstances can another person
arbitrarily use it without my permission (viz. I'm Princess Di or OJ Simpson).
I can grant you that permission using a 'release'. When a person forwards my
vidclip to another, she has stolen my likeness and used it arbitrarily. I can
send you a photo of me; but that doesn't mean you can publish it in the paper.
<<trying to persuade me to try distributing some DTP work I do for my job
electronically and selling *that* instead of selling it as paper media (which
is what my boss does now). I've been reluctant, since I know how easy it would
be for someone to download it, copy the file(s) and ship it on to a friend>>
I think it's a good idea. And I have very specific reasons, Tim.
1) Studies have conclusively shown that when publications go online, paid
circulation increases. Pubs of all kinds are scrambling for it now.
2) Even if people do copy your work; you will be able to reach readers you
would never reach otherwise; and you will do this with absolutely no
distribution or media costs.
3) If the electronic version is slightly different from the printed one, each
would generate interest in the other.
4) Raise the 'immediacy' of your work, and readers will not tolerate waiting on
the 'sneaker net' for distribution.
5) Circulation costs are often one of the biggest expenses; there is
opportunity to slash these costs.
6) Electronic media gives you, as the publisher, much more information about
your reader than paper does. You can piggyback on the marketing research of
much larger firms who build the equipment and software your reader uses to view
this stuff.
7) There is opportunity for more reader feedback which can breathe new life
into a staling work. Much of the interesting stuff in WIRED Mag is reader
contributed.
Just my tharts. It's your money, tho.
Paul:
>One weird thing, could I e-mail a person such a clip for the purposes of
comentary? Like, "Tim, I saw the funniest thing…" Would that still fall
into personal (and fair) use?<
I don't know the law for sure, but my guess would be "no"–not that it
*doesn't* happen all the time anyway…<g> For the most part, though, I doubt
seriously UA would pursue you simply because you e-mailed a clip to a friend
(or even all your friends), mostly because they'd never hear about it…
>You're a good guy. So, you never write Xerox when you mean photocopy, or
Kleenex when you mean tissue, etc. Otherwise, these brand names will go the
way of words like Escalator.<
Actually, I've been known to–but that's what editors are supposed to catch. As
for Xerox and Kleenex, haven't they *already* passed into common usage (all
right, not legally, but you know what I mean…)?
>Not a copyright issue. A privacy issue. I inalienably own my likeness and my
voice for eternity. Only in very special circumstances can another person
arbitrarily use it without my permission (viz. I'm Princess Di or OJ Simpson).
I can grant you that permission using a 'release'. When a person forwards my
vidclip to another, she has stolen my likeness and used it arbitrarily. I can
send you a photo of me; but that doesn't mean you can publish it in the paper.<
Good point–and one that, in desktop publishing, I'm rather familiar
with–unless you're given permission (a license) first… Sorry I mixed up the
issues, there…
>>trying to persuade me to try distributing some DTP work I do for my job
electronically and selling *that* instead of selling it as paper media (which
is what my boss does now). I've been reluctant, since I know how easy it would
be for someone to download it, copy the file(s) and ship it on to a friend<<
>I think it's a good idea. And I have very specific reasons, Tim<
Well, those *are* good reasons… Though I have one good reason at this point
in time NOT to–no time. I'm the only person doing production in my office
(along w/the only person answering mail, doing art direction, copy editing and
sometimes writing editorial, etc.). I'm also a little concerned about how we'd
get paid for it…How do other magazines/papers work it?
Best,
Tim
<<Well, those *are* good reasons… Though I have one good reason at this point
in time NOT to–no time.>>
Ah, the vast chasm between can't and won't. If something's impossible, then
all the good reasons in the world don't really matter <g>.
<<I'm also a little concerned about how we'd get paid for it…How do other
magazines/papers work it?>>
This area is so very new. The rules are still in the formative stages. I have
seen some excellent examples and, like you, am very interested in the mechanics
of this distribution. I think there is big money here.
Whenever you have information that only a select audience wants and can't get;
you have an opportunity for point-to-point distribution. (Back to
'broadcasting is dead'). You can get away with things in this environment that
you can't in 'casting'.
WIRED mag has an interesting presence on the World Wide Web. They have bred
magazine ads, tv commercials, and hyperlinks and have come up with the concept
of 'sponsors'. Each has a presence someplace in the Web pages and like other
media, the sponsor furnishes everything except the picticon. But there's a
kicker. The viewer is told up front that sponsors=content, and
content=viewers, and viewers=more sponsors. You're encouraged to visit
sponsors by your own free will. Click on 'Zima' picticon, for example, and you
could whoosh to Zima's pages. From there you could go to other places that
interest Zima drinkers. Unusual way to channel surf.
The multi-tiered sponsorship concept is unprecedented. Only point-to-point
communications can bring this to you. I think the travel industry is a cash
cow for this where the consumer downloads 'programs' on destinations. Then can
explore tours of those destinations (first tier of sponsors), and similar tours
— perhaps not to this destination (related products), and perhaps download
'programs' on those destinations. Then can explore agencies that sell these
tours (second tier of sponsors). Threading sponsorship like this makes it easy
to give sponsors conrete exposure numbers and greater immediacy of purchase.
The advantage for the viewer is comparison shopping — something 'broacast'
home shopping simply can't do.
Paul:
>Ah, the vast chasm between can't and won't. If something's impossible, then
all the good reasons in the world don't really matter <g>.<
Well, yeah… I *am* intrigured by online magazines, but unfortunately my boss'
company is a small and VERY thinly capitalized one (and he's the cheapest
bas***d going!), and he's frightened by anything he doesn't understand (he
doesn't even trust DTP!), so… <*sigh*>
>This area is so very new. The rules are still in the formative stages. I
have seen some excellent examples and, like you, am very interested in the
mechanics of this distribution. I think there is big money here.<
So do I–but I don't want my boss' company to take a bath (he really can't
afford it, for one thing!) by jumping headfirst into something w/out some way
of making money off it…
>The multi-tiered sponsorship concept is unprecedented. Only point-to-point
communications can bring this to you. <
You're right–that IS an interesting way to do things…
Best,
Tim
Tim–
<<So forwarding a vidclip you've sent to someone else *is* a copyright
violation (same as Xeroxing a newsletter and sending cc's around the office,
even though that's done routinely in large corporations?). After all, it's not
exactly like you can hand a vidclip around like you can a copy of a magazine or
newsletter…>>
In fact there is a very cool bit of product called "Creative Parnter" by
emotion (Palo Alto, CA) (415) 812-9001, that allows the multimedia equivalent
of groupware…the fascile dissemination of media files (QT video, audio, still
PICT files, etc) from one Mac computer to another,without the need for hardware
de/compressors at either end, or dedicated high bandwidth networks.
Send/Receive a movie…annotate it with voice, text or hand-drawn comments,
then return or forward it to others. Great for interaction between clients and
ad agencies/law firms, etc.
The approximation of the ideal living document cybertext promises to be?
–Patrick
Patrick:
>In fact there is a very cool bit of product called "Creative Parnter" by
emotion (Palo Alto, CA) (415) 812-9001, that allows the multimedia equivalent
of groupware…the fascile dissemination of media files (QT video, audio, still
PICT files, etc) from one Mac computer to another,without the need for hardware
de/compressors at either end, or dedicated high bandwidth networks.
Send/Receive a movie…annotate it with voice, text or hand-drawn comments,
then return or forward it to others. Great for interaction between clients and
ad agencies/law firms, etc.
The approximation of the ideal living document cybertext promises to be?<
My, that *does* sound tasty, don't it? The question is (and it's a common one
for businesses), what's the minimum Mac you can run it on? And what happens if
part of your company's on Macs, and the other part's on Windows/OS2 computers?
<*sigh*> The search for the ideal system goes on…
Best,
Tim
Tim–
<<My, that *does* sound tasty, don't it? The question is (and it's a common one
for businesses), what's the minimum Mac you can run it on? And what happens if
part of your company's on Macs, and the other part's on Windows/OS2 computers>>
Not sure about details (It does take up at least one valuable slot), try
contacting emotion directly; (415) 812-9001.
Later,
–Patrick
Patrick:
>Not sure about details (It does take up at least one valuable slot), try
contacting emotion directly; (415) 812-9001.<
Okay–thanks for the contact number!
Best,
Tim