Murdoch's threat to pull his content from the Google index is a lightning rod for the paid vs. free debate. For example, Jeff Jarvis is a thought leader who encourages others to think Murdoch doesn’t understand what the internet is all about - “This week, we see this contrast, too, in Rupert Murdoch’s threat – he thinks it’s a threat – to cut off Google. Nose. Face. Cut. Spite. Murdoch – whodoesn’t use the internet – does not see how distribution works today. He does not understand that being open to the link economy brings him free distribution, free marketing, great benefit.”
The so-called "link economy" is about "using" others to make money:
- Google “uses” others’ content to provide search results and sells billions in performance-based advertising
- Murdoch “uses” the search results to drive traffic of “users” who aren’t interested in paying for content, but . . .
- Murdoch “uses” these eyeballs to generate millions in ad revenues (what's left after Google's billions).
- ISPs are “using” access to the content and search utility to make billions
-
Wall
Street and Google investors are making billions shorting Murdoch’s stock and
trading Google stock
Murdoch doesn’t
understand “using” others? Are you
kidding? How do you think he built
Newscorp? The traditional media business
model is premised on “using” others to make money. THEY HAD TO.
There was no way to charge anyone directly for consuming over the air
radio and television. So the only way to
fund traditional media was to “use” others to make money.
Murdoch
understands the business model all too well and he is refusing to be the one to
be “used.” Traditional print media may
have made the mistake of thinking that the internet was a good marketing tool
to “use” to support their traditional businesses. But television has not. And social media is not. Murdoch has established there is a market for the "blah blah blah" content on social media with a $900 Million/3 year deal
with Google to search MySpace.
The Wall Street
Journal, a property of Murdoch’s, calls on Congress to write legislation to
update the concept of fair use to protect copyrights in today’s media
landscape. Specifically, he says: "Consistent with the handling of copying by libraries, indexing
without any commercial gain should be protected as fair use. But it should not
be controversial to legislate that once the cache is monetized for the benefit
of the search engine, the line of copyright infringement is crossed."
In response, we
propose that lobbying Congress requires a focus on the positive economic impact
of protect copyrights:
The controversy is that Congress
fears that hindering Google's ability to profit will be perceived as
restricting "new" media and protecting "old" media. To get
around this, the focus should be on the positive implications of such
legislation instead of its limitations:
1) Google still indexes the content, just pays a license fee. Just as they are
already doing for the rights to MySpace, Twitter, et al.
2) The economic stimulus created by the new revenue stream of high value
content holders licensing their content for a fee to news and entertainment
curators
3) The consumer protection achieved by valuing their content copyright in the
same way. In other words, when their content generates monetizable search
results, they should also be paid a license fee.
We
propose an application of these principles in a response to a challenge put
forth by Mike Masnick in TechDirt: “What If You
Could Recreate Live Performances By Dead Artists On A Computer?”:
This is copying.
If it is not for commercial (read: to make money) it is fair use.
If it is for commercial use (read: to make money) it is copyright infringement.
If it is distributed without a license fee to market a site that is not
commercial - it is fair use. If the site being marketed is commercial - it is
copyright infringement.
If both the distribution and source are not collecting money, but a 3rd party
(i.e., ISP, wireless provider) is collecting money to provide access to this
free content, then it is a commercial use and is a copyright infringement by
the 3rd party who is collecting money.
The fact that new media technologies add many more links to the value chain and
it takes more steps to follow the money should not change copyright protection.
Without copyright protection we have no way to fund art/creativity/freedom of
expression.
I understand that many think that only "old" media publishers and programmers
benefit from copyright protection. I think we are missing the point that the
internet provides an opportunity for independent content creators to compete
for attention. But only if they can make a living doing it.
There’s evidence to suggest that a system in which contributors are paid and consumers pay is profitable. At the Monaco Media Forum, according to the Financial Times, “Mathias Döpfner, chief executive of Axel Springer, told Arianna Huffington that a Polish newspaper his company set up at the same time as she founded HuffingtonPost.com in 2005 was already making more in profit than the rumoured $6m-$10m her site was seeing in revenue.” And according to his presentation in this YouTube video, this is because he is paying contributors for content and they are paying him for adding value through curating and editing.
Which leads us to propose that new media is an opportunity to break the vicious cycle of "using" others to make money.
- If each artist were paid a license fee then the original copyright would be maintained and the curator who adds value is also paid.
- Make the license fee variable - relative to the commercial value of the curated product.
- Need
a universal transaction system to make this process as friction-free as
possible. The transaction system should be "two way" - earn credits
when your work is curated/distributed and pay debits when you curate/distribute
the work of others.
New media
content creators should be "using" the buzz Murdoch has started to benefit themselves. Lobby governments to update the definition of "fair use" to protect copyrights in new technologies. Advocate an universal, frictionless transaction system, so unlike over the air television and radio, there is a way to assess value and pay for content.
New media is an opportunity to break the vicious cycle and pay people for
what they do relative to demand, creating a virtuous network that nurtures
creativity.
