Home
The Autumnal City [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
Tarmle

[ website | The Ruins of Morning ]
[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

The Blanket License: A Modest Proposal [Oct. 25th, 2007|05:11 pm]
[Tags|, , , , , , , ]

According to a report from ArsTechnica the fabled Blanket License has once again reared its head, this time in Denmark:

Andy Oram over at O'Reilly Radar noted the recent moves in Denmark to create a system where every ISP user might pay a monthly fee in order to access unlimited P2P music legally.

The proposal has drawn positive feedback from an unlikely source—the local "Piratgruppen."

"It's good that they admit that they cannot solve the problem of falling CD sales by suing their own fans," said Sebastian Gjerding from the Piratgruppen. "It looks like they have understood that they should offer something that is competitive compared to other, free music sources. It is an entirely new admission that hasn't spread internationally yet. IFPI Denmark is on the forefront in this matter. But it is annoying that no action has been taken so far to save many teenagers million-krone fines."

ArsTechnica.com


The article notes some obstacles to the proposal. For instance, will this cover just 'local' bands or include international sources? The former would simply prove unenforceable - they'd have less luck detecting where they were downloading from than they currently have detecting if they have downloaded anything at all - while the latter would be a logistical zombie movie complete with everyone dying at the end! Another question is whether this will be a voluntary payment or amount to a tax on all users regardless of whether they ever download music or not?

Despite these sorts of issues, I consider the Blanket License to be the most equitable and, more importantly, most moral alternative to the current media distribution model. Fundamentally it is a concept that makes the most of current technology and encourages further development, while at the same time protecting our right to make use of our own hardware and data.

The problems mentioned in the article are trivial. Yes, the BL should cover artists worldwide but it should be stipulated that they make the claim to receive anything. Yes, the BL should be a mandatory payment, including for businesses - they don't want to make use of it, that's up to them, but since it's there why not let their employees share media on their network without a legal care in the world?

My main problem with the Danish plan is its hopelessly narrow vision, covering only music and only one country. It is comically ineffectual.

Here's the real plan:

The Blanket License should cover all media, it should, in fact, cover anything that can be encoded, uploaded, downloaded or otherwise redistributed, music, movies, TV shows, books, newspapers, 3d printer files, essentially any media that can be rendered as data. It should be run as an opt-in for content creators alone and strictly prohibit music cartels, charities and other non-root content providers. It should also provide a means for those artists who build on the work of others to indicate and reward their contributors.

But there is one element that is by far the most important: the Blanket License must be directly democratic. By this I mean that the distribution of the revenue derived from the BL should be based on what the users are listening to, watching and using, not on some even division or some educated guess informed by random polling. We should literally be voting for our choices and the results of these votes used to calculate the creators' share.s Of course one vote a week is hardly going to be a fair measure, instead we would need at least a hundred votes a week which we could distribute as we see fit (say a maximum of five votes per voter for any one creator). This voting could allow for a mix of voluntary voting (specific choices regardless of what a user has actually downloaded) and user-controlled automated voting (a system that allows vote assignments based on the usage statistics from a media player). No one would be forced to vote, but it would be in their interests to encourage their favourite bands, actors photographers, writers and so on, and automatic voting could allow users to contribute without any real effort.

There will still be a place for record labels as marketing brokers, contracting artists for flat fees or a percentage of their earnings in return for their expertise in development and marketing their creations.

This real Blanket License would be no small undertaking, requiring the development of an international infrastructure and region-by-region legislation to remove the existing legal hurdles faced by users. But the result would be a totally egalitarian forum, the likes of which has not been seen since some mug took a handful of loose change and sang to a wax cylinder. All that would be required for an artist to make money would be to make music and find people who like it enough to vote for it, no contracts, no physical distribution, and most significantly, no risk.


It's ambitious, and naturally it glosses over some real problems. Technically, there are issues with the security involved in electronic voting, ensuring that the votes are genuine rather than the result of malicious software running on client systems, and preventing any third party from accessing usage data and putting user privacy at risk (a premise I call Regime Proofing - designing the system so that should it fall under someone else's control there will not be enough information recorded to identify individual users, though there should still be enough to identify tampering and vandalism [a paradox, I know]). And naturally the entire system would need to be totally transparent if it is to be trusted by artists and consumers.

The environment that this Blanket License could create is an exciting one. It would encourage a far greater range of cultural experience for users, exposing them to a vast library of content without restriction and without the increasingly hegemonic filtering of the incumbent distribution businesses. Since each user has already paid for all their downloading there can be none of this quibbling over the rights involved in time- and format-shifting. Download once and the data is yours to do with as you please., you will be free to invent new ways of accessing your culture that have yet to be even dreamed of, and without fear of the shadow of monetisation.

Radiohead's independent venture into alternative digital distribution model was laudable, a worthy experiment, but one dependant on the duality of our current attitude to online media, both legal and illicit. What they received for their effort was charity: not a long term solution, but a round of applause for a worthy effort. In the end we cannot expect to support artists through benevolence alone. How many 'micro-patrons' can we expect to find and persuade to keep giving? Radiohead simply walked out into a new and forbidding wilderness, if anyone is going to follow, we're going to need to build them some roads.

I've previously discussed the impact of unlimited digital distribution on the existing content industry, namely the rapid and near total destruction of physical production interests. Other commentators have suggested that such a vision is unnecessarily apocalyptic, that, for instance, paper books will never disappear, and to an extent I agree. But consider a world in which you can access any book, at any time, for free; can we really expect already struggling publishers to survive that? There will always be a market for dead tree, just as there is still a market for vinyl, but there will also be a reckoning in the market that will see it reduced to little more than a niche. Now consider this situation extended to cover not only book sellers, but music stores, tv stations, cinemas and all the services that depend on them. A whole set of industries is at stake, countless jobs, and a huge chunk of the Western economy.

The Blanket License promises an almost unimaginable upheaval in the 'business of culture', a vision that the entrenched business interests will likely do anything to escape. But consider also that the openness it could bring will foster new technologies and new businesses to exploit those technologies and even new ways of doing business - the economic environment might then be changed rather than destroyed.

I am convinced that, if we are to avoid handing over control of our lives to big business, then this is the way it must be. It is the Blanket License or (without exaggeration) cultural totalitarianism.
link4 comments|post comment

So it Goes [Apr. 12th, 2007|04:36 pm]
[Tags|, , ]

Photograph of Kurt Vonnegut - source unknown (via Wikipedia.org).Kurt Vonnegut (11th November, 1922 – 11th April, 2007)

My introduction to Vonnegut was Cat's Cradle (1963), some time back in the '80s. It was a novel of science fiction (many examples of which I was consuming voraciously at the time) that utterly defied it's default genre, and yet proceeded to completely redefine it for me, a work so purified and condensed that it seemed impossible that it could be consumed so easily and all too quickly. So profound an experience was the encounter that even to this day I remember the exact rancid ochre shade of the ex-library book's pages, the texture of the slowly degrading plastic coating on its plain, faded yellow cover. That wizened Victor Gollancz hardback was with me for many years afterwards, as I seemed unable to throw it out despite it's advanced decrepitude and nasty odour - a glorious carbuncle in the extensive library I maintained at the time. Even when I sold the whole collection as a job-lot for four hundred Irish pounds, that rotting volume remained with me. Finally, somehow, someone else saw through it's decaying exterior and it found another reader and finally left my possession in the most proper of ways.

How many books can one recall in such detail, how many leave so distinct a trail through a reader's life?

Kurt Vonnegut, who died yesterday, will outlive us all.
linkpost comment

The Work of Zombie Authors is Never Done [Jun. 14th, 2006|12:07 am]
[Tags|, , , , ]

If you have ever needed an example of why our current system of copyrights needs radical improvement, this is it:

A Stanford University professor on Monday sued James Joyce's estate for refusing to give her permission to use copyrighted material about the "Ulysses" author and his daughter on her Web site.

In the lawsuit, Carol Shloss, an acting English professor and Joycean scholar, challenged the estate's assertion that she would be infringing on its ownership of Joyce's image by quoting his published works, manuscripts and private letters on her scholarly site.

Instead, Shloss accused Joyce's grandson, Stephen James Joyce, and estate trustee, Sean Sweeney, of destroying papers, improperly withholding access to copyrighted materials and intimidating academics to protect the Joyce family name. - Yahoo News (via BoingBoing)


And from the centenary of Bloomsday two years ago:

In the run-up to the centenary of Bloomsday on the fictitious day on which [James Joyce's] novel [Ulysses] is set, organisers of the ReJoyce festival are expecting thousands of fans from around the world to descend on the city by which Joyce felt so unloved and which he left for self-imposed exile in 1912.

However, last week a copyright dispute escalated when Irish MPs passed emergency legislation preventing an exhibition at the city's National Library from being sued.

Stephen Joyce, the author's grandson, said the James Joyce and Ulysses exhibition - which is displaying draft notebooks from the novel - might breach copyright legislation. Mr Joyce, who guards the family literary estate, has successfully targeted publishing houses, stage shows and internet sites in the past.

His warnings have already stopped plans by the festival to hold public readings of Ulysses and a proposal by the Abbey Theatre to stage Joyce's play, Exiles. - Telegraph.co.uk - 14th June 2004.


Stephen Joyce had not even been conceived when his grandfather, James Joyce, wrote Ulysses, the greatest Irish novel of the last century. So what exactly gives him the right to collect royalties and dictate the uses of his ancestors work? He had nothing to do with it's writing, if he possesses any talent beyond frustrating scholars with the capricious destruction of historically significant documents, it made no contribution to the novel. How can any one person claim absolute dominion over a work with such huge cultural significance, a work that has become inseparably integrated into the Irish identity? Being a post-modernist by nature I would even argue that, were James Joyce himself still alive today, his 'opinion' of the work would be no more and no less valid than anyone else's, and that he would have no more right to exclusive control over this part of our psyche than does his grandson.

Frankly, I find the very idea that a work this significant could still be under copyright in any part of the world after more than eighty years to be offensive, I don't have to trust the feeling in my very bones to know this is just wrong as it defies any logical reduction.

This is not the way to foster the arts, this has nothing to do with cultivating creativity and encouraging artistic expression, no extension of copyright is going to bring James Joyce back from the dead to write more novels. So tell me, where is the advantage to James Joyce, to us, to Ireland, to anyone in this world other than Stephen Joyce, in withholding any of his work from the public domain? What is the protection of copyright doing for anyone save those who have taken most and contributed least? We are putting the breaks on our culture so that a single estate can receive money for doing nothing. There is no great potential being protected by these laws, no good is coming of them, and none ever will.

Big business has been persuading governments around the world to repeatedly extend copyrights, every time we reach a stage where something form the last century might actually default to the public domain they writhe and yammer until lawmakers have pushed the tipping point back another few years. If they had their way you can be sure copyrights would be extended to eternity. The case of Stephen Joyce shows how the life-plus-ninety years copyright works on a human scale, and proves just what is wrong with it: money. The extension of copyrights has always been about making money, not about making art. Stephen Joyce will never write a novel or a short story or even a letter by James Joyce. Copyrights do not raise the dead, copyrights do not allow us to channel their spirits and copyrights do not make literary geniuses out of talentless, money-grubbing heirs.

At this point I really have very little sympathy for those industries and jobs and livelihoods that are kept artificially alive through this ludicrous system. Business models may break, corporations may topple, factories may close, people may find themselves out of work - if that is the price of change, if that's what it takes to save the art from the idiots, so be it.

It has to stop.

[Ulysses is not under copyright in the US so feel free to download the complete text from Project Gutenberg, and avoid supporting Mr Stephen Joyce in any way]
link5 comments|post comment

Delany Radio Play: The Start Pit [Apr. 13th, 2006|03:42 am]
[Tags|, , , ]

Samuel R. Delany's The Start Pit is one of my favourite short stories by my all-time favourite author. So it's a real treat to come across this recording of The Star Pit radio play aired in November 1967 over New York's WBAI-FM station. Much gratitude to pseudopodium.org for proving the MP3 conversions and to Boing Boing for providing this link.

The play itself is by turns endearing and excruciating, with 'bad' 60s music, transparent sound effects and adults playing kids in the fashion of the worst pan-lingual European commercials. I love every blurry, fizzy, dropped-out second of it!

Be sure to ready Delany's Notes on The Start Pit first.
linkpost comment

Burnoff: Part 2 - The Good Guys Win [Feb. 21st, 2006|03:29 pm]
[Tags|, , , , , , , ]

No one has to pay for numbers anymore. No one is threatened for merely experiencing the development of their own culture. No one is sued for participating in its creation or propagation. The old media business models are gone, burned away by their total inability to adapt to the reality of new technology. In the end they simply failed to comprehend that any product which can be reproduced endlessly by anyone at virtually no cost has, in any reasonable estimation, a market value of zero. Trying to break the technology that threatened them was the final desperate tactic - it hadn't stopped the Industrial Revolution and it didn't stop this one.

Copyright is your right to copy... anything. You are permitted to duplicate, to alter, to republish any piece of information, any text, sound, image or source code, even any object, anything that does not impinge on the privacy of another individual. It even protects your right to make money out of such duplication, if you can. In non-profit situations it also supersedes the now very limited and expensive application of patents. About the only right retained by an artist after they have released a work is their moral right to attribution. So don't get carried away, fraud, forgery and counterfeiting are still crimes.

Like all the technology in your home, your computer and everything on it is your own, down to the last resistor, the last byte. Ironically it still runs Windows. The old proprietary OS has been rebuilt into dozens of open source flavours - there was no point throwing out codes and standards with years of work behind them and such a vast catalogue of useful applications already developed. Even more unexpected is that Trusted Computing has become universal. The technology that would have allowed big business to monitor your activity, to reach into your home and control your computer and your data, is now used to stop just that kind of interference. Encrypted drives, curtained memory and protected media paths prevent malware snooping on your personal files or siphoning away your home movies. Ubiquitous VoIP, secured by privacy amplified encryption, means the national security agencies of the world have to actually investigate threats instead of sitting around waiting for potential suspects to blurt incriminating evidence over illegal wiretaps.

Your culture is faster and more fluid than it has ever been, or ever could have been had the rules not changed, you'll only ever experience a tiny fraction of it in your lifetime. The new movie you glimpsed playing on the back of someone's animated t-shirt at the bus stop last week has already spawned a handful of mash-ups and parodies, by next month the spreading ripples of its influence will be unrecognisable. Even then, if the feeds do not provide what you're looking for, there are the vast peer-distributed media libraries from which you can retrieve almost anything that has ever been digitised, any talk show or radio play, video game or comic, newspaper article or published photograph.

Time and space shifting of media is the norm rather than the hard won exception. You rarely notice the exact source of the information and entertainment you receive, it may have come through the traditional broadcast television channels, via the manifold multimedia blogs piped through your fibre optic Internet connection or picked up virally from wireless peers by your personal server while walking down the street. You rely on your intelligent agent to filter this never-ending flow of information, an application that reduces and organises the mass of live data to a few dynamic feeds, constantly adjusted to match your profile, habits and even your mood. But still, there is so much material even this system has to co-operate with others on local networks to process it all.

With free and instant access to every book ever written there is little use for bookshops, the few that are left sell limited ranges of bound paper works as charming novelties. Often those buying them are just doing so to get their favourite author's signature. For those who miss the feel of a real book but want access to more than the few pulp prints in the shops there are 'magic books' with simulated bindings, touch sensitive e-Ink pages and voice interaction to let them summon an approximation of any volume ever written. The primary functions of public libraries today are the maintenance of municipal servers in the back rooms, used to ensure that less frequented material is never lost from the peer networks, and public access to the Internet for those who might find themselves without a mobile device. The stacks are now roped-off museum exhibits.

You just don't see physical media anymore. Awkward, low-end portable storage like CDs and DVDs are rarely useful, not with ever-increasing bandwidth availability, and not without the requirement to divide culture up into tradable units, the need to trick consumers with physical objects in exchange for their money and their rights. Blu-ray and HD-DVD, their technology moulded to constrict the hold on consumers, never had a chance, too rapidly overtaken by faster, more versatile and more open live storage devices.

The cinema chains have been decimated. Those that persist cater to customers who seek an authentic movie theatre experience. You'll often find movie sponsors subsidising tickets, food and drink sales in return for screenings of 'official' versions of films, desperate to have their product placements seen by audiences in a controlled environment. You often find yourself return to really good movie again and again, drawn by dynamic content generation and commissioned extensions. There's no point banning cameras and threatening legal action, the movie doesn't need to be protected, quite the opposite, and almost everyone there has already seen it. When you walk into a cinema you probably have versions of all the latest films stored in your inside pocket, if you don't you can download them from the cinema's own server as you're watching, or access countless other titles through the powerful ad-hoc networks that settle invisibly over any significant gathering of people.

Outside of the cinemas there is little notion of viewing anything in any particular place, time or order, no way for anyone to dictate or even guess how you listen to your music or watch your news. Instead of a contest advertising has become a war. Average consumers are given the tools to strip away the old style commercial breaks and sponsor messages, tools that would have been illegal had DRM been allowed to develop unchecked.

Increasingly companies rely on getting information about their products integrated into the media, making them inseparable. You won't find a new album online that doesn't contain at least two tracks named after brands of sneakers or snack foods. The rewards for a rapper willing to name a financial services company somewhere in their lyrics are awe-inspiring - a once-off commercial concession like that can fund a popular artist for long time. Your favourite comedy sketch vlog regularly uses humour based on commercial products and services - a few years ago such a thing might have appalled you, yet you still see collections of old TV ads in the media libraries prominently tagged as humour. The Grand Theft Auto MMOG doesn't charge it's players for software or access, instead it sells in-game billboard space for fifty times the price of billboards in the real world, and the virtual cars the players are boosting will often be the latest models, performance and polygon counts boosted by higher paying sponsors, of course. Armed with suitable Creative Commons Contracts, protecting them from restrictive and exploitative deals, artists have little to fear from their sponsors.

The old copyright system did nothing to protect the right of artists and everything to protect the profit margins of the content industries. It might have been argued that without laws to protect artists, and companies to represent their interests, anyone could co-opt their work to use for advertising without rewarding them. But every company that considers such a tactic today must consider a simply question, is it worth more to make an enemy of an artist than to make a friend of one? Ultimately it must be conceded that artists of all forms are the mind and the voice of the world. Unfettered by exploitation and constant resistance, they hold the attention of all humanity. Disrespecting them is never going to be a good idea.

Some further reading:
Creative Commons
The Mozilla Project
Electronic Frontier Foundation
Boing Boing
Wikipedia
BitTorrent

GreaseMonkey Firefox Extension - Web content under user control [wikipedia.com].
AdBlock Firefox Extension - Web content filtering [wikipedia.com]
FeedTree - p2p feed dissemination.
MythTV - homebrew Personal Video Recorder project.

Mechanical Royalties - from a simple and revealing description of what artists' "rights" are worth today [howstuffworks.com]
Empowering Copyright Owners to Fight Illegal File-Swapping - a view from the "other side", for the sake of balance [ascap.com]
Trusted Computing - a relatively balanced view (at the time of writing) of TC technology [wikipedia.org]

Previously on this blog:
Burnoff: Part 1 - The Bad Guys Win - with additional relevant links.
Legal P2P in France?
Music Industry Logic Applied to Cutting Grass
Copyright Logic Applied to Digging Holes
An e-Paper Manifesto
Remember when music used to come on coasters?
Overpriced, Dusty Chunks of Pulverised Rainforest: An Endangered Species
link17 comments|post comment

Try to be Slightly Less Than Completely Evil [Feb. 15th, 2006|12:07 am]
[Tags|, , ]

Obviously I'm not going to have Burnoff Part 2 ready for today, despite a long weekend's work. So it'll be next Tuesday... possibly with diagrams.

However, if you need a quick swig of boiling blood to make you're evening's browsing worthwhile I suggest Cory Doctorow's articles currently appearing on BoingBoing about Google's sudden capitulation with content industry demands for Deliberately Retarded Media in their new video service and, conversely, their trouble dealing with copyright issues involved in the Book Search service.

Interestingly, I note that the listed editions of both Karl Marx' Das Kapital and Mary Shelley's Frankenstein are all under copyright according to Google Book Search. In fact, I've been having a hard time locating the complete text of any 19th century classics that I'm familiar with. Obviously the DRM system used in GBS can't distinguish between a copyrighted introduction written twenty years ago and the main body of the work that is most definitely in the public domain as the author has been in the ground for over a century!

On a lighter note, Wikipedia's entry on Frankenstein or the Modern Prometheus has a spoiler warning?
linkpost comment

Jurassic Logic [Feb. 10th, 2006|02:48 am]
[Tags|, ]

I was just reading about Michael Crichton winning a journalism award, presented by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists no less. The award is for his book State of Fear, a work of fiction about the global warming predictions turning out to be wrong. Eye-rolling, isn't it.

No I haven't read it. But, for the record, here's my take on the whole global warming issue:

We can go with the climate scientists and green lobby groups: If they're right we avoid radical and deadly climate change and have a whole new renewable energy economy with new technology and new jobs, cleaner air and cleaner water. If they're wrong we just get the whole new renewable energy economy with new technology and new jobs, cleaner air and cleaner water.

Or we can go with the politicians and petrochemical multinationals: If they're right we can continue pouring our energy waste into the environment indefinitely, keeping our dirty air and dirty water. If they're wrong we still keep our dirty air and dirty water, but we also have to suffer radical and deadly climate change, potentially killing hundreds of millions of people.

To summarise:
RightWrong
ScientistsWinWin
PoliticiansLoseLose a lot

It's not rocket science... ironically.
linkpost comment

An e-Paper Manifesto [Nov. 28th, 2005|05:25 pm]
[Tags|, ]

Philips E-Ink hinged ebook reader.

The thing to be aware of with the invention of e-paper is that it will bring about a radical shift in the balance of power in printed media. The immense resources required to physically print, promote and distribute a novel have always necessitated that authors rely on publishers for a large part of the process of getting their work sold. As a result they also have to settle for a tiny portion of the profit from subsequent sales (and that's only if the publisher deems their work to be worthy of publishing at all).

So here is a an old question from the heady days of the early internet: What happens when all anyone needs to have their writing published is access to the internet, and the entire publishing cycle from creation to world-wide promotion is executed from a spare bedroom?

E-Ink Reader.Lets be clear: the reason books are not read from web sites today is because reading from a CRT or LCD display is just not comfortable enough. That's where e-paper comes in, a light, flexible, high contrast, non-illuminated, low power display device that closely replicates the experience of reading a static printed page, a technology that makes reading electronic documents a pleasure rather than an eye-straining chore. Granted this technology is not quite there yet but it is well on the way.

Publishing a novel on the internet is likely to be no more convoluted than publishing a blog. But getting a work promoted and actually sold on the internet will still require a resource that is in short supply even there – that precious resource is attention. Just as current publishers are also a promotional service if only by virtue of their selection of works, so the eBook sellers will act as trusted filters for the mass of available material. The process of buying these books is likely to be something very similar to Amazon only when a volume is purchased it is delivered immediately with no other human interaction. The publishing industry of the future is likely to involve only the staff required to operate and maintain a web site and it's servers.

Slim E-Ink display compared with the thickness of a coin.And this is where the power shift comes in. Until now publishes commanded the royalties passed on to the authors because it was clearly necessary to reimburse them for the resources they employ. But when the sale of a few dozen copies of a new novel at current prices can pay for an entire month of high-bandwidth web hosting it's rather more difficult to argue such liberties (a quick experiment and calculation suggests that a 1000Gb transfer limit is enough for around 3-4 million downloads of text-only novels in a compressed format). At say €5 per download this form of publishing could involve a profit margin that would turn your average socialist into a corporate butt-monkey overnight. So with these massive profits and minimal work on the part of the publisher do we think authors will be happy with a hundred thousand Euro and the usual percentages in royalties?

What authors will realise is that the publishing process itself has become extraordinarily streamlined and as a result they are doing the vast majority of the work involved in the industry. They will not only want to see a far greater return for that work but will, importantly, want far greater control of their creations. New works will no longer be bought or even controlled by publishers they will be merely be distributed by them and it is they that will receive the smaller percentage of the profits from these sales.

It's likely that old-style publishers moving into the online market will try to enforce their pre-existing contract scheme. They will fail. Entrepreneurs will quickly realise that for a lower profit margin and more flexible contracts (more akin to a hosting policy than a publishing deal) they will draw more writers and will gain the pick of every crop, and all of this with an outlay that is both microscopic and scalable and can even be dropped instantaneously with no serious collateral damage. In fact all they need is the technical know-how and the world of publishing will belong to them.

That's the bottom line. In this New World Order of literature it is the authors who have everything to gain while still doing the same thing they have always done, and the publishers who will lose everything to their quicker, brighter descendants.

It's going to get very messy for while, it could even rival the world of online music sales for ferocity and general mayhem. But for those left standing, there is going to be a hell of a lot of money to be made.

For now I'll leave you to imagine for yourselves how e-paper is going to change the world of newspapers, magazines and comics...

Large E-Ink display connected to a mobile phone.

E-Ink Corporation
Fujitsu Wireless E-Paper
LG.Philips LCD and E Ink corp USA
Fuji Xerox E-Paper Visual Index Card prototype (admittedly a low-end version of the technology)
link5 comments|post comment

Overpriced, Dusty Chunks of Pulverised Rainforest: An Endangered Species [Jul. 23rd, 2005|07:47 pm]
[Tags|, , ]

I have an interview on Wednesday for a 'proper' job at a bookshop in Wexford city centre.

Thing is, after working in HMV a couple of years back I sort of promised myself I wouldn't go back into retail. And yet here I am sending CVs off to exactly those jobs. The money would be nice but not essential right now, the commute is a pain, I loathe having to work with 'people'. Thing is, once I get into an interview I usually have no problem talking my way into the job (so let's hope that jinxes it).

What if they ask me how I see my future in the company? Should I tell them the truth? That the publishing industry is about to face the biggest and most dramatic shake-up in it's entire history and that there is not a single employee that can be certain they'll still have a job at any level of publishing five years from now?

And what, you ask, could possibly result in such a radical change?

This unassuming little piece of plastic is Fujitsu's new Film Substrate-based ePaper technology, a flexible flicker-free colour display that can show text and images using minuscule amounts of power and can even be updated wirelessly. Unlike other portable display systems you could read this in bed or on the bus without having to grow whole sets of interesting new muscles. Once this is combined with reasonable storage technology you'll be able to bring your entire library everywhere you go, just as people are now doing with their music. Lets face it, the only reason this hasn’t happened already is the discomfort caused by reading glowing, flickering displays we've been stuck with so far.

Why would anyone want to visit some vast characterless bookshop that, despite its size, may not even have the overpriced, dusty chunk of pulverised rainforest you're after when all you have to do log in to Amazon and download it in seconds? It's not just dead tree books that are about to disappear, newspapers and magazines may be the first casualties. Why would you carry around an awkward, mucky collection of yesterday's news when you can get up-to-the minute headlines simply by walking through a WiFi hotspot? Newsagents are going to become sweet shops, bookstores will be little more than novelty gift shops.

Over the next decade, with this technology, the bulk of the book selling business could be reduced to a few hundred individuals spread out across the country. In fact the largest group among them may be the proof-readers who'll be working overtime to get through the explosion of material that the publishes can now sell at low prices, with massive profits and virtually no risk. The rest will be specialists, printing books of art plates and a few, suddenly very expensive, things for the dead tree die-hards.

Fears over the total failure of DRM to impact piracy seems to be the only thing that will dissuade the industry from making this shift. But here's the thing, when the last Harry Potter book was published, without an eBook form, it took a matter of mere hours for someone to scan, OCR, proof-read and post an illicit eBook version online. You see, if the publishing industry doesn't wise up and own this technology, the technology will end up owning them.

Safe to say, my five-year-plan does not include working in a bookshop for very long.

What do you think? Should I even bother?
link7 comments|post comment

navigation
[ viewing | most recent entries ]