“Everything on the Internet should be free…”

Last week I got into a very heated dinner-party debate with an artist, an academic and a publisher about the economic value of copyright protection in particular, and intellectual property rights in general.

It started with a discussion about file-sharing and illegal downloads, and led to an argument about patenting genomes. I can’t attribute directly, but the gist of the argument was as follows:

1 Copyright and patents do not encourage innovation – they stifle it

2 Intellectual property rights represent a modern phenomenon – ancient societies managed to exist without them

3 Everything on the Internet should be free – and not subject to copyright protection

Let’s agree that formal intellectual property laws are a relatively recent invention – the modern concept of patents emerged in 15th century Europe, and the first British copyright law was passed in 1710. These laws then grew in importance as technology introduced the printing press and the industrial revolution.

I would argue, however that all civilisations have placed a premium on knowledge, creativity and invention. Regardless of whether this knowledge is based on folklore, scientific experiment, geographical discovery or geological exploration – specific rights, actual economic benefits and certain legal protections have been afforded to those who establish ownership or control of these assets. Examples would include the right to copy ancient manuscripts held in monastic libraries; the monopolies and protection granted to members of craft guilds in plying their skills; the trading rights granted to merchants; and restricting the practice of certain tribal traditions to selected community elders.

Most of these knowledge-based activities involve a high degree of effort, ingenuity and risk-taking – so in return, it was acknowledged there needed to be financial and other rewards to act as incentives. In the case of science and technology, these incentives are often deemed essential to offset the huge capital costs of developing new products and processes. In the case of copyright, the rewards of author royalties and content licensing fees are desirable to encourage people to come up with new ideas and new concepts – even if the purpose is simply to amuse and entertain us.

Of course, the economic rewards need not simply be derived from patents or copyright – tax-breaks for R&D or public grants to fund academic research are some examples of alternative financial incentives for both inventors and people of ideas.

As for the concept that “everything on the Internet should be free”, I am reminded of what I once told a client, who could not understand why access to the on-line version of a printed reference work was costing him more than the “physical” cost of adding a new user log-in and password to our content publishing platform: “OK”, I replied, “you can have all the content for free, but we’re not going to index it, or structure it with headings and sub-headings; we won’t tag it, insert cross–references, or add hypertext links; we won’t even edit it; and finally, we won’t update it every time there is new material.” He soon got the point.

Is being “creative” more authentic than being “realistic”?

How do we judge something to be authentic in the Information Age? In the 1990’s, I worked on several projects to transfer reference books from print to CD-ROM and on-line formats. Because much of this material comprised official documents of record, the digital versions had to be “authentic” to the hard copy (even though they were being presented in a totally different medium) and employ embedded cross-referencing, indexing and other navigational tools. In short, the digital editions had to have the visual likeness of a microfiche copy, the readability of an e-book, and the functionality of an html5 website (if I may be permitted a mixed technical metaphor).

The quandary facing many product developers and content curators these days is, “How far should we go in the pursuit of “realism” (and by inference, “authenticity”) when having to make editorial, creative and technical choices to achieve credible outcomes?” And as consumers, the challenge we face is, “How do we know that what we see, read, hear or experience is an accurate depiction of something that actually exists or once happened/existed, or that it represents a consistent rendering/interpretation of real/imagined/possible events within the context and confines of the media being used?”

The issue is not about “real” in contrast to “virtual”, “original” as opposed to “replica”, “copy” rather than “counterfeit” – and certainly not about “truth” over “fiction”.

I’m not going to dwell on whether our virtual lives are any more/less authentic than our flesh and blood existence – that’s a matter of EI and self-awareness. I’m not interested in debating the merits of CGI technology in cinema, or questioning the use of auto-tuning in pop music – that’s a matter of aesthetics. And I’m not even going to argue that Photoshop has no place in the news media – that’s a matter of ethics.

I’m more concerned with understanding how technology, combined with content, connectivity and convergence has reshaped the way we engage with new media, to the point that our ability to assess information objectively is impaired, and our experience of authenticity is seriously compromised.

Now for a test: Which of the following statements is the most authentic (or least inauthentic)?

1) “Documentary claims NASA commissioned film director Stanley Kubrick to fake the TV images of the Apollo 11 moon landing”

2) “Pop singer Beyonce mimes to the national anthem at President Obama’s Inauguration”

3) “Jane Austen to publish a new edition of “Pride and Prejudice”, featuring FaceBook, Twitter and sexting”

4) “Apple Corp announces that The Beatles are reforming, and will be performing their 1967 album “Sgt Pepper” live on tour”

OK, before dissecting the answers, I confess that one of these scenarios is totally made up – although, as we shall see, all of them have some basis in “reality”, and each of them presents a different dimension of “authenticity”.

1) Moon Landing: A few years ago, a documentary by William Karel called “The Dark Side of the Moon” suggested that NASA had indeed faked the Apollo 11 broadcasts. This story was based on an actual conspiracy theory that the TV images were a hoax, giving some credence to the notion that the Americans never went to the moon. The documentary uses a combination of recycled/re-contextualized archive footage, scripted interviews featuring real people playing themselves and professional actors playing fictional characters. To add credibility to the hoax theory that NASA commissioned Stanley Kubrick to shoot the fake moon landing in a studio, Karel involved Kubrick’s widow and other former colleagues. However, the names of the fictional characters are taken from characters in Kubrick’s own films. There are also bloopers and out-takes from the “interviews”. So, by the end of the film, it should be clear that the whole thing is a clever set-up – except that for some moon landing sceptics, “The Dark Side of the Moon” has lent support to their conspiracy theory. Recently, Gizmodo posted a brilliant rebuttal to the hoax theorists – namely, that neither NASA nor Kubrick could have faked the moon footage in 1969 because the required technology didn’t exist at that time…. I guess we’ll call this one an authentic/fictional mockumentary based on a real/imagined conspiracy theory concerning an alleged/improbable hoax.

2) Beyonce: It was revealed that Beyonce lip-sync’d her rendition of the national anthem, but she was miming to a real recording that she made with the actual US Marine Band the day before. Apart from the ongoing debate about whether pop singers do/don’t or should/shouldn’t mime during live performances (and let’s not get into the use of pre-recorded backing tracks…), the issues here are three-fold:

a) Does it make any difference to our experience of the event? (Probably not – anyone who heard Meatloaf perform at the AFL grand final a while back probably wishes he HAD been lip-sync’ing…)

b) Is Beyonce the first performer to mime at the Inauguration? No, and she won’t be the last, so big deal (Pre-recorded material is often used in these situations to compensate for bad weather, poor acoustics or possible technical hitches).

c) Does it make for a less authentic event? Possibly, but as others have pointed out, the President had taken the official oath the day before, and the outdoor event was more of a ceremony.

So, I’ll just label this an innocently staged event incorporating a well-intentioned fabrication designed to give the public what they want.

3) Jane Austen: This particular example of literary license does not involve the posthumously discovered work of a 19th century novelist. It doesn’t feature a 21st century medium channelling words from a dead writer. It doesn’t even concern the literary conceit of a contemporary author attempting to re-imagine a sequel to a classic work by an illustrious predecessor. (Although similar publishing events to all three scenarios have occurred in recent memory, so each of them is theoretically possible.) Instead, this refers to the forthcoming third “Bridget Jones” novel by Helen Fielding. It is generally  acknowledged that Jane Austen’s “Pride and Prejudice” was a reference point for Fielding’s first novel “Bridget Jones’s Diary”. The latter is neither a pastiche nor a parody of Austen, but does use similar themes and scenarios from “Pride and Prejudice” and places them in a contemporary context. Given that Fielding has recently been quoted as saying she has an interest in internet dating, it’s not too far-fetched to suggest that her characters will be busily sexting each other after a long session in the local wine bar. Let’s put this one in the category of artistic hommage, respectfully and authentically executed with due deference to its literary source material, and with a keen awareness of contemporary mores.

4) Sgt Pepper: OK, I admit that this scenario is totally fake, but it provides for some interesting hypotheses on how it might be done (assuming today’s technology, so no time-travel involved).

First, some background: as part of the music industry’s infatuation with managing and curating its back catalogue, there has been a noticeable trend for artists to tour and perform entire “classic” albums live on stage. This phenomenon reached its zenith last year, when German electronic band Kraftwerk performed a different album from their back catalogue at eight consecutive concerts staged in New York’s Museum of Modern Art. (Actually, I recall seeing Pink Floyd in 1977 when they played their two most recent albums, “Animals” (1977) and “Wish You Were Here” (1975) in full and in the exact same sequence as the original LP’s…)

Second, until cryonics and human cloning are a scientific certainty, I won’t be suggesting that we exhume the two members of The Beatles who are no longer with us, or grow a couple of replicants. Equally, I’m not interested in whether the 2009 interactive video game, “The Beatles: Rock Band” allows me and my friends to re-enact the experience of being The Beatles playing on stage – it’s not the same as a live concert performance.

Instead, here’s how the “Sgt. Pepper” album might be brought to life:

a) The surviving members of The Beatles recruit some colleagues to make up the numbers (cf. The Who, Rolling Stones, etc.)

b) A Beatles tribute band is hired to recreate the album faithfully and in its entirety (cf. too many examples to mention – there’s even a new trend to recreate “classic” rock concerts on their relevant anniversary. Meanwhile, American band Devo formed a new “version” of themselves, called Devo 2.0, comprising young unknown musicians – tellingly, this venture was a collaboration with Disney)

c) Use holograms to substitute for the missing members of the original line-up (well, holograms aren’t yet viable, but ghostly projections are a possibility – cf. deceased rapper Tupac – and the music business has produced various examples of posthumous, exhumed and recreated material featuring dead pop stars, The Beatles included)

d) Send out a team of replica android Beatles to perform on stage (cf. Kraftwerk – again)

Except that, the “real” Beatles abandoned live performances in 1966, thus they never performed any of the songs from “Sgt. Pepper” live in public (in fact, “Sgt. Pepper” is generally considered to be the first example of a rock album created totally within a studio environment, and never conceived of as a live experience, even though it is a loosely-defined concept album featuring a fictional “live” band – how post-modern can you get?). Hence, any attempt to stage or recreate a live concert of “Sgt. Pepper” as performed by The Beatles, even if it is plausible, would have to be considered totally inauthentic. But with  imagination (and a little help from our friends?) we can always dream…

POSTSCIPT: After posting this article, I came across the following insight into the creative process by novelist William Boyd:

“…the best way to arrive at the truth is to lie – to invent, to fictionalize. The curious alchemy of art – rather than the diligent assembling of documentary fact – can be a swifter and more potent route to understanding and empathy than the most detailed photographs or the most compendious documentation. You have to do your homework, sure – authenticity has to be striven for – but in the end it is the fecundity and idiosyncrasy of the novelist’s imagination that will make the thing work – or not.” [Taken from Boyd’s anthology of non-fiction writing, “Bamboo” (2005)]

Gizmodo

Beyonce

Fielding

Back Catalogue

Fairfax Media – Trading Up???

As an unintended postscript to last week’s comment on the FT, which referenced the Australian Financial Review, Fairfax Media is reported to be selling its stake in the New Zealand on-line auction site, Trade Me. While this will dilute Fairfax’s digital revenues, it will strengthen the balance sheet by reducing debt. According to some analysts, the Trade Me growth rate had started to decline, so Fairfax is probably selling at the peak.

Fairfax is also said to be appointing a couple of senior consultants to help develop a digital growth plan, as part of the overall strategy to address declining advertising sales.

Some data that will no doubt form part of this strategic review are the sprawling list of Fairfax assets, and the latest Fairfax Metro Media Audience Report (references below).

First, there is an opportunity to rationalize and consolidate the portfolio of assets, to yield better value from Fairfax news content and other IP, either by smarter integration and aggregation by market demographic, or improved functionality and customization by distribution channel.

Second, the Metro Media Audience Report confirms the decline in the year-on-year print audience, and reveals that visitors spend less time on the websites, with a significant drop in views for monthly video streams. At the same time, there has been an exponential growth in app downloads, mobile page views and unique readers, but probably not at a rate to offset falling print circulation or attract new advertisers.

It is highly likely that building on the initial success of its tablet apps, Fairfax will look to enhance and monetize the app offerings via localization, customization and better content curation to engage readers, especially its younger audience and the emerging “prosumer” demographic of tech-savvy users.

REFERENCES:

Fairfax publishing, app and on-line assets (as at July 2012):

http://fairfaxmedia.com.au/our-assets/PublicationsListfor2011.pdf

Fairfax Metro Media Audience Report (as at October 2012):

http://fairfaxmedia.com.au/shareholders/301112_FMMAROct.pdf

What’s in a business model???

Interesting speculation in the business media this week about whether Bloomberg and Thomson Reuters are in a potential bidding war for the Financial Times (which is not actually for sale?).

The New York Mayor seems to love the product, but hates the business model. Besides, Bloomberg is still playing around with Business Week.

For Lord Thomson of Fleet (the last remaining Press Baron?) it’s rather like deja vu – didn’t The Thomson Corporation (as was) offload all their newspapers in the ’90’s because print was so last century?

The FT was one of the first newspapers to construct a paywall around its content, and has created customer traction for a range of subscription, pay-as-you go and “freemium” sales models. It also remains a strong brand for global business news, and has a solid presence in Asia. But some commentators suggest that the pink’un is losing money, despite its on-line success, because of declining revenues from print advertising.

The main challenge for traditional business newspapers these days is not so much print vs digital (the FT has sort of got that worked out, and Bloomberg and Thomson Reuters are two of the largest online publishers for financial information). The real challenge is identifying and engaging the audience – who reads a business newspaper these days, and why, when there are so many on-line alternatives?

Despite current market challenges, Fairfax Media has always had a clear sense of its audience profile for the Australian Financial Review. As I understand it, the typical AFR reader is a C-Suite executive (current, former or aspirant), interested in what’s going on in the world and the impact of global events on their personal, corporate or sovereign wealth. In fact, unlike some other newspapers, there are no corporate or institutional customers of the AFR – all subscribers have to be individual readers, potentially making it easier to establish long-term relationships that survive career moves or other changes in personal circumstances.

However, the main difficulties for Fairfax are:

the cost of quality journalism and content in the face of declining revenues (hence the recent syndication deal with the FT in response to The Australian’s access to content from the Wall Street Journal?);

increased competition from numerous on-line entrants (most of which are free, the latest being Leading Company); and

the blurred boundary between the “personal” and the “professional” audience for informed news and commentary on a broad range of inter-connected topics – finance, politics, economics, business, technology, culture, sustainability, leadership….

All of which makes it rather difficult to see why anyone might want to acquire a newspaper business these days, unless for reasons of vanity – Baron Bloomberg of Southwark Bridge?