![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
In my defense, I'm somewhat drugged.
Jan. 17th, 2006 05:21 pmSo, here's the thing.
People are going to write, going to make music, going to perform, going to draw, going to code, going to create, going to share what they've done and going to consume what others share.
It's going to happen.
Before the advent of recording and playback technology, the superstars of the field were writers and composers and artists. After the advent of easy reproduction of performance, the superstars became performers.
Inside of twenty five years, it is going to be trivial for anyone on Earth to perform and share that performance.
Traditional publication houses are going to continue to develop means of locking down their intellectual property. Everyday folks are going to continue to not do so.
Eventually, far more of the amateur stuff out there is going to be consumed than any of the 'professional' stuff is, because people are going to gravitate to the stuff their friends share with them. The MP3s and MOV files and all the rest that can be passed around without anyone coming down on them or technologies being implemented to restrict them are going to overtake and surpass the files that are restrictive.
Eventually, the person who composes a kickass song and lets everyone who wants to perform it do so and share their work is going to be more significant than any one performer of that work.
Eventually, the playwright or scriptwriter who produces plays or teleplays that anyone can perform and film and share is going to being more significant than any one television star.
Eventually, the musicians who create their own work and let it out into the world are going to be the ones people want to see live, while studio manufactured 'phenomena' are going to wither because they're not going to be spread around to everyone on the web.
As near as I can tell, the MPAA and the RIAA want to accelerate this process.
I honestly don't see why we don't let them.
Seriously.
There was a time everyone was a performer -- a time where you just naturally participated in community or church theater, you just naturally learned to play instruments or sing, a time when yes, people knew about Broadway or the West End and maybe -- maybe got to go there and see things and be all posh, but most of the time they just enjoyed the fruits of an active and creative humanity. Now, we're consumers of creativity. However, the burgeoning blogosphere and podcasting and videoblogs, the incredible improvement of creative technologies, and the near certainty that within twenty five years any kid with a Mac could produce special effects on a par of anything George Lucas's professionals can dream of means we're heading back into that world. And even people who just want to consume are going to be more likely to consume what their Livejournal friends link to.
Television ratings are declining, movie sales are down, record sales (we're told) are down. And my Tivo now downloads unique content through the internet every day that I can watch.
Right now, the only way Big Media can survive is to alter themselves into the entities that people are passing around. And I can't tell you how they're going to make money doing that. And eventually, no one's going to be that interested in them if they don't. So any way we look at it, we're looking at a world that's more like the Nineteenth Century than the Twentieth.
Yeah, maybe no one will get rich. Maybe everyone will need day jobs. But I'm absolutely certain there will be plenty of good and exciting television, books, music and movies at everyones' fingertips. And the brilliant artists who create it will be more important than any given performer of it.
And I seriously don't see why that's a bad thing.
Lawrence Lessig touched on this in the Financial Times. He concluded with the following paragraph:
He's right. It does small acts no good whatsoever to have their music cut off from the communities of people who are using it and sharing it. These days, I buy new albums based on what people like and share with me. I get excited by what I experience, and I take my recommendations from folks like Wednesday. If she can't easily point me to a music link, I'm not likely to buy it. Whereas getting to see and hear something that interests me and also highlights a song from an artist I haven't heard before is an excellent way to get me to buy that artist's music.
Eventually, it'll be the artists who are more interested in that exposure -- almost certainly mostly independent acts, without or with very small labels -- who'll fill that niche. And eventually, that's all there will be.
Here's to rushing evolution.
People are going to write, going to make music, going to perform, going to draw, going to code, going to create, going to share what they've done and going to consume what others share.
It's going to happen.
Before the advent of recording and playback technology, the superstars of the field were writers and composers and artists. After the advent of easy reproduction of performance, the superstars became performers.
Inside of twenty five years, it is going to be trivial for anyone on Earth to perform and share that performance.
Traditional publication houses are going to continue to develop means of locking down their intellectual property. Everyday folks are going to continue to not do so.
Eventually, far more of the amateur stuff out there is going to be consumed than any of the 'professional' stuff is, because people are going to gravitate to the stuff their friends share with them. The MP3s and MOV files and all the rest that can be passed around without anyone coming down on them or technologies being implemented to restrict them are going to overtake and surpass the files that are restrictive.
Eventually, the person who composes a kickass song and lets everyone who wants to perform it do so and share their work is going to be more significant than any one performer of that work.
Eventually, the playwright or scriptwriter who produces plays or teleplays that anyone can perform and film and share is going to being more significant than any one television star.
Eventually, the musicians who create their own work and let it out into the world are going to be the ones people want to see live, while studio manufactured 'phenomena' are going to wither because they're not going to be spread around to everyone on the web.
As near as I can tell, the MPAA and the RIAA want to accelerate this process.
I honestly don't see why we don't let them.
Seriously.
There was a time everyone was a performer -- a time where you just naturally participated in community or church theater, you just naturally learned to play instruments or sing, a time when yes, people knew about Broadway or the West End and maybe -- maybe got to go there and see things and be all posh, but most of the time they just enjoyed the fruits of an active and creative humanity. Now, we're consumers of creativity. However, the burgeoning blogosphere and podcasting and videoblogs, the incredible improvement of creative technologies, and the near certainty that within twenty five years any kid with a Mac could produce special effects on a par of anything George Lucas's professionals can dream of means we're heading back into that world. And even people who just want to consume are going to be more likely to consume what their Livejournal friends link to.
Television ratings are declining, movie sales are down, record sales (we're told) are down. And my Tivo now downloads unique content through the internet every day that I can watch.
Right now, the only way Big Media can survive is to alter themselves into the entities that people are passing around. And I can't tell you how they're going to make money doing that. And eventually, no one's going to be that interested in them if they don't. So any way we look at it, we're looking at a world that's more like the Nineteenth Century than the Twentieth.
Yeah, maybe no one will get rich. Maybe everyone will need day jobs. But I'm absolutely certain there will be plenty of good and exciting television, books, music and movies at everyones' fingertips. And the brilliant artists who create it will be more important than any given performer of it.
And I seriously don't see why that's a bad thing.
Lawrence Lessig touched on this in the Financial Times. He concluded with the following paragraph:
But perhaps a beginning would be a question that one might imagine asking the lawyer, or better, the chief executive, at Wind Up Records: "Now that you've succeeded in stopping thousands of kids from spending hundreds of thousands of hours to make fantastically creative content that promotes your work for free, do you really expect to sell more records next year?"
He's right. It does small acts no good whatsoever to have their music cut off from the communities of people who are using it and sharing it. These days, I buy new albums based on what people like and share with me. I get excited by what I experience, and I take my recommendations from folks like Wednesday. If she can't easily point me to a music link, I'm not likely to buy it. Whereas getting to see and hear something that interests me and also highlights a song from an artist I haven't heard before is an excellent way to get me to buy that artist's music.
Eventually, it'll be the artists who are more interested in that exposure -- almost certainly mostly independent acts, without or with very small labels -- who'll fill that niche. And eventually, that's all there will be.
Here's to rushing evolution.