Met with Nancy Pelosi on SOPA - went well

[Nicolas Adam]

Of course. Anyone who is neither a mega-big content producer or a
content distributor (a role in the value chain I see less and less
reasons for, BTW) instinctly knows this to be true. When your trying to
emerge as a content producer, you know from practice this to be true.
It's just that the profits of the business model of a bygone social and
technological age were most concentrated at the distribution level. Now
that they have no socially effective role to play, they naturally fight
for illegitimate revenue stream. Well they have some utility, but it
sucks to now be in a low margin place in that value chain.

And so, copyright enforcement-industry people (a.k.a. content industry
*distributors*) will never see it the way you would like them to see it.

You know the resort you go too for vacation in the south. There is often
times a crew in charge of morale, and they play music, make you dance.
Great publicity for the tubes that are on display. That's what I always
think. Sure enough, someone most always buys the soundtrack of their
vacation.

But hear this:

If they could force cease and desist on such a blatantly good publicity,
they would.

They would rather sue and collect, of course. But by the very nature of
the enforcement system, and also because [resort] people will not value
paying for content license, seeing correctly that this should be a two
sided market where it's not even obvious who should pay who for playing
tubes on the beach, they would make them cease and desist.

Nicolas

On 1/13/2012 12:26 AM, Marc Perkel wrote:
> I used to have a software company in the 1990s and one of the things I
> figured out was that most of my business came from piracy. People
> would pirate my stuff - pass it around - and eventually it would end
> up in the hands of corporations who would buy it. Piracy was my best
> form of advertising.
>
> Instead of looking at file sharing as piracy we look at it as free
> advertizing and distribution. Each song or video would have
> information embedded in it as to it's license status, owner, and where
> to but it. Music players would be able to look at it - determine if
> it's paid for - and offer you a chance to but it - at a really low
> price. Since there are no advertizing or distribution costs then
> whatever you get is pure profit. You use a micro payment system like
> the Apple Apps store or Google to process the transaction. The artist
> gets a piece - the people who wrote the player gets a piece. Everyone
> wins - everyone is happy.
>
> Even those who pay nothing help out. The might pass it on to others
> who do pay. They might blog about it and say what a great song it is.
> If I'm an artist I'd rather have a great blog review than a single sale.
>
> It's a new paradigm where piracy is your friend. Instead of trying to
> stop piracy you embrace it as a marketing tool. Piracy becomes your
> friend. Yes - people are going to download it and not pay. In fact
> most will not pay. But - the some of those who do pay will be greater
> than it is today. More buyers a and more money.
>
> The idea is that if the product is cheap enough and if its really easy
> to buy them more people will buy it. I subscribe to Netflix and they
> are only getting probably 50 cents a show I watch. So stuff is already
> being licensed in this price range. Apple is selling songs and videos
> for a buck.
>
> So - the idea is to standardize tags and I think there are already
> some standards. Might need to put in a public key so that the file
> only can interact with licensed sellers and if anyone messes with the
> purchasing then that would be a criminal act.
>
> As you can see - I'm not breaking the Internet with this idea or
> giving up liberties. It turns a problem into an asset. It will be a
> paradigm shift though.
>
> Who likes this idea?
>
> On 1/12/2012 7:48 PM, Declan McCullagh wrote:
>> Marc,
>>
>> Can you tell me more about your meeting with Pelosi? And what you
>> have in mind?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Declan
>>
>>
>> On 1/12/12 6:16 PM, Marc Perkel wrote:
>>> I have good news to report. I had an interesting day today. I met with
>>> Nancy Pelosi today and talked about SOPA. She indicated that she was no
>>> fan of SOPA and thought it probably wouldn't pass. She did say however
>>> the IP is a real problem and that something needed to be done.
>>>
>>> I told her the I can come up with an alternative and I told her that if
>>> she opposes SOPA that I would write a technical spec for something that
>>> actually would work and not break the Internet. She was VERY interested
>>> and she made sure that her assistant exchanged cards with me.
>>>
>>> I actually have an idea. I've been working on this for years and I will
>>> write it up but not right away. But I want to put the challenge out
>>> there. What can we come up with that is better than SOPA and doesn't
>>> involve compromising our civil liberties values?
>>>
>>> Just wondering if some one of you will come up with the same idea I'm
>>> thinking of. And - I do think that we should put something
>>> reasonable on
>>> the table. And I think that the problem can be solved and we can solve
>>> it - before they solve it for us.
>>>
>>> Ideas?
>>>
>>