Class weblog
“Question of the Week” is a weekly topic we’re starting related to lecture. Didn’t called on in class but were dying to participate? Didn’t have an answer but now ready to reply? Want to relive the horror of cold calling? Well here’s your chance.
Note: also, note the [UGC] in front of certain blog entries. These are done by the team (Corey, Allan, Yujin) whereas all the other entries are set by Andres and Professor Hosanagar.
Comments are closed.
Kartik Hosanagar is an Associate Professor of Internet Commerce at The Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania. Kartik's research work focuses on Internet media and Internet marketing.
Kartik is a cofounder of Yodle Inc and is actively involved with several other startups as either an investor or board member.
Andrés Catalán is a doctoral candidate in the Operations and Information Management department at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania.
Vibhanshu Abhishek was the much loved TA of this class in 2011. He is Assistant Professor of Information Systems at the Heinz College of Carnegie Mellon University
about 3 years ago
Well I’ll be – apparently there’s some sort of coalition around principles on UGC: http://www.ugcprinciples.com/
about 3 years ago
Isn’t the fact that it’s totally in Legalese a bit self-defeating? As in “we have a set of principles for user-generated content, but we won’t let our users grasp more than 30% of what they are about”.
about 3 years ago
And here’s the mashup video I was referring to:
And here’s the original:
about 3 years ago
These are just my brief thoughts on auditing. I feel like the main revenue driver concerning an artist is through touring and concerts. The content itself has marginally gain and CDs and being on the radio sort of serve at best as a marketing tool to get people to attend concerts of their favorite artists. It cost like 10 bucks for a CD, with which you can enjoy countless times, but it costs five times as much to attend a single concert, the margins are huge. I feel like the labels should let content flow freely and use them to create buzz for the artists and promote concerts, instead of overspending resources to fight piracy and implement auditing solutions. It’s like what Prof Hosanagar said about demand for price = 0, if you charge small amount for something, it drives demand down significantly, but if it’s free, then everyone would want it which create great amount of buzz.
about 3 years ago
I have big issues with the Labels’ push about copyright right now. In my opinion, Labels are clinging to outdated copyright law as a means of trying to keep the industry where it’s been for the past 20 years. A place where Labels make a very large percentage of Music Industry revenue.
Labels used to be the ultimate gateway – the only way for an artist to be discovered, sell music, and be promoted. But today that’s simply not so. In the new world, Labels won’t make nearly as much money because they’re not nearly as important. Artists need help with these things, but we’ll see many small specialized shops help with all of them.
So what to do if you’re in a multi-billion dollar industry and your entire position is threatened? Anything you can to keep things the same! Cry foul over copyright! Copyright law that was written in a different age that has yet to be updated. Put third-party audit structures in place, spend millions on lawsuits to get UGC sites to put in better “filtering” systems, get the buy-in of other industry players who are threatened – do everything you can that helps support the old industry model with old revenue streams.
I prefer letting the Labels do the “hard work” of finding copyright infringement on their own. Force them to adapt to the new world. If it’s too costly to find violations, Labels should be changing their business model rather than putting systems in place that help slow down the rate of industry evolution and innovation.
Let the industry evolve with the fact that actual “copying” and distribution is now trivial and will become more commonplace. Put more revenue in the hands of the content creators, the artists. Don’t let the Labels stifle things.
about 3 years ago
If Music companies were not there, the talented artists wont be known either – music labels make it feasible for artists to be introduced to the world – music labels risk their investment $$$ in the hope of returns – investing in an artist’s work is a real option and it is only fair that they get the returns on their huge risk.
As far as the core issue of bearing costs is concerned, I think they ought to be shared otherwise you are encouraging property-infringement.
about 3 years ago
Labels used to be the main way that artists were recognized – and they still are today. But new services such as http://www.sellaband.com serve the same purpose. Artists are also able to market themselves much easier via Myspace, facebook, twitter, etc., now than they were in the past. So I agree that Labels help here – but even with this I think their role is less.
Regarding property-infringement, I’m not encouraging anything. If Party A infringes on party B, Party A can sue. If you trespass on my lawn, I can sue. I probably won’t, unless it really hurts badly enough to warrant the cost and effort of bringing a law suit. If I’m selling my house and you ruin my chances, I might sue. If you leave footprints and it doesn’t affect things, I won’t.
If it truly impacts the artists or Labels ability to earn money, the Label can press charges and take it to court. Why does this need to be different than the normal legal setup? One or two lawsuits would set a precedent making future cases move more quickly, too, no?
about 3 years ago
We can all agree that even iTunes sales will not be enough to revive the industry. We can’t teleport back in time when none of these technologies existed.
We can all agree, there needs to be a two tiered approach. You need a mass-market strategy, which can easily be achieved through the power of free. Give away something in exchange for ancillary revenue. Give away your album for free in exchange for an audience to sell to marketers. Give away your free album and then do shows, sell t-shirts, exclusive posters, whatever you can. Take it to the max with free, then hone in and charge for the tangible items and experiences.
As for the role of labels, this is tricky. Execs all want to keep their jobs, they just need to completely change their role as execs. Their job should be forging relationships with various channels of distribution (streaming audio sites, music blogs, social media sites, etc) to build an audience around their talent. Then, work out the deals with brands who wish to advertise along with the content (I think brands will play an increasing role in music distribution).
The music industry needs to embrace the idea of building a tribe and using free content as a way to market the bands. They also need to realize that in this day in age, music will increasingly become an effective vehicle for advertising. Whether artists will release mixtapes and distribute them at retail locations or create online experiences sponsored by a relevant brand, it’s becoming increasingly apparent that music can become a profitable medium for brands to engage consumers.
about 3 years ago
Check out this link on the history of copyright from Lawrence Lessig. The link takes you straight to the chapter called “Beginnings” which traces the history of copyright law in the US.
It’s actually quite interesting and extremely informative for those who are interested in the copyright debate. He explains, among other things:
1) why copyright was created originally (i.e. to promote progress of free speech for the benefit of the public, not to ensure that publishers had a means of capturing revenue – it’s not intended to be like regular “property”).
2) how the law has changed over time – including the extreme change in how we obtain copyright (we used to have to apply for it and it used to last much fewer years).
3) how the law is being applied now in ways never intended (copyright has no say on what we do with physical books we buy – we can sleep on them, use them as table stands, etc. but digitally, there is quite a bit of “copyright” control over how we can consume digital content).
In all of it, he doesn’t deny the importance of protecting rights – but he paints a very good picture of why copyright law needs reform.
http://www.ibiblio.org/ebooks/Lessig/Free_Culture/Free%20Culture.htm#p130a
about 3 years ago
Well this interesting: http://techcrunch.com/2010/02/10/youtube-introduces-safety-mode-for-that-grey-area-content/
YouTube introduced a new option dubbed ‘Safety Mode’ this morning, essentially giving users a bit more control over what they get to see on the insanely popular video sharing site.
The setting is opt-in, and helps users screen out potentially objectionable content that they may prefer not to stumble upon (or have their family members see), even if the content is not inherently against YouTube’s Community Guidelines.
As an example, YouTube calls out news videos that contain graphic violence, such as war coverage. The company is careful enough to say the filter will not be 100% perfect, but at least it’s a start.
From the support page (where you can also find out how to turn on the setting even lock your choice on that browser with your YouTube password.):
Safety Mode gives users the option to choose not to see mature content that they may find find offensive, even though it’s not against our Community Guidelines. When you opt in to Safety Mode mode, videos with mature content or that have been age restricted will not show up in video search, related videos, playlists, shows and movies. While no filter is 100% accurate, we use community flagging, hide objectionable comments and porn image detection to identify and hide inappropriate content. Safety Mode on YouTube does not remove content from the site but rather keeps it off the page for users who opt in.