making money from online downloads - can it be done?
September 25th 2008 00:49
AAP reports Skippy The Bush Kangaroo actor Tony Bonner - the helicopter pilot - hasn't received a dime of royalties from new media sales of the show. He's suing the series' maker Fauna Productions. Which begs the question - how does new technology impact on intellectual property rights? Do we need a new model for making money out of creative pursuits for this downloadable age?
Most Australian journalists signed away their right to technology publication royalties back in the early 1990s, $500 one up payment I think, so their bosses can reproduce their content a million times without having to pay extra. Someone working for a Brisbane title can have their work used on a national website, and can't do a thing about it. That includes video and sound productions produced by all journalists. Other organisations who use their copy in printed material are pursued by the Copyright agency, and news houses get nasty when bloggers or websites reproduce their work. Telstra is currently trying to make Newsltd stop using readers' mobile phone video taken at footy matches on their news websites, saying Telstra has the sole broadcasting rights (which they did buy).
Music producers cannot control downloads on new media like they used to, so are missing out on millions in revenue. The RIAA is trying to sue everyone who has done it - including now the lawyer who defends people RIAA is trying to sue Really Long Link - and claimed Napster victim. Sony is about to release a phone where buyers can download for free up to 1000 songs from their online shop.
Movie makers are suffering the same fate of illegal downloads, although they are at least able to manipulate release dates to limit damage. Television producers are following suit, with worldwide releases and fast-tracking.
So the logic goes - people create the best work when they don't have to worry about feeding their family (ie when they are paid for it); ergo people need to get paid for creative work; ergo if they don't get paid for their work by people who are viewing or using it, how can they afford to feed their family and therefore create their best work?
Most Australian journalists signed away their right to technology publication royalties back in the early 1990s, $500 one up payment I think, so their bosses can reproduce their content a million times without having to pay extra. Someone working for a Brisbane title can have their work used on a national website, and can't do a thing about it. That includes video and sound productions produced by all journalists. Other organisations who use their copy in printed material are pursued by the Copyright agency, and news houses get nasty when bloggers or websites reproduce their work. Telstra is currently trying to make Newsltd stop using readers' mobile phone video taken at footy matches on their news websites, saying Telstra has the sole broadcasting rights (which they did buy).
Movie makers are suffering the same fate of illegal downloads, although they are at least able to manipulate release dates to limit damage. Television producers are following suit, with worldwide releases and fast-tracking.
| 83 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
subscribe to this blog
