(Second of two parts)
As Open Source is gaining ground not only in the production of freeware, Open Content, a neologism of Open Source, has also produced digital products from ebooks to online encyclopedia such as Wikipedia; from photos to music and audio-video. The success of Open Source films such as "Elephants Dream," "Big Buck Bunny," Valkaama are just among a few realizations of the impossible. That Hollywood doesn't have to tell us that everything they do comes with a price. That with the use of technology, they can drastically reduce the cost associated in audio-video production.
Producers, however, argue that to bring Open Source side by side with what's being produced for commercial distribution may not be a good comparison and yet they miss to account the undeniable costs involved in open source production. And even far worth pondering is how they (Open Source) have survived the impossible to produce free contents!
The common notion, likewise, against Open Source products is commercial fitness. But aren't consumers getting, too, the same or more amount of junk from branded contents? Quite evidently, while production budgets of commercial contents have gone up, their quality have also gone down. But it's not for me to judge the merits of contents. All I want to ask if we're paying our money's worth for the paid contents that flood every entertainment appliance in our homes and entertainment centers.
There are no direct answers only indicators that consumers are now more selective or are resistant to buying contents nowadays that they are willing to break the law (infringement) to buy cheap or even access contents freely.
I am on the side that consumers are willing to pay contents when they are fairly priced. Prices push consumers to brave the long waits in P2P networks to download illegally copyrighted materials as there is no stopping the entertainment producers to bring their materials down to the pockets of the everyday Joe.
While producers are already raking money in their blockbusters and triple platinums, they also reap money in production and airtime rights while enjoying royalties for many years as well. So when the entertainment industry is saying that they are losing money over piracy, in real terms however, they are short of the profits they wish to get.
The component that distinguishes contents from commodities or goods in the pricing scheme is intellectual property. Rights and royalties are bonuses that distort pricing in entertainment goods in which consumers, unfortunately, do not understand them or are usually unwilling to pay. This is not to say that intellectual property is counter-productive but it is counter-intuitive in the buying process. The fact that you have to pay for the same amount of money for an old movie or music already defies the laws of depreciation.
To quell piracy is a daunting task. But it can be mitigated. To spend on prosecuting infringers is not only long and tedious -- it is an expensive and a meaningless cause. The only way to reduce the proliferation of piracy is when producers compete with them in the same turf and in their pricing terms. They have the resources, they have a willing market, they only need to come out of their world and play their ballgame and that they must also be willing to overhaul a price regime that pushes their friends (customers) and foes (pirates) to infringe.
The problem with the entertainment industry is that the consumer is not the king, but the industry itself.
Send emails to trade.infoph@gmail.com