4 ms·

Maybe I am being particularly thick right now but I am not entirely sure I follow what he is objecting to. Google (and Amazon) allow me to find authors I am int

by frossie 17y ago

Maybe I am being particularly thick right now but I am not entirely sure I follow what he is objecting to. Google (and Amazon) allow me to find authors I am interested in and buy their latest book - their self-published book because their publisher dropped them due to poor sales. How is Googlezon equivalent to publishers in this context? Just because Googlezon have dominance (let's not have the M-argument again) in their market does not mean their cultural effect is the same as if there was only one book publisher. Google and Amazon aren't a publisher in this context, they are a discovery service.

iamwil 17y ago
He's not against what Googlzon allows its users to do, but rather, the deal that content creators struck with Googlzon which leads to laws with conditions that favors Googlzon as a big company, not Googlzon as a startup that they once were. One such condition are royalties or payment that a big company can readily afford, but not a startup. This affects that industry market for all subsequent startups which want to enter that market. So instead of just doing something and asking for permission later (as all startups and upstarts do), you need to spend time and energy into lawyers and such. It's hard to imagine Google succeeding if, in addition to all the technical hurdles, they had to amass and direct a team of lawyers also. So the question we have to ask ourselves are what startups--and subsequently--what innovations are being stifled, if not avoided altogether due to copyright laws getting in the way? I hope it goes without saying that innovation is what keeps a country ahead of others economically and militarily (probably among others I'm not thinking of), and that's why it's important in the long run.
- frossie 17y ago
  So the question we have to ask ourselves are what startups--and subsequently--what innovations are being stifled, if not avoided altogether due to copyright laws getting in the way? Well that is exactly what I don't get. I mean, there seems to be an assumption that market dominance in cultural distribution is obviously bad, no explanation required. But it is not clear to me what the precise danger is here, because it is not clear to me what the necessity is for content creators to stick with Googlezon if Googlezon as a content publisher becomes deleterious to their well-being. He mentions that there are only 6 (major) movie studios. Let's pretend that they have a merge-a-thon and get down to one major movie studio. Would it matter to anyone? Probably not, because the 6 current large studios more or less all churn out the same mainstream fair. Would a small independent studio be worse off if there was one instead of six major studios? Probably not, because the small independent ("startup" in your parlance) exists to cater to a certain niche that welcomes its products almost by definition because they are not a major studio cookie-cutter production. Don't get me wrong - I can seriously wind myself up thinking about the consolidation of the news media, or of chip manufacturing companies, but in this particular case I still don't understand what I am really supposed to be afraid of. And he asks for pretty major action as a result of a danger that is not particularly clear.
sutro 17y ago
Google and Amazon aren't a publisher in this context, they are a discovery service. What are publishers if not a discovery service?
- branden 17y ago
  Content providers. In the brick-and-mortar analogy, retailers would provide the discovery service. Not to say that publishers can't do both, of course.

by frossie 17y ago

iamwil 17y ago

He's not against what Googlzon allows its users to do, but rather, the deal that content creators struck with Googlzon which leads to laws with conditions that favors Googlzon as a big company, not Googlzon as a startup that they once were. One such condition are royalties or payment that a big company can readily afford, but not a startup. This affects that industry market for all subsequent startups which want to enter that market. So instead of just doing something and asking for permission later (as all startups and upstarts do), you need to spend time and energy into lawyers and such. It's hard to imagine Google succeeding if, in addition to all the technical hurdles, they had to amass and direct a team of lawyers also. So the question we have to ask ourselves are what startups--and subsequently--what innovations are being stifled, if not avoided altogether due to copyright laws getting in the way? I hope it goes without saying that innovation is what keeps a country ahead of others economically and militarily (probably among others I'm not thinking of), and that's why it's important in the long run.

frossie 17y ago
So the question we have to ask ourselves are what startups--and subsequently--what innovations are being stifled, if not avoided altogether due to copyright laws getting in the way? Well that is exactly what I don't get. I mean, there seems to be an assumption that market dominance in cultural distribution is obviously bad, no explanation required. But it is not clear to me what the precise danger is here, because it is not clear to me what the necessity is for content creators to stick with Googlezon if Googlezon as a content publisher becomes deleterious to their well-being. He mentions that there are only 6 (major) movie studios. Let's pretend that they have a merge-a-thon and get down to one major movie studio. Would it matter to anyone? Probably not, because the 6 current large studios more or less all churn out the same mainstream fair. Would a small independent studio be worse off if there was one instead of six major studios? Probably not, because the small independent ("startup" in your parlance) exists to cater to a certain niche that welcomes its products almost by definition because they are not a major studio cookie-cutter production. Don't get me wrong - I can seriously wind myself up thinking about the consolidation of the news media, or of chip manufacturing companies, but in this particular case I still don't understand what I am really supposed to be afraid of. And he asks for pretty major action as a result of a danger that is not particularly clear.

sutro 17y ago

Google and Amazon aren't a publisher in this context, they are a discovery service. What are publishers if not a discovery service?

branden 17y ago
Content providers. In the brick-and-mortar analogy, retailers would provide the discovery service. Not to say that publishers can't do both, of course.