Here we have another case of someone who can point out the obvious: journalism is in trouble. Damn, that's a problem isn't it. In his words:
"Blaming the Internet isn't going to make the newspaper industry's situation any better. Blaming one of the only pro-consumer features in copyright law isn't going to make it better, either. Recognizing reality and dealing with it will."Wow, really? While I certainly agree with these statements, I can't help but recognize the lack of ideas he brings to the discussion. Of course the AP is going to try and guard their content. Their subscriptions put food on the table for hundreds of journalists. When someone takes their work without some sort of payment the AP dies a little inside.
On the other hand, of course the internet is going to want to share it. That's what the internet was built for. It's designed to make sharing information as easy as logging on. It's the same conflict the music and movie industry is facing. Why pay for anything when you can get it free somewhere, especially under the guise of anonymity?
But here's the real issue: how do we get people to pay for something they can in all likely hood get for free? Now there's an issue worth discussing. Let's face it, copyright law can try to stomp out the forest fire of infringement, but regardless of how many years they pursue it, the Web community will always be one step ahead.
Take DVD ripping software for example. Originally it was designed to back up your DVD collection in case something happens to the original disc, but quickly became a way to trade digital copies of DVDs. As a result, the production companies were quick to start encrypting their material. Nevertheless hackers are always one step ahead. Granted they take a few hours to crack the code, say three or four, but it isn't long before the sharing community spreads that hack across the internet. Every time a new protection comes out hackers see it as an opportunity to show off their ability to overcome it.
This is the same issue the news industry is facing.
These days I can log on to nearly any site and read the day's news, in full. And it's easier than buying a paper. So to merely state that the news industry is still in trouble is completely worthless. His article cuts off right before anything worthwhile is to come of it. "Recognizing reality and dealing with it will." Duh. But how do we deal with it? It's one thing to point out the need for change and another to actually change. Like all those in the industry, Brodsky is just pointing out the obvious problems. Clearly that hasn't worked before.
I certainly can't solve the problem myself. No one can. But until we stop focusing on the problem and start thinking about solutions the industry will continue to just run in place. The internet is a place for sharing. Always has been, always will be. And the news can either adapt to it and quit fighting a battle they may one day win in court but will never win in reality, or get off the internet. People will pay for something they want. How do we make the news something people want? Let's talk about answers, not problems.We've spent too long talking about problems.
