Talk:Research Areas
From CreativeBusiness
Buyer chooses price model
- How do we respond to the argument that this method only works for established bands with an existing following (most likely thanks to years of record company and publisher investment)?
We talk to bands who aren't established. Sheeba are hardly big. We also talk to people like Arctic Monkeys, (although they only did half a job), who got their success because of giving stuff away for free. --Suw 12:45, 19 October 2007 (BST)
- Michael: do we include wealthy organisations able to give software away for free but for whom this is not a sustainable business model? (e.g. mozilla with firefox and canonical with ubuntu)
Well, I am not sure if open source really falls under the remit of this course, but I'm open to discussion. FLOSS tends to be done by groups of people collaborating on a project, sometimes funded by organisations, sometimes not. Some businesses do make money by providing support to users of FLOSS, so from that point of view, they are making money from open IP, so i guess that is worth examining. And some companies are open-sourcing commercial projects, so I think we need to have more of a discussion about the examples available and then try to figure out if they're really the sort of thing that we are talking about. --Suw 12:44, 19 October 2007 (BST)
- Record labels who are releasing their music without drm. Is this really "open IP"? Unless they are giving away the right to do interesting things with it as well, then I'm not sure this counts. A CD of music, or even a bought digital download with no DRM, isn't actually opening up IP because full all rights reserved copyright is still in force. --Suw 16:17, 24 October 2007 (BST)
- The lawyer in me objects to the categorising 'music' as a form of IP, when its more accurate to refer in this context to 'sound recordings' and 'songs', although i'm sure you have a valid reason for this approach ... ?
IP is an umbrella term, and as such it allows us to talk about a variety of creative works without having to specify precisely what sort. "Sound recordings" and "songs" are a subset of "intellectual property", so I see no problem with using "intellectual property" to refer to them en masse. Otherwise it could get clumsy if we have to define every time exactly what sort of intellectual property we are talking about.
I'm also very wary of getting in to the debate about the use of the term "intellectual property" because that is not an issue that this project is set up to address. It is commonly used and understood, so should be acceptible. Did you have another umbrella term in mind that we could use instead? --Suw 16:13, 26 October 2007 (BST)
> OK, the lawyer in me accepts that but - after reading lots on own-it this morning, where they break down the whole spectrum of ip (i.e. not just copyright, but also patents, tm and design rights) - still doesn't like it!
I removed Flickr, because they don't create content for others to use. They do enable others to share their photos, but that would be covered by individual use cases. --Suw 11:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
