Live from Digital Hollywood
Wednesday, October 31st, 2007 by Patrick Ross
Print This Post
HOLLYWOOD — I'm here at the latest Digital Hollywood conference, soaking up the information and soaking up particulates in the pollution-spiked LA air. This may be the first Digital Hollywood conference that is actually in Hollywood, as opposed to Santa Monica or Florida or Asia. It also, in keeping with tradition, is focusing on all things digital, both technology and creative works. The conference itself, however, is very analog — white guys in blazers, jeans and open-necked shirts sitting at a skirted table on a dias talking at you through microphones.
I'll confess I was one of those guys, right down to the corporate-branded lanyard holding my name badge. But there's a reason this format emerged over the years for conferences — with the right panelists it can work. Victor Harwood, Digital Hollywood's organizer, is very good at getting an interesting mix of panelists.
My panel was on rightsholders' options in a multi-platform age. I was the only "content" representative on the panel, but this isn't 1999, and there isn't a war between tech and content, despite the desire of some in the "consumer advocacy" space to create the sense that there is. My fellow panelists are working with creators toward finding solutions to the challenges of digital licensing.
This ties in to my answer to the question from my moderator, David Leibowitz, who asked me for the three most important things in the digital age regarding creative works and technology. My response was licensing, licensing and licensing. I have seen more examples than I can count of digital licensing, and I know my members are experimenting with all sorts of new models and revenue streams, because they are committed to getting their works out to consumers in ways that consumers desire. That is simply a no-brainer. Also a no-brainer is that there needs to be some way to monetize distribution chains — being paid only for one model and not for others, particularly when those newer models are eroding demand for the first model, simply isn't sustainable and will deny consumers choice.
In response to one question, I did acknowledge that one could make distinctions within the tech community. There are many hardware manufacturers and service providers who are being pro-active in partnering with creators, and that is very positive. There are also business models that involve acquiring the content without a license first, and only then considering a possible license with the works already in their possession. This is perhaps a less positive approach to negotiations.
That said, the user-generated-content model is here to stay, and that's why I welcomed the recent announcement of an agreement of principles among major copyright owners and significant UGC sites on both copyright protection and fair use. (A CEA rep on a panel after me also praised the fair use language of the agreement.) I promoted this as an example of what we could see in the future. Yes, licensing can be difficult when new uses constantly arise and deals have to be renegotiated without a sense of how monetization will occur. That is a fact that won't go away. But if relationships already exist, and if a layer of trust is there as the result of frameworks like these principles, these processes will become much more streamlined. And all of us as consumers will benefit.
