Over the course of the last four weeks in this blog, I have discussed the book and the newspaper businesses’ woes in order to ascertain whether or not present copyright law, which restricts users in ways heretofore unknown, can have any positive influence on the future of these businesses and thereby the future production of ideas. In order to come to any conclusions about this rather broad topic, I have looked at the newspaper business and its “giving away of its product” to see whether or not the “giving away” is what has brought the bleak reality of the dearth of news that plagues and threatens the nation; I have examined the history of the trends in these two business in the last decades for parallels and differences from one another; I have tried to understand what we may expect of a future of e-books. The combination of these three elements of inquiry have led me to conclude that present restrictive copyright not only does not protect the production of ideas, it actually hinders it.
Specifically, after looking carefully at newspapers, we see that the loss of coverage of the news reaches back before the days of the internet. The loss of news has its roots in a profit motive coupled with deregulation has led to monopolies in the news business. Thus, while the internet exacerbated and accelerated a loss of news, it is not the source of the loss.
The trend toward monopolies within the news business were paralleled by a trend in monopolies in the book business. Within the book business, the business model that has predominated over the last thirty years is one that prefers big profits on a few books and a neglect of the historical long tail of publishing. This business model coupled with the consolidation of distribution of books via wholesalers and bookstores and the shrinking public funds for libraries and education have dramatically undermined the book business.
The e-book rather than reversing the monopolies with publishing, either in its distribution or in production, actually will dramatically increase these trends. Meanwhile, the loss of public funding, primarily because of the economic distress of state and local governments during the present recession, continues at an alarming rate.
None of these elements, the true causes of distress in the present business environment, can be offset by more restrictive copyright laws. All these laws will do is limit public access to information, thus worsening the crisis.
In his book, The Great Unraveling, Paul Krugman discusses the unraveling of the social safety network that began with Ronald Reagan. I think that we could make a parallel argument here that a great unraveling of our nation's intellectual safety net has also occurred. This unraveling has consisted of a dismantling funding for libraries and education, a withdrawl of government regulation in the realm of business and monopolies, and finally government's ceding of its interest in keeping information free. These policies have led us to a veritable crisis, not the less a crisis for its relatively small space in the communal pysche.
Since it was the federal government that through negligence allowed this terrible set of circumstances, we must look to the federal government to redress the situation. This may mean a multi-pronged initiative supporting intellectual production: supporting news with a tax like that which funds British Broadcasting and perhaps now the publishing of books; a clear and renewed funding of libraries and a funding of higher education. This is a national priority. An educated populace is central element in true democracy. It is also necesssary for an ability to compete in today's world.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Anyone who grew up watching Walter Cronkite instinctively knows what the phrase "trusted news source" implies. Cronkite spoke truth to power and passed on information with a real commitment to veracity and reliability. It seems to me just a touch ironic that Beth McGowan's last post blog two days prior to Cronkite's death featured a compelling and striking analysis of the parallel consolidation of news and book publishing into stronger more powerful monopolies along with the demise of in-depth reporting. In many ways, we see the death of news reporting.
ReplyDeleteI appreciated McGowan's insightful observations in her blog's analysis of e-books, print books, and newspaper journalism. An excellent example, among many, is the comparison that the loss of newspapers and solid reporting is akin to losing watchdogs against corruption. She then wisely ties this to intellectual freedom, and then relates this back to her overall thesis that more restrictive copyright will not help but actually hinders. She also pointed out that the demise of newspapers is partly due to the rise of the Internet and the current economic recession, but few people agree on the other reasons for this. Sadly, the loss of newspapers will mean a loss on the checks and balances against power-hungry monopolies which is not good for democracy.
I appreciated her excellent thoughtful questions including: How can news organizations be financially supported if the three former supports (advertising, subscriptions, and sales) have dissipated? Will people only pay for things, but not intellectual content? Without newspapers, will we lose investigative journalism altogether? If so, what does this mean for libraries? What can and should libraries do about an increasing lack of solid journalism?
I was especially struck by Hughes' assertion that e-book producers are utilizing technology in an attempt to limit fair use. This is troubling, as well as
a potentially helpful rationale for understanding why so many people have not invested in e-book readers but instead continue to enjoy print books. The next year or two should be telling regarding sales figures for Amazon's Kindle e-book reader.
comment, part 1 of 2
comment, part 2 of 2
ReplyDeleteOverall McGowan's blog is well researched and very thought provoking, although perhaps just slightly lacking in focus. Perhaps the research blog tried to cover too much by trying to analyze e-books, print books, and the crisis of newspapers and journalism all within the span of four weeks. Of course, one must realize that a blog may not be the optimal way to conduct and present research. For anyone with experience researching knows that it is often chaotic and investigating apparent dead ends can result in some wonderful final conclusions. It seems to me that McGowan's blog is a case in point of this.
Whereas the rest of the blog was very well-written and edited, a minor improvement could be made by proofreading the "Death of the Book" post from July 15. A few typos in need of correction include: "Random House," "consolidation," and a confusing run-on sentence: "In the course of the transformations to big business...." which I could not decipher. Also the first sentence of the Saturday, July 11 post, "newspapers are an immediate to...," it was unclear as to what the "to" meant. But these are small and hardly worthwhile mentioning issues in an otherwise well-written and thoughtful blog.
McGowan gives a of Krugman's demise of the national social safety net during the Reagan era and then she provides perceptive analysis parallel length is with a breakdown of an "intellectual" safety net. I too have appreciated Paul Krugman's opinion pieces in the New York Times over the years as well as being a former subscriber to "The Nation." I have justified dropping my subscription due to the overload of information while attending grad school, but McGowan's blog has reminded me of the importance of financially supporting thoughtful journalism. Thank you for this reminder that we as consumers can help, and I must do my part as well.
In addition, it is important to continue to question the motives of monopoly powers, especially those striving to control access to information. Although I share McGowan's concern that the crumbling of newspapers is dreadful and does not bode well for our nation, I am every day more grateful for National Public Radio and for professional reporting from PBS's News Hour, Frontline, POV, and other informative broadcasts. Fortunately I can access the BBC News in both Spanish and English, and McGowan's idea of urging a federal government redress of the situation along the lines of the taxpayer supported British Broadcasting Corporation. She is certainly correct in stating that "An educated populace is central element in true democracy." I have not heard any other better suggestions, perhaps it is time for a federal tax in support of journalism, libraries, and intellectual production.