In the early days of the dot.com boom, internet commerce presented
opportunities for information providers (websites) to sell inexpensive
digital goods to web-users and have the benefit of reaching a far larger
consumer base than just a local market. But with the growing free-rider
ethos of the World Wide Web and the increasingly burdensome and deemed
obsolescence of the micro-middleman (whose fees on every transaction made
it unprofitable for the information provider), micropayments on the web
seemed doomed for extinction.
However, strangely there has been a resurgence of the digital rights
managers, like micropayments, making a comeback. Companies, like Apple’s
iTunes, have had much financial success in acting as a conduit between
users and rights holders. By marketing the iPod together with iTunes,
Apple has developed a kind of technological network within which users are
able to overlook the mechanisms reinforcing the digital divide between
them and their information providers. The seamless exchange between users
and providers does a very effective job in emulating the peer-to-peer
experience. But, users should still be weary. Despite the efficacy of
this digital ecosystem, the ‘user-friendly’ ‘pro-sharing’ environment, is
still motivated by Apple’s proprietary (and shall I dare say, capitalist)
interests.¦lt;br /> The reason for Apple’s success seems to center on the element of user
perception. iTunes enables a fluid accessibility for users to buy their
music, transfer it to their music player in one swift move and even be
left with the option of burning it onto a CD. The system works so
effectively it almost entirely emulates a world of free and uninterrupted
access for the user.
Virtual Revolution -Users Creating the World they Want
For many, the internet promises freedom from the many delays and
limitations of the physical world. This feeling has become so pervasive,
that virtual world access has graduated from an expectation to an
entitlement. This is why most of the other micropayment schemes did not
work – they violated this expectation of free access. For today’s
cyber-surfer, most of the information that is accessed, downloaded,
burned, and/or exchanged comes free. To date, the biggest competitors for
iTunes have been web-based servers like Napster, Limewire and BitTorrents
which have allowed users to confer the unfettered benefits of digital
music files without any reciprocal duty of payment to their providers.¦lt;br /> Recent legal efforts have been made to curb this trend. Most notably, in
2001 an injunction was issued against Napster preventing the trading of
copyrighted music on its network. In a settlement, Napster agreed to shut
its service down and payout copyright owners for prior unauthorized uses
of music, as well as an advance against future licensing royalties. But
even these efforts have not quelled the phenomenon of free file sharing.
New programs and networks have picked up where Napster left off, rendering
the for-profit services inexorably doomed.
The decentralized nature of the internet has created a way for
individuals to transcend the moral and legal boundaries that define the
real and tangible world. In doing so, it has effectively changed our
moral and ethical perspectives on authorship and ownership. The ease with
which material is used, distributed and exchanged online abrades the
conceptual boundaries of intellectual property and blurs the moral
imperatives of compensation for use. Why would one pay for information
that could be obtained for free? Once it’s on the web, whose ‘property’
is it anyways?
In normal copyright, the ability to use and manipulate another person’s
work requires that the author consent and receive subsequent compensation
for use. More specifically, the author is viewed as a natural rights
holder, entitled to the fruits of her production. It is believed that
without this form of protection people would be less inclined to produce
and share their intellectual works. Thus, legal protection of
intellectual goods is a precondition for production and distribution of
all creative expression. ¦lt;br /> However, given the current trends of burden-free access, it is becoming
flagrantly clear that the normal pecuniary interests of copyright holders
are too difficult to pursue online. User’s expectations have
systematically mutated legal conceptions of property to the point where
one not only expects to access digital information for free, but feels she
deserves it. It’s a powerful force to contend with, and I honestly
believe that the user is the only one who is going come out a winner.
2 Responses
Micropayments are evidence of the market’s ability to map traditional business models onto new technologies. A well implemented micropayment service, as seen with Apple’s iTunes store, can deliver both value to the end-users and be a viable business model for copyright owners.
The Author claims that Apple’s success with micropayments stems from Apple’s ability to do it well. The Author seems to suggest that this is a one-off case and that micropayments cannot succeed because they are difficult to implement. The Author claims that users’ expectation for free copyrighted materials requires them to reject any subsequent attempts to enable payment for the works. However, this is exactly the opposite of what the Apple example reveals; consumers are willing to use a well implemented micropayment system. A rational buyer does not shop at Store A, if Store A is disorganized. The market allows for choice; the consumer is not forced to shop at Store A.
Refusing to use some forms of micropayments is not related to internet expectations, but rather, reflects the available choices created by the market. The message the consumer is sending is not one of irreverence for the laws, but rather, that they will only pay for value, perceived or otherwise. The failure of micropayments is not about the users attempt to “transcend the moral and legal boundaries” with the internet. It is about the consumer’s right to reject poorly crafted solutions. If micropayments are designed properly, the user has shown that they will be successful.
Micropayments are evidence of the market’s ability to map traditional business models onto new technologies. A well implemented micropayment service, as seen with Apple’s iTunes store, can deliver both value to the end-users and be a viable business model for copyright owners.
The Author claims that Apple’s success with micropayments stems from Apple’s ability to do it well. The Author seems to suggest that this is a one-off case and that micropayments cannot succeed because they are difficult to implement. The Author claims that users’ expectation for free copyrighted materials requires them to reject any subsequent attempts to enable payment for the works. However, this is exactly the opposite of what the Apple example reveals; consumers are willing to use a well implemented micropayment system. A rational buyer does not shop at Store A, if Store A is disorganized. The market allows for choice; the consumer is not forced to shop at Store A.
Refusing to use some forms of micropayments is not related to internet expectations, but rather, reflects the available choices created by the market. The message the consumer is sending is not one of irreverence for the laws, but rather, that they will only pay for value, perceived or otherwise. The failure of micropayments is not about the users attempt to “transcend the moral and legal boundaries” with the internet. It is about the consumer’s right to reject poorly crafted solutions. If micropayments are designed properly, the user has shown that they will be successful.
Comments are closed.