'Free' Game Making $300 Million Per Month? But I Thought You Can't Make Money On Free...

from the old-school dept

For most of the first decade of the millennium, we would post over and over again about content business models and how "free" content makes a ton of sense as a component of a business model. And yet, people in the legacy entertainment industry would laugh and laugh, and talk about how "you can't make money on free." You even had folks who claimed that if you gave away anything for free it proved you had "no fucking clue" about how to run a business. My favorite may have been Doug Morris, who was boss of Universal Music and then Sony Music, insisting that there was no way anyone in the recording business could make money on "free."

These days, that's all looking pretty silly, but just to drive home the point: the insanely popular free video game Fortnite made $318 million last month. Not last year. Last month. And it's free. Of course, as we've always said, the whole point of free is not that free is the business model, but that free is a part of the business model. And that's exactly how Fortnight works.

Even better, all of that revenue comes from nonessential in-app purchases. You don't ever need to pay any money to play Fortnite. And, if we went by what the entertainment industry "experts" from years past would tell you, if that's the case no one will ever pay. Except, obviously, they are, to the tune of over $300 million per month. Why? Because, they're still buying an actual scarcity: mainly different skins or dances/moves that let them show off. In other words: fashion. Something to make themselves distinct -- to stand out. That is a scarcity. Even in a digital world.

So, Fortnite is yet another example of how someone is taking a digital property, and leveraging free to attract a massive audience, and then figuring out ways to charge for a scarcity that people actually want to buy. And people are paying like crazy. So, can we put to rest the idea that you can't make money off of free yet?

Filed Under: business models, differentiation, economics, fortnite, free, free to play, scarcity

Yet Another Developer Sees That Free Can Work For Video Games As Both An Anti-Piracy Strategy And As Promotion

from the getting-it dept

We've made the argument for some time that there are ways to use giving away free content in order to both stave off the threat of video game piracy and to garner greater attention for the product. For all of the congratulations we heap on game developers for simply not completely freaking out over the fact that piracy exists, far too few of those developers go on to actually take advantage of what freely given away products can do for them. But there are those out there who get it, including Indie Gala, a studio that is essentially giving away its product as it stands for free, both because it wants gamers to get clean copies of the game from clean sites and in order to drive those gamers to the Early Access Steam version of the game.

One of their two flagship titles on Steam - Early Access survival horror game Die Young - has been received well enough, but the developers believe piracy is enough of a problem to necessitate an unusual solution: Players unable or unwilling to buy the game are able to just download it, directly and DRM free, from the Indie Gala site.

Speaking candidly, Indie Gala state that piracy is a double-edged sword. For a smaller independent title such as Die Young with little marketing budget, it helps to get eyes on the product, even if they are piratical ones. Less good is that pirated copies tend to be older, less stable builds, and potentially located on malware-strewn sites. The move to just allow access to the game direct seems to be done with the intent of at least converting some would-be pirates to customers as development continues.

Now, the key to this is that Die Young is still in active development in Early Access. The free version the studio is giving away is nearly the entire product as it currently stands, but those freely given versions won't receive the updated content that gets developed. For that, downloaders will have to transition to the Steam version of the game. In that way, this is a strange sort of hybrid between a game demo, playtesting an early build, and the try-before-I-buy scenario so many of those that admit to pirating games have claimed they engage in. For all this to be embraced by the game studio itself is the difference here, along with its claim of concern that gamers could get malware from untrustworthy sites.

It's easy to see how this could work. Gamers who like the content will want the updates and some of them will go to Steam to get them legitimately. Some gamers will be willing to try the game out since it's free when they might otherwise not have and, if they like it enough, will go to Steam to get the updated game legitimately. And some gamers will simply want to support a studio that has treated the larger gaming community so well and will go to Steam to get the game legitimately.

There's no downside to this. Piracy does exist, but by utilizing free content and treating people in a way that's human, its effects can be greatly mitigated.

Filed Under: copyright, die young, free, piracy, video games
Companies: indie gala

If 'Everyone Just Wants Free Stuff' Is Responsible For Piracy, Why Can't Nintendo Keep Its Classic Consoles In Stock?

from the goomba-stomp dept

For a long time, we've been trying to debunk the "But people just want stuff for free" myth that purports to explain why the only proper strategy for infringement is heavy enforcement. Everyone should have instantly recognized that this was a dumb meme put forth by the content industries, so simple was the offered explanation for what is a vastly complex issue. Still, the meme persists, even in the face of contrary evidence.

Evidence such as the fact that Nintendo has had trouble keeping its classic consoles in stock to meet consumer demand. Earlier this year, Nintendo hit the brakes on manufacturing the classic NES mini console after selling over two million of them. The result on the secondary market was immediate. Prices for the retro console skyrocketed, with people desperately searching for one. The interest from the public was high enough that, as Nintendo is set to release the SNES mini console as a follow up, the company is going out of its way to assure the public that it is making enough of them to meet demands.

Earlier today, Nintendo announced that it will launch the SNES Classic on Sept. 29 for $79.99. The system will come preloaded with 21 games, and the package will include two SNES Classic Controllers. That’s all well and good, but considering that Nintendo vastly underestimated demand for the NES Classic last year, the question on everyone’s minds right now is this: Will the SNES Classic be just as impossible to find as its 8-bit predecessor was?

“We aren’t providing specific numbers, but we will produce significantly more units of Super NES Classic Edition than we did of NES Classic Edition,” Nintendo said in a statement to Polygon.

So, I have a question: doesn't pretty much everyone who can afford these retro consoles also have a computer and smart phone capable of running emulators? And can't pretty much everyone fairly easily find these same games coming preloaded on these mini systems for free on the internet? The answer to both questions is "yes", except that Nintendo is still having to go out of its way to assure it will meet the paying customer's demand for these retro consoles. Why?

Well, the answer can't be "because everyone just wants free stuff", or there would be zero customer demand and everyone would be emulating. The actual answer is more likely that most people don't simply want everything for free and are happy to pay for something they want when its available. Add to that the nostalgia of actually having a familiar console from the good 'ol days connected to their TV and it's easy to see where all these sales are coming from, particularly when Nintendo's price points on the consoles and the bundles they come with are fairly good. It's worth specifically noting that these consoles come loaded with 20 or so classic games, while the internet comes bundled with all the games for free. Again, you cannot simply say that everyone just wants everything for free.

Leave it to Nintendo of all companies to finally put this one to rest.

Filed Under: classic consoles, emulators, free, piracy, snes
Companies: nintendo

Spotify (Basically) Tells Its Free Users, 'Go Pirate!'

from the carrots-taste-better-than-sticks dept

Spotify is pulling the plug on free access to some artists' newest releases, according to The Guardian. Currently, Spotify's 50 million paid users fork over £10/month to play their music offline without ads, but now they're also getting exclusive access to artists' biggest new releases. Meanwhile, Spotify's other 50 million free users have their access suddenly restricted.

This has been a major sticking point with some artists and labels for many years. They've long demanded that some music only be available to paying subscribers because the royalties shared there are much higher. With this new setup -- which Spotify loudly resisted for years -- Spotify benefits by paying fewer royalty fees to record labels, though those fees from free streaming were lower per stream than paid streams anyway. But it's the record labels that pushed this one through:

Labels believe the free tier, which pays lower royalties per stream, can serve to cannibalise other audiences, hitting album sales and lowering the incentive to upgrade to premium.

We've heard this argument before, and too many times. It's always some iteration of the following (choose one from each line):

Bootlegging / piracy / free access / abundance
+
kills / devalues / cannibalizes
+
music / movies / books / games / art

Taylor Swift even invoked this argument when she recently pulled her songs from Spotify: "music is art, and art is important and rare. Important, rare things are valuable. Valuable things should be paid for. It's my opinion that music should not be free." Of course, Swift's fallacy is equating importance & value with rarity. Water, for example, is critically important and valuable… but also far from rare. Rare things are typically valuable because they are rare, but music that can be copied to every hard drive on the planet at no cost? The polar opposite of rare. Will Spotify yanking access to newer releases actually encourage its free users to upgrade to a premium account? Not likely. As you may remember, the Copia Institute published a report on this very topic called The Carrot or The Stick? Innovation vs. Anti-Piracy Enforcement, and its key findings should be emailed to the CEOs of every record label:

In Sweden, the success of Spotify resulted in a major decline in the file sharing of music on websites like The Pirate Bay. A similar move was not seen in the file sharing of TV shows and movies... until Netflix opened its doors.

In response to rights holder complaints, the Korean government pressured popular music subscription service MelOn to double the price of subscriptions. Since the mandated increase, online music sites have seen a drop in the number of subscriptions as consumers move back to unauthorized means of access.

Strict criminal penalties in Japan for copyright infringement, enacted in 2012, didn’t prevent a steep 17% decline in CD sales, nor spur rapid adoption of streaming music services. Streaming services are starting to catch on in Japan, but only as their selection and convenience have improved significantly.

New Zealand passed the Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) Amendments Act, also known as “Skynet.” After enactment, there was a short-lived drop in illegal downloads over a two-month period (Aug.-Sept. 2011), but after that activity returned to previous levels.

Because Spotify's decision affects 50 million users, this move could create huge waves for both Spotify and the music industry as a whole, since it could encourage users to regress from free (and legal) methods to their familiar free (and illegal) methods. Most everyone knows you can type in "Taylor Swift discography torrent" into Google and get years of Taylor Swift's music in minutes without paying Spotify, record labels, or Taylor Swift. So what will happen when 50 million users you've been slowly leading away from piracy suddenly feel like they've been left out in the cold?

Filed Under: free, music, music streaming, paywalls, windows
Companies: spotify

Hulu Ditches 'Free' Model Without Giving It A Chance To Succeed

from the the-illusion-of-disruption dept

For years we've noted how as a product of the cable and broadcast industry, Hulu has often gone out of its way to avoid being truly disruptive. Owners 21st Century Fox, Disney and Comcast/NBC have worked hard to ensure the service is never too interesting -- lest it cannibalize the company's legacy cable TV cash cow. So Hulu has been doomed to walk the halls of almost but not quite compelling purgatory, a rotating crop of execs for years trying to skirt the line between giving consumers what they actually want -- and being a glorified ad for traditional cable television.

Fast forward to this week, when Hulu announced that the company is backing away from free as a core component of its business model. While Hulu began as a free option, it has slowly but surely been making free content harder to come by. Instead, users now have the option of paying either $8 per month for a streaming service with ads, or a $12 per month service (mostly) free of advertising. As such, the company proclaims that offering anything for free is no longer part of the company's vision of the ideal "Hulu experience":

"For the past couple years, we’ve been focused on building a subscription service that provides the deepest, most personalized content experience possible to our viewers,” Hulu senior VP and head of experience Ben Smith said in a statement. “As we have continued to enhance that offering with new originals, exclusive acquisitions, and movies, the free service became very limited and no longer aligned with the Hulu experience or content strategy."

Instead, Hulu intends to focus on its subscription services, and the launch of a live TV subscription platform sometime in early 2017. It will offer some free content 8 days after a program's air date, but only via a new Yahoo/Verizon web portal that may or may not even exist next year at this time. Thanks to intentional release delays, a shrinking catalog of free options and other restrictions you'll note Hulu can't specifically claim that the free business model failed, because it was never truly given a chance to succeed.

And because this is the cable and broadcast industry, Hulu's "content strategy" will remain hamstrung by all manner of unnecessary restrictions. Time Warner, which recently paid $583 million for a 10% stake, has been pushing to pull all current seasons of shows from the service. It's also worth remembering that the 2011 NBC Universal merger conditions blocked Comcast from meddling in Hulu management (not that this always stopped Comcast) to prevent anti-competitive shenanigans. But those restrictions will sunset in early 2018, at which point ownership pressure to ensure Hulu isn't too disruptive will only grow.

So on one side, you have Hulu claiming it wants to become disruptive and profitable. On the other side, you have its owners intentionally doing things to ensure it never becomes too disruptive and profitable. And offering free services as part of your business model certainly doesn't line up with the goal of keeping the legacy cable industry cash cow happily mooing for another decade. As we've long noted, most cable and broadcast companies think this whole cord cutting thing is a fad that ends when Millennials start procreating. As such the focus is on the illusion of innovation while they wait for the storm to pass.

While ditching free may not be a great idea, the real threat to the viability of a streaming revolution remains exclusive licensing and fractured content availability. As broadcasters increasingly focus on their own streaming services, exclusive arrangements (like CBS with Star Trek) are flourishing. In Hulu's case, it means losing access to the CW network, now exclusive to Netflix. It also means losing access to the Criterion Collection of films, now the streaming exclusive of a new Turner-owned streaming platform called Filmstruck. This fractured availability only frustrates and confuses customers, many of which will simply return to piracy.

Filed Under: free, streaming, tv
Companies: hulu

Photographer Learns To Embrace The Public Domain... And Is Better Off For It

from the it's-a-fucking-lighthouse dept

There are constant debates over the value of the public domain. As you know, in the US, Congress has repeatedly expanded and extended copyright law to effectively wipe out the public domain. No new works have gone into the public domain because of copyright law (other than works by the Federal government) in many years, and that likely won't change for many years either. The only way works go into the public domain these days are through some sort of public dedication, such as by using the Creative Commons CC0 license -- though very careful lawyers may remind you that even this is not technically putting the work in the public domain. Under the current Copyright Act there really isn't a way to officially put something in the public domain. A copyright holder can only make an effective promise that the work should be treated as if it's in the public domain by declaring it so.

The fact that the law is so hostile to the public domain is no accident. If you look at the history of the debates about copyright shows the legacy copyright industries being actively hostile to the public domain, and making a variety of silly, nonsensical (and flat out wrong) arguments about the public domain. They've argued that putting works in the public domain removes all value from the work. They've also claimed that putting works in the public domain will cause it to be over-utilized, since it's free, thereby harming its value in a different way. The fact that these two arguments seem to conflict with each other was more or less ignored. And then you even have the extremely ridiculous claims that the public domain is theft of private property. Paul Heald has done some tremendous research on how all of the hyperbolic statements about how awful the public domain is simply aren't true. But that's looking at historical data.

It appears that some content creators are realizing the value of the public domain as well. A Swiss photographer, Samuel Zeller has written an absolutely brilliant piece on how much value he's received by putting many of his works into the public domain via CC0 licenses (he also uses CC-BY licenses on many of his other photos). Zeller focuses on a wonderful tool that I've made use of many times myself over the years: Unsplash, which is an absolutely amazing community of photographers all sharing their brilliant photos (in high res) under CC0 public domain dedications (as an aside, if you sign up for it, Unsplash will send you a regular email every week to 10 days showing a selection of their latest photos, and they tend to be stunning). Zeller explains his own discovery of Unsplash:

About two years ago I stumbled on Unsplash, a website with free (do whatever you want) high resolution photos. I love the concept instantly, people could just upload their images and give them away for free under a Creative Commons CC0 license.

So Far, I uploaded 184 images on my Unsplash profile, they've been viewed over 63,000,000 times and downloaded over 613,000 times.

Just insane numbers.

And from that, good things result:

The amount of traffic Unsplash generate to my portfolio is huge. The number of referrers I have is constantly growing, many websites and blogs use my images and give a link back. My website is no longer just a small island in the sea that nobody see, it's a fucking lighthouse...

My latest and biggest client found me because of Unsplash, in fact I never really searched for clients, they found me in the first place. (isn't that what every photographer dream of?)

From there, Zeller addresses the common myths around why you shouldn't give your work away for free. First up, by giving away his photographs this way, is he losing money?

It is a a matter of perspective. If I put all my images on a stock photography website I could make some money out of it.

But stock photography is dying, people pay less and less for images. I know, I worked for years in a design agency where we regularly had to buy images for clients, and our clients budgets were always getting smaller.

Why should I need to sell images if I have clients paying me to shoot specific images? To me working for a client face to face is rewarding, way more than making money on digital sales to people I will never interact with.

This goes back to a point we've been making for years: your past work acts as an advertisement for your ability to be hired for future work. And if you give that work away for free, it acts as free advertising. Zeller seems to have discovered that to a fairly extreme level.

On to the next myth: giving away your work means that it somehow "loses value."

This is something people asked me before and the answer is: no.

My photography keep improving, more people stumble on my work and I've got more contacts, more projects and clients than before.

An image has value because someone has an use for it. It has absolutely no value if it's sitting uselessly in my hard-drive or if it's just on social media waiting to get liked. Sure it has emotional vlaue but don't get me wrong, I need money to live and pay the bills.

the images I give away for free are like a teaser of what I can do. Think of it as a "try before you buy" option.

Later he notes:

There's no point in being talented if nobody can see what you do.

Now you can make a totally reasonable argument that Zeller's situation doesn't necessarily apply to everyone. There is a combination of both skill and luck in getting your work so widely recognized. If you're just not that good, it's going to make things that much more difficult. And even if you're good, sometimes you just don't get seen anyway, but that's got nothing to do with copyright. Freeing up images certainly increases the opportunity that people will discover your work. If luck is the issue, freeing up images is like giving luck many more chances.

The other argument, obviously, is that photography is different than other creative works -- and that's absolutely true. However, I will note that independent photographers historically have often been the most aggressive and vocal about wanting stronger and stronger copyright protections and being against relatively modest improvements to copyright law. Many have become so focused on licensing images they've taken in the past that they haven't even considered alternatives or how freeing up images and how that might help.

Anyway Zeller's photographs are pretty damn awesome. Check out his Unsplash page and his larger archive of photos as well. Here's one of his many cool photos, because I feel like we shouldn't write a whole post about him without including at least one image:

Filed Under: copyright, free, photographs, public domain, samuel zeller, unsplash

Nintendo Cracking Down On Pokemon Go 'Pirates' Despite The Game Being Free

from the overprotectionism-i-choose-you! dept

In these past few weeks, the world has become divided into two camps: those who are sick of hearing anything about Nintendo's new smash mobile hit, Pokemon Go, and those who can't get enough of it. While the media tags along for the ride and with the app shooting up the charts as the craze takes hold, it's worth keeping in mind that this is Pokemon and Nintendo we're talking about, two connected groups with a crazy history of savagely protecting anything to do with their intellectual property.

Still, it was strange to learn that Nintendo is issuing all kinds of takedown requests to "pirate" versions of the Android app that are available roughly all over the place. The reason I wrapped that word in quotation marks above is that the Pokemon Go app is entirely free and even the unofficial versions of the app still point the user back to the app's official store for any in-game purchases.

Nintendo is obviously not happy with this black market distribution. Although it doesn’t seem to hurt its stock value, the company is targeting the piracy issue behind the scenes. TorrentFreak spotted several takedown requests on behalf of Nintendo that were sent to Google Blogspot and Google Search this week. The notices list various links to pirated copies of the game, asking Google to remove them.

Thus far the efforts have done little to stop the distribution. The files are still widely shared on torrent sites and various direct download services. The copies on APKmirror.com remain online as well.

So why is Nintendo engaging in a losing war against its own popularity instead of deciding to spend the time counting the money that is streaming in from its smash hit instead? Well, the speculation is that this has all to do with the geographic release windows for the app.

With no commercial gain to be had from stopping people playing the game, I’m guessing Nintendo is just trying to keep it in the hands of users in countries where Pokémon Go has been officially released. Maybe to cut back on stuff like the problems some Korean gamers are having right now.

The issue appears to be that the game doesn't really function in countries where it hasn't been officially released yet. This means that users of the unofficial apps in these countries are likely to find that no Pokemon exist to be collected, or are at least far more sparse than they will be once the release is official in that country. This has led to some minor frustration from those who downloaded the app from an unofficial source, as they wander around doing essentially nothing.

But so what? That isn't really Nintendo's problem and there's no way that the company will take on any ill-will from those downloading unofficial copies of the game where it hasn't been released yet. The app, keep in mind, is a free one and points to Nintendo's in-game store for purchases whether it's from the official app or the unofficial one. There's literally no money lost in this in any way and, it can easily be argued, the widespread availability from many different sites may well be super-charging the viral nature of the product. That should be a huge win for Nintendo, as the company gains new and free distribution channels at zero cost.

If this is about the geo-restricted release dates, I sort of get it, but I only sort of get it because I already know how crazy-insane Nintendo is in terms of controlling every last aspect of every last product it offers. The company just can't help itself, even when it can be argued the "pirated" apps are doing way more good than harm.

Filed Under: competition, copyright, free, geoblocking, piracy, pokemon go, regional restrictions
Companies: nintendo

Techdirt Reading List: Free Books From Verso (Mostly)

from the and-some-good-ones dept

Most Thursday's, we post book recommendations with links to purchase the books through Amazon (where a little cut of the purchase price goes to us). We've received a ton of feedback that people like those recommendations (and seeing how many books you guys have bought via that, suggests it's true!). We had another such book lined up for today, but we're going to put that aside as we saw the news this morning that publisher Verso Books, which has published a number of excellent books (including ones we've recommended in the past), is doing a special one day (today!) offer for a bunch of free ebooks, many of which may interest folks here -- though there are a few caveats which we'll get to.

The books include two that we've recommended before: Gabriella Coleman's excellent book about Anonymous, Hacker, Hoaxer, Whistleblower, Spy and the collected writings of Aaron Swartz entitled The Boy Who Could Change The World. Now there's a big caveat on the Swartz book: as Verso notes, it does not hold the rights to that book in North America, so it's only available to those outside of the US (or someone using a geographically promiscuous VPN, I imagine). Now, quite obviously, Aaron Swartz would probably be first in line to argue that this kind of geoblocking is ridiculous and worthy of scorn. In fact, from its tweets, it appears that Verso also recognizes this. But, it's not exactly in Verso's control. Though perhaps the company could have reached out to The New Press, who published the book in the US to work out some sort of co-promotion.

The second caveat is that... Verso appears to be overwhelmed. There have been lots of complaints that after "purchasing" the ebooks people are not receiving their download links -- and I can confirm that. I tried direct download links and the "email me a link" option, and neither seemed to work. However, the company says it's working on it, and as long as the books are listed in your "library" in their system, then you'll be able to access them in the future.

And, of course, even if you're in North America, all of the other books are available for free, including Coleman's. The other books look pretty good as well. There's The Wikileaks Files with an intro by Julian Assange, Inventing the Future: Postcapitalism and a World Without Work by Nick Srnicek and Alex Williams, Revolution in the Age of Social Media: The Egyptian Popular Insurrection and the Internet by Linda Herrera and In The Flow by Boris Groys.

The one other issue that some people may take at least some offense to is Verso's decision to entitle the blog post about this whole thing Psst! Downloading Isn't Stealing [for today], with at least one person on Twitter pointing out that this title at least suggests that Verso hasn't read (or hasn't understood) Swartz's writings. Verso responded noting that it had, and given my own dealings with Verso, I believe that's the case. Though, it does seem a little wrong no matter what that the collection of Swartz's writings doesn't appear to be available anywhere as a Creative Commons download -- given that Swartz himself was instrumental in the founding of Creative Commons and many of the writings in the book were things that Swartz himself posted for free online on his blog.

As for the title, which perhaps a little annoying, it's Verso doing a play on words of an Aaron Swartz blog post entitled "Counterpoint: Downloading Isn't Stealing," which Verso also reprinted on their page. For folks who are extra sensitive to the claims some make that "copying is stealing," you can see why Verso's title may rub some the wrong way, but it does appear to be them just having some fun with the phrase. And, either way, go check out these books for free today...

Filed Under: aaron swartz, books, free, gabriella coleman, reading list, techdirt reading list
Companies: verso

Viacom Once Sued YouTube For A Billion Dollars; Now It's Just Released Over 100 Movies For Free On YouTube

from the funny-how-that-works dept

As you may recall, back in 2007, entertainment giant Viacom sued YouTube for $1 billion, arguing that it was nothing more than a piracy site. Of course, Viacom's case faltered, badly, when it was later revealed that over 100 of the videos it listed as infringing had been... uploaded by Viacom employees as part of a marketing strategy. That act alone showed that even Viacom employees recognized the site had "substantial noninfringing uses." After seven years of battling it out in court, the two sides finally settled last year. However, it does seem noteworthy that Paramount Pictures, the major Hollywood movie studio that is owned by Viacom just announced that it had posted over 100 of its own movies for free on YouTube in their entirety.

This is important for a variety of reasons, but most of all it shows that, once again, when legacy entertainment firms learn how to embrace new technologies, rather than sue them, they're better off. Legacy entertainment companies have basically tried to sue or kill every new technological innovation that somehow challenged new business models. They sued over radio, television, VCRs, cable TV, MP3 players, DVRs and internet video. And yet, once they learned how to use each of those, they realized how great these platforms were in helping to distribute, to promote and to monetize their works.

If Viacom had succeeded in its lawsuits and killed off YouTube, would these movies be available for free online today? I think most people would agree the answer is "no way."

This is a big part of the reason why I get concerned about attempts to shut down businesses that some insist are "nothing but piracy sites." The VCR was "nothing but a piracy tool." The MP3 player was "nothing but a piracy tool." Radio was "nothing but a piracy tool." And YouTube was "nothing but a piracy site." And yet... given the chance to grow and to innovate, these services show that they are successful because they're providing a better product. Suing them out of existence takes away opportunities like this, where companies learn that they can benefit from these (often free!) services to better promote, distribute and monetize their own works. It's easy to think that something that is often used for infringing works in the early days is never going to be anything useful or legitimate, but that ignores the history of innovation in this space. Every new innovation originally looked like a piracy tool. Until it no longer did. Perhaps, rather than trying to kill off every new service, Hollywood should take a lesson and realize that maybe it should be figuring out better ways to embrace them early on, rather than many years later.

Filed Under: copyright, free, free movies, innovation, movies, piracy sites, promotion, youtube
Companies: google, paramount pictures, viacom, youtube