Google Discovers -- Again, Though No One Remembers -- That People Don't Like Paying For Video Online

from the didn't-we-do-this-before dept

I have to say that I'm a bit perplexed at what appears like worldwide amnesia over the fact that when Google launched its Google Video platform, its main focus was on charging people to "rent" videos on its platform. There was a ton of press and excitement over it, with lots of people claiming that Google was going to remake the video market online, and lots of money would be made. And then... nope. People didn't pay. Instead, they all jumped over to an up-and-coming site called YouTube that didn't charge and Google eventually bought them out while quietly shutting down its pay-for-video efforts, which no one missed. And I guess because no one missed it, everyone seems to forget it exists, even though we try to remind people that Google tried this and failed.

But, instead, we get those professional journalists at the NY Times pointing out that this latest very poorly received pay-for-video trials are the company's "first forays" into charging for video content. Apparently the new test brought in a whopping $10,709.16 over the course of 10 days (and five movies). Google is trying to spin this as "exceeding expectations," but it's hard to see how that's the case. There may be models that get people to pay (Netflix's subscription model seems to get people to pay simply for the convenience factor), but I think direct charging like this is unlikely to get very far, and Google, of all companies, should know that, even if everyone else has forgotten.

Filed Under: google video, paying, video, youtube
Companies: google

More Double Standards On Journalist Entitlement

from the wait-a-second... dept

We've been hearing all of these stories about the importance of extending copyright further over news content and how mainstream publications can't handle other publications acting as "parasites" -- using their news without paying.... And at the same time, there seems to be a huge double standard. Apparently people are questioning the journalistic ethics of ESPN for offering to pay $500 for the Lebron James dunk video, which made some news recently when James supposedly tried to suppress it.

However, the bigger point here is: smaller publications are considered parasites for rewriting a story from a major publication leading people to put forth proposals that these sites pay the original publication. But... when it comes to a video from an independent entity, it's suddenly an ethics violation to pay the copyright holder? In the first case you have company A (the major publication) demanding money from company/person B (the indie publication) for "using" their work. In the second case you have people saying that it's unethical for company/person B to get money from company A for using their work.

Can someone please explain how that's not a double standard?

When the mainstream publication is reporting it's unethical to pay for copyrighted material? But when another publication writes a story (not copies it, even) based on reporting from a mainstream publication, it's suddenly a violation? By the mainstream publications' own reasoning, wouldn't accepting money from these "parasites" be just as unethical? After all, those smaller publications would now be paying for news, which apparently is incredibly unethical in the mainstream journalism book...

Filed Under: ethics, journalism, parasites, paying

New Denver News Startup Discovering (Again) People Aren't So Interested In Paying For News

from the let's-try-this-again... dept

While we thought it was great that a group of former reporters from the suddenly-closed Rocky Mountain News were trying to form a new online venture called the InDenver Times, we thought it was quite unlikely that the group would actually be able to get 50,000 people to agree to pay them $5/month by April 23rd. That was the self-appointed deadline set by the group. And, in fact, as we approach the 23rd, Romenesko alerts us that the group is is struggling to even find 10,000 people willing to subscribe. That isn't too surprising. There remain other (free) sources of news, and they're trying to get people to agree to pay for a product that doesn't even exist. The fact that they've got almost 10,000 is impressive enough. That said... while the group still clings to the idea of a subscription model, they're also saying that they'll move forward even without the necessary subscribers. Hopefully that gets them exploring more reasonable business models, because $50,000 a month from subscribers isn't going to go very far.

Filed Under: denver, journalism, news, paying
Companies: indenver times

Would You Believe Teens Have No Interest In Paying For News?

from the who-woulda-thunk-it? dept

In a study that should surprise just about none of you (unless you're one of those newspaper execs who still thinks people will pay for the news), it turns out that teens have absolutely no interest in paying for news (thanks Felix Pleşoianu!), and they really like aggregation sites that provide them with a lot of info quickly and efficiently. Could newspapers (or the AP) provide them with this type of service? Sure... but they chose not to, and now complain about the companies that recognized this and provided what they refused to.

Filed Under: news, paying, teens

Canadian Writers Guild Demanding ISPs Pay For Content Creation; Pissing Off Members

from the it-doesn't-work dept

Mark K. sent this in a week or so ago, but I'm just getting to it now. Apparently, Ryan Sohmer, an author of a popular webcomic called Least I Could Do, is pretty pissed off at the Writers' Guild of Canada, of which he's a member, which is supposed to be looking out for his best interests -- but is not. Specifically, it appears that the WGC is pushing for a proposal that would demand ISPs pay content creators for new content produced in Canada. It's sort of the equivalent of the recording industry's desire to put in place an ISP music tax, but for screenwriters for TV and movie content. On top of that, it has a nationalistic bent, that would limit certain foreign content from reaching Canadians in a ridiculous attempt to "promote" made-in-Canada content.

Sohmer points out why he felt forced to join the WGC against his better interest (he needed to in order to work on certain projects) and had mostly ignored them until they decided to push this dreadful idea for regulation. As he notes, what the WGC is trying to do is turn the internet into a version of television, with limited choices and strict regulation on content. He points out how disastrous this would be:

As someone who's been struggling with the television system for the last 3 years, I can tell you very explicitly: it simply doesn't work. It hampers talent, overpays "producers" while taking money out of the real talent budget and you inevitably end up with a watered down excuse for entertainment.

Why anyone would want to re-create the television industry is beyond me. That makes about as much sense as publishing a new newspaper these days, or putting together a new terrestrial radio station.

Say what you will about the web, and there is much to be said, it breeds innovation. The reason for that is because it's non-regulated, because an ass like me can produce whatever he likes, however he likes in an effort to entertain others. The majority of the things we try don't/won't/shouldn't work, but if 1 out of every 100 projects works, that's a success.

You simply can't do that in the traditional media system. It won't let you.

We see it time and time again. The organizations who benefited from the "way things used to be" will almost always work to force any new and innovative platform to be restricted, legally, to force a similar structure. Remember the laws that got passed when automobiles first came around that required people to walk in front of them waving red flags? Yup. The WGC's proposal seems pretty similar.

Filed Under: canada, isps, paying, regulations, writers guild