How are physical book and CD's not scarce? It's the content that's easily reproducible, which makes it non-scarce, not the medium it's printed on. This was explicitly mentioned in the arti...
So the fact that the articles were all available elsewhere, readable by other means did not reduce your incentive to buy the book, and in fact that these articles already existed elsewhere actually acted as promotion that lead you to buy other products from the author that had values like convenience?
There is no difference in content when listening to Radiohead through Spotify or iTunes. There is no difference in content between watching Die Hard in the cinema or on DVD, yet there is competition between the two. That competition takes place on the basis of the method of access and other value that this method provides. Content is irrelevant to the discussion the moment the same content can end up competing with itself. This immediately shows the importance of access to the business model, not just content.
Content is the non-scarce good that can be copied over and over onto different mediums that is then sold to people on the basis of how convenient it is to access compared to the alternatives.
This separation becomes even clearer now with piracy. Now that publishers don't have control, they're competing with their own content from outside competitors, rather than just themselves. If the content is the same, then a large of the competition must come from method of delivery - the content side of the equation becomes irrelevant to the discussion at hand. It's obvious people want to access content, that's not the point - the point is that competition also occurs heavily on who provides the best access, and now that this separation between the two has become clearer, they're crying about how they now have competition in the market of selling access when previously they had a much stronger monopoly on that aspect.
Content is only scarce until it has been created, you fucking knobjockey. After that it can be distributed to infinity and back, especially with digital distribution.
Humans create as a part of their natural instinct.
Meaning it is the content they want and that the content has definitive and measurable value.
No, the content is generally irrelevant in the discussion. The business model provides the value added service you charge for - access, convenience and some times other things. The content is irrelevant as soon as you realise it it's available from other sources, and the real business isn't simply producing content, but delivering it in a way that people can't do themselves and will want to pay for.
What was sold was not the content, it was convenient ways to view it. There are many alternatives to distribute and subsequently view any content that people like, the difference between them IS THE METHOD OF ACCESS AND THE VALUE OF CONVENIENCE IT PROVIDES.
The delivery method is in itself the thing that provides value. Content is irrelevant - it already exists.
Air already exists and is freely available. The delivery method (small gas tanks) and the context of delivery (is what creates monetary value. Content already exists and is already available. The delivery method and context of delivery is what creates value for business to sell.
What is scarce is content sure content in general is plentiful, there are a lot of WEB sites around, but the SPECIFIC content is SCARCE, where else on the entire internet can I get the content of "techdirt" ?
Mike has made reference to several copycat sites that simply repost Techdirt content in an attempt to gain views. Content is not scarce if it is digital. Digital content can be copied near infinitely by anyone with a right click > copy, P2P and other means. Content ceases being scarce when you have near zero cost distribution available to almost everyone.
I wrote something similar myself quite a while ago (http://somethingmild.blogspot.com/2009/10/dont-mistake-access-for-content.html), though a little bit messy in its explanation. I think it's one of the biggest hurdles in people understanding the non-threat of piracy, especially as PR campaigns have ramped up and even further solidified the idea that people were paying for content, not access or convenience.
Do you think that's an invalid metric? I can't imagine a more meaningful metric than "achieving a result that is better than if you had not taken the course of action actually taken."
Unless you can provide data to show this metric clearly, then yes, it's invalid. You're redefining success to a metric that we can't measure. Though I fail to see how negative PR, a continued growth in file sharing and having sued a small minority of people who do so that didn't have the money to even go through these lawsuits is by any metric a success.
Eh, I don't think anyone (RIAA included) ever thought piracy would be eradicated from the Earth, and I don't think that's a realistic measure of "success."
There's no other reason to do so if you do not minimise or remove file sharing. They have not done so. They have failed by their own measure of success.
"Simply saying it wasn't"
Who said that?
You did by claiming saying it was a failure was only an opinion and couldn't be true.
Simply saying it wasn't by redefining the metric of success to something not knowable (what growth would have been without law suits) isn't much more convincing either. The stated intent of the lawsuits was to stop file sharing and stamp out avenues for it. 7 years later, it hasn't worked, file sharing has continued to grow, their attempts at DRM has mostly failed and other industries attempting to adopt the same policies are facing severe backlash.
I am amazed at the amount of time you spend on most Techdirt posts making crap up about what Mike has said, what others have said, and ignoring any prior discussion that has happened at Techdirt, including the ones you've been involved in.
Obviously no one would employ him to continue creating new comics to drive value to their paper, website or otherwise. No one would pay for Dilbert merchandise either.
Please, I beg of you, go back to bootstrapping and bittorrent being inefficient. Throw in a use of "The Masnick", it would really brighten up the day.
On the post: Significant Objects Becomes A Book... More Infinite Goods Creating New Scarcities
Re:
Oh wait, it's TAM.
On the post: How The NY Times Hides Behind Copyright Law To Hoard Information And Weaken Its Journalism
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Good to know.
On the post: Gov't Reminds Colleges They Need To Start Taking Money From Students And Sending It To The Entertainment Industry
Re: Re: Re: Is it just me...
On the post: Twilight Producers Sue To Stop Fashion Design Firm From Pointing Out That 'Bella' Wore Its Jacket
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: People Pay For Access, Not Content... But Most People Don't Understand The Difference
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
There is no difference in content when listening to Radiohead through Spotify or iTunes. There is no difference in content between watching Die Hard in the cinema or on DVD, yet there is competition between the two. That competition takes place on the basis of the method of access and other value that this method provides. Content is irrelevant to the discussion the moment the same content can end up competing with itself. This immediately shows the importance of access to the business model, not just content.
Content is the non-scarce good that can be copied over and over onto different mediums that is then sold to people on the basis of how convenient it is to access compared to the alternatives.
This separation becomes even clearer now with piracy. Now that publishers don't have control, they're competing with their own content from outside competitors, rather than just themselves. If the content is the same, then a large of the competition must come from method of delivery - the content side of the equation becomes irrelevant to the discussion at hand. It's obvious people want to access content, that's not the point - the point is that competition also occurs heavily on who provides the best access, and now that this separation between the two has become clearer, they're crying about how they now have competition in the market of selling access when previously they had a much stronger monopoly on that aspect.
On the post: People Pay For Access, Not Content... But Most People Don't Understand The Difference
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: People Pay For Access, Not Content... But Most People Don't Understand The Difference
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Is Intellectual Property Itself Unethical?
Re:
People are not primarily motivated by money. It's a myopic view of humanity that doesn't work.
On the post: People Pay For Access, Not Content... But Most People Don't Understand The Difference
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Air already exists and is freely available. The delivery method (small gas tanks) and the context of delivery (is what creates monetary value. Content already exists and is already available. The delivery method and context of delivery is what creates value for business to sell.
The 2 are very separate.
On the post: People Pay For Access, Not Content... But Most People Don't Understand The Difference
Re: Who is confused ? and what is scarce ?
Mike has made reference to several copycat sites that simply repost Techdirt content in an attempt to gain views. Content is not scarce if it is digital. Digital content can be copied near infinitely by anyone with a right click > copy, P2P and other means. Content ceases being scarce when you have near zero cost distribution available to almost everyone.
On the post: People Pay For Access, Not Content... But Most People Don't Understand The Difference
The Biggest Hurdle
On the post: People Pay For Access, Not Content... But Most People Don't Understand The Difference
Re: It's so simple
Stopping piracy is the wrong discussion. making use of zero cost distribution as part of your business model is and should be the discussion.
On the post: Watching A Newspaper Go From A Print Mindset To A Digital Mindset
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Defining Success: Were The RIAA's Lawsuits A Success Or Not?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Unless you can provide data to show this metric clearly, then yes, it's invalid. You're redefining success to a metric that we can't measure. Though I fail to see how negative PR, a continued growth in file sharing and having sued a small minority of people who do so that didn't have the money to even go through these lawsuits is by any metric a success.
There's no other reason to do so if you do not minimise or remove file sharing. They have not done so. They have failed by their own measure of success.
You did by claiming saying it was a failure was only an opinion and couldn't be true.
On the post: Defining Success: Were The RIAA's Lawsuits A Success Or Not?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's failed.
On the post: Because One Paywall Sorta Worked Very Briefly Many Years Ago, Free Is A Joke
Re:
On the post: How Monetary Rewards Can Demotivate Creative Works
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: How Monetary Rewards Can Demotivate Creative Works
Re:
On the post: Canadian Official Admits Last Copyright Bill Was Solely About Keeping US Diplomats Happy
Re: Re: Re:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zL2FOrx41N0
12:26
http://techdirt.com/articles/20091118/ 1002136992.shtml
Now continue on to accuse Mike of bootstrapping. Don't forget to call him The Masnick while you're at it.
On the post: Scott Adams: The Economic Value Of Content Is Going To Zero, But Maybe It's Okay
Re: Re:
Please, I beg of you, go back to bootstrapping and bittorrent being inefficient. Throw in a use of "The Masnick", it would really brighten up the day.
Next >>