Well, from a moral perspective, I agree with you, but in terms of what "society" and therefore universities should do about it, it makes a *huge* difference.
When the files are shared, two things are not automatically true: a) the artist/producer loses a sale, and b) the provider/receiver of the file is not authorized to share the files.
Studies have shown that heavy file sharers actually buy more product. Given that, and the above falsehoods, is it really worth forcing universities to spend money on this?
And good thing the US Constitution allows someone to not hire you or fire you if they don't agree with your personal writings, beliefs and postings.
The first amendment does not apply to businesses, only to relationship between citizens and the government. No business has to tolerate how you behave in your personal life if they believe that it reflects poorly on their business and your commercial relationship to them as long as they do not discriminate and follow labor laws.
Except it's not theft, it's infringement. Theft involves physical goods.
And by the way, how many other things do you think universities should be "doing their part to stop"? There's an obesity problem in America and college cafeterias are not known for their health food, perhaps universities should sink money into doing their part with that? We all need to do our part (it takes a village) to raise moral beings, perhaps universities ought to work on that too.
>>On a more important front, I think there is too easy a tendency to equate "information" and "content."
Perhaps, but that content better be a unique value-proposition. And I don't share your view that the items you listed (context, editorial view, images, usually fact-checked--ha!) for content are scarce--those are pretty much the definition of nearly every newspaper, blog, TV news website, etc. I also don't share your view that it is desirable to get all of this from a limited number of sources, because "an editorial point of view" automatically makes me suspicious. I want many points-of-view to construct my views.
If you wish the information to be packaged for you then perhaps a paywall would make sense for you, but then you would be limited to only those paywalls you could afford and have fun keeping track of all of those subscriptions.
Setting business issues aside, I think that collectively we would all be worse off in terms of information/content/whatever sharing, because the more paywalls the greater barriers to that sharing.
Nobody is arguing that people won't pay for premium content, just that they won't pay for what they can get nearly anywhere else--information. I do not consider TIME to be "premium" content. If TIME goes away, I'll RSS something else. And right now, I would struggle to pick any single example of premium news content.
To Mike's other point, becoming a vendor of premium content means that you have to accept two things: you will likely have a limited potential market that will only grow nominally (if at all), and you will need to continue to focus heavily on your brand and differentiated capability (what makes you "premium").
And your examples are not too good. People began paying for Cable and cable-only channels such as HBO because they provided them something they could not get over the regular airways or anywhere else (read: scarce). That is not true today (HBO subscriptions are in decline, I believe). I can see movies easily well before I could get access to them on HBO, which is why they have become purveyors of shows (Sopranos) that you can't get or see anywhere else.
Free in this context is about delivering things for free as an enticement to bring them to your door for other offerings. What would I pay for in TIME that I can't get anywhere else?
Don't know if I should bother here, but the point is to charge for the "scarcity" - something not readily available or in infinite supply. Your examples of gas and train tickets do not apply because they are scarce goods with limited supply. Information is generally in infinite supply and it is fungible across many formats and channels.
The point isn't free or not free, it's building a business model around the things you do better than anyone else, not just access to information (which is easily duplicated and provided by others). And, BTW, focusing on the things you do better than anyone else has been the standard approach to business models for all time.
So, for example, what if your news stories were free, but the ability to comment was not--and the paper gave editorial page access to those who were most active on the website and whose comments were viewed and responded to most often? Now I have a reason to pay, I get to be part of a community that influences the paper's content--something scarce, and something news stories aren't anymore.
I would like to see the serious look they gave their potential market and which consumers they believe they can capture with the paywall.
As an example (perhaps not a representative one), I have Time, CNN, WSJ, Techdirt, TLF, HBS, Wired, etc., etc., etc. on RSS. I have to be honest, while the Time articles definitely provide me a different slice of the information that feeds me, it really has a "meh" factor in comparison to all of the other things I read.
Meaning, I believe very few people receive their information from only one source, and the type of consumer I think TIME wants probably receives their information from many and I think they also want to customize what they receive.
So as long as any other good sources are available, any time a paywall goes up, I'll just switch. The perception that maybe this is just the way of the future (that eventually everything will be paywall) ignores two things--a) the more things are paywall, the more people will take an ala carte approach (which will tend to drive prices down to compete among paywalled information sources, IOW, significant growth limitations) and b) as long as there are viable business models that don't require paywalls, there will continue to be significant price pressure and subscriber churn.
Both of the above are key elements (straight out of business school) that would undermine any successful approach.
I don't see that at all. However, I do believe you might be overlooking one of the key points. You are saying that these leagues have specifically decided that the fans are not their target customers. What Mike is saying is that these leagues do this at their peril.
This happens in business all the time--businesses must choose to serve the customers they believe will be most profitable to their business plan. What they cannot do, is try to eliminate or pretend that the markets they do not serve should not exist. Customer demand is valid whether or not you choose to serve it.
Mike's point is that very often, companies take the route of attempting to shut down these channels, without ever really determining how they affect their own markets. There is plenty of evidence that they help more than hurt, but the knee-jerk reaction is to assume they hurt.
On the post: Universities Struggling To Deal With Law Requiring Them To Fight File Sharing
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So Wrong
Ethically/morally, whatever, yes I do agree with you.
On the post: Universities Struggling To Deal With Law Requiring Them To Fight File Sharing
Re: Re: Re: Re: So Wrong
When the files are shared, two things are not automatically true: a) the artist/producer loses a sale, and b) the provider/receiver of the file is not authorized to share the files.
Studies have shown that heavy file sharers actually buy more product. Given that, and the above falsehoods, is it really worth forcing universities to spend money on this?
On the post: City Requires Job Applicants To Hand Over All Online Usernames And Passwords
Re: Re: Re:
The first amendment does not apply to businesses, only to relationship between citizens and the government. No business has to tolerate how you behave in your personal life if they believe that it reflects poorly on their business and your commercial relationship to them as long as they do not discriminate and follow labor laws.
On the post: Universities Struggling To Deal With Law Requiring Them To Fight File Sharing
Re: Re: So Wrong
And by the way, how many other things do you think universities should be "doing their part to stop"? There's an obesity problem in America and college cafeterias are not known for their health food, perhaps universities should sink money into doing their part with that? We all need to do our part (it takes a village) to raise moral beings, perhaps universities ought to work on that too.
On the post: Time Magazine May Join Newspapers In Committing Suicide By Charging Online
Re: Re: Re: Good Business Model
Perhaps, but that content better be a unique value-proposition. And I don't share your view that the items you listed (context, editorial view, images, usually fact-checked--ha!) for content are scarce--those are pretty much the definition of nearly every newspaper, blog, TV news website, etc. I also don't share your view that it is desirable to get all of this from a limited number of sources, because "an editorial point of view" automatically makes me suspicious. I want many points-of-view to construct my views.
If you wish the information to be packaged for you then perhaps a paywall would make sense for you, but then you would be limited to only those paywalls you could afford and have fun keeping track of all of those subscriptions.
Setting business issues aside, I think that collectively we would all be worse off in terms of information/content/whatever sharing, because the more paywalls the greater barriers to that sharing.
On the post: Time Magazine May Join Newspapers In Committing Suicide By Charging Online
Re: Re: Cost v. Value
On the post: Time Magazine May Join Newspapers In Committing Suicide By Charging Online
Re:
To Mike's other point, becoming a vendor of premium content means that you have to accept two things: you will likely have a limited potential market that will only grow nominally (if at all), and you will need to continue to focus heavily on your brand and differentiated capability (what makes you "premium").
And your examples are not too good. People began paying for Cable and cable-only channels such as HBO because they provided them something they could not get over the regular airways or anywhere else (read: scarce). That is not true today (HBO subscriptions are in decline, I believe). I can see movies easily well before I could get access to them on HBO, which is why they have become purveyors of shows (Sopranos) that you can't get or see anywhere else.
Free in this context is about delivering things for free as an enticement to bring them to your door for other offerings. What would I pay for in TIME that I can't get anywhere else?
On the post: Time Magazine May Join Newspapers In Committing Suicide By Charging Online
Re: Good Business Model
The point isn't free or not free, it's building a business model around the things you do better than anyone else, not just access to information (which is easily duplicated and provided by others). And, BTW, focusing on the things you do better than anyone else has been the standard approach to business models for all time.
So, for example, what if your news stories were free, but the ability to comment was not--and the paper gave editorial page access to those who were most active on the website and whose comments were viewed and responded to most often? Now I have a reason to pay, I get to be part of a community that influences the paper's content--something scarce, and something news stories aren't anymore.
On the post: Time Magazine May Join Newspapers In Committing Suicide By Charging Online
Re: Cost v. Value
As an example (perhaps not a representative one), I have Time, CNN, WSJ, Techdirt, TLF, HBS, Wired, etc., etc., etc. on RSS. I have to be honest, while the Time articles definitely provide me a different slice of the information that feeds me, it really has a "meh" factor in comparison to all of the other things I read.
Meaning, I believe very few people receive their information from only one source, and the type of consumer I think TIME wants probably receives their information from many and I think they also want to customize what they receive.
So as long as any other good sources are available, any time a paywall goes up, I'll just switch. The perception that maybe this is just the way of the future (that eventually everything will be paywall) ignores two things--a) the more things are paywall, the more people will take an ala carte approach (which will tend to drive prices down to compete among paywalled information sources, IOW, significant growth limitations) and b) as long as there are viable business models that don't require paywalls, there will continue to be significant price pressure and subscriber churn.
Both of the above are key elements (straight out of business school) that would undermine any successful approach.
On the post: Sports Leagues Missing The Point About Fans Streaming Live Games Online
Re: Confusing customers
This happens in business all the time--businesses must choose to serve the customers they believe will be most profitable to their business plan. What they cannot do, is try to eliminate or pretend that the markets they do not serve should not exist. Customer demand is valid whether or not you choose to serve it.
Mike's point is that very often, companies take the route of attempting to shut down these channels, without ever really determining how they affect their own markets. There is plenty of evidence that they help more than hurt, but the knee-jerk reaction is to assume they hurt.
Next >>