I don't see much point in paying money for anything that is infinitely reproduceable with little to no cost. I'd be far more interested in paying for something that makes the non-scarce item unique to me.
"Gated" anything is a bad idea, it implies closing yourself off from the rest of the world. Throw the gates wide open and invite people in! Then figure out what they actually want, and sell that to them.
Restricting access to a community fundamentally misunderstands how these things work. It's organic: people are going to talk about a book they like regardless of whether or not they've paid a fee. Trying to lock that up stifles the very engine that drives a work's popularity.
Not to mention they strongly reinforce the feeling of being "nickel and dimed." It's not about skimming something off of everything people do, it's about selling people stuff they actually want. Microtransactions only work when they are truly optional, a la the Dungeons and Dragons MMO.
I entirely agree with the core of what you're saying, but you've slipped some ideas and examples into this piece that I think miss the mark.
You say "The idea of just selling copies is toast - selling (i.e. offering) access is where the money is," and you're right. Which is why I was surprised to read where you went after that.
$0.10 for music tracks is too much. $0.01 for music tracks is too much. The goal isn't to get people to buy music tracks, and it isn't even to "upsell" people to some kind of "premium" version of the tracks. The social community is already there - what you need to look for are ways that particular fans connect with particular non-scarce things. It is access - not access to the meta-content that already proliferates, but access to the artists themselves, opportunities to feel special, and unique experiences.
Media as a service? Maybe, but as Mike often points out (and you acknowledge in the beginning of this post) thinking it will get people paying for "upgraded" versions of the same stuff is erroneous. The "cool video clips, the updated links, the footnotes, the ratings" are organically generated as part of liberated content. The real access is far beyond that: access to authors, physical items, and unique experiences.
Selling the same stuff at low price points would have been the way for the content industries to cash in on the digital transition. That boat has sailed - going forward it's all about connecting fans directly to the people creating the content they love through ways they will uniquely appreciate.
Re: We do - but folks are more willing to pay for eBooks on an iPad...
Why do people think that releasing "eBooks" or their equivalent causes "piracy" to occur? The opposite is actually true: by NOT providing a digital version of your content, you ensure that the only way people can get a digital version is through unauthorized copying.
It's as if people believe that if they don't create a digital copy, none will exist. In fact, if your work has any measure of popularity, a digital copy already exists. You're just missing out on the chance to make money from the few people interested in paying for content in that medium.
Nobody's forcing them to. They're just pointing out that it's the only business model with a chance of succeeding. You can keep trying to sell fake scarcities all you want, it's just dumb. Instead, embrace the cultural sharing that the Public Domain makes possible, and reap the benefits.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Friend of big content lol
Actually, they're quite similar. A friend of mine said it well this morning:
"Copyright and patent don’t constrain cultural works, those privileges constrain people. Copyright suspends the liberty of people to make copies...So, copyright and patent are 18th century proprietary constraints on individuals’ cultural liberty, constraints that were trivial in that age when individuals could suffer proprietary constraints on their physical liberty.
There is a good deal of similarity between slavery and the privileges of copyright and patent. They all concern proprietary constraints over people. That is why they are all unethical and should be abolished."
At the very least, you could provide examples to back up your statements. You don't necessarily have to do it yourself, just find another site that's successfully illustrating your point.
I think part of the problem is that industry has been telling itself and its artists for years that selling recordings of music is "selling music." As you frequently say, the music simply made whatever physical medium it was on more valuable.
Even as smart musicians find ways to use their music to make new scarce things valuable, there is still a market for "selling music," that is, selling the creation of new music. For example, a company might be willing to pay an artist to create a new song for a TV commercial, so it could debut with a never-before-heard soundtrack. From there, of course, copies of the song recording will spread far and wide, but the company has used the music to make their commercial stand out and the artist has gained exposure they can leverage to sell their own scarcities.
Incorrect. The "torrent crowd" simply refuses to pay for something they are already getting for free - namely, digital copies of content. These very same people are paying for things they perceive as being worth money.
Even if these people were true freeloaders as you claim, it's irrelevant since your entertainment industries continue to do booming business without their money.
As legitimate sources for free on-demand music dry up, fans will likely head back to file sharing networks, which is bad news for everyone involved in music
Really? Where is Eliot Van Buskirk from, 1999?
Well, this topic thread is about music, but yes, it is all about the performance. The movie theater is the concert stage of film and should be a unique, enjoyable experience. When movies are made on efficient budgets and people are paid fair, rather than exorbitant salaries it isn't terribly difficult to come out ahead.
On the post: The Future Of Content: Protection Is In The Business Model -- Not In Technology
Re: Re: Some Dangerous Assumptions Here
On the post: The Future Of Content: Protection Is In The Business Model -- Not In Technology
Re: Re: Re: You're not quite there
On the post: The Future Of Content: Protection Is In The Business Model -- Not In Technology
Re: your comments (above)
On the post: The Future Of Content: Protection Is In The Business Model -- Not In Technology
Re: Re: You're not quite there
On the post: The Future Of Content: Protection Is In The Business Model -- Not In Technology
Some Dangerous Assumptions Here
You say "The idea of just selling copies is toast - selling (i.e. offering) access is where the money is," and you're right. Which is why I was surprised to read where you went after that.
$0.10 for music tracks is too much. $0.01 for music tracks is too much. The goal isn't to get people to buy music tracks, and it isn't even to "upsell" people to some kind of "premium" version of the tracks. The social community is already there - what you need to look for are ways that particular fans connect with particular non-scarce things. It is access - not access to the meta-content that already proliferates, but access to the artists themselves, opportunities to feel special, and unique experiences.
Media as a service? Maybe, but as Mike often points out (and you acknowledge in the beginning of this post) thinking it will get people paying for "upgraded" versions of the same stuff is erroneous. The "cool video clips, the updated links, the footnotes, the ratings" are organically generated as part of liberated content. The real access is far beyond that: access to authors, physical items, and unique experiences.
Selling the same stuff at low price points would have been the way for the content industries to cash in on the digital transition. That boat has sailed - going forward it's all about connecting fans directly to the people creating the content they love through ways they will uniquely appreciate.
On the post: IBM Breaks Promise; Threatens Open Source Company Over Patents
Re: Re: Re: IBM, just another greedy transnational destroying US job creation.
On the post: Home Cooking Is Killing The Restaurant Industry!
Re: Re: AND what about takeout and delivery?
On the post: Why Can't All These Ideas For Content On The iPad/Tablets Also Work On The Web?
Re: We do - but folks are more willing to pay for eBooks on an iPad...
It's as if people believe that if they don't create a digital copy, none will exist. In fact, if your work has any measure of popularity, a digital copy already exists. You're just missing out on the chance to make money from the few people interested in paying for content in that medium.
On the post: Give A Man A Fish... And Make It Illegal To Teach Fishing
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Let's take your principle
On the post: Mexican Gov't Says Starbucks Can't Use Images Of Mexican Artifacts On Mugs... Without Paying Up
Re: Re: The Arabs called...
On the post: IsoHunt Loses Big; Court Says: You Induce, You Lose
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Friend of big content lol
"Copyright and patent don’t constrain cultural works, those privileges constrain people. Copyright suspends the liberty of people to make copies...So, copyright and patent are 18th century proprietary constraints on individuals’ cultural liberty, constraints that were trivial in that age when individuals could suffer proprietary constraints on their physical liberty.
There is a good deal of similarity between slavery and the privileges of copyright and patent. They all concern proprietary constraints over people. That is why they are all unethical and should be abolished."
On the post: Is It Really Such A Problem If People Sell Your Works? Or Is It Just Free Market Research?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Really...
On the post: Does Google Need Permission From Philip K. Dick's Estate For The Nexus One?
Re: Re:
On the post: Getting The Music Business Over The 'But We Must Sell Music' Hump
Music != Music Recordings
Even as smart musicians find ways to use their music to make new scarce things valuable, there is still a market for "selling music," that is, selling the creation of new music. For example, a company might be willing to pay an artist to create a new song for a TV commercial, so it could debut with a never-before-heard soundtrack. From there, of course, copies of the song recording will spread far and wide, but the company has used the music to make their commercial stand out and the artist has gained exposure they can leverage to sell their own scarcities.
On the post: That Mythical 'Information Wants To Be Free' Crowd
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Content is free
On the post: That Mythical 'Information Wants To Be Free' Crowd
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Content is free
Even if these people were true freeloaders as you claim, it's irrelevant since your entertainment industries continue to do booming business without their money.
On the post: That Mythical 'Information Wants To Be Free' Crowd
Re: Re: Re: Re: Content is free
On the post: Recording Industry Making It Impossible For Any Legit Online Music Service To Survive Without Being Too Expensive
On the post: Recording Industry Making It Impossible For Any Legit Online Music Service To Survive Without Being Too Expensive
Re: Re: Re: "Too Expensive"
On the post: If You Want To Make Money As A Musician You Need To Be A Musical Entrepreneur
Re:
Next >>