Frankly, I'd be perfectly fine with that if the costs were scaled down to reflect the limited use. As it is I feel ebooks are largely overpriced given how much less you can do with them than a dead tree book.
Micropayments (one obvious implication) seem like a great idea until every click starts to cost you money. The problem with buying information in general is that evaluating a purchase has a mental cost. Do you want to think "should I?" before you click on a link? I don't.
Judging by their move to ebooks, the cost will only be marginally scaled down.
I do really look forward to a distribution system that will benefit content creators and be convenient and fair to consumers. I just don't know what it looks like. It's an excellent opportunity for someone with an idea, though.
Exactly. The content racketeers like to tar their opponents as "spoiled children who want free w4r3z." But the fight is really about control over the means of distribution; which translates into control over culture in general.
I bought an ebook today from Amazon and it had the option to "rent" it. Wow. I can't even believe how quickly I was right. The paperback copy of this book was $28, the ebook was $15, and the cost to rent started at $8. I assume rental cost increases based on the length of time (shortest period of rent being 30 days), but I was in a hurry and didn't have a chance to mess with the options.
As a huge fan of many big-budget TV shows and movies, I am not inclined to gloat about the death of the content industry until there's a viable replacement business model.
It's easy to criticize the content industry for their abusive practices and outdated business model, and point to something like the direct sales approach, which has had encouraging successes in books and music. But it's wholly unproven on the budgetary scale of, say, Game of Thrones, Lost, or The Avengers. And if content is distributed freely (through lending or otherwise), then it may be that the creators cannot recoup their costs, and this content simply won't be made.
It's possible that a Kickstarter-like model will emerge, but that's far from guaranteed, and I observe that Kickstarter projects themselves operate on a "scarcity emulator." For example, projects often provide artificially exclusive digital content at certain funding levels.
It may come down to a conscious choice to accept some limitations on our personal digital property rights in order to enable something we can all enjoy. We make that same tradeoff in the meat world all the time: you cannot block a river, sunlight, a view, a storm drain, etc. even though they're on your property. I would prefer limiting my property rights to that content over that content disappearing altogether.
Lastly, pirates are no allies of personal property rights. Pirates distribute unambiguously stolen content (for example, the X-Men Origins workprint) just as readily as merely copyrighted content.
> I am not inclined to gloat about the death of the content industry until there's a viable replacement business model.
Some things simply have to die, and the earth where they stood salted thoroughly, before any kind of viable replacement is even thinkable.
> the creators cannot recoup their costs, and this content simply won't be made.
Guess what, "content" was made for thousands of years before anyone had any notion of copyright. Creative people will continue to create.
> you cannot block a river, sunlight, a view, a storm drain, etc. even though they're on your property.
The "content industry" as we know it is quite like the air merchant described in PG's essay (http://www.paulgraham.com/property.html). DRM is quite like someone blocking off the sun and then forcing you to buy back the light. Bits are copyable at zero cost; the "air merchants" should be forced to simply suck it up, instead of being allowed to tie everyone's hands in a vain attempt to make water stop being wet.
9 comments
[ 4.2 ms ] story [ 25.2 ms ] threadI do really look forward to a distribution system that will benefit content creators and be convenient and fair to consumers. I just don't know what it looks like. It's an excellent opportunity for someone with an idea, though.
Ownership isn't just a matter of objects and revenue. It is control of information.
It's easy to criticize the content industry for their abusive practices and outdated business model, and point to something like the direct sales approach, which has had encouraging successes in books and music. But it's wholly unproven on the budgetary scale of, say, Game of Thrones, Lost, or The Avengers. And if content is distributed freely (through lending or otherwise), then it may be that the creators cannot recoup their costs, and this content simply won't be made.
It's possible that a Kickstarter-like model will emerge, but that's far from guaranteed, and I observe that Kickstarter projects themselves operate on a "scarcity emulator." For example, projects often provide artificially exclusive digital content at certain funding levels.
It may come down to a conscious choice to accept some limitations on our personal digital property rights in order to enable something we can all enjoy. We make that same tradeoff in the meat world all the time: you cannot block a river, sunlight, a view, a storm drain, etc. even though they're on your property. I would prefer limiting my property rights to that content over that content disappearing altogether.
Lastly, pirates are no allies of personal property rights. Pirates distribute unambiguously stolen content (for example, the X-Men Origins workprint) just as readily as merely copyrighted content.
Some things simply have to die, and the earth where they stood salted thoroughly, before any kind of viable replacement is even thinkable.
> the creators cannot recoup their costs, and this content simply won't be made.
Guess what, "content" was made for thousands of years before anyone had any notion of copyright. Creative people will continue to create.
> you cannot block a river, sunlight, a view, a storm drain, etc. even though they're on your property.
The "content industry" as we know it is quite like the air merchant described in PG's essay (http://www.paulgraham.com/property.html). DRM is quite like someone blocking off the sun and then forcing you to buy back the light. Bits are copyable at zero cost; the "air merchants" should be forced to simply suck it up, instead of being allowed to tie everyone's hands in a vain attempt to make water stop being wet.