Paying For Content In The Future

Kyobu writes: "Ars linked to Put a Dime in the Heavenly Jukebox, a proposal for making information free as in speech without preventing producers from receiving money, by charging ISPs based on the number of tagged files they transferred, and then transferring the charge to users in the aggregate. Although maybe not perfect, it's a pretty interesting idea, and well-argued." There's several really good points in here, and while it probably isn't going to say anything you haven't thought of (and in many cases, rejected long ago as impractical), it's worth your time. Something is going to have to change -- the question is, will it be better or worse.

Comments

Change is good.

[scott1853]

Content providers need to get over themselves and wipe the dollar signs from their eyes.

For the most part, the content providers need to stop thinking of getting rich from simply starting any ol' website. It's a real shame, because I've seen some pretty good sites come and go because they've decided that they need some VC funding and tried to become millionaires from pretty basic ideas.

Now, it does cost money to run a website. But if it's going to be treated like a business, standard practices should be followed. For one, don't assume starting a website today is going to give you profit tomorrow. Another, don't assume that somebody is going to pay you for nothing. For example, starting a company in January and trying to sell it by July. Starting a company is a long-term prospect.

Things are getting weeded out right now. It's not just the companies with bad ideas. It's the companies being run by greedy little pricks only out to make a quick buck for themselves. They're the ones that only want to run the company for the sake of saying that they run a company. Those types are not needed.

Companies also need to stop jumping at VC funding. Starting a company is long-term. Don't expect to start off at full speed.

Why do we subsidize these people?

[abe ferlman]

The printing press put scribes out of work.

Trains and Automobiles put Pony Express out of business. Why do we worry about this?

Technology is eliminating the middleman, not the musician. If musicians don't get paid, they won't make good music. The market will solve the problem on its own if we let it work rather than trying to find a way to make the square peg solutions forced on us by old technologies fit into the the round hole of post-internet intellectual property.

Bryguy

Re:Nah, content on the web is doomed

[Masem]

I wouldn't say that content on the web is doomed. But high quality delivery of content is doomed -- I'm talking here about your 192kb encoded MP3s, full decrypted DVD files, and so forth, the types of quality that you can easily match with a physical product. The problem with high-quality is in terms of both size and inability to protect the copyright despite technology and legislative barriers. If you were planning on putting something up on the web that was high-quality and expected to make money off of it in addition to a physical medium of the same or better quality, you've lost money in the end.

What those that create the content should realize that most people on the web would like to sample products and test them before purchasing the better physical product. If a music publisher were to give away *free* 96kbyte-encoded mp3s (which IMO are close to FM radio quality) on the web, hoping to entice those that listen to them to buy the full album, they'll have a better chance than if they offered the same selections as 192kbyte mp3s; the former file size would be much smaller so that those with dialups can easily get them, and the encoding would be good enough to be able to judge the quality of the music for a potental future purchase. (Of course, consider that the average napster-using college student is going to snarf everything and buy nothing, but without napster, it's pretty much the same situation, they won't have cash to be buying overpriced CDs).

Same with, say, television. I wouldn't mind having to watch any broadcasted episode of (for example) Farscape or the Invisible Man from Sci-Fi in crappy 240x180 window size, mono sound, streaming video assuming it was distributed free, since I have some interest in the shows but am not a devotee, but I *will* pay good money for quality (DVD) reruns of Babylon 5. Maybe there's a particular episode of Farscape that I also want in high quality format -- the free option will allow me to locate it, verify that I want it, then go off to the store and buy it.

You still have problems with those that get the physical medium then digitize it and distribute it, but that's a problem with anything digital. I'm sure that while rumors, software companies have been compensating for pirated software losses for years (some possibly using it to their advantage :) ), and the content providers of today (music, movies, television and press) need to realize that they can't avoid such losses... if instead they worked to making better relations with net users as opposed to trying to shun them, they actually might see their bottom lines increase.

Not Likely To Occur -Why Not & What To Do About It

[grantdh]

Being rather blunt, this has stuff-all chance of being implemented. Lets look at why not:

1. Unless it's 100% "fire & forget" then the ISP's will bitch & moan about setting it up (you should have heard the complaints about the absurd legislation the Australian government tried to enact enforcing site filtering at the ISP level :)

2. Unless it's 100% easy and centralised with automation, it benefits the big boys and not the "basement recorders."

3. Packaging the files together into a compressed archive will avoid the TAG searches (unless the ISP looks into the archives as it goes past - whups, there goes my gigbit router slowing back down to 10mbps - say, what's this privacy thing too? :)

4. Why should I pay for some lame-o who just slurps TAG'd files? It would require some form of "pay per use" - sort of a modified RADIUS system.

5. What about "self-promotion" - I produce a TAG'd file and stick it up somewhere. I then go to what-ever places I can and start d/l'ing the file. It costs me stuff-all (free if I can "borrow" other people's accounts, etc) but it drives up the amount I get paid. Of course, it will also drive my file up the "frequently downloaded" lists and may induce others to download it, snowballing things and leading to lots of juicy $$$ for me.

So that's just 5 things that we can easily find which will cause problems. If something relies too much on the "goodness in our hearts" then it's doomed. Most people may be cool, but there are greedy, opportunistic, lazy, I-want-it-all-for-free types who will always be there to rort the system.

Of course, a fully draconian solution could be implemented, but that would require hardware & software level controls, etc throughout the end-to-end system (from record to host to grab to play, etc). We've all seen what's happening with the whole "Copy Protection on Hard Disks" thing...

Thus we are left here with yet another payment system that doesn't quite cut it. Bummer. So, what can we do to balance the need of content vs staying alive/profit?

As someone who has a family to support and rather intensely rich desires (Ferrari, business class travel, geek-toys, etc etc etc) I am not about to take on the role of "unpaid producer of content" etc - the tragically-hip suffering artistic type is just tragic, not hip :)

So, here's the basic model for the content sites & similar things that I'm working on at present:

1. I've got a real job (plus some paying consultancy gigs on the side). This keeps my family alive, well and getting as many international holidays as we can (admittedly via economy class - not quite there yet :)

2. I'm consulting & advising friends/associates in their business ideas (both at conception and during their operation). I'm doing this on a (mostly) stock option basis (eg: swapping shares for cash). Many of these will go no-where, some will pay off. I'm careful to give my time mostly to the ones I think will pay off.

3. The content related sites I'm working on at present have the following in common:

A) Topical theme that's just starting to gain public awareness.

B) Good content producer(s) - who also have regular paying jobs :) Many of them are writing articles on behalf of their companies, etc.

C) Sponsors who are aware that they will likely not make any direct money out of this but will get their names "out there" in a beneficial manner (this public service supported by :)

D) Simple site designs and a dynamic database engine that's already been produced once so we're not reinventing the wheel. Looks good, loads fast, no crap "style over substance" crap.

E) All content is loaded dynamically - so long as the server is running, the tech crew are not required

F) Cheap (but good) hosting service - site is available, served quickly and (thanks to lots of clients) not too expensive to host.

G) Syndication of content around the planet with some $$$ coming in but mostly trading content.

As a result of all this, it's cheap to set up & runs on a shoe string, the sponsors don't have to shell out too much and the content producers are getting their names out in their industry (good advertising for them and/or their companies). Those of us on the core team are all shareholders (some more than others) and if the thing ever goes ballistic, we're happy. If it doesn't - who cares - it's paying for itself and we're getting a good reputation in our industries.

Just keep saying the magic mantra:

"If it worked for Slashdot - it can work for me!"

:)

PS Yes, I'm cheating by ensuring that everyone has a "real" income stream - I've gone out on the limb once and it's not my idea of fun. I'd rather take slightly longer to get it happening than do that again :)