Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Viacom Nudges Some Premium Content Online, For Free

Posted by timothy on from the another-detention-for-mr-stewart dept.

amplt1337 writes "Debates about the profitability of 'free' continue to rage, but at least one major media conglomerate — Viacom — is pushing forward with releasing paid-for content for free on the Internet. Of course, the prospect of free and easy full-length Daily Show episodes has caused some tension with cable providers, who pay a hefty premium for a heretofore-exclusive right to distribute the conglom's content (there are obvious parallels with the conflict between labels and musicians). What strikes me as really interesting is that even an old, entrenched company like Viacom has enough vision to see the opportunity for increased profits through free distribution — provided they can control that distribution (see their YouTube lawsuit) and have discretion over just how free they go. Of course, the NYT itself has had its own experience with expanding access to previously fee-based content ..."

6 of 77 comments (clear)

  1. Given the YouTube lawsuit... by TheRedSeven · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...what they're essentially saying with that lawsuit is that they want their content available for free, but they want to be the ones handing it out.

    This makes sense. If I'm going to give away a resource for free, I want to be the one (and the only one!) who makes money off it. If that means I have to restrict who/where/when this free content can be distributed, so be it.

    Trouble is, trying to give something away for free and then restrict where and how that something is used, doesn't quite work. They're not losing any money off the sale of that product.

    ...So how can they sue YouTube for damages when they're planning on giving it away free anyway?

    1. Re:Given the YouTube lawsuit... by pak9rabid · · Score: 5, Insightful

      ...So how can they sue YouTube for damages when they're planning on giving it away free anyway? Could the damages not be lost advertising revenue?
    2. Re:Given the YouTube lawsuit... by twistedcain · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I have a website filled with thousands of pages of my original content. I charge nothing for people to view my content. Next to my content I have advertising, which more than pays for the time and trouble I put into creating my content. The idea of someone taking and sharing my content (whether or not they give it away for free) could be so damaging that I might no longer be able to create free, original content.

  2. As long as they are going to stick with DRM by poeidon1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    the *free* is not going to lure me.

    --
    They called me mad, and I called them mad, and damn them, they outvoted me. -Nathaniel Lee
    1. Re:As long as they are going to stick with DRM by p0tat03 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why not? The big problem with DRM is that I don't get to put the content that *I paid money for* on devices that I want, or put it into any format I please. Since I didn't pay for it, who cares? If they want to restrict me to viewing through their website, sure, whatever. It's not like I paid for it, right?

  3. Re:Its own reward by bigstrat2003 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What the hell does any of that have to do with copyright? Copyright is a way of legally enforcing the traditional "you want it, you pay for it" means of exchange for a good which is easily obtained against the wishes of the seller. If I wish to make my scribble drawing only available to someone who has paid me for it (or bought a copy of said scribble drawing from a previous owner), that's my right. Copyright is a way for me to protect that right, it has nothing whatsoever to do with the cost of copying/distributing works. In fact, the cheaper it is to copy, the MORE necessary it is to have legal protection of the creator's rights.

    --
    "16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard