3 ms·
Even if the acceptable price consumers are willing to pay for content approaches zero, that hardly means the value of content approaches zero. To the contrary,
by andreyf 16y ago
Even if the acceptable price consumers are willing to pay for content approaches zero, that hardly means the value of content approaches zero. To the contrary, if you're able to search vast amounts of content for what is most interesting to you, the value you receive from that content increases with the size of the search space. It's a clear win for the audience.
But what about the content producers? Already, most "real book" authors don't publish to get rich from royalties, and derive most of their value in the form of personal and professional publicity they receive from their work. If the acquisition of such publicity shifts from big corporate publishing houses who have the business deals in place to get you on The Daily Show to something more democratic, authors benefit from an increasingly meritocratic system, as well.
- Nwallins 16y ago> ... that hardly means the value of content approaches zero. To the contrary, if you're able to search vast amounts of content for what is most interesting to you, the value you receive from that content increases ... The value of which Mr. Adams speaks is economic -- i.e. what is exchanged for the content: > And so, as our ability to search for media content improves, the economic value of that content will approach zero.
- weeksie 16y agoUh, according to that model there's still no actual payment. Most "Real Book" authors make money from royalties, those Daily Show appearances are PR in order to actually sell copies. Non-fiction authors can supplement their income with things like workshops and presentations . . . but fiction authors are pretty much screwed in that little scenario.