3 ms·
> but it is removing some potential revenue Dozens of studies about music have proven this theory false. In fact music “piracy” likely has increased their reve
by mehrdada 8y ago
> but it is removing some potential revenue
Dozens of studies about music have proven this theory false. In fact music “piracy” likely has increased their revenue because they spread music. Intuitively you can see why labels have gave in to free as supported YouTube models as opposed to locking them down; they wouldn’t have done this had CD sale revenue was higher, but in aggregate having people’s attention is worth more. Similarly, I can for sure let you know that I would not pay for WSJ if I couldn’t read their articles under any capacity. For me not to be able to read it just decreases their network and thus their value in other ways. And now that I’m more familiar with them I might pay one day.
- mc32 8y agoYT, unless you subscribe, shows ads. News sites which let you browse unimpeded show ads --but have those ads blocked by many. So, when they try to make a quid pro quo bargain (ads for content) people often don't like complying with their end of the bargain. Music has evolved into paid services or ad supported services. News content so far has failed with the ad supported model and unless they create some cartel (a spotify for news, let's say) they have little alternative beside the direct subscription model.