4 ms·

I've had similar thoughts, and my conclusion is that most copy-able assets should be copy-able. The real value is in discovery and curation, which may be sold a

I've had similar thoughts, and my conclusion is that most copy-able assets should be copy-able. The real value is in discovery and curation, which may be sold as a subscription. Many companies already realize this, and DRM requirements are set by 1 stockholder who pushes for it and nobody can give a good reason why it would hurt paying customers.

kgwxd 6y ago
The subscription model seems generally good for the consumer but terrible for the creators. As a customer, I really like the Bandcamp model. I can't directly speak for the creator side of things but I feel like that would get them a far better cut.
- genghizkhan 6y ago
  The issue is that if you have a model which is bad for consumers it doesn’t matter how awesome it is for creators. It won’t work out.
- arch-ninja 6y ago
  Never thought of it from the creators perspective. Thanks for giving me a new problem to solve during quarantine! I'm 100% certain there is an ideal system to manage every human problem, it's just a matter of investigation.
- Nasrudith 6y ago
  How is it terrible for creators exactly? I don't quite know what you mean. Streamers often complain about the "always on" nature but that seems more related to having to handle building engagement as well. Patreon is a popular enough that there are several clones for whatever content they exclude to help their image ranging from taboo porn to extremists. The payment stream seems peripheral to the deal they get. Creators get screwed in publication models as well. The best deal I can see in a "Netflix" style package is a bit tracky in having a maintainer cut and a time weighted service by the consumers under the logic that if 1 work is why you are there it deserves the share more than anything you don't consume while among N works each matters a bit less. More content grows the pie but it is fixdd share. Heavy users pay the same as light but that is because metering and surprise bills are too stressing and loses customers combined with a marginal real cost.
  - kgwxd 6y ago
    I ment subscription to service like Spotify or Netflix. Direct subscription to streamers is something I do often, but that doesn't work for music and movies.
- hvis 6y ago
  Why is it bad for the creators? Currently, I hardly ever buy ebooks (maybe like 1-2 per year), mostly because I hate DRM and the hassle that comes with stripping it off. A monthly 4$ subscription to a store where all books of the world are available would make the industry see a lot more of my money. Surely that would be good for the creators.
  - Noos 6y ago
    How on earth would any author make money from you paying $4 a month? Why don't we pay all computer programmers $10 an hour, that's pretty much the price equivalent of paying what you ask.
    - hvis 6y ago
      From economies of scale. The authors where I am the only reader won't make on writing alone either way.

kgwxd 6y ago

The subscription model seems generally good for the consumer but terrible for the creators. As a customer, I really like the Bandcamp model. I can't directly speak for the creator side of things but I feel like that would get them a far better cut.

genghizkhan 6y ago
The issue is that if you have a model which is bad for consumers it doesn’t matter how awesome it is for creators. It won’t work out.
arch-ninja 6y ago
Never thought of it from the creators perspective. Thanks for giving me a new problem to solve during quarantine! I'm 100% certain there is an ideal system to manage every human problem, it's just a matter of investigation.
Nasrudith 6y ago
How is it terrible for creators exactly? I don't quite know what you mean. Streamers often complain about the "always on" nature but that seems more related to having to handle building engagement as well. Patreon is a popular enough that there are several clones for whatever content they exclude to help their image ranging from taboo porn to extremists. The payment stream seems peripheral to the deal they get. Creators get screwed in publication models as well. The best deal I can see in a "Netflix" style package is a bit tracky in having a maintainer cut and a time weighted service by the consumers under the logic that if 1 work is why you are there it deserves the share more than anything you don't consume while among N works each matters a bit less. More content grows the pie but it is fixdd share. Heavy users pay the same as light but that is because metering and surprise bills are too stressing and loses customers combined with a marginal real cost.
- kgwxd 6y ago
  I ment subscription to service like Spotify or Netflix. Direct subscription to streamers is something I do often, but that doesn't work for music and movies.
hvis 6y ago
Why is it bad for the creators? Currently, I hardly ever buy ebooks (maybe like 1-2 per year), mostly because I hate DRM and the hassle that comes with stripping it off. A monthly 4$ subscription to a store where all books of the world are available would make the industry see a lot more of my money. Surely that would be good for the creators.
- Noos 6y ago
  How on earth would any author make money from you paying $4 a month? Why don't we pay all computer programmers $10 an hour, that's pretty much the price equivalent of paying what you ask.
  - hvis 6y ago
    From economies of scale. The authors where I am the only reader won't make on writing alone either way.