3 ms·
No no, the exact opposite. If this bundle of content is so valuable, then someone can make a business out of buying it. Vice could go to WeBuyOldIntellectualA
by massysett 3y ago
No no, the exact opposite. If this bundle of content is so valuable, then someone can make a business out of buying it. Vice could go to WeBuyOldIntellectualAssets.com and get a flat price for it all, and that company would host it or do whatever with it.
The same thing happens with brands - someone bought the Montgomery Ward brand at a bankruptcy auction or something - and with store inventory: once the store goes bankrupt, they just sell the entire store contents, right down to the fixtures, to a liquidator who brings in the "Going out of business! Everything must go!" signs.
- Scoundreller 3y agoNot just brands, but software too. The primary software I support at my day job was acquired by a company that, based on their other assets, can be described as where software goes to die. We’re migrating away but they’ll squeeze out what they can from those that don’t/can’t/won’t. But they still have to provide continuous support, some amount of updates to keep customers functioning, and maybe even get some new customers as a “value” option (that’s barely functional). Happens to forums all the time (fuck you Internet Brands and Vertical Scope). 100000x easier to do all this with static web content.
- im3w1l 3y agoI think the issue with this solution is that the seller loses control over their branding (namely what ads to show) if they do this.
- ffsm8 3y agoFound the young'un :) That's too attractive to malware peddlers. It's not particularly widespread currently, mainly because most of the content has been centralized into the same big silos... But what you're envisioning here is just going to get abused by abusers
- bandrami 3y agoThis is how Saks Fifth Avenue is actually, when you peel back all of the onion, the honest-to-God 17th century Hudson's Bay Company