3 ms·
I think you may be assuming a distinction that isn't there. If (as the article seems to suggest) consumers can get high-value programs as well as low-value pro
by credo 17y ago
I think you may be assuming a distinction that isn't there.
If (as the article seems to suggest) consumers can get high-value programs as well as low-value programs for the same "free" price , the value of the program isn't going to matter too much from a revenue perspective (for the program producer).
That will result in the end of high-value programs that are expensive to produce. It won't be the first time that people make short-term decisions that hurt them in the long-term
- rabidsnail 17y agoIf there isn't a market for high-value programs that are expensive to produce, at a price greater than free, then those programs are by definition not high-value.
- credo 17y agoThat depends on your definition of "high-value" Hypothetically, an individual may consider a video to be high-value. Yet, if the video is pirated and if most people see the video without paying anything to the video-maker, the video-maker may stop making these videos. Now, from a monetary perspective, your comment may make sense. Because of piracy, the video-maker did not make a lot of money from the video. However, I would still consider the hypothetical video to be high-value.