About the money side of the content
On the post about the monetary essence of the “new media”, “new economy”, “new world”, I was prompted to listen to the free-paid Nine Inch Nails album “Ghosts I – IV” .
What do programmers of FLOSS pay bills for? At whose expense do the musicians eat, whose work is popular, but only in the open spaces of torrent trackers? Who pays for hosting a large site whose users don’t visit it without AdBlock 'a?
Answers to this question either go to the “old” (conditional, but you understand what I mean) concepts of copyright and piracy, or to blissfully ignoring real-world problems ( Linux is written by enthusiasts, let musicians look for “real” work, Sites should not generate income at all).
')
Unfortunately, the only correct enough position (as for me, of course) is the position - what is sold cannot be sold, what is given can be given .
WTF?
Ok, let me explain.
Imagine a "perfect" economy - there is no money, no property, each according to his needs, from each according to his ability. If there is any higher intelligence that separates everyone, how much is necessary, we get utopian communism.
If there is no such reason, how to ensure society from self-destruction? That's right, to determine the "price" of scarce goods and services. Oil cannot be free; can not be free property; after all, there can be no free bread - essentially any physical goods.
Can not be free professional services. Lawyers. Doctors. Locksmith Prostitutes, after all. Because if they are free, the resource of the person providing services will be quickly exhausted.
Why can not there be free information? Er ... Any information from the separation between many people not only does not decrease, but usually also becomes significant - so why not?
Ok, back to the question, what are the creators of this very “free” information - books, music, articles, websites, films, programs, games?
Two paragraphs about products and services are not just like that here - I suggest that the creators of information / content should concentrate on the physical side of the content and the obviously paid services .
The book has an additional cost to the cost of its electronic copy. A collection DVD has an extra cost to its rip cost. The Rock Band Boxing for $ 120 with all the peripherals has a significant additional cost to the value of his image.
Concentrating on high-quality physical content, the content producer can make a higher profit on his research - most of the profits from the aforementioned Ghosts I – IV album came from the ultra-collectible version for three hundred bucks, with several art books, additional prints, autograph Reznor , vinyl copy etc etc.
Books are issued electronically - for free, and in paper - for money. Movies go to cinemas (viewing at a cinema has an additional cost compared to watching on a monitor or even an HDTV-TV), sold in collection editions and creating merchandise. Already, more and more games are being done with a focus on additional peripherals ( Guitar Hero and the like, Wii Fit , and so on), which have an additional cost compared to the same actions on the keyboard / gamepad (sometimes significant).
"Radically" the free site Craigslist , one of the most popular on the Internet, brings quite a lot of money to its creator. The only paid site service is the placement of ads in real estate - for real estate is enough monetary area of human activity, so that everything associated with it costs money.
On LinkedIn, money is paid by headhunters and employers, for the search for employees is a sufficient monetary area of human activity, so that everything associated with it costs money.
And so on and so forth.
There are certain markets in which everything costs money. It is by working in the infrastructure of such markets that the creator of free content can get its share. The Open Source team takes money to install / configure / customize their product for a large corporation. The owner of a startup provides site services (whatever they may be) for money to corporate users. A large video hosting platform is paid for adult content. And soooo next.
Free information greatly expand your market. Wikipedia is more popular than Britons, Craigslist is more popular than any other site of services, Firefox downloads more users than Internet Explorer, and so on. Nevertheless, even freely distributing your content, you can earn quite well on this. I do not believe that paid content has a lot to live. Twenty years — perhaps fifty — definitely not. There are many fans of FLOSS on Habré, and I think you will support me in this thesis.
What do programmers of FLOSS pay bills for? At whose expense do the musicians eat, whose work is popular, but only in the open spaces of torrent trackers? Who pays for hosting a large site whose users don’t visit it without AdBlock 'a?
Answers to this question either go to the “old” (conditional, but you understand what I mean) concepts of copyright and piracy, or to blissfully ignoring real-world problems ( Linux is written by enthusiasts, let musicians look for “real” work, Sites should not generate income at all).
')
Unfortunately, the only correct enough position (as for me, of course) is the position - what is sold cannot be sold, what is given can be given .
WTF?
Ok, let me explain.
Imagine a "perfect" economy - there is no money, no property, each according to his needs, from each according to his ability. If there is any higher intelligence that separates everyone, how much is necessary, we get utopian communism.
If there is no such reason, how to ensure society from self-destruction? That's right, to determine the "price" of scarce goods and services. Oil cannot be free; can not be free property; after all, there can be no free bread - essentially any physical goods.
Can not be free professional services. Lawyers. Doctors. Locksmith Prostitutes, after all. Because if they are free, the resource of the person providing services will be quickly exhausted.
Why can not there be free information? Er ... Any information from the separation between many people not only does not decrease, but usually also becomes significant - so why not?
Ok, back to the question, what are the creators of this very “free” information - books, music, articles, websites, films, programs, games?
Two paragraphs about products and services are not just like that here - I suggest that the creators of information / content should concentrate on the physical side of the content and the obviously paid services .
Physical content
The book has an additional cost to the cost of its electronic copy. A collection DVD has an extra cost to its rip cost. The Rock Band Boxing for $ 120 with all the peripherals has a significant additional cost to the value of his image.
Concentrating on high-quality physical content, the content producer can make a higher profit on his research - most of the profits from the aforementioned Ghosts I – IV album came from the ultra-collectible version for three hundred bucks, with several art books, additional prints, autograph Reznor , vinyl copy etc etc.
Books are issued electronically - for free, and in paper - for money. Movies go to cinemas (viewing at a cinema has an additional cost compared to watching on a monitor or even an HDTV-TV), sold in collection editions and creating merchandise. Already, more and more games are being done with a focus on additional peripherals ( Guitar Hero and the like, Wii Fit , and so on), which have an additional cost compared to the same actions on the keyboard / gamepad (sometimes significant).
Obviously paid services
"Radically" the free site Craigslist , one of the most popular on the Internet, brings quite a lot of money to its creator. The only paid site service is the placement of ads in real estate - for real estate is enough monetary area of human activity, so that everything associated with it costs money.
On LinkedIn, money is paid by headhunters and employers, for the search for employees is a sufficient monetary area of human activity, so that everything associated with it costs money.
And so on and so forth.
There are certain markets in which everything costs money. It is by working in the infrastructure of such markets that the creator of free content can get its share. The Open Source team takes money to install / configure / customize their product for a large corporation. The owner of a startup provides site services (whatever they may be) for money to corporate users. A large video hosting platform is paid for adult content. And soooo next.
findings
Free information greatly expand your market. Wikipedia is more popular than Britons, Craigslist is more popular than any other site of services, Firefox downloads more users than Internet Explorer, and so on. Nevertheless, even freely distributing your content, you can earn quite well on this. I do not believe that paid content has a lot to live. Twenty years — perhaps fifty — definitely not. There are many fans of FLOSS on Habré, and I think you will support me in this thesis.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/28214/
All Articles