by Mike Masnick
Tue, Aug 26th 2008 6:01am
One of the problems we often run into whenever we write about economics involving "free" is that someone inevitably posts a comment saying something to the effect of "but if content creators can't make any money, they won't create content." The problem is in jumping to the conclusion that "free" to the user/reader/listener/watcher means that the content creator isn't getting paid. Nothing is further from the truth. In fact, most of the business models we talk about concerning embracing such "free" things points to ways that the content creators can make more money, while still allowing the consumption for free. Reader thepi points us to a blog post by author John Scalzi, who has long been a proponent of free e-books, where he explains that free to the reader doesn't mean unpaid to the author. It just means that the business model is slightly different; the money is coming from somewhere else other than the reader. For some, this may seem obvious -- but it's clearly a point of confusion that we run into frequently, so it's great that Scalzi is highlighting it.
If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...
- Man Who Used Facebook Live To Stream Birth Of Child Loses Bid To Sue All The News For Copyright Infringement
- Dangerous: Judge Says It Was 'Objectively Unreasonable' For Cox To Claim DMCA Safe Harbors
- Apple Wants To Stop You Fixing Your iPhone And iPad: Source Says It Will Testify Against 'Right To Repair' Legislation
- First Look At UK Piracy Alert System: Mostly Benign, Except ISPs Are Requesting Filesharing Software Be Removed By Clients
- Oracle Files Its Opening Brief As It Tries (Again) To Overturn Google's Fair Use Win On Java APIs