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...
- Antigua Says It Will Certainly, Absolutely, Definitely Use WTO Permission To Ignore US Copyright And Set Up A Pirate Site, Maybe
- Appeals Court Dumps Infringement Lawsuit Against EA After Plaintiff Fails To Produce Evidence
- Prince Estate Sues Tidal, The Streaming Service That's Kind To Artists, For Copyright Infringement
- Jayme Gordon Guilty On All 4 Counts Of Wire Fraud In Scheme To Sue Dreamworks For Copyright Infringement
- Convicted Felon Ask Google To Delist Multiple Government Websites Because His Name Is Protected By 'Common Law Trademark'