by Mike Masnick
Tue, Oct 25th 2011 3:31pm
Kyle Clements, over at our new Step2 discussion platform, has presented a really interesting question for discussion. We often talk about the importance of using infinite goods to make scarce goods more valuable, but we're generally talking about content creators whose main output is those infinite goods. What does it mean when the reverse is true. Clements produces physical artwork -- one of a kind pieces that he sells. As he notes, he has no problem building scarcities, but he'd like to figure out what kinds of infinite goods he might be able to use to make those physical works more valuable. It's a really good question. He notes that he can allow Creative Commons licensed images of his artwork to circulate, but that doesn't seem like very much. I was reminded of the Significant Objects project that allowed some creative folks to sell random trinkets on eBay for much more money than they were worth (on paper) by creating compelling stories around them -- and wondered if something similar might be done with the artwork. But I'm curious what other ideas people have. Once again, since the discussion is best suited for that Step2 discussion, we'll turn off the comments here and direct you over there.
If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...
- If You're Going To Complain About Spotify Payments, At Least Understand A Little Economics First
- Without Greater Transparency And Meaningful Net Neutrality Rules, The Netflix Interconnection War Will Get Much, Much Uglier
- YouTube Has Paid $1 Billion To Copyright Holders Via ContentID; What Happened To Stories About It Destroying Content?
- What's So Bad About Making Money Off Fan Fiction?
- U2 Claims It's Working With Apple On A New Music Format That 'Can't Be Pirated'