That's a great point actually. Did they save it - they certainly helped to figure out a way to reinvigorate it. Because I grew up with 45's and actual 'albums' with covers and sleeves. I remember with CD's were introduced. I only got rid of the last of my cassette tapes about five years ago.
And I haven't purchased more than ten CD's over the last three years. I only use itunes and probably spend more money on music then I did when I had to buy CD's.
Perhaps what newspapers need to embrace is something like iTunes to come along and regulate the distribution and re-organization of their content via a system of monetizing their stories and publications.
Blockbuster is about to go bust because Netflix has not only seen the future but they're embracing it by getting into streaming instant downloads. Pretty soon, going to a video store will seen as old fashioned as picking up a needle and dropping it on the song you want to hear.
That's the world we live in now. And, when you have shareholders to answer to it doesn't matter if you like it or even agree with it, but you damn well better figure out how to keep making money off it.
Actually, if iTunes hadn't come along the damage to many recording and music labels would have been far more destructive than it currently is.
Sure, their industry is not what it used to be but you can't prevent change. You can either work to control it's path or let someone else do it. And, that someone else may not have your bottom line included in their business model.
It would require all of the major news outlets, NY Times, LA Times, Washington Post, Miami Herald, SF, Boston, etc, etc, etc....to all agree to charge and possible even share revenue for shared stories.
They should offer subscriptions on iTunes and give teasers to stories with the remainder needing to be purchased. Allow a reader to see all the front pages for free (as one would in a coffee shop display) but to read on requires a log in. But make it a simple log in, via paypal (or whatever the newest quickest online pay method currently is, or will be). But it better be fast and easy because that’s how we want our news now. And, allow all levels of membership from a per story membership to a regular subscriber.
Of course this would leave many people to seek out news from other lesser-known sites for free. But one cannot republish an original news story without permission and they would have to go after ruthlessly anyone who did. They would have to band together for control and if they all did it at once it would probably work. It wouldn’t be like the ‘old’ days where if you wanted the news you had to buy a paper, but we don’t live in that world anymore. The news has always changed hourly, even by the minute, and we live in a world where you never need to go without those updates.
And, if they truly control the way it is accessed together they can own it once again.
But, they won't do it. Because it would require too many competitors to join forces for a very long time to reach a very long-term goal. And it would pretty much have to be all of the big ones or it would not work. Because if anyone one of the big newspapers bowed out then the rest would suffer even more.
They're also admitting that if they do this then their print versions are all but antiquated. And, perhaps that's not something they're willing to admit yet. But they better hurry up. They need to catch up to what the next generation of readers already knows. If you want the news now the best place to find it is online. And, if the only way to get really good news is to pay for it then most will. Not all, but many will. And, in ten years there will be entirely new models of online distribution anyway so might as well get up to speed now and keep that brand alive.
And the owner of the copyright is the one who gave them the camera to make it with. The producers who then sell it to the studios.
Chimps never own the copyright, regardless of whether the 'chimp' in question is literal or figurative.
But, if the chimp wonders into the woods, finds a camera, gathers the crew and cast and then makes the movie and walks away...I suppose it would be up for grabs. Or at least until that chimp logged onto their YouTube account, saw the video being uploaded and sued for a piece of the, er, well...banana pie!
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by mict1111.
iTunes saved the music industry....
That's a great point actually. Did they save it - they certainly helped to figure out a way to reinvigorate it. Because I grew up with 45's and actual 'albums' with covers and sleeves. I remember with CD's were introduced. I only got rid of the last of my cassette tapes about five years ago.
And I haven't purchased more than ten CD's over the last three years. I only use itunes and probably spend more money on music then I did when I had to buy CD's.
Perhaps what newspapers need to embrace is something like iTunes to come along and regulate the distribution and re-organization of their content via a system of monetizing their stories and publications.
Blockbuster is about to go bust because Netflix has not only seen the future but they're embracing it by getting into streaming instant downloads. Pretty soon, going to a video store will seen as old fashioned as picking up a needle and dropping it on the song you want to hear.
That's the world we live in now. And, when you have shareholders to answer to it doesn't matter if you like it or even agree with it, but you damn well better figure out how to keep making money off it.
Re: So by the same token...
Actually, if iTunes hadn't come along the damage to many recording and music labels would have been far more destructive than it currently is.
Sure, their industry is not what it used to be but you can't prevent change. You can either work to control it's path or let someone else do it. And, that someone else may not have your bottom line included in their business model.
There is a way to monetize online news
It would require all of the major news outlets, NY Times, LA Times, Washington Post, Miami Herald, SF, Boston, etc, etc, etc....to all agree to charge and possible even share revenue for shared stories.
They should offer subscriptions on iTunes and give teasers to stories with the remainder needing to be purchased. Allow a reader to see all the front pages for free (as one would in a coffee shop display) but to read on requires a log in. But make it a simple log in, via paypal (or whatever the newest quickest online pay method currently is, or will be). But it better be fast and easy because that’s how we want our news now. And, allow all levels of membership from a per story membership to a regular subscriber.
Of course this would leave many people to seek out news from other lesser-known sites for free. But one cannot republish an original news story without permission and they would have to go after ruthlessly anyone who did. They would have to band together for control and if they all did it at once it would probably work. It wouldn’t be like the ‘old’ days where if you wanted the news you had to buy a paper, but we don’t live in that world anymore. The news has always changed hourly, even by the minute, and we live in a world where you never need to go without those updates.
And, if they truly control the way it is accessed together they can own it once again.
But, they won't do it. Because it would require too many competitors to join forces for a very long time to reach a very long-term goal. And it would pretty much have to be all of the big ones or it would not work. Because if anyone one of the big newspapers bowed out then the rest would suffer even more.
They're also admitting that if they do this then their print versions are all but antiquated. And, perhaps that's not something they're willing to admit yet. But they better hurry up. They need to catch up to what the next generation of readers already knows. If you want the news now the best place to find it is online. And, if the only way to get really good news is to pay for it then most will. Not all, but many will. And, in ten years there will be entirely new models of online distribution anyway so might as well get up to speed now and keep that brand alive.
chimps make movies in hollywood all the time....
And the owner of the copyright is the one who gave them the camera to make it with. The producers who then sell it to the studios.
Chimps never own the copyright, regardless of whether the 'chimp' in question is literal or figurative.
But, if the chimp wonders into the woods, finds a camera, gathers the crew and cast and then makes the movie and walks away...I suppose it would be up for grabs. Or at least until that chimp logged onto their YouTube account, saw the video being uploaded and sued for a piece of the, er, well...banana pie!