Comments on: Building the Tools to Legalize P2P Video-Sharing http://gigaom.com/video/building-the-tools-to-legalize-p2p-video-sharing/ Sat, 26 May 2012 06:36:48 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.com/ By: Payment By P2P? | Fraz Us ! http://gigaom.com/video/building-the-tools-to-legalize-p2p-video-sharing/#comment-471858 Sun, 25 Apr 2010 19:42:05 +0000 http://newteevee.com/?p=24498#comment-471858 [...] (subscription required) that half a dozen schools have signed on for field tests. The Isle of Man proposed a similar licensing scheme in early 2009, and Noank Media has been building tools to legalize music and video sharing in P2P [...]

]]> By: Can P2P Be Made to Pay? - A Collection of Latest Happening in Technology Field http://gigaom.com/video/building-the-tools-to-legalize-p2p-video-sharing/#comment-471857 Fri, 23 Apr 2010 19:53:38 +0000 http://newteevee.com/?p=24498#comment-471857 [...] (subscription required) that half a dozen schools have signed on for field tests. The Isle of Man proposed a similar licensing scheme in early 2009, and Noank Media has been building tools to legalize music and video sharing in P2P [...]

]]> By: Can P2P Be Made to Pay? | Gadget Public Informations http://gigaom.com/video/building-the-tools-to-legalize-p2p-video-sharing/#comment-471856 Fri, 23 Apr 2010 16:05:35 +0000 http://newteevee.com/?p=24498#comment-471856 [...] (subscription required) that half a dozen schools have signed on for field tests. The Isle of Man proposed a similar licensing scheme in early 2009, and Noank Media has been building tools to legalize music and video sharing in P2P [...]

]]> By: Can P2P Be Made to Pay? http://gigaom.com/video/building-the-tools-to-legalize-p2p-video-sharing/#comment-471855 Fri, 23 Apr 2010 16:00:15 +0000 http://newteevee.com/?p=24498#comment-471855 [...] (subscription required) that half a dozen schools have signed on for field tests. The Isle of Man proposed a similar licensing scheme in early 2009, and Noank Media has been building tools to legalize music and video sharing in P2P [...]

]]> By: How To Save The Pirate Bay http://gigaom.com/video/building-the-tools-to-legalize-p2p-video-sharing/#comment-471854 Sun, 05 Jul 2009 07:02:30 +0000 http://newteevee.com/?p=24498#comment-471854 [...] flat-rate licensing. The music industry is moving towards legal file-sharing platforms, with the first tests starting this year for some U.S. college students and on the Isle of Man. [...]

]]> By: Scott Jensen http://gigaom.com/video/building-the-tools-to-legalize-p2p-video-sharing/#comment-471853 Wed, 13 May 2009 15:41:26 +0000 http://newteevee.com/?p=24498#comment-471853 Devon, the sponsorship business model was how early television supported itself. It will do just fine.

]]> By: Devon Copley http://gigaom.com/video/building-the-tools-to-legalize-p2p-video-sharing/#comment-471852 Wed, 13 May 2009 05:06:45 +0000 http://newteevee.com/?p=24498#comment-471852 Scott, I wish you luck with your new endeavor. Let a thousand flowers bloom! The sponsorship model you mention was discussed widely at the Digital Hollywood conference and there was general agreement that it does show promise at least for certain types of content — those types which deliver the demographics advertisers crave. I remain skeptical on two main points: one, that sponsorships will generate sufficient revenue to cover production, and two, that there are enough sponsors to support more than a fraction of the universe of content. But I suppose we’ll see.

Rekrul: agreed, the price is crucial. Publishers would have to abandon what I think are frankly unrealistic expectations of retail pricing — $.99/track (or $15 per kindle download) isn’t going to fly. And as you suggest, much depends on which classes of content would participate. But how much do you pay for cable now? How much did you spend on CD’s 15 years ago (if you’re old enough to remember the pre-P2P era for music)? Personally I think $5/mo for a music-only non-DRM service would be downright fantastic.

]]> By: Rekrul http://gigaom.com/video/building-the-tools-to-legalize-p2p-video-sharing/#comment-471851 Tue, 12 May 2009 21:06:04 +0000 http://newteevee.com/?p=24498#comment-471851 I’d consider $5 a month. However, it would not be $5 a month. It would be $5 for music, $10 for movies, $8 for TV shows, $10 for software, etc. And that’s just the starting price. When have prices ever NOT gone up? Before long, you’d be paying $50 a month for P2P downloading.

]]> By: Scott Jensen http://gigaom.com/video/building-the-tools-to-legalize-p2p-video-sharing/#comment-471850 Tue, 12 May 2009 17:13:36 +0000 http://newteevee.com/?p=24498#comment-471850 Devon, read up on the history of television. The commercial break was a later development. Sponsorships were the norm during TV’s self-described Golden Age. Firestone Theatre being an example. Shifting back to this form of advertising support will be easy. I’m about to become the chief marketing officer for a company that has already greenlighted four free-to-distribute “TV” shows which we’ll put up free on p2p networks. The shows will be entirely financed by the company as their official sponsor. All I believe it will take is a company like the one I’m about work for to show how it is done (again) and the copycats will follow.

As for your question: do we really want a world where everything is permeated with advertising? Yes, actually we do want it for that is the world we live in. No one drinks a can of “soda”. They drink Coke, Pepsi, RC Cola, A&W Rootbeer, etc. They don’t drive around cars that don’t have the automaker’s logos on them. In fact, nameless or generic-name products on the small and big screen jar people and hurt the suspension of disbelief.

]]> By: Devon Copley http://gigaom.com/video/building-the-tools-to-legalize-p2p-video-sharing/#comment-471849 Mon, 11 May 2009 13:31:37 +0000 http://newteevee.com/?p=24498#comment-471849 John D: clearly you’re right, the industry’s business model has failed. And Scott, it’s hard to disagree that from a consumer’s perspective, free is always better than paid, which is why the business model for content has collapsed. The blanket licensing option starts from the presumption that the retail model has failed. We also presume that creators of content ought to get paid. Those who disagree with this second presumption will undoubtedly disapprove of our model.

Scott, I checked out your paper, and if I’m not mistaken it proposes advertising as the solution. It’s true that ads, sponsorships, product placements and the like can provide some revenue. But it’s becoming clear that this revenue stream is so meager it doesn’t even support the operations of a distributor — see Spiralfrog, Pandora — much less provide money for creators. And from an experience perspective, do we really want a world where everything is permeated with advertising? Scott, I agree with a lot of the forecasts in your paper, but when you talk about how fiction writers will have to compensate for the loss of retail sales revenue by using product placement in their novels, well, I suspect a lot of fiction readers will agree with me that they don’t want to live in that world.

To my mind, it comes down to a question of what sort of society we want. Do we want to live in a world where creators of content can’t make money from what they create? We don’t have to. That’s what the blanket licensing option is about.

]]>