See Tim O'Reilly's tweet about his business attempting to cosy-up to Amazon re Kindle.
I see even McDonalds is getting some of that remix action.
Jon, I think you're confusing ebooks with audio books. Not the same thing.
yes, my mistake. T2S on the brain.
Even in the newspaper industry there are rumblings about the use of the pay-wall. Shirky has pointed people at the following this very afternoon. How to charge for online content
On that other thread I've posted a link to a National Radio report regarding Flickr's Photographic Commons. I didn't mention Getty Images some time ago apparently reached a licensing deal with Flickr.
National Radio's This Way Up on Flickr Commons. So another bunch of creatives and another industy impacted.
Again the "boon or bane" question seems relevant.
Because the standard can be so much lower
take the example of the newspapers in the UK...does the pap sell because it's cheaper, or it's because that's what the people want/can be bothered to read? (Weekday prices Guardian is 80p, Times 90p, The Sun 30p)
Have also got some thoughts regarding if writing just got cheaper, aren't we pushing still more content into the tabloid end of the market.
The beauty of the e-book is that it costs stuff-all to write and deliver
Though I agree with idea of delivery costs being reduced, well more the risks of physcial distribution, I don't see how the cost of writing has been impacted.
e-books also in all likelihood dilute the share of royalties to the author, unless the author is also the person who performs the reading.
The consider all the recording & proofing type activities. Add in translation to another language for another world of complexity.
Finding someone with a suitable voice and skill in reading aloud could be quite a task.
The other danger is that there is a proliferation of red tape.
Iit struck me a few days ago for authors who have already signed a publishing deal, that wising-up by getting favourable terms for subsidiary rights isn't going to make much, or even a jot of difference.
If the back catalog contains your gold, then it's to your benefit to protect a regime that protects your means of deriving an income.
Andrew Dubber's comments regarding producing works specifically for the internet come to mind.
Format shifting seems to me fairly irrelevant if the work is already available in the format that consumer wants, which is why I'm not seeing the T2S applications as a big deal. Is the price elasticity of demand so sensitive to price and insensitive to quality that a T2S version of a work is considered a reasonable threat? (and I get that T2S minimizes cost)
Of course the big fear is that those works specifically for the internet are so easily distributed via the internet that the commercial value of those works are damaged
What does "the commercial value of those works are damaged" really mean? Does it mean impossible to derive an income, or impossible to earn a living, or is simply it that the income derived is less than the work might have been worth in the mythical good ol' days?
I located a shorter (10 min) recording of the Cory Doctorow lecture on Technology & Freedom and I think it effective in exploring some of the philosophy of restriction (it even talks about gambling, so particularly relevant to this thread.)
The longer (86 min) version of Cory's lecture is well worth taking in, particularly the tail end as the context broadens out.
should a nation re appropriate its perceived heritage or should they buy it?
What about Sir Edmund Hillary's house and the notion that the section might be worth more if torn down in a property developer's scheme? All of which probably means that Ed's family might suffer a larger windfall.
Who get's to make the call on where the line of cultural significance becomes sufficient and whether that valuation will hold true in the future? (Oh for a good soothsayer!)
Changing tack slightly, I wonder if Sir Edmund found it objectionable or disrespectful that people that he never meet are so accustomed to referring to him as “Sir Ed”, “Ed”, “old Ed”, or any variation thereupon.
It strikes me as a little back to front that we seemingly care & afford more protection to the products of a person’s imagination (in some particular forms), than how we deal or refer to a deceased person.