On the need to pay for content
There has been a lot of talk lately about coming up withe new models of providing information, such that the consumers will "continue" to pay for content. Not so fast, says Paul Graham:
Publishers of all types, from news to music, are unhappy that consumers won't pay for content anymore. At least, that's how they see it. In fact consumers never really were paying for content, and publishers weren't really selling it either. If the content was what they were selling, why has the price of books or music or movies always depended mostly on the format? Why didn't better content cost more? . . . Economically, the print media are in the business of marking up paper.
But don't people pay for information? Only certain kinds of information:People will pay for information they think they can make money from. That's why they paid for those stock tip newsletters, and why companies pay now for Bloomberg terminals and Economist Intelligence Unit reports. But will people pay for information otherwise? History offers little encouragement.
[via Daily Dish]