This version of the site is now archived. See the next iteration at v4.chriskrycho.com.
Topic: “intellectual property”

Bundling!

Published:

Comments:

Filed under: Posts

Topics: , , , , ,

"Why do we have to choose between print and digital?" asked Richard Curtis at Digital Book World last week, before tackling the topic of bundling – getting ebooks at reduced cost or even free when buying a physical copy of the book. Drawing an analogy from music purchases that have moved in the same direction, he suggests that publishers ought to be bundling, and then poses the query: When you purchase a print book you should be able to get the e-book for…

  1. the full combined retail prices of print and e-book editions
  2. an additional 50% of the retail price of the print edition
  3. an additional 25% of the retail price of the print edition
  4. $1.00 more than the retail price of the print edition
  5. free

He suggests that this proves to be something of a conundrum for decision-makers in the publishing industry. With respect, and while recognizing that it probably feels like a conundrum to the publishers, I think the answer is really quite simple. Publishers can dramatically increase their profits, and do it in a way that readers will love. (This is the part where you call me crazy. Up next is the part where I show you why I’m not.) Read on, intrepid explorer →

Published:

Comments:

Topics: , , , , ,

Mike Loukides hits most of the right notes (pun intended) over at O’Reilly Radar, even if his ending goes a little wide of the mark:

So the notion that creativity can be owned, and that any use of someone else’s ideas requires compensation, is nothing but an attempt to steal all of creativity. Whoever can pay their lawyers the most wins. Anyone smell pirates in the room? I am not willing to sacrifice this generation’s great artists on the altar of Hollywood. I’m not willing to have the next Bach, Beethoven, or Shakespeare post their work online, only to have it taken down because they haven’t paid off a bunch of executives who think they own creativity.

On pirates and piracy→

Published:

Comments:

Topics: , ,

Clay Shirky is a consistently solid thinker on media and policy. No surprise, then, that his thoughts on PIPA/SOPA (now dead, thankfully) and the approach of the old media conglomerates in general:

Traditional American media firms are implacably opposed to any increase in citizens’ ability to create, copy, save, alter, or share media on our own. They fought against cassette audio tapes, and photocopiers. They swore the VCR would destroy Hollywood. They tried to kill Tivo. They tried to kill MiniDisc. They tried to kill player pianos. They do this whenever a technology increases user freedom over media. Every time. Every single time.

Pick up the pitchforks: David Pogue underestimates Hollywood→

No Castle for you!

Published:

Comments:

Filed under: Posts

Topics: , , , , ,

Following up on yesterday’s thoughts on piracy: I ran across an example that perfectly illustrates the ways that the big content industries are shooting themselves in the foot when it comes to profit and piracy.

Jaimie and I are big fans of Castle; it’s the only ongoing television show we actually watch. I was reading some discussion on this week’s episode this morning, and discovered that while ABC puts the video up on the website for streaming (good move!), they limit access to people in the United States (horrible move!). Read on, intrepid explorer →

The problems with SOPA and PIPA

Published:

Comments:

Filed under: Posts

Topics: , , , ,

The following is adapted and expanded from some comments I left on Dr. Gene Veith’s post on Wikipedia going dark today.

Congress is considering two acts – the House’s Stop Online Piracy Act and the Senate’s Protect Intellectual Property Act (PIPA) – which have as their stated goals the elimination of online piracy. This is a notable goal, and one I can get behind. The problem is, these acts do far more than just stop online piracy. Read on, intrepid explorer →