I think that e-books are just as valuable as printed books, just in different ways, and see no reason for publishers to lower prices and hurt both their e-book business and their printed book business.
Some people are clamouring for e-books to be about a quarter of their current price, but does that mean four times as many people will buy the book? Not likely.
I think lowering prices would be a bad move on publishers' parts and, overall, a bad move for the publishing industry, as quality would decline as financial returns dwindled.
Please, read the bill and read the article. This bill is not about Brokeback Mountain and Britney Spears. It is not about making it illegal not to show US movies in our consulates and embassies around the world. The bill is intended to establish cultural libraries. The article mentions classic movies. Calm down. And as for the Congresswoman representing the interests of Hollywood, well, it is the area she was elected to represent. Or do the people that live and/or work in Hollywood deserve congressional representation? Even if they are responsible for considerable chunk of our GNP?
Google is not 'paying off' the big entertainment companies. They are engaged in a business deal that they hope will eventually lead to a profit. They are licensing the popular, copyrighted content to attract new users to youtube.
Currently, youtube features the little two minute clips of normal people doing stupid stuff. Google expects the quality of the user created content to get better and better, and to eventually launch Internet TV. So, as they sift through the million videos of girls dancing to 'My Humps' and guys getting hit in the nads, just so they can find the next "It's always sunny in Philadelphia", they need to attract their desired demographic. Hence, the licensed content. Lawsuits are not really the issue.
Also they are not worried about the smaller firms filing lawsuits, because youtube actually benefits the smaller, lesser known content providers. Youtube provides exposure for folks who might never get a shot. The same is not true for "Desperate Housewives," for example. ABC does not need youtube to promote their shows. However, having "Desperate Housewives" or "The Daily Show" helps draw users to youtube, even if it's just the ones that don't have DVRs and forgot to program their VCRs.
That's how I see it, anyway.
BestNetTech has not posted any stories submitted by Jonathan Ward.
E-book pricing is good
I think that e-books are just as valuable as printed books, just in different ways, and see no reason for publishers to lower prices and hurt both their e-book business and their printed book business.
Some people are clamouring for e-books to be about a quarter of their current price, but does that mean four times as many people will buy the book? Not likely.
I think lowering prices would be a bad move on publishers' parts and, overall, a bad move for the publishing industry, as quality would decline as financial returns dwindled.
Way to over-react everybody
Please, read the bill and read the article. This bill is not about Brokeback Mountain and Britney Spears. It is not about making it illegal not to show US movies in our consulates and embassies around the world. The bill is intended to establish cultural libraries. The article mentions classic movies. Calm down. And as for the Congresswoman representing the interests of Hollywood, well, it is the area she was elected to represent. Or do the people that live and/or work in Hollywood deserve congressional representation? Even if they are responsible for considerable chunk of our GNP?
Re:
Anonymous Coward wrote:
"I thought they said it was _not_ a licensing deal."
According to the article:
"Google calls these monies licensing fees, according to executives who've been involved in the discussions."
So I think my hypothesis still stands.
The article missed the point
Google is not 'paying off' the big entertainment companies. They are engaged in a business deal that they hope will eventually lead to a profit. They are licensing the popular, copyrighted content to attract new users to youtube.
Currently, youtube features the little two minute clips of normal people doing stupid stuff. Google expects the quality of the user created content to get better and better, and to eventually launch Internet TV. So, as they sift through the million videos of girls dancing to 'My Humps' and guys getting hit in the nads, just so they can find the next "It's always sunny in Philadelphia", they need to attract their desired demographic. Hence, the licensed content. Lawsuits are not really the issue.
Also they are not worried about the smaller firms filing lawsuits, because youtube actually benefits the smaller, lesser known content providers. Youtube provides exposure for folks who might never get a shot. The same is not true for "Desperate Housewives," for example. ABC does not need youtube to promote their shows. However, having "Desperate Housewives" or "The Daily Show" helps draw users to youtube, even if it's just the ones that don't have DVRs and forgot to program their VCRs.
That's how I see it, anyway.