Well-said, Happ. Yes, this is an economics issue... economics is the exact reason copyright was invented... and any changes or revisions to copyright law will always be intended to maximize its economic potential, not to weaken it. After all, we are talking about things that people do not have to buy or use to survive, they are life-optional products. There is no logical reason to deny their creators the opportunity to profit, as long as the public has the choice to simply not buy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryT
Sorry, but I very seriously doubt that anybody is going to invest $200m in a "blockbuster" film and give it away free with adverts in it. The economics just don't make sense. It may work for a pop video.
|
True: Movie-makers spend millions on a movie, expecting it to make it back in box-office sales; the bigger the budget, the bigger the effort to get you to the theatre to see it. But as more people enjoy movies at home and stop going to the theatres, we can expect that movies will begin to drop in price as they cannot have their costs recouped in theatre sales... or that DVD prices will increase to make up the difference. The DVD ads will make up for the rest of the cost.
I agree, ad-subsidization is the future of mass-market e-book sales, either directly attached to the e-book, or displayed in the sales portals. Concerns about said ads being "obtrusive" are, I think, justified, but people have already demonstrated that they will put up with a lot for cheap and free content.
Think of the last DVD you bought that forced you to watch at least 1 preview or ad before allowing you to go to the main content... how many people take those DVDs back to the store, or publicly malign the sellers, because of it? And how many just watch the previews?
No, ads are rarely popular. Neither are flu shots. But they provide a service with very small down-sides, so they will always be with us.