At 03:32 PM -0600 11/03/2001, Jim Davidson wrote: ... >Suppose I have content that I seek to exclude from public scrutiny >until I am paid for it? Encryption helps me in this area, big time, if >I want to store it where nobody else can see it, even if they hack my >system.
Of course. What he is/was saying is that if you eventually wish to show it to humans, you MUST decrypt it near them. Once you do this, there always seems to be someone willing to take the time to snag an unencrypted version. One is all it takes. I'll address the other points below. > >So, how do I get paid? If I'm a stupid mainstream media jerk, or >dependent on their industry, in all likelihood, I don't. Which, by and >large, I don't see as a downside. No argument from me on this one! I was one of the first to call "The Industry Standard" downfall & those like it evolution in action. :^) All those phone-book-sized magazines, and they never mentioned e-gold (after repeated contact from me!)? Needless to say, I wasn't exactly shocked upon their demise... >Suppose, though, just for a moment, that I'm a highly talented >singer-songwriter-musician with a following. We'll touch on how I ... >released. My fans get what they want, each receiving a password to >obtain the product from a web server, or each receiving the product >itself via e-mail or what have you. I get what I want, which is to be >paid for my content. This is fine, IF fans get instant gratification (fans want THAT, trust me). Scott McCloud covered many of these issues quite well, so I'll re- post the links to his informative cartoon on the subject here. http://www.scottmccloud.com/comics/icst/icst-5/icst-5.html http://www.scottmccloud.com/comics/icst/icst-6/icst-6.html The problem of becoming well-known in the first place has never been easy for artists. IMO instant gratification for customers becomes the problem with your analysis (they'll always want what they paid for ASAP). ... >Now, what about copying? Copying becomes irrelevant. I don't release >any copies until I've been paid what I judge to be a fair price. If I don't >get enough subscribers, I have my choice: I don't release, and continue >to wait for subscriptions to come in, or I release at a lower return for >this product, in the expectation that more fans will be generated as a >result of more of my product being available to interested users. ... You seem to assume here that once you release you'll never get paid again. While that's true with some users, a tipjar model supposes that most of us will pay a little for things we really like, even if we could swipe it for free with very little effort. I don't like the subscription model as well as the tipjar model, for a number of reasons. The main one, for me, is that money is a form of communication -- a vote. Consumers like me wish to fine- tune what we see and who gets paid for it. IMO, Salon.com has some interesting and excellent writers. They've also employed a few people they should fire. If I buy a subscription, I'm unable to let the marketplace speak to them as well as it should. Same with the Miami Herald. I've gone to the Dave Barry section there -- now http://www.miami.com/herald/special/features/barry/ weekly for years before I'd ever heard about e-gold. I'm sure many others have, too, but the only way of paying Dave (unless looking at ads counts) is buying a paper that syndicates him. Weird. JMR PS - today's column is especially funny! http://www.miami.com/herald/special/features/barry/2001/docs/nov04.htm --- You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: archive@jab.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Did you know that e-metal is a wonderful holiday gift? Avoid the hassle this year!
