On 2009-05-19, Chris Ahlstrom <ahlstromc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> After takin' a swig o' grog, cc belched out
> this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> TV ads have historically generated enough revenue. It's possible that
>> online ads could reach that potential, Google makes a profit from
>> online ads albeit in a different sense, but so far not many people are
>> making money from ads alone. It's nice to say that news/music/movies/
>> software/etc. should be provided for free, but it costs money to
>> create and supply that content in the first place.
>
> Not quite true. Create, yes. Supply? No. Software is just a copy away,
> and the network is already in place for other reasons, and paid for for
> those reasons.
...another thing to consider the fact that content is cheap, widely available
and plentiful. You don't even have to pirate it. You can slowly accumulate
stuff by just buying a little each month (kind of like cable) and before
too long you might have enough built up to make TV mostly redundant.
>
> The ease and cheapness of copying is what scares the crap out of commercial
> outfits, and that's why the Internet is slowly being layered with ever more
> controls.
>
--
...of course if you are forced against your will to use Windows in |||
the day time your bound to have a lot to vent about in the evening. / | \
|
|
