Report: Consumers Increasingly Paying for Online Content
Report: Consumers Increasingly Paying for Online Content
New York -- Consumers are increasingly paying to access online content, as
10 percent of all U.S. Internet users are expected to pony up this year,
according to a recent report from New York-based marketing research firm
eMarketer. The report indicates that 15.7 million U.S. consumers -- or 10
percent of the online population -- will purchase online content in 2002,
a number expected to rise to 21 million -- or 13 percent -- in 2003.
Individual consumers will pay $3.8 billion worldwide for online content in
2002 and organizations $44 billion, adding up to nearly $50 billion by the
end of this year. "The question of whether consumers are more willing to
pay for online content has become largely irrelevant," said eMarketer
senior analyst Ben Macklin. "The more appropriate question is whether
businesses are any longer willing to offer online content and services for
free. And the answer increasingly seems to be no."
http://www.emarketer.com/products/report.php?content_on
New York -- Consumers are increasingly paying to access online content, as
10 percent of all U.S. Internet users are expected to pony up this year,
according to a recent report from New York-based marketing research firm
eMarketer. The report indicates that 15.7 million U.S. consumers -- or 10
percent of the online population -- will purchase online content in 2002,
a number expected to rise to 21 million -- or 13 percent -- in 2003.
Individual consumers will pay $3.8 billion worldwide for online content in
2002 and organizations $44 billion, adding up to nearly $50 billion by the
end of this year. "The question of whether consumers are more willing to
pay for online content has become largely irrelevant," said eMarketer
senior analyst Ben Macklin. "The more appropriate question is whether
businesses are any longer willing to offer online content and services for
free. And the answer increasingly seems to be no."
http://www.emarketer.com/products/report.php?content_on
monetizing net.art ... don't sell it ... rent it!
Over the past couple of years I have followed several threads about generat=
ing revenue from net.art. I would like to offer my ideas for your consider=
ation. I have a decent business background and, more importantly, a love a=
nd respect for the net.art community.
1) Positioning Net.Art in the Marketplace
The first thing to keep in mind is that 99% of people CANNOT afford to buy =
your work! And of the 1% that can afford it ... 99% of them DON"T GET IT! =
(note: this is a good thing. most people understand that they cannot affor=
d to buy quality artwork ... but they do want to see it!!!)
STOP TRYING TO SELL YOUR WORK
Instead of selling it ... RENT IT!
Rent access to your premier werks for 30 days for a few bucks. Better yet,=
partner with two or three of your peers, build a common splash page and al=
low someone to rent access to your werks for $4.99 for 30 days. DRM and Mi=
cropayment services can easily handle/manage the transactions.
I have a ton of ideas for this approach. Let me know what you guys think.
david goldschmidt
ing revenue from net.art. I would like to offer my ideas for your consider=
ation. I have a decent business background and, more importantly, a love a=
nd respect for the net.art community.
1) Positioning Net.Art in the Marketplace
The first thing to keep in mind is that 99% of people CANNOT afford to buy =
your work! And of the 1% that can afford it ... 99% of them DON"T GET IT! =
(note: this is a good thing. most people understand that they cannot affor=
d to buy quality artwork ... but they do want to see it!!!)
STOP TRYING TO SELL YOUR WORK
Instead of selling it ... RENT IT!
Rent access to your premier werks for 30 days for a few bucks. Better yet,=
partner with two or three of your peers, build a common splash page and al=
low someone to rent access to your werks for $4.99 for 30 days. DRM and Mi=
cropayment services can easily handle/manage the transactions.
I have a ton of ideas for this approach. Let me know what you guys think.
david goldschmidt
Re: Remember Crimes
if there is a conspiracy then why didn't they stop it again. maybe you're
just too clever.
david goldschmidt
----- Original Message -----
From: "Andrej Tisma" <aart@eunet.yu>
To: "MWP" <mpalmer@jps.net>; <list@rhizome.org>
Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2002 1:19 PM
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Remember Crimes
> Thank you very much for understanding. But did you notice that this
message
> of support of my work was not published on the list? American list!
> Andrej
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "MWP" <mpalmer@jps.net>
> To: "Andrej Tisma" <aart@eunet.yu>; <list@rhizome.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2002 7:25 AM
> Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Remember Crimes
>
>
> > on 12/9/02 2:29 PM, Andrej Tisma at aart@eunet.yu wrote:
> >
> > > LOOK AND REMEMBER THE LOST OF INNOCENT CIVILIAN LIVES
> > >
> > > http://www.webheaven.co.yu/usa/remember.htm
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Methinks WK doth protest too much!
> >
> > Andrej T: As a native born citizen of these United States, I
emphatically
> > say that you are perfectly within your right to criticize the U.S. for
the
> > many horrific crimes of its past, and should not let a petty bully like
> this
> > WK person bludgeon you into thinking otherwise. The last time I looked,
> > one's conscience does not have a nationalistic stamp affixed to it.
> Besides,
> > the United States pisses on people in other countries all the time and
> > thinks nothing of it, a fact that WK is ignoring his own blind self.
> > Suggesting that one "clean up one's own backyard" is a ridiculous
metaphor
> > to apply to world affairs, as not a single nation's backyard on earth
can
> > ever be wiped clean unless people blind themselves to the facts of
> history.
> > We in the United States will never be able to whitewash the painful
> reality
> > of slavery, the de facto genociding of native Americans, etc. It is an
> > ineluctable part of America's history to be placed alongside the many
> > glories America has achieved and has a right to be proud of, and if a
few
> of
> > the more insecure citizens of our nation don't like others pointing out
> our
> > warts to us, the best recourse they have is to show how far we ourselves
> > have excised such past atrocities from our way of thinking instead of
> > engaging in a silly game of tit for tat. This of course assumes that we
> have
> > actually made such gains in thinking, which is not entirely apparent
given
> > our current mindless saber-rattling in Iraq and elsewhere, which I think
> is
> > the point you are making so well in your piece.
> >
> >
> >
> > -m
> >
> >
>
>
>
> + ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
> -> post: list@rhizome.org
> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>
just too clever.
david goldschmidt
----- Original Message -----
From: "Andrej Tisma" <aart@eunet.yu>
To: "MWP" <mpalmer@jps.net>; <list@rhizome.org>
Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2002 1:19 PM
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Remember Crimes
> Thank you very much for understanding. But did you notice that this
message
> of support of my work was not published on the list? American list!
> Andrej
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "MWP" <mpalmer@jps.net>
> To: "Andrej Tisma" <aart@eunet.yu>; <list@rhizome.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2002 7:25 AM
> Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Remember Crimes
>
>
> > on 12/9/02 2:29 PM, Andrej Tisma at aart@eunet.yu wrote:
> >
> > > LOOK AND REMEMBER THE LOST OF INNOCENT CIVILIAN LIVES
> > >
> > > http://www.webheaven.co.yu/usa/remember.htm
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Methinks WK doth protest too much!
> >
> > Andrej T: As a native born citizen of these United States, I
emphatically
> > say that you are perfectly within your right to criticize the U.S. for
the
> > many horrific crimes of its past, and should not let a petty bully like
> this
> > WK person bludgeon you into thinking otherwise. The last time I looked,
> > one's conscience does not have a nationalistic stamp affixed to it.
> Besides,
> > the United States pisses on people in other countries all the time and
> > thinks nothing of it, a fact that WK is ignoring his own blind self.
> > Suggesting that one "clean up one's own backyard" is a ridiculous
metaphor
> > to apply to world affairs, as not a single nation's backyard on earth
can
> > ever be wiped clean unless people blind themselves to the facts of
> history.
> > We in the United States will never be able to whitewash the painful
> reality
> > of slavery, the de facto genociding of native Americans, etc. It is an
> > ineluctable part of America's history to be placed alongside the many
> > glories America has achieved and has a right to be proud of, and if a
few
> of
> > the more insecure citizens of our nation don't like others pointing out
> our
> > warts to us, the best recourse they have is to show how far we ourselves
> > have excised such past atrocities from our way of thinking instead of
> > engaging in a silly game of tit for tat. This of course assumes that we
> have
> > actually made such gains in thinking, which is not entirely apparent
given
> > our current mindless saber-rattling in Iraq and elsewhere, which I think
> is
> > the point you are making so well in your piece.
> >
> >
> >
> > -m
> >
> >
>
>
>
> + ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
> -> post: list@rhizome.org
> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>
personify.tv (change in approach)
hi all-
several of you have been subjected to my plight for awhile now. sorry abou=
t that :)
the changes that i made are based on some feedback that i received ... [to =
be less artistic/esoteric ... and more accountable for what i write]
click to see the lastest incarnation ... www.personify.tv
david
several of you have been subjected to my plight for awhile now. sorry abou=
t that :)
the changes that i made are based on some feedback that i received ... [to =
be less artistic/esoteric ... and more accountable for what i write]
click to see the lastest incarnation ... www.personify.tv
david
Re: "mediated instructional activities" -- new Copyright Law
> On Tue, 5 Nov 2002, David Goldschmidt wrote:
>
> Note that this is for educational purposes.
yes, i did read it before i posted it.
> Specifically teachers don't attempt to pass themselves on as
> 'artists' by usage of others materials. Nor does the law allow
> for the 'students' to utilize the received works as a part
> of performance, piece of work, etc on their behalf.
>
> Lastly, this hasn't got anything to do with
> your statements of 'images not being property'.
i didn't say that it did ... i was merely applauding the new law.
once again, you make an ass out of yourself with your
misinterpretations.
> The law still acknowledges them as property:
still working on that one
it simply states
> that the institutions don't have to pay royalty fees,
which, IN MY OPINION, is a very cool idea
that needs to be extended
>and also
> it provides 'increased flexibility'. If the owner doesn't
> wish for its work to be used for educational purposes, it may explicitly
> state so, and no 'educational institutions' coul have a say in the
matter.>
> And again, you're attempting to use an entirely different apparently
> 'noble cause' to leverage your imbecility.
wrong AGAIN
>
> If you want to see copyright law in function,
> check out the Rene Magritte or Man Ray estates for example.
thanks
>
> Ta, idiot.
et tu
>
>
>
> > New Copyright Law Frees Educators to Use Copyrighted Works Online
> >
> > Washington -- The U.S. Copyright Office announced on Tuesday that
> > President Bush on Saturday signed into law the 21st Century Department
of
> > Justice Appropriations Authorization Act (H.R. 2215), which includes the
> > Technology, Education, and Copyright Harmonization (TEACH) Act. Of
> > importance is the new law's amendment to the Copyright Act, which
provides
> > increased flexibility for accredited, nonprofit educational institutions
> > to use the Internet to provide copyrighted materials to students
enrolled
> > in distance education programs. The amendment allows professors to use
> > online music, movies and other copyrighted materials for "mediated
> > instructional activities," without permission from or payment to
copyright
> > holders. It also re-establishes this particular "fair use" of a
> > copyrighted work -- still preserved for non-digital copyrights -- that
was
> > made illegal under 1998's Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
> > http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c107:1:./temp/~c107xLyiw9:e484010:
> >
>
> `, . ` `k a r e i' ? ' D42
>
>
>
> Note that this is for educational purposes.
yes, i did read it before i posted it.
> Specifically teachers don't attempt to pass themselves on as
> 'artists' by usage of others materials. Nor does the law allow
> for the 'students' to utilize the received works as a part
> of performance, piece of work, etc on their behalf.
>
> Lastly, this hasn't got anything to do with
> your statements of 'images not being property'.
i didn't say that it did ... i was merely applauding the new law.
once again, you make an ass out of yourself with your
misinterpretations.
> The law still acknowledges them as property:
still working on that one
it simply states
> that the institutions don't have to pay royalty fees,
which, IN MY OPINION, is a very cool idea
that needs to be extended
>and also
> it provides 'increased flexibility'. If the owner doesn't
> wish for its work to be used for educational purposes, it may explicitly
> state so, and no 'educational institutions' coul have a say in the
matter.>
> And again, you're attempting to use an entirely different apparently
> 'noble cause' to leverage your imbecility.
wrong AGAIN
>
> If you want to see copyright law in function,
> check out the Rene Magritte or Man Ray estates for example.
thanks
>
> Ta, idiot.
et tu
>
>
>
> > New Copyright Law Frees Educators to Use Copyrighted Works Online
> >
> > Washington -- The U.S. Copyright Office announced on Tuesday that
> > President Bush on Saturday signed into law the 21st Century Department
of
> > Justice Appropriations Authorization Act (H.R. 2215), which includes the
> > Technology, Education, and Copyright Harmonization (TEACH) Act. Of
> > importance is the new law's amendment to the Copyright Act, which
provides
> > increased flexibility for accredited, nonprofit educational institutions
> > to use the Internet to provide copyrighted materials to students
enrolled
> > in distance education programs. The amendment allows professors to use
> > online music, movies and other copyrighted materials for "mediated
> > instructional activities," without permission from or payment to
copyright
> > holders. It also re-establishes this particular "fair use" of a
> > copyrighted work -- still preserved for non-digital copyrights -- that
was
> > made illegal under 1998's Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
> > http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c107:1:./temp/~c107xLyiw9:e484010:
> >
>
> `, . ` `k a r e i' ? ' D42
>
>