Comment Re:Prison? [not if you have a brain] (Score 1) 432
I agree it is more like a free advertisement.
Last week I was in a bookstore thumbing through a copy of O'reilly's "Knoppix Hacks." I decided $29.95 was too much for a book I could get for a lot less online. I didn't buy it and when I got home I decided to look for a copy with P2P and I got lucky.
After a week of perusing my free copy I decided I was learning a lot and wanted "the real thing." I didn't want to wait for an online order to arrive. I wanted it now. I went back to the bookstore and paid the list price, and it was only because of the "free advertisement" that I became sold on the idea to buy. Without the ability to try first I am sure that book would still be in the store.
I believe many who download music and movies probably come to a similar conclusion, especially if they really like what they download. If they don't really like it they probably wouldn't have bought it anyway, and if they bought it and hated it they would bad mouth it all over the place; the artist would have been better off if there had been no purchase, at least to that person. We are less likely to criticize if we haven't suffered a loss.
On this note, if they know they like it they will probably buy it and probably convince others it is worth buying. If they could never have afforded to buy it they are still more likely to recommend it to others whom in turn may be more likely to purchase after hearing raves from peers.
In the mid 80's "try before you buy" was the rule rather than the exception. Now it has become just the opposite, at least where issues of intellectual property are involved. I think content producers need to rethink their strategy and appease the public even if they only allow the free download of a 96 bitrate tune or a 320x240 movie. This would give the people a chance to try it for free and buy it if they really like it. I think the difference in quality would be a huge motivating factor and more people would buy if they had a chance to sample the full content.
Last week I was in a bookstore thumbing through a copy of O'reilly's "Knoppix Hacks." I decided $29.95 was too much for a book I could get for a lot less online. I didn't buy it and when I got home I decided to look for a copy with P2P and I got lucky.
After a week of perusing my free copy I decided I was learning a lot and wanted "the real thing." I didn't want to wait for an online order to arrive. I wanted it now. I went back to the bookstore and paid the list price, and it was only because of the "free advertisement" that I became sold on the idea to buy. Without the ability to try first I am sure that book would still be in the store.
I believe many who download music and movies probably come to a similar conclusion, especially if they really like what they download. If they don't really like it they probably wouldn't have bought it anyway, and if they bought it and hated it they would bad mouth it all over the place; the artist would have been better off if there had been no purchase, at least to that person. We are less likely to criticize if we haven't suffered a loss.
On this note, if they know they like it they will probably buy it and probably convince others it is worth buying. If they could never have afforded to buy it they are still more likely to recommend it to others whom in turn may be more likely to purchase after hearing raves from peers.
In the mid 80's "try before you buy" was the rule rather than the exception. Now it has become just the opposite, at least where issues of intellectual property are involved. I think content producers need to rethink their strategy and appease the public even if they only allow the free download of a 96 bitrate tune or a 320x240 movie. This would give the people a chance to try it for free and buy it if they really like it. I think the difference in quality would be a huge motivating factor and more people would buy if they had a chance to sample the full content.
