http://tech.slashdot.org/story/00/11/30/1238204/stephen-king...
http://tech.slashdot.org/story/00/11/30/1238204/stephen-king...
It's an instructive example of hubris and mis-aligned goals. Stephen wasn't interested in generating a profit. Had he raised the same revenue with half as many readers paying twice as often he would have continued the project.
Once the novelty wore off, the viability of the approach disappeared. The opt-in payment ratios started generously, and rapidly approached zero.
Little can be learned from CK's experiment because it was novel -- it got covered far and wide, encouraging a lot of people to "show" that the model works.
What can be demonstrated, empirically, is that money can be made without imposing draconian controls.
Lots of people sell videos online without the middle man. Most see no sales.
This is demonstrably false. In fact, every artist who's ever done an online release of their content without DRM has seen sales in proportion to their general popularity. We've seen this with Radiohead, with NIN, and with many other lesser artists.
In every case, the profits were roughly in line with the general popularity of the artist's content.
"Lots of people sell videos online without the middle man. Most see no sales."
And most content distributed through the various middle-man networks likewise is a failure. Most OSS software is a flop. Most commercial software is also a flop. This statement is neither surprising nor relevant.
None of this is a counterpoint to my claim. A counterpoint to my claim would be actually showing that it is novel, e.g. that this experiment contains attributes which have not been seen before.
People have produced and sold videos direct over the internet many times before, so that aspect isn't new. Is there some other aspect to this which I'm missing which is novel?