Ha ha I guess I need to work out which image Bluesky picks and add one!

This one doesn't seem to coincide with anything sensical at all

If you DM me I'll send you a link to something you might find interesting...

It's a real world example of an idea which was riddled with fatal flaws. If you start with user needs and real world outcomes from subscription it's very hard to conclude that nobody wants zero-commitment access to whatever media they want, whenever they want it. Like in shops...

Saying "micropayements don't work because Blendle didn't work" is like flapping your arms and concluding that heavier-than-air flight is impossible. There are many reasons why Blendle would never have worked. The fact remains that most users hate paywalls and would like access without commitment.

Ha! You're quoting Shirky! The fact that media peoples thinking and imagination hasn't moved on tells it's own story. They have been continuously atrophying, demanding that people who don't want to and never will, subscribe, and taking smug comfort in decades old dogma. No wonder they're dying.

Yes. And we have built it. People really like it. The more publishers adopt it the faster it will grow, because the one login and payment method works across all participating sites. There's an orthodoxy which says subscription is the only form of payment which works. But it's not true. @axate.com

Original source here pressgazette.co.uk/publishers/d...

But AI companies are huge businesses and have a huge bargaining chip - a share in their future success. Existing in a state of war won't help anyone. It's time to stop posturing, start collaborating and negotiating...

22/22

Whatever happens, creators should and will own a bigger share of the future value of AI systems built using their work. AI companies which went early and chose to ignore copyright might be disadvantaged versus newer, compliant competitors.

21/22

That still leaves the problem of the infringing that has already happened. It can be resolved in a couple of ways. One is to write big compensation cheques. Another is to give a bigger share of the future revenues to the creators whose work was stolen

20/22

AI companies which choose to pay will find themselves with all the best content and better AI products as a result. Others will find themselves locked out.

19/22

This time around that approach seems doomed to fail, because their need for content is ongoing and continuous. If they refuse to pay for it then they'll lose access to it and nothing they or any politician can do will be able to force people to keep working for free.

18/22

The other reason is greed. West coast investors are used to making big bets on "winner takes all" outcomes. They like huge scale, huge margins and zero input costs; the model which made Facebook and Google. To put it another way, they don't like sharing. They want it all.

17/22

Obviously copying that has already been done is a huge headache for AI companies. Potentially a multi-trillion headache. They can't afford not to keep playing chicken with this, and credulous politicians are making them hopeful that the problem might be magicked away

16/22

So why aren't more creators and AI companies teaming up to unlock all this value and build licensing frameworks which work for both, beyond the piecemeal deals which have been happening so far? Two reasons, in my view. One is the big numbers at the top of this thread.

15/22

Nor would any creative business would have to take a chance on guessing the future value of the AI market and gambling that they got it right. Being able to share in the value their content helps create would make the whole thing less risky and more rewarding.

14/22