If content isn’t generating revenue, then why should a digital distributor maintain the server space to keep up the data, even if all it takes up are more bits and bytes?īack to the Amazon example. That theory is governed by the basic tenets of business, which look at profit and bottom line. The other theory, however, is the one that’s omnipresent, but more sharply in focus in a tough economy such as the one we’re in now. I’ve heard one set of theories that posit that the world of digital distribution could theoretically offer unlimited content, for unlimited periods, simply because of the lack of physical distribution costs (production, packaging, shipping, shelf-space, and so on). I don’t have to worry about content going out-of-print, nor do I need to keep track of where I have it backed up, in case my hard drive fails. It’s because I have access to it when I want it, where I want it. Why my advocacy of the physical? It certainly isn’t because I enjoy storing it, that much I can tell you. It is why I prefer to purchase DVDs and Blu-ray Discs, as opposed to relying on the possibly here-today, gone-tomorrow offerings of electronic distribution. It is why I still, for artists I enjoy, purchase the physical CD of an album.
I’ve long considered digital more ephemeral than the physical.
This disturbing, Orwellian move underscores how, in spite of comments otherwise, a purchase in the digital realm can’t be compared to physical ownership of content. The company also went ahead and removed any digital trace of the books, too-striking them from both users’ digital lockers and from Kindle devices. Today, Amazon removed George Orwell’s 1984 and Animal Farm from its Kindle e-book store.
0 kommentar(er)
