Comments on: Is the money really in the content? http://www.everyjoe.com/articles/is-the-money-really-in-the-content-217/ Sports News - Tech Reviews - Entertainment - Life Tips for EveryJoe Thu, 10 Dec 2009 18:05:59 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: allinfobarn http://www.everyjoe.com/articles/is-the-money-really-in-the-content-217/comment-page-1/#comment-334418 allinfobarn Tue, 21 Feb 2006 17:35:09 +0000 http://workboxers.com/?p=163#comment-334418 Hi, I had read this blog “writting contents would provide you money”. Since I am a content writter, so I know very well that it will increase your traffic and even it will not generate online money for you. So forget it. I feel I have to look any other methods for generating revenue. thanks Hi,

I had read this blog “writting contents would provide you money”. Since I am a content writter, so I know very well that it will increase your traffic and even it will not generate online money for you. So forget it. I feel I have to look any other methods for generating revenue.
thanks

]]> By: Cowboy http://www.everyjoe.com/articles/is-the-money-really-in-the-content-217/comment-page-1/#comment-334240 Cowboy Thu, 12 Jan 2006 01:59:14 +0000 http://workboxers.com/?p=163#comment-334240 You both have great points. Wow. Nice. Good stuff to think about. You both have great points. Wow. Nice. Good stuff to think about.

]]> By: Brian Breslin http://www.everyjoe.com/articles/is-the-money-really-in-the-content-217/comment-page-1/#comment-334239 Brian Breslin Wed, 11 Jan 2006 16:02:23 +0000 http://workboxers.com/?p=163#comment-334239 I think Marco is heading in the right direction on this. Cowboy, I think your metaphor is slightly off, how does one take the land out from under the castle? A more appropriate one would be to say the content is the bricks that make up the castle, and without them, the castle is just a shell or frame of its former self. And in the internet the domain is ALWAYS the land. Thats why some domain flippers make it a practice of buying a domain, building up its traffic and look and then selling it. I think Marco is heading in the right direction on this.
Cowboy, I think your metaphor is slightly off, how does one take the land out from under the castle?

A more appropriate one would be to say the content is the bricks that make up the castle, and without them, the castle is just a shell or frame of its former self. And in the internet the domain is ALWAYS the land. Thats why some domain flippers make it a practice of buying a domain, building up its traffic and look and then selling it.

]]> By: Marco http://www.everyjoe.com/articles/is-the-money-really-in-the-content-217/comment-page-1/#comment-334238 Marco Wed, 11 Jan 2006 10:56:25 +0000 http://workboxers.com/?p=163#comment-334238 What about a hybrid kind of solution where the writers keep owenership on the content but grant the owner of the blog network a non-exclusive license on it? This means the blogger can walk away with the content he wrote until he got kicked out of the network or left the network himself while the network can just keep the blog going with another blogger. This way the owner of the blog network has somewhat more control and won't 'loose everything' when the blogger leaves for whatever reason and the blogger won't feel too 'owned'. The blogger can take his content and continue elsewhere. The only drawback would be the fact that the beforementioned content would appear on two sites but I find that a minor drawback. How about that? What about a hybrid kind of solution where the writers keep owenership on the content but grant the owner of the blog network a non-exclusive license on it? This means the blogger can walk away with the content he wrote until he got kicked out of the network or left the network himself while the network can just keep the blog going with another blogger. This way the owner of the blog network has somewhat more control and won’t ‘loose everything’ when the blogger leaves for whatever reason and the blogger won’t feel too ‘owned’.

The blogger can take his content and continue elsewhere. The only drawback would be the fact that the beforementioned content would appear on two sites but I find that a minor drawback.

How about that?

]]> By: Cowboy http://www.everyjoe.com/articles/is-the-money-really-in-the-content-217/comment-page-1/#comment-334235 Cowboy Wed, 11 Jan 2006 06:28:39 +0000 http://workboxers.com/?p=163#comment-334235 The man that owns the content is king. Period. The real estate is the land that the king lives on. The domain its just the castle. So you can own a castle but some day your bloggers will walk away with the real estate, and the content and your left with just an empty castle. The man that owns the content is king. Period. The real estate is the land that the king lives on. The domain its just the castle. So you can own a castle but some day your bloggers will walk away with the real estate, and the content and your left with just an empty castle.

]]> By: Brian Breslin http://www.everyjoe.com/articles/is-the-money-really-in-the-content-217/comment-page-1/#comment-334233 Brian Breslin Tue, 10 Jan 2006 21:59:45 +0000 http://workboxers.com/?p=163#comment-334233 You can't drop the responsibility of the content, because there is history of your having it up there (google cache, internet archive, etc.). So you are assuming the liability but not the ownership. Its like if Bill O'Reilly states "i own the rights to the broadcast i am performing in, and then goes and calls Bill Clinton a fag. The fact is, that Bill Clinton will sue the shit out of him, and FOXNews. Because they are both responsible for the broadcast even if Bill O'Reilly states he is solely responsible. This is why so many shows now preface their stuff with "the views of this... do not represent company XYZ" You can't do that easily on a blog. I mean you cn try and bury it in your legal jargon in the footer of the site, but good luck. You can’t drop the responsibility of the content, because there is history of your having it up there (google cache, internet archive, etc.). So you are assuming the liability but not the ownership. Its like if Bill O’Reilly states “i own the rights to the broadcast i am performing in, and then goes and calls Bill Clinton a fag. The fact is, that Bill Clinton will sue the shit out of him, and FOXNews. Because they are both responsible for the broadcast even if Bill O’Reilly states he is solely responsible. This is why so many shows now preface their stuff with “the views of this… do not represent company XYZ”
You can’t do that easily on a blog.
I mean you cn try and bury it in your legal jargon in the footer of the site, but good luck.

]]> By: adamsb http://www.everyjoe.com/articles/is-the-money-really-in-the-content-217/comment-page-1/#comment-334232 adamsb Tue, 10 Jan 2006 20:25:51 +0000 http://workboxers.com/?p=163#comment-334232 Scrivs I agree with you on this. And by NOT owning the content, I think you are actually at an advantage because (correct me if I'm wrong) if the aforementioned apeshit hits the fan you aren't left with someone else's boat to deal with. Like you said, they just get dropped. Scrivs I agree with you on this. And by NOT owning the content, I think you are actually at an advantage because (correct me if I’m wrong) if the aforementioned apeshit hits the fan you aren’t left with someone else’s boat to deal with.

Like you said, they just get dropped.

]]> By: Scrivs http://www.everyjoe.com/articles/is-the-money-really-in-the-content-217/comment-page-1/#comment-334229 Scrivs Tue, 10 Jan 2006 16:59:24 +0000 http://workboxers.com/?p=163#comment-334229 I'm not saying content isn't valuable, I'm just questioning whether you need to own the content to create something valuable. If someone in the FF Network goes apeshit on someone then they get dropped. I’m not saying content isn’t valuable, I’m just questioning whether you need to own the content to create something valuable.

If someone in the FF Network goes apeshit on someone then they get dropped.

]]> By: Brian Breslin http://www.everyjoe.com/articles/is-the-money-really-in-the-content-217/comment-page-1/#comment-334228 Brian Breslin Tue, 10 Jan 2006 15:38:32 +0000 http://workboxers.com/?p=163#comment-334228 I think the content goes a long way in making the real estate valuable. This isn't a situation where the dirt is worth more than the home built on it so to speak. This is a "the land is worth just as much as the home" situation. Separate, they are only half their current value. Now the real issue with content ownership boils down to redistribution rights. How can you broker a deal to syndicate the content for $ if you don't have ownership of it. Unless your agreement has some provision in it that gives you agency over it, it would be hard to resell or redistribute all this content. Also on things like Fine Fools, you own the vessel, they the authors, own the fuel right? Well what happens when authorX goes and starts intentionally libeling people? Who is responsible? YOU? or your authors? Anyway, enough ranting from me. just figured I'd give my 2c. I think the content goes a long way in making the real estate valuable. This isn’t a situation where the dirt is worth more than the home built on it so to speak. This is a “the land is worth just as much as the home” situation. Separate, they are only half their current value.

Now the real issue with content ownership boils down to redistribution rights. How can you broker a deal to syndicate the content for $ if you don’t have ownership of it. Unless your agreement has some provision in it that gives you agency over it, it would be hard to resell or redistribute all this content. Also on things like Fine Fools, you own the vessel, they the authors, own the fuel right? Well what happens when authorX goes and starts intentionally libeling people? Who is responsible? YOU? or your authors?
Anyway, enough ranting from me. just figured I’d give my 2c.

]]> By: Scrivs http://www.everyjoe.com/articles/is-the-money-really-in-the-content-217/comment-page-1/#comment-334227 Scrivs Tue, 10 Jan 2006 14:36:53 +0000 http://workboxers.com/?p=163#comment-334227 Darren, can you provide me with an example where it is required to own the content to make revenue? Darren, can you provide me with an example where it is required to own the content to make revenue?

]]>