it is only slightly related to your question, but there is a backlash against anderson´s analysis.. we might have believed (in) him too much...
So, um... you regard The Long Tail hypothesis as completely refuted by a single unpublished paper (or, if it is published, I've yet to find it)? Not only that, but said paper just *happens* to be written by researchers from the following organization: "PRS for Music is home to the world's best music writers, composers and publishers. Formed as The MCPS-PRS Alliance in 1997 with the PRS for Music brand adopted in 2009, the organisation brings
together two royalty collection societies; MCPS and PRS. We exist to collect and pay royalties to our
members when their music is exploited in one of a number of ways – when it is recorded onto any format and distributed to the public, performed or played in public, broadcast or made publicly available online."
Hm. Think they might have a vested interest?
03 June 2009 at 13:52
Well, yes, quite. There's probably an interesting case
to be made against the long tail thesis; there are
certainly obvious business limitations to the potential
of free. So why bury this interesting conversation in this
barrage of invective against Anderson and Wired?
What's the point? I'm so tired of articles like this.
i am not even saying that it is wrong, just that we should not assume the myth of long-tail, but also an option that a new tool will just be incorporated into an existing system and rebuilding the same inequalities.