<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: A cinema art market?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://solublefish.tv/2009/04/23/a-cinema-art-market/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://solublefish.tv/2009/04/23/a-cinema-art-market/</link>
	<description>:: digital poetics</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 07 Apr 2010 09:05:37 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jeremy</title>
		<link>http://solublefish.tv/2009/04/23/a-cinema-art-market/comment-page-1/#comment-207</link>
		<dc:creator>Jeremy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 06 Aug 2009 02:44:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://solublefish.tv/?p=330#comment-207</guid>
		<description>Interesting debate.  I wonder if the solution is more along the lines of how itunes monetizes music.  

You don&#039;t need itunes to download music.  You can get any song you want for free somewhere on the web.  

But when itunes provides an easy interface that also aggregates content, and provides ratings from users, etc, then - as it turns out- people are willing to fork over a bit of cash for the same music they could get for free elsewhere.

People are willing to pay---but only at a certain price point, which is exactly 99 cents.  (A price determined by the market, which is ruthlessly efficient at determining value based on demand).  But digital art is not really meant for the masses.  So the question is whether the audience -potential consumers - is big enough to make 99 cent digital art downloads a viable model?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Interesting debate.  I wonder if the solution is more along the lines of how itunes monetizes music.  </p>
<p>You don&#8217;t need itunes to download music.  You can get any song you want for free somewhere on the web.  </p>
<p>But when itunes provides an easy interface that also aggregates content, and provides ratings from users, etc, then &#8211; as it turns out- people are willing to fork over a bit of cash for the same music they could get for free elsewhere.</p>
<p>People are willing to pay&#8212;but only at a certain price point, which is exactly 99 cents.  (A price determined by the market, which is ruthlessly efficient at determining value based on demand).  But digital art is not really meant for the masses.  So the question is whether the audience -potential consumers &#8211; is big enough to make 99 cent digital art downloads a viable model?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Immobilité and the Hybrid Art Economy @ Immobilité, Director&#8217;s Blog</title>
		<link>http://solublefish.tv/2009/04/23/a-cinema-art-market/comment-page-1/#comment-203</link>
		<dc:creator>Immobilité and the Hybrid Art Economy @ Immobilité, Director&#8217;s Blog</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 24 Apr 2009 05:01:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://solublefish.tv/?p=330#comment-203</guid>
		<description>[...] are still some issues that need to be resolved. An interesting post at Soluable Fish articulates the issue: Patrons and collectors should want their artists popular, exposed and of [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] are still some issues that need to be resolved. An interesting post at Soluable Fish articulates the issue: Patrons and collectors should want their artists popular, exposed and of [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

