Wow, I wasn't expecting you to come out for copyright. I expected a knee-jerk reaction like those over at gigaom (where Om claims that the math doesn't work and then, as proof, links to a post that calculates the potential liability at $24 billion under current copyright law). Unlike your previous iTunes-Jobs WSJ piece, I thought this piece presented an insightful and fair view of the situation.

Glad to see others, including Kedrosky himself, have now started to use the "Dead Tree" media moniker:

http://www.wellingtonfund.com/blog/2006/12/04/sell-your-pulp-shares/

Interesting article, Paul, however I feel that your core premise totally downplays one of the key issues. It's very clear that consumers like "chunked" content, but you seem to completely disregard the fact that (early) Napster and (current) YouTube let consumers access that chunked content for FREE. Seems to me the "free-factor" is a major reason why YouTube and (early) Napster have had such a huge impact.

To help gauge whether it's the free-factor or the "chunked" factor that's driving consumers, it'd be interesting to compare how many songs/movies/TV shows have been legally SOLD online (in DRM'd or non-DRM'd form) vs. how many have been "shared" illegally.

Alternatively, how successful do you think YouTube would be if they were charging even $.01 per clip?

(As a side note, I have significant concerns about how the shift to more "chunk-centric" content distribution is stifling artistic creativity and risk-taking, but I guess that's another issue all together.)

Nice article, Paul. I like your take on it - mine's here: Take the Money and Run :)

I see that the $1bn mark inspired the same Dr. Evil thoughts to TechCrunch (here)

Revolt of YouTubers Not Surprising

Your article,was both insightful and entertaining. I guess we'll have to play the waiting game and see how this will play out in shaping the future of electronic media.

How do you think this bodes for other venture-backed companies in the space? Customer may want to share brief clips of content, but will VCs back the companies that allow this?

I also came across a hypothetical question that I’m curious to hear an investor’s perspective on. If a VC backs a video sharing site AND a content protection company (like Audible Magic, Advestigo, iPharro, etc) these appear to be complementary companies but realistically these could cause some conflicts of interest. Do you agree?

I’ve taken a look at European companies in this space and the above question here: http://www.libraryhouse.net/blog/2007/03/16/viacom-more-than-a-lawsuit/?s=pk