Google micro-payments system
p2pnet news view Freedom | P2P:- Britain’s Crosbie Fitch is years ahead of Google.
“Google is promoting a payments system to the newspaper industry that would let Web surfers pay a small amount for individual news stories, an idea that could help publishers struggling with the impact of the Internet,” says ComputerWorld.
“The plans were revealed in a document Google submitted to the Newspaper Association of America (NAA), which had solicited ideas for how to monetize content online, something some publishers have had difficulty with.”
But Crosbie, who’s researching and developing revenue mechanisms and business models, already has an application he calls micro-patronage operating at alpha level.
Gargle, the net’s biggest online advertising company, plans to launch a “micropayments” feature as part of its Checkout online payments service, says the story, going on »»»
The system could allow consumers to buy a package subscription to several publications and then pay for other stories on an a la carte basis. In a separate statement, Google said on Thursday it had no specific products to announce. But in a separate statement on Thursday, Google said it had no specific products to announce yet.
“The idea is to allow viable payments of a penny to several dollars by aggregating purchases across merchants,” Google said in the document.
Checkout isn’t quite fully baked yet for the publishing industry. “Managing subscriptions from the merchant side is fairly rudimentary right now but could be improved to be more relevant for news and media companies,” Google said.
By contrast, Crosbie’s system, 1p2u (one penny to you) sees readers supporting writers and other creators as patrons, in the traditional sense of the word, rather than milking them, as in the Google monetising sense.
p2pnet became the first site to sign up for the application and in the near future will be using 1p2u to become a patron for everyone who contributes regularly to p2pnet, or who allows us to use his or her work in any way.
That, IMHO, is P2P. 
Jon
(Cheers, Marc)
ComputerWorld – Google plans to offer micropayments service to media owners, September 10, 2009
alpha level – 1p2u: delivering to the public, September 6, 2009
Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It`s really easy!
Subscribe to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
Net access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details.
September 11th, 2009 at 3:13 pm
Crosbie Fitch should sue google for stealing his idea and work!
(I want a finders fee)
September 11th, 2009 at 3:26 pm
Does that mean you’ll pay me?
September 11th, 2009 at 3:29 pm
@ Jazz:
If you send me a story and I use it, Yup. Or if I use one of your Reader’s Writes as an actual post. And the same will apply to anyone else, as long as I know how to reach them.
Cheers!
September 12th, 2009 at 6:19 am
1p2U is more micropatronage than microcharging.
It isn’t about charging people to read, getting them to pay for access to what’s behind a paywall.
1p2U is about letting readers pay writers to write, to pay them to work. It assumes everything they publish is made freely available to the public without any constraint such as copyright.
It sounds like Google’s system is something the newspapers have been demanding, i.e. the facility to charge people pennies to access what’s behind their paywalls.
I’m not aware that Google stole my idea and work, but if they have they haven’t revealed it yet. I’ve been publishing articles describing my ideas for many years, so hopefully no-one will be stupid and try and patent them. :-}
People have known the monopoly of copyright was doomed since the dawn of the Internet, so with the end of the market of copies, it’s pretty obvious that instead of selling copies, you have sell your work. So obviously, the new business model means Jon sells his work to his readers directly, instead of to a newspaper, where they would then fail to sell copies. And if you’re selling work, you don’t need to worry about a monopoly in copies…
Unfortunately, publishing corporations have reptilian brains hardwired to see all commerce in terms of selling or charging for copies. At least their staff can find new jobs even if the corporation that employs them is doomed to extinction.
P.S. – Sorry, forgot to tell you great post!
September 12th, 2009 at 9:19 am
SPAM – and plagiarism/misattribution to boot.
September 13th, 2009 at 12:20 pm
It`ll mean that people make do with what is free , what is free ? “articles” written by “journalists” with axes/grudges/agendas to wield
September 14th, 2009 at 12:23 am
Okay, I’m REALLY confused now:
1. Were either of the first posts by Crosbie? They *almost* read like they were, but it’s hard to tell.
2. Was Comment 3 by Crosbie?
3. Who was “spamming”, and what kind of “missattribution” took place?
4. Was that thing about Jon selling to newspapers “who would then fail to sell copies” supposed to be some kind of Diss against Jon?
I’m REALLY confused, like I said.
As I’ve said before, while I still think the stuff about “IP Nihilism” and “natural non-monopolistic IP” is senseless, 1p2u is a really great idea. Same with http://www.selelyourrights.com. (I particularly like that one, because at the present time, when people have been so thoroughly misled about the intended nature, purpose and scope of copyright, allowing the public to essentially ‘buy back’ a portion of such monopolies is a great idea. More likely to use CC licenses is you can see some kind of ‘monetization’ up front.
September 14th, 2009 at 5:07 am
1. No
2. No – by Jon
3. g00glemoneytree is the spammer. They misattributed their post with my name, and failed to make their quotation of my words clear.
4. Why would it diss Jon? Its point is that as the market for copies has ended, newspapers cannot sell copies – even copies of Jon’s good work.
Rights cannot be sold. They can be suspended by the government (in creating the privilege of a monopoly), but no-one should have to pay for their restoration. Artists can sell their work, but they shouldn’t sell their privileges – they should simply neutralise them.
October 26th, 2009 at 7:59 am
Oh dear. My comment has now been deleted, whereas g00glemoneytree’s comment has been left up.
I did not make this statement: “P.S. â Sorry, forgot to tell you great post!”
October 26th, 2009 at 8:06 am
Sorry Crosbie. I try to catch the spam, but there’s so much of it I feel like a one-legged man in an ass-kicking contest, as they say. Also, lots going on elsewhere.
Cheers!