Priced to Sell: Is the Future Free?

[Moejoe]

You know what, I had a big diatribe to counter all your points but then I thought, what's the point?

I'm arguing for change, and you for the status quo. I'm not going to change your mind, and you're certainly not going to change mine.

This is where I cut it short, time is too precious, its a beautiful night outside and I have writing to do.

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

The problem with this reasoning is the same problem I have with PKVW's insistence on relating TV to BOOKS.

The last bastion of the internet fool who can't debate the point at hand.........make fun of the other user's screen name.

I knew it wouldn't be long until you resorted to that.

Cheers,
PKFFW

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

The last bastion of the internet fool who can't debate the point at hand.........make fun of the other user's screen name.

I knew it wouldn't be long until you resorted to that.

Cheers,
PKFFW

Actually that was an honest mistake, and how is it making fun of you to mistake your name? If you'd called me Moojon, I wouldn't have taken offense. What the hell does PKVW mean anyway, is it some acronym I'm woefully unaware of? Because I'll tell you I have no clue what PKFFW actually stands for.

Where I do take offense is being called a fool by you. That's like being called ugly by the elephant man.

[Tuna]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

I'm arguing for change, and you for the status quo. I'm not going to change your mind, and you're certainly not going to change mine.

'Tis a nice evening out - just picked half a kilo of blackberries.

I think you misunderstand me. I'm not arguing for the status quo at all and have been involved in 'next generation' technology for a long time (sadly that makes a lot of the stuff I've worked on 'last/failed generation' by now!).

The first observation is that the old publishing methods have worked extremely well up to this point and haven't yet been rendered untenable by technological change. The second is that the proposed replacement, favoured by Anderson and others shows no evidence that it can reproduce the cultural breadth and sophistication of the old ecosystem that it seeks to replace.

That's not saying that free media cannot point to some genuinely exciting works, nor is it saying that traditional paid media is the only game in town. It's just saying that before we rush to tear down the big corporations, we should be sure that we have something genuinely capable of replacing them. I feel Anderson's lofty vision falls short and we will need other models to support creative works in the future.

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by Tuna

'Tis a nice evening out - just picked half a kilo of blackberries.

I think you misunderstand me. I'm not arguing for the status quo at all and have been involved in 'next generation' technology for a long time (sadly that makes a lot of the stuff I've worked on 'last/failed generation' by now!).

You see that is what Moejoe can't seem to grasp.

Apparently, anyone who disagrees with him/her must simply be stuck in the past arguing for the status quo. Apparently, one could never simply disagree with his/her proposed vision for a new world order whilst at the same time agreeing that a new world order may in fact be needed.

Once again, it is far easier to simply dismiss the others point of view and accuse them of arguing something they are not than to actually constructively discuss the issue at hand.

Originally Posted by Tuna

The first observation is that the old publishing methods have worked extremely well up to this point and haven't yet been rendered untenable by technological change. The second is that the proposed replacement, favoured by Anderson and others shows no evidence that it can reproduce the cultural breadth and sophistication of the old ecosystem that it seeks to replace.

That's not saying that free media cannot point to some genuinely exciting works, nor is it saying that traditional paid media is the only game in town. It's just saying that before we rush to tear down the big corporations, we should be sure that we have something genuinely capable of replacing them. I feel Anderson's lofty vision falls short and we will need other models to support creative works in the future.

But it's soooo much easier to tear down than it is to come up with something that is actually and demonstratively better don't you see? And if any disagree with you, accuse them of being stuck in the past, simple sheep, easily led by the will of the big evil corporations who just want to sell you things. That'll make your position seem so much more worthy and noble.

Cheers,
PKFFW

[Phogg]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

Your opinion. Mine would be that the vast majority of free is far worse than the vast majority of paid.

Mine would be that by far the vast majority of writing period (Free, Paid, Never seen - is bland and poorly written.

That said within the realm of what is free, the material that meets the highest bar of excellence still exceeds what one human being can read in a life time. And with the bar of publishing costs now broken this material will continue to expand.

And if I can sift the precious material from the dross I have no need of paid content. Forums are stepping up to perform that filtering process which was once the purview of publishers.

[dmikov]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

You see that is what Moejoe can't seem to grasp.

Apparently, anyone who disagrees with him/her must simply be stuck in the past arguing for the status quo. Apparently, one could never simply disagree with his/her proposed vision for a new world order whilst at the same time agreeing that a new world order may in fact be needed.

Once again, it is far easier to simply dismiss the others point of view and accuse them of arguing something they are not than to actually constructively discuss the issue at hand.

But it's soooo much easier to tear down than it is to come up with something that is actually and demonstratively better don't you see? And if any disagree with you, accuse them of being stuck in the past, simple sheep, easily led by the will of the big evil corporations who just want to sell you things. That'll make your position seem so much more worthy and noble.

Cheers,
PKFFW

I actually saw quite the opposite, Mojo was listening to you for awhile and you weren't. He was listing facts and his interpretation of them to each of your points, you were just repeating your points over and over, causally diminishing him in the process. His side looked constructive yours "bible thomping" and name calling. Sorry, but that's how it looked from here. I am sure you meant it well.
As for the topic at hand, free is a reality. I wouldn't have thought to see free software, but here it is. And legal or not you CAN find most of the books, movies and music for free. That's the reality. You will not see $400 spreadsheet software or word processor anymore. Soon you will not see $25 books anymore. No I don't know the future, but I know the odds.

[Ankh]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

But it's soooo much easier to tear down than it is to come up with something that is actually and demonstratively better don't you see?

There are a couple of problems with that "better" assessment.

First of all, the current publishing infrastructure primarily pushes the books that can sell in as many copies as possible. If one looks at the overall (pbook) output of the publishing industry, that's the essence of "better" at this moment of time.

Well, one can see books as goods created for the market, I have no problems with that. But if books are goods, and market is driving their prices down, then the conclusion is rather easy. The market does not recognize the value of offered goods. There is competition, obviously. Video games? TV?

Now, if books are NOT (only) goods destined for the market, we enter the realm of authorities. Who is to define universal cultural values? Publishing industry cadre?

The system is not torn down, it is imploding. I can not predict what will be the end result of this change, but one thing is certain, status quo is untenable.

Will the price of the digital goods go all the way down to zero or not is of secondary concern, IMHO.

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by dmikov

I actually saw quite the opposite, Mojo was listening to you for awhile and you weren't. He was listing facts and his interpretation of them to each of your points, you were just repeating your points over and over, causally diminishing him in the process. His side looked constructive yours "bible thomping" and name calling. Sorry, but that's how it looked from here. I am sure you meant it well.

I know of only one fact that Moejoe listed....about a couple of big name gigs who have once, and once only, made their work available for whatever the audience wanted to pay. That doesn't really mean much. All other apparent facts listed are in reality nothing more than claims and therefore akin to opinion.

Other than that he/she has stated his opinion and I have stated mine. He/she completely ignored my points about film/tv as he/she simply finds it irrelavent since he/she has no interest in it. He/she only responded to them when I noted his/her complete lack of response. His/her response was both dismissive and rude.

As for repeating my points, I felt I had no choice since Moejoe repeatedly claimed I was arguing something I was clearly not. He/she did this in response to Tuna's comments as well and thus displays a pattern of behaviour that is not dictated by my responses or commets towards him/her but is an ingrained habit. It is very difficult to discuss an issue when the other person continually, intentionally(as I suspect) or otherwise, misrepresents your view. I admit I can see how this repitition may seem like bible thumping to others though.

As for name calling, Moejoe's obvious and transparent protestations aside, he intentionally changed my name as a way of being insulting. I merely replied that in my experience this kind of behaviour is the last resort of fools who can not discuss the issue at hand in a mature and rational way. Forgive me if I get a little testy, and reply in kind, when someone is being intentionally insulting and rude to me

Hope that clears it up.

Originally Posted by dmikov

As for the topic at hand, free is a reality. I wouldn't have thought to see free software, but here it is. And legal or not you CAN find most of the books, movies and music for free. That's the reality. You will not see $400 spreadsheet software or word processor anymore. Soon you will not see $25 books anymore. No I don't know the future, but I know the odds.

And here we get to the crux of the matter at last. I'm glad someone has finally had the fortitude to actually put it in black and white.

The consumer today can, quite easily, obtain materials such as film/tv, books, software and other digital media for free.

So, ergo, the prevailing attitude is simply "I can get it for free so the creator should just accept that his/her creative effort and time mean nothing and be thankful I am willing to pay anything at all."

It is a selfish and arrogant attitude borne out of the culture of extreme individualism that abounds today. At least in my opinion of course.

Cheers,
PKFFW

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by Ankh

There are a couple of problems with that "better" assessment.

First of all, the current publishing infrastructure primarily pushes the books that can sell in as many copies as possible. If one looks at the overall (pbook) output of the publishing industry, that's the essence of "better" at this moment of time.

Well, one can see books as goods created for the market, I have no problems with that. But if books are goods, and market is driving their prices down, then the conclusion is rather easy. The market does not recognize the value of offered goods. There is competition, obviously. Video games? TV?

Now, if books are NOT (only) goods destined for the market, we enter the realm of authorities. Who is to define universal cultural values? Publishing industry cadre?

The system is not torn down, it is imploding. I can not predict what will be the end result of this change, but one thing is certain, status quo is untenable.

Will the price of the digital goods go all the way down to zero or not is of secondary concern, IMHO.

I totally agree and this is why I have repeatedly stated I am not arguing for the old ways or the status quo.

I am just against the idea that the consumer's rights should trump all else. I am against the idea that the creator should simply accept that consumers can get their work for free and so should therefore be willing to take whatever payment the consumer wants to give if anything at all.

Why should that be the attitude simply because we live in a digital world? Why should the creator have no rights and be obligated to go cap in hand to the audience?

Take sculpture for example. A sculptor creates a work of art out of a piece of wood. Now the piece of wood has little to no inherent value, you can go get wood from anywhere. It is the artistic effort that has gone into the creation that gives it the worth as a piece of art. Should the sculptor be obligated to give it away for whatever price joe bloggs down the street feels like paying or allow joe bloggs to simply take it away for free if they like? I would argue not. So why should it be any different with a book?

This attitude of "I have a right to access your work for free so take whatever I feel like giving you in return" is just as unsustainable as the current paradigm. It is simply more appealing to the consumer because they are the ones with the power now.

Cheers,
PKFFW

[Ankh]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

I am just against the idea that the consumer's rights should trump all else. I am against the idea that the creator should simply accept that consumers can get their work for free and so should therefore be willing to take whatever payment the consumer wants to give if anything at all.

I would not argue the "consumer's rights" line... But the fact remains that in these digital times it is inherently difficult to prevent distribution of author's work ... without a compensation. Piracy is a serious problem, primarily due to the fact that it is so WIDELY practiced.

Mind you, I am not advocating piracy. I just think that it is unwise to close one's eyes to its existence.

And if we chose not to ignore the (however sad) reality, then the question that begs the answer is NOT "What is right or moral?", it is "What is doable?".

Going "cap in hand" to the audience is certainly an option.

[Tuna]

Originally Posted by dmikov

As for the topic at hand, free is a reality. I wouldn't have thought to see free software, but here it is. And legal or not you CAN find most of the books, movies and music for free. That's the reality. You will not see $400 spreadsheet software or word processor anymore.

That's an interesting point, and one where I think you can see the consequences in one area of the market at least. Compare the number and quality of paid apps for the iPhone with the same in the 'free market'. Compare with the Google Android Market and things get even worse. Apple have found a new way to make a paid market work with modern technology - and look what benefits it has brought.

In that area at least I feel it's clear that 'paid creativity' trounces 'free creativity'. It also shows how much 'freedom' can actually limit your choices. If the same applied to music and writing (and why wouldn't it?) we'd see quite a chilling effect on creative works.

[dmikov]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

Take sculpture for example. A sculptor creates a work of art out of a piece of wood. Now the piece of wood has little to no inherent value, you can go get wood from anywhere. It is the artistic effort that has gone into the creation that gives it the worth as a piece of art. Should the sculptor be obligated to give it away for whatever price joe bloggs down the street feels like paying or allow joe bloggs to simply take it away for free if they like? I would argue not. PKFFW

I would argue yes, his sculpture worth exactly as much as people are willing to pay for it. I can spend a year writing a book, picture or making a sculpture, but knowing my artistic abilities I will be happy if somebody will take it for $10. Now obligated is a strong word, I don't think we live in the society where you are forced to give away anything.

[zerospinboson]

Originally Posted by Tuna

We have a thousand million monkeys, and a thousand million typewriters... where are the thousand Shakespeares?

Or, to put that question on its head: have you even read all of "Shakespeare" (or every classic out there? I really don't see why it matters that there isn't any "great" PD content yet. There is so much else to choose from. Why do you need "new" stuff already?)?
Distribution channels (in my eyes) don't suddenly become "validated" when <famous person> makes use of it.. That's just falling into the trap the Culture Industry wants you to be trapped in. Twitter (something you seem to disapprove of), after all (iirc), became a "hit" when Ashton Kutcher visibly started using it; and yet at the same time you're saying that you will only accept these new distribution methods once famous persons "prove" their effectiveness and validity as a medium through adopting them. Do you see the irony here?

Anyway, to get back to my point, soon everyone, through owning an eInk device (and to a lesser extent TFT etc.) will own his/her own POD device. Yes, not everyone will be interested in reading works that were written before the turn of last century, but nobody will have the excuse anymore that they "don't want to buy them", as nicely formatted copies will be up for download free of charge. And Don Quijote, or Charles Dickens's works are still fairly accessible, even in older translations.
Similarly if you want to try a "new" author (who is giving out, say, previews of his new book), this will be possible much more easily than ever before. And this will make a difference.

[dmikov]

Originally Posted by Tuna

That's an interesting point, and one where I think you can see the consequences in one area of the market at least. Compare the number and quality of paid apps for the iPhone with the same in the 'free market'. Compare with the Google Android Market and things get even worse. Apple have found a new way to make a paid market work with modern technology - and look what benefits it has brought.

In that area at least I feel it's clear that 'paid creativity' trounces 'free creativity'. It also shows how much 'freedom' can actually limit your choices. If the same applied to music and writing (and why wouldn't it?) we'd see quite a chilling effect on creative works.

I actually have a different experience, where free software actually being better, sometimes much better then paid one. I work as a programer and half of the tools I use is free, not because company saving money, but because they are best. I am also getting a lot of freebies even from Microsoft, develpers there post a lot of things they do for free.
And let's not forget Java, Linux, MySql, Ruby etc.