So here are a couple of articles I found interesting.
Readers Are Abandoning Print, Yet Don’t Trust the Web, NYT article.
$200 Textbook vs. Free. You Do the Math., NYT article.
Scott McNealy is pushing free textbooks.
No E-Books Allowed in This Establishment, NYT article.
So many people can't tell the difference between a Kindle and a computer? Weird. But perhaps the problem is that the owner of the cafe didn't inform his staff of the reason for the no-computer rule. I don't know, but perhaps he feels laptops take up too much table space during the busy lunch hour. Whereas a Kindle takes up no more space than a paperback book.
Post-Medium Publishing, Paul Graham article. He poses the interesting question:
"Publishers of all types, from news to music, are unhappy that consumers won't pay for content anymore. At least, that's how they see it.
In fact consumers never really were paying for content, and publishers weren't really selling it either. If the content was what they were selling, why has the price of books or music or movies always depended mostly on the format? Why didn't better content cost more?"
In fact consumers never really were paying for content, and publishers weren't really selling it either. If the content was what they were selling, why has the price of books or music or movies always depended mostly on the format? Why didn't better content cost more?"
I'm amazed by Paul Graham. With this article he once again makes me see a very central thing in a wholly new light. Highly interesting.
8 comments:
Publisher? Of what?
Recycled (not even your own) pictures of naked girls?
You should change your blog tag - and your name to something like Applehouse, because that's all you ever talk about.
God help you if you ever had to actually work for a living.
The time's coming.
I offer all my books as free downloads.
I just think "intellectual property" is an anomalous blip in the history of human civilization, and has about run its course, due to the internet.
Your thoughts are great, Eolake Stobblehouse. Please don't change.
Some of the very best content is free... go to ... Truthout.com ... for some samples.
We expect the internet content to be 'free' or pretty close to it.
Graham has some good points, but his conclusion seems to come from inside himself... perhaps from frustration.
These thoughts are only worth whatever one paid for them... zero!!
by rcatalyst@mac.com
I offer all my books as free downloads.
No one would pay for them.
I just think "intellectual property" is an anomalous blip in the history of human civilization, and has about run its course, due to the internet.
No, Kent, the anomalous blip will in the future be this brief period where so much intellectual property could be stolen without consequences. This stuff is all still so new, relatively.
Regardless of "Harvey's" fantasies, I do sell books, PLUS some people even send me money for the free downloads, and I don't have to split that money with anyone else. It is a win/win situation.
Joist
"Publisher? Of what?
Recycled (not even your own) pictures of naked girls?"
Last time I looked, if you buy the rights the images are yours.
VERY few if any publishers of any note publish only or even necessarily any of their own work.
Creation & publishing are different trades.
***
"Price" and "value" are seldom tightly related in today's world.
Partially because "value" is an individual thing, and varies greatly.
I will, occasionally, pay $1 for a bottle of water--money which in my home buys many, many gallons. I do so because at that time and place I value it that much.
In today's world, where necessities are often only a small part of people's purchases, 'value' can usually be equated to 'desire.'
Oh, and running a website of any sort qualifies as 'work' whether everyone agrees to it's value or not.
I get paid to write code, whether or not that code was a good idea or of any use (and billions are wasted on unnecessary and non-functional programs each year.)
"In today's world, where necessities are often only a small part of people's purchases, 'value' can usually be equated to 'desire.'"
Good point.
Rcatalyst,
I think you're right, on second sight, Graham seems to be a bit one-eyed on this one. Although not as easily as some would like, content *can* be sold, others no authors (nor myself) would ever make a living.
Post a Comment