February 20, 2008 at 14:12Digital content. What are we paying for? And about the difference between a product and information about it.
Here, in connection with these discussions of trivial providers, they raised a topic about which I was going to put things in my head for a long time, namely, in cases where a person produces information mainly and does not bake cinnamon rolls - what exactly will be the product, and what will be related information advertising, in theory, nature?
That is, in the case of books on paper, vinyl music, whatman posters, silk-screened tee-shirts, movie tickets, bag icons and concerts in clubs, everything is clear - here we have without a doubt a product that even blind-deaf-mute kinesthetics will notice. But when it comes to mp3 files (it doesn’t matter whether they are global or local on the network, they are on the server, a friend used to visit the hard drive, or they were bought on the same cdr in the store), books in html or magazines in pdf, about movies that you watch on ipod nano in the metro and about many, many other things, which kind of like the author’s work and work should be paid for, but it’s copied all the easier and not clear why an intangible copy should cost money - here our opinions are divided.
And I won’t say that I’m on any particular side: because I myself didn’t pay for all the consumed content, and from the very beginning I’m ready to give out all my texts, tracks and photos for free (and distribute), but on the other hand, if there’s the possibility and exchange information for money - I’ll try not to miss this opportunity.
Now back to the distribution of the product vs. information. I hope everyone agrees that the consumer pays for the product, but when the information becomes not just a bunch of numbers on the disk, but creates reasons for the consumer to give a little something for the same product - then the information can turn into advertising, and for so that it reaches the eyes or ears of the consumer already and the manufacturer of this information must be ready to pay? Not to mention a bunch of freeware or shareware options between the two poles.
And now we take out the card from the sleeve, on which is written "service to ensure access to information." And at the same time, statistics about who pays money for the very music in which form. And it turns out that the main buyer of cd will be a girl of 14 years old, who really needs to hold the disc in her hands and look through the glossy booklet. Or maybe even buy a poster in the same music store with a photo of your favorite singer and hang it on the wall of the house. A typical buyer of mp3 (or wav) is already a male friend, so from 23x and older. Which, in fact, can easily find this mp3 in not very good quality and free of charge (and in very good quality too, it will find perhaps it’s not so easy most likely) and this comrade pays not so much for “possessing the product” but for the opportunity to receive this specific information here and now. For the opportunity not to go to the store to dig into the disks there, not to wait half a day until your favorite song plays on the radio to record it for free, do not search for the desired album for half an hour in torrents and then wait a couple of days of its turn to download it.
Indeed, in order to find out who sells, say, some specific screws in your hometown, you can go to the library to look there for a reference on a topic, completely free. Or you can call the paid help desk, get an answer faster and pay the cost of the call. The services of the same Minsk service 085 do not bother anyone. Information is free. High-speed access to it is paid. And if I steal the base where 085 operators are looking for answers and start to provide the same services, but cheaper - then my deed will be quite far from morality, and I won’t stretch out on the market for a long time - the base needs to be updated, yeah .
So the information should be free, yes. It makes sense to pay for timely access to it. And if possible, pay not to a pirate, but somewhere, where at least part of the money comes to the author. Another thing is that the position “I will pay for mp3 only when I’m sure that 100% of the money I paid will go to the author” is also a little strange, because not only the work of the author should be paid, but also the work of those who provide access to that very information. The author settled down in such a way as to receive most of the consumer's money — honor and praise. He created a chain of agents and sellers between himself and consumers - well, you have to pay for the labor of the whole chain. And when intermediaries try to sell not at all what they have the right to sell, there is already a good reason to be dissatisfied and shout “to her, the government!”
That is, in the case of books on paper, vinyl music, whatman posters, silk-screened tee-shirts, movie tickets, bag icons and concerts in clubs, everything is clear - here we have without a doubt a product that even blind-deaf-mute kinesthetics will notice. But when it comes to mp3 files (it doesn’t matter whether they are global or local on the network, they are on the server, a friend used to visit the hard drive, or they were bought on the same cdr in the store), books in html or magazines in pdf, about movies that you watch on ipod nano in the metro and about many, many other things, which kind of like the author’s work and work should be paid for, but it’s copied all the easier and not clear why an intangible copy should cost money - here our opinions are divided.
And I won’t say that I’m on any particular side: because I myself didn’t pay for all the consumed content, and from the very beginning I’m ready to give out all my texts, tracks and photos for free (and distribute), but on the other hand, if there’s the possibility and exchange information for money - I’ll try not to miss this opportunity.
Now back to the distribution of the product vs. information. I hope everyone agrees that the consumer pays for the product, but when the information becomes not just a bunch of numbers on the disk, but creates reasons for the consumer to give a little something for the same product - then the information can turn into advertising, and for so that it reaches the eyes or ears of the consumer already and the manufacturer of this information must be ready to pay? Not to mention a bunch of freeware or shareware options between the two poles.
And now we take out the card from the sleeve, on which is written "service to ensure access to information." And at the same time, statistics about who pays money for the very music in which form. And it turns out that the main buyer of cd will be a girl of 14 years old, who really needs to hold the disc in her hands and look through the glossy booklet. Or maybe even buy a poster in the same music store with a photo of your favorite singer and hang it on the wall of the house. A typical buyer of mp3 (or wav) is already a male friend, so from 23x and older. Which, in fact, can easily find this mp3 in not very good quality and free of charge (and in very good quality too, it will find perhaps it’s not so easy most likely) and this comrade pays not so much for “possessing the product” but for the opportunity to receive this specific information here and now. For the opportunity not to go to the store to dig into the disks there, not to wait half a day until your favorite song plays on the radio to record it for free, do not search for the desired album for half an hour in torrents and then wait a couple of days of its turn to download it.
Indeed, in order to find out who sells, say, some specific screws in your hometown, you can go to the library to look there for a reference on a topic, completely free. Or you can call the paid help desk, get an answer faster and pay the cost of the call. The services of the same Minsk service 085 do not bother anyone. Information is free. High-speed access to it is paid. And if I steal the base where 085 operators are looking for answers and start to provide the same services, but cheaper - then my deed will be quite far from morality, and I won’t stretch out on the market for a long time - the base needs to be updated, yeah .
So the information should be free, yes. It makes sense to pay for timely access to it. And if possible, pay not to a pirate, but somewhere, where at least part of the money comes to the author. Another thing is that the position “I will pay for mp3 only when I’m sure that 100% of the money I paid will go to the author” is also a little strange, because not only the work of the author should be paid, but also the work of those who provide access to that very information. The author settled down in such a way as to receive most of the consumer's money — honor and praise. He created a chain of agents and sellers between himself and consumers - well, you have to pay for the labor of the whole chain. And when intermediaries try to sell not at all what they have the right to sell, there is already a good reason to be dissatisfied and shout “to her, the government!”