Comments on: “Free” Isn’t Worth Reading, But It’s Worth Discussing

By: The Cost of DDOS Attacks | The Technology Liberation Front

The Cost of DDOS Attacks | The Technology Liberation Front — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 09:10:47 +0000

[...] my reservations about Chris Anderson’s Free, I will say that this attack and future attacks of the same kind [...]

By: Richard Bennett

Richard Bennett — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 13:19:14 +0000

God, I hate when he does that, it's just bad manners.

By: Richard Bennett

Richard Bennett — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 09:19:14 +0000

God, I hate when he does that, it's just bad manners.

By: Richard Bennett

Richard Bennett — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 08:19:14 +0000

God, I hate when he does that, it's just bad manners.

By: bradencox

bradencox — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 18:55:44 +0000

I think Westlaw and Lexis are great examples, precisely because they ARE from government sources! As any attorney will tell you, even in today's world where statutes and many cases are available online from federal and state sources, Westlaw and Lexis are indispensable. There are a lot of value-add services (commentary, shepardizing, etc.) that turn “free” into “fee” when it targets a niche audience (in this case, lawyers). It's the serving smaller markets point that in his New Yorker article Gladwell makes about pharmaceuticals.

By: cordblomquist

cordblomquist — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 18:00:41 +0000

Amen to that, Brother Bennett!

By: cordblomquist

cordblomquist — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 17:59:52 +0000

Perhaps they are poor examples for some reasons, but what Lexis and Westlaw sell is a valuable database of information that is otherwise hard to find. The individual pieces of information may not have a lot of value, but when organized, clearly some people find it very valuable. This sort of thing, the curation of information into a more usable form, is something that will likely continue to be offered on a subscription basis to niche communities.

By: Berin Szoka

Berin Szoka — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 14:46:41 +0000

Since Tim has now started a separate thread on this topic, I'm posting this comment in both threads.

It seems me that Chris Anderson's strongest argument for the business case of "Free!" is that giving away content or a service can attract an audience. The critical question then becomes: How valuable is that audience? How successfully can those eyeballs "be monetized"? This, in a nutshell, is why I've become such a broken record about defending smarter online advertising: The more money publishers can make off selling adds, the more viable "Free!" will be. The central point being missed in the debate about behavioral targeting is not just that it will increase ad revenues generally, but that it's likely to increase ad revenues the most for publishers whose content/service currently has little value in pure contextual advertising, where ads can be targeted only based on the keywords associated with a particular page or site. Thus, the publisher of a site about East Asian politics will get very little for his content, since few advertisers are likely to want to bid on keywords like "North Korea," "DMZ" or "ASEAN." By contrast, if that publisher could work with an ad network that lets advertisers target ads on that site to each visitor based on their likely interests (as determined by creating an anonymous profile through their tracking their browsing behavior across other sites in the ad network), that publisher will be able to compete directly for more highly valued advertising.

In essence, advertising would thus be democratized because what would become economically valuable is getting the eyeballs, not having content that is directly related to valuable products and services (say, digital cameras). Put another way, this would empower consumers to "vote with their clicks": Revenue would more closely match the choices of consumers as to where to spend their time and attention.

By: Berin Szoka

Berin Szoka — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 14:36:49 +0000

Damn it, Tim! If you're going to start a new post instead of continuing an existing thread on that topic, the least you could do is to include a link to your new post in the old thread. For everyone else's benefit, here's a link to your new post: http://techliberation.com/2009/07/01/defending-...

By: Tim Lee

Tim Lee — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 14:16:30 +0000

Westlaw and Lexis seem like poor examples, given that much of they largely re-sell information that was produced at taxpayer expense and is technically in the public domain.

By: cordblomquist

cordblomquist — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 14:00:30 +0000

Steve, I agree that trying to fight copyright violation, or "leakage" as you put it, is futile. The costs of suing the entire world for copying something like a newspaper article is just too high.

However, subscription models for niche information, such as trade publications, are likely to work well into the future. This is especially true when subscriptions are bundled with access to archives, something that's not easily copied. Lexis-Nexus or Westlaw are other good examples of information that most likely will not be free anytime soon.

By: Steve R.

Steve R. — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 13:20:31 +0000

Cord, while you have made a very appropriate observation when stating: "It’s that fight between expensive information and nearly free distribution that needs to be explored." I think that you miss several important points.

First, if someone want to contribute free time to the development and dissemination of information, such a Wikipedia, they are free to do so.

Second, from the free market perspective, if "expensive" information leaks out into the public domain that is the way it is. The free market system is not meant to guarantee you a profit. Also, as a corollary, if information is "expensive" and it is subject to "leakage" but you want to make money but can't because of the "leakage" - don't do it.

So if you can't compete with "free" to bad, you have no business being in business. Its a competitive world.

By: Defending Free | The Technology Liberation Front

Defending Free | The Technology Liberation Front — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 10:46:04 +0000

[...] like it. Matt Yglesias had a sharp and critical response, and here at TLF Cord offered a strongly negative take on the [...]

By: Richard Bennett

Richard Bennett — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 09:24:45 +0000

The Internet has spawned a number of urban legends: emergence, the long tail, the link economy, net neutrality, and Free. Let's end this madness.