[9286] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: money, commercialization, and publishing
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (David Rothman)
Mon Dec 27 21:41:17 1993
In-Reply-To: <199312271907.LAA07592@aland.bbn.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Dec 93 21:34:42 -0400
To: "Craig Partridge" <craig@aland.bbn.com>
Cc: com-priv@psi.com
From: "David Rothman" <rothman@netcom.com>
Reply-To: rothman@netcom.com
>DATE: Mon, 27 Dec 93 11:07:38 -0800
>FROM: Craig Partridge <craig@aland.bbn.com>
>
> Lingua franca reports a snag -- folks are realizing that it is hard for
>Elsevier (which makes big $$s from its journals) to make the same kind of
>money by selling articles piecemeal. As a result, the pay-per-piece portion
>of TULIP has been delayed.
Sooner or later, smart electronic publishers will catch on to the fact
that pay-per-read could be a very good way to lose money in many cases.
Many folks just hate to pay when there's so much they can dial up for
free here on the 'Net, or when they can "borrow" from friends. Not just
in the public's minds, but also in librarians', the distinction between
"free" and "for sale" tends to blur. The 'Net is the perfect example of
this risk for publishers and writers. Newsgroup postings from Philip
Elmer-Dewitt, for example, have asked the world to stop pirating his
Time material about cyberspace. Of course the piracy must be a dream for
Time's PR people. But I doubt that lawyers at Time Warner are thrilled
by mass violation of copyright law.
So is encyrption the answer for information providers? Not quite. Some
pay-per-read encryption schemes could siphon away big bucks from online
publishers. The Dec. 13 issue of PC Week tells how Peter Sprague's
encryption company wants to charge providers some 35 percent of sales.
As much as half the booty could go to bribe PC makers to build
Sprague-friendly chips into their computers. How to avoid this expense?
I suppose Washington could mandate the chips; but, hey, Sprague and pals
are supposed to be against Big Government. One of his investors is none
other than George Gilder.
If publishers and high-tech types are sensible, they'll hold Al Gore to
his word and fight for a national library online with e-text and ed
software, the most temping targets for pirates. They will also want to
expand hardware markets by encouraging feds to promote affordable,
sharp-screened computers--kind to the written word. I'd delighted if
Sprague and Gilder profitted off such machines. They would be using
technology to spread knowledge, not thwart people who needed it to
improve themselves and create wealth.
Government could also cost-justify an online national library through
use of the same tablet-style computers for such purposes as reduction of
government-created paperwork for IRS, etc. It would be a waste if the
computers were for reading alone.
In the end, publishers and writers would make more money. Resources in
effect would be transfered from paperwork-related activies in the
public and private sectors to knowledge-spreading activities in the
private one. The cost of government isn't just in taxes. It's in the
time that bureaucrats and citizens alike spend on paperwork--at least several
hundred billion dollars a year, according to some estimates. Cut that amount
just a little and the e-library is cost-justified with plenty of money
to go around.
Under the present system publishers and writers are *not* getting their
fair share of the GDP, and the online confusion between "free" and "for sale"
might just end up hurting them further. The fact that video services
will be competing more and more for the public's money could only make
things worse for text-oriented providers.
At the same time low-income people could also suffer, since, even at low
prices, pay-per-read would discourage curiosity among their young.
The best approach, then, is to make e-books free or almost free to the
public--while building in provisions for fair compensation for
publishers, writers, etc.
Yes, pay-per-read does have *some* future (for example, as used with
fresh editions of ad-filled electronic newspapers where the illegal
readers just enlarge the readership for the advertisements), but not for
back articles or for e-books.
People interested in alternatives to the usual p-p-r dogmas may reach me
at rothman@netcom.com for a copy of teleread.txt (170K).
**************************************************************************
David H. Rothman "So we beat on, boats against
rothman@netcom.com the current...."
805 N. Howard St., #240
Alexandria, Va. 22304
703-370-6540(o)(h)
I *encourage* online, noncommercial reproduction of my public postings.
Permission hereby granted--implicit, explicit, whatever. Down
with unnecessary restrictions on the flow of knowledge!
**************************************************************************
