[9287] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: money, commercialization, and publishing
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Daniel Akst)
Mon Dec 27 22:08:44 1993
Date: Mon, 27 Dec 1993 18:57:11 -0800 (PST)
From: Daniel Akst <akst@netcom.com>
To: David Rothman <rothman@netcom.com>
Cc: Craig Partridge <craig@aland.bbn.com>, com-priv@psi.com
In-Reply-To: <2966124664.17.p00997@psilink.com>
David, that's an interesting post. I seem to recall reading that in
Britain, authors receive some small sum of money every time one of their
books is checked out of a public library. Presumably their account is
credited by computer, and once a year the government sends out checks.
Tax money is apparently used for this purpose. I wonder if something
analogous might help provide writers and "publishers" (whatever that may
come to mean) with income and incentive while giving everyone instant
electronic access to everything without schlepping to the library. I
realize the system doesn't fairly assess the cost of the information
against those who use it, but the argument might be that society benefits
from the use of information, which should therefore be encouraged, that
the creation and consumption of information increases productivity, and
that some or all of the cost of producing information might thus
justifiably be socialized. We've already done something like this with our
system of paying professor's salaries to so many of our writers, thinkers
and social critics, especially at public institutions such as state
universities. Anybody have any thoughts?
Dan Akst
akst@netcom.com
On Mon, 27 Dec 1993, David Rothman wrote:
> >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!
> **************************************************************************
>
>
