
The Adams Theory of Content Value - alexandros
http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/the_adams_theory_of__content_value/
======
ajscherer
It is curious that he believes this transformation will be unleashed by the
iPad. The reason he gives:

"The iPad has a browsing capability that allows you to see any content on the
Internet, legal or not, and consume it from just about anywhere."

is untrue, and not just because there is a large amount of flash content on
the Internet. Only a small fraction of illegal content on the Internet is
available on the publicly accessible web. I see no reason to think the iPad
will ever have bittorrent or filesharing applications, or that a large influx
of iPads would allow pirates to overwhelm whatever forces are currently
keeping copyrighted material off the web. So how is the iPad supposed to be
some sort of game-changing tool for copyright violation?

------
aidenn0
"At some point, I assume, a Google search for any popular book title will
return an illegal source at the top of the page."

This is not true. Generally speaking, the easier it is for a 40 year old to
find, the easier it is for rightsholders to find and sue. Furthermore Google
tends to be pretty cooperative with removing links to egregiously infringing
stuff.

------
andreyf
Even if the acceptable price consumers are willing to pay for content
approaches zero, that hardly means the _value_ of content approaches zero. To
the contrary, if you're able to search vast amounts of content for what is
most interesting to you, the value you receive from that content increases
with the size of the search space. It's a clear win for the audience.

But what about the content producers? Already, most "real book" authors don't
publish to get rich from royalties, and derive most of their value in the form
of personal and professional publicity they receive from their work. If the
acquisition of such publicity shifts from big corporate publishing houses who
have the business deals in place to get you on The Daily Show to something
more democratic, authors benefit from an increasingly meritocratic system, as
well.

~~~
Nwallins
> _... that hardly means the value of content approaches zero. To the
> contrary, if you're able to search vast amounts of content for what is most
> interesting to you, the value you receive from that content increases ..._

The value of which Mr. Adams speaks is _economic_ \-- i.e. what is exchanged
for the content:

> _And so, as our ability to search for media content improves, the economic
> value of that content will approach zero._

------
btilly
His analysis is too simplistic.

There is no question that the value of each individual piece of content for
each user will drop. However there is also no question that we get more
utility out of the content we have, and therefore there is no question that
the value of all of the content we have is greater.

The important questions are what fraction of that utility gets captured as
income by various providers along the way (a smaller slice of a bigger pie can
still be more), and how much an individual provider can capture.

Data from the music industry indicates that musicians who share their music
freely make more money in the long run from increased concert sales, and
memorabilia sales. ( _The Grateful Dead_ are an extreme example.) Data from
<http://www.baen.com/library/> shows that putting books online increases
sales. So we have two examples where more free content translates into more
money.

However for now it appears that the search engines, particularly Google, are
in the best position to capture value out of the utility of content. But
Google recognizes that it is in trouble without content creators and is
actively trying to help. Here is hoping that they succeed.

~~~
jacobolus
Putting books online increases sales by giving extra exposure to those books
which are online, compared to books which are not online. Assuming that it
would still boost sales if _all_ books were online is a textbook example of
the fallacy of composition.

------
hxa7241
He seems to be mixing-up value and price, or something like those. Is it bad
to have more good stuff -- the _choice_ to have good stuff? That seems wrong.
What is going to zero is limits on distribution.

Banging on with words like 'illegal', 'criminal', 'stolen' makes it sound like
a testy lament that the barbarians are at the gates. Things are changing, and
most likely for the better. The fear of diminishing content from loss of
incentive is not materialising. Between 2002 and 2007, film, book, and music
production are all significantly up ('File-Sharing and Copyright'; Oberholzer-
Gee, Strumpf; 2010.)

Not being able to imagine how production might be funded without distribution
monopolies (copyright) doesn't mean new ways cannot be developed. The tech
that is withering copyright gives us much more than it takes away.

------
biggitybones
What's interesting to me is whether our values will change as this content
essentially becomes widely available and free.

Currently, we have a perceived value of something based on its cost (see any
web app pricing article). Will this evaporate as almost all content becomes
free? Will our perceived value based on cost be replaced by some ranking
system that Adams alludes to as "better search"?

This is the second variable that I think many people miss when they talk about
the inevitable shift to free content as a negative thing for consumers.

------
tocomment
I've never heard of books being online for free. I would guess you'd only find
maybe the top 100 bestsellers on bittorrent, or limewire. I doubt most of the
books people want are shared online.

~~~
commieneko
The other day I downloaded a single torrent that had nearly 1500 science
fiction novels in it. The intersection between this torrent and the titles in
my bookcases was about 75% (40+ year old collection.) I did spot checks for
torrents of random non sf titles, not to download, just to check availability,
and the hit rate, with minimal searching, was about 50%. A little googling
also found Mega-whosis downloads for lots of titles, including a large
collection about half the size of the torrent I downloaded previously.

A spot check for technical books, some within the year, turned up about a 40%
success rate. The older the book, the more likely I was to find a copy, down
to about 5 years or so ago. Older tech books are available, but only titles
that are big names in their fields. I did find one rather nice torrent listing
older science books.

I would say that the online book piracy movement is rolling along pretty well.
And this is in support of people willing to put up with the awfulness of
reading on a laptop or desktop screen. IMHO, the iPad is _really_ nice for
novels, short stories, comics, and manga. Less good for highly formatted
technical and illustrated books; but still better than using a laptop.

------
thefool
There will still be authors, its just that their income will come from
speaking gigs and merchandising.

------
willz
"As our ability to search for media content improves, the economic value of
that content will approach zero."

In simple words, he's just saying:

    
    
        Piracy makes your content worth nothing.
    

I just don't think this is true. Piracy has been rampant in movies, but movies
continue to make money in theaters, pay-per-view, netflix, or just good old
TV.

