

The Madness of Crowds and an Internet Delusion - joubert
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/12/science/12tier.html?ref=science

======
CalmQuiet
I think the huge challenge is in the final sentence:

"The result is a problem a bit like trying to stop a mob of looters. When the
majority of people feel entitled to someone’s property, who’s going to stand
in their way?"

How many politicians will dare stand up to protect a small number of creative
minds once 7+ billion consumers have grown accustomed to accessing info/media
for "free" (in time and simplicity)?

Right now I think they mostly stand up for large corporate 'rights' - not
individual creators/artists.

[Am I too cynical in suspecting that the congressional voices that support
copy protection receive substantial campaign contributions from publishing
industry giants (as opposed to the 'creative minds' whose intellectual
property builds their empires)?]

::edited for clarification::

~~~
bartl
I think people don't feel so bad about stealing from the RIAA, because the
artists only would get a tiny fraction of the paid sum anyway...

And stealing from thieves isn't so bad, is it?

------
chaosmachine
_"The big difference between Web piracy and house burglary, he says, is that
the penalties for piracy are tiny and rarely enforced"_

The big difference is copying vs theft.

Also, the penalties for copyright infringement are anything but tiny.
"Downloading mom fined $80000 per song", etc.

~~~
natmaster
These and other obvious mistakes show the author does not understand the
fundamentals of the information age. While old media produces sequel after
unoriginal sequel of movies, and clone musicians to push on us, the
information age has spawned a new age of creativity. The incumbents can no
longer keep down the truly creative because distribution costs have gone down
so much. The internet has saved culture from monotone salvages of the old
media, and sparked creativity in the new.

~~~
tokenadult
_The internet has saved culture from monotone salvages of the old media, and
sparked creativity in the new._

What are some of your favorite examples of creativity in new media, which in
your view were not possible before the information age?

~~~
natmaster
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/> <http://www.techcrunch.com/>
<http://redvsblue.com/home.php> <http://www.purepwnage.com/> And for
music...well maybe this is niche for me, but I like
<http://www.jonathancoulton.com/> And things like this are really only
possible now: <http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5482774>

------
tokenadult
"In the 1990s, when I was writing paeans to the dawning spirit of digital
collaboration, it didn’t occur to me that the Web’s 'gift culture,' as
anthropologists called it, could turn into a mandatory potlatch for so many
professions--including my own."

This is what I find, as a writer of nonfiction writings that take heavy
research investment to produce. Twerps half my age think nothing of copying my
Web-based writings in their entirety onto websites that bear only their name
and not mine, and few readers indeed think of paying me for writing based on
the Web, no matter how much value the writings have for the reader. I still
need to study more current examples of more different nonfiction writers to
see how they get paid for the best of research-based writing, but the trend
lines don't look good for people being paid to write that which requires
research, analysis, and careful expression. Opinion pieces that appeal to
preexisting prejudices seem to have a ready market as blog posts that draw
audiences with known demographics to view Web advertisements, but research
pieces that might change opinions have an ill-defined payment channel in Web
distribution.

~~~
emmett
In general, very few people have ever been compensated for their research in
the past. In an era before the internet, you probably wouldn't have been
published; if you had been, you probably wouldn't have sold enough copies to
make any significant amount of money.

If you're not doing the research for the love, and you're not doing it as your
job, and no one is paying you to do new research after being impressed by your
old research, and it's not engaging enough to draw a consistent audience,
you're completely right. It's hard to get compensated for it.

Blaming the web for that seems backwards; for the first time the average
person has a shot at even distributing their original research and thought.
It's _better_ than before. We just need to figure out the best structure for
compensating people. Since that's already happening in the realm of music and
TV online, I'm hopeful we'll find some solution for thoughtful writing as
well.

PS: Link to your online writings?

~~~
tokenadult
My site is going through a technical update with the help of the other HN
participant in this household. Then I will be doing content updates, throwing
caution to the winds and again posting a lot of content for free. I'll update
my HN profile then to provide the link. Thanks for asking and thanks for the
detailed, thoughtful reply.

------
CapitalistCartr
"He blames the Web’s tradition of 'drive-by anonymity' for fostering vicious
pack behavior on blogs, forums and social networks. He acknowledges the
examples of generous collaboration, like Wikipedia, but argues that the
mantras of 'open culture' and 'information wants to be free' have produced a
destructive new social contract."

No, I don't see "vicious pack behavior on blogs". Just as I don't frequent
sleazy bars in industrial districts, I don't frequent un-moderated, trashy
parts of the Internet. Casting the Internet as something totally new is
typical of fear-mongering articles from 15 years ago.

As for the "mantras" he mentions, in plain English, those are a couple of
ideas, amongst a vast sea, popular in some areas of the Internet. Yes, people
freely express their ideas on-(and off-) line. If he disagrees, good for him,
but those ideas aren't new, and if he's seeing a lot of bar-fights, pick a
better hang-out.

~~~
dgabriel
You don't need to frequent the dark corners of the internet to find yourself
(or your family members) the inadvertent target of a pack of attack dogs.

------
pmorici
Why is the NYT writing about this now? There really isn't any new information
here that hasn't been rehashed hundreds of times over. In effect it all comes
down to a question of what has value to people.

To take music for an example, a digital copy of a song has very little value
when compared to something like a live performance which commands a much
higher price. An artist bemoaning the economics of the digital world is like
Dell commiserating about the decline in the average selling price of laptops
because of the introduction of net books. If an artist, or anyone, is
interested in making more money they should concentrate on making things
people are willing to pay more for instead of complaining that people aren't
willing to pay for what they want to produce.

~~~
Goladus
_> Why is the NYT writing about this now?_

The story is that a guy changed sides.

~~~
logicalmind
And that guy has a new book to promote.

------
stralep
"The problem in each case is not that you stole from a specific person but
that you undermined the artificial scarcities that allow the economy to
function." ARTIFICIAL scarcities... They are necessary evil of free market (is
it free when there is monopoly?), but you must be sure to have monopoly first,
or someone will race down with price. My 2c, anyway

------
spot
"it is striking how many of the top-grossing acts began in the predigital era,
and how much of today’s music is a mash-up of the old."

this is what it's all about, the kids and their damn music.

~~~
spot
why the downvote?? seems like you are just proving jaron right ;)

