

Immaterialism - peter123
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/03/magazine/03wwln-consumed-t.html#

======
dkarl
We've been over this ad nauseam in the case of digital music. People have been
paying to hear music or see flickering images on a screen for a long, long
time. As long as the transaction was centered on a physical object, like a CD
or a DVD, we psychologically attached the value to the object. When the object
became an inconvenience, we realized we were paying for something intangible.

So we got cleared that little cognitive hurdle, no problem. Now it's normal to
buy music on iTunes. This New York Times article does its best to confuse the
issue by concentrating on buying intangible items that are _virtual
representations of real objects_. That drives home the contrast between real
and virtual in a way that music doesn't, since it's easy to accept that music
is intangible, but we're used to thinking of otters and swords as tangible
items. Yet in the final analysis, it's no different from music; it's just a
clever way for a journalist to take something commonplace and make it seem
weird.

~~~
frossie
Not that I want to defend journalists but I can see why they thought this was
of special interest.

If I give you you a .wav of Pergolesi's Stabat Mater, I am gifting you
something meaningful - an experience, a feeling of awe, or relaxation or
whatever your reaction to listening it will be. I consider that to be of
value. If someone asks you "And what did she give you for your birthday" you
can say "Stabat Mater! The Kirkby/Bowman recording!" and nobody would ask "Was
that a CD or on iTunes"? They would understand both the nature and the intent
of the gift. It's yours the same way the CD was yours - you have the ability
to listen to it whenever you want at no cost to you. Therefore you, the
recipient, continue to derive value.

I think the reason the journalist is boggling with the otter thing, is that it
appears to be of no value to them, and doubts that it is of any value to the
donor either (unlike Aunt Edna's horrid sweater, which while it may not be of
any value to Cousin Johnny, it is at least of value to her, and she thinks,
albeit mistakenly, that it might be of value to him, and also has a material
cost).

So I think they are surprised that someone can pay real money to transact
something that has no intrinsic value nor any usage value to either the gifter
or the recipient. Which does put it in a different category than digital
music.

------
lhorie
I figure most people already internalized the idea to some extent, (given that
this is a site geared towards online ventures), but my gut feeling is that,
unconsciously, we might be putting a tad too much focus on the "virtual", and
at some point we'll need to swing back to "real" side of the world when
considering going into entrepreneurship.

