4 ms·

That comparison is flawed, the author has already been compensated because you (or a library) bought the book, but virtually no one pays for content online. It

by phpnode 11y ago

That comparison is flawed, the author has already been compensated because you (or a library) bought the book, but virtually no one pays for content online. It's quite simple. If there is no way to get paid for producing quality content, no one is going to produce quality content. I don't like the ad-riddled web any more than you, but it allows billions of people access to content they would not otherwise have access to. If the online ad business goes away, what fills that gap? Please don't suggest micropayments, people don't want to pay anything to read a website.

drdaeman 11y ago
> That comparison is flawed, the author has already been compensated because you (or a library) bought the book And if I got the book as PDF/EPUB and without paying anything (but legally)? Would it be moral for someone to force me to read because their business model says so?
- phpnode 11y ago
  This is a pointless distraction from the issue at hand but most free e-books are thinly veiled ads themselves. Their objective is to get you to pay for the author's products or seminars or whatever. It's quite different from the discussion here.
  - drdaeman 11y ago
    Not really. I've read some fiction ebooks that were self-published by authors and some were good. None had advertising (at least I haven't noticed), some had a suggestion to donate, but that's another story. Also, if we can say the comparison with software is valid, there is a lot of software (of various quality from a total trash to exceptionally good stuff) that comes gratis and doesn't try to sell you anything.
Nadya 11y ago
>Please don't suggest micropayments, people don't want to pay anything to read a website. If no businesses can profit/sustain off ads and this is the only avenue to obtain any content - people will pay. Or they'll go without content. When there is no content - there will be a demand for content. And people will pay. If there are sites that can sustain off ads and still produce content that people view - and you can't do that - you're fucked. Too bad. That's business and unfortunately your competitor is beating you at it. There is nothing wrong with that.
drdaeman 11y ago
> If there is no way to get paid for producing quality content, no one is going to produce quality content. I don't think this statement (or the contrary) was ever proven true. I'm absolutely sure the problem is awfully complicated and we can't simplify it as "no money - no quality content", especially as some sort of universal dogma. That said, if anyone knows of any research/experiment in this area, they're most welcome to share a link.

by phpnode 11y ago

drdaeman 11y ago

> That comparison is flawed, the author has already been compensated because you (or a library) bought the book And if I got the book as PDF/EPUB and without paying anything (but legally)? Would it be moral for someone to force me to read because their business model says so?

phpnode 11y ago
This is a pointless distraction from the issue at hand but most free e-books are thinly veiled ads themselves. Their objective is to get you to pay for the author's products or seminars or whatever. It's quite different from the discussion here.
- drdaeman 11y ago
  Not really. I've read some fiction ebooks that were self-published by authors and some were good. None had advertising (at least I haven't noticed), some had a suggestion to donate, but that's another story. Also, if we can say the comparison with software is valid, there is a lot of software (of various quality from a total trash to exceptionally good stuff) that comes gratis and doesn't try to sell you anything.

Nadya 11y ago

>Please don't suggest micropayments, people don't want to pay anything to read a website. If no businesses can profit/sustain off ads and this is the only avenue to obtain any content - people will pay. Or they'll go without content. When there is no content - there will be a demand for content. And people will pay. If there are sites that can sustain off ads and still produce content that people view - and you can't do that - you're fucked. Too bad. That's business and unfortunately your competitor is beating you at it. There is nothing wrong with that.

drdaeman 11y ago

> If there is no way to get paid for producing quality content, no one is going to produce quality content. I don't think this statement (or the contrary) was ever proven true. I'm absolutely sure the problem is awfully complicated and we can't simplify it as "no money - no quality content", especially as some sort of universal dogma. That said, if anyone knows of any research/experiment in this area, they're most welcome to share a link.