4 ms·

Finding a fair price for free knowledge

16 points by ca98am79 17y ago

ErrantX 17y ago
A brilliant analysis of a tough subject (if I could write half as well as that...!) New Scientist keeps proving itself one of the best source of modern science and tech writing: simply because it is almost always reasoned, objective and restrained!
- Estragon 17y ago
  Huh, I haven't read it for years, because it tended to report whatever people told it as gospel, without doing a scintilla of fact-checking. Perhaps I'll check it out again, one of these days.
frossie 17y ago
First, even without payment, some folk will always record music, write software, make their feature films, do their own investigative journalism, occasionally even test their own drugs. You couldn't stop them if you tried. While I agree with the broader sentiment, I do worry that you can keep people doing investigative journalism if you try. One thing a news organisation does for a journalist is act as a litigation shield. A single individual lacking the same protection is by nature less tenacious. For example the badscience.net blogger/doctor (Ben Goldacre) wrote something about that hideous man who is getting South Africans with AIDS to stop taking their retrovirals and telling them that vitamins will cure their HIV infections. Goldacre got sued; but because he is a columnist for the UK newspaper the Guardian (a small-fry weekly columnist, not at all a newsdesk star) the paper backed him with their legal team and chased the bad guys off. Now if he was just a blogger with no media connection he probably would have stood down rather than deal with the legal fees. [Reference: http://www.badscience.net/2009/04/matthias-rath-steal-this-chapter/ http://www.badscience.net/2009/04/matthias-rath-steal-this-c... ] I think lack of legal protection seriously chills citizen journalism. And legal protection is expensive.
- carterschonwald 17y ago
  reall? My understanding was that the paper was initially supportive, but stopped after a while and it was only because he had income from several international bestsellers that he was able continue the legal battle (which i think he ultimately lost?)
  - frossie 17y ago
    Uhm you may be confusing this with another story. The blogger (Ben Goldacre) certainly does not have income from several international bestsellers (though his one UK-published book, Bad Science is fabulous reading and can be obtained from amazon.co.uk). The Guardian backed him until the vitamin pill hawker dropped the case. See: http://www.badscience.net/2008/09/matthias-rath-pulls-out-forced-to-pay-the-guardians-costs-i-think-this-means-i-win/ http://www.badscience.net/2008/09/matthias-rath-pulls-out-fo...
Ardit20 17y ago
When it comes to knowledge, you can never have too much of a good thing. You can have too many of good people going into business or related fields and not science. We all want someone else to do the hard tedious work,, but on a personal level, I'd rather be a god on this earth than a god of history. Tis fine and noble to suggest that some guy in his bungalow is going to do serious research and find the gene of addiction or something, or that Michael Jackson would have been the king of pop even if no one paid him anything, but in truth, both are fantasies. Comparing pop music with science, having an article which only projects a romantic sentiment of transformation without much substance, really helps no one. I think, I believe, that knowledge should be free and if that means that we should be taxed so that scientists get appropriate compensation while making their findings public, then so be it.

16 points by ca98am79 17y ago

A brilliant analysis of a tough subject (if I could write half as well as that...!) New Scientist keeps proving itself one of the best source of modern science and tech writing: simply because it is almost always reasoned, objective and restrained!

Estragon 17y ago
Huh, I haven't read it for years, because it tended to report whatever people told it as gospel, without doing a scintilla of fact-checking. Perhaps I'll check it out again, one of these days.

frossie 17y ago

First, even without payment, some folk will always record music, write software, make their feature films, do their own investigative journalism, occasionally even test their own drugs. You couldn't stop them if you tried. While I agree with the broader sentiment, I do worry that you can keep people doing investigative journalism if you try. One thing a news organisation does for a journalist is act as a litigation shield. A single individual lacking the same protection is by nature less tenacious. For example the badscience.net blogger/doctor (Ben Goldacre) wrote something about that hideous man who is getting South Africans with AIDS to stop taking their retrovirals and telling them that vitamins will cure their HIV infections. Goldacre got sued; but because he is a columnist for the UK newspaper the Guardian (a small-fry weekly columnist, not at all a newsdesk star) the paper backed him with their legal team and chased the bad guys off. Now if he was just a blogger with no media connection he probably would have stood down rather than deal with the legal fees. [Reference: http://www.badscience.net/2009/04/matthias-rath-steal-this-chapter/ http://www.badscience.net/2009/04/matthias-rath-steal-this-c... ] I think lack of legal protection seriously chills citizen journalism. And legal protection is expensive.

carterschonwald 17y ago
reall? My understanding was that the paper was initially supportive, but stopped after a while and it was only because he had income from several international bestsellers that he was able continue the legal battle (which i think he ultimately lost?)
- frossie 17y ago
  Uhm you may be confusing this with another story. The blogger (Ben Goldacre) certainly does not have income from several international bestsellers (though his one UK-published book, Bad Science is fabulous reading and can be obtained from amazon.co.uk). The Guardian backed him until the vitamin pill hawker dropped the case. See: http://www.badscience.net/2008/09/matthias-rath-pulls-out-forced-to-pay-the-guardians-costs-i-think-this-means-i-win/ http://www.badscience.net/2008/09/matthias-rath-pulls-out-fo...

Ardit20 17y ago

When it comes to knowledge, you can never have too much of a good thing. You can have too many of good people going into business or related fields and not science. We all want someone else to do the hard tedious work,, but on a personal level, I'd rather be a god on this earth than a god of history. Tis fine and noble to suggest that some guy in his bungalow is going to do serious research and find the gene of addiction or something, or that Michael Jackson would have been the king of pop even if no one paid him anything, but in truth, both are fantasies. Comparing pop music with science, having an article which only projects a romantic sentiment of transformation without much substance, really helps no one. I think, I believe, that knowledge should be free and if that means that we should be taxed so that scientists get appropriate compensation while making their findings public, then so be it.