4 ms·

There's a difference between information and media. While Doctorow uses the term "information," he's really talking about professionally produced media. And mos

by chasing 12y ago

There's a difference between information and media. While Doctorow uses the term "information," he's really talking about professionally produced media. And mostly entertainment media, at that (NBC shows, his kid's book, etc.). That stuff just doesn't get produced if there's not some way of generating income from it. And that requires some kind of barrier to distribution. Although the nature of that barrier -- technical, social, legal, whatever -- is very much up for debate.

wpietri 12y ago
Does that require some barrier? I don't think that's at all obvious. Previous models for funding content are built around natural distribution barriers. E.g., it was hard making and getting books to people, so you used the distribution channel as the revenue channel. So I think most of our experience is like that. But we now live in an age where distribution is effectively free. I just bought a book (yay, Ancillary Sword is out!). I paid for most of the distribution (I bought the tablet and pay for an Internet connection); the publisher, distributor, and retail channel together have a marginal cost measured in fractions of a cent. That changes things. I think our closest historical example is broadcast radio and TV, which has never had a barrier to distribution. One way to fund that is ads, but there are others. For example, US public radio and the BBC produce a lot of high-quality, professionally-produced media and have for decades. Or we could look at newspaper serials, the format that gave us The Three Musketeers: newspapers print so many copies that sharing is easy; people paid because it was cheap and convenient. But the interesting stuff is just getting started. Plenty of professional writers give a lot of stuff away for free on the web. I've helped fund a few different Kickstarter films, and would have been perfectly happy to throw in more if they had wanted to make the films available freely. Micropatronage is just getting going.
- deciplex 12y ago
  >I think our closest historical example is broadcast radio and TV, which has never had a barrier to distribution. Eh? Sure it has, in that the radio spectrum was appropriated as public property, and auctioned off to the highest bidder (or, the one with the most political connections - lot of corruption here to be sure). And you have to do it this way or the technology basically doesn't work, or at least it doesn't work very well with all the noise generated by competing broadcasters on the same frequency.
  - wpietri 12y ago
    I'm using "barrier to distribution" here as from the person I'm replying to, a thing providing a choke point where you can collect revenue. You're using the words in a broader sense. Also, I don't think you're right about the history of licensing. Spectrum auctions are relatively new, at least in the US. I'm pretty sure that during the time radio and TV were figuring out their business models, license fees were negligible. See, for example, Coase's 1959 paper, "The Federal Communications Commission"; his proposal of treating spectrum as a tradable property right was considered novel and radical.
    - deciplex 12y ago
      > I'm pretty sure that during the time radio and TV were figuring out their business models, license fees were negligible. Didn't know that - that's interesting. Still, the spectrum itself was regulated, right? That sounds even worse, IMO. The fees may have been low, but even in the 50s, the right to broadcast on a particular frequency was worth heaps of money. So, if they weren't auctioning to the highest bidder, the frequency would go to whoever knew the right people in government (and paid them or gave them gifts, I would imagine).
      - wpietri 12y ago
        That's an interesting hypothesis, but I'd want to see some evidence for it. Public service is an actual thing.
        deciplex 12y ago
        50 years after the fact? Probably not. When it comes to corruption, an expensive resource being sold by the government for cheap is usually evidence enough. I don't think such thinking requires a high level of cynicism, does it? In fact, in a sense the act itself is corruption anyway - forgoing potential revenue which would have to be made up in the form of taxes.
        wpietri 12y ago
- sparkzilla 12y ago
  > BBC produce a lot of high-quality, professionally-produced media It should be pointed out that the BBC is funded by a tax (the BBC license fee) that is levied whether you watch the BBC or not. Forcing people to pay for content they don't watch, whether it is high quality or not, isn't a good model (unless you are the BBC of course).
  - rahimnathwani 12y ago
    Agreed. It's a 'TV licence', though, not a 'BBC license fee'.
  - Broken_Hippo 12y ago
    Everyone pays for content they don't watch - in the States, section of tax helps NPR and PBS (this miniscule support is dwindling). More often it is paid for by advertising and shows often have product placement (again, income). Advertising is a distributed non-government enforced tax on goods and services you buy and use.
  - pjc50 12y ago
    It can be argued both ways, like "why should I pay for roads that I don't drive on?" After all, content isn't "consumed" when watched, it's there forever (unless the BBC tape over the master). I used to be a strong supporter of the BBC, but their news has been badly crippled by the Hutton report, BBC3 is a mess (not as bad as Channel 4), I'm not really interested in their drama, and their light entertainment is often cringeworthy. However, the documentaries on BBC4 and especially the archive material are excellent. BBC radio is usually high quality too, when it's not suffering from random acts of management ( http://www.theguardian.com/media/2012/nov/01/axed-danny-baker-bbc-rant http://www.theguardian.com/media/2012/nov/01/axed-danny-bake... )
  - wpietri 12y ago
    > Forcing people to pay for content they don't watch, whether it is high quality or not, isn't a good model (unless you are the BBC of course). Or Comcast. Just listen to the endless complaints about the zillion channels paid for versus the few that get watched. But the "not a good model" thing is ideological, not practical. It undeniably works in the sense of sustainably producing high-quality content, which is the point at issue here.
- vanderZwan 12y ago
  You assume that the value of TV content is whether you watch it, but mass media doesn't quite work the same way as, say, food. The BBC produces a lot of programs that I don't want to watch, but that I do think are good for others to see. In other words, for society as a whole. Hence public television, hence funding through taxes. I'm not saying it's a perfect system, or that all BBC content falls under this, but it's certainly defendable. Also, IMO based on what I've seen come out of public television in general, where the money comes from clearly has an effect on the type of content being produced and the "flavour" of it, and I think that adds value as well.
  - wpietri 12y ago
    I think that's another way you could look at it, but I don't think that's necessary for my point, which is that barriers for distribution are not always necessary to get good content. All I was assuming is that a) the content is professionally produced, and b) the people watching the content find it valuable. That you also find it valuable for them to watch it sounds like an excellent bonus.

by chasing 12y ago

wpietri 12y ago

Does that require some barrier? I don't think that's at all obvious. Previous models for funding content are built around natural distribution barriers. E.g., it was hard making and getting books to people, so you used the distribution channel as the revenue channel. So I think most of our experience is like that. But we now live in an age where distribution is effectively free. I just bought a book (yay, Ancillary Sword is out!). I paid for most of the distribution (I bought the tablet and pay for an Internet connection); the publisher, distributor, and retail channel together have a marginal cost measured in fractions of a cent. That changes things. I think our closest historical example is broadcast radio and TV, which has never had a barrier to distribution. One way to fund that is ads, but there are others. For example, US public radio and the BBC produce a lot of high-quality, professionally-produced media and have for decades. Or we could look at newspaper serials, the format that gave us The Three Musketeers: newspapers print so many copies that sharing is easy; people paid because it was cheap and convenient. But the interesting stuff is just getting started. Plenty of professional writers give a lot of stuff away for free on the web. I've helped fund a few different Kickstarter films, and would have been perfectly happy to throw in more if they had wanted to make the films available freely. Micropatronage is just getting going.

deciplex 12y ago
>I think our closest historical example is broadcast radio and TV, which has never had a barrier to distribution. Eh? Sure it has, in that the radio spectrum was appropriated as public property, and auctioned off to the highest bidder (or, the one with the most political connections - lot of corruption here to be sure). And you have to do it this way or the technology basically doesn't work, or at least it doesn't work very well with all the noise generated by competing broadcasters on the same frequency.
- wpietri 12y ago
  I'm using "barrier to distribution" here as from the person I'm replying to, a thing providing a choke point where you can collect revenue. You're using the words in a broader sense. Also, I don't think you're right about the history of licensing. Spectrum auctions are relatively new, at least in the US. I'm pretty sure that during the time radio and TV were figuring out their business models, license fees were negligible. See, for example, Coase's 1959 paper, "The Federal Communications Commission"; his proposal of treating spectrum as a tradable property right was considered novel and radical.
  - deciplex 12y ago
    > I'm pretty sure that during the time radio and TV were figuring out their business models, license fees were negligible. Didn't know that - that's interesting. Still, the spectrum itself was regulated, right? That sounds even worse, IMO. The fees may have been low, but even in the 50s, the right to broadcast on a particular frequency was worth heaps of money. So, if they weren't auctioning to the highest bidder, the frequency would go to whoever knew the right people in government (and paid them or gave them gifts, I would imagine).
    - wpietri 12y ago
      That's an interesting hypothesis, but I'd want to see some evidence for it. Public service is an actual thing.
      - deciplex 12y ago
        50 years after the fact? Probably not. When it comes to corruption, an expensive resource being sold by the government for cheap is usually evidence enough. I don't think such thinking requires a high level of cynicism, does it? In fact, in a sense the act itself is corruption anyway - forgoing potential revenue which would have to be made up in the form of taxes.
        wpietri 12y ago
sparkzilla 12y ago
> BBC produce a lot of high-quality, professionally-produced media It should be pointed out that the BBC is funded by a tax (the BBC license fee) that is levied whether you watch the BBC or not. Forcing people to pay for content they don't watch, whether it is high quality or not, isn't a good model (unless you are the BBC of course).
- rahimnathwani 12y ago
  Agreed. It's a 'TV licence', though, not a 'BBC license fee'.
- Broken_Hippo 12y ago
  Everyone pays for content they don't watch - in the States, section of tax helps NPR and PBS (this miniscule support is dwindling). More often it is paid for by advertising and shows often have product placement (again, income). Advertising is a distributed non-government enforced tax on goods and services you buy and use.
- pjc50 12y ago
  It can be argued both ways, like "why should I pay for roads that I don't drive on?" After all, content isn't "consumed" when watched, it's there forever (unless the BBC tape over the master). I used to be a strong supporter of the BBC, but their news has been badly crippled by the Hutton report, BBC3 is a mess (not as bad as Channel 4), I'm not really interested in their drama, and their light entertainment is often cringeworthy. However, the documentaries on BBC4 and especially the archive material are excellent. BBC radio is usually high quality too, when it's not suffering from random acts of management ( http://www.theguardian.com/media/2012/nov/01/axed-danny-baker-bbc-rant http://www.theguardian.com/media/2012/nov/01/axed-danny-bake... )
- wpietri 12y ago
  > Forcing people to pay for content they don't watch, whether it is high quality or not, isn't a good model (unless you are the BBC of course). Or Comcast. Just listen to the endless complaints about the zillion channels paid for versus the few that get watched. But the "not a good model" thing is ideological, not practical. It undeniably works in the sense of sustainably producing high-quality content, which is the point at issue here.
vanderZwan 12y ago
You assume that the value of TV content is whether you watch it, but mass media doesn't quite work the same way as, say, food. The BBC produces a lot of programs that I don't want to watch, but that I do think are good for others to see. In other words, for society as a whole. Hence public television, hence funding through taxes. I'm not saying it's a perfect system, or that all BBC content falls under this, but it's certainly defendable. Also, IMO based on what I've seen come out of public television in general, where the money comes from clearly has an effect on the type of content being produced and the "flavour" of it, and I think that adds value as well.
- wpietri 12y ago
  I think that's another way you could look at it, but I don't think that's necessary for my point, which is that barriers for distribution are not always necessary to get good content. All I was assuming is that a) the content is professionally produced, and b) the people watching the content find it valuable. That you also find it valuable for them to watch it sounds like an excellent bonus.