NY Times article, “eliminate the middleman”
ø
James Fallows has discovered RSS, among other things. He has a
question for publishers, noting “Information is both invaluable and
impossible to value.” He cites the phenomenon of the give-away
culture, exemplified in free web sites, blogs, and more or less the
open access movement. Who’s going to pay for information if it is
free? Well, for a long time libraries paid for information that
was made freely available to the general public, albeit with greater or
lesser convenience to the individual. Now, there’s more material
freely available and at increasing convenience, depending on the speed
and stability of one’s internet connection. But publishers and
libraries still provide value by collecting and organizing disparate
data. What the price of that should be is another question.
Many believe that the free, open source, file sharing, whatever you
want to call it, movements harm those who are simply trying to make a
living or cover costs (small companies, scientific societies,
independent artists) and will not harm those who are making
astronomical profits (the record companies, the Microsofts, the
Elseviers.) Maybe we need to educate others about choices, and
some can play a role in that, rather than attacking the open movements
in fear of losing what they little they have. For example, it seems
that scientific societies have in interest in open access rather than
dismissing it. Fallows (oh yeah, that’s what started this) ends
on an optimistic note (but not for the “middlemen”:”No matter how that
battle turns out, the public will win the longer war. The
Internet’s impact on the value of information may still be in flux, but
its long-term impact on middlemen is clear.” Maybe it isn’t so much
elimination of the “middlemen” but those who would profit extravagantly
and serve their shareholders first. (Sources; Open Access News; Bob Stepno)