Final Class

Well, the final class has arrived. As a result, I will no longer be blogging at regular intervals. To the throngs of people who have enjoyed my entries, I can only offer my apologies for denying you my thoughts; however, I have not entirely ruled out updating this blog from time-to-time. Thanks for reading. IL 2 DC is currently idle.....stay tuned.

I'm blogged-out

Why Do I Care?

Why does it seem that I care so much about criticizing micropayments? I think it just boils down to the idea of additional payments. I hate paying bills, and the thought of paying one extra bill a month for internet usage - remember, micropayments are payments to view pages, not just to access the actual internet - is just so ridiculous to me. I already pay for the internet....just ask Comcast....

Additionally, I just can't seem to understand how anyone would choose to pay additional money just so they are freed of annoying advertising......while they are being "freed" of their money.

I also think that my distaste for this whole concept - which doesn't seem to be growing in popularity beyond a novelty - is also due to the fact that I have a bit of faith in a free-market system to "weed out" useless, unnecessary and annoying products. If the internet surfing experience is not fulfilling....annoying....and not efficient, people should demand it be better with their individual choice....that way everyone can enjoy the consequential efficiency because it is internet-wide. With mmicropayments....some people might be left behind, like those who cannot afford them or just refuse to pay them. Let's just try and reduce the number of bills we have at the end of every month, shall we.

A Good Case....

I completely agree with Clay Shirky's analysis of micropayments in his work, Fame vs. Fortune: Micropayments and Free Content. He nicely articulated the reason why he feels - and I feel, because I agree with him - micropayments will fail.

This is a great description:

"...the act of buying anything, even if the price is very small, creates what Nick Szabo calls mental transaction costs, the energy required to decide whether something is worth buying or not, regardless of price." He goes on to say," The only business model that delivers money from sender to receiver with no mental transaction costs is theft..." I love it...

This is a great argument against the whole idea of mcropayments....I completely agree, because it makes sense. Shirky's analysis is backed up with actual terms for things...like "mental transaction costs." Everyone does this when they are about to buy something, now it has a name. According to Shirky, the amount of free publishing has increased over the last several years....it makes sense....I mean, who doesn't like free things?

Micropayments...Continued

Even in 2000, Nielsen still touted his idea that micropayments will become more popular. He says, "We are currently passing through a temporary phase of the Web where everything has to be free. At some point of time, people will tire of low quality and ever-more-intrusive ads and start paying." He also went on to state that he is "still waiting" for this new "business model" to take hold......me too. I'm still going to stick to my original point - that people will not give up having a free net surfing experience just to be freed of annoying ad content.

Nielsen states he remains convinced, but is there any empirical evidence, or is this just a hunch? Several years have past - seven to be exact - since his initial support for micropayments. They have not become popular....or at least as popular as he purports they will become.

Micropayments

Call me crazy, but the reason I turn off the lights when I go to sleep is because it's hard to sleep with lights on!

In Jakob Nielsen's discussion of micropayments he makes the grand statement that people turn off their lights at night due to energy costs....A statement that is but one component of his entire argument that micropayments are the wave of the future.

Micropayments, apparently, are (as the label suggests) micro....payments. These payments will be made by visitors to the internet and will be as low as several cents per visit, etc. His concept is similar to that of other metered utilities, like water and electricity....hence the turning the light out comment. Basically, web users will be charged micro "fees" as they surf, thus incurring a monthly fee....probably around $30 or so, according to Nielsen's article. Due to this fee, visitors will be freed of annoying and burdensome advertising.

I'm still not convinced by Nielsen's initial writings of the benefits of micropayments. I'm pretty confident that people value free things over less advertising and annoying content.

Nielsen makes the case (if I'm reading his analysis right) that microfees are another quality control mechanism for the internet, but isn't that what demand (or the lack of it) does for quality in a free market arena? If people believe that something - like a product, or a website - is not good, they won't buy it or visit the site. The consequential lack of demand will cause a change to take place (hopefully) with the way the site or the product is produced. If such a positive change doesn't take place, then the product will not survive.

Upon initial inspection, I have some doubts about micropayments, but further research is warranted of course....to be continued.

Free Culture

I just listened to Lawrence Lessig's keynote speech at the 2002 Open Source Convention. His arguments were very compelling. Along with his words, he utilized great visuals that really aided in his overall arguments.

I recently posted an entry where I stated that our national tradition of free speech would prevail against any threats to freedom that may arise in history. I still stand by that broad generalization. I do still think that Americans will only take so much trampling on their ability to express themselves in an appropriate manner. Lessig's own speech could be seen as proof for my statement. It is obvious that he feels that innovation and freedom are being curbed by the activities of a few through their savvy use of law and copyright regulations. He is "doing something" as he so often asked his listeners, during the speech, if they were doing the same.

His arguments certainly caused me to reassess these "hurdles" to innovation and ideas. I mean, it does make sense that ideas and future innovation do feed of of ideas from the past, and the "past" always tries to stop the present from utilizing its ideas. A society does become less free when it is increasingly not allowed to gain inspiration. Lessig's Mickey Mouse example was great. He, in not so few words, basically attributes the rise of Mickey Mouse - an his subsequent beloved place in our American society - to the fact that when Walt Disney created Mickey, there were less constraints on the use of past ideas. Apparently, Mickey Mouse was based on an already existing human character in a then present movie.

Its hard to think of the world today without such a popular and pleasing image (I mean, who doesn't like Mickey Mouse?) as Mickey. According to Lessig, Disney's inspiration would not have been allowed today. While I do value Lessig's argument, I do still think that some legal protections must be afforded to those who create. Whether, its a book or a song, the creator should be allowed to benefit from their creation; however, the extension of these legal protections may be too encompassing. A balance must be found that enables incentives for creation to still occur - when I mean incentives, I mean the comfort that comes with some legal protection for personal work through patents and copywrites - while at the same time not limiting the ability of those in the present to be innovative with information or creations that the past so skillfully developed, thus enabling the future innovation.

Even the framers of our constitution, under Article I, section 8, allowed for the protection of intellectual property for "limited times", in order "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts." Indeed, it does seem that "limited times" does have a different definition today.