šŸ„

View Original

Content "Freedom"

Jaffe tweeted a request for thoughts and comments for his next podcast via Twitter the other day. The topic:  "Content Wants To Be Free." (Inspired by Chip Griffin's recent and quite articulate post.)

Is this much ado about nothing? I agree with Jeff Jarvisā€™ observation that content already is free, so letā€™s concentrate on finding other means of extracting compensation or adding value. Of course, to what degree any piece of content is ā€œfreeā€ depends on your resources, technical abilities and stamina. But it seems to me that there are two issues Griffin didnā€™t discuss that affect the ā€œfreedomā€ of content.

1) Time
2) The Content Itself

Movies, recordings, booksā€”they all become free at some point. Just visit the library. Or ask a friend. Be patient, someday it will be yours. But if you want to experience them upon their release, youā€™re probably going to pay for the pleasure. We pay for timely access to content. The more ā€œconnectedā€ you are, the less time you have to wait, naturally.

And then thereā€™s the content of the content. For a variety of reasons, Iā€™ve been trained to value motion pictures, CDs and literature bound in fancy volumes. So Iā€™m accustomed to paying for these kinds of content. Yet I donā€™t see any reason to shell out cold cash for news reporting, insightful marketing blogs and podcasts or videos of The Police. That content is free. (But I should note that I did join the Police Tour fanclub for access to both earlier ticket sales and rehearsal videos. And because the first album I bought with my own cash was Regatta De Blanc.)

Perhaps content truly is free. What weā€™re really paying for is access, ease-of-use and transportability.