An up and down of writing

Writing -- producing a collection of published words, is once again becoming sacrosanct. The first shock came with the invention of the printing press. Shortly after it was invented, almost anyone could publish their ideas for anyone to read. The next shock came with the explosion and expansion of the Internet. Today, literally anyone can find a place for their voice to be heard. In both cases there came a backlash from established and recognized authors who felt threatened by the ability of anyone to publish their beliefs. Between those two times, the art of authorship has risen and fell as opinion of its creators changed.
Shortly after the invention of the printing press, those in power, mostly the clergy -- but some young governments as well, scrambled to keep control over the new invention. Approval was needed before a work was published and due to the process of approval, printing of little more than bibles was approved. But as the technology progressed, and became more widely available, works of individuals found their way into the hands of the people. Criticism of those in power and social and scientific exploration were next to be printed. The exact things that those in power sought to stop.
But today's story isn't about those things. They have been covered elsewhere. Today's story concerns those who later managed to grasp and hold the technology of printing hostage. The 1920s saw the build up of monolithic empires founded on the power of words. It was an exclusive group funded vicariously by the pockets of the people, but filtered through the government, and those in power. Words had so much power then that a career in creating them was seen as a powerful goal. Therefore, functional literacy in developing nations began to rise. Individual freedoms were partly express with the ability to read and write. Slowly, inextricably, the opinions of those who were not in power began to be heard.
Fast forward 50 years. In the U.S. of the 1970s and 80s a glut of opinion was available. Authorship, something that almost anyone could do, was looked down upon unless the author was already famous. Millions of books lined the shelves of huge bookstores, hundreds of newspapers were available daily in large metro areas. Authorship, at this point, even though widely available, was segregated. There were those who did it, and those who did it well. The stigma attached with bad authorship began to have an effect on the populace. Functional literacy began to decline. The line of authors waiting for an agent, or those who were taken in and broken by publishing companies seemed insurmountable to many whose books or newsletters would be printed -- if only self-publication was cheaper.
Fast forward twenty years. The Internet boom had come and gone by the late nineties. The survivors of the crash, left to sort through the ashes, discovered something particular. The expansion had been fueled the most by social interaction like email and instant messaging, personal web pages with opinionated statements of the day and pages plastered with the creators artistic displays. Those in position to foster the growth of this new communications medium started work on Web 2 point Oh.
And now here we are. Literally anyone who can get access to a computer connected to the Internet has a voice. Bloggers create more pages and content in one day than was produced in the first hundred years after the invention of the printing press. Individuals are clamoring to find a voice and learning to read an write to do so. It is 2008, functional literacy is starting to increase, the middle class is standing up more often and voicing their opinions to those in charge. And the backlash has begun anew.
Once more the highest paid producers are looking down upon those who are using their voice to spread dissent, expose falsehoods or challenge the old guard on their own territory. Backlash towards bloggers and hobbyist authors has increased and laws have been proposed, or even passed, to try and limit their voice. Those in charge are searching for loopholes in current law to try and revoke the rights of press from the amateurs and return it fully to the hands of those paid by lobbyists to tell a better version of the truth.
Those actions have began to change the opinion of the public and will result in the same correction seen only a few decades ago. The people will be told that only the established sources should be trusted. That these bloggers are neither right, nor should they be trusted. They don't have the sources, or the integrity needed to carry the torch of authorship and reporting. The forcing down has already begun. And it will continue until either the bloggers give up, or the establishment is forced to change. Those who have been attacked include: Wikipedia, Craigslist, Mac Rumors, and almost every website that tells the story of a consumer being given the shaft, and more whistle blower websites than anyone could count.

Best paragraph ever: ARS FTW

This paragraph:

The 2006 anti-porn initiative was rendered impotent when 16-year-old Tom Wood penetrated the filter system's blocking mechanism. Despite previous failure, the government is now thrusting deep into the public coffers in order to erect a new $89 million ISP-level version that lawmakers hope will include technical safeguards that are impossible to penetrate.

is in This story. All of you should read it.

Arguing about Free

http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/beware_of_freeconomics.php
http://www.wired.com/techbiz/it/magazine/16-03/ff_free?currentPage=all

Lately, it seems that the buzz words to use when you want to start a fight are Free, Feemium or Freeconomics, (not to be confused with Steven Levitt.) Once you start talking about free, everyone seems to have an idea about what the perfect solution is, or what the perfect soultion isn't. The two links above are stories that spotlight this phenomenon and the interest it can create.

Earlier, I wrote about how Anime is the U.S. is in trouble because of free. The internet has been driving down the cost of everything for a decade. you can shop for deals, trade things with strangers, or even find *gasp* free things. In my mind, free means absolutely free. No payment, no adverts. Then you have ad-supported, then Freemium (free service with added premium pay services), then pay services. The point of contention demonstrated by the two articles above is a warning.

The Wired article supposes that eventually, things will be supported by complementary products. Movie tickets, it states would be free but supported and paid for by popcorn and candy. (The first rebuttal: what about those who don't want to buy popcorn and candy?) It's a nice looking future. But it's based on the razor/razor blade system. The fault with that is not everyone shaves, and not everyone buys disposable razors.

The Read Write Web article argues on two points. One is transactions, the other is the imagined enemy of all businesses everywhere -- Monopolies. Its three monopoly points are Google, DVRs, and unfunded startups. Unfunded startups, I won't even get in to because of the complexities. Sarbanes-Oxley is still a sore spot to many VCs, and until that has been shuffled around, fixed, or removed, all startups are going to suffer.

The next point, DVRs, are worthy of an entire discussion on their own. Their history has been shaped by getting around the business model that allows network television to remain free. The Read Write article seems to ignore the real reason we love DVRs, and so, compares them to the cell phone model of "give the phone away and charge for the service." I think this misses the mark. A cable company provided DVR is simply a concession of defeat from the service provider. TiVo (and Replay TV before it was murdered by the Industry), as well as computer based DVR platforms are becoming as popular as DVD players. The last thing that a cable company wants to be is a dumb-pipe, and by forcing you to use their box they are trying to maintain that presence and control. (The only way around a service-provided DVR or cable box is a Cable Card enabled device... sometimes.) It is true though, that remotes, esp. those provided by cable and satellite companies, are absolute rubbish.

Read Write Web also speaks of complex transactions. The post presents the middle man pretty much the way we all see it: The middle man is a necessary evil. Micro transaction managers, ad revenue providers, virtual shop operators. They are all middle men, and they all want their cut. Growing under the wing of a middle man could allow one to eventually break free and set up shop on their own, but without business savvy, or a business manager (another middle man,) setting up shop outside of a middle man seems less and less likely.

Another complex transaction? The transaction itself. Read Write only mentioned the add-on services in this respect, using Wired's twenty-dollar plane ticket as an example. They assume that the model the airline has is complicated or complex for both the passenger and the airline. Different streams of revenue may be harder for the airline to track, but to the passenger, its mostly transparent. Buy a ticket: "Want priority boarding? click this box, pay $5." Want a drink while underway? Swipe your card, get your drink. Again the fear, this time for complex transactions, is for the business, not the consumer.