gbulmash's Journal: Does Content Really Want To Be Free?

To those who actually say "content wants to be free" with a straight face and seriousness of purpose...

"Content wants to be free" makes as much sense as "content wants to be a fireman when it grows up."

When you say "content wants to be free," you actually mean, "I don't want to pay for content." You're talking about your own desires, but the way a three-year-old does.

"Content wants to be free... and my teddy bear wants a chocolate chip cookie... and my shirt wants a hug."

Free content is a good thing, but let's stop talking like three-year-olds, please.

Not quite

[turg]

I think it's supposed to be more like saying "Water wants to run downhill." I think the point is that making content non-free requires barriers that are more and more artificial and difficult to maintain as content becomes less tied to physical objects like books or CDs.

Re:

[gbulmash]

But water doesn't want to run downhill. It tends to rundownhill, but only when it is within a gravity field that both defines an up and a down and exerts a pull on the water. Even glass runs downhill given enough time and/or heat.

When you try to impede water from running down hill, you are not frustrating its desire. You're just creating a barrier that gravity cannot pull it over/past... for the moment.

As content becomes less tied to physical barriers, it doesn't want freedom more. It just becomes

Re:

[turg]

When you try to impede water from running down hill, you are not frustrating its desire. You're just creating a barrier that gravity cannot pull it over/past... for the moment.

Yes, exactly. It's a bit of anthropomorphism that, like any metaphor, can be taken too far. Anyway, it's not my view, just trying to explain it a bit. I'd say it's more like the old ways of monetizing content don't hold water (so to speak :-) anymore but that doesn't mean it's impossible to earn money for it.