The internet was created for the exchange of information.  That it has become a commercialized tool for economic activity is a positive, even if it has forever changed the direction of its use overall.  In the early days of internet activity, once browsers were available to just about anyone with a computer and connection – say around 1995-96- many saw the internet as a new frontier unfettered by rules such as copyright protection, or pay for content.  It was a place where information was exchanged freely and where content was free to live and be accessed.  A generation of music listeners came of age believing that it was their right to share and exchange music via Napster and other programs, just as Deadheads had for years been sharing tapes of live concert performances (with the band’s blessing, it should be noted).  But the turn of the century brought more sophisticated methods for financial exchange via internet.  Secure systems for transfer of funds meant that business models could be developed to exploit the pay for content business model.  Face it, once the adult entertainment industry figured out how to collect payment for their online content, it was only a matter of time before the rest of the business world would do so also.

Now we have entered a period where the notion of paying for content has become accepted.  As such, we have reached the level of critical radiant flux for perceptions of web content.  It has gotten hot enough that the future will bring further monetization of content delivery. Product ads and commercials already litter the online landscape and a screenshot for most business oriented webpages is now framed by clickable advertisements.  Server space isn’t free.  People who create content for the web use their own time and many expect to be compensated (your humble scribe excepted).  The new name of the game is subscription services that charge for content.  You want access, you gotta pay.  This is a concept that has been embraced in many cases by the journalism business (newspapers and magazines) as it meets the dual challenges of decreasing readership and fewer advertising dollars, while even their relevancy has come into question.  In order to survive, these print powerhouses will have to transition to an online environment where they have to charge for a product that, until now, they have given away for free on the internet.  It will be a tough sell.

There are other views.  A new book by Chris Anderson questions the notion that online consumers of information and ideas can be converted to subscribers who pay for content.  Apparently much of human behavior is driven by notions of scarcity and abundance that are buried deep in our brains from points early in our evolution.  Cost correlates with the notion of scarcity, but free brings with it the idea of abundance.  A rather detailed review of the book appears here.  For libraries, of course, everything has always been free, at least as far as serving the public good.  This is what libraries are about.  There is a cost, borne by either municipalities or academic institutions in many cases but collected from payers in other forms.  New notions of pay for content are not new in libraries at all.  We have been buying databases with full-text articles and e-books for some time.  We know about pay for content, and we accept and expect it.  As such, librarians are the trend setters in this area.

Eric C. Shoaf

Editor, LL&M

  • Share/Bookmark