
Brewster Kahle & The Largest Library In History 88
BorgiaPope writes "WAIS creator and Alexa founder Brewster Kahle is interviewed by Feed. Kahle talks about the 30 terabytes of 'net content stored in Alexa's Linux servers, a data store he calls the 'largest library the world has ever known.' Some fascinating observations about how sites move in and out of the top traffic tier. He also claims that the top ten Web sites have the "greatest worldwide concentration of power since the Roman Empire.""
Some librarys try to collect everything (Score:1)
For this purpose, from every published item, at least 1-4 parts have to be provided to the library. This includes books, daily newspapers and even school newspapers. (In the hindsight, maybe the reason for this institution was not preservance of things, but to be able to control and censor). However as far as I understood, they also neglected a lot of the published information: music, TV, radio, and the new, possibly very short lived internet sites.
These public institutions have to rearrange themselves quickly, so that all this possibly valuable information will be available in the future for everybody and access (for scientific or educational purpose) will not depend on the kindness of the companies that harvest this information now.
Dont forget what happens with Dejanews!
Re:Strange... (Score:1)
Britain, a dinky little island with a relatively tiny population at the time, controlled just about 2/3 of the globe.
Less than 1% controlled the remainder.
Re:the top 100 WWW sites are: (Score:1)
Eric
Hotbot.com at no 24? (Score:1)
Don't flame me for watching too much futurama...
Re:Library? I think not (Score:1)
Kahle touches on this a bit in the interview, noting that human cataloging in infeasible for such a large collection. Perhaps. But without it, I don't think it can really be called a library. Cataloging librarians apply subject headings--some much more specific than anything you will find in Yahoo or the ODP. (And some less specific too. One valid criticism of library cataloging as it's practiced today is that it's too slow to keep up with emerging subjects. Subject headings in computer books, for example, are currently much less diverse than they ought to be. But I digress.)
It's not just subject cataloging where humans still do a better job than computers. Even titles and authors--which seem simple and straightforward at first glance--need that human element. Here is a book by "John Smith." Is this John Smith from Ohio, born in 1956, or John Smith from California, born in 1963? If it doesn't say on the book itself, a cataloging librarian will research this, so that the library catalog can differentiate between the two authors. Here's a videotape of "Star Wars". Will the automated cataloging system recognize that people might also search for it by the title "A New Hope"?
Re:the top 100 WWW sites are: (Score:2)
It is an interesting list to look over, some of the ones on there are very suprising.
---
stats prove we all have 2.4 kids and own a hyena (Score:1)
We now have about thirty terabytes of archival material that we data mine. And that's 1.5 times the size of all of the books in the Library of Congress.... we're now beyond the largest collection of information ever accumulated by humans... We use as our original inspiration the Library of Alexandria. Because they were the first people that tried to collect it all... They got up to five hundred thousand books... The Library of Congress -- the largest library now -- is seventeen million. Only thirty four times more than what we had in 300 B.C. "
2300 years = 34x as many volumes
less than 10 years = 1.5 x smithsonian and growing fast?
and the bit about the top 10 sites get 20% traffic is incomplete-- his point is the linear nature:
top 10 sites = 20%
top 100 sites = 40%
top 1000 sites = 60%
top 10000 sites = 80%
With every use of 'what's new' in netscape 4.06+ sending stats to alexia's servers, this guy gives me some real mixed feelings:--)
---
your signature line (Score:1)
It shows his immense talent as a coder.
Big Deal - 30 TeraBytes... (Score:1)
Re:Here's the part I'm not sure I like... (Score:1)
Exactly. There were plenty of sites on the web in the good ol' days [sic] before ad banners, and there are still plenty of helpful, entertaining, and informative sites out there without any business model or revenue stream. It's like assuming all artists just want to get paid first and foremost - there are plenty who do it because they love it, and many of them would do it even if they never saw a dime from it.
more civilized??? (Score:1)
'Civilized' is NOT the word you are looking for -- maybe 'Westernized' -- but the Western way of life is not any more civilized than any of the other cultures that were occupied during the era of European expansion.
A sycophantic article full of marketing wibble (Score:1)
Mmm yes, I think I speak for everyone when I tell you that I'm increasingly realizing the power of the "what's related" button in nestcape.
All credit to them for opening up their archives to research centres free of charge, I think that's very important and a brilliant effort, but at heart Alexa are just a data-mining, marketing-driven outfit like hundreds of other dotcoms around the world.
He's eager to be painted out to be some kind of visionary, but really, since 1991 all he's done is push WAIS as a way of charging for material over the web. I mean, good work in inventing a protocol and all that, but the charge-for-content model looks like it's failing right now. I think Britannica used to be on WAIS but it's free now.
It's interesting the way he talks about the urgent need for a publishing system without once mentioning WAIS. I wondered what happened to WAIS, Inc, his attempt to provide a publishing system commercially back in 1991 or something. Go to www.wais.com [wais.com] and you'll end up by being redirected to www.hummingbird.com [hummingbird.com], an
Don't you just love that internet marketingese?
Re:Copyright ? (Score:1)
Um...who cares (Score:1)
WAIS Creator? (Score:2)
WAIS was the biggest piece of sh** to ever get steamrolled by the web
Re:Digital archives... (Score:2)
In a more general sense, copyright (and now license agreements) are to blame. There was a lot of talk in the "early days" about getting lots of stuff online, and it's slowly happening with, for example Project Gutenberg [gutenberg.org] and alt.binaries.e-book [alt.binaries.e-book]. But currently this is slow; OCR technology isn't good enough to process things without an editing pass, and sharing the original scans currently requires institutional resources. That, combined with the periodic extension of copyright terms to cover almost anything created in the 20th Century has put a damper on volunteer efforts.
One would think that libraries would be a great place to start with this at the institutional level. Even without scanning, a lot of recent journals come with electronic versions as part of the subscription. And they're bought and paid for, so copyright isn't an issue (as long as you belong to a subscribing library). But...restrictive license agreements to the rescue! This article [oss4lib.org] on oss4lib [oss4lib.org] describes a situation where librarians are required to scan paper copies of journals they have electronically for interlibrary loan purposes.
Fundamentally, the movement to put a fence around information and charge for every view is at odds with aim to preserve it. If we want hardcopy to be available electronically, or electronic documents to be preserved at all, we have to change the rules, or ignore them. In the meantime, start a private collection in the hope of publishing it someday. Historians will thank you.
Underlying the Overhype... (Score:1)
Re:Library? I think not (Score:1)
It has a hairy page!
Re:Digital archives... (Score:1)
Distribution of Power (Score:1)
Digital archives... (Score:4)
Re:Library? I think not (Score:1)
Alexa can't handle the /. effect... (Score:1)
cheers
--cr@chwore
Was the Library at Alexandria (Score:1)
Re:How does he measure hitcounts ? (Score:2)
Wot no pron sites (Score:1)
JSTOR (Score:1)
Re:Here's the part I'm not sure I like... (Score:1)
Yes, I also don't like his way of thinking regarding payment for content - and especially analogies to the printing/publishing world. I'm afraid that Kahle strongly believes in current copyright laws and he doesn't notice systems like Napster or even more Gnutella (where people share things without any "revenue model") in his publication concentrated vision.
And by the way - why does he think that all web pages are made for profit and would disappear without it?
"Lame, Lame I say." (Score:1)
They also have a deal with Netscape and MS-IE to use some of their "Features" to gather data, but don't apply it. They also readily admit that they really only gather info from Windows users.
>In addition, we remove from the list certain
>technology, graphics, and banner ad-serving
>domain names, as well as sites operated by Alexa Internet.
Translation: "We give average people the results that they expect. We pretend to rank the world, but only things we want to."
I do think the idea of havng all websites made stored someplace is a good idea. It will be invaluable to anthropologists in the future.
Re:Library? I think not (Score:1)
From the FAQ: [playboy.com]
Does anybody really read Playboy for the articles?
The articles may not be the first part of the magazine most readers turn to, but judging from the letters we get, millions of Playboy readers also enjoy our award-winning journalism, humor and fiction. The only people who can rightfully claim to read it solely for the articles are the thousands of blind readers who peruse our Braille edition, which has been distributed by the Library of Congress since 1970.
Re:Libraries that weren't (Score:1)
Re:JSTOR (Score:1)
Many, many thanks for your suggestion!
Re:Alexa's a great real-estate scam (Score:1)
"to be in power you didn't need guns or power, just the will to do what the other guy wouldn't."
Re:Alexa's top50 list (Score:1)
2 typos & it's a Troll? [Re:Fair use?] (Score:1)
I realize I should probably post this as an AC, but I'd like it to be seen.
If this redundant comment [slashdot.org] (it was posted after I did) is Interesting, then why is mine a Troll?
Here's the part I'm sure I like... (Score:1)
I'd rather my ISP brought me the information and services I was looking for and blocked the retailers and everyone else from tracking my path.
I already have to trust the ISP, why trust anyone else?
Doesn't the ISP have the most to gain from keeping me on their portal, as convergance comes about? Don't they have the most to gain by using My extra CPU cycles? I want my ISP to give me frequent flier miles! I'll turn 'em in for a better coprocessor or two and then they can use those extra CPU cycles, how's that?
I'll tell them what my hardware needs are, and they go find the retailer, and I get a banner when the price is right. Oh, and that banner? It doesn't take me to the retailers site; It just signs me up for the group buy.
I want my ISP to guard my privacy like nothin' else, and for it, I'll pay. Hey, I can lose my privacy and use any of the freebie ISP's? But what will I pay for? What would you pay for? Privacy.
Now, if they could offer me ASP services that I can't afford to purchase, they could charge me more. I'm looking for a really really good searchbot. Heck, if they could offer me that, I'd
let them have hardrive space!
Josh Drvsh
He likes micropayments? (Score:2)
That's the telco model of information pricing. The telcos had to be dragged, kicking and screaming, into the era of cheap communications and free content.
The basic problem with micropayments is that all the enthusiasm for them is on the collecting side, not the paying side. Contrast this with credit card acceptance, which consumers actually want.
On the web, there are are only two (non-porno) pay sites that do significant business. The Wall Street Journal [wsj.com] and Consumer Reports. [consumerreports.org] Both had top reputations in the print world. Everybody else who's tried it has bombed, including MTV. So pay-per-view is the wrong answer. Kale is way off base on that. His "ISP tax" idea is even worse. That sounds like something the RIAA would come up with.
Re:Digital archives... (Score:1)
Archiving good, redistribution bad (Score:1)
There's nothing wrong with making archival copies of information you can come by legitimately. Alexa isn't redistributing the information, so they're fine. The did, however, at one point promise to give a complete copy to Kahle's non-profit Internet Archive. My understanding at the time was that the Internet Archive is legally structured to look much more like a library than a business, and libraries have a special status under copyright law.
Strange... (Score:2)
Go figure.... Guess history *was* wrong after all...
Libraries that weren't (Score:2)
Info != power (Score:3)
Perhaps a better analogy would be to 400-1400 when the Popes and the Roman Catholic Church did hold a monopoly on religious information in the West. That ended with Gutenberg and the Reformation.
Roman empire (Score:2)
Re:Strange... (Score:3)
That does seem like a very questionable statement to me. The top ten web sites are potentially powerful, but it depends what content they are serving up. If they are selling things, like Amazon, would that be so powerful? Sure, you can push certain things, but ultimately it's up to the buyer. Of course portals like Yahoo are powerful, but only when it comes to the content they are providing. Do they really have any power over my everyday life? What about people and cultures without so much internet access? Are they not even considered in this discussion?
Besides, power is fleeting.
Spooon!
The unedited interview: (Score:3)
Copyright ? (Score:2)
the top 100 WWW sites are: (Score:1)
Re:Info != power (Score:1)
I agree, but I think they're talking about power in general, not military power. There's a big difference.
Spooon!
Re:Wot no pron sites (Score:1)
I didn't see a warning saying 'These are the Top 100 sites on the WWW' excluding
If they start excluding anything from the generic top 100 surely the results start getting skewed.
Help people shop? (Score:1)
Extending Alexa into the realm of helping people with products.
30 TB of data, giant server farms, Library of Alexandria and all they're going to do with it is be another My Simon?
BrianAlexa's top50 list (Score:2)
I really wonder what iloveschool.co.kr [iloveschool.co.kr] does there above microsoft, geocities, ebay and altavista.
Roman Empire and Power (Score:4)
-------
CAIMLAS
What to do? (Score:1)
(Taco, I'm still bitter about the hard cap on karma...)
Re:Library? I think not (Score:4)
For example: In three hundred years, pornography is viewed as a valuable cultural resource. A historian wishes to study the subject of pornography over the ages and relate it to the prevailing attitudes in those ages. The historian will be stuffed, because to a librarian now, pornography is clearly not suitable for inclusion.
The history we have is much more a history of the rich and powerful, and not a history of the poor, because nobody wrote anything about the poor. Today, big scientific tomes are kept, but Joe Blogg's Geocities page (with exciting photos of him and his family and his cat) gets binned. In three hundred years this might be interesting historical evidence, the same as Joe Chimney Sweep's diary from 1800 or something.
The technology to do this effectively might not really be here yet, but it will probably arrive in those three hundred years. (Unless we're all too busy looking at porn instead ;) )
Re:He's so almost there (Score:2)
I wonder if that's the sense he meant it in. From reading the interview, I took his phrase to mean not that this is the most powerful group in the world (although that is still possible as many of these companies have off-line influence in spades as well), but that it is the most concentrated group. Television media, for instance, may rightfully be considered more powerful culturally, but it's also more distributed when viewed by number of "hits". These top ten sites, OTOH, are more concentrated in a small area.
The analogy to rome in that sense is a good one, since most of the true power during the Empire's peak was concentrated in a very small area. Unfortunately, the idea of these small number of companies having equivalent power to the Empire is unfortunately untenable.
My Library does have porn. (Score:1)
Librarys, good ones, collect a Huge variety of stuff. It is unbelievable the number of volumes of stuff in there on esoteric subjects. My favorite oddball find in UD's is a multi-volume collection on why the Masons are evil from 1893. A decent library will collect many items that seem of little use right now and keep them for future study. Really, the function of the library is to catalogue knowledge, not trim it.
Stupid Feed (Score:1)
Re:Alexa's top50 list (Score:5)
Linux doesn't show up in any of the top 1000 domain names, but windows does - once - in windowsmedia.com, which is about a TV-like a site as you can get, and a subsite of MSN.
Google was 21st, cnn.com was 37th, and wired.com was 970. Other than that, none of the sites I've bookmarked are in the top 1000.
I guess I shouldn't be surprised that the web I see is nothing like the web most of the world sees. I am a little disconcerted though. No wonder the general public doesn't care about software freedom, DeCSS, software patents, privacy, etc. The awful truth is that for most people, the internet is like TV.
What a depressing way to start a Friday.
Torrey Hoffman (Azog)
Sort of OT - Idea for royalty payments on the web (Score:1)
DISCLAIMER: this is the result of being bored at work and the idea(s) here jump around a bit and might seem self contradictory. Don't worry, it makes sense to me - you don't really matter!
Each server gives money to the site based on the amount of traffic it generates. This could be negotiated, bought at a flat rate or be a fixed %age. Developers get money for putting the effort inn and governments will like this because it constitutes an income - which can be taxed. Servers pay money to sites from money they are payed from ISPs for the priveledge of access to certain sites (note that this price will be decided by the market probably - more on this later). Normal people pay ISPs for the priveledge of having access to the internet (as it is today) and can also have web sites of their own on commercial servers if they pay for the space as happens now etc. ISPs pay telco's for cost of networks etc. There will be free servers that don't pay for any sites that they host and only pay basic costs and don't make profit in the same way - possibly raising funds from donations (charity or whatever) or things like advertising eg. banner ads.
ISPs would pay servers according to the amount of data transfered (or just downloaded?) at a predtermined rate. This might have to be set by the government if things prove too complex (imagine hundreds of companies trying to negotiate with hundreds of other companies, all for the same thing).
Big problem: governments could use this to, effectively, tax the use of data - restrict, influence or control the flow of information. What happens if the people find that accessing data online is jiust too expensive? This is probably where the free servers come in. You can up/down load all the data ou want for free so the servers cannot be taxed on this, transfer costs are illiminated. They would have to find another source of income such as banner ads like now.
Telcos would probably have to keep records about the data movements to provide a basis for financial records.
There WILL be a lot of shifting in market dominance, it will be a new market. How will this all come about? Servers will have to offer to pay to host sites (as above, pay based on traffic - rates can vary depending on contract used). The popularity of site will decide how much they are paid (survival of the fittest). If an ISP wants access to a certain site (to attract more customers) it will have to pay the host for access. Use of merket economics to change network topology. Free servers will be restricted only in how they earn and legal issues such as copyright - this part of the internet will probably resemble internet as it now and possibly be less commercial, though I am not entirely sure.
As I said before, this is only an idea, not a solution - don't flame me!
dnnrly
Re:Info != power (Score:1)
Colonial success (Score:2)
Well, London was colonized by the Romans. So let's compare London to any of the places colonized by the Brits.
Re:Digital archives... (Score:1)
Digitizing the collection itself is prohibitively expensive and time-consuming. I daresay you can't hire enough monkeys to turn pages and fire the scanner no matter what you pay, let alone proofreading, which requires the more costly labor of homo sapiens sapiens.
One thing the ''print distribution nightmare'' gets you is a quality filter. Hrmmm, 2Tb filtered out of 2,000 years of production or 3Tb wiglomerated over 5 years?
Re:He's so almost there (Score:1)
Last I heard, Hollywood was completely eclipsed by the production and exportation capacity of India's movie studios, though. We don't see it from here because the entertainment tastes of Asia seem to be very different. Also, given the relative land areas and population densities, I believe there are more easterners than westerners.
In other words, if we *are* heading for a mediocracy (all sorts of fun wordplay there), America might actually be screwed. (We do have those nifty DNS servers under our thumb and that there Bill Gates guy, but how long can that last?)
Re:Digital archives... (Score:1)
Did anyone try to adapt or enhance the subject classification schedule to online content beyond scholarly books ? Did anyone think of using an extended subject classification schedule together with search engines like google and come up with a combined output ?
Why is google so much better than, for example, the older Altavista search engine ? Because they incorporated all the subject classification done by users when they putt subject related link collections on their home web-sites.
That's using categorization brain power of humans to an otherwise dumb, but fast search engine. Why not use the brain power, which went into LC subject classification schedule, and use its classification power for online content as well ?
Why would we need to digitize every book ? It would be much progress already, if we just could truly find online content, as well as book titles classified a scientifically/scholarly manner, the way the LC has done it for years. This has nothing to do with scanning each book of the LC.
Re:the top 100 WWW sites are: (Score:2)
That's understandable. I have signed up thrice in three different categories to be an editor. I have not ever heard back from them. That means that either their registration/application process is so difficult or counter-intuitive that I cannot figure it out, or that they just don't give a shit if they get another editor or not. Either way, I'm not surprised that they don't have as many editors as they would like or need.
Re:the top 100 WWW sites are: (Score:2)
Thanks for the comment, I'm bringing it to the attention of those people responsible for accepting new editors. It took me two applications to be accepted, and the first one seemed to have found it's way to
I do agree that what they did to you is a horrible way to get people to edit and even use the directory...
---
What happened to WAIS Inc... Sold to AOL (Score:1)
Simon
Re:the top 100 WWW sites are: (Score:1)
---
Re:Library != Trash Heap; Information != Power (Score:1)
Instead of sending us serial numbers hidden in CueCats to voyeuristically watch our one-clicking compulsive moves, the Alexas and Amazons, Forbes/Wired/DC et al. should be sent to the most knowledgable branch of the government and be confronted with the people's will.
Kahle says:
"The Library of Congress -- the largest library now -- is seventeen million. Only thirty four times more than what we had in 300 B.C. It indicates that the technology hasn't scaled. But now we've broken through into a new technology that allows us to bypass the Library of Congress in very little time, and the sky's the limit. What can we discover about ourselves as a species? As different peoples? Are we couch potatoes or do we actually have independent will?"
Bypass the Library of Congress and its accumulated knowledge ? To replace it with the big intelligence of 0s and 1s ? Wow, hold a minute !
You ask, do we actually have an independent will ? Sure, Mr. Kahle, we do !
And that's why I send you my independent-minded CueCats to get all your 56 million instances of ISBNs with one-click (not paying license fees) and let some people, who actually have some knowledge dealing with them, get involved. Meanwhile you can "find the business model of the web" and let the content rot a bit more.
Wouldn't it be a great match-maker game to hook up Alexa, Amazon, DC/Forbes/Wired and the Library of Congress ?
They all have something to make up for, Alexa, which has technology, but no brain, and the Library of Congress, which has brain, but no technology, and Amazon, which has the great drive, but no direction, and DC/Forbes/Wired, which have direction, but don't know how to drive ?
Amazon made a boo-boo with selling one-clicking seductions, qualifying as a drug-dealer and patenting this business process, Alexa made a boo boo selling out to Amazon, searching for business models instead of searching for knowledge, the DC/Forbes/Wired gang caved in to voyeurism through CueCats and the Library of Congress slept happily instead of kicking their citizen's butt and ask for money so that they could put their knowledge to use in the digital world.
Let these people kiss and make up ! Turn your trash heap into a library and your information into a knowledge, Mr. Kahle. Give your buddies a chance to be good guys. I want a happy end !
If you can't help but being cowboys, so be it, but well, I like those guys who save the farm for the blonde and then heroically ride away in the dust of the prairie, those lonely unsung heroes, which you wished were real and not only Hollywood's phantom boys.
Get real, use your brains, save our dignity and save your dimes for the BIGGEST LIBRARY ON EARTH ! (and NOT for Amazon/Alexa/DC, because they ain't one).
How does he measure hitcounts ? (Score:1)
Still, traffic distribution is interesting.
Re:Info != power (Score:2)
Re:Strange... (Score:2)
Mp3 library (Score:1)
Is that all I have to call my collection mp3's to get free publicity and left alone by the RIAA?
I'm sure we all know that he has the largest collection of MP3's in the world! (with maybe a TB each for videos and pr0n)
Rader
He's so almost there (Score:3)
However, that makes by definition the American media & Hollywood the #1 social power on the planet, not those sites. Sites will come and go. It's not the hits that count. There are countries with no web access or very restricted access (Chad, Syria, almost anywhere in the 3rd world), yet these countries get much more "Americanization" via movies & print literature.
So I'd say that he's on the mark with the content idea, and the web itself is a powerful distributor of knowledge and information. But the most concentrated since the Roman Empire? Almost. That's still the press/media.
Re:Info != power (Score:1)
Influencing other people gives potentially more power than conquering their land, killing them or threatening to do so (only uses of military power). When you force someone to do something he won't do it well, but when you will make them believe in what they are doing - they will be doing it to the best of their abilities.
So your religious analogy is not that bad when you notice that monopoly you wrote about wasn't based on military power (Vatican as a state never had that powerful army) but on influencing people into believing in their cause.
Re:But that 2/3 of the globe wasn't civilized (Score:1)
Have you _any_ concept of what you're saying?
Re:Sounds familiar? (Score:2)
Alexa's a great real-estate scam (Score:3)
Re:Library? I think not (Score:1)
I don't know about you, but my porn will always be in my library:)
Spooon!
Re:How does he measure hitcounts ? (Score:1)
How many people have even heard of Alexa. I bet it isn't in any true top 10 list.
Re:How does he measure hitcounts ? (Score:1)
Respoitories like this are necessary... (Score:2)
When deja took away the newsgroup archives pre-99, I was at first outraged, and then of course I realized that they're a business and not a public resource.
The wealth of human knowledge available in the newsgroup archives is immense and extremely useful on a day-to-day basis. A repository of public newsgroup archives would be a great public resource, and I'd love to see a project that gets shares that knowledge with the world. Hopefully this project will go that way, but I dunno if usenet is included in the 30 terabytes.
Hopefully we can also get these archives without the annoying product links inserted in them.
Library != Trash Heap; Information != Power (Score:1)
And don't even get me started on the difference between social power and information. Suffice to say that the Library of Congress is not the most powerful branch of government, even if it's the most knowledgeable.
Different Ideas, Different Attitudes (Score:1)
The popular sites made money. And when we came out with ways that...the Web, it all came out of the wrong places.
I believe that Kahle is speaking erroneously about this subject, because he is speaking of oranges and apples.
The royalty system of economic gain on products works for such things as newspapers, books, and hard-matter videos. This is because they are tangible, solid objects. If I want a paper, I can't just go download one -- not in paper format, mind you. Just in digital. Hence, when I have to either subscribe or drop a quarter into the hand of a street-side vendor, I'm paying that royalty on something distinct,tangible, and traceable, three aspects which I believe make it hard to do the same internet-wise.
Granted, porn sites seem to be making a decent living because they charge for content. But really, how would you like to have to subscribe to read Slashdot? You wouldn't. You'd wait till your buddy, who gets
Digital content isn't tangible. You can't HOLD it. You can't walk with it to the checkout counter. It just wouldn't work as well, using traditional royalty models, to try and make money off of content, because there are too many ways around it and people do not receive that tangibility as a reward for their money. Sure, some of us might pay a few cents to read a good paper online, but my father would think it ludicrous to pay $0.25 to access a website. However, he'll easily drop $0.75 on a paper, because he can hold it. It's amazing what reality can do to people.
I'm not all against someone figuring out how to charge for content if it is done properly and fairly. (granted, everything free is great, and honestly, I like the idea that I pay one flat fee to get everything) I just don't think that our traditional ways of thinking about it will suffice.
Here's the part I'm not sure I like... (Score:4)
Here:
And here:
Part of the reason I don't like that notion is because it starts a level of accountability that I wouldn't be comfortable seeing. Where would the tracking begin - or end, for that matter - so that the proper payment balance could be provided? Which ISP - the one the surfer is using to view the content, or the one hosting the content? I imagine he means the latter - and that bothersome. If an ISP can be held financially liable for content that a user provides - regardless of who the copyright holder/content owner is - then how long before said ISP decides to host only content that's marketable and profitable? Draw your own conclusions about where the picking and choosing would go from there.
Another reason I don't like it - not necessarily a valid one, but definitely a personal one - is that it commercializes the web that much further. There's already enough corporate-owned and profit-driven crap here. It's not like we need more like that.
Kahle mentions that something like ASCAP is needed, but he himself talks about the nasty history behind his example's development. He also throws out AOL as an example of a company in the "best position" to implement such a thing. Like we didn't have enough concerns about content ownership/control/marketing without an endorsement like that...
heaven? (Score:1)
Library? I think not (Score:4)
The Internet will be useless as a repository of knowledge until it is quite ruthlessly edited. I doubt any posts on this thread (including this one) would survive in a proper library.
Re:Strange... (Score:1)