Always proofread (correction below in caps):
I believe all things we see come with a cost: the love you receive from another - and that may convince you that life is worth living - may indeed be free to you. But in the cosmos in which we live, it is often costly to THE ONE who shows great love, and who sacrifices greatly (think of what parents pour into their children). In this sense, what is "free" also comes through a process that involves determination, hard work, effort, etc. We ourselves may not have to "pay" for a great many things, but there is a "cost" to most everything.
~Nathan
Alex,
I like getting philosophical too. : ) I like much of what Clay Shirkey says about how love is responsible for much of the Web 2.0 stuff we see out there - but in other ways, I am the anti-Shirkey.
I believe all things we see come with a cost: the love you receive from another - and that may convince you that life is worth living - may be indeed be free to you. But in the cosmos in which we live, it is often costly to who shows great love, and who sacrifices greatly (think of what parents pour into their children). In this sense, what is "free" also comes through a process that involves determination, hard work, effort, etc. We ourselves may not have to "pay" for a great many things, but there is a "cost" to most everything.
Sometimes in our lives, many of us produce things that we enjoy making, or offer services to others we enjoy doing - and this also happens to provide for those we love (like a family). Other times, we feel the need to provide security for those we love - and this also happens to involve us making something we enjoy making, or offering a service to others we enjoy doing. Which of these orientations takes priorities in our lives may shift as life shifts...
We see value in many things, and it does not repulse most of us to think that there are some things that can be bought, that it is OK to buy, pay for... even as there are other things that people might try to buy, but can't ever (like another's love).
It is a wonderful thing when a society, for whatever reason, produces and raises individuals with vision who create great things that can help the broader society. And no doubt, the blood of many helped and helps begin governments where freedom of speech became more of a reality, and reporters risk their lives to help us know what is going on in our world, etc. The creativity, efforts, and hard work of others have also created many for-profit and non-profit ventures that have influenced the way we, as a people, decide that government spends our money, providing services. So yes, as you say, we "choose this structure to pay for the infra-structure that supports those things we *value*."
But these kinds of benefits may become "old hat" - and perhaps a society begins to form an appetite for more new, better, and greater things than it can afford (i.e. it begins to consume more than it can produce: "it has a champagne appetite and a Coca-Cola paycheck" I heard recently). And when a society begins to think that more and more things they use or consume should be "free" and starts to think that there simply is, or should be, no cost/price/sacrifice (I'm not saying you are saying this Alex) than they are really in trouble - I think reality can only bounce back. Again, we may not have to "pay" for a great many things, but there is a "cost" to most everything.
I think the danger is that as the wonderful benefits of libraries have "shifted from the physical building into the internet" the danger is that we become ever more apt to think less and less the way I have laid out above - after all, the costs of mass-producing the mere "content" are so low we reason... So with the potential and realized blessings come potential and realized curses.
So again, I ask, if all the data from the 100s of sources Google uses weren't free but had a price tag - and Google had more limited funds - what would they choose?
Because, you see, there are limited "funds": i.e. consumption must be directly proportional to what is being produced, otherwise, someone loses big... If Google is not aware of the cost of the valuable things they are appropriating - than the burden is falling on someone else. Kind of like karma. So if Google isn't "paying the price", someone else is. It is all about choices, and therefore I think the point is far from moot.
I hope this doesn't come across to you as being too anal. : )
Regards,
Nathan Rinne
Media Cataloging Technician
Educational Service Center
11200 93rd Avenue North
Maple Grove MN. 55369
Email: rinnen_at_district279.org
-----Original Message-----
From: Next generation catalogs for libraries [mailto:NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of Alexander Johannesen
Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2009 7:26 PM
To: NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] $$$ Library data is the best $$$
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 01:50, Rinne, Nathan (ESC)
<RinneN_at_district279.org> wrote:
> The question you need to ask is whether you would pay for the NY Times
> online. I also consume vast quantities of free online content (isn't it
> great?), much that I really do value and like. But how much of it would
> I pay for if I had to? That would cause me to think more critically -
> and have to make some tough decisions about which valuable stuff I
> really felt I needed to buy.
This argument is quite moot as you *don't* have to pay for a great
number of things. Philosophically speaking, this is just an extension
on other things that we get for free and *still* value greatly, like
freedom of speech, or, incidentally, the libraries around the world.
One could get anal and say that we pay for all these things through
taxes, which would be right, but humanity has chosen this structure to
pay for the infra-structure that supports those things we *value*.
All that has happened to the libraries is that their *values* (that
is, their archival and retrieval values) have shifted from the
physical building into the internet. I've said for years (well,
winced, really) that the true value of what librarians provide must
follow suit into the virtual space as *experts* and leaders there
rather than as curators and followers. I fear it is already much, much
too late.
Regards,
Alex
--
Project Wrangler, SOA, Information Alchemist, UX, RESTafarian, Topic Maps
--- http://shelter.nu/blog/ ----------------------------------------------
------------------ http://www.google.com/profiles/alexander.johannesen ---
Received on Fri Sep 18 2009 - 11:24:53 EDT