--- In email@example.com, "gsp.schoo@..." <gsp.schoo@...> wrote:
> Ah. Value added verbiage.
> Then there's the idea that expression is only one end of communication. Hearing, understanding, comprehending the other.
> Anyway: the difference between "reader" and "consumer." We were talking at one point about the economics of writing, the need to be paid or somehow aquire the means to put steak on the table, or even just food stuff, in order to provide things to be read. That may not be the main purpose to write or read, but making readers paying consumers of books has been a model that limped along for a few decades, and seems to be in danger now. Have you another?
No, I don't have another! To put it in purely expressive terms: we are fucked! Once the idea that paying for content is viewed as ridiculous or outrageous, it will be very hard to eradicate. On the other hand people are fool enough to pay outrageous charges for mobile phone usage and 'texting" (when they really don't have much to say), so maybe somebody comes up with a model that will make readers/viewers/listeners pay. If it happens, it will probably be by restricting Internet usage unless you pay far more than the connection fee. I do believe the powers that be are capable of doing it. Consider the ridiculous situation with non-public satellite emissions. They have managed to make people pay for radio, so everything is possible.
On the other hand, or the last hand, since there are several in this message, people are going to be so broke that 'entertainment' of the paid sort may simply be out of the question.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 16 Nov 2009 EST