My friend Chip Griffin picks up on a conversation that has been going on for a while, regarding the phrase "Content wants to be free." He asked me to comment and I've been thinking about it for a day.
First off, every time I hear this phrase I get this image of all this digital content, these words, images, clips and sounds locked up in dungeon-like cells, staring with Dondi-like eyes, from behind prison bars.
I'm big on that kind of freedom, and I regret the millions of people who do not have it because of regressive governments or employers, but the phrase in question is about the other kind of free,the kind that says no one should get paid for content and I just don't agree with that thought.
Chip emphasized that words are important and he's absolutely right, because when words lose their meaning understanding diminishes. It's why I got all puffed up, when the term "Citizen Journalist," was said to not apply to bloggers at ICE last week.
I also think Chip is right that the phrase "content wants to be free" is inaccurate. It may be true that people don't want to pay for it. It may also be true that people who create content are motivated in ways more fundamental than compensation. It may also be true that a great many internet professionals and business content providers are compensated indirectly. That make free content a loss leader in a lot of business models.
But the content itself? I think it's pretty much agnostic on price point. If any of you folk out there like what I write and want to send me money, go right ahead. If any of you want to compensate me for speaking at your company or conference, let's talk. If any of you like the words I've written and want my consulting, then compensate me. I do well by giving away the content you see here.
I need to get paid for the rest because my mortgage does not want to be free.
I don't think content wants to be free either I think people want to be free and when they are, they find it is a good thing.
