| Picking quotes as I did does lend to an impression of nitpicking literalism. But to quote myself now, my point was at a higher level than refuting factual assertions: > ... the problem here is evident: black-and-white, either-or thinking. If you put the problem in terms of creators needing to be well paid, on the one hand, and their creations needing to be free and universally accessible, on the other, you've set yourself up a zero-sum cage match. The first quote I pulled from Nathan was more nuanced than that, lamenting paywalls but accepting them, because "it's complicated". The second quote I pulled, from the end of Nathan's piece, puts things more absolutely, leaving less hope. If the problem is being stuck between the rock of creator comp and the hard place of free, universal access, the solution is recognizing that neither of those is absolute, immovable, or perfect. Not all creation requires or deserves compensation. Not all information needs be free and convenient to everyone. If you stop thinking of open/closed and free/paid as toggle switches, and embrace that they're actually pretty fine-grained dials, it's no longer a war between creators and consumers, and there are lots of practical things to try. Find the optimum balance in the situation and over time. As I suggest: > When the works we need or want come readily available at affordable costs that we can pay, and paying is easy, there’s no great harm to access or progress or truth. That cost many not be great. But if a great many pay it, the results can be. To make that more concrete: I don't think I'd pay $10 a month for Current Affairs. But I'd darn sure pay $3. Or up to $10, scaling up with how many articles I read in a month. Perhaps on top of free access to an archive of articles more than a year old. I'm not sure how this ended up on HN, either. |