Potential Topic: Freemium Open Access

[1] Intro: One of the fundamental rationales underlying the need for open access of zero-marginal cost goods is that it's in the interest of justice

[2] Question: But does justice demand that the experience of accessing the information be equal? Does open access = equal access?

[3a] Illustrative Examples:

• Reading Shakespeare for free as a text file online, v. buying a leather bound edition for $30
• Boston.com (Trashy) v. Typographer's-dream (Bostonglobe.com): SAME content, vastly different experiences.
• MIT OCW v. attending MIT
• Downloading the source code and self-installing v. Paying a consultant to install and configure

[3b] NOT freemium:

• NYT paywall, 30-day software trials, etc.
• Difference here is that the "premium" versions of these services offer content and/or access that is not available to non-paying users. In my contemplated system, the access to the fundamental content should be the same.

[4] Proposal: Perhaps a good way to make core information available to everyone, yet preserve free-market esque revenue streams that can

1. fund the costs and incentivize the efforts of further development,
2. incentivize people/users towards upward mobility
3. add more thoughts here,

is to encourage a tiered system that requires people to give away the core information for free, but allows them to charge for the bells & whistles

[5] Problems

• Is this a sustainable model for key industries - music, movies, where 90% of the value is just the file itself? (Former Rep. Bob Ingles said in a talk I went to last week - "Sustainability means profit")
  • Is it possible to maintain systems where the "premium" version doesn't = premium access to content? At which point do services become or = content?
  • How would this work for software, particularly expensive software like Adobe?
• Does this address the justice problem? Just because people have access to information doesn't mean that it's in a form that facilitates them to use it.
• What is the ideal equilibrium-society that I am trying to promote? (think about this)

-- By CrystalMao - 14 Oct 2011

In assessing my examples, perhaps I need to distinguish between a "premium" version that has been transformed into a MC / 0 product (e.g., an MIT education, a physical book) , vs. premium versions that are still MC = 0 (Bostonglobe.com with improved layout and no ads). Does this distinction matter? Is it unethical to restrict access for premium versions that are MC=0, even if the underlying content is available for free?

--By CrystalMao - 18 Oct 2011

It is strongly recommended that you include your outline in the body of your essay by using the outline as section titles. The headings below are there to remind you how section and subsection titles are formatted.

Section I

Subsection A

Subsub 1

Subsection B

Subsub 1

Subsub 2

Section II

Subsection A

Subsection B

---

You are entitled to restrict access to your paper if you want to. But we all derive immense benefit from reading one another's work, and I hope you won't feel the need unless the subject matter is personal and its disclosure would be harmful or undesirable. To restrict access to your paper simply delete the "#" on the next line:

# * Set ALLOWTOPICVIEW = TWikiAdminGroup, CrystalMao

Note: TWiki has strict formatting rules. Make sure you preserve the three spaces, asterisk, and extra space at the beginning of that line. If you wish to give access to any other users simply add them to the comma separated list

Comment:

First, I think a system that requires "core" information to be given freely but allowing creators to charge for "bells & whistles" could work in theory. But, the problem with implementing a system like this might be defining core vs. not core. With free software, seemingly no money is derived from distributing the product itself - its free. But, my understanding is that, as you noted, a lot of companies charge for perhaps consulting on how to use the software, and how to set up the software. Free software, as you mentioned in class, is not readily usable by people who aren't technologically savvy and thus need others to help them learn. Many companies charge for these services. But shouldn't that service be considered part of the core or not part of the core. Free software is only good if you are able to use it so it is essential for many that they get that service. Thus it could be deemed "core." But, its technically not the software itself but rather what you might consider a premium (something on top of the core software). So, if this system is to work, there needs to be a good way of defining what is core vs. not core. I think you thought about this when you said "at which point do services become or equal content."

Further, if people are only going to make money by charging for bells and whistles, might not this lead to a system in which people derogate from the core and make content part of the non-core (by whatever method) in order to make more money? What in the system will prevent them from doing this?

I think that this system can work - if what's important to us is getting as much information to as many people as possible, for the lowest cost possible, then the core information really is what matters. If people want premium, they can pay for it. But the fact that something is a premium means it is extra, it is on top of the core information we truly care about. So even if we charge for the premium, even its MC=0, i don't think that's an injustice. If people want extra, they can pay for it. Since its extra, there is less demand for it and the price might go down to close to 0 or even 0 in some circumstances. The system you are proposing really relies on the definition of core vs. not core, and how we are to prevent creators from abusing these definitions to maximize profit.

-- AustinKlar -- Oct 19 2011

. I just wanted to chime in to note that if you want to frame your paper around the question of what justice requires, you will probably need to develop an account of what justice is. That will be a fairly serious undertaking. It seems like most of the material you've got here is less about normative questions, and more about the business side of things, the empirical question of "what works" rather than normative question of "what justice requires." Rather than asking if justice will allow or disallow companies monetizing content through advertising, you might want to narrow down to the question of: does an advertising or other premium type thing work as a business model to a) generate profit and b) actually increase access to content. One potential issue there is the question of how much longer content-embedded advertising will exist as a business opportunity. Bitstreams are easy to filter, as the folks at AdBlock? have demonstrated. This is not good for people who want to make money off inserting things people don't want into their bitstreams.

However, the 'accompanying services' model has worked well for many free software companies, eg, RedHat? , Ubuntu, etc. The concept of "accompanying services" can also be extended, as Austin suggests, to include customizations - charging customers for special customizations of material. However, while this applies to software, it is difficult to see how it would apply to books and music.

-- DevinMcDougall - 19 Oct 2011