Should information be free?

One of the arguments that Walter Isaacson makes with regard to charging for online content is this:

… those who believe that all content should be free should reflect on who will open bureaus in Baghdad or be able to fly off as freelancers to report in Rwanda under such a system.

I say this not because I am “evil,” which is the description my daughter slings at those who want to charge for their Web content, music or apps. Instead, I say this because my daughter is very creative, and when she gets older, I want her to get paid for producing really neat stuff rather than come to me for money or decide that it makes more sense to be an investment banker.

As a producer of creative work myself, I’m inclined to agree: I don’t want to be a struggling artist, or worse, not producing art at all. At the same, I’m quite perturbed by Isaacson’s stand, for if he had had his way a long time ago, I wouldn’t have reached this stage of my life.

This is because I wouldn’t have had a chance to read widely, and the main reason for my reading widely is because of the Internet, and not having to pay for information on the Internet. So what happens when one starts charging for content then? The laws of demand and supply dictate that some consumers will end up foregoing this content, for whatever reasons might occur. That’s not a pleasant thought in my humble opinion – although I can afford to pay for content now, what about people who will benefit from free information but are unable to pay at this point in time?

I think there’s a middle ground, and the current Straits Times model might be it – let consumers who value the timeliness of news pay a premium for it. Personally, I’m fine with news coming in late; it isn’t important for the news I’m interested in to arrive fresh off the press, and besides, reading blogs does help ameliorate this possible drawback.

I’m not kidding, by the way. Previously, I used to listen to The Mr Brown Show (TMBS) to get my news. My rationale was that the jokes I didn’t get were the gaps in my knowledge which I needed to fill, since satire and parody have to reference real-life events in order for them to work. Now I have Google Reader to aggregate information for me. That’s why I love technology, or tek-no-lo-ghee, as a character on TMBS might call it.

At the same time, Cherian George has written a very thoughtful piece entitled The Future of Journalism in a Post-Newspaper World. It throws up very interesting ideas about the way to go for journalism, including government intervention, if you consider the educational aspect of information as a public good.

For now, I’m just going to read voraciously, as a form of me shaking my fist defiantly at impending doom. Or maybe it’s just the Singaporean in me taking advantage of the freebies. Whatever lah. Anyway, I have miles to go before I sleep, so I’ll do my work first before reading the news.

P.S. On that note, this is duh news I think everyone should read. Okaybye.

Updates on the TAS saga.

  1. My letter to the Sunday Times forum page has been published. Not in its entirety though – the sarcastic bits were toned down – but the message has remained intact. Kudos to the editors for a good job.
  2. Ashiq Idris has also responded to my e-mail. His reply below:

From: Ashiq Idris <ashiq@triathlonsingapore.org>
Date: February 6, 2009 11:37:30 AM GMT+08:00
To: Laremy Lee
Subject: Response to your Email
Reply-To: ashiq@triathlonsingapore.org

Dear Laremy,

I am writing to you in response to your email to the Association dated 2 Feb 2009.  Here I would like to clarify on behalf of the Association that the Association had commissioned an independent Panel of Inquiry to look into the case.  Upon completing their inquiry they have submitted their report to the Association which includes their recommendation on the punishment to be imposed.  The TAS Management Committee agreed to adopt the recommendation and subsequently the two athletes were notified on the decision.

I would also like to clarify that the infringement was “Disobeying instruction of the coach” and the punishment given was imposed on the said infringement.  Disobeying instruction is something the Association see very seriously and for that matter most other National Sports Associations.

I hope I have clarify the reason why they were being punished in contrary to what had been reported in the local media and speculated out of proportion.

I would like to thank you for your comments.

Regards,
Ashiq Idris
AGM

Is the case closed? I don’t know, but I still remain firm on my stand: although rules must be followed, this ‘rule’ in particular is archaic and has no place in our day and age. Also, some points to be clarified:

  • This isn’t about sex, or indecency, by the way, although many people have mistaken it to be so. Please do not be misled. It’s about jurisprudence, I think, but please let me know if I am using the term wrongly.
  • The media did not blow the matter out of proportion. The Straits Times merely reported on the truth, and they did a good job, might I add. The only thing that has been blown out of proportion is the nature and the severity of the punishment – if one is needed at all.
  • I think the above two points merely go to show that Singaporeans need a very good grounding in media literacy, and I’m glad the education system is making an attempt to bridge this gap.

In any case, I hope Dinah and Ying Ren keep on training. It would be nice to see them on the global stage someday, because these are two Singaporeans I’d be very proud to support and cheer my lungs out for.

You see, if you’re an Army Officer…

…you need a specific space to think creatively and critically.


Attn Army Officers: the venue for: AMB008 – Thinking Creatively and Critically has been changed to Blk 7, B1, Room 18 [Bernouli Lab] Please proceed to Bernouli Lab. Thank you.