<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Newspapers are the Original Walled Gardens</title>
	<atom:link href="http://timothyblee.com/2009/09/23/newspapers-are-the-original-walled-gardens/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://timothyblee.com/2009/09/23/newspapers-are-the-original-walled-gardens/</link>
	<description>A Blog by Timothy B. Lee</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 19 May 2012 01:03:40 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Matthew S.</title>
		<link>http://timothyblee.com/2009/09/23/newspapers-are-the-original-walled-gardens/comment-page-1/#comment-3853</link>
		<dc:creator>Matthew S.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 26 Sep 2009 14:38:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://timothyblee.com/?p=980#comment-3853</guid>
		<description>I see this in my summer job, too. Games are priced by what their components cost, not by how good the game is. I&#039;ve dealt with many frustrated customers who are surprised that a game they can (and have) played at home with scraps of paper costs $31.99 at the store.

This post dovetails nicely with your earlier posts on patents. Novel content is what people want, yet they are forced to pay for the delivery system of that content. But they conflate what they are paying for with what they want. Similarly, patents assume that ideas are the harder part of the system, and encourage something that doesn&#039;t need encouragement, while discouraging something that does (development and manufacturing).

My response to those customers in my store is to shrug my shoulders and say &quot;If only you&#039;d thought of publishing it first!&quot;.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I see this in my summer job, too. Games are priced by what their components cost, not by how good the game is. I&#8217;ve dealt with many frustrated customers who are surprised that a game they can (and have) played at home with scraps of paper costs $31.99 at the store.</p>
<p>This post dovetails nicely with your earlier posts on patents. Novel content is what people want, yet they are forced to pay for the delivery system of that content. But they conflate what they are paying for with what they want. Similarly, patents assume that ideas are the harder part of the system, and encourage something that doesn&#8217;t need encouragement, while discouraging something that does (development and manufacturing).</p>
<p>My response to those customers in my store is to shrug my shoulders and say &#8220;If only you&#8217;d thought of publishing it first!&#8221;.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Eric Reasons</title>
		<link>http://timothyblee.com/2009/09/23/newspapers-are-the-original-walled-gardens/comment-page-1/#comment-3450</link>
		<dc:creator>Eric Reasons</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 Sep 2009 00:14:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://timothyblee.com/?p=980#comment-3450</guid>
		<description>&quot;The market for copies of articles or songs is unlikely to ever be as large as it was in the much less competitive world of 20th century media. And basic economics tells us that in the long run, most information will fall to its marginal cost, which is zero.&quot;

I&#039;m glad every time I read statements like the one above. I think the wisdom is starting to seep into the culture. I posted this some time ago questioning the very nature of a &quot;Knowledge Economy&quot;:

http://blog.ericreasons.com/2009/07/innovative-deflation.html

&quot;[Many 20th century markets] relied on the traditional inefficiencies of their business models--inefficiencies that have been *eliminated*, not just shifted to new markets. The closer the markets are to intellectual property, the faster they fall.&quot;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;The market for copies of articles or songs is unlikely to ever be as large as it was in the much less competitive world of 20th century media. And basic economics tells us that in the long run, most information will fall to its marginal cost, which is zero.&#8221;</p>
<p>I&#8217;m glad every time I read statements like the one above. I think the wisdom is starting to seep into the culture. I posted this some time ago questioning the very nature of a &#8220;Knowledge Economy&#8221;:</p>
<p><a href="http://blog.ericreasons.com/2009/07/innovative-deflation.html" rel="nofollow">http://blog.ericreasons.com/2009/07/innovative-deflation.html</a></p>
<p>&#8220;[Many 20th century markets] relied on the traditional inefficiencies of their business models&#8211;inefficiencies that have been *eliminated*, not just shifted to new markets. The closer the markets are to intellectual property, the faster they fall.&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Minified using disk
Page Caching using disk (enhanced)

Served from: timothyblee.com @ 2012-05-21 13:41:17 -->
