I tend to side with Chris Anderson, Mike Masnick and other free proponents, but Malcolm Gladwell makes salient observations in his review/counter-point of Anderson's new book, "Free: The Future of a Radical Price." The following excerpt deflates grandiose notions of free economies revolutionizing society:

Anderson begins the second part of his book by quoting Lewis Strauss, the former head of the Atomic Energy Commission, who famously predicted in the mid-nineteen-fifties that "our children will enjoy in their homes electrical energy too cheap to meter.

Anderson wants to take "too cheap to meter" seriously, because he believes that we are on the cusp of our own "too cheap to meter" revolution with computer processing, storage, and bandwidth. But here is the second and broader problem with Anderson's argument: he is asking the wrong question. It is pointless to wonder what would have happened if Strauss's prediction had come true while rushing past the reasons that it could not have come true. [Emphasis included in original.]

I appreciate Gladwell's perspective because he's anchoring the free discussion in reality. Free isn't a cure-all, nor does it apply to every market or product. But in my sandbox -- digital content -- it absolutely factors into the gameplan because virtually all digital material can be copied infinitely with no degradation. When you're dealing with an infinite good, you have to acknowledge the limits and opportunities of giving that material away because a certain percentage of the consumer population is going to take and copy it anyway. You can spin your wheels with DRM and lawsuits, or you can accept the reality and find ways to use freely distributed content to convert readers/viewers/users into customers who pay for related, naturally-scarce products. To me -- and to most non-utopian, normal folks -- free isn't a cultural movement, paradigm shift, or religion. It's a tool.

Never underestimate financial motivation:

The Netflix Prize contest has been hailed as prime example of "prize economics" and the crowdsourcing of innovation. Prize economics refers to running a contest to generate a new innovation at less cost than an in-house research and development effort, and crowd-sourcing refers to using the proverbial wisdom of crowds to accomplish a task. Netflix has said that $1 million would be a bargain price for an improved recommendation engine, which would increase customer satisfaction and generate more movie rental business. [Link included in original post.]

The Netflix Prize -- and similar contests -- take a much-needed, practical approach to crowdsourcing by injecting clear motivation into the process. A big fat check is bound to attract a committed corps, but other rewards, such as esteem within a specific community or job opportunities, may also work (may ... successful crowdsourcing and community creation often requires a lightning-in-a-bottle moment). What I appreciate most about the Netflix Prize is that, unlike most forms of citizen journalism and community building, it clearly answered the question: "Why would anyone do this?".

In a refreshing break from the wailing and moaning from the business side of content, Bill Mitchell offers an in-depth look at a dynamic storytelling form he calls "Next Step Journalism":

It's a process -- call it Next Step Journalism -- that will shape more and more of the news we need from around the block and around the globe.

Journalists have relied on a process approach to writing for years. The Next Step Journalism process practiced on the Neda story began with an event and is characterized by the collective sharing and enhancing of information ...

... Deconstructing the Neda story reveals seven elements of this kind of storytelling -- some more in need of professional journalism skills and values than others. In describing what's involved in each elements, I'm struck by a common thread: the importance of collaboration. [Link included in original post.]

As Mitchell illustrates later in the column, journalists can use social media tools as a starting point for deeper research and reporting. Sources are everywhere, you just have to be willing to look.

The Associated Press is the gawky teen of the digital content world: it just can't get its act together. The organization's latest bit of nonsense comes from its Draconian new social networking policy. This is a doozy:

But the most contentious element in the new policy, which the union also decried as "vague," gives this instruction to employees using Facebook: "Monitor your profile page to make sure material posted by others doesn't violate AP standards: any such material should be deleted."

So, AP staffers are supposed to apply AP guidelines to Facebook's collection of quips, responses and miscellaneous monosyllabic snark. Right. Perfect. All APers need to do is memorize said guidelines then decode every commenter's intent, perspective and contextual relevance. Or, if they're feeling anti-establishment, they could spend an evening filtering and unfriending colleagues and bosses.

TechCrunch reports on positive early signs from AOL's Politics Daily, which features long-form original political content:

In the grand scheme of things, AOL's strategy towards monetizing niche content online seems to be working out. And since they've already got the publishing platform with MediaGlow, new brands can be inserted or built at little marginal operating cost. If the brand tanks, which is likely to happen at some point, then AOL isn't losing too much. [Link added.]

Martin Langeveld lays out a 10-point plan for resurrecting the Boston Globe ... and it actually might work.

The interesting part -- and something I've harped on -- is that this same gameplan could be implemented by a completely new organization that isn't burdened by current staff and infrastructure needs. Building a business is always tough, but I'd rather create something new than remake an established company.

A federal jury in Minnesota ruled that Jammie Thomas-Rasset, the downloading-consumer poster child, must pay $80,000 per song for the 24 music files stored on her computer. That's $1.92 million, total.

After the judgement, Thomas-Rasset had an appropriate response:

As for Thomas-Rasset, she appeared shaken by the verdict but didn't blame the jury. "They did their job," she said, "I'm not going to hold it against them." She added, though, that the recording industry would never collect the money. "Good luck trying to get it from me ... it's like squeezing blood from a turnip."

I understand the music industry (and all content industries) are in turmoil. I understand Thomas-Rasset and other downloaders have, technically, run afoul of copyright law. But I will never understand why any industry would think it suitable to sue and extort its customer base. This is madness.

The bright spot amidst all this nonsense is that the film, book and media industries have avoided the lawsuit route. My hope is that all content companies -- including the record labels -- will eventually emerge from their knee-jerk defensive positions and realize there's a choice here: you can hope for a Pyrrhic victory over your digital nemesis, or you can reorient your businesses toward the new relationship between digital content creators, providers and consumers. People still want great content and they're still willing to pay for it -- now figure out how to give it to them. And for the love of God, don't sue your customers.

Hand-Picked Related Links

• Piracy is Progressive Taxation, and Other Thoughts on the Evolution of Online Distribution (Tim O'Reilly)
• Putting Ebook Piracy into Perspective (TOC)
• Capitol v. Thomas (EFF)
• RIAA v. The People (EFF)
• Impact of P2P and Free Distribution on Book Sales (TOC Report)

The New York Times' most recent piece on Twitter touches upon a favorite topic of mine: the vast difference between the built-in network effects of Web content and the non-interactive silos of print:

In the process, Mr. [Steven] Johnson said, he has been able to witness the rising importance of new-media outlets and the lessening influence of traditional media outlets like Time magazine, which recently printed his essay on (surprise!) the transformative power of Twitter.

That essay was featured on the cover with a sample tweet of Mr. Johnson's. "It's funny, everybody has been asking me, you got your Twitter ID on the cover of Time magazine, you must be getting an insane amount of followers," he said. "And I say it's nothing compared to the steady influx you get from being on the suggested user list." [Emphasis added; link included in original article.]

Expanding on Johnson's point: The simplicity of the hyperlink obscures its power. Magazine covers, TV ads and billboards may boost brand awareness -- and you certainly wouldn't want to reject these things -- but the hyperlink's direct ability to create context and expand knowledge, reputation and attention is unparalleled.

Jeff Bercovici ponders the surprising job-finding success of recent journalism grads:

My guess is at least some of it is a direct result of the massive staff cutbacks just about every media organization has enacted in the past couple years. It's a corporate cliche to lay people off and euphemize it as "restructuring," but you can be sure that some of the companies that are letting go well-paid editors and writers in their 40s and 50s are quietly stocking up on fresh j-school grads whose lack of real-word experience is at least partly made up for by their effortless fluency in the ways of the web -- and their willingness to work for $35,000 a year.

Callous, no doubt, but there's a natural ebb and flow to every industry -- journalism's most recent ebb is just more violent than past shifts.

Something I've been considering lately: Journalism's new guard may also expedite the industry's necessary transformation from stodgy top-down editorial delivered through antiquated containers (newspapers, 22-minute broadcasts) to reliable information sources that contribute to and engage with the audience via multiple formats. New journalists -- unencumbered by inefficient past methods -- could energize (not "save" ... energize) the content industries.

Block out the cacophony of whines and moans and you can see something big is about to happen to journalism.

Via Editor & Publisher and Tom Oates' Twitter stream.

Today's subversive communist schwag is brought to you by the North Korean Trinket Bureau and CafePress:

North Korea's CafePress shop is promoted on the country's official web page and their "seller bio" on CafePress also links to the official site. CafePress shares the profits from their sales with all of their sellers, so this site seemingly provides the regime of North Korean dictator Kim Jong Il with income. [Link included in original post.]

I wish this design came in an XL hoodie.