we exist only in order to teach some great lesson

The other day I was telling a friend about a book by Petr Chaadaev (described as "a major figure in Russian cultural history") and assumed it was still available at the link where I once blogged it. But, like much of the material that at one time was free for all to share, it's now gone, occluded, presumably, behind some mercantile copyright bulwark. Chaadaev's book was sufficiently displeasing to the regime that he was eventually distinguished with the honor of being adjudicated insane.

The portion of the book in which it has found its way into English is excised (along with much else) from Google Books. (We decry control of "free"speech, but support its effects everywhere.)

This "path" the Web is taking is really not so different from the itinerary Chaadaev describes in this fragment of letter 1: "We move through time in such a singular manner that, as we advance, the past is lost to us forever."

Here's what's left, from here:

It is one of the most deplorable traits of our strange civilization that we are still discovering truths that are commonplace even among peoples much less advanced than we. This is because we have never moved in concert with the other peoples. We are not a part of any of the great families of the human race; we are neither of the West nor of the East, and we have not the traditions of either. We stand, as it were, outside of time, the universal education of mankind has not touched us.

Look around you. Everyone seems to have one foot in the air. One would think that we are all in transit. No one has a fixed sphere of existence; there are no proper habits, no rules that govern anything. We do not even have homes; there is nothing to tie us down, nothing that arouses our sympathies and affections, nothing enduring, nothing lasting. Everything passes, flows away, leaving no trace either outside or within us. In our homes, we are like guests; to our families, we are like strangers; and in our cities we seem like nomads, more so than those who wander our steppes, for they are more attached to their deserts than we are to our towns...

Our memories reach back no further than yesterday; we are, as it were, strangers to ourselves. We move through time in such a singular manner that, as we advance, the past is lost to us forever. That is but a natural consequence of a culture that consists entirely of imports and imitation. Among us there is no internal development, no natural progress; new ideas sweep out the old, because they are not derived from the old but tumble down upon us from who knows where. We absorb all our ideas ready-made, and therefore the indelible trace left in the mind by a progressive movement of ideas, which gives it strength, does not shape our intellect. We grow, but we do not mature; we move, but along a crooked path, that is, one that does not lead to the desired goal. We are like children who have not been taught to think for themselves: when they become adults, they have nothing of their their own--all their knowledge is on the surface of their being, their soul is not within them. That is precisely our situation

Peoples, like individuals, are moral beings. Their education takes centuries, as it takes years for that of persons. In a way, one could say that we are an exception among peoples. We are one of those nations, which do not seem to be an integral part of the human race, but exist only in order to teach some great lesson to the world.

Fuck the piper (an immodest proposal)

Google Inc. (GOOG 429.53, -13.07, -2.95%) on Thursday said its second-quarter net income rose to $1.48 billion, or $4.66 a share, from $1.25 billion, or $3.92 a share in the same period a year earlier. Net revenue in the period ended in June rose to $4.07 billion from $3.9 billion, Google said. Excluding special items, earnings were $5.36 a share. Wall Street analysts had expected Google to post earnings excluding special items of $5.09 a share, and $4.06 billion in net revenue, according to data from Thomson Reuters. #

I'm not understanding why everyone thinks Google is brilliant but no one seems to grok the model.

It would be edifying to know how many stories at the NY Times site have been clicked on by users (or by bots) over the past decade, if that's how long they've been available. Must be in the hundreds of millions. Let's say 300 million [add: that's way low - see here]. Had they charged $.007 per story accession (i.e., click), the Times would have made $2.1 million. That's $2.1 million more than the ZERO their content has earned for them thus far (offset by whatever grand total their short-lived scheme of charging for Rich, Dowd, etc. brought in).

But who would agree to pay them even $.007 per access? you fairly ask. And my model says - it doesn't matter. Because the money would not come directly from the end user's pocket, but rather from those funds spent by all of us to all the large corpses who bring bits into the home, by whatever means - Comcast, Verizon, etc. Because these companies right now are thieves. They are making money hand over fist from users. But users do not pay them in order to see dark screens (that bliss is for television). We pay the Comcasts and Verizons in order to access content. Their mega-earnings are contingent upon their parasitism of Content.

Does it not seem appropriate that the pipers pay for that which enables them to exist? I have put forth this model before, (also a bit here) and of course it's patently absurd. However, I assure you, it's the only fair way to make sure that there is quality content on the Net. As of now, that assurance is lacking. The black holes of internet service providers are threatening to suck down all the light. They are making vast profit while thinking only about metal and fiber and trucks. All of those who are trying at least to think, to tweet, to make something or do something or read something, sit atop an enormous pile of bupkis. This is wrong.

The only fair way is to let every click on the net - to anything, except closed sub sites (like JSTOR), and sites featuring socially challenged content (bestiality, child porn, Republican Senators) - move a bit of micromoney from piper (a general fund fed from all pipers) to contenter. And, the same amount. Equal bits. Let's not quibble over how much more quality one finds in the NY Times. You provide content, you get clicked on, you get the everybody micro$, period.

This in no way obviates Big or Small Content from selling ads or running contests or selling t-shirts. It is simply the addition of a revenue stream that wasn't there before, taken from the profits of Big Pipes. You know the gold is there.

My argument would be improved by containing actual numbers of clicks for some content providers. But I don't think it would change the underlying logic. Please now tell me why I'm wrong so I can remove this chimera from my skull.



[Update] from the Man who Knows Everything:

Free is for the masses; the elite will pay for high quality content in news, information, education and entertainment. Digital feudalism...8 minutes ago from TweetDeck

ajkeen

Andrew Keen

pools of common patronage and micropayments by use

via Stowe Boyd:

Posner Wants To Ban Links To Save Newspapers

juicy bit:

Expanding copyright law to bar online access to copyrighted materials without the copyright holder's consent, or to bar linking to or paraphrasing copyrighted materials without the copyright holder's consent, might be necessary...more

Very rough analogy: Before there was central water, people dug wells and paid for delivery equipment to provde them with clean water; each habitation its own system. Centralized water eliminated the need, and well diggers and equipment providers largely disappeared. People still pay to access water, just via other means.

News organizations need to divorce what we want from the physical encasements that no longer are quite so essential (tho' the net-deprived might disagree). They and we seem to believe that the end of the need for paper is the end of the need for news. It isn't.

Similarly, we think of the necessary costs of Internet provision to consist of the cost of the pipes, the delivery mechanism. An analysis of the actual pipe costs would help us understand why it is that pipemakers are so happy to be in this business. Perhaps some of that profit could be applied to subsidize use.

Not as in giving the New York Times a basic content emolument for existing, but maybe more as in a micropayment method by which, when users choose to look at a story in the Times, a tiny sliver of funds goes to the Times. Not directly out of the pocket of the individual user, but out of a common fund, generated from the pipemakers' profits.

That is, end users fund the pipes and contribute to content costs, but content providers earn their keep by justifying their existence. Links are free and the more you are linked to, the greater the chance of getting those micropayments -- $.0000000000007 or so, nothing huge - but it will add up.

Such a means of common, shared costs of patronage might seem silly, or full of difficulties and obvious problems, but it is surely less so than invoking antiquated and misguided law to "bar linking."

eBay on my mind. like a rash

I thought I'd do some early seasonal shopping on eBay. I found the sort of thing I wanted. It stated a flat rate rather than staging an "auction," but allowed me to make an offer. This was new to me, unpracticed in the way of th'eBay, but I did, and two days later, got an excited email informing me that my offer was accepted.

Congratulations! You committed to buy the following item:

I went to pay, and learned that the actual payment would require my going to an external site.

Payment details: Please be sure to use our Marketworks Checkout

hmmm.

Before taking that step, I asked for shipping costs. Got an email back from "Kris" - an associate with the vendor. The shipping seemed a bit high. I clicked the link on Kris' email to the seller's site, and found no sign of a geographical location. Geezerly of me, I guess, to want to actually know where in space the seller to whom I'm sending money in expectation of receiving the very product advertised is located.

But I asked Kris, who replied:

Dear Valued Customer,

We ship out of KY.

Sincerely,

Kris

Oh.

Kris,

This does not answer my question. I will not send money in payment until I have your complete address. I tried calling your customer service number and was unable to reach a live representative.

To which:

Dear Valued Customer,

You have to pay using our checkout method, we do not accept mailed in payments..

We accept either paying with a credit card or using paypal.

Sincerely,

Kris

==

Kris,

I am aware that I will use a credit card for payment. My reason for requiring your business address is that I am unwilling to pay for something to a seller whose physical location is unknown to me. It has to do with having recourse in case anything goes wrong. All I have is email and a telephone number that does not bring me a live person.

If you are unwilling to provide a full address of your headquarters and the name of the president of your firm, then please cancel this transaction.

Thanks

Tom

Dear Valued Customer,

I understand.

Well Michael Rubin is the CEO/president.

Sincerely,

Kris

I should mention, somewhere in the original confirmation I was informed:

• Your purchase is a contract and you have committed to buy this item. Please contact the seller to arrange payment.

In all, there were 13 emails and one useless phone call, giving the Valued Customer, in the end, the alleged name of the ceo, but withholding any physical address.

If you're doing business in the world, selling stuff and receiving money, don't you need to actually BE somewhere?

Well apparently not. Not even virtually, it seems. I went back just now to find their "presence" on eBay:

Sorry, this store does not exist. ##1## ##2##

More lively minds, less grinding suckage

Skip the sad sacks at JSTOR and PROJECTilevomit MUSE:


The Questia Online Library The texts are freely accessible. If you want to use Questia's special features, such as highlighting and marginalia, it's $20 a month. Not altogether lovely.

Top 10 FREE Books

A General Introduction to Psychoanalysis by Sigmund Freud

Alice's Adventures in Wonderland by Lewis Carroll

The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain

Adventures of Sherlock Holmes by Arthur Conan Doyle

The Origin of Species by Charles Darwin

Tarzan of the Apes by Edgar Rice Burroughs

Up from Slavery by Booker T. Washington

Great Expectations by Charles Dickens

The Scarlet Letter by Nathaniel Hawthorne

Jane Eyre by Charoltte Bronte

Thanks to Tara Calashain for the heads up