I agree, but value-for-value is the opposite of free information. So I'm a bit confused about how you believe there's no such thing as intellectual property yet are a proponent of value-for-value since v4v states that what you produce (if valuable) should be rewarded.
Discussion
I simply believe that information should not be charged for, but rather information found valuable should be rewarded. This allows people assign certain value to particular bits on information. I believe it’s only logical as value is subjective and pricing you podcasts / newsletters you lose listeners/ readers. And many (especially people from the less prosperous countries) are left out.
I would love to live in a world where people voluntarily support the things they find valuable. Unfortunately people are not built that way. They take what they can get for free when they can get it. It's built into our biology and psychology. It's not just cultural imo. It's the reason Shareware software died out. It was great *idea* (if you appreciate this software and find it useful you'll pay for it), but almost nobody ever did.
I'm curious to see what stupid easy micro payments much do to this. Paying for shareware was so difficult and scary!
Fascinating discussion and this gets at the crux of why so many of us are so excited about #lightning and #nostr.
I agree with #[2] that v4v may be the solution to this conundrum. It’s not free, but it’s not the same as an arbitrary subscription or paywall either. Instead it allows the consumer of information to pay very little or exactly as much as as is requested for that piece of work. This should have the effect that quality information will be paid very handsomely by a few or the very small contributions of many add up to a lot. Filler and low quality information will die because it can no longer hide behind a subscription or ads.
To an extent, this in itself resolves the issue around IP you’re pointing out #[3] because these payments will often be small and frictionless that stealing the content elsewhere is disincentivized. Does it fully resolve the issue? Maybe not.
However, I think another thing we underestimate and can not yet imagine the extent of is how willing people will become to reward adequately the author of information they value, as we enter the era of sound money.
My question is, how do we incentivize this behavior with technology even further by making it east and frictionless? One example of even more extreme v4v I’ve thought about is, you only pay as far as you scroll. I.e. if you search through the doc and only read one page, you only end up paying for fraction of the content. But that’s just the beginning.
I don't think you get to decide how much the information you produce is worth to someone else. So I would refrain from using phrases like "should be rewarded" and appeals to food on the table unless you want to be mistaken for a socialist (which I know you are not, and I suppose I'm making my point too forcefully). I'm sure you want to be rewarded well enough to put food on the table, but imaging that something is wrong with the world if that doesn't happen, rather than with your business model, is a dead end. If you aspire to sell information (perhaps software) moralizing about it only creates a beggar business model (some people will feel bad and tip you). Software famously is dirt cheap and near impossible to form a business model on top of. That why SaaS took off. SaaS works by hiding the information instead of sharing it, since by sharing it you immediately lose the advantage of being the only one with it. Sorry if I am too much of a harsh realist.
I agree that the market will ultimately decide on what information is worth, but I don't think people will voluntarily fork over their money unless there's a barrier that prevents them from getting access to it until they decide to pay up. Shareware didn't work as a business model because almost nobody ever registered the software they could get for free. Donation models rarely work unless the people are constantly hounded (and -- often -- the product withheld) until their donations add up to what the provider wants. It's not a moral question. It's a practical one. People are biologically wired to take what they can get when they can get it. If you have something valuable, you have to demand something valuable in return for it. If you offer it for free in hopes of a handout, have fun staying poor.
Thanks. English is not my native language, so it’s a bit tricky to put my point across.
I’ll give another thought into better ways of wording my point.
Btw just listened to the Nostrovia pod with you as a guest. Good stuff!