Arnold Kling has written an article titled Content Is Crap. He seems to have two basic points. One is that he doesn't think Creative Commons will work, and the second is his approval of yet undeveloped software known as Bayesian filters. These filters would 'learn' over time to view and classify incoming data using the same set of values you have as an individual. Ultimately, it would be helpful in reducing spam and suggesting things you would probably be interested in.

The Bayesian filters sound interesting, but I find his view of created content and Creative Commons to be a bit extreme. Here is a sample:

"Creative Commons is based on a naive ideology that believes that raw content is gold, which then gets stolen by the evil media companies. In reality, the economics of content are that most of the value-added comes from the filtering process, not the creation process. If you want to overthrow incumbent publishers with Internet-based alternatives, you are better off starting from the assumption that Content is Crap."

I would argue that some content is gold and much is crap, but publishers do not filter out content based on quality and importance, rather on profitability. Publishers don't care if their products are good, but only that they sell. They make decisions which produce more revenue for them, rather than more good content available to the consumer.

As an example, the reason a handful of performers receive so much attention and hype is because it is cheaper to promote one act into selling 10 million copies of a CD than it is to promote 10 acts into selling 1 million each. The consumer of content is viewed more as a source of revenue, rather than a customer to be served.

If content were truly crap, just waiting for publishers to magically transform it into gold, then why would they need artists? Hell, anyone can produce crap. If content were worthless, no one would steal it, and we would need no copyright protection. A publisher did not create Shakespeare's sonnets, Michelangelo's art or Bob Dylan's music. A publisher has a useful purpose, but the usefulness is created by artists and those who appreciate art, and not the other way around.

We all do need filters in our lives to make it through the huge amount of information. We don't, on the other hand, need a small group of people telling us what is good, and what we can purchase. The open market works as a pretty good filter all by itself, without the help of the godlike publisher.

As with other issues, the truth is not an extreme position, but a collection of positions formed into a workable compromise. All content is not crap. All products issuing from established publishers are not gold. Creative Commons will not solve all issues related to intellectual property rights, and neither will intelligent software filters.

Content is Crap - Arnold Kling