
Jason Fry’s impressive article in the WSJ yesterday echoes much of what we’ve been saying around here for some time. He talks about the foolhardy attempt by some Belgian media outlets to sue Google for linking to their content without paying for it. More generally, however, the article describes something of the havoc that traditional media are seeing.
The center is losing control:
Whether or not content creators like it, this is the age of fragmentation. In industry after industry, consumers are voting with their feet against old methods of packaging and distributing information. They want to pick and choose what’s of interest to them, without having to pay for or wade through what isn’t.
While people are consuming content on their own terms …
If you put executives from a TV network, a record label and a newspaper at a bar and let them get to sharing their troubles, they’d find themselves telling much the same story: Their content is being chopped up and reused in new ways they can’t control.
This is proving highly disruptive…
When digital technology broke albums into individual songs, consumers voted against the album by either stealing individual songs from peer-to-peer networks or buying them from services such as iTunes. The music industry has been left scrambling to make the transition from the dying old model to an uncertain new one…
But it’s inevitable, given the effect of the internet
Ultimately, what content creators face isn’t new technology, but a sea change in consumer behavior. Consumers don’t want to go back to watching TV at set times, buying albums or reading newspapers page by page.
However, lest we get too cocky, he also has this to say:
… at times Google and its champions fall prey to thinking that they know what’s best for everybody else… no one likes being told what’s good for them…
Ahem, yes. And finally…
VCRs, which let consumers “time-shift” programs and skip the bits that didn’t interest them… Despite becoming nearly ubiquitous, VCRs had too many moving parts — clocks, tapes, labels, rewinding — for most consumers to take full advantage of their time-shifting abilities. In practice, VCRs’ primary use was to show rented movies.
The man makes sense.
Via, the indispensable Buzzmachine.
Ken Carroll

“they want to pick and choose what’s of interest to them, without having to pay for or wade through what isn’t.”
This sounds somewhat ironic considering WSJ has a million paid subscribers. A good continuation to the debate:
http://lsvp.wordpress.com/2007.....ewspapers/ (blocked in China)
I am interested in the implications on training media. Are textbook lessons going to be unbundled and commoditized as well? If ‘user-generated content’ is creating a content flood that is burying professional content, couldn’t a ‘teacher-generated content’ driven social network do the same thing to educational publishing?
VCR - I wish I could buy a VCR in China.
In language teaching it is not just the individual pieces (learning objects) that are so important (to schools). It is the ability to put the pieces together into a coherent whole (a class or a course).
Many Internet sites already exist that offer a range of supplemental materials in a wild form. Indeed, a form of teacher “exchanges” existed even before the Internet.
These materials in the wild however need to be tamed. It isn’t enough to just publish them.
More importantly, in your aggregate world, existing supplemental materials would have to be re-engineered so that that they could be directly consumed by the students without outside professional assistance. These kinds of materials are in the minority at present.