Anderson and his editors apparently subscribe to the broadest possible interpretation of "free," as the book is alleged to include several passages taken word-for-word from Wikipedia, without attribution. (http://www.metafilter.com/82730/Free-nicks-words-from-Wikipedia-Lots-of-them)

I must strongly disagree with your review of this book. The author extensively quotes and references Wikipedia as he makes his main arguments, which makes him very difficult to take seriously.

Those who still question the value of Wikipedia are blind dinosaurs; it's very difficult to take them seriously.

I can see this whole freeconomics thing back firing in a few ways. Say I try a basic product for free, a freemium if you will (rolls eyes), and then hate it... I'm not going to buy the premium product, and I'm going to tell my friends its crap. Now if the only option from the beginning was to buy the premium product, I'd still hate it, but at least I would have been suckered in to paying for it.

Nice captcha btw.

Anybody know what Danish gym the author refers to? A link would be most welcome.

@Scott:

Link to Danish gym:

http://equinox.dk/

... Hope you can read Danish

After doing some google translating, it seems that this free gym isn't so free. There is a $90 initial membership fee, which is pretty high, and on top of that there is a 12-month binding period.

readers might also find chapter 3 "The Cost of Zero Cost" from Predictably Irrational by Dan Ariely interesting.

I'm about halfway through the book, and, despite the controversy surrounding it, it's a pretty good read (or listen, rather, since I downloaded it for free from Audible).

There's a good article in the New Yorker, entitled "PRICED TO SELL" by Malcolm Gladwell about this book. It brought the book to my attention... however, seemed to debunk Anderson's main premise.

I'll probably still give it a read, and make my own opinion... but the article is definitly a good read for anyone reading, or thinking about reading it.

http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/2009/07/06/090706crbo_books_gladwell

Carl,
I think that's a little harsh-- surely a true believer in the power of multiple voices wouldn't discredit a criticism with name calling? Anyways, I'm probably younger than you are and so don't qualify as a dino. I love wikipedia, but I don't think it was use appropriately in this book.

Once or twice is ok, but the author systematically depends on Wikipedia to explain concepts that either do not require citation or that require more accurate and thoughtful writing. I counted 9 such examples in the book, and it frustrated me that the author couldn't be bothered to write his own explanations for some of the most important parts of his overall point. From this, I conclude that he is trying to make a point about wikipedia via example. If, like you, he believes that wikipedia is infallible, he is misguided. The value of wikipedia stems not from its inherent accuracy, but from its ability to fix inaccuracy.

This an old argument that has been hashed out online many times, but potential readers of the book should be aware of this caveat before they dedicate their time-- after all, there really is no such thing as a free lunch.

@Michael, Anderson cribbed from Wikipedia for the historical notes (the history of the free), which really have nothing to do with his main point. (Unless you read a different book than the one I did.) All journalists, including Malcolm Gladwell, crib their history from other authors. That is the nature of writing. It is impossible to write history yourself. One hopes authors will cite their sources (which Anderson failed to do with Wikipedia, but did with other sources), but that fact that you rely on others for history is simply a fact of life. As to whether one relies on Wikipedia for history is a more interesting matter. Is Wiki reliable? The answer is that is "it depends," and "compared to what." Lot's of people are trying to give a good quantifiable answer. However I can say very certainly that if you object to writers relying on Wikipedia then you better stop reading now.

Also I've noticed how many have folks shifted away from discussing Anderson's idea of the free to an argument about Wikipedia, which is sort a safer discussion, but not as interesting.

My problem with Anderson cribbing from wikipedia or other sources has nothing to do with the reliability of wikipedia entries; they are generally reliable and wikipedia as a whole is a valuable resource for background information and for leads to other, more primary, sources.

Anderson loses credibility, however, when he lifts wikipedia entries verbatim, as he is alleged to have done, without attribution. He opens himself to charges of plagiarism. And, since he's apparently willing to let other writers write for him, he demonstrates that he does not care much for the presentation of his argument.

Anderson's and his publisher's responses to this after the Virginia Quarterly review suggests more of the latter than the former. ("Obviously in my rush at the end I missed a few of that last category ['write-throughs' to put the wikipedia copy into his own words], which is bad." It's worse than bad. It's sloppy and unprofessional, and whether discovered or not, it's inconsiderate to his audience.

More here: http://www.vqronline.org/blog/2009/06/23/chris-anderson-free/

Via here: http://www.metafilter.com/82730/Free-nicks-words-from-Wikipedia-Lots-of-them

Free has been a method of tempting for as long as there has been anything for sale. Taste this and if you like it... Try this and see if you feel better.... so manyways to get paid for free.

I hired four girls to give away small botthes of sauce I made to see if people would like them. Each different than the others and one seemed to suite their taste and it became a national brand. I was paid ten thousand dollars for the rites by a national company and most of you now would know the sauce.

No I do not feel bad abut selling it because I didn't want to go through al the things it takes to manufacture it comercialy. I am happy that it is in your citchen.

Not so free if you're outside the U.S:

http://paintinginnumbers.blogspot.com/2009/07/free-as-in.html

@ Ronan said: "Not so free if you're outside the U.S."

Yeah, that's the current publishing industry's idea of advance technology. Chris has said in many places, if it were up to him it would be free everywhere. You should direct your comments to the publishers in New York. Used to be, a publisher purchased rights to print a book is a geographical region, say the US or the UK, or Canada. But now if UK publisher releases a digital copy for free, it impacts the purchased rights of the US publisher or Canada. The digital world is one unified place, but the traditional publishing world does not work that way. Yet.

Free, with your purchase of a dust jacket for $27.

The "new economy" turned out to be more like the old economy than ever.

Amazon uses centralization and automation to compete against independent books stores, driving them out of business not unlike WalMart.

There are costs for producing anything, including ideas. There is no Free lunch.

For nothing is nothing. --German proverb

We have a whole generation starting to expect free to be the norm. The question isn't about what should be free - it is about how you make things that people want to pay for.

The commerce revolution I'm still waiting for is this one -- Instead of a book costing $20 and the author gets $1, an e-book costs $1.01 and the author still gets $1.

Tiny - you have an excellent point! And that is the pitfall with "freeconomics"; you are condintioning the consumer to pay nothing for quality products. The next step is them demanding items for free. Don't believe me? Anyone who works retail has experienced it already. "You hurt my feelings (or supply your own imagined injustice). I'll call your corporate offices and they'll make you give me something for free!" These days it's usually a $20 store gift card.

CR - true. But I think the free culture is already here and I still think the model that some people espouse, creating a tribe is the way forward. The people at the top create a following and experience where people will pay because they want to belong (like Radiohead letting people pay whatever they wanted for their album) - and the people at the bottom have little to lose so they build a following by giving stuff away (like unsigned bands). The group in the middle who are just good enough, but don't create passion in the consumer are stuck - so a lot of middle grade uninspiring stuff that doesn't excite anyone or offer some huge benefit will be stuffed - and perhaps that is evolution?

@ Lars, what did you think of Anderson's ideas on Free? Do you agree with them? (Let's assume he gave the proper citation to Wikipedia in his text.)

At the other end of the spectrum from free is "more expensive." I live in Los Angeles and I pay more to get my books at either Vroman's (Pasadena) or Skylight Books (Los Feliz). This makes sense to me because these two retailers provide an experience which is going to die pretty soon if not protected. (And remarkably, Skylight Books just expanded!) My prediction in fact: we will end up with independent bookstores and Amazon; sell your shares in Borders and B&N. I hope this isn't too terribly off topic...

Of course, "free" is the most powerful word in the American lexicon. However, it is also the word for suckers - most commonly used by hucksters and carney barkers.

The old adages still apply - "You get what you pay for" and "If it sounds too good to be true, it most likely isn't".

The truth is, ideas have value that is independent of the cost of production or distribution. Digital technology can reduce the costs but they will never be zero. Just check out the electric bills for Google, Amazon, Comcast and Verizon.

People love the prospect of free and will use the shit out of it - right up to the point that nature, or ATT or the government turns it off. Then watch them run.

This book could be easily be compared to the sub-prime mortgage scam. "Free" money to buy as big or as many houses as you want - no income verification, no down payment, no worries. That is until the music stops and the bills come due. Then the real cost of "free" gets paid.

As much as I liked Napster and freebies, the idea that an economic system can be viable based on the ideas in this book is a joke.

PaulD - you have the correct - the middle ground is under pressure. Whether you like it or not, it is here - time to start thinking about how you deal with it.

http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2009/06/malcolm-is-wrong.html - worth a read I think

If you live outside US, you can download the audiobook from Wired: http://www.wired.com/images/multimedia/free/FREE_Audiobook_unabridged.zip

Audible even made me create an account before it told me that I'm not cool enough to be able to download the book from their website.

@RJ Godin: Actually, if you use BitTorrent as your distribution mechanism, the distribution price is effectively zero, unless you're the kind of person who doesn't use a computer, or doesn't have an internet connection at home.

But Free is never sustainable, nor should it be. How can any society survive if it's goods are simply given away? Wasn't that what Lennin and Marx envisioned? And hasn't it failed every time?

For Free Enterprise to succeed, you have to have a constant flow of money. RJ Godin, you were close when you compared this to the sub-prime fiasco; but I think it more closely resembles the actual "buying on credit" aspect only, especially if the consumer defaults on their credit card payments.

No, this Freeconomics scares the hell out of me. For a healthy, long-lasting economy, I highly recommend two doses of common sense and cash on the barrel-head.

Of course, there's always barter . . .

@CR Banks: Quite obviously the only thing you read from this book is the title.

@Pies - I get the book's premise, which is essentially what merchants the world over have been using, or wanting to use "free" for since the world switched to a money-based market society.

By the way, BitTorrent isn't 100% free. There are costs associated with it (mostly upkeep); they have a website, they have staff, etc.

The point I was making is that nothing can be 100%, in every way, and nor should it be. Free Enterprise would crumble, and along with it, society. We'd get a "Hey, everything's free, I don't have to work" attitude. Or worse, that lackadaisical attitude would be followed by, "Since everything is free, I'll take whatever I want from whomever I want."

That's why freeconomics scares me. We've already started programming people to demand FREE. We need to stop before its too late.

@CR Banks: Yes you can demand cash on the barrellhead. That's what music labels, and publishers and Hollywood studios are doing -- with little effect. So they start arguing why its in our best interests to pay them -- still to no effect. Then they start pounding the table saying if we don't give them cash they'll arrest us -- still copies flow free, people give stuff away, wikipedias happen.

So now what do you do? You can keep demanding payment, ....... or you can read FREE -- and I mean read more than just the title.

The point is, the prescence of free is not optional. It is built into the technology. You just have to deal with it.

Chris Anderson was interviewed on Charlie Rose last night, and he addressed the wikipedia issue among other things related to his book. Here's the link to the video, about 21 minutes:
http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/10489

@Kevin - you just proved my point with your music analogy. Instead of paying for someone else's property, you, meaning the masses, have demanded your free merchandise because you don't think you should have to pay for it. Look at China, as related in the book.

And frankly, no, I don't have to just deal with it.

Stealing is free, too.

All I'm saying is there have to be boundaries. Just ask any artist, writer or other creative occupation who's work has been used without license or royalties.

Something for nothing isn't worth anything!

@CR Banks, sez: "All I'm saying is there have to be boundaries. Just ask any artist, writer or other creative occupation who's work has been used without license or royalties."

Then you can ask me. I am a paid writer whose stuff has been pirated all over the place. I say that copying for free is unavoidable and inevitable. As it is for any creator today. The question is, given that it is unavoidable, what do you do about it? (Anderson's book addresses this challenge.)

If you are claiming free copying is avoidable, you'll have to present evidence how to do this -- and the RIAA and Hollywood would like to talk to you, because despite spending 100s of millions of dollars in a search for ways to avoid this, they have nothing to show but failure.

First off, Kevin, I'm not CLAIMING anything. I am stating my OPINION, which is that pirating of any kind should be avoidable. In fact, it is illegal in every country in the world. Yet it is tolerated, more and more, because what's used without permission are so-called intangible items, "intellectual property".

My original point is that this "something for nothing" mentality has already eroded our economy and society to a dangerous level.

Kevin, you want to see what lengths some people will go to to stop pirating? Look at the anti-piracy laws France is trying desperately to pass. It got shot down the first time, but they kept trying.

http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/may2009/gb20090514_391445.htm?chan=top+news_top+news+index+-+temp_global+business

I have my own so-called "intellectual-property" that I don't want pirated, and there isn't a lot you can do to stop determined pirates (can I get an "Aaarghh"?) But, unless you want drastic measures imposed similar to what France is trying, then we need to NOT encourage people by offering more freebies.

This is just my opinion.

@CR Banks said, "But, unless you want drastic measures imposed similar to what France is trying, then we need to NOT encourage people by offering more freebies."

Then why are you giving away your comments for free? When you post for free you are encouraging other people like me to post our comments (which BTW are all copyrighted) for free. This is contrary to your own advice.

Don't be obtuse. We were having a discussion, not engaging in commerce. But if you regularly charge people to converse with you, then I can see why you would be so into free-ism.

However you do bring up an excellent point; where do you draw the line between intellectual property and what is in the public domain? That, my friend, is the $64,000 question, and if you care to pay me for my time, I'll be more than happy to give you the answer to that all consuming query.

@CR Banks, Ah, you are finally back to the topic of Chris Anderson's book: what's the difference between a discussion and commerce, and what's IP and what's public domain? Lucky for you, his book has answers and it is free! I am sure you'll learn lots about your questions.

Interesting related article in Scientific American this month, discussing the difference in usage rates between low-cost subsidized malaria nets, and free malaria nets:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=good-news-on-malaria-control

to Pies - while the price of Bit Torrent may be zero, it's cost is not. To really use Bit Torrent, you need a high speed connection. That costs. The network costs to build, costs to run and costs to use.

The problem with "free" is that economics is not a zero sum proposition, particularly when dealing in qualitative things like inspiration and beauty. The consumers gain from a artistic or novel insight is generally far greater than the loss by the creative originator. To the innovative person, the cost a a new idea is low while to the average person the benefit can be tremendous.

If "free" makes it even harder to make a living as a creator, then it is a disaster.

The book posits that the solution is the old end around - public performance, or basically tithing where fans donate to the creator out of appreciation. Each of these has problems.

Public performance - either from speaking, presentation etc. require considerable sacrafice of time in preparation, travel and the other details. This time is time that the creator will never get back again. So much for getting reasonable return in the bargain.

Premium, voluntary donation, etc - are very hard to sustain. Times get tough, people stop paying - cheques stop coming.

As Burroughs observed - "There are no honorable bargains when trading qualitative things like souls for quantitative things like money"

The premise of Anderson's book is that the ultimate "bargain" price can be made to suffice through varous forms of ledgerdemain and that an economy based on "make it up in volume" is viable, seems rather credulous.

I happen to agree with most of Kevin K. perspective that digital technology is changing the basic rules for exchange of ideas for money, but I don't agree with Chris A.'s proposition that the solution is to give it away and figure out ways to get paid at the edges.

I think Harlan Ellison sums it up quite well:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mj5IV23g-fE

@RJ Godin: "I think Harlan Ellison sums it up quite well:"

Do you think that Harlan got paid for that You Tube interview? I doubt it. If not why did he do it? Publicity value?

That interview is from the movie "Dreams with Sharp Teeth" for which I believe Ellison was paid for. Who posted it to YouTube and was Ellison compensated? who knows and probably not.

Not to mention that You Tube is losing millions of dollars still. As with Bit Torrent, the underlying costs are not being covered. Can this be a sustainable situation? What happens to "free" if/when people stop paying for the power, HVAC, etc. and the lights go out for YouTube, BitTorrent, etc?

Therein lies the rub. Digital technology allows for much easier appropriation (theft in some world views, fair use in others) but how will a viable economic model evolve? Viable in terms of covering the costs for all involved.

The position that "ideas want to be free" is noble but does not address the need to reward and compensate original thinking (and acting since ideas without action are navel lint). Throwing up of hands by saying "it is hopeless to resist digital misappropriation, give up and give it away" will leave many ideas unshared and undeveloped.

Many real innovators of ideas do not want or are not geared to spending the time and effort to capitalize on speaking tours or premium subscription schemes. They want to spend their time creating.

Hence, agents and gallerys and managers; lawyers and accountants and the rest.

Maybe Creative Commons model is the answer. Maybe something else. But no maybe about it, any model that does not provide income to originators will either fail or undermine the propagation of ideas.

The original point of copyright was to encourage dissemanation of ideas by compensating creators for making their ideas known. Precisely because if there was no incentive, many ideas would remain within small spheres of local influence.

The laws have been distorted and compromised but the purpose remains important.