A great example of this was when I started learning opengl. The khronos site has so much information it’s almost dizzying, but blog posts are full of quickly whipped together examples with memory leaks and too little context. A purchase of the red book got me through enough material that I could start utilizing all the other resources around me. This is well worth 30 bucks to me.

In this case there were multiple sources giving me the resources for free but since all the content was prepared in their free time it would have added a lot of time on my end to get started with. Having someone who was financially motivated to make it streamlined for me really paid off. A mix of both worlds is a great thing.

I am just wondering when paid-for technical books will finally die.

They’ll “die” when people are no longer willing to pay for them. Thankfully the internet has given all of us a way to share information freely, and hence it’s accessible to those willing to search for it.

I am willing to pay for a technical, knowledge-packed book when 1) it saves me time from having to search and/or 2) I need the information: I’m guaranteed a book will still be there tomorrow, unlike many blogs, titter posts, etc. which can be deleted in an instant. I’ve lost great resources due to authors allowing their web properties to die.

To rephrase, it’s not that it’s “lazy” – staying up to date via other means is actually “hard work”. And reading a book or two every so often – that’s the opposite of “hard work”. Now, reading a book every week – now that is “hard work” again – but it’s still removing the “hard work” of filtering the noise. If you read only Good Books, that is.

I think if you look throughout history (I’m naive on this point; just guessing), you’ll probably see similar patterns and waves of “free knowledge” movements. Of course, it’s totally different now with the Internet.

Also, to be honest, I don’t really see what you see when you say it’s already happening. Look at Google for example. They are (ironically) promoting the “free knowledge” and “open source” model. But what is the result? Capitalist gain for Google. Maybe Google is a bad example, and maybe that’s not what you have in mind, but it’s a real example of how even when people promote open source and open knowledge, it is ultimately for capitalist gain.

Nonetheless, whatever the case, this is an important topic and I’m glad you brought it up.

When I refer to paid-for technical books I’m referring to a dying breed of information transfer anyway.

So, forgive me, but I don’t understand what you and others mean when you say that you agree but it’s simply not possible. It must be possible because it’s already happening…

I think John McCrae of the rock band CAKE hit the nail on the head when asked about music piracy. He said:

“But I do think that if music is going to be free, then sandwiches should also be free. There should be some consistency and we should learn to cooperate better.”

Comment by @Tanguy is correct. If you want to make knowledge free, then you have to make publishing free. If you make publishing free, then you have to make printing presses free. If you make printing presses free, then you have to make chopping down of trees free. And all the employees that work for those different aspects of printing/publishing would likewise need to work for free. And if they’re going to do that, then the grocery store down the street has to give their food away for free, so those free workers can feed themselves and their families. And the farm that provides the food for the grocery store has to give its produce away for free. I could go on for hours here.

The point is (as @Tanguy said), the powers that be in this world have decided that capitalism rules.

Really, while your post does suggest a possible alternative to the spread of knowledge, it provides an even clearer indicator that capitalism is far from ideal.

For the record, I agree with you, but I’ll take it a step further, in line with McCrae’s statement: The world should be based on trade of skills and services, where “money” is not involved at all. So I’ll gladly start promoting the spread of free knowledge as soon as I see clear evidence that capitalism is no longer ruling. Because I need to ensure that I can feed my family. 🙂

I understand your point and I can’t help but agree with it, but I don’t know where it can lead in economical terms, given that the economy is driven by capitalism.
If the book is free, where does the money come from to publish it? Publishing a pdf on the web is far easier and cheaper than publishing a book and put it on every libraries of a country..

Would the free price system be a solution? People would pay the amount they want when buying books. From where I am standing I can’t say.

@Tanguy,

Because there are people that are willing to pay for them

Yes, that’s true. But that gets us nowhere. It’s like saying:

Why are there wars?
Because people are willing to fight in wars…

It’s missing the point… And it’s a circular argument.

I agree with you. There is choice. People have a variety of ways to get information, many of them free. Even with this fact, is it not at least reasonable to be opposed to the other type of information — that which you must pay for? Collective efforts would be better spent proliferating open and free information than selectively choosing who gets to learn what. I am opposed to paid-for knowledge. The fact that there are alternatives does not sway my opposition.

@Tom, you’re thinking in terms of the market and compensation==dedication. Me not finishing a book does not prove either argument. I am but a mere nothing compared to the idea and principle that I’m trying to put across in this post…

Might there be more to human motivation than the lure of compensation? Look at all the free information already out there.