Micropayments have come up from time to time with the writers group I’m involved with. Those who will remain nameless (coughwritingonyourpalm.netcough) want to insist that micropayments are the wave of the future and that digital self publishers won’t be able to make a living without them.

For a while I’ve been on the con side of micropayments. I’m not interested in yet another way to spend money which is only going to work with a few venders and comes with hidden costs like sign up fees and/or service fees. I’m also not interested in having yet one more password or code I have to remember. In my line of work I already have a multitude of systems I have to remember passwords for. Add to that the amount of travel I do, every airline has their own system, so do all the car rental agencies and hotel chains. It’s a nightmare to deal with.

That’s been my arguement for quite some time. That the value of any good or service can be diminished by the customer interface. Let’s face it, there are web sites for everything and even some the sites built by million dollar corporations just plain suck. As a user of the web, if I can’t easily find the information I’m looking for I’ll leave a site faster than I came.

So just where did this rant come from? I was recently led to Clay Shirky’s article on Fame vs. Fortune: Micropayments and Free Content. Please go and read that article. There’s far more there than I care to paraphrase but that doesn’t mean I’m not going to try. Shirky’s article also falls on the con side of micropayments with the argument that micropayment systems fail because the content producers are the artists, and their goal is fame. That chalks one up to altruism; giving up the chance to make money just to be heard by the public.

Now this wouldn’t be nearly so interesting, unless there were another article with an opposing view. Enter stage right: Scott McCloud’s article Misunderstanding Micropayments. Did you read the first article? Good, now go read this one. Bringing my mad paraphrasing skillz to bare again; micropayments can work as a way for people to experience something for a much smaller price than the cost of a subscription or other bulk purchase. There’s an important point here; that the artists should not have to personally fund the distribution of their work. I can’t argue against that. In a perfect world the artist would be paid for their art.

Point, counter point. So who’s the ignorant slut? I have to say they are both correct. Shirky is right to say that people will gravitate to free content because it’s free. Charging for content necessarily reduces those who will view it. McCloud is also correct in that artists can and should be reimbursed for their labor, and that it can happen in the form of micropayments. Apple has proven that micropayments work on a large scale with the iTunes Music Store. (Sure there are other examples, but Apple is a poster child around here.)

I think they are both correct to say that things are changing. With the success of Linux, a new generation is influencing the way things get done. Free no longer means an inferior product. Software venders should take note of this. Anyone who has historically made money by being the middle man should. The internet has changed the way content can be distributed and there is no going back. I think it’s for the better.

There’s a revolution in the making and I’m not sure that capitalism as it’s practiced today, is going to survive.

Please check out the discussion over on Slashdot for more links on micropayments.