Sadly, every text format is in some way restricted, either through DRM or format choice.

so it's not THAT free.

@Wendy Sloan: Exactly. Free-ish, I'd say. For a limited time.

Although I'd still say this is a "brave" move for a major publisher.

Why are there all these formats when we have two (maybe three) perfect ones already? PDF, (TXT), and MP3. Wake me when free means free of crap.

So you can't get it free in the traditional and easy to read book format?

Anderson almost had to do this. Every single review I've read of this book centered on the irony of charging 26.99 for a book whose main thesis is that companies should give their products away for free.

@Chris Walters: Though back in about 1998-2000 one of the Penguin divisions (Dutton, I think)offered a title free on the web--it was the sequel to two previously published books, which hadn't effectively recouped expenses, and they figured this would be an interesting experiment as well as a way to avoid print costs.

@floraposte: as well as a way to avoid print costs.

Ha ha, the new curse of the low-selling midlist author: being consigned to ebook only.

@gparlett: Though my bet is that he's not really doing it--I would be surprised (though interested) to hear that he's returning his advance, for instance. It's the publisher, Hyperion, who's doing this, in the sense of foregoing the conventional revenue stream for this experiment.

I was about to jump on you re: international access but you beat me to it.

@Chris Walters: Yeah--and it was actually a bit of a political statement, because it was a translated book, and they traditionally struggle in this American market. The first two books were award-winners, but that wasn't enough to boost them into profitability when fighting against the "furrin book" problem. So they cut their losses, made a point, and got the end of the saga out to readers. (Hmm. Looks like somebody's trying to sell a printout on Amazon as a paperback, for a ruinous price.)

@gparlett: I didn't know that. What was their marketing strategy: buy this about giving free things?

As soon as I saw this I wanted to do a piece on it, but then it dawned on me the absurdity of it since I work at an online newspaper that's not free.

"The author has disabled downloads on this document." So, it's not really free, now is it?

So which of these options will work on a regular old computer but won't go away in August? I used to buy ebooks from Amazon before they went Kindle only, but now I'm not sure if they'll work on a regular computer.

If you read that book, be sure to also consider Malcolm Gladwell's rebuttal of it:

[www.newyorker.com]

Chris Anderson has got it all wrong. Free is dying. Major websites are on the verge of erecting paywalls.

Unfortunately, your time is probably not free. If you spend hours reading this twaddle, how much does that cost you when you could have been doing something productive instead?

Note that Anderson states that the book doesn't really tell you the whole story, and to get that, you have to hire him for an expensive speaking gig. So why bother reading the book at all if it's merely an incomplete advertisement for something else?
[www.nytimes.com]

@Funklord: Well, if you wanted to read it in the first place, then obviously, it wasn't a waste of time.

@Quill2006: If you download the Sony Software (sucks, I know) it does say it lets you read on the computer.

@Chris H: Thanks, that's an interesting piece, and it touches on some of the questions I had. It sounds a little like "We'll give it away, but we'll get our profits back from volume."

@Chris H: Cool, thanks for the link.
(I'm reading one of Gladwell's books now per a friend's recommendation.)

I love all the misguided comments here! Free (the Book) is about how to implement "Free" (The sum) into this modern world's business model.

The gist of it is the following:
- Free can be used to bring in sales.
- Offering alternative "paid" models only works if there is extra value added to the original work. (IE, buying a paperback/hardcover because now the text is a tangible item.)
- When the "essence" of an item cannot be found at a good price (songs, books, news, pictures, whatever) a digital version will surely take it's place for a better price. (ie, cheaper until it's free).

The thing is that there is obvious work behind many of the things we take for granted everyday, but how much does it cost or should it cost? Popular sites (CNN for example) keep building and destroying their pay-walls as they try to find that right balance between free and a premium. MP3s have shown that music is not and will not die, but everyone will have a price to a song in some sort. This artist is not worth the Price of a CD to you, but surely he's worth the price of Special Edition Mint Vinyl to someone else. So go ahead and enjoy your free, and make sure to give respect where respect is due, since that's usually the price most people would want in return.

There is no such thing as a free lunch.

@Alexander Calderon: As somebody who makes a living generating digitized intellectual content, I can assure you that I'll skip the respect but insist on the cash.

Got the audiobook of this off itunes last week. I work in marketing so it's always interesting to hear these types of book. I'm currently in chapter three and I can say it was definitely worth the price I paid for it.

Will Amazon refund my $0.00 purchase when they decide to delete my copy of the book?

@Wombatish: Ah! Ok, thanks. If only I didn't have to download ANOTHER program. I can understand the publisher's dislike of .pdf in some ways, though.

@floraposte: That depends mostly on what is it you're offering and at what quality. I'm sure Rick Ashley would like money too from every rickroll video/reference, but the popularity has brought him back into relevance again. (and money from his new fans for ever 100 or 1000 that rage when they get rickrolled.)

Likewise, most digital artists would rather play the Creative Commons card to get their work out there. Respect (by keeping word of the CC) can and will lead to a possible business/sale (commissioned work for example) of a good artist.

It's worth noting that Free has also been slammed for including plagiarized segments from a variety of Internet sources. In some cases Anderson even lifted Wikipedia pages and pasted them into the book, which in my opinion takes plagiarism to a whole new level.

[www.vqronline.org]

James Frey must be so pissed.

@Chris H: Where? Name one non-porn, non-dating website that a majority of Americans use daily or that was previously free but has now successfully transitioned to a pay model instead of an advertising model?

Facebook? Twitter? Search? Streaming Music? News? Where are all these subscription-based sites?

Anderson may not make a perfect argument for "free", but that doesn't mean that "pay" is the future or that "free" is dead.

@Haggie1: Wall Street Journal transitioned to a partially-subscription based service. I love WSJ, and were it not for some expensive purchases looming in the near future, would subscribe right now.

It's much harder for something like NY Times or Washington Post to transition to a paid subscription-based website, but it could be done because both newspapers have a very loyal fanbase. It would be harder for a smaller newspaper to do so.

@Alexander Calderon: It's Astley!

And though he may be "relevant," I doubt he's seeing any more money.

This reminds me of how much I absolutely love xtorrent. to download non-copyrighted content of course.

What, you include this and no commentary about how he got busted for at best not footnoting his sources and at worst plagiarism? Dammit, we need to keep the schadenfreude alive!

@Quill2006: The audiobooks will.