This is the conclusion to the Future of Content distributed article: In Part 1 I argued that content would move towards being free and widely available, from an economic and quality argument. In Part 2, Ray Corrigan argued that in fact online content gave new types power and control to large institutions and they would have the weight of the law behind them to prevent the open access I outlined. In Part 3 Patrick McAndrew focused on education, and the openlearn project specifically and examined the motivations for universities to give away content, and what this meant for the university business model. He also warned that free, open content may…

Patrick McAndrew has posted part 3 of our distributed debate. It’s a personal case study based on his experience with the openlearn project. Below are my observations on it. On the motivation for openlearn: Some of those reasons are complex, but underneath it I think there are two principles one altruistic and one more selfish: Altruistic reason for open content: there is more value in having the world see this resource than if we store it away or try to sell it Selfish reason for open content: if we don’t do it someone else will, and then what are we left with Obviously altruism is great, but ultimately I think…

Ray Corrigan has responded to my first piece on the Future of Content over on his blog. His is an excellent article, reminding us of the influence of big corporations and setting out the reasons why my view might not come to pass. I recommend reading it all. For now, here are my responses to some of the points he makes. "Barlow’s meme has often been taken to mean that we should rely on technology and geography and NOT laws, judges or politicians, to protect freedom of speech. Well government censorship of the Net in places like Saudi Arabia and large responsibility for fingering journalists for arrest in China have…