Several commentators are buzzing this week about a new book by Chris Anderson, editor of Wired magazine, called “Free: The Future of a Radical Price.” The subject is particularly topical for people in the news industry these days, who are grappling with how to adjust their business models in a time when so much news, information and entertainment is out there free for the taking — including the web site on which you’re reading this.

If you’re a fan of Malcolm Gladwell’s (as I am), it’s worth taking a look at his review of the book in The New Yorker (which is free). Gladwell is the author of several bestselling books as well, including The Tipping Point (how ideas spread); Blink (how we make decisions); and the recent Outliers (how some people gain success). He writes…

…there’s plenty of other information out there that has chosen to run in the opposite direction from Free. The Times gives away its content on its Web site. But the Wall Street Journal has found that more than a million subscribers are quite happy to pay for the privilege of reading online. Broadcast television-the original practitioner of Free-is struggling. But premium cable, with its stiff monthly charges for specialty content, is doing just fine. Apple may soon make more money selling iPhone downloads (ideas) than it does from the iPhone itself (stuff). The company could one day give away the iPhone to boost downloads; it could give away the downloads to boost iPhone sales; or it could continue to do what it does now, and charge for both. Who knows? The only iron law here is the one too obvious to write a book about, which is that the digital age has so transformed the ways in which things are made and sold that there are no iron laws.

Mark Cuban, owner of the Dallas Mavericks, HDNet cable channel and a blogger on topics that frequently touch the news industry, also riffs (for free on his blog) on the topic raised in Anderson’s book. His point is that newspaper companies are doing exactly the right thing by trying to control how their content is distributed, and to whom. He compares news companies to the music industry. The music itself might be free, but it’s distribution is not. Anyone can create music; getting it noticed by the masses is a much more formidable task, Cuban says.

Newspapers are catching flack for saying there should be copyrights on their news reports and the summaries. They are right. Their work, their ability to control it. They should have the right to control where it appears. If, as Chris Anderson and others suggest, there will be plenty of content creators and the quality of the work is sufficient for consumers of that content, then there will be plenty of open source content and it shouldnt matter what the newspapers request for protection. The market will decide.

Newspapers are also catching flack for saying they dont want their content openly distributed. On this point, they are correct again. They should have complete control over where it is distributed. They should have the ability to choose where it is offered for free.

That said, Cuban opines that it won’t save the newspaper industry:

Not only should they have this control, taking back this control is the exact right business move. Im not saying it will save newspapers or magazines, it wont. But it will make their website offerings stronger in the long run. If Im them, I take the risk that the “printed” content business follows the path of the music industry.