Skip to content
Welcome guest. | Register | Login | Add
About | Wiki | Legacy

How the anti-copyright lobby makes big business richer

Now here's an article that got me hooked up quite a bit. In a sense it is a side of things that I never really thought about. Read it at the Reg:

"We're continually being told the Internet empowers the individual. But speaking as an individual creative worker myself, I'd argue that all this Utopian revolution has achieved so far in my sector is to disempower individuals, strengthen the hand of multinational businesses, and decrease the pool of information available to audiences. All things that the technology utopians say they wanted to avoid."

Comments

Barking up the wrong tree.

 

Barking up the wrong tree. The problem is that big business is still protected by copyright, while small authors aren't. This would be true also without creative commons and the like. Perhaps encouraging amateurs to use the cc attribution sharealike noncommercial license would help.

I agree

 

Yes, the public should at least understand the consequences of their "contributions" to sites like MySpace...
Nonetheless, the author points a real problem and one that can affect democracy. Besides Open Source News services start to come up on the scene: www.newscloud.com

No links?

 

I wanted to post some related links, but keep getting a 406 response:

Not Acceptable
An appropriate representation of the requested resource /comment/reply/1895 could not be found on this server.

Apache/1.3.37 Server at www.libervis.com Port 80

Not sure why would it do

Not sure why would it do that. Here's a test link. Seems to be working?

Gonna look into it after new year starts.

Thanks

The Sharecropping Debate

 

(Couldn't send a private message with the URLs either. However, some success if I encode much of the message...)

I confess I haven't read the whole Reg article, but I did read Mike at techdirt's response:

http://techdirt.com/articles/20061229/114913.shtml

This ties in to Nick Carr's post about sharecropping:

http://www.roughtype.com/archives/2006/12/sharecropping_t.php

Which has been much discussed:

http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/?p=1100
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20061219/160759.shtml

And another related article of interest:

http://www.techliberation.com/archives/041579.php

yellow journalism

 

It's just a troll spread across three pages so you can see even more ads.

Thanks for those URLs

Thanks for those URLs Scott.

Having read most of them I'd say that the author of that TheRegister article is mostly just whining for failing to adapt to change. His business model is getting obsolete and he's getting mad about it looking for someone to blame instead of trying to explore the new possibilities and adapt. It's the same line of action RIAA and MPAA are taking, for example. They're being obsoleted by change, but they stubbornly refuse to adapt, fighting the tide instead.

However, I can understand how the "sharecropping" may be helping big corporations get basically even bigger. I just am not sure we can call that exploitation. If people contributing content do so voluntarily to fulfill whatever interests they want to fulfill with it, then it can hardly be said they're being exploited.

However, it IS much better and in my opinion even the right way to allow contributors to retain copyrights over their work and choose among the (hopefully unrestrictive CC-like licenses) for their work. And indeed, many sites already do that. Not all user-contributed content based sites take all the copyrights to contributed content to themselves.

Also, coming up of services like Wikia.com hosting should pretty much disprove his arguments. Wikia.com is powered by user-contributed content, but all of this content is owned by their own authors under the license they choose and even the advertising revenues they make on their pages are left to them. In this case both sides truly win. Users get a place to put their content on and fully benefit of it while Wikia.com gets the popularity that will enable them to sell expensive advertising on their homepage as well as special additional subscription services later.

The "Web 2.0" is, the way I see it, not so much about "sharecropping" or harvesting of user-contributed copyrights, but about empowering users to the full extent and gaining attention for advertising and to paid services which are usually always value add ons. This attention, the mere popularity gained by offering full user empowerment is the money "juice" of "Web 2.0" sites.

Will newspapers use a lot of

 

Will newspapers use a lot of poor quality cameraphone photos? Not the ones that I would buy, cause I can get the same for free from the net. The only reason to use such photos would be that no professional photographer was at the scene. So is there any competition? Not much, if any.

Until of course, the masses

Until of course, the masses can afford those mobile phones which allow making high-quality images and videos with a build in camera (as high as any standalone camera).

But still, not everyone knows how to take the right picture from the right angle, with the right focus and all that.. So you're at least partially right.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.