Information Has Always Been Dynamic Rather Than Static
from the fascinating dept
AllThingsD points us to a very long, but quite fascinating article by Robert Darnton, Director of the University Library at Harvard, ostensibly about what it means to be a library in the new age, but the article covers a lot more ground than that. In fact, I'd argue that really, only the last paragraph discusses the role of today's library (in a slightly rushed manner), while the previous 48 paragraphs (5,814 words) are a variety of interesting snippets that act as prologue to that final paragraph. Within those first 48 paragraphs, however, there's probably enough material to write about four or five entirely separate posts, from the history of newspapers (they aren't trustworthy, they tended to copy each other and make up stuff, they're not very useful as a record of history -- but are useful as a look at the prism through which people viewed their events), about book publishing (it's always been a mess) to how you determine what's important either for news or a book (no one really knows).But what comes through is the idea that information is a much more dynamic presence than most people consider. Especially today, people seem to think that once something is written, it's somehow set in stone -- and, in fact, that's why we give automatic copyright to that content. But that's rarely true in history (since the days when text was literally set in stone), even when it was more difficult to "change" a text compared to these days. For example, Darnton tells the following story of Voltaire:
In order to spice up his text and to increase its diffusion, he collaborated with pirates behind the back of his own publisher, adding passages to the pirated editions.That doesn't seem all that different than seeing folks like Trent Reznor today release his own works on BitTorrent and encouraging others to make mashups with his content. What it comes down to is the idea that most packages of information are recipes. They're a general description of the work, but to make them "spicier" or "sweeter" or (in some cases, we need to admit) "better" people will change and adjust that information. Sometimes it will be by the original creator of that content, but more often it will be by others. And that's not a bad thing (even if strong copyright believers claim it's somehow "immoral"). It's just the nature of information. And while that represents challenges for anyone who's trying to archive all of that information, on the whole it's a process that should be celebrated, rather than feared.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: dynamic, information, libraries
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
OxyMoron
eleete
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Info in Vista:
http://fakesteveballmer.blogspot.com
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ExacTly
And recipes are not copywriteable (last I checked) So we're done here.
Oh, wait.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The conclusion of this sentence doesn't follow from its premise. Two problems:
1) we don't give copyright to content, we give it to fixed expressions of an idea;
2) We don't give automatic copyright to fixed expressions because we believe the fixed expression to be true or factual -- there's no judgment call related to copyright -- we give automatic copyright to fixed expressions in order to protect the economic incentives of a fixed expression (as opposed to an idea or a recipe, which cannot be copyrighted).
most packages of information are recipes. They're a general description of the work
A novel is not a "general description" of a novel or some other work, nor is a novel a "package of information." The outline for a novel could probably be described as a "recipe" or "general description," but not the novel itself. Same holds for a poem, a script, etc.
Your understanding of written forms such as novels, poems, scripts, etc. is disturbingly off-base.
people will change and adjust that information ... And that's not a bad thing
Two responses again:
1) Transformative works should most definitely be legal and the person(s) creating that transformative work should be able to profit from that work if it finds a viable audience, I agree. This is a problem with current fair use restrictions.
2) However, "changing and adjusting information," if not understood as a transformative act, is a bad principle. If the reason for this isn't clear, go read 1984.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
plagiarism
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: plagiarism
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: plagiarism
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Darnton Misses the Boat
[ link to this | view in thread ]