"'. . . find ways to rein in the open-plains marauding afforded by the browser-driven internet.' Which needs to be done why?"
I don't think Hirschorn is saying that "Apps" designed to "rein in the open-plains" will be "IT". But success will be realized by learning from these experiments. There will be change and it will be worth paying for.
Why? The opportunity to improve upon entertainment value/discovery value and improve the quality of content on both the web and traditional media is just massive.
The battle has moved to a new front. Established media is looking to take advantage of the flaws of the internet as it exists today. The "tech" community should be gearing up, but instead, seems to be echoing traditional media's past denial that there are flaws with "what is".
No one said the archive of information and browser technology will be destroyed. There is no threat to the notion of "freedom".
But, there is always opportunity to improve. For example, recognizing flaws to take advantage of. Capitalizing on the advantages of new technology.
This could be a very exciting time to be in the media business if everyone directs intellectual debate on what could be instead of flinging personal attacks and perpetuating myths as facts.
By the way, we're looking for "tech" people who want to be a part of developing what could be. So if you are one of those, connect with me on twitter @comradity.
Since all the corporations are lobbying the bill to defend what they are doing and we are advising clients who are interested in improving upon "what is" - we are fielding a survey to ask people how they think their information should or shouldn't be shared.
http://www.comradity.com/comradity/how-do-you-feel-about-sharing-your-information.html
We will share the results with Rep. Boucher.
Katherine Warman Kern
@comradity
If each artist were paid a license fee then the original copyright would be maintained and the curator who adds value is also paid.
Make the license fee variable - relative to the commercial value of the curated product.
Need a universal transaction system to make this process as friction-free as possible. The transaction system should be "two way" - earn credits when your work is curated/distributed and pay debits when you curate/distribute the work of others.
Over the Air Television and Radio had to be free. All stakeholders had to find a way to get paid in-directly. The result is a vicious cycle of content creators, publishers/programmers, distributors, and audience "using" each other.
New media technologies offer an opportunity to break the vicious cycle and pay people for what they do relative to demand, creating a virtuous network that nurtures creativity.
If it is not for commercial (read: to make money) it is fair use.
If it is for commercial use (read: to make money) it is copyright infringement.
If it is distributed without a license fee to market a site that is not commercial - it is fair use. If the site being marketed is commercial - it is copyright infringement.
If both the distribution and source are not collecting money, but a 3rd party (i.e., ISP, wireless provider) is collecting money to provide access to this free content, then it is a commercial use and is a copyright infringement by the 3rd party who is collecting money.
The fact that new media technologies add many more links to the value chain and it takes more steps to follow the money should not change copyright protection.
Without copyright protection we have no way to fund art/creativity/freedom of expression.
I understand that many think that only "old" media publishers and programmers benefit from copyright protection. I think we are missing the point that the internet provides an opportunity for independent content creators to compete for attention. But only if they can make a living doing it.
Katherine Warman Kern
@comradity
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Katherine Warman Kern.
Re: Re: hmmm
I don't think Hirschorn is saying that "Apps" designed to "rein in the open-plains" will be "IT". But success will be realized by learning from these experiments. There will be change and it will be worth paying for.
Why? The opportunity to improve upon entertainment value/discovery value and improve the quality of content on both the web and traditional media is just massive.
The battle has moved to a new front. Established media is looking to take advantage of the flaws of the internet as it exists today. The "tech" community should be gearing up, but instead, seems to be echoing traditional media's past denial that there are flaws with "what is".
No one said the archive of information and browser technology will be destroyed. There is no threat to the notion of "freedom".
But, there is always opportunity to improve. For example, recognizing flaws to take advantage of. Capitalizing on the advantages of new technology.
This could be a very exciting time to be in the media business if everyone directs intellectual debate on what could be instead of flinging personal attacks and perpetuating myths as facts.
By the way, we're looking for "tech" people who want to be a part of developing what could be. So if you are one of those, connect with me on twitter @comradity.
Katherine Warman Kern
@comradity
Boucher proposed bill
Re:
Make the license fee variable - relative to the commercial value of the curated product.
Need a universal transaction system to make this process as friction-free as possible. The transaction system should be "two way" - earn credits when your work is curated/distributed and pay debits when you curate/distribute the work of others.
Over the Air Television and Radio had to be free. All stakeholders had to find a way to get paid in-directly. The result is a vicious cycle of content creators, publishers/programmers, distributors, and audience "using" each other.
New media technologies offer an opportunity to break the vicious cycle and pay people for what they do relative to demand, creating a virtuous network that nurtures creativity.
recreating live performances
If it is not for commercial (read: to make money) it is fair use.
If it is for commercial use (read: to make money) it is copyright infringement.
If it is distributed without a license fee to market a site that is not commercial - it is fair use. If the site being marketed is commercial - it is copyright infringement.
If both the distribution and source are not collecting money, but a 3rd party (i.e., ISP, wireless provider) is collecting money to provide access to this free content, then it is a commercial use and is a copyright infringement by the 3rd party who is collecting money.
The fact that new media technologies add many more links to the value chain and it takes more steps to follow the money should not change copyright protection.
Without copyright protection we have no way to fund art/creativity/freedom of expression.
I understand that many think that only "old" media publishers and programmers benefit from copyright protection. I think we are missing the point that the internet provides an opportunity for independent content creators to compete for attention. But only if they can make a living doing it.
Katherine Warman Kern
@comradity
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Katherine Warman Kern.
Submit a story now.
Tools & Services
TwitterFacebook
RSS
Podcast
Research & Reports
Company
About UsAdvertising Policies
Privacy
Contact
Help & FeedbackMedia Kit
Sponsor/Advertise
Submit a Story
More
Copia InstituteInsider Shop
Support Techdirt