Thanks for the kudos. There

mobilejones — Fri, 07 Apr 2006 19:30:55 -0500

Thanks for the kudos.

There are many independents who could and do make use of coporate media in creative ways (e.g., mixes) and independent media that could be used by corporates to add context or depth. So the cooperation works both ways. And yes, that's valuable in my view.

Yeah, the term authentic media sounds strangely wooden and inauthentic.

Slave generated content is a term that came from discussions of web 2.0 companies relying on content that they didn't have to pay to produce.

Debi Jones
Contributing Editor, Blogging and Social Media
Feed your mobile jones

User generated content

Melinda Casino — Wed, 05 Apr 2006 19:01:10 -0500

Thanks for a stimulating post. You write:

"Authentic media doesn't really work for me as what I perceive as the most valuable is the participation in media between corporates and independents. I don't believe it's totally accurate to paint all corporate owned and produced media as inauthentic."

Why is it the most valuable? Because it widens the distribution of independent voices? If so, I agree with you there.

Authenticity is deeply problematic and probably something that should be abandoned entirely. The notion that there is more authenticity on personal blogs is highly questionable. (If the word "authentic" is defined the way I think it is.)

What is revealed at personal blogs is subject to the "internal editor" we all have in our heads. (I believe Lisa Williams at Learning the Lessons of Nixon has produced some great blog posts about this issue.)

Anyhow. Nice piece.

(P.S. - "slave generated content"? Never heard that one before...)

(Incidentally, the first thing I thought of when I saw that photo was that Peeps had flooded the White House. ;))

Melinda
Suite 101 reviews

User Generated Content Must Die

mobilejones — Wed, 05 Apr 2006 09:45:29 -0500

Reprinted from mobilejones.com

Derek Powazek posted an open letter to...well..."The Internet," deconstructing the phrase User Generated Content. Powazek is calling for the elimination of the phrase in connection with disintermediated media.

User: One who uses. Like, you know, a junkie.
Generated: Like a generator, engine. Like, you know, a robot.
Content: Something that fills a box. Like, you know, packing peanuts.
So what's user-generated content? Junkies robotically filling boxes with packing peanuts. Lovely.

Not only is this an amusing description, but there's more than a kernel of truth present when you consider the recent flak in the podcasting realm over The PodShow contract. Eric Rice provides the outrage over a contract which states that participation in the network requires that a podcast producer gives over to The Podshow their rights to

All podcasts
Any and all logos or graphics associated with the podcast
And independently secured advertising revenue and contacts.

Add this to the recent copyright infringement by Mobikyo impacting over 40 mobile bloggers. Does the labeling of the creative works that we produce devalue them in the view of those would offer services related to these efforts? Powazek poses it this way.

Calling the beautiful, amazing, brilliant things people create online "user-generated content" is like sliding up to your lady, putting your arm around her and whispering, "Hey baby, let's have intercourse."

They're words that creepy marketeers use. They imply something to be commodified, harvested, taken advantage of. They're words I used to hear a lot while doing community consulting, and always by people who wanted to make, or save, a buck.

There's also the related issue highlighted in a recent article by Derrick Oien on Yahoo!'s API business. If "we the media," allow Yahoo! to commercially exploit our contributions to their social media products (e.g., 360, blog search, email, egroups) then what's wrong with making use of the data streams from Flickr, del.icio.us or other Yahoo! properties for commercial purposes? A strong ecosystem of independent media has served MySpace, for example, very well. Between YouTube, the various asundry creators of glitter text, and other MySpace widget builders have increased the value of MySpace for everyone in the value chain.

Two mechanisms are needed which seem to be lagging behind in terms of making the flow of data work for everyone. Whether you are an independent software developer producing tools for mixing or creating derivative works like fd's Flickr Toys, an independent artist who might add value through clever editing, or even a small company wishing to extend the value chain to channels other than the web; the licenses which specify a managable revenue share down to the creator don't really exist. Further, a licensing scheme which makes corporate media products easily accessible to the Long Tail for remixing or extending don't really exist either. A fee collection mechanism which would make it easy to track and manage remittance to independent media creators on the ASCAP model doesn't yet exist. Is this an opportunity?

Some will point to Creative Commons licenses as the solution. In particular the recent case in Danish court, as irony would have it, between Adam Curry of The Podshow and a Dutch gossip magazine, Weekend. In essence, the case dealt with the unauthorized publishing of Curry's photos from Flickr by the magazine. It's ironic that the same guy who is abusing the rights of podcast producers is suing someone else for copyright infringement.

However as Doug Kaye, ITConversations exective producer, points out in Creative Commons Confusion, that a license doesn't increase the protection of rights for independent producers.

As of 1976 (here in the U.S.) anything you write or publish is automatically covered by copyright law. No longer do you have to put that little © symbol on your works, although it does make it clear who the copyright holder is. You don’t need to register your copyighted works unless you want to litigate, and even registration can be deferred until that time. Copyright protects your rights and (supposedly, but no longer very well) the rights of the commons. The latter is an important subject, but not the one I want to address today. For the sake of this discussion, just consider the aspect of copyright that reserves for the copyright holder certain rights.

A license, on the other hand, is a granting to others some of those rights normally reserved for the copyright holder. A license never strengthens your rights to what you’ve created. If anything it weakens those rights by giving something to someone else. The Creative Commons licenses – and there are many varieties – are an attempt to clarify and simplify licensing, particularly in cases where the licensee is anonymous: a person or persons among the commons. A Creative Commons license grants certain rights to individuals or organizations without the copyright holder (the licensor) having a clue as to who those individuals or organizations might be. Creative Commons is a brilliant idea, not only because it allows granting of limited rights to the commons, but because the licenses are generally straightforward and don’t require lawyers or even phone calls to make clear what’s allowed and what isn’t.

Doug Kaye's observation that the legitimacy of a Creative Commons license remains untested by the courts is an important consideration. But even more critical to the continued development of independent media and the tools to support it will be the business and revenue models that provide incentives that are required to support the act of creation. From someone who would know this topic, Marc Canter makes the point that remuneration is important.

2. You can never rely upon volunteer labor. If you want something built - you gotta pay for it. Period.

Certainly the language and labels that we use can result in perceptions which have unintended consequences. I agree with Powazek on this point. (Should Derrick rename his blog?) What term should we use that appropriately allows us to make a distinction between corporate media as represented by music labels, television networks, newspapers, radio, and magazines?

Powazek offers a replacement phrase for User Generated Content.

Authentic media comes to you unfiltered by the global brands and conglomerates that have taken over the mainstream media. Authentic media is the raw, first-person narrative you can find on blogs and homepages. Authentic media is what happens when the mediators get out of the way and give the mic over to the people who actually have something to say.

The best part about this phrase? It paints the rest of the mediascape as inauthentic. I can live with that.

Authentic media doesn't really work for me as what I perceive as the most valuable is the participation in media between corporates and independents. I don't believe it's totally accurate to paint all corporate owned and produced media as inauthentic. Many independent creators would prefer that corporate media become more participatory and we can't gain their cooperation through alienation or demeaning their products by calling them inauthentic.

Yes, User Generated Cotent must die. There are already so many terms floating around the network to express distinctions. There's social media, participatory media, citizen's journalism (hate that one), impulse media, user generated content, slave generated content, user created content, personal media, new media, media 2.0, and etc. The question is a good one. What label creates a distinction between independent and corporate produced media? And if not media, how do you refer to the collection of photos, blogs, podcasts, video, vlogs, video podcasts, music, comics and remixes that are being produced by the masses?

The original article is published here.

BlogHer - User Generated Content Must Die - Comments

Thanks for the kudos. There

User generated content

User Generated Content Must Die