- Share This Post
- submit
- 2
-
Sparkle (0)
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
