Open Content and Value Creation 110
Magnus Cedergren writes "Which are the driving forces behind the creation of Open Content? What value is created? That is the major questions I try to answer in my paper in the journal First Monday. I would like to thank all you people participating in my study in different ways."
Re:First Content Creation! (Score:3, Insightful)
It has no value to entities whose business is in danger.
Re:First Content Creation! (Score:1)
The Imperfection is Yours (Score:3, Insightful)
It has no value to entities whose business is in danger.
"Microsoft Software has a value for two kinds of people. Microsoft and those who want to make money on it (fixing it, in all liklihood).
It has no value to entities whose business is in danger."
Both those statements ignore another group for which the product has value: those who use it (although, if my girlfriend is any indi
Open Content? (Score:1)
*Yaaawn* (Score:5, Funny)
I just about fell asleep reading that. Wuff, time for another coffee.
Re:*Yaaawn* (Score:1)
Re: Story Moderation (Score:3, Insightful)
Already gets done.
If you look closely at the number of comments and the number of comments with high scores associated with the story.
I wouldn't mind if the Slash code showed some nice graphics so I could more quickly find the hot stories. Something like larger pies for more comments, with colored sectors for fractions of high comments, etc.
Open content != Open source (Score:5, Insightful)
A good XML specification could help here, but currently open content usually means html files that can be freely copied. Until open content fixes this, the success of open source won't be copied.
Re:Open content != Open source (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Open content != Open source (Score:4, Insightful)
So who was this "famous Afgani Scientist"?
Wikipedia does not "outsource" content and functionality to Google. Sure, searching Wikipedia is probably easier with Google than with its search engine, but there's a lot of sites in that boat. As for the content, many public domain articles are found via Google and incorporated within Wikipedia. Sure, people use the Internet as a research tool, they also use printed works, their own knowledge and contribute photos or diagrams.
I have found Wikipedia and the NPOV (neutral point of view) principle to work very well in practice. I think you may be missing the point of Wikipedia, which is to create a collection of generally accepted knowledge, not to publish "new or contraversial" material.
Hunh? (Score:1, Flamebait)
I take it airtight legal rights to the fruits of their labor is not an area into which your gratitude would extend?
Because it's science (Score:5, Informative)
We try to make as much of our work available on our site [utah.edu] to the public because 1) It's science and 2) We are funded through federal grants/taxpayer $$'s and 3) We hope that work we do will help us and others to better understand vision, pathological processes in vision and possibly to rescue vision loss. Another vision educational site can be found here [utah.edu].
There is none.. (Score:5, Insightful)
I also play in a jazz quartet (when we have a gig) playing Alto sax, Tenor sax, and B(flat) clarinet. If we played for free all the time, we couldnt afford new music or repairs on our instrument. We do a gig or 2 at nursing homes (goodwill and stuff
Also, my mom's an artist. She's not the one to do "New Age" crap. She hates that stuff. Instead, she paints on canvases up to 5 feet long and 4 feet tall. She enjoys it with all her passion, but she couldnt do that free either. Wanna know why? Look for oil-based paints at an artist shop. Now calculate how much paint/brushes/canvas/frame it'd take to do it.
Yeah, open content's nice. No royalties (sheet music), or public domain pictures would be nice. But it aint going to happen
Re:There is none.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Open content fails really on only stuff that you can't really provide directly. Like making movies or something. And even then, there's nothing suggesting people won't be motivated to do it (if only for the fame value- or the re
people can make movies (Score:3, Interesting)
and they do it pretty well with no money too
http://www.bangshortfilmfestival.com/
okay they aren't going to make a special effects action movie but there is more to the genre than massive budget film
even CGI
http://www.hardlight.couk.com/
Re:There is none.. (Score:1, Insightful)
Don't be so pessimistic. Open content grows when the way to spread it becomes cheap. The open content in your mom's paints isn't the paint itself but rather her artistic culture and feelings.
She could sell her oil paints while giving for free computer made ones. Tell her how to paint on a graphic tablet, so her art can spread (and maybe bring more money to the other paid activity
Re:There is none.. (Score:1)
Re:There is none.. (Score:4, Interesting)
That's hardly the same thing. Your mom can only give her canvases away once, and at a few thousand dollar a canvas, I can see why she'd be reluctant to. But she could give away reproductions of her work; putting them up on a website would cost next to nothing (ignoring for the moment the difficulty in scanning large paintings). Surprise... many artists already provide content this way, usually for free and with very few strings attached.
I don't know about music... perhaps there is some free sheet music available; I've never looked. But dont think it'll never happen if a quick search won't turn up anything.
Re:There is none.. (Score:2)
Yeah, until someone posts it up on
Internet hosting does cost money and time. I recently had to give up my ISP because I could no longer afford it. (Now I post from work). I mean, I could afford it, but why? Consider that most of my time is on
Re:There is none.. (Score:5, Insightful)
There's a clear benefit for the musicians who do it. I started doing it so I could access my music quickly from anywhere on the Net. I've even had cases where I was in a fairly remote area, and someone asked "Can you play
And it doesn't take a lot of brains to realize that the more people doing this, the better it is for all of us. You can get at my sheet music, I can get at yours, and we all benefit. Your average 8-year-old should understand this (though your average politician and CEO probably won't).
Now if we could do something about the copyright laws that prevent working musicians from doing such useful things with music from the past 80 years or so. Then we could dispense with the bulky binders and fake books, and just use our wireless portable. But I can't see this happening soon.
If the music publishers had a grain of sense, they'd do the obvious thing here. Set up web sites like the iTunes site, but for "sheet music", that charge a very small amount per page or per score. Encourage wireless coverage so that musicians will stop carrying around (copies of
But, of course, publishers will have to be dragged kicking and screaming (and suing) into the 21st century. We're watching the RIAA attacks on file sharers very closely, and we expect that the publishers will do the same thing to musicians in the near future. Musicians playing recent material will be in trouble. We classical and trad folk musicians mostly won't, because our material is public domain. You can't copyright Bach's or O'Carolan's music. (Yeah, publishers do claim copyright on these, but unless they make it clear that it's only their edition that's covered, their claim is fraudulent.)
The fact that musicians are doing this freely while publishers can't see the profit opportunity says a lot about economic theories based on a rational market
Re:There is none.. (Score:4, Interesting)
I know there's lots of free sheet music, but playing in a jazz group, you need access to tons of numbers. Those numbers include all the way from the 1910's to now. I couldnt limit myself to just numbers in the public domain. We get paid to do songs THEY request.
>>>If the music publishers had a grain of sense, they'd do the obvious thing here. Set up web sites like the iTunes site, but for "sheet music", that charge a very small amount per page or per score.
Yeah, it makes perfect sense to us. But they dont think we matter.
>>>Encourage wireless coverage so that musicians will stop carrying around (copies of
For that price, I wouldnt mind being truthful if I got another score off of somebody else. I'd report it and pay the 5c per page (or whatever). Heck, for a 1$ per song, I'd be truthful if I downloaded it from somebody else-and liked it. All I care about is a high quality digital copy with no "protections".
Sheet music => PNG, JPEG, PS, PDF
Audio Music => RAW, FLAC, High VBR OGG/MP3
Video => MPEG2, associated FREE(as in gpl) codecs
Perhaps they'll learn.
Re:There is none.. (Score:2, Interesting)
And yes, once a creative work has been created, it absolutly benifits society for everyone to have access to it. The question is whether an environment can be created where works are free to all and the author is still compensate
Re:There is none.. (Score:2)
I define open content as content possible for others to improve and redistribute and/or content that is produced without any consideration of immediate financial reward -- often collectively within a virtual community.
This EXACTLY fits the online-sheet-music example that I was talking about. For others to improve? Sure. If I put a tune online, say as a "fake book" transcription that's just melody and chords, seve
Re:There is none.. (Score:4, Informative)
(For pictures:)
http://www.princetonol.com/groups/iad
http://www.pdimages.com/
(For sheet music:)
http://www.sheetmusicarchive.net/
http://www.sheetmusic1.com/new.great.music.html
If I can google up counter examples in 30 seconds, I have a hard time with the phrase "But it aint going to happen". Somebody spends the time to collect, organize and provide the bandwith for these items. There is even more content in the text world (the free Wikipedia was mentioned, but there are other collections such as PlanetMath).
So no, I don't expect the physical world will see a lot of free content, but once content is created, why *not* put some of it out on the net. I find a lot of my computer consulting business results from doing side work to "help out". The "foot in the door" method seems similar to a little fame for "open content". Heck it might even be profitable.
Re:There is none.. (Score:2)
Wow. You got the same public domain music ANYBODY can get.
>>>>Somebody spends the time to collect, organize and provide the bandwith for these items. There is even more content in the text world (the free Wikipedia was mentioned, but there are other collections such as PlanetMath).
Math isnt copyrightable (software exempt). Yeah, it'd be nice if they got compensat
Re:There is none.. (Score:3, Insightful)
So if you write your own music and wish to keep it to yourself, that is fine. If you don't think it is good, even better that you keep it to yourself.
Re:There is none.. (Score:2)
I'm reffering the lingering "Make Content all free" mentality. I have no problem with free things, but understand if somebody wants something for their work.
>>>I make a decent living putting my foot into the doors of companies by providing inexpensive solutions up front. Over time I have built up a respectable customer base who come back to me for improvements and the like.
A very respectable job, as I do the same thing. Sad that I still cannot get
Re:There is none.. (Score:2)
I also think art is creating something new, something of you, something that might provoke thought and/or emotion.
Re:There is none.. (Score:3, Insightful)
In fact, Open Content used to be the norm. Copyright laws are actually a fairly recent phenomena in history.
If it costs X to produce a picture, there's nothing wrong with charging Y for it at a store. The problem is that if I'm an artist, too, and I make a copy for my friends using my own paints, and they pay me for cost of materials and time to do it, that should be legal, but it isn't.
In fact, a _lot_ of art is one-time stuff. Painting murals
Re:There is none.. (Score:3, Informative)
There's plenty of public domain pictures available on government web sites. Anything relating to anything the government does (military stuff, criminals, national parks, public officials) is good to go.
I also frequent an art site with an extensive collection of stock photography that is free for non-commercial use. I've used a fair bit of it in my open source art projects. It's only free if it's in the stock
Re:There is none.. (Score:2)
I think the only stipulation is that you can't claim copyrights on NASA images, and you've got to mention somewhere that the image is from NASA.
Re:There is none.. (Score:1)
http://commoncontent.org/ [commoncontent.org]
Why not sell the release of Open Content? (Score:2, Interesting)
If copying is a particular problem for digital content (such as music), then instead of retailing it one copy at a time (on CDs), or giving up and distributing it as Open Content, why not sell it in one go first and then release it as Open Content?
It's very similar to retail: everyone pays the same price, which is set by what the market will bear, but this time the price is set and the sale made, by the purchasers en masse - in advance of the release. This enables the creator to obtain the bulk of their
Re:Why not sell the release of Open Content? (Score:1)
The only CDs that could be sold this way would be those which support massive advance sales to people who are easily suckered by marketing but aren't technologically sophisticated. Can you say "Britney"?
Re:Why not sell the release of Open Content? (Score:3, Interesting)
To show how it would work: A content producer (e.g. The Changelings, my favorite indy group) wants to make a CD. They put out a notice, letting fans know that they are working on a new CD. They say that they will release it to the public when contributions from the
Street performers protocol (Score:1)
The biggest problem is that many content producers are hoping to create the next big thing. An unknown will not be able to solicit a large fee for their work even if it turns out to be extremely popular. Under the current system if an unknown band makes a triple platinum record they are millionaires(maybe). But using the street performers protocol they only get pai
Re:Street performers protocol (Score:1)
confined thoughts (Score:2)
If an artists asks for $10,000 to publish a work they can do so without giving up all rights to it. And
Re:Why not sell the release of Open Content? (Score:2)
Exactly. This is more or less how PBS gets along, right? "This Changelings CD was made possible by generous donations from abracadabra, annie,...koran, krysith,...zebraguy, zuzmatazz"
No one is getting rich from PBS, but there are people making a living from it.
Tools. (Score:3, Informative)
What will drive open content is an open, standard, easy way of creating content. A suite, if you will. Until that exists, one can kiss open content goodbye, because the effort is largely not worth it.
A case in point- look at game mods. When a game comes with an editor of sorts, people mod said games quite happily. TOOLS. That's the key.
We have no tools.
Not to mention marketing (Score:1)
Open content creates use value (Score:5, Informative)
Open content, like free software, has use value but because anyone can reproduce and distribute it for next to no cost it doesn't really have much of an exchange value :-)
This stuff has been discussed quite a bit at Project Oekonux [oekonux.org] and there is an interesting essay, GNU/Linux is not a thing of value - and that is fine! [opentheory.org] which does explore these ideas, however it is a bit hard to follow because it's only a partial translation of a German document [opentheory.org].
Open content = a library of knowledge (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Open content = a library of knowledge (Score:1, Insightful)
We know exactly how statues were made.
Re:Open content = a library of knowledge (Score:1)
We have many theories, but that's all they are...
Re:Open content = a library of knowledge (Score:2)
I think the tendency is to lose knowledge that is so common that no one thinks there's a need to record it. It's likely that everyone in Egypt knew that they were being built and who was doing it.
The Success of Open Content Depends on 1 Thing (Score:3, Interesting)
Here we will legitimately need DRM - in the way that it should be implemented. We need a away to track content to its creaor and not have people reassign the creator.
Then we need a societial or business system that rewards these creators. Gaining an audiance these days is easy, gaining a following is not. Once people see it, and appreciate it, those they have to be able to reward the content creator in some way. Usualy this is money... But that's not what's happening now. We have this Open Content system going on now, and it works. But not as you expect. A lot of open source project leaders start or pick up projects for the recognistion, which then leads to employment and jobs. I've seen this time and time again. Case and point: Linus. At transmeta he was aloowed to work on the kernel all he wanted. At his previous employer too. The talent in open source generally gets recruited for f/t, p/t contract work...
But we're not talking about software, we're talking about media (Ironically, both are covered by copyrights...) and until there is a system in t place (an Open Content recording studio, printing press, or the like) Open Content won't get too far. For it is only in the tangeble items that we buy that we are addured some kind of sales figures.
Re:The Success of Open Content Depends on 1 Thing (Score:2)
Introducing DRM to open content will only weaken its 'openness' and the DRM will be a threat to the integrity of the average internet user. I would suspect that weakening DRM and strengthening education on
Job security (Score:1, Redundant)
2. Submit story to slashdot
3. ???
4. Profit!
my apologies to the poster whose brilliant business model parody I'm stealing.
Re:Job security (Score:2)
A learning experience (Score:3, Interesting)
I started to review the books I had read, about 7 years ago. It mainly started of as a way to remember what I had read. It quickly became a way to practice my english (which isn't my primary language) and an excuse for maintaining a homepage with some actual content.
My site has gone from static page to phpNuke (and my own extensions). My reviews has gone from a couple of stumbeling lines to fairly substansial things (when I feel like it).
I've worked hard at promoting the site and I've learned a lot about online advertising in the process.
Sometimes I can use a review as a soapbox, and vent a few of my feelings/ideas.
All this while providing something that may be useful to other people.
I've even spend a good deal of money on it, and the returnes from amazon(co.uk/.com) has been nothing compared to my expenses (mostly books/hosting).
The questions for me is more like: Why aren't you making open content? It's does take time, but if you actually know something, you'll get better and more confident with this knowledge in the process of sharing.
Re:A learning experience (Score:2)
You answered your own question...
I've even spend a good deal of money on it, and the returnes from amazon(co.uk/.com) has been nothing compared to my expenses (mostly books/hosting).
Re:A learning experience (Score:1)
Well, I had clean forgotten, that the book review site actually has made it possible for me to meet and interview interesting people (Peter F. Hamilton [sfbook.com] for one), and some publishers actually send me review copies of books. So maybe I'm not really loosing money on it.
But I would do it, event if I never recieved a review copy and if I never made a dime from amazon.
Re:A learning experience (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:A learning experience (Score:2)
From the article:
"I define open content as content possible for others to improve and redistribute and/or content that is produced without any consideration of immediate financial reward -- often collectively within a virtual community."
I disagree with the second part of the definition. "Free content" describes such material better. By my definition, "open content" is similar in
Good article, but missed the negatives!!! (Score:4, Interesting)
The one thing that open content lacks ( and also, ironically one of its strengths ) is quality control. Anybody can realistically publish anything or everything they want, of their own creation into the public domain. This is an area that for the most part is lacking in an open content system. There is no editor per-say; there is no proof reader, or anybody that actually audits the validity of the content.
Of Course, the ability to publish your works into the public demand, effectively for free, is a great advantage. As is the ability to publish that which you wish to say without censorship, and in some cases, without ulterior motive.
At the same time, thats the problem... with out quality control, the consistancy of the published work or the validity of fact within such work cannot be gauranteed. In the end, of times, one will spend longer sifting through the garbage in order to find a gem... that in the end, it would perhaps have been simplier and some case's cheaper ( time is money
Dont take that the wrong way... im not saying that open content is lesser in quality then closed content... I imagine that just isnt the case. But, there is a reason we hire people to sift through good and bad products to decide what should be published. Allowing any tom, dick or harry to publish whatever works they wish is a wonderful thing, but for every item published... the ability to find the creme of the crop, becomes harder and harder.
Then there is open content along the lines of news/information. From a closed content provider, their is often a certain legal liability or onus on the publisher to verify the validity of said content. Under an open content system, there is no such thing. For the most part, I read a story in the newspaper... im pretty much sure its mostly based on fact... lawsuits result from less. ( That said, I have no trust of closed media either. ) On the same accord... on the net... I can read stories from basically anyone in the world... now, knowing if I can trust it, if it was real, or just some bogus hoax... that I cant do.
Thats the difference in a sense between open source software, and open source content. The world of software is by its nature a much smaller subset... their are certain skills you need to possess to both create content ( code/software ), and to use that content. Dont get me wrong, there are loads of crap open source projects out there... but due to the realivly small size of the community, coupled with its technical savvy... the truly good projects tend to rise to the top. However, in the world of open content... ANYBODY can play... there is no baseline skill required to say... write an article ( I didnt say a good one...
Im not against the idea... im just suggesting that as open content becomes more successful, its success itself, will result in more open content being released... quality going down... and difficulty in finding such good content rising. One need just look at the difference between the web now, and say... in 1996... You cant argue that it isnt much more cluttered with crap then its ever been.
Re:Erroneous Statements (Score:1)
People in the Open Source Software realm, in all reality, need to have the ability to create software to properly use it. By default, almost everybody in the software development community should be able to identify what is, and what isnt crap. However, with general open content ( im not talking code or software... but text, art, music, etc... ) I dont hav
mining the dross (Score:2)
Depending on the tastes of the "aggregators", such indices will get popular enough to be widely used.
I don't think it's an unrealistic expectation, as the blogging community already does it in the form of sites like boingboing, memepool, metafilter, etc...
Re:Good article, but missed the negatives!!! (Score:1)
Free Software has existed long before the FSF, but it wasn't called that way. In the same way Open content has always existed, long before we started calling it "Open Content". The most well known is the Gutenberg Project that started in '71. In the some way, the whole internet could be called Open Content.
Free Software as such was first defined by RMS, in reaction to the problem of propr
Re:Good article, but missed the negatives!!! (Score:1)
Open Comment (Score:4, Funny)
I am releaseing this comment under an open comment license. You are free to use, modify, copy and distribute it so long as credit is given back to me for the original work.
Re:Open Comment (Score:4, Funny)
Thank you for your support.
No hope for open content (Score:3, Insightful)
Open Hardware (Score:1)
long live open content (Score:3, Insightful)
However, we all should know that plenty of Big Corporate Interests will soon start trying to eliminate "open content" from the table. DRM and legal challenges will soon start working together to eliminate what-they-will-call unregulated content, of course, to protect us from some imaginary threat to our safty/children and/or security, and to control the distribution of products and threatening memes that the internet allow to run unfettered.
We must all be vigilant to protect this bastion of free speech, for powerful forces are combining to reshape it into there restrictive image....
Motivations? (Score:1)
The problem of value. (Score:5, Insightful)
Free Software that I use and that I have contributed to also has value to me, but I don't generally attempt to quantize that value in monetary. It has a utility value in that it helps me to accomplish tasks, it improves my understanding of software creation, and it even entertains me. So there are many levels of value in otherwise valueless software: utility, entertainment, and intellectual stimulation.
The same holds for "open content." Most of the www is still available to us at little or no charge, and though much of what may be out there is dross, there is still a great deal of entertainment, utility, and educational value to be found.
Warren Buffett has been quoted as saying that the Internet is the greatest destroyer of value to ever exist. In the strict monetary sense of value, he is correct. In the less tangible sense of value, as in what I value and what I have to gain of an intellectual and/or utilitarian nature from free and open content and code on the Internet, Mr. Buffett could not be more wrong. The Internet and technologies that can be used have the potential to greatly increase the non-monetary value of any information, and that in my opinion is a good thing.
It is time that we get beyond money as the sole measuring stick for value.
Re:The problem of value. (Score:2)
Mod the parent comment up -- it's a great description of the difference between use value and exchange value.
Re:The problem of value. (Score:2)
This distinction is the main issue I see in a transition to an Open Source/Content society. Many things simply cannot be traded for personal or societal value today. The electric company and my ISP, as examples, are not interested in whether I can make them feel better or contribute "entertainment, utility, and educational value." So to create thing
The Public Good (Score:3, Insightful)
For the same reason some people (not all) write open source software. For the same reason that some people take their personal time to volunteer for the Red Cross or Goodwill. For the same reason that someone participates in a neighborhood watch. For the same reason the Martin Luther posted the 99 Thesis on church doors.
For the public good. You do it because you think it benefits some sector of the public. Most people can't do it ALL the time, because we like to eat and have homes and be able to buy things occasionaly. But most people have the impulse to volunteer for something worthy from time to time. Most developers do commercial work, copyrighted and proprietary by day, to pay the bills. Some do extra volunteer coding in their spare time, because they want to contribute their skills to the benefit the public at large.
The value comes from the knowledge that you're doing something worthy and good, and doing it for the right reasons. I could use my time in a variety of ways, including making money. But I know that when I give blood, I may have just saved a life. CPR instructors know that their efforts may helpy MANY people save lives. Volunteers refurbishing a downtrodden playground know they've helped give kids a better place to play.
Providing open content is no different if you do it for these reasons.
Re:The Public Good (Score:2)
Re:The Public Good (Score:1)
Value != Wealth (Score:2)
"Value" is the worth people assign to things, and is how much people are willing to trade for something. Value can be in dollars, time, whatever - basically the value of something is the alternatives forgone for the thing.
"Wealth" is actually how much stuff there is around. Technically, the only things that increase wealth are manufacturing and agriculture. Everything else just
Re:Value != Wealth (Score:2)
Readers should note that most economists would reject this claim out of hand. If wealth is defined in this way then there is no reason why we should care about wealth, or about how much of it there is. What we should care about is value because "value is the worth people assign to things". In other words when you decide what to do, to make, to buy, or what policy to pers
Re:Value != Wealth (Score:1)
Interesting, I learned that definition of wealth from an economist. Also, I have to disagree. Both wealth and value are important, where you seem to indicate that my first post indicated that they are exclusive concepts. My apologies if I misled the reader.
I'd say more, but I'm trying to say something that will elaborate my point rather than just keep reiterating what I already said.
Anyway, I suggest we go talk to economists an
I think... (Score:1)
Where do you want to play open content with closed hardware?
Exactly life on stage but nowhere else...
I wonder why so few people see the light with this...
Producing Open Content has its own rewards (Score:3, Interesting)
I get a lot out of writing open content material. The best thing is getting sincere thanks from people who use my work. A secondary benefit is that I think that it helps my consulting business.
That said, I probably spend only 5% of my "work" time producing free open content - I do have to pay the bills.
-Mark
Value in a world w/o copyright (Score:1)
Anyway, the story is that, for any piece of creative work, a price is fixed. Once pledges are received to that amount, the work is released and may be duplicated gratis. The author gets paid, but has to set a realistic price, the audience get what it wants at a price it i