Links Aren’t Crunchy
Copyright and the internet, boy what a topic. This week’s must read installment is by Erick Schonfeld at Techcrunch. Money quote:
What we have here is a major disconnect between the norms of the offline world and the emerging norms of the Internet. Both the law and industry standards are trailing what is a major transformation in how people use other people’s words, music, and images in the Web’s culture of participation. Putting your photos up on Flickr (which Lane Hartwell did) and then acting surprised when someone uses them is like leaving your car in downtown Newark with the keys inside and acting surprised when it is, um, appropriated. The law may (or may not) be on Hartwell’s side (see below), but that is not the point. The law is outdated.
Techcrunch goes on to argue that in the modern internet, the link is the currency, and is adequate compensation. Techcrunch pedals influence, and from that point of view, linking and the associated influence is a form of currency.
Much further down, Erick writes my favorite and much used line:
There needs to be some reciprocity.
Indeed. What does reciprocity look like? Links don’t buy food. Techcrunch wants links; Lane Hartwell does not. Ironic, Techcrunch did not even compensate Lane Hartwell with a link.
I can’t imagine how a donate button combined with a sense of fair play would solve the Bubble video manner. I’m a big fan of the donate button, and a firm request that patrons use it.
Food for thought. Maybe better said: link for food.
The currency of exchange is currency. Copyright law might be outdated, but currency is not.
2 comments
On the one side, we have ever-increasing ease of copying, while on the other we have ever-increasing measures to stop it. The latter side is currently failing, and will, in my opinion, always fail while causing huge collateral damage which, in some cases like fair use, far outweigh the good of imposing the controls (a bit like the war on drugs really).
So what’s a poor content producer or artist to do? As you point out, donate buttons seem a bit lame given what’s at stake, but perhaps that really is the only way. That is, after all, how it was always done before the information age. The buskers in the street, the artists and their patrons, the subtle energies of commission. And let us not forget, back then, everyone ripped off everyone else - it was a natural and expected thing to do. Copyright is a modern construct for increasingly less modern people.
The intermediaries are being torn apart.
If I write a book, and get you to use my Amazon affiliate link, I make 20% or so of the purchase price. So if the cost of intermediating is less than 80%, there is more money for the artist. Same is true in the record business.
If I sell a self-produced piece of content directly to the audience, I might get as much as 100% of the revenues less direct expenses. But intermediaries know where the audience is, and unfortunately, many content producers don’t.
“Free copy” works in an honor bound world. Wall St. has a long tradition of giving away content for free with clients honor bound to pay if they found it was useful. Wall St. controlled the giving, and the access, so if a client doesn’t pay, they get cut off.
I accept that copyright is a right that is expressly due to content producers. I believe that artists can free give access to their content, and also strongly express the “honor” of reciprocity - “I gave freely, but if you enjoyed, please reciprocate.”
The donate button, honorable reciprocity, and some control of copies my produce a better system. Few content producers go directly to their audience, and few argue for honorable reciprocity. Until we see that in action, my thought is idle speculation, but worth trying.
Leave a Comment