On Twitter the other day talking with the Conversation Agent about the Associated Press' decision to go after sites that quote too much of their content - apparently, they called the Drudge report out for quotations ranging in length from 39 to 79 words - and it got me thinking.
I'm no lawyer but I learned about "fair use" as a graduate student and always assumed that, if you were using a quotation in certain expository contexts, that the copyright holders would just have to grin and bear it. I can see there being a problem with populating your blog or website with entire articles penned by someone else - but even then, if you have given proper credit and linked back to the original location of the text, is that really so wrong/bad?
Though I tend to lean in this direction, I'm not saying that all content should be free or that copyright doesn't mean anything. I am saying, however, that trying to control where your content shows up on the web goes against the tide of history as well as the essence of the web an sich, as the Germans would say.
On the "tide of history" front, "give it away" is the order of the day. I've referred elsewhere in these pages to an essay by John Perry Barlow on the power of giving away "content," and my ideas have not changed on the subject. Specifically, every business should focus on their absolutely unique, inimitable, and irreplaceable offering, and deploy their "content" to sell that.
Barlow uses the example of the Grateful Dead allowing taping at their shows because they realized that circulating bootlegs increased interest in their music and, more importantly, promoted attendance at their shows which were always one of a kind. As the bumper stickers used to say, "There's Nothing Like A Grateful Dead Concert," which is why concert revenue was the core of their business.
Apply this to your business and ask yourself, "What is my live-in-concert moment and how can I use my content to get people through the proverbial door?"
On the "essence of the web"-front, I see the distinction between sites as more conventional than actual. Every page on the web is exactly one click away from any other page. That means, not just one click away from any page that belongs to your site proper, but one click away from any other page you can find anywhere on the web. To tell the world, "It's ok to look at my content here but not there, one click away," is like saying, "You can access content via your computer but not your iPhone." In other words, it's absurd.
More importantly, however, we've got to face facts and concede that the site is no longer the absolute home of content, nor is it necessarily the place where the content will be viewed, consumed, or otherwise processed by the end user. Content circulates freely. This circulation can be influenced, but not controlled. Since it cannot be controlled, any business based on selling content or access to it is going to have a shorter and shorter lifespan.
Am I right or am I right?
Image Courtesy of frankh.
The AP kerfluffle involved Rogers Cadenhead's "Drudge Retort", online @ http://www.drudgeretort.com.
I believe you've confused his efforts with those of Matt Drudge. He blogs at the "Drudge Report", http://www.drudgereport.com.
Similar blog names, but not one and the same.
Hey Fact Checker,
I stand corrected. That's what I get for doing the "blogger skim" of the NY Times article.
Of course, "retort" or "report," my basic point remains unchanged: the web and its evolving usage force content creators to identify the true, unique value they provide.
People talk about intellectual property but forget that the metaphor of property, which implies a unique, immovable location in physical space, only applies in the most figurative way to the "products" of human thought and creativity. My home exists in one place and no other. Where does "Hamlet" exist? For that matter, where does "YMCA" by the Village People exist?
More pointedly, where does Adobe Photoshop "exist"?
I think this is just another case of traditional media being in denial of the influence of new media. Perhaps it would do the AP more benefit to make some strategic acquisitions in the digital space than juvenile complaining. It took the Tribune a while to come around to this realization, but now they are better off for it.
Ethics aside, one thing is certain, the AP will NOT stop people from bootlegging their content just like the RIAA didn't stop P2P and Torrents.
All in all, this is just part of "creative destruction" in capitalism. Those that dig their heels into the ground will break their own knees.
Going through my email, I found this comment from the Conversation Agent that I must have deleted without approving in a mad de-spamming campaign. Here is what she said then:
The other consideration is the experience of you through your content. The
point is to give - that includes credit. Seth Godin has said it on numerous
occasions, ideas want to be free to spread.
I have seen now multiple examples of the diagrams and designs created by
David Armano (Logic+Emotion) being pirated by others. In one instance, the
company actually took one of his graphics to represent their business model
- that was ballsy, and rude. The good news is that even at a glance, I knew
that those were David's graphics - and so would many others. Many more than
those who'd think they were original. The same goes for those who copy your
brand in any way - naming, scraping posts, etc. It's a slippery slope
because they do not know what's behind and won't be able to back it up.
That is also what is powerful about digital information and having a voice.
If your content/idea is good enough to spread, it will be recognized as
yours.