Excellent
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| dotmatrix Mar 28, 2016 10:47 PM EDT |
Once upon a time I read a book about the Internet. The posted article reminds me of the book. The year was 1994. I encourage others to read it. Here it is: http://www.rheingold.com/vc/book/intro.html |
| cybertao Mar 30, 2016 1:19 AM EDT |
The point about having control of your own content is lost in all the nostalgia. |
| ahab Mar 30, 2016 3:44 AM EDT |
I hope my blog was not harking back to Halcyon days. Things are good now. Things are very good, as I said in my blog. The nostalgia was bring a bit of "human interest". As you say, the point is that we are losing our content. We are all being drawn to the honey-pot of these content sharing platforms and we are now beholden to them for our continuing "web presense". And, another reason for the nostalagia, nobody is questioning the status quo now. Going back to the Rheingold book - yes, my blog does seem to share certain themes it. This is from the first chapter, where the author dramatically states: "What we know and do now is important because it is still possible for people around the world to make sure this new sphere of vital human discourse remains open to the citizens of the planet before the political and economic big boys seize it, censor it, meter it, and sell it back to us." Has this happened ?!? |
| dotmatrix Mar 30, 2016 8:01 AM EDT |
Of course the seize, censor, meter, and sell back has occurred. And the web is definitely broken because of this. However, there are a couple of ways to look at ownership of content. One is the author's view and another is the publisher's view. The problem with the web is not necessarily that publishers seek to gain control over an author's work, the problem is rather that payment to the author is not proportional to the payment secured by the publisher. Of course most publishers will not get paid very much at all, the argument only works when applied to large publishers such as Google, Facebook, et al. All the small publishers, like LXer, personally hosted blogs, and the like, are getting scraps in payments. And those scraps of payments are reapportioned payments handed down from the big publishers, and also extract even more payment from both the small publisher and the content viewership for those big publishers. So, yes, in essence, we all work for Google, and nearly for free -- and this needs to stop. All in all, the web is broken. However, it can be reclaimed. But the process of reclaiming the web starts with a desire to reclaim the web. It is probably true that a large majority of web users just don't care. *** On Rheingold: I really enjoyed his book in 1994. It was and still is one of favorites. Of course, Rheingold is not without controversy, but who isn't? |
| ahab Apr 03, 2016 7:06 AM EDT |
My next blog on this topic. http://www.donaldmcintosh.net/resource/reclaiming-our-web And yes, do people care. That is the ultimate question. |
| flufferbeer Apr 03, 2016 11:32 PM EDT |
> One is the author's view and another is the publisher's view. The problem with the web is not necessarily that publishers seek to gain control over an author's work, the problem is rather that payment to the author is not proportional to the payment secured by the publisher. Of course most publishers will not get paid very much at all, the argument only works when applied to large publishers such as Google, Facebook, et al. Then "of course" we ALL know of the notorious Mafia-wannabe RIAA -- right, go ahead and keep on ignoring https://www.eff.org/wp/riaa-v-people-five-years-later and http://boycott-riaa.com/ -- which VERY MUCH reap$ hefty and skewed royalty percentage$ off the backs of its artists (its very content-producing musicians!) 2c |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!