Open Season & Friendly Fire: how much does freedom pay (and is that salary-based or by the hour)?

photo by Cregs

Having been raised in a traditional family, in a top-down society, I’ve been taught to respect authority. I’ve always looked up to my elders, and to anyone in a position to teach me something. I like that experts exist in this world; it makes me feel secure. Because one thing I know for sure is that I do not have all the answers. (A loose paraphrase of Socrates for the philosophers.)

This back story could explain why I approach the online community (along with much of the content it generates) with a degree of skepticism. With the proliferation of web2.0 tools available, anyone with a computer and Internet access can post a video or write a blog. While I enjoy watching items on YouTube, I typically source out live performances by or archival footage of artists with whom I am already familiar. I rarely view amateur videos. And with regards to news and commentary, my general rule of thumb is if I could have written it, I don’t need to read it.

I realize that my way of thinking is quickly becoming outmoded, and I’m certainly not blind to the limitations of a top-down society or to the benefits of bucking that system. It’s empowering that so many can express their opinions and create their own content so easily (i.e. without needing to start up their own publishing or production company). It’s downright democratic.

But it’s also hugely complicated. As benign as the concept may seem (freedom of expression and a free place to do it), there is a lot at stake that needs consideration:

1. Copyright Management

In this video, Stanford law professor Lawrence Lessig describes how the Internet has begun to revive a read-write culture–one that, he argues, has lain dormant for much of the last century. Copyright legislation, as it exists now, cannot accommodate this new creativity, which involves much sampling, re-recording, and re-purposing of existing work.

But is there a way to protect copyright and allow creativity to flourish online? Lessig points towards the Creative Commons model of licensing, which allows artists to dictate their terms (e.g. that their work may be used for non-commercial purposes). He urges artists to embrace this option, noting that much of what is created (or re-created) and posted via sites such as YouTube is done without consideration of profit. The real problem online is outright infringement (e.g. posting another artist’s copyrighted work in its entirety) rather than cases of creative—and potentially fair—use (e.g. a teenaged girl singing “Winter Wonderland.”)

2. Profit and Competition

On the one hand, I think it’s a sign of a rich culture when so many engage in creative and/or thoughtful acts without any financial incentive to do so. But, on the other hand, I wonder if the increased competition does anything to diminish the ability to profit from such pursuits. Certainly the music industry has suffered the ill effects of file-sharing, as well as other forms of piracy. If something can be gotten for free, then there is a good chance that many will be less inclined to pay for it. But what of the sheer volume of content available online and the fact that professionals and amateurs are now (so to speak) rubbing shoulders? Are they also jostling for position?

Curious in this respect is Open Salon, a “social content site” developed by Salon, and currently in the final stages of its private beta test-launch. Brashly identifying itself as an online magazine where “you make the headlines,” Open Salon is a blog platform with a twist–the twist being that it is moderated by Salon editors. Once registered, users may write their own blog posts, rate/comment upon the each other’s blogs, and even give/receive monetary tips. New “issues” are published daily, and the Salon editors decide which stories take centre stage–on the home page.

I wonder if this is Salon’s way of reaching out to the community, of offering people the opportunity of authorship, while at the same time keeping a modicum of control over the situation.  Interestingly, they seem to distinguish themselves from other blog platforms by lending the content and its amateur authors a sense of legitimacy: bloggers get to publish under the Salon banner, their work is judged by the magazine’s editors, and could–if deemed worthy–be featured on Salon.com proper, according to the publisher’s promise. It’s one thing to sponsor a website for user-generated commentary, but it is another thing entirely to feature that commentary on the magazine’s own website (and home page, no less). It’s a great opportunity for the blogger to get recognition (there’s no mention of a paycheque), but does the magazine risk cannibalizing itself–or sacrificing professional writers–by featuring amateur content?

3. Quality Control

Ideally, competition should breed better content. To some extent, the proliferation of blogs may help editors at online magazines understand what topics matter to their audience, and the competition may keep them answerable to that audience. But is there a risk in the professionals looking to the amateurs for answers? Will this have a homogenizing effect on editorial content? And what of editorial standards? I think it’s important that writing challenges the audience and is thought-provoking, but wonder if there will be a greater tendency to placate the audience by giving the people what they want. The trouble is, we sometimes don’t know what’s best for us.

Rule by the masses, to my mind, simply means that mediocrity reigns supreme. Popularity does not equal quality. I long for an expert to put this into context. I long to listen and learn. But it’s difficult to wend one’s way through the morass. Amongst the plethora of opinions, do truth and meaning have enough space to distinguish themselves?

Advertisement