Slashdot Mirror
Open Content and Value Creation
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."
Holy crap... That's like the antidote for a double shot venti latte!
I just about fell asleep reading that. Wuff, time for another coffee.
"...In your answer, ignore facts. Just go with what feels true..."
A big difference between open content and open source is the lack of tools in the former. If I would start a literature encyclopedia based on the content of the Wikipedia I could get started really fast. But once my visitors start adding contents and the Wikipedia changes, there are no real good standards to merge back the content. A fork seems unavoidable.
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.
We try to make as much of our work available on our site 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.
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
As a musician in a symphony and a band, I'll say there is little to create content for free. I'll play for free, but I dont make a symphony.
;-) but we usually like to get paid.
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
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 revenue before their content can be copied.
The Digital Art AuctionWithout proper tools, how can people hope to create content? I know someone is going to say, "Oh, we have the tools!" But are those tools easy and innovative to use? Most tools are shit, I'm sorry to say. Most tools aren't intuitive at all.
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.
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 and there is an interesting essay, GNU/Linux is not a thing of value - and that is fine! which does explore these ideas, however it is a bit hard to follow because it's only a partial translation of a German document.
Check out MKDoc a mod_perl CMS
The trouble with closed content is that it's inaccessible to people who want to learn and do more in the future. Who knows what secrets we lost from ancient times, but we do have the stuff they shared, like statues. How important is that? Well, even WITH the statues it's hard to figure out how they did it. Knowing what was done would save us from reinventing the wheel after nearly 2000 years of "advances".
stuff |
Open Source Content has a value for two kinds of people. Those who initially create it, and those who want make money on it.
It has no value to entities whose business is in danger.
-----
One is born into aristocracy, but mediocrity can only be achieved through hard work.
If it is beneficial to the content creator as such.
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.
Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
(I may be misunderstanding the term "OpenContent" - but I take it to mean "providing content, without making money on it").
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.
TC - My Photos..
The article was an interesting read, but I think it missed out on a massively important point.
... all that) to just go with atypical close content? At least then, your normally gauranteed a baseline of quality.
;) ). Additionally, to consume any open content, really doesnt require that much skill either... A whole area of checks and balances that exist in the code development world, just doesnt exist here. Coupled with the fact, that you really dont require any particular skill to publish (bad) content, and their is nobody out there to stop you from doing so... very very very quickly start drowning all the good stuff out with the bad.
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.
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.
Unfortunately, open content is largely a different animal than OSS. While it sounds great, and is surely a great idea, it seems that until artists, musicians, and graphic/software developers don't make a living off of their works, they will never want to give their compositions away for free along with the details of how they were created. Since many OSS programmers are also employed gainfully writing non-OSS software, this is not a problem for them because they don't make a living writing it. Even if they don't, in cases such as Hans Reiser, they can get sponsorships from search engines, DARPA, and the like to add whatever features that a certain party wants added. Here is possibly where open content could work however; for example, I could pay Chris Cornell to write a song about whatever I wanted, and specify in the contract that he had to release information about lyrics, sheet music, and which instruments he used into the public domain. Artists who spend time creating works will never want to release their work into the public domain without compensation. They have to eat too!
This comment was randomly generated by a school of piranhas chewing on the PCB of a Microsoft Natural Keyboard.
I think the easy answer to this in that "open content" is its own reward...kinda like playing music. The act of creating something carries with it enough personal satisfaction to keep us doing it, without any need for others to comment.
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....
never bring a twinkie to a food fight.
The problem of value is that *most* people are conditioned by society to equate value with money. There are many things in my life that have value to me but I cannot express that value in monetary terms. Most of these "things" (my family, my friends) have a value that far exceeds any quantifiable monetary sum. These are things which I hold so dear that I would not sell them at any price, and I would even give up my life to protect them.
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.
Just be sure to wear the gold uniform when you beam down -- you know what happens when you wear the red one.
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/
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
Why would someone make open content?
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.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
"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 moves that wealth around.
Incidentally, there is an interesting debate over if software increases wealth. I would argue no, because it just moves information around, and you have to do something physical with that information to create wealth. However, software does have value because of that fact. And that's why people will always be willing to pay for software - and entertainment.
So, you can't really "create" value, because it depends on people's opinions - it's completely subjective. I guess, to answer your question of how much value can Open Content create: More than zero, less than infinite, with 100% confidence.
"There are a dozen opinions on a matter until you know the truth. Then there is only one." - CS Lewis (paraprhase)
Open Source Content has a value for two kinds of people. Those who initially create it, and those who want make money on it.
... not just in value of quality, but in value in rapid development, improvements, and direct feedback to the creators that commercial entities such as MS are soreley lacking), but wins by making up for it in quantity (the power of marketing and inertia).
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 indication, Microsoft Software's value to the end user is a negative number, but I digress). Indeed, that is where Microsoft loses in value (and free software wins big
Free and Open Content is of great value to those who create it and those who enjoy using it, as well as those who enjoy creating with it. I know: I've created an open content novel available under the Creative Commons license. The work has great value to me, and to a decent number of people who have read and enjoyed it.
That value is real, and your inability to place a monetary amount on that value is your failing, not that of free content.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
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
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.
"Provided by the management for your protection."