No, I will not pay you for your content

I'm tempted to feel a little sympathy for Jaron Lanier. He certainly doesn't invite the emotion, and I doubt he needs it, but nonetheless. He's gotten old. And there but for the grace of god go we. Clearly a very intelligent man once on the cusp of the greatest cultural wave anyone has ever imagined, he's gotten his dividends (Microsoft, Google and Second Life?). Yet the Internet never lived up to his young man's ideals. Perhaps given the nature of the companies he's ended up working for neither did he.
He's not truly saying a lot here, simply that the system doesn't quite work (true, so far). It's his pretence of a solution which irks me. Affordable. What is affordable but an attempt to convince someone to buy? One surfer's affordable is another's months pay, and there's no simple way around that other than what we have already. Community.
Yes, creator's deserve results. Profit, even. Without a doubt. And community can give those results, look after it's own. But all I see in Lanier is someone trying to sell Second Life, which has little to nothing to do with the utopian society of the web some of us yearn for so dearly. Don't mess with utopia, Jaron. Hopefully, it's capable of messing back.

From the Long Tail to the Shaky Camera...

Photo by: dipfan

If there is anything that this class has taught me, it is to never underestimate the power of that guy with his camera phone!

To be honest, I previously thought that the majority of "shaky cameras" and citizen journalist efforts were really just rather pathetic attempts by people who were trying to get their 15 minutes in the news. I really had no patience for the amateurism of it all.

However, I have realized that those 15 minutes have much more of an impact than I initially thought.

As Mitch Joel pointed out in our final lecture, one must understand the power of the shaky camera. These videos now act as evidence, as proof, as real live news. Unedited and uncensored. It's the truth.

After all, isn't that what everyone who turns to the news is really searching for?

So, instead of the internet and citizen journalism adding to the clutter of various opinions, beliefs and political ideologies that we are used to having traditional media drum into us, I would argue that bloggers and citizen journalists are just trying to get the truth out.

Sure, we may all be caught in the Long Tail, struggling to get up into the shorter section, but nevertheless what we have to say is important. We are small on our own, but together we are making quite a lot of noise.

Moreover, I have learned that the way in which we convey our messages online is also of great importance. Links, Images, "serifed versus sans-serifed" text, paragraph length and even the style of writing changes dramatically when working with online journalism versus the traditional print and broadcast means of distribution.

Then there is the whole concept of the gift economy. Are you going to put your work out there and let it roam cyberspace for free, or are you going to put advertisements on your page to keep the money rolling in? Whether or not one is going to blog for money is only one of many questions on an extensive list that arise in the realm of citizen journalism and online media.

However complicated the process, however intricate the styles, and however controversial the means, one thing still holds true: citizen journalism is making a profound impact in the way that we read the news, the way we access it, the way we process it, and the way we interact with it.

And for that reason alone, I think citizen journalism is here to stay.

Don't Put the Fence Up!

Photo By: JAIRO BD

In Pay Me for My Content, Jaron Lanier discusses free content and its availability on the internet.

However, after reading his article, instead of taking away anything of insight, Lanier comes off as someone who is a little too bitter about the fact that he was unable to cash in on the world of free information that the internet currently offers us.

Lanier sounds as though he is stuck in an old ideology that dictates that anything of value or service always ought to come with a price.

Here is where I beg to differ. In fact, I think the premise that the internet runs on, that of the exchange of free information, is exactly what is making it so revolutionary. People lose interest when you want to take their money. "Fencing off" the internet to only those who have the ability or are willing to pay for content is rather ridiculous.

The reason information, news, data, and knowledge can be shared so fast online is not just due to the technology. It is because it's free. Most information is easily accessible and does not cost the reader anything to access, hence its appeal, and the reason why the internet has become a valid resource base.

Lanier says: "To help writers and artists earn a living online, software engineers and Internet evangelists need to exercise the power they hold as designers. Information is free on the Internet because we created the system to be that way."

In essence, he is saying that those who created the internet need to exercise their control and put limits on what the viewer has free access to.

Whatever happened to the democratization of the internet?!

I think what Lanier has failed to observe is that instead of trying to determine ways in which writers can charge for access to their content, writers really should be looking at alternative ways to make their content matter.

As we have learnt in this class, citizen journalism has not made mainstream media irrelevant, it has just forced the mainstream sources to up their game, and make sure that what they are publishing is of impact and purpose.

In fact, perhaps Lanier should read The Paradox of Choice. Here, Barry Schwartz even argues that when given too much choice consumers often revert back to the mainstream leaders anyway (see his Coke example). So what is Lanier so paranoid about?

Furthermore, throughout the article, Lanier name drops in regard to companies he has worked for and supported (or not), in an attempt to make the reader feel as though the comments he is making are legitimate, as if he is a real "insider" in this online realm of activity. He just sounds like a man with a grudge to me.

Overall, it seems as though Lanier has really misunderstood the potential possibilities of the internet, and the ways in which writers need to adapt their styles and business models in able to compete in an increasingly expanding online industry.

Writing for the web

Photo courtesy Windy Angels.

My first ever "job" in journalism was a component of Career and Personal Planning 11, a position as a reporter at the Nelson Daily News.
I walked into the newsroom lost and... 15. My editor sat me down to give me a brief run down on whatever it is I'm spending my undergrad learning all about.

"Now, when you're writing for the newspaper, you need to forget everything has ever told you."
He explained the essences of the inverted pyramid, writing casually for people, and keeping your language objective.

A few years later, and I was a little less lost and a few years older. The basics of print were reiterated, only to be pounded into my brain a million times.

And then there were the broadcast classes, where formatting and language suddenly took on a whole new set of complicated rules.

So it only makes sense that writing for the web has it's own style, and it's own set of rules that force you to ignore everything that you've been previously taught.

Through the course of creating my own blog, I've noticed a few things about applied blog writing, contrasted with the theory on it we've read and discussed in this class. Thi9ngs I both agree and disagree with.

First off, I'm not a fan of the pictures Matt has told us to include before every post. Having worked at a print newspaper this past year, it's been important that every article have an image for visual stimulus. But a newspaper does not take time to load heavy images. I go online for quick and dirty information, not for somewhat relevant images.

I do like the oportunity to infuse more opinion in my writing. I think that it makes my motivation more credible, and comments provide the forum to discuss and defend my ideas.

I also like the publish, then select concept Cory Doctorow presents. Usually ideas steep in my brain developing for a while. My notebook is a mess of scribbles and appendages. Online provides a... tidyer way to convey that. And, also mentioned by Doctorow, it allows everyone to participate in that.

Comments are really key. At first, it was mostly just encouragement that people were actually reading what I wrote, but it's evolved into a way of keeping myself editing myself to keep he content of my posts something I could defend and back-up.

Finally, links are great! You don't have to provide people with the background! But they still aren't unfailable. Some websites aren't well set up for linking, and you need to state which part of the page you are referencing.

It's been an interesting learning curb, this whole concept of writing for the web, and not for air or paper.

Wake up and smell the e-coffee

Jaron Lanier

Image courtesy of: http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/how-to-draw-cartoons-102.jpg

In addition to being written in an extremely irritating and self-centered fashion, Jaron Lanier’s “Pay me for my Content” boasts an extremely trivial and unrealistic argument regarding charging for Internet content.

Specifically, Lanier essentially states that we’ve created this monster that is robbing people of income because it provides nearly everything for free.

Lanier is basically spitting in the face of what makes the Internet such a priceless resource. Free, easily accessible information (from websites like Wikipedia) and other good and services are leading a revolution and businesses simply need to catch up with the technology, instead of trying to ruin it as suggested by Lanier.

In fact, many businesses and industries are doing just that: putting the Internet to work for them. In addition to advertising revenues, companies of every variety are finding ways to make money online. For instance, major newspapers such as the Gazette, National Post and New York Times, have special online services that are only available to subscribers. Similarly, the music industry has responded to free online downloading by selling their work on itunes for a small fee, in addition to other products available for sale online. Ironically, everyone speaks of the Internet as killing the music industry, but in 2007, the industry did exactly what no one thought it would: it turned a profit.

Moreover, the author essentially accuses the Internet of robbing artists and writers. While I respect these professions and think that both contribute extremely important things to society, it’s not as though people (most people anyway) go into those fields to become rich. If anything, the Internet is doing them a huge service by allowing their work to be published for free and providing massive exposure. Think of all the advantages that come with that? It’s just huge.

Quite simply, Lanier’s arguments are extremely unrealistic – I seriously doubt that people would be OK with paying for something they were getting for free already. Moreover, why should they? Who’s he to state that businesses, artists and writers are all suffering because of the Internet. Where’s his research? I didn’t see any stats or sources included in his article.

In all honesty, Lanier sounds whiney, out-dated and just plain out-of-touch when making the statements present in his “Pay me for my Content” article. 

Goodnight & Goodluck!

Image credits: © Haani

Well, it's been a pleasure everyone.

I thought I could send off on a brief resume of the State of the News Media 2008 Report , an elaborate study of the performance of American journalism, it attempts to identify ongoing and upcoming trends in journalism, for television, radio, print and online.

They offer a survey of the A Year In The News based on a comprehensive analysis of the last 365 days.


The report had more than a few interesting findings. For our portion on citizen media: "The array of citizen-produced news and blog sites is reaching a meaningful level. But a study of citizen media contained in this report finds most of these sites do not let outsiders do more than comment on the site’s own material, the same as most traditional news sites. Few allow the posting of news, information, community events or even letters to the editors. And blog sites are even more restricted. In short, rather than rejecting the “gatekeeper” role of traditional journalism, for now citizen journalists and bloggers appear to be recreating it in other places."

Indeed, the report suggests that citizen media has some serious limitations.
Blogs attract small niche audiences, that expect the same standards of reporting as mainstream media - but in a new format. One that comes without an editing team or the big-bucks funding. And our bloggers, well, they're people with an even more elitist background than journalists...upper-crust are we? No. But individuals with enough time on their hands to produce unremunerated content...maybe.
© xkcd

The real crisis, a consequence of Anderson's Long tail concept, is getting people to pay for their information without taking a cut from the quality of the reporting.“It’s like changing the oil in your car while you’re driving down the freeway” A tricky situation, as more efforts keep shifting toward processing info and away from original reporting. But there's hope, I hear.

It entails moving from a product to a service business model. With user fees not to have to rely entirely on advertising. Because, no one wants big business dictating what's relevant to your freedom of information! Jason Lanier forgot about that one.

If your looking into these avenues, a good place to start is The Real News, a television news and documentary network focused on providing independent and uncompromising journalism. The staff collaborates with journalists internationally to provide original content. Member funded, they don't care for advertising, government or corporate funding.It becomes a community payroll.
If your interested, your independent news will tally about 50$ a year.

Or...there's always the option of adhering to Mainstream Media...

Don't Kill The Messengers

Mitch Joel’s talk today highlighted three conversations. The internal monologue, the one-on-one and what could be described as group think.

Here are some thoughts on how political actors are oblivious to these conversations.

Their internal monologue is mired in tradition and precedent. Easily getting caught drinking their own kool-aid, they stray from their ideals, forgetting how to lead.

This translates into poor one-on-one interaction. Too often burdened with ideology and polarized debate, what they say becomes convoluted by focus groups and communication firms.

To sum up this whole class in political terms, would be to agree with Joel’s generational theory.

Deeply afraid of any new media, they view it as a loss of control on “the message”. They forget that the group think already holds apathy and indignation, or promise of contribution and militancy.

“What would they say about us?”, is the rallying cry for those still peering from within the cave, thinking that a peasants’ opinion might actually be mistaken for that of the King.

As politics becomes polarized, political actors need to have a better conversation. They say it’s hard to reach out to the 40% who don’t vote and $10 donations to political parties are tight.

If they were true to themselves, have honest interactions with citizens and understand that the crowd can be your worst enemy or best friend, only then will there be hope and change.

Brand Yourself...But How?

picture by highrankings.com

Today's guest lecturer, Mitch Joel brought up some very effective and encouraging strategies in branding yourself, however, what left we bewildered and somewhat anxious was how do we truly discover what we are good at doing? I don't think everyone can wake up one day and say: "Hey that's me, I've figured it out!" How do we find that passion, that one aspect about our complex selves that makes us unique?

Joel's sideshow seemed very interesting in theory but how do you put all that into practice? I have spent days, months, even years contemplating what I, Farah Hayat, am good at. There are so many things that I enjoy but what is it that makes me different from others?

That concept is an extremely layered and complex question to answer. In essence, it involves doing some soul searching and probing deep in the realms of our deepest memories, passions and finding that one pivotal aspect about ourselves that is uniquely us.

I started looking around and finding ways in which I could discover how to uncover my "most noteworthy trait" and I fell upon Nate Ritter's blog which provided me with three simple and focused ways to brand myself which I found much more useful than Joel's idealistic slides. Now, don't get me wrong, Joel gave brought up the idea so, in that sense, I did learn a lot. But I didn't know the How.

So here is the How according to Ritter:

First, Ritter says: "Ask yourself what is it that your product or service does that makes you different. In 15 words or less. Take the time to write them down, and then take the time to read it again. Go on. Stop reading this. Start writing."

So, in general, the first step is to write down what it is that we do different. We have to start analyzing ourselves. This act of writing makes intangible thoughts, concepts and talents tangible. Ritter urges us to be creative, "compelling" and most importantly "ask other people."

The second step is to get ourselves noticed which Ritter refers to as"visibility." You can do this by joining groups, creating blogs, or simply helping your peers with whatever they find you useful for. This in turn helps you put your talent, uniqueness, or passion into practice.

Finally, make an influence on people. I'm sure we have at one point influenced someone's decision and marked ourselves in their lives. Similarly, Ritter says to mark ourselves on the economy.

So, essentially branding ourselves is dependent on finding what it is that makes us tick, what it is that people identify us by and then being able to transfer that talent to a wider spectrum in order to, which Tom Peters puts so eloquently in his article "The Brand Called You", become the CEO'S of oursleves...

The net is out of control

Photo courtesy www.enternetpics.com.

A lot of the things we've talked about in this class seem to lead tpo somewhat of a democratization of a publicshing outlet that is very accessible.

And people want to keep it that way.

I just recieved an e-mail, linking me to an attempt to fight internet control.

It's not the first time I've recieved one of these, and I'm sure it won't be the last. And because of the mass action, not to mention the methods for perpetuating information and call-outs that the internet provides, I'm not too worried about it being taken over by Bell or Rogers.

Show Me The Money!

Darren Rowse’s article, “Should I Blog for Money?“, argues the many reasons why one should not make money through blogs.

He gives examples such as the mix-ups with contextual advertising, the possibility of a mutiny among readers, the issue of getting bitten by the ‘money from blogging’ bug, ads causing an element of clutter and of promoting affiliate products that one has no knowledge of.

Although these are issues for some, this should not dissuade bloggers from yelling, “Show me the money!”.

In fact Rowse’s article overlooks many factors. Most of his arguments revolve around contextual advertisements and quite possibly Google’s Adsense program.

Although popular, Adsense advertising is not the end all of ads online. There are many other ways to include ads, such as advertising products which the blogger himself endorses in his own lifestyle.

Do you work with Bic ball point pens? Then why not add that as an ad. Many would identify these ads with the blogger, thus supplementing his existing personal brand.

The possibility of a reader mutiny can be presumed, but if one offers quality content, readers will quickly overlook these setbacks in order to get the exclusive goods.

On this note, getting the money bug, should be the last thing that should affect content. If this situation occurs, maybe such a blogger did not have the appropriate acumen to be able to pursue original intent and content.

In the end, what has not been mentioned is the obvious. Is advertising the only way for one to make money from their blog?

While Rowse’s arguments do hold some truth, their weight is not worth much in gold.

Out of Touch

©JWL

Joel Mitchel was saying this morning:
"This is the first time in the history of humanity that the young are teaching their elders."

And I marveled at how awfully conceited that statement was.To think that 'Learning' was an asymmetrical activity.Especially coming from a man's whose modus operendi is to 'keep an open-mind.'
How many of us have taught our folks how to program the VCR?

But more critically, the statement echoes the same kind of 'avant-garde' bias Jason Lanier entertained in his article. Not only did it pigeonhole entire sectors of society, but he gladly began with himself as an Idealist / Revolutionary / Pioneer.

Truth is, the man is nearing his fifties and perhaps socially 'out of touch' with the majority of the public that he pertains to be speaking for. As Robert has eloquently underlined. I do think, however, that Mr. Lanier is more than a corporate sellout. Maybe his plentiful career in information technology and virtual reality has boxed him in the specificity of that experience. It just might differ from the common- denominator user's experience, who I doubt will be much inclined to pay for content. Isn't 'access to information' a recognized human right, here in North America?

People happily pay for content in certain Internet ecosystems, provided the ecosystems are delightful. People love paying for virtual art, clothing and other items in virtual worlds like Second Life, for instance.

Well maybe they do. Meanwhile, I stumbled on an interesting read, pure leisure, that partially explains why it is that some people are willing to invest in 'online merchandise'. The book is called A Theory of Fun for Game Design. It explains that people have different psychological dispositions. Some are synthetic, others empathetic; which has to do with how we learn, what side of the brain we use the most, gender stereotypes, etc.

I'm suggesting that empathetic people are more likely to purchase online material because they feel the need to bond with their character, their favorite band, the world at large even!

But that leaves all those synthetic people, will play and pay, only for a while. And eventually move on to something else once they've tired or mastered a given product. These people are much less likely to invest in short-term ventures, or do so sporadically.

This might be a stretch, but if we're going to make online advertising and remunerated content worthwhile, it would certainly help to know who your target audience is. And what makes them tick - beyond the limited spectrum of their immediate interests.

Free for some does equal free for all

In Jaron Lanier article "Pay me for my content", he states that because of the fact that the Internet provides so much information to the world, that is hard to create a way for people to make money for their own work. Yes it allows people to get informed and enjoy themselves without spending money, but that doesn't mean that it is impossible for there to be money made for your creations.

Websites have the ability to keep things personal through subscriptions and allowing users to buy items, such as clothing, DVDs, and CDs. This does not make your creations free by any means, it is just allowing accessibility to everyone around the world.

Sites like Zinio allow viewers to subscribe to magazines so that they can read them online. Why not make it easier for people to see your creations? Some people would not buy them any other way because they might be embarassed of the content or nervous about going in front of the cashier with a magazine that has adult articles and pictures, even if they are an adult themselves.

Even worldwide newspapers have caught on to the fact that the Internet creates a wider fan base. Any person that has the Internet and has the money is able to read the New York Times or Washington Post, without it mattering where they live.

Yes the Internet makes it harder to keep things personal but when there's a will there is a way. The Internet is a technology that links people together, has the ability to inform people around the world, and creates an accessibility to anyone who has the technology. Your work will always be your work, you just have to put it out in way that benefits everyone.

Let the kids have their piracy

ModernLifeIsRubbish

Like tristan, I think Lanier's ideas, while well informed, eventually shows itself to be and expression of personal remorse to a system and ideology he embraced in his youth.

Whether he's right or not, he's wrong. This is because his vision for a larger ecosystem where all content was available as it is now but at affordable price is, along with being frought with enough logistical pitfalls to kill the idea before it even beings, against the very mindset that people go into the internet with.

If anything, I find that people are more cheap and more lazy on the internet than they would be in a real world iteration.

Many people looking for something online will frantically hit "back" on their broswers if they even discover that they have to register to a website to obtain what they want.

One thing that the internet has done well is embracing the monetized value of information. People are much more likely to part with their email addresses than 5$.

Want to download iTunes? All it will cost you is your email address.

Additionally I really don't agree that the internet has negatively affected artists and writers in that their content is essentially forcibly made free.

For example, a guy created a blog in early january of this year, entirely about stuff that white people like. He makes clever and humorous posts, it gets dug, facebooked and stumbledupon. Now he's got a book deal with Random House worth over 300 000.

What artists lose from the internet is the ability to directly charge money for their art. What they gain is publicity and the ability to reach a global audience, to me its an obvious choice.

Stuff White people like #93 Music Piracy

"White people have always been renowned for having ridiculously large music collections. So when file sharing gave white people a chance to acquire all the music they ever wanted, it felt as though it was an earned right and not a privilege.

When (not if) you see a white male with a full iPod, ask him if all of his music is legal. If he does not immediately launch into a diatribe about his right to pirate music, you might have to nudge him a bit by saying “do you think that’s right?” The response will be immediate and uniform"

Sell Me Something Good

Photo by jamieanne

I think it was the first class, Matt made a point which I think needs to be remembered while reading nearly all of the course literature that pertains to getting your work out. Your work has to be good.

I mean, Pay Me For My Content doesn't offer any practical advice on how to get paid. Jaron Lernier (whom I am unfamiliar with, I should note) can't even sell me on the idea of "ecosystems", and that's not to say there isn't a valid point to be made. I just don't like his writing and I wouldn't pay for it.

Excellence and persistance are qualities which distinguish good from great in any field. I didn't go into the journalism department with stars in my eyes thinking a degree in print journalism would be worth anything more than the paper it's written on when it came to making a decision for myself. Whatever I do with it, it's going to require a lot of self-discipline. If I'm going to freelance, I'm going to hustle.

The opportunity to make money by doing something you really enjoy isn't a birthright. If you expect people to pay for your product, you have to get it to them.

Please refer to this post on my own blog before reading further.

Atmosphere is pushing product. Granted, it's music, but these guys went from making basement tapes to building a indie rap label with over 20 acts. Have they created an "ecosystem"? No, but they've generated a fanbase by using the web wisely and not losing sleep over the fact that people are gonna steal. What they and the other acts on their label do well is get it out to the people in person, and help each other do it. In short they make lemonade outta lemons.

Unless your drive is really to get hired as a staff writer somewhere - and that is a legitimate goal - you must understand that no one owes you a career. If you're determined to get paid, and driven by a desire to do your work independently, you have to look at what you're good at and what you aren't. Find the people who know things you don't, and figure out how you can help each other. Networking doesn't always mean going out brown nosing, even if that can be fun. Talent will get you everywhere if you are serious about using it.

Crowdsourcing; Another Word for Exploitation?

Crowdsourcing is an important term in many areas, and especially in the domain of citizen journalism. Basically, the entire basis and foundation of citizen journalism is based on the principle of voluntary information and work being submitted by the masses.

The entire foundation of the internet is essentially based on this principle. Sure, there are websites set up by companies to sell their products, and so on-however, the vast majority of sites are formulated from regular Joe’s.

Crowdsourcing has become so popular that the website Innovation Zen actually released a top ten list of crowdsourcing websites.

This sounds great, although the problem that shines through with this, is that while a lot of these people never make a dime off of their efforts (and it should be noted that they are okay with this fact, because they continue to contribute regardless)-it seems that someone is making money. So the question is, how much of crowdsourcing is actual exploitation.

These people essentially make the web what it is-yet most of the time they are not signed to contracts, or given wages, or sometimes even credited for their work. In the everyday world this would be a travesty, however in a web-based society this is widely accepted without objection.

So, have people found a way to express themselves freely through the internet, or are they being made to believe that they are free to feed into someone else’s greed? I believe that it is a little bit of both.

That gets me wondering, where is my cheque for these class postings?

The time has passed

Such a pathetic plea. Does this mean that the rest of the gen-x-internet-pioneer-guys are also going to wake up and realize their hair is gone and they're not getting paid for their work? Because of free internet types (like Lanier)the mechanisms have already been designed to distribute, peer to peer, massive ammounts of content. What he's asking for is something that's been failing since 99 in the Napster days . Since then we've all learned that even illegality can't stop piracy.


Things have gone so far that the music and pay software industry may take to simulating the peer to peer experience, for a fee. Apple's ipod may come with free itunes in the future though I'd feel like an ass if I paid for downloads and then some uber bit torrent came out, and I suspect many people feel the same way. Still it is a legitimate attempt to develop new models for paying for media.

As far as print content is concerned MocoLoco is pretty much the best you could be doing right now. He's got prime google result spots, a global network of writers, and several auxilary sites. In a recent lecture though the creator of MocoLoco mentioned that he's increasingly begun paying people for content. Which makes him a publisher. Right there we have a compensation model, huge websites need reliable contributors, just like magazines right?

The other option is to stay murkily amateur, Bike Snob has a joke on this, though he's right and so is Lanier. For the dedicated and skilled amateur advertising is the only viable option. That is until you get co-opted into another mega blog.

Let The Artists Speak For Themselves

"Hush Little Baby" from my voyeur series. 11x14 inches, fiber-based print. Selenium toned.
The internet has allowed artists a sort of utopic realm to showcase their work.
Jaron Lanier, let the creative class, who never elected you as spokesperson, represent themselves! You assume that all creative-types are looking for monetary gain (and if not, we are apparently hindering you in your conquest). This is both sickening and ignorant of artistic integrity.

While it is true that artists are looking for financial compensation for their physical craft (artists are doing their job after all), why does Jaron Lanier feel that it is preferable that users pay to access information? Let's ignore Lanier's technological determinism for a minute. Lanier feels as if we should bypass the artist and have software designers redesign the structure of the web itself. Why hide behind the pretense of claiming a better fate for artists? Lanier writes that:

To help writers and artists earn a living online, software engineers and Internet evangelists need to exercise the power they hold as designers. Information is free on the Internet because we created the system to be that way.

We could design information systems so that people can pay for content — so that anyone has the chance of becoming a widely read author and yet can also be paid. Information could be universally accessible but on an affordable instead of an absolutely free basis.

Jaron Lanier wants to revolutionize the Internet, paving the way to pay-for-content access. Yet he displays disdain at Sony's AIBO. Is he upset with Sony's lawsuits through the Digital Millennium Copyright Act? Or is he offended about the fun hacks that users spread online for free?

Who is Lanier kidding with his capitalistic rhetoric? For starters, Lanier seems to be lost in a dotcom Internet era state of idealism. The Internet is no longer a virtual marketplace but a forum of ideas, services, products, and more. Users can choose to buy goods online or can browse through a wide expanse of free information.

Reputation & Self-Marketing

New users publish content in order to feed into the idea of the reputation economy. I display my photography in galleries free-of-charge in order to establish myself as an artist.

Through this free promotion, I market myself to outside interest. My reputation grows, opening doors to new venues and creating potential networking opportunities. This proves to be more valuable in the long run as it potentially means a higher networth for myself. This method also includes anyone who wants to see my work and not just those who have the disposable income.

It's the same with publishing content online. Would I really close all these doors simply for the pursuit of a quicker buck? I wouldn't but Lanier tells me that I think I should.


"Window Pain", a photo of mine from the voyeur series. 11x14 inches on fiber-based paper. Selenium toned.

"We owe it to ourselves and to our creative friends to acknowledge the negative results of our old idealism. We need to grow up."

Lanier, show your true colours. You aren't worried about us artists who are showcasing our work for free. You want to, once again, capitalize on the marketplace that you wish the Internet to be. Users are already fighting the encroachment of capitalism of virtual spaces. Are the high monthly fees and the annoyance of internet ads not enough for you as it is? Or should we create a virtual realm where only those with the monetary means can access information? (Will this information even be good? Or will be it the garbage that is generally produced?)

If that is our virtual future, then I say bring back the traveling bards of a previous era to restore a means of free information of the outside world.

I don't pay for my content, and I don't believe you will either

Photo by: Jessica Shannon.

Whoever manages to figure out how to make money off the internet, repeats one of my profs over and over again, is going to make a lot of it.

With the major shift to online media, I have no doubt that somewhere in there is a gold mine waiting to be struck. But I don't believe that Jaron Lanier's answer-that site should be set up so people pay for content-is feasible.

I read a good proportion of my media online. I have no online subscriptions. I don't pay for anything. I download music onto my iPod. I don't pay for any of that either. Sometimes I stream movies... for free.

And it's not that I don't mind paying for information-just when it's already available for free. Not to mention that I don't like spending hours staring at a computer screen-I'd rather pick up a newspaper/magazine.

Yet there is no doubt that contributors should be compensated.

Take a look at a standard print newspaper. Let's say the newspaper costs you $1. It cost considerably more than just a dollar to produce. But the paper is subsidised, mostly by advertising, and can therefore operate with below-production costs.

So, in the next few years, I think that rather than an increase of pay sites, we'll be seeing a restructuring of web-based advertisement and sales departments.

Not to mention that the internet seems to be eerily good at collecting statistical information on people.

Can't escape the change at hand

by Gabriel Couture, available for FREE! use it, remix it!



After having taken this citizen journalism class where we discussed many of the new internet cultural and economic trends, i found it hard to read Jaron Lanier's article in the New York Times without laughing at it. Even now, as i write this post and think of all the references he makes about his involvement in modern internet companies and projects, i wonder how he can write such an unconvincing, perhaps even absurd article...

First of all, if Mr. Lanier would like to charge for the content that he puts on the web there are simple and many methods available to him. As he himself mentions, there are already many sites that function quite successfuly by charging their participants or audience.

The fact is that i've always avoided sites which charge me for content. We live in a world where things to consume are amply available everywhere, almost all the time. Take a walk, go to a mall!? There are independant boutiques specializing in alternative culture in many places, and often when they can't be accessed personally they can be accessed through the web where you can easily use your credit card to buy their products.

The truth is that the past century as been the different one when concerning the arts. We've gotten used to artists having the potential(although, more often than not, this is simply a dream society promotes as a way of satisfying its citizens.) to make lots of money. This has certainly not always been the case; artists were always on the go and in search of benefactors to help them produce. And art has always been a mix of reappropriation; remixing past ideas with new and so on...

The economic reality of the artist is going to change surely, however, it's not impossible for them to make money; through shows, talks, classes and so on. And if he, the artist or creator, so chooses, he may charge for the content he puts on the web.

In the end, the truth is that i waste my time of the internet looking up content becomes it's free! I used to spend time in libraries, go to cheap shows where i didn't know the bands, went to art exhibits and museums and I still do. But now, with a bit of time, i can make better informed choices about what i go see by using the web. I can also access free content by wikis and blogs whenever it pleases me.

Some businesses and artists are suffering but as time changes our society does as well. Get over it, adapt, and embrace the mass of information available.

Hollywood Home Theatre

According to Chris Anderson, in Hollywood, hits are losing their power.

He notes that it's not that people aren't watching films and listening to music, it's that they're just not following the herd. He guesses that most of the decline in box office is due to the rise of the DVD.

Could it be that Hollywood has not made a decent movie in years?

In 2005, major studios have delivered moviegoers 14 remakes of their own films, up from just four in 2000, according to movie research firm Nielsen EDI.

If it is not remakes of the past, then some movies are based on foreign successes or television series.

An article from the New York Times noted multiple theories for the decline abound, but many movie executives and industry experts agree that too many movies just are not good enough.

"Part of this is the fact that the movies may not have lived up to the expectations of the audience, not just in this year, but in years prior," said Michael Lynton, chairman of Sony Pictures Entertainment.

Originality may be a factor here.

If we were to look at a recent critique entitled “Lack of originality is where '21' really deals a losing hand”, the author notes;

The brainiacs of the gambling romp “21” are smart enough to expertly count cards at the blackjack table, identify hot betting tables and put on disguises so they can take Vegas casinos to the cleaners. So why are these MIT scholars so dumb they fall into greedy, grubby plot holes a C-minus Statistics 101 student would have seen coming a mile to the Nth power away?

To take this argument farther though, in our post-modern times, what is original anymore? Stories are based on the same archetypes and are simply melded for the times.

Going back to Anderson’s theory that many are simply not following the heard, while others say that everybody is looking for their different interests, maybe the traditional movie experience is in for a major change.

Warren Lieberfarb, a former Warner Brothers executive notes;

"It's not just the DVD…It's the flat-panel television and the sound system, with the DVD option, that has radically changed the quality of the in-home experience. The home theatre has arrived. You have to change the business model of the movie business."

Free, At What Cost?

Having watched Lessig’s TED talk, more questions arise then answers.

Lessig’s theory of aerospace, allows the comparison with Donald Trump. Trump understood and saw space differently then those before him.

While others saw a piece of real-estate which was occupied by a traditional building, Trump saw the commercial advantages of buying up the space above these estates. By buying this space, he erected towers on top of these traditional buildings, making profit and construction where others overlooked.

Such as the Lessig example of aerospace, or Trump with high-rises, today’s technologies open new avenues in trades and careers which have remained fixed within certain absolutes.

Despite these proposed changes, many concerns remain.

Lessig used the example of the talking machines causing the anticipation of the loss of voice. Some would note that our social interactions have suffered in the face of increasingly persistent virtual ones.

Facebook has replaced the rolodex, but are our relationships better for this?

Our generation was raised to understand that we were to grow up in the knowledge based economy. Now we are told that we must give out our knowledge for the love of it, but not for the money.

So where is the economy in that?

If we were to give our content away, our private culture, then public culture must be supported. Therefore we must support seminars, concerts, art expos and any form of live expression or discourse. Our disposable income must therefore go from the pockets of the few corporations, to the many independent artists.

Can we guarantee such an economy for the masses?

We say that the internet has increased democratization, but forget that the price tag of a computer and the monthly payments to our internet subscriber are not included.

If you don’t have a job, how are you going to pay the piper?

When Something is Free, Why Should I Pay For It?

In the article Pay Me for My Content, Jaron Lanier suggests that it is time for a revolution in the internet world-where people start charging for the content that they put up. He points out that advertising can only go so far, and that it is time to revolutionize the net. He says that, “We could design information systems so that people can pay for content — so that anyone has the chance of becoming a widely read author and yet can also be paid.”

The problem with this, is that the whole power and allure of the internet is based on the fact that the content is available for free. The fact that a person can navigate hundreds of sites a day without ever having to think twice about it-is what makes the internet unique, and what makes it work.

Now, while they are some websites that have begun to charge people-and it has worked quite well for them (i.e. Second Life, iTunes, various adult sites, etc.)-these are exceptions to the rule. In fact, while iTunes is widely popular, I know many more people who download music for free from Limewire, and who access videos for free from either Limewire or You Tube. In terms of adult content, the same holds true.

The point is that drastically changing what people have grown accustomed to, is dangerous ground. The only potential result that I could foresee, is that if everyone starts forcing people to pay for stuff, then a new breed of super-duper advertising laden sites will crop-up, and offer free content to compete with those sites, and the wheel will continue to turn-and we’ll be back where we started!

The fact the people deserve to make money for their work on the web is debateable. Some people do it as a hobby, and as such, a hobby is not something that you expect to be rewarded for. On the other hand, if it is a full time pastime, or if a lot of work has gone into the content, then the site itself should take some of the money that they receive from advertisers and pay the contributors.

The user cannot be expected to pay. They pay for internet use-so the rest is fair game.

Paying for the Web

photo by pugluv89

Will we start charging for Internet services, as Jaron Lanier whines? Or will we side with Chris Anderson’s “Free! Why $0.00 is the Future of Business”?

Lanier pleas “pay me for my content,” but his plea quickly bumps against Anderson’s statement that “practically everything Web technology touches starts down the path to gratis.” Anderson, then, eclipses Lanier’s plea.

Lanier is what Anderson would call a “traditionalist,” one amongst many who “wring their hands about the ‘vaporization of value’ and ‘demonetization’ of entire industries.” But Lanier has it all wrong, and here’s why.

All of the best content I access regularly is free. But this is not the “demonetization” of an industry—it is simply an alternative economic approach. A few of sources that I visit regularly come to mind:

ZNet is an incredible resource, and most of its content is free. But tech guys like Lanier can still get paid. I’ve purchased books from ZNet, for example, and I also donate to the website because I want the service to be maintained and improved.

Radiohead offered their latest album free, but I paid the standard price for the album because I enjoy their work. There were also reports of massive contributions for Radiohead’s album, not because people liked the music, but because they liked the concept of free.

Democracy Now! and the other Pacifica Radio stations are all listener supported, and the recently launched Real News is a phenomenal service based in Toronto that is driven entirely by donations.

Staff at Democracy Now! and The Real News are paid, and make a reasonable living. The list can go on, and Canadian organizations like rabble.ca are adding to the fray, but the essential point is that people can get paid by not asking for money.

I’m all for free—in fact, I intend to make a living off of it now.

Sharing is Caring

Photo by: amidanyorai

Lawrence Lessig's TED Talk presentation really caught my attention. His mention of the "criminalization" that standard copyright laws have been creating in the online realm is very troubling.

There are millions of videos on YouTube, and I find it difficult to believe that most of these are breaking the law, as they have been created by "mashing" together previously generated content.

This is exactly what Lessig touches on.

He says that copyright laws are encroaching upon "amateur culture". He also argues that as internet technologies have become more accessible, they have become democratized and available to the masses.

However, copyright laws are making it nearly impossible to recreate, to remix, and to express ourselves using this new medium.

In a time where almost everything in the art world has been done or seen once before, it is imperative that we are given some leeway in terms of what we can reuse. As Lessig says, "remixing is NOT piracy". It is a method that our generation uses to express themselves. Remixing, and borrowing from others work has become an integral part of pop culture.

Therefore, we should stop "criminalizing" our youth by condemning any work that uses something not created entirely from scratch.

If anything, all this talk of copyright breaching and piracy is a way of intimidating the public, and scaring them away from the creative marvels and endless possibilities of the internet. If we want more people to participate, intimidation is not going to make anyone want to come out and play.

The law is bullying artists, denying us our access to culture and our ability to partake in the making of it.

If the internet could adopt a single set of creative sharing principles (such as creative commons) we could encourage an online world of exchange purely based on sharing, minus all the legal work.

After all, aren’t computers simply copying machines?

If we are to make the internet as useful a medium as it could possibly be; what becomes clear to me is that we all have to be willing to share.

This Space for Rent

Mitch Joel's talk with our class today served as an important lesson, but also brought all the issues we talked about over the semester into context.

Joel discussed citizen journalism and described the discipline as a frontier waiting to settle and he highlighted the fact that citizen media efforts are only a few years old and they are not really developed. Joel also emphasized the fact that entrepreneurial journalists are competing with mainstream journalist sites, a subject brought up in class and a concern for me.

He however offered solutions, motivation, and encouragement to young journalists like myself. Mitch Joel underlined three important conversations, the internal conversation, the one-to-one conversation, and the one to may conversation; all aimed at illustrating the fact that each individual is their own personal brand.

Joel was passionate, enthusiastic, and expressive (although sometimes he bordered on arrogant) and he advised the class to find the real you, focus on what you love, and empower people through communication.

The media landscape is changing and a new medium is threatening the traditional model of journalsim and the role of reporters. Joel empowered the class to embraces the changes and to use your global voice and unique abilities to contribute to a world full of endless possibilities.

To find out more about Joel, his book, and advice simply visit Google.com!