Showing posts with label open source. Show all posts
Showing posts with label open source. Show all posts

Monday, April 2, 2012

Week 12: Writers and Publishing


What does it mean to publish in the web 2.0 world?
Some key terms we will discuss during this  session:
  • digital storytelling
  • affordances
  • new media platforms
  • audience
  • open source
  • print on demand
  • self-publishing
  • e-readers

Open Publishing
When thinking of “open publishing” the first things to probably springs to mind are people like Lawrence Lessig, Cory Doctorow and Tom Reynolds who have all persuaded their publisher to allow them to release electronic versions of their books at the same time as the physical dead-tree version. (More on those three later.) In all cases, this seems to have been to the benefit of the book, but to give your book away at the same time as you put it up for sale is a bit of a leap of faith. Why would you take that risk? It’s far from being a proven economic or promotional strategy.
I think Chris Saad gets to the heart of this very quickly, when he asks, Am I being heard? He says there is:
“A fundamental human need that I think podcasting, blogging and all forms of social/citizen journalism speaks to… the need to be heard. People just want to feel connected and understood.”
~http://www.touchstonelive.com/blog/2006/04/am-i-being-heard.html
At a very basic level, Larry, Cory and Tom share in common with me, you, and pretty much everyone else a desire to be heard, to be read, to have the things that we’ve laboured over appreciated.
Chris Anderson, editor of Wired and author of The Long Tail, also confesses that he just wants to be heard (although he doesn’t seem to have published an ebook version of his book):
Anderson, however, tangles up a few threads in his piece, the first is a discussion of equivalence: ebooks are assumed not to be equivalent to books; digital audiobooks are assumed to be equivalent to CDs.
Reading an ebook isn’t currently a great experience (the iPad however might be the game-changer). Specialised e-book readers are expensive, and most people don’t like reading on-screen, so the ebook is seen as not equivalent for a paper book, i.e. people are more likely to go and buy the paper version if they like the ebook. Thus it is beneficial to release a free ebook so that you can reach as wide an audience as possible, as you stand a good chance of converting ebook downloads to paper book sales.
Conversely, it doesn’t really matter whether you have an unlawfully downloaded copy of an audiobook, or the real thing, whether bought as a download or as a CD, because either way you are probably going to listen to it on your iPod, computer or other MP3 playing device. The assumption is that giving away ebooks encourages sales of paper books, but giving away audiobooks, or allowing unauthorised downloads, will cannibalise the sales of the legitimate ebook. This is exactly the same logic as used by the RIAA and BPI for suing file-sharers, and the rest of the music industry for attempting to slap DRM onto everything in sight. It’s a very compelling and sensible looking argument, but it’s based on unproven assumptions behind the motivations of the downloader/buyer.
Right now, there are more questions than answers. The publishing industry is being pushed into experimentation in a way that the music and movie industries are not (one example is  the Million Penguins wiki-novel). Authors are forcing publishers to do things that might seem counterintuitive, and we’re slowly starting to figure out, through trial and error, what all this means. Still lots to find out, though, about this open publishing idea.
Update Nov. 2010: Lawrence Lessig responds to the “outrage” about his talk on a panel at Vimeo's Festival+Awards. The title of the panel was "Know your digital rights." See Lessig’s response in the 17th Nov. 2010 Huffington Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lawrence-lessig/the-imbecile-moron-respon_b_764725.html



Thursday, March 15, 2012

The New Open Source Economics - Assignment 2, Text 2

In the TED Talk The New Open Source Economics, Yochai Benkler, Berkman Professor of Entrepreneurial Legal Studies at Harvard, contrasts earlier economic models with the economic model emerging in this era of collaborative production. In previous eras, the capital required to produce goods created a division between producers and consumers. Benkler argues that this model is outdated in today's information society, in which most members of society possess the basic capital needed to be a producer: a connected computer. He offers examples of amateurs who analyze NASA images, open source programmers, and Wikipedia editors, all of whom contribute their time and skills for a variety of rewards - all of which are non-monetary. Benkler argues that this kind of collaborative production - which involves decentralized networks and non-monetary reward - occupies a new economic niche.

Benkler points out that this is the first time in history that work for non-monetary reward is having a major economic impact, as seen in the recording, software, and communication industries. He raises the concern that this new model is threatening to corporations which rely on existing economic models, and that those threatened will seek means to restrict the tools of collaborative production. Benkler's prediction can be seen borne out to some degree in the efforts to pass the SOPA and PIPA bills in the US. Participatory media sites Wikipedia and Reddit were among those who played a pivotal role in having the bills halted in Congress (Mail Online, 2012). This suggests to me that the new economic model Benkler describes has reached critical mass: participatory media are now so valued that society recognizes the need to protect the tools of collaborative production.

Delicious stack for the three texts I've chosen.

References

Benkler, Y. (2008). Yochai Benkler: The New Open Source Economics.
[Video file]. Retrieved from: http://www.ted.com/talks/yochai_benkler_on_the_new_open_source_economics.html

Mail Online. (2012). Wikipedia protest hits home: U.S. senators withdraw support for anti-piracy bills as 4.5 million sign petition. Mail Online. Retrieved from: