Re: [h2o-discuss] Re: Electronic publishing

[John Kwasnik <jkwasnik@jps.net>]

 [from <EricEldred@usa.net>:]

>incidentally, all this discussion about fatbrain
>seems to me extraneous to h2o-discuss.  as the
>slashdot discussion pointed out, fatbrain offers
>no advantage over self-publishing--they do not
>provide any marketing, the most important part
>of getting readers, and their model of publishing
>seems to me a first-generation electronic model,
>simply duplicating the printed page in PDF, not
>using computers in any innovative way.  it is
>only in collecting the money that they excel,
>and here they are charging far too much.

        Further, it seems that discussion about Fatbrain, as a means of
selling one's work, clashes with the ideal of a "digital commons".  

        Not that the issue of how artists support themselves isn't a major
problem.  The U.S. stands out in its lack of grants and stipends, leaving
artists with no choice but to sell their work.

        But right now, my main focus is on how intellectual property builds
an access barrier to most individuals and shoestring-budget groups, who
would like to operate websites .... folks who can't afford to pay
consultants, attorneys, and rights licensing agencies.  And as a democratic
society goes online, it needs to remain democratic, and accessible to all.

        So I'm waiting for that internet startup which will offer a
web-hosting service that obtains blanket rights-licenses covering the
content of all its member sites.  The web-hosting business model is that
most people are actually interested in what other ordinary folks might put
online.  And that this interest means hits for the advertising sold by the
web-hosting service.  The current tradeoff is free server space for the free
labor of site operators.  Why not throw in blanket licensing?  

                                         John Kwasnik