Re: [h2o-discuss] Open content -definition

["Stefan Keel" <sakone@mail4.halcyon.com>]

> I have two questions.  First, is this approach -- putting copyrighted material
> online but retaining the copyright in order to prevent redistribution -- open
> content?

> Jim Johnston

The first of your questions is one that has brought up many discussion
regarding the potential conflicts of open-anything.  It's really quite
difficult to label something as either open, or closed, when there seems to
be a whole spectrum in between.  Bruce Perens offers a good explanation in a
Q and A session over at Slashdot...

http://slashdot.org/interviews/99/07/30/2220240.shtml

...where he offers this idea...
"I have a scale that I use to describe free software participants that runs
from benefactor to symbiote to parasite I'd put Red Hat in the symbiote
position right now, NASA is a benefactor, and the parasites know who they
are :-). "

...or go to http://perens.com/OSD.html for a full copy of the Open Source
Definition.

Obviously this is a view directed more toward businesses and the like, but
it helps shed some light on the issues revolving around whether something is
really open, closed, or somewhere in between.  I can see how this applies,
as I've been collecting as many of the 'open' licenses as I can find in
order to study their differences.  Perens suggests that it's not such a good
idea to continue creating more and more licenses, but that it's a better
idea to use an existing one - therefore lessening the confusion around these
issues.

Inasmuch as I can understand where Perens is coming from on this topic, I
also have come to see so many differing manners in which other things are
opened.  For example, the comic book artist, Dave Sim, creator of Cerebus
the Aardvark has indicated that Cerebus isn't copyrigted, but only because
no one other than Dave Sim could create Cerebus correctly.  At least, that's
my understanding of the aardvark example from my cartoonist friend.  But
that idea has spread into the minds of others.  It was the influence that
had me interested in this list in the first place, and was the drive for my
cartoonist friend to indicate on the inside cover of every issue of his
'printed' comic for the past ten years or so...

"Stanley Stinkbug is Anti-Copyright 1998 and may be freely pirated, quoted,
copied, and distributed.  All Rights Reversed.  However, the
author/publisher would like to be informed at: Stinkbug Studios, c/o Chuck
Baldock (address omitted) This is a work of fiction.  Any similarities
between this book and reality are intentional coincidences.  I'm really
sorry if anyone has a problem with that."

Where, then, would this statement appear within the spectrum of 'open
content.'  Clearly, this is something that this list is intended for, the
understanding of the definition of what 'open content' really is.  Yet, I
fear that just as many other ideas are misconstrued, this one too will
suffer the scrutiny of our individual perceptions.

> Second, is there any economic value to the copyrighted material once
> it is put online?  Obviously in the case of a sound recording or graphic the
> off-line version might be of higher quality, but this would not be true of
> textual material.

My only comment on this second question revolves around the idea of what's
available online currently.  One can buy a book from Amazon, and therefore
the publicity behind that book will offer more sales, thus enhancing one's
coffer.  The more discussions that about regarding some product should offer
more attention to it, and since the Web is THE next big thing, then that
attention will likely carry over to other forms of media.  I once saw the
hamsterdance.com site discussed on the local news and suggested as a fun
place to visit.  Indeed, it offers me a chuckle when I'm down.  ;)

Here's another example...
Suppose I write an excellent essay, and it receives enormous attention.  My
value as a writer just went up slightly.  Suppose I write five more essays,
and every one receives the same attention.  Again, my value increases, but
to this point that I can offer a new book in printed form that I can sell or
have sold and get royalties from.  The original six essays were all
published online, with the little blurb at the bottom of the page that
indicated "Copyrigted Sak, blah, blah, blah."  The book is published in
printed form - either way, either product is subject to being stolen.
Whether someone wants to just copy and paste the text of my essays from my
site, or take the printed book down to their local Kinko's and labor through
it on a scanner.  The issue of quality, in economic value, in my view, is
dependent on the relevant quality of the production.  Imagine my economic
value if the first six essays that I published online sucked.

Hopefully I was able to understand your questions.

Thanks,

Sak.