original site: http://www.goodcopybadcopy.net/
Archive for October, 2008
Tony Scott is spilling his knowledge on this topic. Working for BBC he is developing bbc.co.uk/music/beta, where they make good use of “semantically meaningful links”, which make other BBC sites more valuable, but this also goes for the global network, thus the public value is regarding society at large:
By joining BBC data, in this fashion, with the rest of the web the Network Effect is magnified yet further. That does benefit to the BBC, but it also benefits the web at large and that is important. The BBC has a role that transcends its business needs – it can help create public value around its content for others to benefit from (assuming, of course, there remains one, non-discriminatory, free and open internet).
His co-worker Nick Reynolds takes it a bit further and spurs a debate on the BBCs six goals, when he aligns them with the power of the (semantic) link:
In the old world of television the “mixed schedule” was one of the ways the BBC delivered its public purposes. The thinking went (and I summarise crudely) “If we put Panorama next to Eastenders then some people might watch both”.
I don’t think the mixed schedule is dead. But in an on demand world where people can just watch Eastenders whenever or wherever they like it’s clear the BBC needs some new methods of bringing people wonderful things they didn’t know they liked or needed.
And on the internet the method is clearly the link.
Let’s take a look at a couple of those public purposes again:
(How does citizenship get encouraged – surely by sharing? A citizen has a stake, a link to other citizens?)
(Sounds like linking to me)
It might become intangible, but the direction seems somehow valid.
On public service media supporting/benefiting of open source communities Jemima Kiss writes on BBC and their possibilities of open source activities). BBCs has done this with Dirac.
The strategic choice is much aligned with the one of Googles and their new open source browser Chrome. On this page of their explanation of why it is open source change “internet” to “society”. Why open source? Cause competition is good!
It’s been a big year for Creative Commons (CC). The community, the Commons, and CC as an organization have all grown significantly. The Commons is thriving and openness is closer to becoming a standard. The Commons has helped inspire and enable a digital revolution. Open content is leveling the playing field globally — innovation is exploding.
The importance of openness is evident, and more and more people are able to innovate because of access to open information. There are others, however, who are working very hard to put digital locks on this free public resource. As more information becomes digital and is born digital, it is imperative that the Commons and its community grows apace, otherwise the Commons runs the risk of stagnation and restriction — the antithesis of innovation. CC is dedicated to making sure this doesn’t happen, but in order to do that we need your help.
As of Wednesday, October 15th, CC has officially launched its 2008 annual campaign. This campaign is not only about raising money — though that is a part of it (with a goal of $500,000) — but about rallying the community. We need you to take action — join us and help us Build the Commons. The Commons is only as strong as the community behind it, and only by working together can we build a Commons that withstands the challenges of this generation and those to come. You can help in the following ways:
• Use CC licensed works and CC license your own work
• Educate others about the value of the CC approach to openness and access
• Join the CC Network
The livelihood of the Commons relies upon community members like you — the builders, users, and supporters of the open web. That’s why we’re asking you to join the CC Network — a formalized Creative Commons community you can join for as little as $50 ($25 for students). When you join, you will receive your own profile page, where you can list your licensed works, a button for you to post on your work that will help authenticate your authorship, and a variety of other benefits.
By joining the CC Network, you will be showing the world your commitment to building the Commons — a vital public resource in this digital age. You will be contributing to our ongoing effort to strengthen the Commons by pulling together the fractured knowledge sources through standardized language, licenses, and metadata. Perhaps most importantly, you will play a central role in helping to sustain the CC infrastructure, enabling us to continue our work maintaining and improving the existing tools and resources that millions of people use and rely upon.
We cannot do this alone — we need your help. To learn more about the Build the Commons Campaign and to join us, please visit:
If you have any questions, please don’t hesitate to contact our Development Manager, Melissa Reeder, at xx.
171 2nd Street Suite 300
San Francisco, CA 94105
Jeg er Peter og medlem af facebookgruppen imod licens.
Jeg er kokkeelev og arbejder 11-timers vagter af gangen, derudover sover jeg meget… Når jeg så har afspadseringsdage følger jeg mit fodboldhold på hjemmebane og udebane i Jylland, derudover går jeg til styrketræning 2 timer dagligt.
Når jeg så endelig finder tid til at se tv er DR1 og DR2 ikke noget jeg gider at se på… Deres underholdningsprogrammer om fredagen og lørdagen finder jeg kedelige samt programmer som Hammerslag og Kender du typen, og deres politiske debatudsendelse – og alle de der danske serier på 24 afsnit interesser mig heller ikke…
Derfor har jeg valgt, for ikke at være “sortseer”, at ikke installere kanalerne på mit tv. Deres radioprogrammer spiller ikke det musik jeg kan lide at høre, så det er også udelukket… Så HVORFOR skal JEG så betale for en service, som jeg ikke bruger, eller har bedt om… Vi snakker om 185 kr. om mdr. og det er mange penge på længere sigt for en ung på 22 år. Studerende…
PS ser frem til et spændende svar… 🙂
Jeg er yderst enig med dig. Jeg synes bestemt heller ikke at studerende – ej heller pensionister – bør betale samme beløb som normalt arbejdende danskere. Lad de bredeste skuldre bære det tungeste åg. Jeg synes dog bestemt stadig, det er rigtig gode ting vi får fra DR, TV 2 regionerne, TV 3 (deres seneste dramaproduktion er betalt af licenspenge) og TV 2 (som licenspengene stadig er med til at sørge for at de overholder deres public servicekrav), og lad mig fortælle dig hvorfor.
Du spørger hvorfor du skal betale for en service, som du ikke bruger, eller har bedt om. Hvad giver licenspengene egentlig dig tilbage?
Som individ, siger du, du ikke finder interesse i det, der bliver leveret. Men som individ drager du også personligt nytte af, at samfundet bredt set er velinformeret, kulturelt udfordret og har fællesting, de kan snakke om i hverdagssituationen.
Lad mig tage det sidste først, for det argument kan lyde mest uanstændigt. Men det at to veninder i skolen kan snakke om Talent 2008 (DRs underholdningsprogram fredag aften); det at Moster eller en endnufjernere slægtning kan snakke med samme pige om Talent 2008; og det at indholdet i samtalen evt kan handle om spastikeren (dvs. et tabuemne) er altsammen med til (på forskellige intensivt niveau) at binde vores samfund sammen. Vores sammenhængskraft bliver simpelthen stærkere.
At vores kultur helst skal blive udfordret, tror jeg alle vil være enige i. En kultur, der lukker sig om egne værdier og benægter at andre kan have “rigtigere” måder at gøre det på, er en samfundskultur, der står i stampe. Hvormeget man så skal gøre køb på demokrati og frihed (hvad end det er) kan man så altid diskutere. At udfordre sig selv kulturelt burde være en menneskeret. Derfor ser jeg (og heldigvis flere andre i samme samfund) filmprogrammet Premiere, når “almindelige folk” vurderer værkerne og desuden også Jes Stein Pedersens Deadline 2. sektion, når han diskuterer fortolkningen af Franz Kafkas forfatterskab.
Også du som individ drager fordel af et samfund, hvor majoriteten er velinformeret gennem objektive og flere forskellige nyhedskilder. Der skal være råd og tid til research, så statsmagten og andre, der skulle få lyst til at skabe forkerte forestillinger i samfundet (som f.eks. om masseødelæggelsesvåben) ikke får succes med deres folkforædderiske ærinde.
Så som jeg håber du kan anerkende, Peter, så er det ikke kun dig som forbruger, der drager nytte af public service broadcasting, men du som borger, der får ganske meget ud af det. (se også denne forklaring om “den brede public service”)
Når det er sagt, så synes jeg også dit forbrugersyn er yderst fair. Her håber jeg kun at det nye digitale sendenet vil kunne fostre flere temakanaler, som eventuelt kan have interesse. Ellers venter jeg også i spænding på det bilprogram som DR (eller en fællesinternetkanal for TV 2 Regionerne) fint kunne smække op. Men lad mig spørge dig om dette, 22-årige studerende og til tider vægtløftende unge mand. Lyttede du ikke til De Sorte Spejdere, da du stadig havde adgang til radiokanalerne? Lyttede du ikke Monkey Business? I dag kan du se Casper og Mandrilaftalen eller Tæskeholdet på dr.dk/bonanza eller hvad med spillet Superliga, Yallarup Streetfighter, Bræk i garnet eller Dash’n’Crash på dr.dk/spil?
Du behøver ikke svare på hele denne remse, pointen er blot at med nye digitale medier er meget muligt, og hvis ikke der er noget til dig, så synes jeg du skal henvende dig til Brugerens Redaktør, Jacob Mollerup, for der skal også været noget for dig. DR er folkets, og DR skal lytte til hvad vi siger.
Ser frem til dit svar.
Niels Christian Nielsen
What is the most important question that we western people should ask ourselves in this era?
Here I remain a traditional Marxist. I am fully aware of the big fiasco, what my friend Alain Badiou calls the obscure disaster, that is to say the radical failure of , lets call it, the communist experiment. But nonetheless I think the problem remains. Which problem? The Fukuyama-problem. What do I mean by this? It is easy to make fun of Fukuyama – ‘Uh that naive guy, who thought history is over’, but aren’t practically all of us, even the large majority of lefties, aren’t we all the fact of Fukuyamist? That is to say, we basically accept the idea that capitalism and democracy the way we understand it, the liberal democracy, are here to stay. So that you don’t challenge his most fundamental framework. All you can consider is how to make the system a little bit better: More tolerance, less racism, more welfare state, or whatever.
So you know In the same way, when I was young, as I remember, we were often talking about we want socialism with a human face, it is as if today we want global capitalism with a human face. So the problem for me is, is this enough or not? That is to say, the problem that we are confronting today are they of this kind that, at least in the long term, it is possible to resolve them or at least to contain them at a tolerable level within the capitalist frame, or, do we need more radical measures.
What is wrong with capitalist modernity as we experience it in, lets say, western Europe?
Again, you addressed an implication. You said, capitalist modernity, global capitalism, then you said western European. The problem for me is that capitalism today is no longer specifically Western. We can not play this leftist, multicultural where capitalism is imperialist, eurocentric and so on. Isn’t clear that today capitalism is truly global? By this i mean, it is not any longer even rooted in a certain civilization. It is a kind of neutral global machine, which can function here or there. We can have capitalism in protestant country, catholic country, buddhist country, ok, there are some problems with Islam maybe, but basically it is a global machine. So where is the problem here? On of the problems is that: ‘Till know, one of the relatively convincing arguments for capitalism was that – however in the short term it might be pushed or helped by a little bit of terror, dictatorship, as in Chile or South Korea – nonetheless in the long term it demands democracy, it cannot survive, it brings democracy. I wonder what is now going on in China, but not only in China, what we obscurely refer to as the so called Asian values. Capitalism is not something new. I think it too optimistic to think that sooner or later China will become democratic, what if China, but also Singapore and other, has truly invented something new. A capitalism which is maybe even more dynamic in the sense of mobilizing peoples productivity than our western capitalism, but which nonetheless doesn’t need western style democracy. So this already makes it problematic, and we should insist more and more that capitalism today is truly global, it is no longer something which is rooted in western society. One should give to the devil what belongs to the devil. Let me be frank, probably never in the history of humanity have comparatively such a large number of people lived in such relatively comfortable welfare, but also with the degree of freedom, as did at least the majority of Europe after second world war. So the problem is not: is this good or bad? The problem is, can it go on indefinitely. I claim, it cannot.
First, the way it is in western Europe…lets call it benevolently, like the one we spoke about really existing socialism. Or really existing capitalism, as we know it in Western Europe, where there is nothing radically bad with it, I only think, and we see this with all this pressures to dismantle the welfare state, that in the long term it cannot survive.
Considering the threats we are facing today, either industrial catastrophes, a new Chernobyl or melting of the polar ice, global warming. We will have to invent, reinvent, rehabilitate the concept of large collective actions, everybody knows this
What do you mean by large collective decisions?
I mean the following, what became totally discredited after 1990’s was the idea of that a large group, the whole state nation makes a conscious decision and defends it, the idea was that it was the first step towards totalitarian state. Every idea of a more centralized, radical systemic measure, was dismissed as […] totalitarian. I think we will have to return to it.
Can you give me an example of a necessary radical systemic decision?
It is clear that without some kind of a international legislation or measures, which will then really be imposed with appropriate punishments, it will not be possible even to confront properly the ecological effect.
Lets turn to Europe in the light of the Danish Muhammad drawings [the cartoon crises]…
If it doesnt feel cool, it is not cool
yell Game Master
Josef Trappel, University of Zurich, Switzerland, in Convergence Vol 14(3): 313–32 (abstract), based on empirical research done in Austria, Germany and Schwitzerland.
“There are three dominant types of online media owners: mass media organizations, telecommunication operators and internet service providers (ISP). All three publish news and information on the internet (online media) (…) New or alternative providers of online media are rare. (…)
Contrary to the general assumption that barriers to market entry are generally lower for online media than for other mass media the analysis has shown that established media organizations and companies dominate online media markets. (…)
It can be concluded that online media have so far contributed little to enhance ownership and content diversity. (…)
Online media produced by public service broadcasters play an important role in counterbalancing dominant trends such as concentration and commercialization. Attempts to limit PSB activities to radio and broadcasting would eliminate these online voices to the detriment of competition in quality.”
Thanks for the hint Anders.