Comments on: Flight Paths http://grandtextauto.org/2007/12/11/flight-paths/ A group blog about computer narrative, games, poetry, and art. Thu, 30 Sep 2010 22:43:57 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.2 By: scott http://grandtextauto.org/2007/12/11/flight-paths/comment-page-1/#comment-156904 scott Tue, 11 Dec 2007 19:43:13 +0000 http://grandtextauto.org/2007/12/11/flight-paths/#comment-156904 I'll be interested to see where the project goes, though I share the same reservations. I'm currently working on a project that will use some creative commons licensed photos (actually a lot of them), and while I could conceive of offshoots of the project might involve things people pay for (for example, a print book that did not include the photos), I intend to publish the project itself under the same license by which I'm acquiring the photos. Having said that, I can understand the impulse to create experiments with electronic literature that people actually pay for. I tend myself to view the opportunity to participate in the creation of a literary culture that is both legitimate and based on a gift economy as outweighing the benefits of getting paid for my electronic writing projects in conventional ways. I think the key in this case is that the terms of contributing to the network novel are clear at the outset. I’ll be interested to see where the project goes, though I share the same reservations. I’m currently working on a project that will use some creative commons licensed photos (actually a lot of them), and while I could conceive of offshoots of the project might involve things people pay for (for example, a print book that did not include the photos), I intend to publish the project itself under the same license by which I’m acquiring the photos. Having said that, I can understand the impulse to create experiments with electronic literature that people actually pay for. I tend myself to view the opportunity to participate in the creation of a literary culture that is both legitimate and based on a gift economy as outweighing the benefits of getting paid for my electronic writing projects in conventional ways. I think the key in this case is that the terms of contributing to the network novel are clear at the outset.

]]> By: Mark http://grandtextauto.org/2007/12/11/flight-paths/comment-page-1/#comment-156903 Mark Tue, 11 Dec 2007 19:40:26 +0000 http://grandtextauto.org/2007/12/11/flight-paths/#comment-156903 IMDB for some reason has managed to pull off the trick of not pissing everyone off despite basically taking their users' contributions and locking them up, maybe because most people just use it for the website, which remains free and not too cluttered. The CDDB cd-tracklisting database is a canonical example of one that went the other way: they pissed off so many people that they spawned an <a HREF="http://www.freedb.org/" rel="nofollow">alternative</a>, and later <a HREF="http://musicbrainz.org/" rel="nofollow">another one</a>. I've written about this <a HREF="http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=382067&cid=21604257" rel="nofollow">elsewhere</a> and think it's not much of a gray area: if a company is "CrowdSourcing" (to use the jargon of the day) but not releasing the results under a license that meets the <a HREF="http://freedomdefined.org/" rel="nofollow">definition of free cultural works</a>, then people should not participate for free. I have no problems with proprietary business models, but companies who follow them should be prepared to pay others just as they expect to be paid... not expect others to do their work for free. IMDB for some reason has managed to pull off the trick of not pissing everyone off despite basically taking their users’ contributions and locking them up, maybe because most people just use it for the website, which remains free and not too cluttered. The CDDB cd-tracklisting database is a canonical example of one that went the other way: they pissed off so many people that they spawned an alternative, and later another one.

I’ve written about this elsewhere and think it’s not much of a gray area: if a company is “CrowdSourcing” (to use the jargon of the day) but not releasing the results under a license that meets the definition of free cultural works, then people should not participate for free. I have no problems with proprietary business models, but companies who follow them should be prepared to pay others just as they expect to be paid… not expect others to do their work for free.

]]> By: nick http://grandtextauto.org/2007/12/11/flight-paths/comment-page-1/#comment-156894 nick Tue, 11 Dec 2007 19:22:07 +0000 http://grandtextauto.org/2007/12/11/flight-paths/#comment-156894 There have been cases in the past in which unpaid volunteers have built, for instance, <a href="http://greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=001ghj" rel="nofollow">the Internet Movie Database,</a> only to see their work purchased by Amazon.com and made part of a commercial, retail site. I agree with Noah that this is a serious issue for cooperative ventures online. Knowing that my contributions will be part of a freely available collective work is important to me, and would be a requirement for my participation in a large-scale project of this sort. Whatever the problems with Wikipedia, they seem to me to have gotten this right. There have been cases in the past in which unpaid volunteers have built, for instance, the Internet Movie Database, only to see their work purchased by Amazon.com and made part of a commercial, retail site. I agree with Noah that this is a serious issue for cooperative ventures online. Knowing that my contributions will be part of a freely available collective work is important to me, and would be a requirement for my participation in a large-scale project of this sort. Whatever the problems with Wikipedia, they seem to me to have gotten this right.

]]> By: Kate Pullinger http://grandtextauto.org/2007/12/11/flight-paths/comment-page-1/#comment-156855 Kate Pullinger Tue, 11 Dec 2007 17:10:29 +0000 http://grandtextauto.org/2007/12/11/flight-paths/#comment-156855 This is not what we intend! If the text is confusing, we'll have another look at it. But thankfully we are not Wikipedia! This is not what we intend! If the text is confusing, we’ll have another look at it. But thankfully we are not Wikipedia!

]]> By: noah http://grandtextauto.org/2007/12/11/flight-paths/comment-page-1/#comment-156823 noah Tue, 11 Dec 2007 14:58:20 +0000 http://grandtextauto.org/2007/12/11/flight-paths/#comment-156823 Kate, thanks for dropping by! I think the problem with the two positions is that one has the potential to cancel out the other. I wouldn't contribute to Wikipedia for free if they were keeping their options open for denying free access to my work in the future. Unfortunately, the same goes for Flight Paths. Kate, thanks for dropping by!

I think the problem with the two positions is that one has the potential to cancel out the other. I wouldn’t contribute to Wikipedia for free if they were keeping their options open for denying free access to my work in the future. Unfortunately, the same goes for Flight Paths.

]]> By: Kate Pullinger http://grandtextauto.org/2007/12/11/flight-paths/comment-page-1/#comment-156820 Kate Pullinger Tue, 11 Dec 2007 14:49:36 +0000 http://grandtextauto.org/2007/12/11/flight-paths/#comment-156820 I see the post on monetisation does say 'charging for content'... well, like I said, we want to keep all doors open... I see the post on monetisation does say ‘charging for content’… well, like I said, we want to keep all doors open…

]]> By: Kate Pullinger http://grandtextauto.org/2007/12/11/flight-paths/comment-page-1/#comment-156819 Kate Pullinger Tue, 11 Dec 2007 14:45:33 +0000 http://grandtextauto.org/2007/12/11/flight-paths/#comment-156819 Hi - Yes, I know what you mean, this might seem oxymoronic, or even underhand. However, we wanted to keep all doors open to all possibilities, not knowing where this project might lead. I don't foresee actually 'charging for content' (did we say that?!) but I am interested in thinking about ways that a project like this could, potentially, generate income. This iteration of the project is funded by Arts Council England, London, so we are not under pressure to generate income yet, but this has become more of an imperative for Chris and I with other digital fiction projects. But thanks for your interest, and thanks for mentioning us on your site. Cheers! Kate Hi – Yes, I know what you mean, this might seem oxymoronic, or even underhand. However, we wanted to keep all doors open to all possibilities, not knowing where this project might lead. I don’t foresee actually ‘charging for content’ (did we say that?!) but I am interested in thinking about ways that a project like this could, potentially, generate income. This iteration of the project is funded by Arts Council England, London, so we are not under pressure to generate income yet, but this has become more of an imperative for Chris and I with other digital fiction projects. But thanks for your interest, and thanks for mentioning us on your site. Cheers! Kate

]]>