CC Talks With
You may have read this Featured Commoner’s technology columns in the San Jose Mercury Sun News or on Sillicon Valley.com. Dan Gillmor has been writing about technology, business, and policy for as long as such a beat has existed. His new book, We the Media: Grassroots Journalism by the People, for the People, tells the shift of how grassroots journalism will dethrone the Big Media monopoly on news. The book is licensed under a Creative Commons attribution, non-commercial, share-alike license. The book is now in stores and available for download.
Creative Commons: There’s a nice quote early in your book that sums up much of your argument. “The news is what we make of it, in more ways than one.” Could you expand on that?
Dan Gillmor: There are various ways to “make the news,” but they’re starting to blend. In the traditional sense it works this way: You can make news by doing something extraordinary (or ordinary, if you’re a celebrity or politician), or by doing something evil or especially good. PR and marketing people help. We in the journalism business make the news every day, every hour, by reporting what we learn; newspapers are, in part, a manufacturing business. And “consumers” of news can make their own news reports by sifting through the growing variety of information now available to them.
Now, all of those news constituencies are starting to bleed into each other. The former audience is joining the journalism process, as is the Newsmaker who talks over our heads to the audience more directly via blogs and other new tools. The journalist has to pay much closer attention to it all, and must listen as much as lecture.
featured Dan Gillmor work
We The Media
Share Alike 2.0
CC: Your arguments about democratized media pivot on the role of technology, particularly the Internet and blogs. Given this, did you ever have second thoughts about making your argument in traditional book form? Are you or O’Reilly taking steps to make your book “Read-Write” as well?
DG: No second thoughts whatsoever. I love books, which have always been a crucial part of my life since I learned to read. I love the way they feel in my hands, and the places they take me. I hope this particular book will have some shelf life even though the topic is contemporary; and we’ll probably do another edition.
The read-write portion will be in the Safari part of O’Reilly’s business, where people can buy individual chapters and accompanying material. From a non-commercial point of view, moreover, I can’t wait to see the remixes that other people do online.
CC: Why did you decide to license We the Media under a Creative Commons license?
DG: It was an opportunity to live up to the things I’ve been preaching. Creative Commons is offering one of the only alternatives to the stifling and, I believe, dangerous ways of the copyright cartel that is trying to lock everything down.
CC: What was it like to get O’Reilly Media to agree to release the book under the license?
DG: There was not only no resistance, but Tim and his team were delighted to do it. You should ask them why.
CC: What do you expect will happen as a result that wouldn’t have under a traditional “all rights reserved” release?
DG: As noted, I’m looking forward to seeing things that surprise me. I do hope folks will put in the hyperlinks, something I don’t have time to do. And Niall Kennedy has posted an audio of the introduction; perhaps other folks will make audios of other chapters.
CC: Given the new publishing landscape, what advice would you give an aspiring journalist?
DG: This is a tough question, because the business is changing so quickly. I would encourage anyone who wants to be a journalist to be fluent with technology, of course. More importantly, I’d urge him or her to have an insatiable curiosity, an eagerness to listen, a powerful sense of fairness and honor, and a passion for helping people understand the world around them.No Comments »
Widely recognized as an authority on technology and marketing, Doc is co-author of the #1 sales and marketing bestseller The Cluetrain Manifesto, which will be released under a Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication.
Creative Commons: So let’s talk licensing…
Doc Searls: Journalism has an old acronym: MEGO, for “my eyes glaze over.” A mego is any story that’s too important not to run and too dull to interest all but a few. Licensing is one of those topics for me. I glaze at the thought of it — which is an occupational problem, because licensing is a big deal in the Linux community, where I work.
I’m always amazed at how much energy gets spent by Linux weenies talking about licensing, while most people in the business world really doesn’t give a damn. Hey, that’s why they have legal departments.
CC: What do you think might help people to better understand the licensing process?
DS: I think we need to develop a new vernacular understanding of what licensing is. . . . I mean there have always been tacit agreements about what we can and can’t do with stuff — agreements we’ve understood intuitively. Now we need to be much more explicit, because the range of actions that can be taken with our public works is not only much larger, but often committed in digital form, which allows us to be much more specific about the agreements involved.
Anyway, it’s still a boring subject to me, but at least I know why it’s important.
CC: How do you think Creative Commons licenses might help?
DS: I believe there is a crying need for a public conversation about the licensing of artistic works, and for our vocabulary to have the richest and most specific possible bases. That’s why the work Creative Commons does is so important and welcome by attempting to scaffold a new set of commons-native relationships between creators and customers.
CC: And you feel these “commons-native” relationships are fundamental to cyberspace?
DS: Yes. The Net isn’t a distribution pipe; it’s a place. We conceive the Net as a place. Craig Burton calls this place “a new world, built like a sphere comprised of nothing but ends.” Think about “end to end” architecture for a moment. The best way to conceive it, Craig says, is as a hollow sphere. Across the nothingness in the middle we are all zero distance from each other. Each of us is an end. No intermediaries required.
As Monty of Ogg Vorbis put it to me in an Austin bar last spring, “There’s a reason we call it ‘cyberspace, not ‘cyberpipes’.” We go on the Net, not through it.
CC: Who do you think is treating it like a mere distribution pipe?
DS: Well, as we pointed out in Cluetrain, business is thick with the language of shipping. We have something we call “content” that we “load” into a “channel” and “address” for “delivery” to a “consumer” or an “end user.” Even a category as human-oriented as customer support talks about “delivering” services…
That said, the businesses that are most afflicted with pipe-mindedness are the ones that are quickest to call everything “content.” It’s amazing to me that I used to be a writer, and now I’m a “content provider.” Entertainment and publishing are the biggest offenders here, at least in the sense that they see the Net entirely as a plumbing system. The whole notion of a “commons” is anathema to the plumbing construct.
This was the problem with all these dot-com acronyms with a 2 in the middle — B2B, B2C and so on. “To” was the wrong preposition. As Christine Boehlke put it to me once, the correct middle letter should have been W, because in a real marketplace we do business with people not to them. Does anybody ever shake hands and say “Nice doing business to you!”? Because the Net is more fundamentally a place than a pipe, we do business with each other there, not just to each other. Critical difference.
CC: And this can bring about new kinds of relationships between creators and customers?
DS: This demands new kinds of relationships between everybody, and not just the entities we call creators and customers. The relationships don’t need to be personal; they just need to respect the immediacy of everybody involved. That immediacy is what’s native to the Net. It isn’t native to the physical world — except, perhaps, in an old-fashioned bazaar-type marketplace.
So whatever kinds of relationships we have, they’ll be more immediate and direct.
CC: Who has taken Cluetrain to heart thus far?
DS: I know some pretty big companies that have changed their relationships with suppliers and customers radically to take advantage of the Net. These were the guys we heard from right after Cluetrain came out. Companies like GE, Johnson & Johnson, Wal-Mart, Prudential and Nortel Networks. They may not be reacting perfectly, but they are far more realistic and adaptive than the entertainment and broadcast industries. They have long been vested in the industrial mass marketing model, which they have made sure also relies on political and regulatory protection.
CC: In Chapter 4 of Cluetrain, you describe how the Industrial Age served to transform customers into consumers. Is it your opinion that the Internet can be used as a tool to reverse this trend? Or at least go in a more progressive direction?
DS: Yes. The Net undermines the idea that customers are nothing more than consumers with names. Jerry Michalski calls consumers “gullets who live only to gulp products and crap cash.” They are the aphids of the industrial age. They exist only in mass form and they are specific to the conditions of the industries we call mass media, mass marketing, mass distribution, and mass retailing.
These industries don’t need to go away, but they do need to face the facts about the new conditions the Net has introduced to the world.
It’s important to note that these industries distinguish between customers and consumers in ways that are not obvious, even to them. But those distinctions are critically important to understanding why change is so hard.
CC: What are some specific examples of progressive transformation of some key industries that are starting to “get it.”
DS: In commercial broadcasting, for example, customers and consumers are totally different populations. You and I pay nothing for what we hear on our car radios. We’re just consumers. The customers of the stations we hear are the advertisers who buy time.
The same goes for commercial television. Consumers of commercial TV have no economic relationship whatsoever with their local NBC station, with the network, or with the producers of shows. All the “content” is just bait. Chum on the waters. The commercial broadcasting marketplace is a conversation that exists entirely between the media, advertisers and intermediaries such as advertising agencies.
CC: So whether customer or consumer, they’re not involved in the process?
DS: Exactly. The consumers have zero influence, basically, on commercial television because they pay nothing, and don’t have any kind of direct feedback mechanism. And if we put that mechanism in place (as the Net and TiVo threaten to do), guess what happens? The colossal inefficiencies of advertising get exposed. A $100 billion business worldwide is suddenly at risk.
There is negative demand for most TV and radio advertising. It subtracts value for listeners and viewers. That’s why TiVo viewers skip over the ads. TiVo isn’t exactly Net-native, but it could easily be. And eventually, it will be, if its backers let it survive.
CC: And you think that this has alienated broadcasters from their customer/consumer audiences?
DS: Yes. This split between consumers and customers has given broadcasters not only zero feel for its ultimate marketplace — one where its consumers become customers — but zero appetite for it as well. And there is a similar lack of appetite in the entertainment industry, which has used its vast distribution system to distance itself from its ultimate markets, which will live in the commons.
CC: You wrote about how you see free music downloads as good marketing.
DS: Markets are conversations. People will buy, and will support, the stuff they care about. The next step after “markets are conversations” is “markets are relationships.” Creative Commons helps us get to that better than any other effort I know.
CC: So you’re using a Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication for “Cluetrain Manifesto”?
DS: We basically open-sourced the book. Chris Locke hacked the HTML and put it up on his Gonzo Marketing site. Frankly, we did it without thinking specifically about licensing terms — which we might have done if Creative Commons had already been around!No Comments »
Mark Watson is an accomplished programmer and writer of thirteen books on various technical topics. An expert in artificial intelligence and language processing, Watson has advised the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency and is currently developing KnowledgeBooks, an information management tool. Recently, Watson released two books, Practical Artificial Intelligence Programming in Java and Loving Lisp, under the Creative Commons Attribution, No Derivatives, Non-Commercial license. He is drafting a third book, on software design, under the same license.
Watson spoke with us recently about his motivations for licensing his works, what he has gained from the experience, and his thoughts on the Semantic Web.
Creative Commons: What motivated you to publish under a Creative Commons license?
Mark Watson: I liked the idea of using a standard license. I also thought that it was a way to support the good side in copyright, people like Professor Lessig. I feel that the recent extension of copyright for longer terms is not in the public interest. To be blunt, I feel like a few large corporations are buying off Congress, and I don’t like this trend.
I still do write non-free published books, but I also have a desire to give something back, and writing free web books under a Creative Commons license fills that need.
CC: What experiences have made “giving back” important to you?
MW: I receive requests from teachers in non-industrialized countries for permission to reprint part of my published books for their classes. Clearing the rights in these cases is, in general, too costly for my publishers and for people asking permission. I travel a fair amount, and I feel that our world is a small place and we should try to get along. We in the U.S. have got a free ride on many things, and we should seriously count our blessings.
I value the times people have made use of my work. About five years ago, I spoke with a computer science professor in Peru who had copied just a chapter out of one of my books for his class. A few years later, we ended up working together briefly at Intelligenesis [an artificial intelligence corporation]. Small world!
I believe in a gift economy. I believe in a take-what-you-need-and-leave-some-for-others philosophy.
CC: To fund your writing, you offer advertising space in your books and ask your readers for donations. Have your efforts been successful? Has your Creative Commons licensing of these books attracted people them?
MW: I have never sold any advertisements, but I do receive about $40 per month in donations. I like this for two reasons. First, if someone takes the time to send me a few dollars via PayPal, I take that as a compliment. Second, the donations do pay for my bandwidth.
The advertisements that you see in the web books are for a few of my favorite charities; I hope that they get some money as a result of those free advertisements.
CC: Artificial intelligence and natural language processing—in the same spirit as Creative Commons’ RDF metadata—may be helpful in fulfilling the vision of a Semantic Web. Tell us a little about how these tools will do this.
MW: The Semantic Web is a version of the Web that you can communicate with like a person. Using software that can accurately process and understand the information on Web sites, you will be able to ask search engines to retrieve specific facts, rather than pages containing some list of words.
Imagine, for example, that you want to research a company’s financial history before buying stock in it. Rather than telling a search engine to look for key words like “stock” and the company’s name, you could ask the search engine, specifically, who’s on the board of directors, how the stock has been doing, and what the SEC thinks of the company.
The Semantic Web is a bit of a dream at this point in time. There are two interesting aspects to the Semantic Web. First, we need to convince human authors of webpages to take the time to add RDF tags to help identify content, which Creative Commons encourages. Second, we need automatic artificial intelligence and language processing tools that can categorize text, and extract keywords and phrases.
My KnowledgeBooks demo is one example of how this can work. When I spider news sites—I have written permission to do this—I detect human names, place names, Reuters news categories, and key word phrases. I have also tried to build a system that searches by concept.
It is very difficult, in the general sense, to write software to pull meaningful information from arbitrary web sites. Having people help search engines out by putting RDF tags on their sites is a good start.
If and when the Semantic Web becomes more of a reality, I think that we can expect software agents that will enable us to find information that we need quickly. Google is a great tool, but it is still just a keyword search—still just a start.No Comments »