So who pays for 'content' then?

Here's a really good post by Will Davies about paying for content, copyright and the urge to use some form of 'protectionism.'

"I wonder too if those on the other side of the argument, represented by the Open Rights Group, are also a little inconsistent in their politics. Defending the public domain is all very well, but may be increasingly incompatible with defending the public sphere. ORG tend to be opposed to alternative ways of funding media content, such as Phorm, which is admirable. But this only means that paying for stuff becomes more important for upholding our 'digital rights', not less."

Concluding...

"But how might industrial-knowledge models develop/survive which are neither pig-headedly state-protected nor built on the commodification of 'free' (consumer-tracking, advertising etc)? That to me is the highest priority. I have a curmudgeonly hunch that, for those of us committed to financially viable, culturally unpolluted artefacts and events in the future, we may have to side-step both the state and Google and simply pay a fair price for stuff."

This is not 'other people's problem' - it seems to be the big issue, and all I ever see is a list of what most lobbies are against.

technorati tags:
political news | news | world news
More at: News 2 Cromley