[FM Discuss] the presentation
adam hyde
adam at flossmanuals.net
Thu Aug 27 12:17:38 PDT 2009
On Thu, 2009-08-27 at 13:36 -0500, Anne Gentle wrote:
> So interesting! Just had to jot a few thoughts.
>
> One is, writing manuals anonymously and getting paid up front is
> exactly the model that most corporations follow. Technical writers are
> not attributed authors and are paid prior to producing content. Yet
> still third-party books get more "attention" (unfortunately for this
> argument it's measured by sales). The manual from the company is not
> attributed to anyone but the company via copyright. Writers know this
> and sign up to do their jobs without much thought to it.
just a note : this is also how most publishing companies work. Many
books are partly authored by students working for the author, or tech
editors, or copy writers etc etc etc ... these seldom receive the credit
they deserve, or at least the named author receives a disproportionately
higher credit then these contributors. copyright helps obscure these
contributions as contracts often transfer the copyright of these
contributors via 'work for hire' clauses
adam
>
> So now you've got me thinking. I like that. The importance of
> attribution when it comes to CC licensing. Individual writers still
> don't get attribution when a company licenses the content using CC.
> It's still the company's, I believe.
>
> I think, but I'm not certain, that the tools of the social web change
> this anonymous contributor model for companies. Whether that shift
> changes the manual so that it gets more "attention" or "is more
> helpful" (buzz generation vs. tech support) is what I've got an eye
> on.
>
> Since FLOSS Manuals provides manuals it's a natural idea to ask for
> pay up front from those who request the content. But the motivations
> for those who write the content vary. Some are motivated by
> attribution-(and attention). Altruism is another motivator for
> writers. I think that the struggle lies in the value of the manual
> being either helpful or generating attention.
>
> Anne
> Anne Gentle
> annegentle at justwriteclick.com
> my blog | my book | LinkedIn | del.icio.us | Twitter
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 12:38 PM, adam hyde <adam at flossmanuals.net>
> wrote:
> so...i wanted to write a short essay to get my thoughts clear
> on the
> presentation...so here it is...
>
>
> =====
> Experiences in Open Publishing
> =====
> FLOSS Manuals has been experimenting in models of open
> publishing for
> the last 2 years. In many ways this experiment has been as
> important and
> interesting as our primary goal - to produce free
> documentation about
> free software. While we are still finding our way, on
> reflection I feel
> we have already learnt a great deal about Open Publishing, and
> hence I
> can now present some thoughts on what does and doesnt work.
> This point
> of view is mine, others in FLOSS Manuals may agree or disagree
> to
> varying degrees, also it is important to note that most of
> these
> conclusions are based on andecotal evidence, mainly through my
> experience founding and building FLOSS Manuals, we do not have
> much
> empirical data, nor have we conducted research to investigate
> these
> issues.
>
> First, I would like to state that I think the present
> publishing
> business model relies on three components - the Publisher, the
> Author
> and Copyright. I will leave the audience out of the equation
> for now, as
> I want to show how these three components work in symbiosis to
> support
> the construct we call Publishing.
>
> I also want to say that while these three factors support and
> facilitate
> Publishing as we know it today, they are also the three
> strongest
> barriers to what I would consider an Open Publishing
> environment.
>
> Before I proceed, a little about FLOSS Manuals. We are a
> non-for-profit
> organisation, with about 1200 members across all sites. We
> have 4
> established language sites - English, Finnish, Farsi, and
> Dutch with
> Spanish and French coming up quickly. We also have many
> manuals being
> translated to about 20 other languages on a one-off basis.
>
> We are currently growing at about 3 new members a day. FLOSS
> manuals
> also now has about 50 manuals in English with many of these
> translated
> as mentioned above.
>
> FLOSS Manuals develops the content under the free license most
> associated with free software - the GPL. The GPL is often
> cited by FLOSS
> Manuals new comers as a strange choice but this is married to
> the
> perception, seemingly endorsed by an odd use of language in
> the preamble
> to the license, that the GPL is only for code. However this is
> not the
> case. The GPL is usable for any kind of content, this is not
> just my
> position, but the position of the Free Software Foundation,
> who
> originated the license, and the Software Freedom Law Center
> that
> maintains the license.
>
> We use the CC wrapper to the GPL. In my opinion, Creative
> Commons
> licensing has muddied the waters of free content. They have
> done a
> tremendous job of marketing free culture - and this is
> something they
> should be congratulated for, but they have, in the end, made
> everything
> too complicated. The one good thing they did, in terms of
> licensing, was
> to put a human readable wrapper around the GPL. If they had
> stopped
> there and marketed free culture with this one license, we
> would be now
> living in reuse utopia. We could reuse any kind of content
> easily.
> Instead we have unworkable licenses and a confusing array of
> them. Many
> licenses are not interoperable, and it is almost impossible to
> port data
> between jurisdictions.
>
> CC also places a high value on Attribution, and Attribution is
> culturally akin to the effect of copyright all rights
> reserved. This is
> because Attribution reinforces the perception of ownership,
> and in a
> culture brought up on default 'all rights reserved', it is
> extremely
> hard to free content from the perception that the Authored
> (with a
> capital 'A') content can be reused, changed, adapted etc
> without the
> need to ask etc. The CC emphasis on Attribution does not help
> the free
> reuse and distribution of content.
>
> So, when we look at the current Publishing Model and if we
> were to
> change the licensing to a free license (Creative Commons, for
> example),
> then we have not given birth to an Open Publishing
> environment. Actually
> the only thing that changes is that publisher get a little
> more nervous
> that someone will take their content and run away with it.
> What we have
> is still the Author, the Publisher, the emphasis on ownership
> via
> Attribution and exactly the same business model - sell books.
>
> It is interesting to note, that the sale of books itself
> actually is a
> deterrent to Open Publishing. Placing the return for the
> author and
> publisher at the end of the process (book sales) means
> everyone has a
> vested interest in selling books, not giving them away. There
> are some
> enlightened souls that see free licensing as enabling viral
> marketing
> ie. if my content is taken for free, the word gets out about
> it and this
> in turn eventually creates sales. In many ways, I think this
> is actually
> the underlying message of Creative Commons, and one could
> conjecture
> that this is why CC is the beloved license of new web 2.0
> enterprises
> that recognise the value of the kind marketing CC enables.
>
> However, in the end, I think that the reliance on book sales
> diminishes
> the will to give content away. Seems obvious really.
>
> So...In my opinion, single authored works under free licenses
> behave the
> same way as if under copyright all rights reserved. In my
> experience as
> monitor of all things FM, I see that the manuals that have the
> least
> changes made are those that are authored by identifiable
> single (or
> dual) authors. The community, I would suggest, recognises the
> authorship
> and treads warily around these tombs.
>
> On the otherhand...manuals whose genesis is by community (for
> example,
> the material generated in Book Sprints), have far more
> activity - not
> just from those directly involved in the origin of the
> material, but by
> casual passers by. Hence, I think that the real key to Open
> Publishing
> is not in changing the licensing, but by changing the culture
> of
> Authorship.
>
> Community generated works have a mandate that is considered
> easier to
> assume.
>
> Moving on a little...when we look at this closely we see that
> by
> changing the culture of Authorship we have actually broken the
> entire
> Publishing Model. This is because Authors and Publishers need
> each
> other. Publishers bestow status on an Author when they choose
> them to
> create a work, and Authors, if they do a good job, reinforce
> the
> position of the Publisher as the entity that can bestow
> status. Its a
> star system and it fits into the model nicely since Publishers
> need to
> sell books to make money and the stronger their ability to
> bestow status
> the more marketable their Authors become. Its a circular
> marketing
> ecology.
>
> However, if you take away the identifiable Author you break
> the
> Publishers marketing strategy. Why would a reader, who has
> also brought
> into the star system, trust a work created by 'some people'.
> Our
> reliance on credible sources is not only shallow and week upon
> investigation, but it also hinders the development of free
> culture and
> maintains the status quo.
>
> Established Publishers are going to find this proposition
> extremely
> risk. Not only because the culture of readership means few
> will trust
> 'unnamed sources' (the borg) but also because established
> Publishers
> already have a star system they need to maintain. If a
> Publisher in this
> situation would then publish a 'borg book' then they are
> stating they do
> not believe that named experts are necessary to provide
> quality content.
> If they do this, they undermine their existing stable of
> Authors, and
> simultaneously take a risk with their readership. Risky
> business.
>
> So...lets just say I am right. That the evolution of a Open
> Publishing
> environment means changing the culture of Authorship. What
> does this
> mean for copyright, and what business model does it leave?
>
> Well, its bad news for copyright. This is not because the borg
> cant
> exist with copyright - it can. However, copyright just seems
> to become
> increasingly meaningless. Who do you attribute? The borg? Why?
> How? It
> just seems a little silly to start to enter these
> conversations. If
> someone changes a line do they get the same credit and
> 'protection' as
> someone that wrote 90% of the article, What is a translation?
> Is it a
> derivate work, or does translation, which is largely
> interpretation,
> convey participation in the Authoring process?
>
> The mandate to change that is more easily transfered by
> community
> generated materials, enables the flow of information in so
> many ways it
> is hard to see how Attribution clauses can keep up. Also, we
> find that
> jurisdiction issues come to the fore and content is stopped at
> the
> border by pedants.
>
> Changing the culture of the Author highlights the problems
> with
> copyright. The only solution, is to get rid of this
> unmanageable
> construct.
>
> Lastly, a word on how Open Publishing business models might
> endorse the
> dissolution of copyright. The traditional publishing business
> model is
> protected by copyright. However, this is largely because the
> traditional
> model relies on the sales of books. If you were to remove this
> reliance,
> and I believe for Open Publishing you absolutely have to
> remove this
> reliance, then you free the content. The question is then
> where should
> you generate the revenue? The answer is relatively simple, but
> unestablished. Place it at the beginning of the process. Find
> people and
> organisations that want to pay for content to be developed. If
> you do
> this, then contributors have no vested interest in retarding
> the free
> flow of information. It is in this environment that the 'viral
> marketing' can truly take hold. And once again, the only
> barrier to fast
> and unencumbered marketing (distribution of material) is
> copyright and
> copyright licensing. Take away copyright and you have a
> unencumbered
> Open Publishing business model.
>
> ......
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Adam Hyde
> Founder FLOSS Manuals
> German mobile : + 49 15 2230 54563
> Email : adam at flossmanuals.net
> irc: irc.freenode.net #flossmanuals
>
> "Free manuals for free software"
> http://www.flossmanuals.net/about
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at lists.flossmanuals.net
> http://lists.flossmanuals.net/listinfo.cgi/discuss-flossmanuals.net
>
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at lists.flossmanuals.net
> http://lists.flossmanuals.net/listinfo.cgi/discuss-flossmanuals.net
--
Adam Hyde
Founder FLOSS Manuals
German mobile : + 49 15 2230 54563
Email : adam at flossmanuals.net
irc: irc.freenode.net #flossmanuals
"Free manuals for free software"
http://www.flossmanuals.net/about
More information about the Discuss
mailing list