Much of the debate about paid-for content assumes a fundamental principle that all information on the web should be free to access. So anyone arguing it should be paid for is portrayed as an enemy of freedom. But when the people who produce content argue they should be paid for it, they are not attempting to restrict people's freedoms. They are trying to make a living.
It's this basic point that is often at the root of the spats about 'citizen journalism'. If journalism is what you do for a living, it's not entirely surprising that the notion of people who make their living from doing something else, supplying for free what you get paid for, may not go down well. Of course, the thing about journalism – despite the protestations of many journalists – is that it is not an exclusive profession, and there never has been anything to stop any citizen producing journalism.
Thankfully, the ludicrous discussions that I can remember from about 10 years ago about who should be "allowed" to produce content rarely surface these days. New and accessible means of production may have increased the competition, but it's still the case that if you want to be paid for what you publish you need to produce content that's better than your competitors. Or at least, that should be the case. Because the argument that everything should be free on the web as a point of principle is being used to undermine the value of content.
Optional extra
In many of the 'new' models for the media currently being discussed, the idea of paying for content seems to be something of an optional extra. And the idea of taking responsibility for what is published even more of one. In fact, there is a lot which purports to be new which is in fact very familiar.
In many of the 'new' media models, content producers are invited to 'take a chance'. Send material to a platform, let it be published, and IF any money is made you might get a share back. Often, these new publishing platforms also include terms and conditions that require the individual content producer to take ALL responsibility for publishing. This prompted one contact of mine to ask "Why won't any of these "brave" new startups take responsibility for their own products? I have to be responsible for mine." And that's a fair point.
Of course, producing and selling content carries with it the responsibility to try to ensure that it is accurate and legal, and the individual producer should bear some responsibility. But traditionally, media publishers have been responsible for the material they publish too, and have been known to back their individual content producers when powerful interests attempt to sue them into silence. Seeking to put ALL the responsibility for publishing on the individual tips the balance of power hugely in favour of the rich and powerful. And it may not even be legal, despite the wording of these contracts.
Legal advice
I spoke to Caroline Kean at media lawyers Wiggin. She is one of the UK’s leading authorities on media law, so I asked her whether in law the person or company that owns the platform upon which material is published is still seen to have at least some responsibility for what is published, even if an individual does sign such a contract. She said: "The contract would govern the position between the author and the publisher, so the publisher could seek an indemnity from the author for any losses suffered, but it does not prevent third parties bringing a claim against the publisher, who remains primarily liable (unless they are merely a conduit with no involvement at all in the publishing process)."
So while some publishing platforms may think they are avoiding any responsibility for what they publish, the reality is there is a legal test case waiting to happen. Logic, perhaps a risky concept in law, would suggest that the very fact of being a publisher means some responsibility for what is published is borne.
Copyright
Copyright is another tricky issue. For freelance content providers, copyright is our livelihood, so we want to retain it. But a number of the social publishing sites require contributors to assign them copyright. One told a friend of mine who queried this that copyright was required so the site could sell on material and therefore make money for the site community. In fact, in this case there seemed to be a certain amount of indignation that the site wasn't being trusted to do the right thing. Trouble is, when your livelihood depends on it, trusting that a client is always going to do the right thing isn’t enough. If the intention is to do the right thing, then this should be cemented in place, not left to trust.
Vague concepts seem to be in vogue when it comes to many new media models. I asked one site which contacted me to clarify where the profits I was told I would share in would come from. The answer was, "The profit comes from traditional methods – advertising and syndication, plus we have strategies to motivate public subscribers too – although this is yet to be tested." Er, right. And when I asked about what happens if a writ arrives, I was told the company would be "incorporated in a limited liability structure, so there is no more risk of such occurrences than with any other publisher." It's not clear if this is acknowledgement that risk exists, or a belief that there are no risks with other publishers. And, of course, limited liability protects the company, but not the freelancer.
My favourite response in this area was to a colleague who was told: "While ideally I could provide libel insurance of some kind, at this point, I can't afford it and so I have to legally cover myself."
Same old same old
I suspect I will be accused of cynicism, but it seems to me that much of what presents itself as "new" is in fact the same old story. This may be because of naivety or lack of understanding rather than naked exploitation, but either way the interests of the producers are coming second to those of the owners. And it's not just the media that’s affected.
In the latest issue of Wired, Chris Anderson (he of The Long Tail fame) argues that we are witnessing the start of a "new industrial revolution". He begins "In an age of open-source, custom-fabricated, DIY product design, all you need to counter the world – and to profit – is a brilliant idea." In Anderson's new industrial revolution, ideas are crowdsourced, prototypes produced and tested with the aid of relatively inexpensive production tools, and "anyone with an idea and a little expertise can set assembly lines in China into motion with nothing more than some keystrokes on their laptop."
Or, to put it another way, use relatively inexpensive and accessible technology to create products based in large part on other people's ideas, produce them cheaply using low-waged labour, make a profit. That sounds a lot like the old industrial revolution to me. And much of what poses as new in the media field sounds like the same old story of drive down pay, minimise risk, maximise profit. I realise that arguing for the interests of producers in an economy geared to the interests of consumers risks attracting flak. But the fact is that only the interests of the owners are served by pretending the old methods are new.
You have to realise that by simply arguing that we need to look at the emperor's state of dress you are just so 'yesterday', perhaps even a part of the problem, even if you are correct, which you are.
Dismissive rejection of 'old media' attitudes is rampant among bloggers, many of whom reject as dinosaurs us old style hacks, who prefer to get out and about and to report facts rather than opinions.
Posted by: Michael Kenward | Mar 01, 2010 at 14:07