Jef Spaleta (![[info]](http://p-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} jspaleta) wrote,@ 2008-03-28 11:00:00 |
|
What Exactly is Free Content?
I sort of agree with what Chris has said about Miro... and I sort of completely and utterly disagree at the same time.
We have a real problem in how we apply different definitions of "open" and "free" as it comes to content and code. It's a really painful problem...it keeps me up at night. I personally wouldn't call most of the content Chris describes as "open" nor would I call it "free"... I'd call it "consumable". I'm certainly not allowed to redistribute or reuse the bulk of that material to generate my own content. I doubt that I can legally take wired science video and make use of it beyond simple viewing.
The PBS website's default rules for hosted content certainly doesn't guarantee that sort of "freedom" to be as a user of that content: http://www.pbs.org/aboutsite/aboutsite_
It's the same sort of problem that's lingering over Creative Commons, concerning the confusion over what CC licensed really means. People keep running afoul of the restrictions on use for some CC material because those restrictions restrict freedoms that we've come to expect for "open" and "free" code. The differences between code and content will continue to be confusing, especially if our prominent proponents who straddle both areas of digital works don't make it a point to use terminology consistently.
That being said, it's great that Miro is a platform for getting access to "consumable" content. Its not so great that for the vast majority of that content... you have to be a "consumer" of encumbered software too. In a very fundamental way Miro has punted the hard problem in the space... encumbered video playback. The technology that Miro represents is built assuming that Miro users have legal access to the necessary technology to render the video that Miro organizes. For users of a commercial operating system, that assumption is easily met.. but it's not an assumption based on "openness" or "freeness" as we have come to apply them to software. So again, i have issues with using these words in association with the technology.
But Chris is right, Miro as an organization should be applauded for taking direct action and solving the problem they care about. Regardless of whether or not I think Chris should parse his words more careful concerning "open" and "free", Miro as a group is out there doing work and making things marginally better in a space they care about.
So the question is.. for those of us who care about truly "free" and "open" content, through its entire lifespan from creation to consumption, and then re-use.... what direct actions can we take to make things marginally better?
For those of us in the Fedora project specifically, what are we doing to make "open" content generation feasible? What are we doing to make consumption of "open" content feasible? And just as importantly who among us has the talent and the ability to create compelling and truely "open" video content that can be viewed in applications like Miro?
-jef
I sort of agree with what Chris has said about Miro... and I sort of completely and utterly disagree at the same time.
We have a real problem in how we apply different definitions of "open" and "free" as it comes to content and code. It's a really painful problem...it keeps me up at night. I personally wouldn't call most of the content Chris describes as "open" nor would I call it "free"... I'd call it "consumable". I'm certainly not allowed to redistribute or reuse the bulk of that material to generate my own content. I doubt that I can legally take wired science video and make use of it beyond simple viewing.
The PBS website's default rules for hosted content certainly doesn't guarantee that sort of "freedom" to be as a user of that content: http://www.pbs.org/aboutsite/aboutsite_
It's the same sort of problem that's lingering over Creative Commons, concerning the confusion over what CC licensed really means. People keep running afoul of the restrictions on use for some CC material because those restrictions restrict freedoms that we've come to expect for "open" and "free" code. The differences between code and content will continue to be confusing, especially if our prominent proponents who straddle both areas of digital works don't make it a point to use terminology consistently.
That being said, it's great that Miro is a platform for getting access to "consumable" content. Its not so great that for the vast majority of that content... you have to be a "consumer" of encumbered software too. In a very fundamental way Miro has punted the hard problem in the space... encumbered video playback. The technology that Miro represents is built assuming that Miro users have legal access to the necessary technology to render the video that Miro organizes. For users of a commercial operating system, that assumption is easily met.. but it's not an assumption based on "openness" or "freeness" as we have come to apply them to software. So again, i have issues with using these words in association with the technology.
But Chris is right, Miro as an organization should be applauded for taking direct action and solving the problem they care about. Regardless of whether or not I think Chris should parse his words more careful concerning "open" and "free", Miro as a group is out there doing work and making things marginally better in a space they care about.
So the question is.. for those of us who care about truly "free" and "open" content, through its entire lifespan from creation to consumption, and then re-use.... what direct actions can we take to make things marginally better?
For those of us in the Fedora project specifically, what are we doing to make "open" content generation feasible? What are we doing to make consumption of "open" content feasible? And just as importantly who among us has the talent and the ability to create compelling and truely "open" video content that can be viewed in applications like Miro?
-jef
