http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/jun/07/james-murdoch-british-library
James Murdoch criticises the British Library's plans to digitise old newspapers. And I quote: "public sector interest is to distribute content for near zero cost – harming the market in so doing ..."
I think the WMF should be getting a hearing in this debate. Every page of free content we post does clearly remove someone else's chance to profit from selling that content. I want to hear the argument that the Murdoch line is nothing better than an attempt to justify "enclosing the commons" simply because someone can then profit. You have to look at whose land it was in the first place, not whether the result can be monetised.
Charles
On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 5:03 AM, Charles Matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/jun/07/james-murdoch-british-library
James Murdoch criticises the British Library's plans to digitise old newspapers. And I quote: "public sector interest is to distribute content for near zero cost – harming the market in so doing ..."
I think the WMF should be getting a hearing in this debate. Every page of free content we post does clearly remove someone else's chance to profit from selling that content.
It's not all that clear that it removes anyone's chance to profit. Most of these long-tail 'markets' are rate limited by how hard it is to find the material in question, or to identify subsets of it that are popular. Having a digital PD copy that's easy for fans to find, categorize, remix, and collate into other works can make publishing easier.
I want to hear the argument that the Murdoch line is nothing better than an attempt to justify "enclosing the commons" simply because someone can then profit. You have to look at whose land it was in the first place, not whether the result can be monetised.
Hear, hear.
SJ