You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘legitimacy’ tag.

Here’s an interesting dilemma about the Internet:

Inventions are about the idea and the sale – someone makes a new product or process and wants two things, recognition for the idea but also some profit from the sale of the idea.

On the Internet, in its ideal form at least, an idea is meant to be freely shared – blogs represent hours and hours of (mostly) free published content, open source software abounds, MP3s make their way onto some sharing site or another, and memes are effective because they are (presumably) good enough ideas to send around.

What about the sale of Internet-based ideas?

So far the results have been mixed.  Apple’s iTunes seems to flourish, but that’s less an idea than it is a different type of product, a commodity to be sold.  Newspapers have been discussing paid subscriptions and what those might look like, and some (WSJ) have already done it, but again the line between commodity and pure idea are not clear.  Some blogs and podcasts require paid subscription, but more often they rely on advertising revenue or other sponsorship.  Wikipedia works in part because it is completely free, relying only on (hefty) donations to keep the operation going.  Selling something (or rather, not a thing, but an idea) online may be seen as selling out.

Where it really shows up, it seems, is in the purchase of websites or other content by a large (usually corporate) entity.  On the one hand, an Internet entrepreneur wants their idea to pay off.  On the other hand, deals like the AOL acquisition of the Huffington Post happen, and onlookers squirm.  What are they really paying for?  How will that affect what’s posted?  (In the case of HuffPo, the general theme of the content is more or less already expected, but the question of proper influence arises nonetheless.)

We seem ambivalent about payment transactions for ideas in what is supposed to be a free and open forum.  But the longer-lived culture of entrepreneurial invention reminds us that we can’t pay the rent with ideas alone.  Can Internet culture support two forms of currency?  Does corporate sponsorship or pay-to-play content de-legitimize an idea (or its source) in an online forum?

(That’ll be 63 cents, please!  PayPal accepted.)

Update:  I was thinking this morning (Saturday) that this post is a bit of a ramble.  And I should have incorporated a piece on Net Neutrality, perhaps a tangent but certainly directly related to the presence of for-profit corporations (or any other entity with an agenda) on the Internet.

And perhaps one important part of online ideas vs. inventions for sale is the concept of the commons versus a scarce material resource.  Unlike the grassy field example, however, the online commons is not at all diminished by more people accessing or making a copy of the information; Wikimedia Commons is an example of this.  You can point out that digital information tends to degrade with more copies, but this is not a function of more people accessing it, only it being copied more times.  And of course server space and electricity are the scarce material resources on which the information depends, but the trend has been more and cheaper space, not less.

Thus it is more difficult to enforce ownership over an idea or online object, because unlike a produced item it can be copied and/or transformed with almost no effort.  While it is good form on the Internet to credit your original source, as it is in other realms, it does not necessarily restrict access from that source, nor does someone else really profit from it – the copier may, in fact, be showing tribute to the original idea by spreading it to more people.

Anyway, there’s a lot to sort out for this thought to really go anywhere, but there are a couple more pieces to consider.

Feeling lately, moreso than usual, in a semi-permanent state of utter mental and personal disorganization.  The “Unsorted” photos folder keeps growing.  Pulled in many directions, unable to stay on track.  Reading comprehension took a big hit.  Sleep a necessity, sometimes also an overindulgence.  Pretty much everything is put off until December 6, December 10, December 18…

And, conveniently during finals time – i.e. “head down and crank it out” time – a bunch of those big, nebulous, distracting, navel-gazing questions keep asking themselves at inconvenient times.  I have work to do, dammit – “mine is not to question why,” etc.

These started out in a Facebook wall conversation with myself, which I realized was a total misplacement of those thoughts in a forum better suited for the “OMG love the new pic!!! O_o” flavor of communication.  So they’re going here instead.

Should planning be a science or an art?

How can we make reliable predictions about the future?

If planning teeters on a history of massive failures, how can we develop criteria for success?

Is long-term planning a worthwhile and legitimate exercise, given that people always manage to screw things up anyway?

Do planners ever have sufficient control over their environment to be effective? Or is it all just tweaking and tugging at strings?

How can such a self-reflective field lack any good way to evaluate its own products and determine what will actually work?

What kind of field is this, anyway?

Why is?

“But Mousie, you are not alone | In proving foresight may be vain | The best laid schemes of mice and men | Often go awry” ~ R. Burns

“Meanwhile, I’m going to sit here for days thinking about it, and singing ‘Coming Through the Rye.’ ” ~ frog footman from that TV-movie version of Alice in Wonderland with all the famous people