Here’s a beautiful summary of the “(free) culture wars”, from a writer at the Institute for the Future of the Book. It expresses the key cultural difference between an open and free culture, and the forces that constrain it.
My own view is that we will still have different kind of institutions, providing an ecology of support for the culture producers, which increasingly be all of us, in a bottom-up fashion.
These topics are explored in our Media pages, which are distinct from Valentin Spirik’s pages on autonomous audiovisual production, which are a how-to guide on how to produce culture without intermediaries.
Excerpt:
“Imagine a world without publishers, broadcasters or record labels. Imagine the complex infrastructure, large distribution networks, massive advertising campaigns, and multi-million signing contracts provided by the media incumbents all gone from our society. What would our culture look like? Will the music stop? Will pens dry up?
I would hope not, but I recently read Siva Vaidhyanathan’s book, The Anarchist in the Library, and I encountered a curious quote from Time Warner CEO, Richard Parsons:
This is a very profound moment historically. This isn’t just about a bunch of kids stealing music. It’s an assault on everything that constitutes cultural expression of our society. If we fail to protect and preserve out intellectual property system, the culture will atrophy. And the corporations wont be the only ones hurt. Artists will have no incentive to create. Worst-case scenario: the country will end up in a sort of Cultural Dark Age.
The idea that “artists will have no incentive to create” without corporations’ monetary promise goes against everything we know about the creative mind. Through out human history, self-expression has existed under the extreme conditions, for little or no gain; if anything, self-expression has flourished under the most unrewarding conditions. Now we that the Internet provides a medium to share information, people will create.
A fundamental misunderstanding in the relationship between media industry and the artist has produced an environment that has led the industry to believe that they are the reason for creative output, not just a beneficiary. However, the Internet is bringing the power of production and distribution to the user. And if production and distribution — which are where historically media companies made their money — can be handled by users, then what will be left for the media companies? With the surge in content, will media companies need to become filters and editors? If not, then what is there?
The current media model depends on controlling the flow of information, and as information becomes harder to control their power will diminish. On the internet we see strong communities building around very specific niches. As these communities get stronger, they will become harder to compete with. I believe that these niches will develop into the next generation media companies. These will be the companies that the large media companies will need to compete with.”
Sorry, this is probably something that has been made clear in previous posts, but do you mind giving a few examples of the “strong communities building around very specific niches” that you see on the Internet today?
I, for one, certainly feel like I am left out of these communities, as I still feel isolated on the Internet (no matter how many blogs I read).
Tyler,
Three often quoted examples are wikipedia for text articles, SourceForge for software projects and emusic for independent music artists. See Valentin Spirik’s, Online Audio (Publishing) & Online Media/Art Communities Tour for many more media communities. Probably you need to pick an area that interests you and get stuck-in to feel the community spirit.
If you want social activism try Omidyar.net although again you have to work at it to get involved.
The model of copyright-protected culture distributed by centralized media corporations is barely a century old. I guess no books, music, plays, etc., were written before then.