Indlæg tagget med internet

Internet Manifesto

10. september 2009

Gertrud har sendt mig et link til en interessant nyhed. 15 tyske journalister og bloggere har udtænkt et internetmanifest, der skal danne grundlag for journalistisk (i bredeste forstand) virksomhed i den digitale tidsalder. Interessen har været sÃ¥ stor, at serveren med manifestet straks gik ned… Det er da ogsÃ¥ en vigtig diskussion, som alt for mange traditionelle medier har vægret sig ved for alvor at tage hul pÃ¥. Her er manifestet in extenso. Der er selvfølgelig ting at diskutere (fx afsnittet om copyright, der som bekendt er en af de søjler, der er under stort pres i disse Ã¥r…). Men som helhed interessant læsning:

Internet Manifesto

How journalism works today. Seventeen declarations

1. The internet is different.

It produces different public spheres, different terms of trade and different cultural skills. The media must adapt their work methods to today’s technological reality instead of ignoring or challenging it. It is their duty to develop the best possible form of journalism based on the available technology. This includes new journalistic products and methods.

2. The internet is a pocket-sized media empire.

The web rearranges existing media structures by transcending their former boundaries and oligopolies. The publication and dissemination of media contents are no longer tied to heavy investments. Journalism’s self-conception is, fortunately, being bereft of its gatekeeping function. All that remains is the journalistic quality through which journalism distinguishes itself from mere publication.

3. The internet is our society is the internet.

Web-based platforms like social networks, Wikipedia or YouTube have become a part of everyday life for the majority of people in the western world. They are as accessible as the telephone or television. If media companies want to continue to exist, they must understand the world of today’s users and embrace their forms of communication. This includes basic forms of social communication: listening and responding, also known as dialogue.

4. The freedom of the internet is inviolable.

The internet’s open architecture constitutes the basic IT law of a society which communicates digitally and, consequently, of journalism. It may not be modified for the sake of protecting the special commercial or political interests often hidden behind the pretense of public interest. Regardless of how it is done, blocking access to the internet endangers the free flow of information and corrupts our fundamental right to a self-determined level of information.

5. The internet is the victory of information.

Due to inadequate technology, media companies, research centres, public institutions and other organisations compiled and classified the world’s information up to now. Today every citizen can set up her own personal news filter while search engines tap into a wealth of information of a magnitude never before known. Individuals can now inform themselves better than ever.

6. The internet changes improves journalism.

Through the internet, journalism can fulfil its socio-educational role in a new way. This includes presenting information as an ever-changing, continual process; the forfeiture of print media’s inalterability is a benefit. Those who want to survive in this new world of information need a new idealism, new journalistic ideas and a sense of pleasure in exploiting this new potential.

7. The net requires networking.

Links are connections. We know each other through links. Those who do not use them exclude themselves from social discourse. This also holds for the websites of traditional media companies.

8. Links reward, citations adorn.

Search engines and aggregators facilitate quality journalism: they boost the findability of outstanding content over a long-term basis and are thus an integral part of the new, networked public sphere. References through links and citations — especially including those made without any consent of or even remuneration of the originator—make the very culture of networked social discourse possible in the first place. They are by all means worthy of protection.

9. The internet is the new venue for political discourse.

Democracy thrives on participation and freedom of information. Transferring the political discussion from traditional media to the internet and expanding on this discussion by involving the active participation of the public is one of journalism’s new tasks.

10. Today’s freedom of the press means freedom of opinion.

Article 5 of the German Constitution does not comprise protective rights for professions or traditional business models. The internet overrides the technological boundaries between the amateur and professional. This is why the privilege of freedom of the press must hold for anyone who can contribute to the fulfilment of journalistic duties. Qualitatively speaking, no differentiation should be made between paid and unpaid journalism, but rather, between good and poor journalism.

11. More is more – there is no such thing as too much information.

Once upon a time, institutions such as the church prioritised power over personal awareness and warned of an unsifted flood of information when the letterpress was invented. On the other hand, pamphleteers, encyclopaedists and journalists proved that more information leads to more freedom, both for the individual as well as society as a whole. To this day, nothing has changed in this respect.

12. Tradition is not a business model.

Money can be made on the internet with journalistic content. There are many examples of this today already. Yet because the internet is fiercely competitive, business models have to be adapted to the structure of the net. No one should try to abstain from this essential adaptation through policy-making geared to preserving the status quo. Journalism needs open competition for the best refinancing solutions on the net, along with the courage to invest in the multifaceted implementation of these solutions.

13. Copyright becomes a civic duty on the internet.

Copyright is a central cornerstone of information organization on the Internet. Originators’ rights to decide on the type and scope of dissemination of their contents are also valid on the net. At the same time, copyright may not be abused as a lever to safeguard obsolete supply mechanisms and shut out new distribution models or license schemes. Ownership entails obligations.

14. The internet has many currencies.

Journalistic online services financed through adverts offer content in exchange for a pull effect. A reader’s, viewer’s or listener’s time is valuable. In the industry of journalism, this correlation has always been one of the fundamental tenets of financing. Other forms of refinancing which are journalistically justifiable need to be forged and tested.

15. What’s on the net stays on the net.

The internet is lifting journalism to a new qualitative level. Online, text, sound and images no longer have to be transient. They remain retrievable, thus building an archive of contemporary history. Journalism must take the development of information, its interpretation and errors into account, i.e., it must admit its mistakes and correct them in a transparent manner.

16. Quality remains the most important quality.

The internet debunks homogeneous bulk goods. Only those who are outstanding, credible and exceptional will gain a steady following in the long run. Users’ demands have increased. Journalism must fulfil them and abide by its own frequently formulated principles.

17. All for all.

The web constitutes an infrastructure for social exchange superior to that of 20th century mass media: when in doubt, the “generation Wikipedia” is capable of appraising the credibility of a source, tracking news back to its original source, researching it, checking it and assessing it — alone or as part of a group effort. Journalists who snub this and are unwilling to respect these skills are not taken seriously by internet users. Rightly so. The internet makes it possible to communicate directly with those once known as recipients — readers, listeners and viewers — and to take advantage of their knowledge. It is not the ‘know-it-all’ journalists who are in demand, but those who communicate and investigate.

linklink 2

Efter Pirate Bay – et nyt Pirate Bay…

30. juli 2009

Seneste nyt fra internetkamppladsen omkring fænomenet “fildeling” er, at de store filmselskaber har startet en retssag mod stifterne af Pirate Bay. Den første sag drejede sig om deling af musik. Nu gælder det sÃ¥ film.

Dernæst kører der en meget omtalt sag i USA mellem musikindustrien (RIIA) og en ung, fildelende fysikstuderende, Joel Tenenbaum, der anklages for have delt 30 stykker musik via en fildelingstjeneste. Erstatningskravet er ca. 150000 $ – pr. sang. Ialt 4.5 millioner $. Sidstnævnte retssag er allerede blevet tematiseret som Goliaths kamp mod David.

Et nok sÃ¥ interessant perspektiv er der i Global Gaming Factory Xs overtagelse af Pirate Bay. Efter at nyheden kom frem om købet, har der cirkuleret rygter pÃ¥ nettet om, at det var en “and”, og at overtagelsen ikke ville blive til noget. Dette rygte manes dog i jorden af GGFs chef, Hans Pandeya, der mener, at rygtet skyldes “ond vilje” hos visse fildelere, der synes, det er kedeligt, at Pirate Bay skal blive et lovligt foretagende. Men i følge Pandeya gÃ¥r alt efter planen. Pirate Bay overtages ultimo august og dermed vender Pirate Bay tilbage til Sverige som et helt legalt og rent svensk foretagende.

Samtidig afslører GGF-chefen, at GGF den sidste mÃ¥nedstid har haft forhandlinger igang med Universal, Somy, Warner og EMI om betingelserne for fildeling – og at disse forhandlinger er i den afgørende fase. Og foreløbigt har forhandlingerne været positive. Forklaringen skulle være, at de store pladeselskaber er interesseret i den nye forretningsmodel, der lover, at sÃ¥vel fildelerne som copyrightholderne kommer til at tjene penge. Pandeya forklarer modellen pÃ¥ denne mÃ¥de: Der er tale om en give-og-tage-model. Jo mere man giver, jo mere kan man tjene. Det er altsÃ¥ dem, der er generøse, der tjener noget. I fildelingsverden er der “leechers” og “seeders”. “Leechers” er dem, der bare downloader uden at dele med andre gennem up-load. Og “seeders” er dem, der deler alt med alle. I den nye forretningsmodel vil “leechers” ikke tjene noget. Det vil tværtom komme til at betale for deres downloads.

Kritikere mener, at lovliggørelsen af Pirate Bay vil betyde, at mange brugere – 90% – vil forsvinde, lige som det var tilfældet, da den meget omtalte fildelingstjeneste Napster blev lovlig for flere Ã¥r siden. Men, det mener GGF ikke. For det nye Pirate Bay er ikke bare en ny betalingstjeneste. Den viderefører noget af den gamle tjenestes fildelingsÃ¥nd.

Samtidig leverer GGF-chefen et frontalangreb mod den aktuelle tendens mod skabelsen af Big Brothers Watching You-samfund: “Hvorfor har vi fÃ¥et Ipred og tilsvarende love? Jo,fordi man pÃ¥stÃ¥r, at folk fortsætter med ulovlighederne. Det er sygt, det er en afsporing. Det var det allerede for ti Ã¥r siden, men nu er der tale om en total afsporing”. Argumentet er, at en lovliggørelse af fildeling vil gøre det sværere for staten at begrunde yderligere overvÃ¥gning af borgerne. Tankegangen er interessant, fordi den er udtryk for et kompromis mellem almindelige økonomiske virksomhedsinteresser og den anarkistiske fildelings implicitte filosofi. Om det sÃ¥ kommer til at holde i virkeligheden, mÃ¥ vi vente med at se…

Er musikjournalistikken død?

14. juli 2009

Kender du det? Du læser en anmeldelse af en koncert eller en plade i avisen – fx Politiken eller Gaffa – og du har hørt, læst og mÃ¥ske skrevet om samme begivenhed pÃ¥ nettet – og avisanmeldelsen tilføjer ingenting. MÃ¥ske er den oven i købet dÃ¥rligere, end det, du har fundet pÃ¥ nettet? Jovist, musikjournalistikken gÃ¥r ikke ram forbi i internettets tid. Skal vi begræde, at vi-gør-det-for-pengenes-skyld-journalistik forsvinder? Nej. Men , det er selvfølgelig trist, hvis engagerede og vidende journalister inden for feltet mÃ¥ takke af, fordi der ikke længere er penge til at betale for deres skriverier. Her kan du høre Rolling Stone-freelanceren Christopher R. Weingarten fortælle om problemet:

Fra Monkees til X-Factor-stjerner…

10. juni 2009

Musikindustrien har fra tidernes morgen spillet en vigtig rolle for ikke alene distributionen af musik men ogsÃ¥ skabelsen af nye produkter til det hungrende musikmarked. For musikindustrien – de store pladeselskaber – har mere end noget andet været købmandsforretninger, der først og fremmest skulle give overskud. Heri er der ikke noget nyt. Den kunstneriske gevinst ved de opfundne musiknavne har været af blandet karakter. Noget har været det argeste lort, medens andet har beriget poppen med talent. The Monkees er det godt eksempel pÃ¥ det sidste. Vi kunne ogsÃ¥ nævne en del af Tamla Motown og Phil Spector-kreationerne. Nitterne lader vi uomtalt. Eksemplerne er legio.
Men denne aktive produktfrembringelse hører mÃ¥ske fortiden til. For med den fortsatte fildeling og det faldende salg af plader (cd’er) er det ikke længere økonomisk attraktivt at opfinde nye erstatninger for fx de sidste par Ã¥rtiers populære boy- og girl-bands (Take That, Backstreet Boys osv.). De unge internetbrugere sætter en ny dagsorden – og køber i vid udstrækning ikke cd’er længere og foretrækker gratis musik pÃ¥ nettet og Ipod’en.

I en artikel i Dagens Nyheter kan man læse, at Klas Lunding fra EMI mener, at den nye situation, hvor det især er voksne, der fortsat køber plader, medens de unge forventer gratis musik fra nettet, betyder, at kunstnerne fremover selv mÃ¥ pÃ¥tage sig mange af pladeselskabernes gamle funktioner, fx udvikling af musik og distribution, medens pladeselskaberne vil satse pÃ¥ administration… Udviklingen betyder ogsÃ¥, at den talentudvikling, som pladebranchen tidligere har stÃ¥et for (omend ikke altid lige entusiastisk), bliver meget mere begrænset. Det er ganske enkelt ikke profitabelt længere. I samme artikel peges der pÃ¥, at de kunstnere, der satser pÃ¥ multimedier (cd’er, downloads, videoer, dvd’er osv.), klarer sig betydeligt bedre end dem, der “bare” udsender musik pÃ¥ cd. En anden tendens er, at afstanden mellem den musikalske elite og bunden udjævnes. Eliten skrumper ind – og noget kunne tyde pÃ¥, at alle ender pÃ¥ samme niveau. Og i det hele taget tyder noget pÃ¥, at musikforbruget bliver mere bredt, sÃ¥ledes at forstÃ¥, at brugerne ikke længere nøjes med det udbud, som top-10-listerne udbyder, men finder deres egne stjerner derud i cyberspace. Fx er interessen for tidligere Ã¥rtiers glemte og obskure indspilninger vokset med den nye teknologiske udvikling…

Hvad ved din EU-parlamentskandidat om nettet?

28. maj 2009

PÃ¥ vej mod arbejde sÃ¥ jeg, at der med et vrimlede med el-maste-plakater af hÃ¥befulde EU-parlamentarikere-in-spe. Mange af dem har jeg hverken hørt om eller til. Alligevel har jeg – som jeg plejer – tænkt mig at sætte mit kryds. Og inden da vil jeg gerne vide, hvad kandidaten tænker om HADOPI og borgerrettigheder pÃ¥ internettet. Den problemstilling hører man nemlig ikke meget til i dansk politik. Men det er vigtigt med hensyn til det slunkne demokrati. Hvad tænker din kandidat om rettigheder pÃ¥ nettet?