The Web and the Future of Writing

Scanlon, Chip. The Web and the Future of Writing. Poynteronline, posted Dec 18, 2002

Chip Scanlon plays the wise sage in this article. He has been a writer long anough to know that things change and you need to "go with the flow".But he has been a good writewr and knows that some things should never change. He writes about the new technology that is now such an integral part of journalism and news writing. Not only has the internet age allowed for worldwide communication, it allows for world apart interviews. This certainly provides a new horizon when a journalist can interview "together" world leaders, personalities or figures of importance at one time. Can provide communication, both audio and visual, between all and do so on a live broadcast. But he reminds would -be writers and journalists that there are practices that good journalism will always require of a writer. First is the face-to-face interview. A video conference or telephone conference simply cannot replace what this brings to a good story. The interaction between interviewee and interviewer, "the texture, completeness and accuracy that only person-to-person reporting can bring" to a story is left out in a long distance interview. anyone who has studied digitally formatted information,agrees that "users don't scroll" and frequently "read only the top part of an article". For this reason writers on the Web often resort to short articles with eye-catching headlines. Scanlon cautions that this type of reporting, especially when it relies on visual and/or audio technology, cannot replace a well written article or broadcast that engages it's reader/listener and relies on well documented, factual information. He compares a broadcast writer who often writes to enhance what the vieweer sees and hears to the print writer who uses words and story to create an image on the screen that is the readers mind.
I tend to agree with Mr. Scolon. The new technology available to writers provides a wealth of opportunity and innovation but this cannot replace the tenacity and talent of a reporter who interviews the principles, researches the subject and writes to engage the reader with the words and story. Certainly this type of writer will have readers using the scroll bar before they do the back button.

New Mediaeval Aesthetic

Zorach,Rebecca E. "New Mediaeval Aesthetic", Wired: Issue 2.01, Jan 1994.
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/2.01/mediaeval.html 16 March 2007

Rebecca Zorach provides interesting parallels between the "nodes" of medieval texting, writing and copying in the monastaries and the texting, writing and copying that the internet has made so available to us. Copying was the means of preserving information in the past. It also described they active creation of new material in what was learned from the past. The printing press, although it provided the means to easily print and distribute books, limited the number of individauls who could contribute. It also created a physical commodity and a profitble business for those with resources. By the 17th century, copyright laaws were protecting the creative rights of some but limiting the ability of others to create. As Zorach describes, the monks had a network between monistaries. Few common people traveled any distance from their birthplace so the monks provided a source of information on their travels. Those monks relegated to copying literary works in their nodes embellished their works, not just artistically but literally. e are reminded of how the marvel that was the printing press provided books, reading material and the ability to read to many during this time, but there were still those who were not included, especially serfs and slaves. In drawing her parallels, the author remembers those today who do not profit from the promise this technology holds.
As I read this article, I tried to imagine who would have been the Jack Valenti of medieval times? Would he have been the wealthy book publisher who decided how many books to print and where to sell them? Would he own the theater and decide what would be seen and by whom? I often wonder if there was anyone else with anywhere near the talent of William Shakespeare alive at that time. Would he have had a chance to publish and profit from his creativity? Would he have had any better chance today? The Internet should be able to provide that opportunity to all but will it?

Utopian Plagiarism, Hypertextuality and Electronic Cultural Production~Critical Art Ensemble

Critical Art Ensemble. The Electronic Disturbance, Chapter 5, Media Mutandis-a NODE London Reader(http://publication.nodel.org )
Source: http://www.critical-art.net/books/ted/ted5.pdf

What is the first idea that pops into your head at the mention of plagiarism? How about theft or dishonesty or cheating, certainly not anything remotely positive. This article argues, quite effectively, that "plagiarism was useful in aiding the distribution of ideas" in the past. But the argument in favour of plagiarism today involves the idea of recombination. Artistic growth in the past flourished when creative minds were allowed to 'build on' the past. The premise was not to allow theft but to allow the free flow of ideas. The logic was that creative ideas inspire more creativity in others. The extraordinary advances we have witnessed in electronic technology have given rise to arguments supporting the plagiarism that the authors describe as "recombinant". The premise is that in a recombinant culture, plagiarism is productive, that one of the "main goals of the plagiarist is to restore the dynamic and unstable drift of meaning by appropriating and recombining fragments of culture". The article argues that although the laws regarding cultural property may have some useful consequences most of them are related to greater efficiency of these same laws with repressive costs that excessively tax the creative potential of the general populace. Plagiarism, on the other hand, stands against privileging and sees all "objects" as equal. it favors the "new perception or idea brought out by intersecting two or more formally disparate systems-recombination! Perhaps the most graphic example was Leonardo da Vinci whose genius lay in his ability to combine what seemed to be separate systems-art and science.
Arguments that demonize plagiarism have often been difficult to argue against. On careful examination they are almost always bad but persuasive arguments. This is especially true in the media today. Anyone who does not support these arguments risks being associated with all of the negatives (thief, pirate,cheat) that are used. The idea of recombination reminds me of the academics who were first to describe the helical shape of the human chromosome- Waston and Crick. Neither of them had actively participated in the research and separate discoveries that preceded their paper. They were able to gather the pieces of the puzzle, so to speak, step back and see the real value of each piece. It allowed them to correctly assemble the puzzle.

The Bellagio Declaration

The Society for Critical Exchange. The Bellagio Declaration, Statement of the Bellagio Conference, 1993 Rockefeller Conference "Cultural Agency/Cultural Authority:Politics and Poetics of Intellectual Property in the Post-Colonial Era. March 11,1993.
http://www.case.edu/affil/sce/BellagioDec.html


The Bellagio Document is a declaration that received unified support from a broad range of professionals who gathered from all over the globe. While they applauded the 'increasing attention by the world community to such previously ignored issues as preservation of the enviornment, cultural heritage and biodiversity" they voiced genuine concern and alarm over the increased control a few individuals had managed to acquire over intellectual property. These "few " had designed laws that would benefit them at the expense of many. The concept of "fair use" and "public domain" were being limited to protect these few but the harmful effects in areas such as culture, public access, international development and technological innovation were being ignored.
They took issue with the following points in particular. The need to protect folkliric works, works of cultural heritage and the biological and technological knowledge of traditional peoples. The broad range of negative effects these laws had on scientific and artistic progress, the traditional cultures of indigenous and tribal people and access to information by all. The aggressive expansion of intellectual property rights that benifit only a few. They were especially concerned with the negative effects suffered by indigenous groups because their folklore and culture were basically excluded from any protection by the singular author design that was implemented.
The Document directly attacked the "systems built around the author paradigm (which) tend to obscure or undervalue the importance of 'public domain', the intellectual and cultural commons from which the future will be constructed." They, in fact, recognized "information as among the most precious of all resources...(and)...systems built around the author paradigm tend to obscure the importance of the public domain."
The Bellagio Declaration is a united statement issued by professionals from many diciplines and from around the world in support of the "public domain". They addressed the issue of creative property rights and the laws that have effectively limited access to creative property and often stifle new intellectual and creative ideas. It was drawn up and signed fourteen years ago but the conflicts it describes are very much with us today. A special concern was voiced regarding digital technology and it is in this arena today that the copyright wars are being waged. As we were reminded in this Declaration this has all taken place in the absence of public outcry, outrage ao even recognition. Our freedom to acquire knowledge, create independently and secure the past is at stake.

Balances and Afterword

Lessig, Lawrence. Free Culture, New York, The Penguin Press, 2004. http://free-culture.org/get-it

Lawrence Lessig poses his final arguments and very reasonable answers in these sections of his book. He has primed us with a history of copyright law, the direction it has taken in the past fifty years and why this should alarm us. When there was little control over creative work the law intervened but only enough to give original artists an opportunity to profit for a reasonable time from their work. Even then lawmakers recognized the importance this creative work had in establishing our culture and history and that others should be allowed to freely build upon it. In the past century, with the advances in technology that allowed easy copying, laws became more restrictive in favor of copyright owners. While this was understandable, the law was still balanced to allow "fair use" and reasonable time restrictions. That is no longer the case today. "Fair use" hardly has any meaning because of the hostile and threatening climate instigated by large corporations who control creative property. Enormous fines can be levied against relatively innocent use and ordinary citizens are becoming felons under the heavy handed laws that have been passed. Now Mr. Lessig tells us that the very technology which should have opened the world of creativity to us is being used to make us felons. These huge media corporations are being allowed, by laws they pressed for passage, to search private computers and make felons of private citizens. This justifiably alarms him even more than the threat to our culture. He sites the Supreme Court case he and others prepared, presented and lost but he manages to put even this in it's proper perspective. He understood the mistakes that were made and continues to have the support that saw him through this court battle. They are preparing to fight another day, this war has not been lost.
Much to his credit, Lessig has provided us not only with information most of us were completely unaware of but has founded his arguments in objective and reasonable form. We are reminded of the need to protect creative property rights while ha carefully explains the difference between this and material property, a difference that even our forefathers understood and allowed for. In answer to this defeat and afterthought he proposed Eldred's Law. This law is elegant in it's simplicity. Lessig, as he has done before, makes no effort to dismantle Copyright Law but makes it reasonable. This law, while it does not shorten the absolute length of copyright, requires those seeking copyright to apply for it and to renew the copyright after a period of fifty years. He poses several suggestions to streamline this procedure and make applications not only easy but inexpensive. As he argues, this is not only reasonable but fair. It would accommodate those who have creative property that still has commercial value. At the same time that which does not and is not worth the trouble renewing a copyright would be open to the public domain for everyone to freely share.
What I found particularly troubling in Mr. Lessig's book was the discussion of the attempts by the media moguls to use technology to make criminals of ordinary citizens. While I realize the law should be respected, this is not an attempt to protect citizens from criminal harm. The fact that Internet servers and colleges can invade personal hard drives and use this information against computer owners is mortifying. What happened to the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution which provides relief from self-incrimination. These laws are not meant to protect anyone but the powerful. Those who are accused of "breaking" these laws are seldom committing any act that is harmful to the plaintiffs. They have not been proven to lessen any profits, in fact they more likely are improving profits by allowing unpaid advertising for the work they are accused of stealing. I know I will be strongly recommending Lawrence Lessig's book to anyone who will hear me out. The real irony is that I was allowed to read his book for free and that any bookstore where I have attempted to buy his book has told me it is out of print. I won't let that stop me.