Archive for May, 2009

Rethinking the idea of the “text”

Friday, May 22nd, 2009

Is a text really stable? Is it entity? In a lecture during my final year at the University of Leicester, one of the English lecturers posed a a question: What is a text? After soliciting various answers from the masses, he argued that a text is anything – email, note, manuscript and so on. So let us assume this generalised view is so. However is the entity stable? Is it whole?

Think about the letter or email (there are enough similarities). It is an entity of text which has time/date, to, from, (sometimes) a subject, and a body. We take it as one thing.

However think about it. The date/time is an object. To and from are (generally) separate objects with (generally) separate identifiers. The bosy itself can contain other identifiers such as a nickname, reference to an act/event/letter/party and so on. Each thing can be seen as a single. So is a text really a collection of identifiers put together in a format?

If that view is taken, then how do we see a text? How can we approach it and what does it allow us to do with it? Instead of publishing as a platform, would it allow for the text itself as a platform or service?

Cory Doctorow on Creative Commons licensing

Thursday, May 14th, 2009

Cory Doctorow has come up with a quick guide to self-serve licensing via Creative Commons which outlines the uses and advantages of the licence. The crux, apart from citation of sources, is what it allows users to do to use your data/craft/book/doohickey in innovative ways. From that both parties can learn from each other and possibly evolve new techniques or models. It is certainly a useful guide.

The changing community of publishing

Wednesday, May 13th, 2009

The New York Times had a piece on digital piracy of books and the contrasting views which was picked up by Slashdot. Starting out from the anti-piracy view, it does note that bestsellers are often the most pirated books which backs up Cory Doctorow’s assertion:

“I really feel like my problem isn’t piracy,…It’s obscurity.”

His own position of publishing free digital copies at the same time as the paid for “treeware” version comes out has helped the all important word of mouth get about his books. He has built a passionate community around his work who both download and pay for books. Through his acknowledgement that there will be cheap skates who will only download the free version but encouraging the rest of the community to be involved in discussing  and remixing his work, his latest novel stayed in the NY Times bestseller for seven weeks.

There must, however, be an acknowledgement that the creator has rights to the work. Doctorow uses Creative Commons to protect his original work but to allow users certain rights to do something with the work. The Open Definitions also do this. Through a simple transformation of rights as open shops rather than closed, i.e. changing to saying what you can do, rather than what you cannot, could change publishing and how it reacts to piracy.

So perhaps publishers need to accept that there will always be a certina amount of it going on. However they should not see piracy as open (it’s not and never will be). The challenge, I believe, for publishers is how to digitise and make available works to a community and allow the community to do things with the books and find new markets and models that way.

The transition would be rough and mistakes made but they need to happen. Publishing needs to learn the lessons of iTunes rather than seeing the digital world as Napster.

It would be great to link into publisher versions of books to create citations or from which to construct models in blogs and wikis using community licenses. It would allow for publisher works to be re-used, ideally be open but perhaps operate on micro-payments based on traffic or level of citation, and for the user to have some authentication (or not depending on publisher) of the data as coming from a reliable source.

Just a thought but the time is ripe for change and experimentation.