The image of content as sewer is unpleasant but in a way, not too bad. Alchemically prima materia, base matter, lead or shit has to be worked with to get the gold. But Arnold Kling is muddling a few categories here. The nature of the ownership of the copyright and the licences for its re-distribution have nothing much to do with the filtering work needed to get the stuff you want. I don’t really care if an item I read is owned by the Times or by the author, the important thing is that it is credible to me and is about something of interest to me.
Categories involved:
- Ownership – copyright
- Licence & terms of use.
- Relevance to my interests
- Credibility relative to my values & beliefs
When it cost a lot to publish selection was needed to get it out there and there was value added in the selection of what to produce. Sometimes the way of paying for that function was for the producers to take ownership od the content. That function, on the net and for music is gone. Dead. Laws maintaining that system must die. Getting stuff out there and distributing it is free.
The essentials of the filtering process are already here – 1. Word of mouth which is constantly enhanced by all sorts of software. 2. Search engines.
How did I get Arnold Kling’s item in the first place? Daypop. That is automated word of mouth. And Kling acknowledges it. What on earth has his copyright note to do with anything? What is still to come is the killer collaborative filtering ap. which will filter everthing for me, not on features but on the basis of sociometry.
