Category Archives: free culture

David Weinberger has been contributing small and important pieces to our collective cluetrain of thought (ok, that was too cute, sorry). He’s got it right here. Continue reading →

http://www.ucomics.com/cgi-bin/sendtoafriend/getpostcard.cgi?site_ref=ucomics&MsgID=aad64d79b576f874d86e31e563cad0ce Continue reading →

This is a brilliant cartoon by Toles which captures this whole debate best. Continue reading →

There is growing criticism of the June 2 planned announcement at the FCC. MoveOn.org has joined the fight, as has BoingBoing, ReinRadar, and Aaron. Continue reading →

An Australian sent me this interesting rant about “deregulation” of the media:

You might like to bring your readers’ attention to the state of the
media in Australia.

Our government has already gone down the path of creeping
“deregulation”. Brisbane, the city I live in, now has only one daily
newspaper – Murdoch’s “Courier-Mail”. Interestingly enough Queensland
Newspapers (which is The Courier-Mail and some regional weekly
advertising newspapers) is the company Murdoch plundered during some of
his cash-flow problems a number of years ago. He was never called to
account by any regulatory body to answer for the fact that QNP employee
pension money that went missing for many months.

Once media concentration is allowed to creep past a certain point you
are in trouble. The media owners can push for more concentration due to
the fact that they control public opinion via TV and print media.

They got their present media concentration allowances by promising
politicians “more balanced reporting in the future”. Everyone knew they
abused the power they had, but the politicians sold the general public
on the belief they could safely trade MORE power for promises of reduced
abuse! Crazy.

Rupert Murdoch and Kerry Packer are a media duopoly with very close
business ties that ensure that casino, cable-TV, digital spectrum and
broadband operation licenses all go to them. Competitors are removed or
regulated out of the market by politicians who have pressure applied
from the press – owned by these two astute businessmen.

Now that they own a great percentage of media they can, and do, use this
to finish off their quality competitors with their inferior but
ubiquitous newspapers, radio stations and TV stations. Kerry Packer’s
“ninemsn.com.au” partnership with Microsoft ensures that the country’s
PCs roll out with ninemsn.com.au as the default page in their web
browser, thus extending Packer’s reach. Murdich and Packer now own the
rights to all major football codes in Australia, plus cricket and
tennis.

It is a nightmare. Newsworthy events either have to advertise with the
duopoly or risk only negative publicity. If it bleeds, it leads. Be it
red ink or red blood. Financial disaster or human tragedy are your only
hope of making the papers unless you pay or are owned by Packer, Murdoch
or Fairfax in which case your miracle arthritis cure gets front-page
space.

If you want to show people what will happen with “deregulation” study
the Australian experience.

Continue reading →

Some of the best work cataloging the effects of increased concentration has been done by the Future of Music Coalition. In November last year, they produced a great report about radio deregulation. (The punch line: more concentration, less diversity, less opportunity for musicians).

FMC is now part of a group of artists that has sent a letter to Michael Powell about the upcoming decision to further “deregulate” media. Here’s a link. More good stuff from people who know. Continue reading →

One important issue that the change in market structure affects is the independence of creativity. Because of the repeal of network ownership rules, there has been a dramatic change in the ownership of pilot shows on major networks. This graph shows the change. In 1990, the overall percentage was 11.3%. In 2002, that had increased seven-fold — to 70.2%.

How might this matter? Some of the most important television has been produced by independents. “All in the Family,” for example, created by Norman Lear, was created because Lear could say no to network executives who wanted to tame his creation to fit the network image.

The future: fewer Lears likely.

Here’s the data for new series:1990 — 12.5% owned; 2002 — 77.5% Continue reading →

One measure of the cost of concentration is the effect that creators say it will have. Here’s an extraordinary interview by Bill Moyers with Barry Diller. Favorite line: Moyers’ asks, doesn’t the explosion in the number of channels mean we have more diversity?

Diller: “No. Because what we have is an absolute fact that five companies control 90 percent of all of it. It has been reconstituted. Instead of it being three channels that were controlled by a few people, there are now 500 controlled by a few people.” Continue reading →

We’ve posted a page on the Emily Somma Peter Pan case with a FAQ about the case. There’s a link at the end of the FAQ with a suggestion for more questions. I’d be grateful for any suggestions, about new questions or old. Continue reading →

It was twenty years ago that I visited my first communist country. In 1982, I trekked through most of Eastern Europe, and a bit of the Soviet Union. I can still remember well the terror at the border to East Germany, when guards searched every inch of my bags before letting me pass. They even forced me to remove my shoes! (The last time that happened to me was, well, I guess SFO.) A Russian woman on the train told me: “Don’t worry. As long as you stay on the path, you’re fine. It’s only people who slip off the path who fall into the abyss.”

“The abyss.”

I was reminded of that story on my last trip to a communist country. My wife and I just returned from China. The reminder, however, was not the behavior of the Chinese border guards. Indeed, getting through customs and onto a plane there is like it was in the US 20 years ago — relaxed, respectful, easy, and you even get to keep your shoes. I was reminded instead by the Portland airport story that has been popped in blog space. Stay on the path, and you’re safe. Slip, and you’re in the abyss.

People — on both the left and right — boil in this space about what’s happening outside. Yet outside blog space, there is just more of the same. The Times writes about Democratic hopefuls rallying to attack Bush for not making America safe enough. Wonderful. Who ever wins in 2004, we can be assured of more petty fascism to keep America safe.

Where is the candidate who asks: Must we sell our soul to win this “war”? Where is the political party that demands respect for principles that I thought were fundamental. If we must detain Arabs, must we do so inhumanely? If we must frisk every air traveler, can’t we at least build in checks to the system to assure that it is not abused? If we must fight to defend America, can it at least be America that we defend?

I’m all with Dave that this space will be the space for political action in the future. If only the future comes soon enough. Continue reading →