Howard Rheingold fragt: Wenn Millionen von Nutzern die Seiten von del.icio.us und flickr mit Inhalten füllen und diese Seiten (wie geschehen) von z.B. Yahoo gekauft werden, gehört ein Anteil der Kaufsumme nicht den Nutzern?
Dabei verweist er auf einen Kommentar von Henry Jenkins: “This is an issue I raised here a few weeks ago. At the heart of the Web 2.0 movement is this idea that there is real value created by tapping the shared wisdom of grassroots communities, composed mostly of fans, hobbyists, and other amateur media makers. I have often celebrated these efforts as helping to pave the way for a more participatory culture — one that will be more diverse and innovative because it expands the range of content we can access. Yet, as I suggested here a few weeks ago, there is a nagging question — if these grassroots efforts are generating value (and in fact, wealth) and their creative power is being tapped by major corporations, at what point should they start receiving a share of revenue for their work?
We have all seen major media companies telling us that file-sharing is bad because it takes other people’s intellectual property without just compensation. So, why are these same companies now taking their audience’s intellectual property for free? Do we understand their profits primarily as a tax to support the infrastructure that enables their distribution?”
Howard Rheingold, DIY Media Weblog, 2 November 2006
[Kategorien: Web 2.0, Social Software]