A t r i u m - media e cidadania

Fechar acesso a informação - certo ou errado?

A noção de que os media tradicionais precisam de ter presença na net mas precisam, também, de a rentabilizar deu corpo à ideia - cuja implementação está em curso - do gradual barramento de acesso a conteúdos; alguns media escolheram um caminho 'soft' e pedem-nos uma inscrição, outros avançaram mesmo para um novo tipo de 'pay per view'.
Por sugestão de Dan Gillmor fui ler um texto de Mary Hodder sobre a necessidade de os media pensarem duas vezes antes de recorrem a tecnologia de gestão digital de restrições. Aconselho e subscrevo: "You're nothing online if you're not linkable".

Deixo apenas dois excertos que me parecem esclarecedores:

"The most important reasons news media companies and creators should not implement DRM is because of fair use considerations of the content itself, as well as the maintenance of their positions as reporters of news, and authorities of information.
Online, bloggers and other web content makers use and depend on traditional journalism by discussing news within their writing, as well as by linking, make traditional journalism a kind of authority. These users are filtering for audiences, pointing to things, saying to their readers: look at this for some reason, and here, I'm telling you what I think about it, and here's the link to the article itself, to some other backup to do with the subject, to someone else talking about the same thing. Snipets of content, used because of fair use, commented and fisked, are key to this as well, to show what is being discussed. Imagine Roger Ebert having to review a movie without the clips, describing the whole thing. It's possible, but not nearly as powerful as being able to cut and paste something that needs to be shown"

(...)

"Here's what you want: users who, every time something in the world happens, think, hey, I need this media company's content, this writer, this site's take. If you use DRM or make barriers, you will reduce your standing as an authority for news both as content and as linking expression because invariably some won’t be able to open it or link to it. If you make yourself unlinkable, you will cause yourself to be irrelevant across the influencers on the internet that point to the sources, filter them, for other users. Who links to the Wall Street Journal? In Technorati, they have 354 links compared with the NYTimes at 39,412 and the Washington Post at 21,319. Who do you think has more authority online? The paper with premiere content in it's niche and 600,000 online subscribers, and a lovely firewall? Or the paper of record. Now imagine losing that authority with the DRM you wrap around your articles".

.

Publicado por lasantos em abril 2, 2004 10:47 AM