Weblog
Jul 5, 10:21 pm: What permissions are required on the remixable web?
In Copyright and the remixable web, Bud Gibson asks, “Will remixing the web encourage people to use more liberal copyrights because the value of participating is higher than the value of retaining an exclusive lock on their data?”
When combined with Greasemonkey, tags, RSS, Creative Commons and the general Do-it-yourself trend, more liberal copyrights and definitions of use will be required.
What does it mean when I can go to a website and, with Greasemonkey extensions installed, add missing functionality—a practice that often includes stripping information (like adverstising) off of the screen and adding buttons that look like they belong there? What does it mean when I can use a combination of tagging and RSS to create an attention stream like nptech?
I think it means that the real commodity organizations can provide is information—in all its forms. Information as stories—such as March of Dimes Share your story—information as data—such as that on TechFinder. And all of the other permutations that information can take. Make that available and then point people to the tools that allow them to remix that information in ways that make it relavant to them. Do you lose control? Sure, you do. But the result can be striking.
Pushing this past the issue of permissions and use, what does this mean to brand? It means giving that over to your users as well. In the ways that 43 Folders and flickr have. It means doing this by letting people use your name and your image as a way of identifying themselves. It also means it by opening up APIs(Application Programming Interface) (on wikipeida) that make the use of your data explicit and documented.
In my opinion, this starts to transform what is possible from nonprofit organizations. I’m just not entirely sure how yet.
Bonus link: Peter Campbell takes issue with my use of the word “remix” in The 3D web.
