Julianna Yau’s blog

One of my friends sent me a link to Stuart Jeffries’s article on freeconomics (sic). I went from not intending to blog about the article to wanting to leave notes all over it the way I do with books (using stickies, of course).

It wasn’t until a few paragraphs into the article that I started to see how it was applicable to more than flying for free. During the first 1/3 or so of the article, my mind was swimming with questions on what the definition of “free” was and is. Thankfully, I was able to temporarily put those questions aside when I reached Chris Anderson’s quote that “a free lunch doesn’t necessarily mean the food is being given away or that you’ll pay for it later - it could just mean someone else is picking up the tab”. Although I don’t completely agree with that definition of free, it’s sufficient in providing a context for Anderson’s position as presented by Jeffries.

The concept of generating revenue from something which is not the primary product is still something I’m struggling to apply to artists who create unique (or limited editions of) works of art. I’ve been asking myself the question “how can we make that work” for so long that I’m starting to loose faith and wonder whether it’s even possible. The most successful non-traditional business model of which I’m aware (for visual art) is the one being used by Matthew Barney, and that doesn’t involve giving away anything for free (except for limited images online).

Distinguishing between “feels like free” and “free” is something we need to accomplish. I wonder how many of the creators who balk at “free” are unhappy not because their work is so accessible but because there is the feeling of the work being taken rather than given. Creative control is a big concern for most creators, and its most recent manifestations in copyright law litigation suggest that maybe it’s not just the money we’re worried about.

The most overwhelming thing about the article? It lead me to three or four books to add to my already long list of books to read.

Related posts

• TIAC - Where Virtual Worlds Collide (0)
• TIAC - Understanding Your Audience and Your Community (0)
• The Uninvited Guest (0)
• The “Matthew Barney” Model (0)
• Norwegians try P2P distribution (0)

Last month (April 2nd, to be exact), I send a form letter to my MP on C-10 Net Neutrality. I typically try to write a letter personally, but I just haven’t been able to find the time for that recently.

Here’s what I sent:

Honourable Andrew Telegdi:

I am deeply concerned about Bell Canada’s recent announcement that it will make its practice of throttling official starting April 7.

Canada does not have strict enforceable net neutrality legislation and so there is very little structure in place to prevent the big ISPs from discriminating by speeding up or slowing down Web content based on its source, ownership or destination.

I am outraged that Canada does not have a policy to protect my ability to communicate and access information freely on the Internet and urge you to take action on this matter immediately.

Sincerely,

Julianna Yau

And here’s the response I received today:

Dear Julianna Yau,

Thank you for your email regarding net neutrality. The issues you have raised are both valid and timely.

The internet is currently unregulated in Canada. Given the fluid and evolutionary nature of the internet, it is extremely difficult to develop effective measures to protect both consumer and internet provider. With that being said, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC), is mandated to regulate the internet. Last year, the CRTC announced that it will be holding hearings concerning internet regulations by 2009.

In 2006, the Conservative government advised the CRTC that it should adopt a more hands-off approach and let market forces determine the telecommunications landscape as much as possible. This approach does not afford proper recognition to the rights of Canadian internet users, and has resulted in the problems we are beginning to see now in terms of internet providers’ practice of throttling internet connections.

I have forwarded your email to the Hon. Jim Prentice, Minister of Industry, so that your concerns can be properly addressed.

Thank you again for your correspondence.

Sincerely,
Katherine Preiss
Member’s Assistant
Hon. Andrew Telegdi P.C., M.P.
Kitchener-Waterloo

Related posts

• Writing to government about a copyright inquiry (2)
• Week (or so) in review: Copyright (1)
• The Responsibility of Preserving Public Art (0)
• Some [belated] thoughts on the throne speech (0)
• Roles and Responsibilities on the Web (4)