Let's Start Here

Expressing one prevailing gripe in "What's a Fair Share In the Age of Google," Peter Osnos writes, "There is a growing sense among the 'legacy' media, at least, that Google facilitates a corrosive move away from paying content providers for their work. Proceeds go instead to those who sell advertising and other services while aggregating and/or lifting material they did not create. It is true that the content providers have submitted to the link economy of their own accord. Still, in a piece last winter, I wrote that the notion that 'information wants to be free' is absurd when the referral mechanism makes a fortune and the creators get scraps."

As you may know, this position has been touted in the blogosphere, illustrating the ire not just of legacy media. Contemporary writers, thinkers and technologically inclined media futurists all have something to say on this issue. But it's not as simple as contrasting the integrity of old media and Google as some sloppy embodiment of the new link economy.

Free and Fair

Understanding the fine lines of fair use and infringement is no simple exercise. In her part, Alissa Quart illustrates the complexity by pointing to the legal flap between Associated Press and Shepard Fairey, whose familiar Obama silkscreen appropriating a photo originally by a barely known AP photographer is a case study in the perils of trying to sort out this issue. Appropriation, which is the core tenet of fair use, is tricky.

Then there is free culture -- where things are given between parties with no presumption of direct repayment. Most of us agree that gifts are never free; there are always strings. As Quart quotes Marcel Mauss, gifts "rather are a kind of social magic, as they give rise to reciprocal exchange and tie the giver to the receiver." As Quart notes, many free advocates would argue that refusal to share information with someone who needs it is plain wrong -- but would remind us that "free" means free speech, not free beer.

Attribution as Salve

Many believe that standards for attribution -- always assuring due credit as we aggregate, link and monetize -- solve everything. These people make it sound simple, effusing that as long as we come up with a scalable model for authorship, attribution and monetization, we are golden. I guess if we agree that digital delivery prevails forever-forward, we at least give ourselves a specific forum that we can devote to figuring out. But what's "forever"?

What About The Math?

On the issue of attribution and linking standards, we realize that if algorithms are not aligned, the search marketplace whacks progress. Content entities can quickly lose credit for a scoop if they're not quick on the search-optimization draw. In his CJR piece, Osnos tells the story of SI.com essentially being scooped by Huffington Post on the A-Rod performance-enhancing-drugs story -- at least in the eyes of the search engines. Though SI.com had broken the story, Google showed references, both those that attributed the SI.com story and not, ranking above the SI.com original. Huffpo's command of SEO allowed it to prevail in the search marketplace on this hot piece. Is this a good or a bad thing?

Talking the Talk of Hybrids

As often as we hear, "Why should I pay for content I can get for free?" we also hear vague banter about hybrids. We can track the chronology of various news brands yanking content in front of or behind the wall -- but it's unclear the role these flip-flops play in the real fate of journalism.

"People will pay for news they deem essential, and depending on the depth and urgency of their need, they will pay a lot... Those subscriptions will not save newspapers. They alone will not pay for the cost of reporting. No one revenue stream will -- not online or print advertising, or alerts on handheld devices, or new electronic readers that display stories handsomely. The hope is that they all will." These are welcome words by Michael Shapiro in "Open for Business," where he makes a case for a hybrid model, carefully explaining what this means.

What's Up With 'The Demise'?

You may know who New York University scholar Clay Shirky is. Quart references an essay where Shirky quotes "some of the technologically-enabled media types like himself" wondering how different things would be if so-called legacy media and old-school newspapers were financially healthy: "Would they bother sniping at free culture?" Quart paraphrases. Shirky suggests, according to Quart, that "these journalists and others fail to understand that free culture isn't the thing killing them: the market is."

There is the ethos of original reporting and there is the question of vehicle. The monetization of vehicles can screw up the flow of credit. And anyone who would argue that original reporting is not a content cornerstone that should be preserved lacks soul. If we can transport journalistic principles, deal with attribution and get the vehicles right, our future starts to make a lot more sense.

In the end, the link economy is not a monster. And whatever it is, is of our own making. But there are messes inside. Looking in and sorting out interests can feel like an exercise in splitting hairs.

Still we agree that majority rule is not going to reconcile all of this. As writers, artists, content creators, bloggers, producers, aggregators, sellers and algorithm engineers, knowing where we stand on attribution as a principle helps the trailblazing along.