I have been thinking about doing a couple of posts focused on educators assumptions regarding the cost of instructional materials. So, in the spirit of using someone else’s work to create the background for our discussion, I would like you to read this NY Time article by David Carr. The author describes the sale of the Huffington Post to AOL for a reported $315 billion. The post is partly about who generates the content. The short version – much of the content is generated by bloggers who receive nothing. They are kind of upset.
The funny thing about all these frothy millions and billions piling up? Most of the value was created by people working free.
Most of the news on the site is rewritten from other sources, then given a single link to the original. Many media companies, used to seeing their scoops get picked off by HuffPo and others, have decided that legal action isn’t worth the bother. They might feel differently now.
First, I understand the reaction of the bloggers. Second, this notion of not understanding the difference between original sources (not necessarily primary by the normal definition) and rewriters needs to be appreciated. This is clearly a continuum, but where along the continuum the content you want to consume is located should be a significant issue.
Back to the issue of the bloggers – the individuals who really built the reputation of the site, not the infrastructure, were mostly people contributing their labor for free. So, why if they did what they did without compensation are they upset. One of the problems with free is that others seem to assume they have a right to decide how free will be used.
BTW – just in case you think my reference to the Carr piece represents some form of hypocrisy , I would encourage you to investigate the micropayment plan available through Readability.
