About this weblog
Here we'll explore the nexus of legal rulings, Capitol Hill
policy-making, technical standards development, and technological
innovation that creates -- and will recreate -- the networked world as we
know it. Among the topics we'll touch on: intellectual property
conflicts, technical architecture and innovation, the evolution of
copyright, private vs. public interests in Net policy-making, lobbying
and the law, and more.
Disclaimer: the opinions expressed in this weblog are those of the authors and not of their respective institutions.
What Does "Copyfight" Mean?
Copyfight, the Solo Years: April 2002-March 2004
1. Seth Finkelstein on April 15, 2005 11:07 AM writes...
I'm amused. I hereby offer to sell, for the appropriate fee, "Accredited Blogger" certificates. Good for one year only, renewal fees too.
These are certificates which accredit that you are indeed a blogger, which you can validate by blogging about them.
Accreditation is a social process. The term for a business selling accreditation itself is "diploma mill".
Permalink to Comment2. Dr. wex on April 15, 2005 12:08 PM writes...
Yes and no. Formal accreditation is often managed by the profession itself. Just off the top of my head, I think doctors, lawyers, architects, and actors/directors/theater technicians self-accredit. I'm sure there are more. Self-accreditation is also happening in the computer field, perhaps most famously with the MCSE for Microsoft networking admins and the PMI certification for project managers. Sorry, Seth, but I reject the notion that self-certification is inherently a diploma mill.
Permalink to Comment3. Usher Lieberman on April 15, 2005 12:55 PM writes...
The purpose is not to sell accreditation. The purpose is to build a community where standards evolve and are self-enforced that provide credible sources with a legal framework for defending their rightful freedom of the press protections. I don't think we will sell anything to bloggers. I do think there is a way to make this community self-funding and potentially provide its 'blournalist' (does anyone like that term?) members with a financial incentive to participate. It does not work as a diploma mill, that is a concept that will be roundly rejected.
Permalink to Comment4. Seth Finkelstein on April 15, 2005 1:03 PM writes...
Usher, apologies for being flippant, I shouldn't do that to well-intentioned people.
However ... as to accrediting ... well, let me ask simple questions:
1) Who are you going to throw out?
2) How are you going to enforce it?
Doctors and lawyers enforce by *law*. Actors/directors enforce by being very, very, tough on violators. Microsoft enforces by being just plain big.
What you going to do to rogue bloggers?
Name the most A-list'ish person you would refuse to accredit, and why they should care.
Permalink to Comment5. Usher Lieberman on April 15, 2005 1:33 PM writes...
These are good questions and probably not for me to decide. My thinking is that the community will pay an annual dividend (or some other compensation) to community members who uphold the standards.
It is not for me or any one person to decide who is in and who is out. I think it has to be a transparent process that uses an aggregate of qualititative and quantitative tools to define membership and/or accreditation parameters.
No one would do anything with rogue bloggers, they have every right to speak their mind. They just won't receive the benefits of membership/accreditation, which may only include 1) recognition (not important to many) 2) compensation 3) some modicum of legal standing to freedom of the press protection.
That said, these are the types of questions that need asking. I am in discussions with a university to turn this into some sort of research project to put parameters around who should be afforded freedom of press protections and how to build the tools to create a community for this group of individual publishers.
Permalink to Comment