Comments for Comment of the Day: R.E.M. Video = Open Source As In Linux

Comment of the Day: R.E.M. Video = Open Source As In Linux

2008-02-16T07:15:11Z

Our 5th daily Comments Competition winner comes via a trackback. It's from Risa Dickens of the blog Indyish, in response to our post R.E.M. Releases New Videos Under Open Source License. Congratulations Risa, you've won a $30 Amazon voucher, courtesy of our competition sponsors AdaptiveBlue and their Amazon WishList Widget.

Risa wrote that REM's open source video is "a taste of open source in the much more potentially disruptive way of open sourcing advanced by Linux, then the pay-what-you-can but still copy-written version tried on [Radiohead's] In Rainbows."

]]> Riza continued:

REM and Warner make a tiny but bold experiment with this one video, and it’s a hint of much bigger moves to come. For certain they’ll watch Supernatural Superserious closely to see how the video moves through distribution circuits that are not used to open source, and open source systems that are not used to them. My one humble suggestion so far would be to use open and standard protocols rather then proprietary software when trying to open source content - Flash navigation seems an unfortunate way to try and share.

Nevertheless, these tentative and awkward first steps have precedent in the world of software which suggests that the real innovations in the entertainment industry may lie along these exact lines traced by REM and Warner. No matter whether it’s large companies or independents who are making them, the future lies in seeking a balance between sharing and selling where both can coexist to expand ever wider and more sustainable networks of access and collective affluence… Maybe the future is even foreshadowed in REM’s own hanging, haunting question from 1986:

“What if we give it away?”

Comment from Matt on 2008-02-16

2008-02-16T20:41:38Z

Hmmm.... why does the author of this comment neglect to point out the fact that all popular distribution methods for the intended result of this release (viral web videos) is done in the oh so unstandardized "proprietary" flash format.

Can we point out that the flash player is [far] more ubiquitous than any "Standard". I love the spec, don't get me wrong. But this statement is "stadardista" to the dogmatic level.

Flash navigation is not only a "fortunate" way to share said content, it's the "perfect" way to distribute said content. if you don't have the "proprietary player" (which is by no means difficult to acquire) then you are less encouraged, thusly, to download the media... as well you should be. This is not, "here, have some free media to use however you want!!!" it's really... "hey, use these professional media segments to remix your own creative piece, distribute it online, and promote our new album." ... something fans of an artist always do, and in this case are finally being welcomed by the record label lawyers to do. We might actually, *gasp*.. thank them for doing so an leave it at that instead of finding such an insignificant gnawing point as "their website is flash, dont they know that the 'open source' cult is anti-flash!!" .... comment of the day my $var... :-P

Comment from Taran Rampersad on 2008-02-16

2008-02-16T22:21:35Z

The fact that 'Open Source' is still being used in all of this when we're actually discussing 'Open Content' is somewhat disturbing.

Comment from risa on 2008-02-24

2008-02-24T18:15:03Z

hey! thanks for the gift certificate Richard, i was, as you guessed, oblivious to this contest but delighted it was worth highlighting.

i'm no expert, but i have questions about the above comments, maybe you guys can help me.

first i should say that this is only an excerpt of the post i wrote and trackbacked here, click my name in the post to read the whole thing.

2nd - to Matt - I don't complain about using flash to show the video content, we've made that choice on Indyish as well, my point is about using it for basic site navigation. the download links on the video website didn't have to be flash, is all i'm saying, and then at least part of the site would be visible and navigable to those without the plugin. is that 'standardista'?

3rd - to Taran - i was following the language used in the license they chose for the REM video, which talks about source files, not content, and i was trying to explain using that language what actually was being allowed. in the case of a video, aren't the highest quality original chunks of footage like the source? also - why is this disturbing? what is the danger in swapping or conflating these terms?