A Media-Tech King Contemplates Anarchy

Michael Arrington published another hum-dinger of an essay this morning, this one on the future of blogging and journalism in a world of rampant theft: one writer takes another writer’s story, hardly bothering to rewrite it, and posts it somewhere else, with the Internet portal and search engines richly rewarding the copycat rather than the creator. “The rise of fast-food content is upon us,” Mike writes, “and it’s going to get ugly.”

Mike blames everyone for it, including the New York Times, citing a conversation he and NYT editor Damon Darlin had before last summer’s Naked Truth, when Damon said he reads Michael’s writing every day. Mike appreciated the compliment, but in today’s essay he worried that it easily leads to the New York Times’ taking a TechCrunch story and re-writing it for the NYT’s broader audience. I am not sure this is theft — when an article appears in the New England Journal of Medicine or in TechCrunch, the New York Times can reasonably conclude that my mother didn’t see it — but we can all agree with Mike that theft is wrong.

Kelman & Arrington at Naked Truth

A few moments later on that day last summer, I asked Mike why stolen music, stolen images, stolen television didn’t bother him when presumably theft from TechCrunch would. Mike didn’t miss a beat. He said stealing from TechCrunch was fine so long as there was attribution:  spammers often take TechCrunch content word-for-word and re-post it under their own name, as if they had written it. I smiled, because it was an argument based on pride, not money: sometimes I think Mike is an artist posing as an entrepreneur. Even when you steal U2, Mike argued, you know it’s U2. It was a good point, but I still wondered if artists less wealthy than Bono would agree that this is the main point.

Now it seems that Mike, one of the most influential thinkers in technology and media, has broadened the scope of his concerns, to journalists who re-write his essays, not just those who re-post them. The problem, Mike now says in this morning’s essay, is that quality and originality are irrelevant when the “portals and search engines” “force feed” people whatever content is most profitable to display.

The argument that these Internet portals and search engines hold all the power has been dismissed as so much whining, even by TechCrunch earlier this month. In this morning’s essay, Mike cites AOL for linking to its own sub-par content, often re-written based on original reporting from TechCrunch and elsewhere. But he may as well talk about Google too, which only links to content that drives Google’s content-must-be-free business model (in Google’s defense, it’s algorithm rewards quality whereas AOL does not). In both cases, Mike can’t afford to opt out of AOL or Google, and bravely says he would rather use the Internet’s fire than fight it.

Hear, hear! But just noting that we should use that fire for good — and not cheer as it burns down everything in sight — is a huge step in the right direction. For years, artists, photographers, film-makers, writers and musicians have made less money so YouTube, EZNews, Napster & Boxee can make more. Sometimes we have been distracted by debates about whether once-bloated newspapers deserved to live or die, which allowed us to avoid the fundamental question of whose side we’re on: the creators or the distributors.

Theoretically, when Blogger eliminates the printing press and YouTube eliminates the movie studio, writers and directors should make more money, directly from their audience. It can still work out that way, and I believe it will, but the first step is to admit that it’s a problem that those who create are getting fleeced — to a greater degree than the publisher, record producer or studio executive ever could fleece them — by the technologies that distribute their creations.

Another way of saying this is that if AOL keeps screwing Mike, he’ll eventually stop taking the time to write such good stuff. And when he does that, the world will be a much poorer place… not just for Mike, but for all of us readers and for AOL too. My guess is that before that process is complete, the best and brightest in tech will start working for the artists, and not just the aggregators and distributors. A little balance in this regard will do us all a world of good.

(Photo credit: Randy Stewart, blog.stewtopia.com)


  • Pingback: Tweets that mention The Media-Tech King Comes Around… | Redfin Corporate Blog, The Media-Tech King Comes Around… | Redfin Corporate Blog -- Topsy.com

  • http://agentgenius.com Lani Rosales

    Glenn, I don’t know what the answer is here because this is a rampant problem, even if your voice is smaller than Arrington’s. It’s not just scrapers that are rewarded (and PAID for stealing in the form of Google Ads), but the theory of intellectual property seems to have died.

    We were at a tech conference recently and literally watched a person (a “professional keynote speaker” who does nothing but “keynote”) use an article of mine almost verbatim as his speech. I approached him at the end (with my article pulled up on my phone, btw) and he swore he’d never heard of my work. It seems harmless a bit here and there, but it is impossible to actually own your thoughts, words or (as YOU know), independent business ideas (like a brokerage model).

    But I have to ask what the solution is? That’s what I can’t wrap my brain around, because it is commonly accepted in web culture now, so how do you stigmatize something that unoriginal thinkers embrace as a means of business?

  • http://www.episodic.com Noam Lovinsky

    You broke a cardinal rule by mentioning EZNews. Nobody talks about Fight Club. Remember.

  • http://blog.redfin.com/ Glenn Kelman

    @Lani: Well, when Michael Arrington begins to stigmatize theft, that makes a big difference.

    @Noam: it won’t make a difference with you of course…

  • http://www.realsourcebrokers.com Joshua

    With regard to getting fleeced “by the technologies that distribute their creations” …

    I think Seth Godin sums it up nicely when, in a recent post slamming Rupert Murdoch’s “backwards” thinking, he says “If you can’t make money from attention, you should do something else for a living. Charging money for attention gets you neither money nor attention.”

  • http://blog.redfin.com/ Glenn Kelman

    Joshua, I’ve never found any statement that I disagree with more than the idea that attention is in and of itself what’s of value. The emptiness of that statement is depressing. Haven’t you met someone with attention-seeking behavior, where there’s no there there?

  • http://blog.redfin.com/ Glenn Kelman

    By the way, that was too harsh… I think the point you raise from Seth is the right counter-point. There are just so many people who think the newspapers are dummies and none of them has any particular suggestions that would help… thanks for the comment!

  • http://usdaruralhomeloans.com Paul Dunn

    I have my google reader set for certain keywords on my site and it never amazes me how quickly my content will show up on a spam scraper site. Usually, they do leave my links inside the content which raises the question… If your stolen content is on a site related to your industry and still contains your links, is that a bad thing? I don’t know the answer and for those who remove the links and references to my site I email them to request removal. I have not gotten any responses yet…

  • http://www.Karenr.com John Cooper

    Sounds like Mike has read When Atlas shrugged.

  • Soldes UGG Bottes

    The Scottish Lib Dems, instrumental in getting tuition fees scrapped, said access must be based on the ability to learn, while Labour said the issue had to be addressed “sooner

    rather than later”.Bottes UGG

  • http://www.rapidwriters.net/ Term Paper Writing

    It is really nice for me to see you and your great hard work again.Every piece of your work look excellent.Looking forward to learning more from you!