One of the interesting movements of late, is related to web content and copyrights. Web 2.0 opened up the doors with content syndication, with a general unwritten rule that all content is fair game, as long as it’s credited. I raised the question on linkedin (some summary quotes of which are listed above) gathered responses which followed this view, but where the approach falls over is when someone is writing for a career - the journalist, freelance writers, etc.. Interestingly, although I raised the question on linkedin, and people volnteered answers, linked state that content copyright is linkedin’s. Linkedin skirts borderline of web 2.0, but the same philosophy applies - they need our contribution, our content, our involvement to grow and make profit. To my mind, linkedin’s content is fair game.

The concept of whenever content is put on the www, it inherently loses all rights, is a convenient philosophy, but does not seem instinctively a fair one. Web 2.0 is already being superceded by a new wave of social networking sites, who do not depend on other people’s content. As with surge of open source, creating a free space to evolve sometimes means that toes will be trodden on. In commercial sense, the idea to creating something, just because you love it, with no commercial agenda, doesnt fit into any traditional business models. Although the idea of money not being a driver for success, rather time/effort/love, is atractive. Unfortunately, we are still in the tail end of capatilist death, and as such money can still make or break an individual. Though I agree with the copyright ethos of web 2.0, I find that the people who are still continually bleating about fredom of the web, would also probably argue that all proprty is theft. And indefensible and lazy argument. So why do people take content?

People like what they’ve seen and want to copy it as it will make them look more professional from the start. Whilst copying can be seen as a form of flattery, the reality is that copying content is breaking copyright - the right of the owner who owns that copy.

Kathie M Thomas (http://vadirectory.net/blog/?p=149)

I had used a section of Kathie’s article to illustrate the question. Not because I was too lazy to think of an answer, but I agreed with her view. But taken a qalifying piece of content, crediting and providing a link back to her article, I have followed the unwritten web 2.0 rule. If I took the whole article, and published it on my own, it would be morally and legally indefensible.