- Joined
- Dec 29, 2007
- Messages
- 5,114
- Reaction score
- 1,322
In an idle moment yesterday, I downloaded and played Paolo Pedercini's free game called 'Free Culture'. It's a bit of propaganda with some amusement value. Here's a picture:
In the middle are the Creative Commons. You move yellow ideas round to 'feed' the green people who share the Creative Commons, while competing with the black Copyright monster that tries to suck the ideas away to feed passive grey people on the fringes. People 'fed' from Creative Commons are creative folk, the game teaches us. They produce more ideas, while people who are fed from copyright-controlled content produce nothing. From time to time, unfed green people become grey, while unfed grey people become green. The game quickly teaches you that you do better by moving ideas around quickly, but that you're constantly competing with a monster that repositions itself to suck ideas from far and wide just to feed niche demand.
I thought I'd test the game's thesis here. Just how creative has Creative Commons made you? For instance, to what extent do you rely on Creative Commons to learn how to write? To what extent do you rely on published 'how to write' books, or fee-for-service courses? To what extent do you rely on Creative Commons for story inspiration? To what extent does it come from copy-controlled material?
Personally, my earliest exposure to writing theory came from blog sites and discussion with fellow writers (so, Creative Commons). But frankly, I found that inadequate. I purchased some low-cost e-books (Holly Lisle's, Ken Rand's) to supplement that - and they were helpful, but I found that I still needed basic theory. Eventually I purchased some large-press commercial writing books (like Bickham's Scene and Structure) to round out what I felt I needed to know.
In terms of inspiration, I pretty much ignore fiction in the Creative Commons market unless I have interest in a particular author. The stuff I use for inspiration is all high-quality and copyrighted material.
On the other hand, I probably produce many more words in the Creative Commons helping writers than I do in fiction writing. So I wonder whether I'm a green person or a grey one? I find that once I know something, helping others is very useful in teaching me how best to apply what I know. And sometimes, helping others teaches me what I don't know, but need to. And sometimes (though more rarely) watching other people helping each other helps me too. (Does that make me a green or a grey person? Maybe I write grey fiction but green nonfiction?)
Anyway, from my sample size of one, Paolo's thesis seems a little strained to me. But maybe it's different for others.
How is it for you?
In the middle are the Creative Commons. You move yellow ideas round to 'feed' the green people who share the Creative Commons, while competing with the black Copyright monster that tries to suck the ideas away to feed passive grey people on the fringes. People 'fed' from Creative Commons are creative folk, the game teaches us. They produce more ideas, while people who are fed from copyright-controlled content produce nothing. From time to time, unfed green people become grey, while unfed grey people become green. The game quickly teaches you that you do better by moving ideas around quickly, but that you're constantly competing with a monster that repositions itself to suck ideas from far and wide just to feed niche demand.
I thought I'd test the game's thesis here. Just how creative has Creative Commons made you? For instance, to what extent do you rely on Creative Commons to learn how to write? To what extent do you rely on published 'how to write' books, or fee-for-service courses? To what extent do you rely on Creative Commons for story inspiration? To what extent does it come from copy-controlled material?
Personally, my earliest exposure to writing theory came from blog sites and discussion with fellow writers (so, Creative Commons). But frankly, I found that inadequate. I purchased some low-cost e-books (Holly Lisle's, Ken Rand's) to supplement that - and they were helpful, but I found that I still needed basic theory. Eventually I purchased some large-press commercial writing books (like Bickham's Scene and Structure) to round out what I felt I needed to know.
In terms of inspiration, I pretty much ignore fiction in the Creative Commons market unless I have interest in a particular author. The stuff I use for inspiration is all high-quality and copyrighted material.
On the other hand, I probably produce many more words in the Creative Commons helping writers than I do in fiction writing. So I wonder whether I'm a green person or a grey one? I find that once I know something, helping others is very useful in teaching me how best to apply what I know. And sometimes, helping others teaches me what I don't know, but need to. And sometimes (though more rarely) watching other people helping each other helps me too. (Does that make me a green or a grey person? Maybe I write grey fiction but green nonfiction?)
Anyway, from my sample size of one, Paolo's thesis seems a little strained to me. But maybe it's different for others.
How is it for you?