This is Richard Landry, reporting live from the NetSquared Conference. I am covering the session entitled "Mashups, Copyright, and Commons" led by Mike Linksvayer from Creative Commons.

Live blogging is a practice of careful listening, and I have a long way to go in that area! So if you see something that I misunderstood or misreported, please post a comment/correction.

----

There were a lot of legal issues and terms raised in Mike's presentation, but he preceded them by this disclaimer: "I am not a lawyer."

Moving on, Mike's main message was this: Mashups require a Commons to realize their full value.

In other words, the new opportunities presented by the combination of content and open web services APIs will be realized only if people can reuse/remix software without worrying about negotiating rights up front with all the content sources potentially involved in a mashup. So a world in which all content is tied to copyright licenses that specify the ways in which the content can be used will lead new an explosion of innovation in media on the Net.

First, though: What makes a mashup?

Simply put, a mashup involves "reusing bits."

Legally, a mashup could be considered a "derivative work": two or more "original," "prior" works combined. Something had to exist prior, or else there would be nothing to "mash."
What are we "mashing"?
--Data
--Content
--Media
--"Cultural works"
--"Works of authorship"
--"Software"
--"Metadata"
--etc.

A web or software mashup adds a twist to this basic concept: You take a web application that has been produced with open APIs, and you combine it with your own information. A very common, but good example, is what people are doing with Google Maps to enhance of all different kinds of location-based content. When an open API is involved—as in the Google case—you can get the most innovative and interesting kinds of mashups.

What makes a mashup interesting?

The interesting kinds of mashups cross boundaries:
--Organizations
--Networks
--Formats
--Cultures

Without a Commons—an environment of open exchange of intellectual property—you have to negotiate up-front deals for each new use.

A Commons lowers the barriers to boundary crossing:
--Lower transaction costs
--Interoperability
--You already have (or don't need) permission

In the context of a Commons, collaborative, large scale, innovative, content-rich production can take place outside the boundaries of firms and other institutions, in a decentralized, participatory fashion. In other words: You get interesting mashups.

Rather than coming from the traditional, commercial content and software industries, the most interesting mashups will most likely arise out of entirely new modes of production that don't require a business model, like Wikipedia.

This sounds like good news for web 2.0-based nonprofits. So how can we be good mashup citizens, and advance the whole field?

Easy: Create the right network effects.

--Use commons-based infrastructure, such as free/open source software
--Make it possible for others to mash you up, by using a CC license
--Publish your network service source code/APIs under a FLOSS license