But there's no question that their agreements give them the unqualified right to appropriate or substantially alter free-lance contributions. Consider the context for this dispute-not just the digital revolution but the continuing centralization of media. Fifty-seven channels and nothing on. Despite the promise of the Internet, public discourse is becoming increasingly homogenized. The corporate media value originality much less than imitation, which is easier to market.
Consumerism relies on the appeal of the familiar.
People wear clothes proclaimed fashionable by magazines or aggressively marketed by national retailers. They vote for politicians who test their ideas and attitudes in focus groups or polls and who successfully package what's popular. They consume media that provide conventional content, tweaked just enough to seem interesting but not so much that it challenges people or makes them uncomfortable. Free-lance writers are hardly immune from this disease. Whether or not they retain control over their own intellectual property, they still have to please editors, and many share popular tastes or willingly pander to them.