Archive for the ‘ Copyrights ’ Category

Heiße Debatte um das Leistungsschutzrecht… Und wo bleiben die Bibliotheksverbände?

Ich fühle eine Art Déjà vu. Ich habe es schon mal (ok, mehrmals) gesagt.

Sascha Lobo hat schön aufgezählt, wer alles an der Diskussion um das neue Leistungsschutzrecht für Presseverleger teilnimmt, das LSR kommentiert und kritisiert:

Es lohnt sich, genauer hinzuschauen, wenn sich so völlig unterschiedliche Teile der Gesellschaft gegen ein Gesetz stellen. Vor allem, weil BDI und Linkspartei ja nicht die einzigen sind. Der Bitkom, die Grünen, die Junge Union, die SPD, ungefähr alle Internetverbände, die “Netzgemeinde” in Komplettbesetzung, Netzpolitiker in der CSU, der Verband der Automobilindustrie, der DJV Berlin-Brandenburg, die Freischreiber, noch zwei Dutzend andere Verbände sowie naheliegenderweise die in Deutschland tätige Internet-Wirtschaft in toto. Schon rein statistisch erhöht sich dann die Chance, dass das Gesetz falsch ist.

Fällt noch jemand außer mir was auf?

Wo sind die Bibliotheken und Bibliotheksverbände? Oder Verbände anderer Information Professionals (z.B. DGI und GfWM)?

Wie kommt das, dass sie (wir) nichts dazu zu sagen haben? Oder noch schlimmer, sind wir nicht in der Lage, unsere Stellungsnahme an die Öffentlichkeit zu bringen?

Also nochmals:
Die Praxis der Informationsberufe, von BibliothekarInnen bis zu WissensmanagerInnen, von Archivare bis zu Web Designer, alle sind vom Urheberrecht betroffen. Früher waren es die Grenzen der Technologie und Ressourcenmangel Ressourcenknappheit, die die Informationspraxis eingeschränkt haben. Heute ist das das Urheberrecht, das die Grenzen des möglichen definiert.

Und das Leistungsschutzrecht?
Ein klares Produkt der Verlage-Lobby, völlig an der (Netz-)Realität vorbeikonzipiert und eigentlich, ein Schuss ins eigene Bein für Verlage.
Ob Blogger und Twitterer davon betroffen sind ist eine Auslegungssache (und der Gesetzentwurf lässt viel Raum für unangenehme Auslegungen).

Werden Bibliotheken auch davon Betroffen sein, auf Grund eines tollen digitalen Angebots z.B.? Vielleicht, vielleicht auch nicht. Es geht aber nicht um die eigene Betroffenheit. Es geht darum, dass DIE FACHLEUTE, die eigentlich Ahnung von den Sachen haben (sollten) und ihre Praxis vom Urheberrecht nicht trennen können – sie müssen eine Stellungnahme in jeder Entwicklung (wenn man das Leistungsschutzrecht für Presseverleger als Entwicklung überhaupt bezeichnen kann) dieses Gesetztes haben.

Weiterhin, wenn sie noch an irgendwelche ethische Grundsätze glauben und wirklich an der Gesellschaft denken, in der sie agieren, dann müssen sie eine Meinung haben. Eine fachliche Meinung, die alle diskutierten (und nicht diskutierten) Aspekte dieses Leistungsschutzrechtes umfasst, die Argumente abwägt und erklärt, wohin diese Entwicklung wirklich hinführt.

Und wenn BibliothekarInnen, InformationswissenschaftlerInnen, WissensmanagerInnen, Information Brokers etc. das wirklich nicht wissen und nicht können, dann müssen sie dringend und ernst über ihren Beruf nachdenken.

 

So, Ventil raus, jetzt sind Sie dran.

 

Nachtrag:
Ich will an dieser Stelle weiter betonen – Es ist völlig klar, dass solche Stellungnahmen und Teilnahme an öffentlichen Diskussionen Ressourcen (v.a. Personal-Ressourcen) verlangen, aber es geht um viel mehr.
Das Leistungsschutzrecht für Presseverleger wird seit langer Zeit diskutiert und hat bereits drei Gesetzentwürfe. Es ist ein weiteres Beispiel dafür, wie informationsethischen und -politischen Themen von Informationsfachleuten in der Forschung, Lehre und Praxis undiskutiert und unkommentiert gelassen werden (ein paar weitere Beispiele: nur in den letzten Monaten hatten wir öffentliche Debatten um ACTA, Vorratsdatenspeicherung und den Staatstrojaner).

Das ist ein Alarmsignal für die Diskussionskultur und gesellschaftliches Bewusstsein unseres Berufsumfeldes.

2012
08/31
CATEGORY
Copyrights
Information Ethics
Library Values
Politics
2 comments

Warum ich ab sofort die GEMA, ACTA und Co. unterstütze

Bis heute war ich wie ihr, ich war empört über jede Entwicklung im Bereich des Urheberrechts. Ich fand Sachen wie ACTA und die Änderungen der GEMA Tarife unmöglich.
Ich war noch extremer als ihr es seid. Seit zwei Jahren plädiere ich für sogenannten Postcopyrightism – ein gerechtes System, das die Hegemonie des heutigen Modells von geistigem Eigentum (u.a. Urheberrecht) ablöst.

Aber ich habe mir anders überlegt. Eigentlich, ab heute finde ich ACTA, SOPA, PIPA, HADOPI, die GEMA Tarife, IPRED, das neue Leistungsschutzrecht für Presseverleger [1,2,3] und sogar das Abmahnwesen unterstützungswert.

Lass mich erklären warum:

Seit Jahrzehnten entwickelt sich ein Mechanismus, der alles andere tut, als was er eigentlich tun soll.

Anstatt kreatives Schaffen zu unterstützen – verhindert er es.

Anstatt Zugang zu Information, Wissen und Kultur zu schaffen – verknappt er ihn.

Anstatt Chancengleichheit – werden die (Informations- und Wissens-)Reiche reicher während die Armen ärmer werden.

Anstatt die Wissenskluft und digitale Kluft zu überwinden – vertieft er diese und reproduziert die Abhängigkeit von Entwicklungsländern im Westen (klingt nach Kolonialismus der Informations- und Wissensgesellschaft? Genau so ist es).

Anstatt die UrheberInnen zu schützen und vergüten – hat er sie zu Vasallen der Verwertungsindustrie gemacht.

Anstatt Leben durch Produktion von günstigen Medikamenten zu retten – sichert er Gesundheit nur für die, die bezahlen können.

Das ist der Copyrightsmechnismus.

Als die “digitalen Zeiten” und das Internet kamen, haben sie Information vom physischen Medium getrennt und damit die Kontrollemechanismen über die Verbreitung von Information, Wissen und Kulturgut obsolete gemacht. Weiterhin haben sie die Produktions- und Konsumverhalten sowie die Empfindung von Informations- und Kulturgegenstände grundlegend geändert.

Aber die imaginierte Freiheit, die dadurch entstanden ist, dauert nicht lange.

Napster ist Nostalgie.

Schnell wurden Youtube Videos gesperrt.

Kino.to ist abgeschaltet und dessen NutzerInnen werden verfolgt.

ACTA und SOPA gefährden unsere bürgerliche Rechte wie Meinungs- und Meinungsäußerungsfreiheit, Privatsphäre, Zugang zu Bildung und Wissenschaft – und dazu kommen die intransparente und undemokratische Entwicklung dieser Abkommen.

Die GEMA mahnt Kindergärten wegen Lieder-Singen ab ; bedroht die Existenz von Kultureinrichtungen und macht den Zugang dazu nur den Reichen möglich ; und erhöht die Preise von Speichermedien um 1850%.

Das aktuell debattierte Leistungsschutzrecht für Presseverleger bedroht die Informationsfreiheit.
News-Aggregatore, BloggerInnen, Twitter-NutzerInnen etc. sollen künftig Verlagen dafür Bezahlen, dass sie durch Verlinkung die Verlage mit LeserInnen beliefern, sonst können sie mit Abmahnungen rechnen. Hier macht auch der unterschied zwischen privater und kommerzieller Nutzung nichts aus.
Genauso viel Sinn macht es, wenn Marketingagenturen ihren Kunden für erfolgreiche Werbung bezahlen sollen oder wenn Konsumenten abgemahnt werden, weil sie ihren Freunden ein Geschäft oder Produkt empfohlen haben.

Durch Abmahnungen kassieren Anwaltskanzleien Millionenbeträge, wenn gleichzeitig jugendliche durch die Sommerferien arbeiten müssen, um diese zu finanzieren. Diese jugendliche übrigens, werden nie wieder Kultur konsumieren wollen. Anscheinend ist die Seele eines jugendlichen auf dem Markt 1000 Euro wert.

TRIPS, ACTA und ähnliche Abkommen stellen sicher, dass BürgerInnen von Entwicklungsländern sterben, weil sie die Preise für patentierte Medikamente gegen AIDS und andere Krankheiten einfach nicht bezahlen können.

Und die Liste geht weiter…

Unterstützungswert ist es weil…

Je Absurder die Entwicklung, je mehr Bürgerrechte verletzt werden, je mehr Durchschnittsmenschen davon betroffen werden, je mehr die UrheberInnen selbst realisieren, dass sie andere Möglichkeiten haben… desto nähern wir das benötigte Umdenken.

Je mehr von unseren Lebensbereichen betroffen sind, desto besser verstehen wir, dass es hier nicht um kleine Phänomene geht, die korrigiert werden sollen, sondern um ein krankhaftes System.
Ein System, das ausschließlich die finanziellen Interessen von kapitalistischen Akteuren dient.
Ein System, das Grundlegend verändert werden muss, damit solche Phänomene gar nicht auftauchen könnten.

Je mehr die Gesetzgebung die Interessen von wenigen (aber machtvollen) vor den Interessen der Gesellschaft ziehen, desto näher und gerechter ist der zivile Ungehorsam (nicht weil das der Zweck ist, sondern weil es leider keine andere Wahl gibt).

Je mehr die korrupten Koalitionsparteien in die Hände der Wirtschaft spielen, desto klarer wird es, dass wir diese Abwählen müssen.

ACTA, SOPA, PIPA, HADOPI, GEMA, IPRED, Leistungsschutzrecht für Presseverleger, Abmahnwesen und co. sind unterstützungswert weil…

sie Symptome eines Systems sind, das von seiner eigenen Macht überwältigt ist und nur von seiner eigenen Unersättlichkeit zerstört werden kann.

2012
06/26
CATEGORY
Capitalism
Copyrights
Politics
Postcopyrightism
14 comments

HADOPI, PIPA, SOPA -> Now ACTA -> What’s Next?

(Please scroll down for the ENGLISH VERSION)

Am 18. Januar 2012 wachten viele von uns in einer merkwürdigen Welt auf. Wikipedia war nicht da. Auch Google, Youtube, WordPress, Mozilla, Reddit, Greenpeace und viele andere waren ‚geblackoutet’.

Viele kannten das Problem bereits, viele wurden durch diese Aktion erst darauf aufmerksam, viele waren schockiert und gingen auf die Straße. Hingegen waren es nur wenige, die an diesem Tag unglücklich waren, weil ihr Plan gescheitert war.

SOPA war nicht das erste. Vorreiter waren HADOPI und DEA (in der EU) und PIPA (in den USA). Jetzt ist ACTA dran… und wir gehen wieder auf die Straße.

ACTA wird scheitern, das verspreche ich euch. Was passiert aber dann? Ist unser Kampf zu Ende? Hat die Gesellschaft ihre erwünschte Freiheit gewonnen oder sitzen die Akteure und Lobbyisten in diesem Moment zusammen und planen die nächste Attacke aufs Internet? (Im Namen des Urheberrechts natürlich).

Es ist gut, dass wir diesen Samstag (11. Februar 2012) auf der Straße gehen. Es ist gut, dass am 18. Januar das Internet verdunkelt wurde. Es ist schlecht, wenn wir an diesem Punkt aufhören.

Uns beherrscht ein tiefer liegendes Problem, wovon HADOPI, PIPA, SOPA und ACTA nur Symptome sind. Copyrights ist ein problematischer Mechanismus. De jure ist es wichtig, die Rechte des Urhebers zu schützen. De facto geschieht etwas anderes. Das ist ein Mechanismus, der dazu dient:

  • unser kulturelles Kapital für finanziellen Profit zu opfern;
  • die Kluft zwischen den (Informations)habenden und nicht-habenden zu vertiefen anstatt zu überwinden;
  • die Abhängigkeit der Entwicklungsländer vom Westen zu reproduzieren und auf eine neue (digitale) Ebene zu übertragen;
  • und mit Gesetzten wie HADOPI, PIPA, SOPA und ACTA werden unsere Informationsfreiheit, Freiheit der Meinungsäußerung u.v.m. unterdrückt.

Gegen das letzte protestieren wir jetzt.

Aber wenn wir nach dem Protest nach Hause gehen, müssen wir uns Gedanken machen.

  • Warum bekämpfen wir die Symptome und nicht die Krankheit?
  • Warum lassen wir kommerzielle Akteure und ihre Lobbyisten unsere Politik steuern und Grundrechte verletzen?
  • Warum nicht nach einen Modell streben, das die Interessen der SchöpferInnen und der Gesamtgesellschaft fördert, aber die Interessen kapitalistischer (und in einer globalisierten, digitalen Ökonomie kaum-funktionstragender) Akteure ausschließt?

So kämpfen wir nicht nur wenn die Gefahr uns deutlich wird. Wir kämpfen gegen die latente Gefahr, von der wir ständig betroffen sind. So kämpfen wir nicht nur für uns, wir kämpfen auch für andere, denen Widerstand (noch) nicht möglich ist.

Ausführlicher zu diesem Thema; Die Gefahr, die sich in den Entwicklungen des Copyrights verbirgt; Mögliche Lösungen; Anschluss an Produktion, Distribution und Konsum von Information; Der Bezug zu Kapitalismus u.v.m.:

http://drawer20.wordpress.com/category/postcopyrightism/

HADOPI, PIPA, SOPA -> Now ACTA -> What’s Next?

ENGLISH VERSION

On the January 18th 2012 many of us woke up into a strange world. Wikipedia wasn’t there. Also Google, Youtube, WordPress, Mozilla, Reddit, Greenpeace and many more were under a blackout.

Some already knew the problem, some became aware of it thanks to this action, many were shocked and went out protesting on the streets. In contrast, a very few weren’t shocked on that day, neither were they pleased upon SOPA’s withdrawal. Their plan failed.

SOPA wasn’t the first. Precursors were HADOPI and DEA in the EU as well as PIPA (a.k.a Protect IP and its own precursor COICA) in the U.S. Now it’s ACTAs turn… and we’re going on the streets again, protesting.

ACTA will fail, I can promise you that. But what will happen next? Is it the end of our struggle? Has society reached its desirable freedom or are they actors and lobbyists planning the next attack on the Internet at this very moment? (In the name of Copyrights of course).

It’s good that we’re going out and protest this Saturday (February 11th 2012). It’s good that the Internet was blacked-out on January 18th. It’s bad if we stop at this point.

We suffer under a much deeper problem, of which HADOPI, PIPA, SOPA, and ACTA are only Symptoms. Copyrights is a problematic mechanism. De jure it is important to protect the rights of creators. De facto something completely different happens. This is a mechanism that:

  • Sacrifices our cultural capital in sake of financial profit;
  • Deepens the divide between the ‘Haves’ and ‘Have-Nots’ instead of overcoming it;
  • Reproduces the dependency of developing countries in the west, thus bringing colonialism on a new (digital) level;
  • Threatens intellectual freedom, freedom of expression, access to knowledge etc. with bills such as HADOPI, PIPA, SOPA, and ACTA.

Today we protest against the latter.

However, when we go home after this protest, we MUST think some issues through:

  • Why to we fight the symptoms and not the disease?
  • Why do we let commercial actors and their lobbyists navigate out politic and violate our basic rights?
  • Why don’t we pursue a model that includes the interests of creators and of society as a whole, but excludes the interests of capitalist (and in a globalized, digital economy – hardly contributive) actors?

In this manner, we don’t only fight the danger when it becomes clear and visible. We fight against the latent danger, by which we are constantly affected. In this manner, we fight not only for us, we fight for others, for which resistance isn’t possible (yet).

Elaboration on these themes; the danger hidden in the developments of Intellectual Property legislations; possible solutions; the connection to production, distribution, and consumption of information; the relation to capitalism; and a good deal more: http://drawer20.wordpress.com/category/postcopyrightism/

2012
02/09
CATEGORY
Copyrights
Politics
Postcopyrightism
2 comments

What Is Post-Copyrightism? (A Post-Copyrightist Manifesto)

What is meant with Post-Copyrightism?  What does it have to do with today’s intellectual property frameworks? And why do we need it anyway?

These questions are a short summary of some fascinating discussions I had following the publication of my articles Toward an Age of Post-Copyrightism and Not Gonna Give Post-Copyrightism Up in which burning social issues regarding intellectual property were handled.

These issues and others are addressed in the following article, offering an extensive explanation for the notion of post-copyrightism.

Post-what?

In order to understand what post-copyrightism is all about, it is first needed to see what kind of situation it suppose to follow and more importantly – appeal.

As pointed out in my prior articles to the subject, copyrights are the embodiment of a three-fold problematic with the current exercise of intellectual property worldwide, leaded mostly by western countries (with the US as the front-runner):

  1. It is a mechanism that sacrifices our cultural capital for the sake of financial profit.
  2. It reproduces the dependency of developing countries in the west (thus bringing colonialism into the era of information and knowledge society).
  3. It threatens freedom of expression with acts such as DEA, HADOPI, and Protect IP (COICA’s following act).

At this point I will also add that:

  • It deepens the divide between the ‘Haves’ and ‘Have-Nots’, between those who can afford to “purchase” more information and knowledge and those who don’t. It can be developed and developing countries, but it can also be upper, middle and working class within one society (to name two examples).

It is somewhat absurd, considering that the expectations from the Internet and digitization of information were to produce exactly the opposite effects.

But how come the introduction of these amazing information and communication technologies ended contradicting those expectations and the intentions of their developers?

© for Capitalism, © for Copyrightism

One factor in the development of capitalism is commodification, the transformation of goods, services, and ideas into commodities.

Books, music, news, movies, pictures etc. are all being gradually regarded less as cultural pieces and more as commodities. Their intellectual and spiritual value is being transformed into exchange value (measures by currency). Our cultural capital is transformed into financial capital.

Among others, copyrights provide the needed environment for this development to take place.

In a broader sense, it seems that advanced capitalism is taking the role of a censor and suppresser free expression, introducing new forms of colonialism, and (of course) helping the (information-)rich get richer while the (information-)poor get poorer.

You Can’t Both Play the Game and Make Your Own Rules

But I do not claim intellectual property to be entirely obsolete, yet.

We currently live in the capitalist system and therefore creators should profit from their creations and the labor invested in them.

However, as capitalism develops so do the mechanisms of production, distribution, and consumption (in this case – of information). Many intermediates (record companies, publishers etc.) see how their role in the value chain diminishes before the eyes. And for actors, which until a decade ago were of the most profitable branches, it can be frustrating. No surprise than, that they hold on to old and expired models (copyrights) in order to survive.

As happens with all other goods and services as the capitalist apparatus kicks in, the production and distribution become cheaper, cheap distribution and successful marketing increase the target audience/consumers dramatically, and the consumers who can buy more commodities for less money – consume more (that is, buy more but use it less).

In contrary to many other products, information is intangible. It wasn’t always like it, because up until now it was always bound on a physical medium (printed book, vinyl, CD etc.). But since can be digitized, only one single production of an information item (let’s say, an album) is needed. Afterwards it can be duplicated in a theoretically infinite amount of copies and be transferred around the world within seconds. All that for negligible costs.

This has several effects:

  1. The production and distribution costs almost diminish.
  2. The target audience increases dramatically.
  3. The audience is already ahead of the production in its “evolution” – it consumes more for less. It will download more eBooks than it could ever read, more music than it could ever listen to, and more pictures than it could ever use.

Now if in this situation, you still expect consumers to pay the over-priced rates they used to pay for information in the old system (e.g. a CD found record shop in one of the few limited markets where the album is distributed) – you’re deluding yourself. More than that, you’re disgustingly greedy. And when you crash, you can complain only to yourself.

The Consumer’s Revenge

After being cynically exploited several times by the entertainment industry (new technology? Time for you to re-purchase your vinyl collection in CDs), it is no surprise that consumers feel no guilt when they can share their information with the world and have all the information they want a mouse-click away. P2P (file sharing) is not just a genius ahead-of-it-time communal concept of knowledge, culture and information sharing; it is also the sweet revenge of the former prisoners of the entertainment industry.

Because consumers know they didn’t purchase a peace of plastic which accidently contains their favorite album. They purchase their favorite album and want to carry this purchase with them to the new laptop, iPod, and smartphone without paying for it all over again.

An interesting model for those different understandings of information objects is the FRBR entities.

Back to the Post

After addressing the problematic in the current exercise of intellectual property and looking on what has changed with the development of information and communication technologies, I will explain what it is that should follow the current situation.

First, post-copyrightism is no model and no system. It is an era and a state of mind regarding the sharing of information, knowledge and culture. It stands for collective good and supports the interests of society as a whole. Furthermore, it rewards creators for their work but also society for its contribution (because no work is a creatio ex nihilo, no creation is free of social and cultural implications of previous creations). And finally, it encourages further creation, research, production, and development!

The Marxists between us will notice right away that it can come with socialism and is inseparable from (real) communism. But I don’t plea for socialism or communism, I plea for post-copyrightism. It can come with them, but it doesn’t have to.

The capitalist system is more than capable of comprising it and even profiting from it. Because post-copyrightism:

  1. Insures creators get what they deserve for their work.
  2. Offers access to culture and knowledge to more people, which in turn will be able to create more, research more, develop and invent more.
  3. Encourages people consume more (information), much more.

It is like a cycle feeding itself, how can capitalism ask for more than that?

Sketching Some Models

  • Differential payment: students, researchers or developers in the private sector will pay different fees (or as for students, not at all) for research and scientific information. The same applies to teenagers, working adults, or clubs and restaurants listening or playing music.
  • Make it cheap, really cheap: models such as iTunes proved that people are willing to pay for their information if they believe the price is fair. Now if they already on the golden road of endless consumption, why now making it cheaper? A song for 50¢, an album for 2$, a discography for 4$, and a subscription to all future releases for 8$. Just think of how many copies will be sold, taking into account that the distribution costs a negligible and the target audience is each person on the globe with high-speed Internet connection.
  • Merchandise with extra value: high-quality hardcover for (really cheap) eBook; Digipacks versions of albums; signed copies; offering albums/books for download free of charge when purchasing a concert/public reading…
  • Open Access: an existing publishing model, which offers free access to scholarly, scientific, and research information. Furthermore, a law enforcing free access to all information and knowledge that were produced using public resources and financing (such as researches done on universities) should be made.
  • Creative Commons license: a further existing model, which allows creators to communicate which rights they reserve, and which rights they waive for the benefit of their audience or other creators (take a look at the top right corner of the blog – I have one also!).

These were just a few suggestions. Now imagine what all those sharp minds working in records and publishing companies, advertising agencies, or as talent managers could come up with just in order to earn a few more $$$.

The Bottom Line Is…

It’s about combining interests. Some are interested in making money, no matter what the consequences are, and some are interested in more than that (remember the social problematic from the beginning of the article?). So let’s create a framework that protects and promotes society and its cultural capital, while keeping capitalism and the business-guys in their made-in-____-suits satisfied.

When that will be done, we will also get rid of those last two ;)

2011
08/16
CATEGORY
Capitalism
Copyrights
Postcopyrightism
Leave a comment

Not Gonna Give Post-Copyrightism Up

* An edited version of the article was published in: IFLA Journal 37(2), June 2011. *

I’ve been doing some thinking about the issues discussed on the IFLA Presidential Meeting 2011 in the Hague. Especially with regard to my position towards copyrights, which I stated in ‘Toward an Age of Post-Copyrightism‘, and also represented in the question I raised to the panel of the second session (Copyrights and Libraries):

“We heard a lot about human rights, libraries and copyrights today. Now, I would like us to stop talking about copyrights. But in order to do so I will have to talk about copyrights, and let me explain:

Copyrights have changed from a mechanism to protect the rights of creators to a mechanism, which sacrifices our cultural capital for financial profit; which reproduces the dependency of developing countries on the west; and which threatens freedom of expression with acts such as DEA, HADOPI and the new COICA.

My question is, why do we continue working with, or working for, this model and not going toward a new one. A model, which represents the interests of the global society as a whole and the ones of the creators, but excludes the ones of capitalist intermediates?”

Regarding the panel, I must admit I got exactly the answers I expected. But still, I’m quite disappointed from them. Not disappointed because they didn’t agree with me (I expected that), but from the arguments I received, or the lack of arguments to be exact.

Hard work

One panelist addressed my point of a complete system change rather practically, saying that he is terrified of thinking of the amount of efforts and work needed to be invested for such a goal.

Copyrights exist approximately since the 17th century, when information was bound on physical medium, major parts of the population were illiterate (here I address the western society and leave out the contemporary digital and knowledge divide), capitalism was only in its beginning, and democracy was a far-away dream.

Circumstances have changed. Changed so much that further work with this existing model just doesn’t make sense anymore. Furthermore, the ones who profit from the current model have a frightening amount of resources and lobbying power compared to those who lose from it. Funny, considering that the ones losing are the whole society.

Yet, the point I would like to make is different. It took a couple of hundred years to develop the copyrights-model to its current state, which is far from perfect. It is more than clear that any other model will take a considerable amount of work and time to develop and, of course, implement.

BUT! Using this as an argument against a new model reflects laziness, lightheadedness and negligence of (social) responsibility. We can’t sacrifice our cultural capital, take colonialism into the era of knowledge-society and harm freedom of expression, just because going after a new model is a lot of work. It doesn’t make sense and it’s cowardice.

Running the wrong way

Another panelist addressed my question later on with an English joke/tale:

An Irish man is lost in England, on his way he meets a farmer and asks him how he can get to London?

The farmer thinks for a moment and then answers:

“If I were you sir, I wouldn’t start from here”.

I laughed, like most of the listeners. But then I started thinking about it.

Who is the farmer and who is the Irish man? What is the way and what is the goal?

There is probably more than one way for interpretation, but this is how I understood it:

The goal must be a perfect model to manage intellectual property.

One way, probably the one that the Irish-man is on, is the copyrights-model as it is being practiced nowadays. This way won’t lead him to his desired goal. Or maybe it will in the end, but at what cost?

The other way, the better one, is that the Irish-man should have started somewhere else. This is model I was talking about. The one that many others in my opinion aspire to as well.

But we have a problem, it doesn’t start where we are. We have to start it at another place and in order to do so, we need to get there first. As said before – a lot of work. But as the tale tells us, it would be a much better way to reach our goal.

Means are changing, roles are here to stay. Or do they?

Another answer regarded the intermediates I attacked (i.e. publishers, record companies etc.). It was argued, that although the means are changing, their role still very much exist.

Printing, delivery, (physical) storage etc. costs are diminishing, but they are actually being transformed to other costs like online-storage, bandwidth, digitalization, etc.

But other means also change. Not just means of production, publication, distribution and consumption, but the mere perception people have of information and culture (more to this point in ‘It’s all about romance‘).

The role of classical intermediates in the process becomes superfluous. Most of them don’t have any added value to provide any longer and the only way for them to survive is by making efforts to preserve old and expired models in order to stay in business. One of those models is copyrights (which they usually take over from the creator).

Down the rabbit hole

We’re representing libraries. Libraries were always proud of promoting social responsibility in many fields. So how come that now, when access to information, knowledge and culture is being suppressed by capitalist copyrights-holders, all we do is narrow-mindedly try to get a few exceptions for libraries and let society continue suffering?

Using the analogy that accompanied us through the conference:

How come we left the group of hunters cooperating in hunting a deer and went alone after a rabbit, so that only we will have something to eat at the end of the day?

We won’t provide our patrons, let alone the whole society, with a meal at the end of the day. We will provide them with leftovers and bones, calming our self-conscious while doing so.

Has capitalism really gone so far? Are books (music, pictures, paintings, films, ideas, concepts…) just another commodity that needs to be produced and consumed?

If you support or work with the current models of copyrights, I presume that your answer is yes.

My answer on the other hand, is no. But the day, in which they will become mere comoddities, is our doomsday. Of us as libraries, and of us as a society.

2011
04/18
CATEGORY
Capitalism
Copyrights
Library Values
Postcopyrightism
1 comment

Toward an Age of Post-Copyrightism

“It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom…“ (Opening line of A Tale of Two Cities, Charles Dickens 1859)

There is a lot going on in the field of copyright-regulations over the last few years. It almost seems that those ridiculous warnings from the title pages of books are taking new measures that will not rest until each and every user on the planet will be criminalized in some way.

It came to a new extreme last month, as the US congress actually considered censoring the internet within the US, bowing to the entertainment industry while sacrificing freedom of expression on the way (1st amendment anyone?).

But some countries are starting to realize that at the digital age, the regulations of information, including copyrights, needs to undergo a fundamental change. Let’s hope this change will serve the interests of society and not those of media cartels like publishers, record companies and movie studios, who are investing a lot in lobbying their interests.

If it’s just one west, how come it has two sides?

There is a fundamental difference between the US-American and the European (as I will be demonstrated by the example of Germany) perception of IPR (Intellectual Property Rights), which sees the creation as something related to the creator’s personality. Therefore, the “Urheberrecht” (translated from German – creator-rights, not exactly copyrights) are laws meant to protect the person behind the creation from abuse of his/her creation and in some way guarding against abuse of the person him-/herself.
Of course, the way it’s being done de facto is much similar to the US copyright law, which has very little do to with the creator him-/herself and much more with the marketer (publisher, record company etc.), to which the creator usually transfers all the rights to the creation.

I think this fundamental difference is actually the key to solve the problem of copyrights in the digital age.

A step back

As I argued in “It’s all about romance”, the main aspect of the digital age is the separation of information from the physical medium and the different implication this separation has on production, distribution and consumption of information. One major implication is the matter of copyright – or more precisely, on the rights to use information and knowledge.

The old-fashion model, the one that the information industry is fighting so hard to preserve, is that a commercializer (let’s say a record company) gets all the rights to the use of the information (e.g. an album) from the artist, to produce an information product from it (CD), to distribute it and to keep the rights to re-use it (other album editions, future releases and so on).

Technology moved on? The physical medium has worn out? It’s time for the end-user to pay again for the same information. Just think how many times we already did: vinyl, audio tape, video cassette, CD, DVD, Blue-Ray, eBook etc.

Between the capitals

I want to distinguish my position from the radical-liberal approach, which says that all information and knowledge should be accessible for free (that is free of barriers and free of costs). I do think the creators should profit from their works but I am against the complete commodification of information or knowledge; and that is one hard line to draw between them.

Thinking about it in a broader term, the creator actually couldn’t have created alone. In order to create new information, a person needs to have the accountable knowledge to do so. This knowledge is what the French sociologist and philosopher Pierre Bourdieu called a social capital, and among others it contains the language, imagery, costumes, education etc.

So there is actually no creation which is free of cultural implications of previous creations, which were consumed by the creator and constructed his/her social capital, which in turn was used to create the new creation.

But if society made it possible for the creator to create something, shouldn’t it be given back to society?

Many will say yes. But acknowledging that we do live in a capitalist system and the creator did invest his/her intellect, personality and labour in order to create something new, I do think a creator-rights model should support not just a return-of-investment but also a measurable profit. But hand in hand, society should also have a “return-of-investment” and profit (culturally and intellectually) from what it also contributed.

Without free and equal access to information and knowledge together with the ability to share and develop them, society will soon reach a dead-end of innovation, creativity and intellect. And it will be a sad day, when we realize that the pursuit after one certain capital (MONEY) made us sacrifice the most important capital of all, the cultural one.

Alternative models

This is not the place to draw a new and comprehensive model for the use and commercialization of cultural and intellectual creations but I do want to highlight some points, which should be considered when doing so:

  • Variable payment: a child using a source for a school assignment, an academic for research, a musician for a new album or a corporate worker for an upcoming deal – the character and extent of their payment should be different.
  • Taking other working models of profit into account: in the academic world for example, the acknowledgement for ones work is done through references in other works. Plagiarism on the other hand, is the biggest taboo. This has of course “side affects” like the impact factor and search engine visibility (for example in Google Scholar), which have a considerable financial and commercial potential for the author.
  • Added value: promoting concerts with free mp3 versions of albums, releasing limited edition (special cover, signed copies etc.) of books or albums which are available online on the basic version, selling the cinema as an experience for all senses with extraordinary sound/video/3D quality – those are just a few ideas to start with.

A Tale of Two PC’s: From Postcolonialism to Postcopyrightism?

Sometimes it’s not the economy or even (local) social justice, which lead to change. In terms of copyrights, it could also be international politics and postcolonialism.

Some developing countries (or how I like to call them – non-western developed countries) are beginning to realize that the western control mechanism over information and knowledge (like copyright) only serve the existing power relations, broadening the west’s control over their economies and societies.

Lining up with western demands regarding the use of copyright materials (which also includes patents) only slows down their industrial development, causes lose of capital, and immortalizes their dependence on the west.

By denying demands of the west regarding the enforcement of copyright-models, those countries would actually be able for the first time in history to hold the west with its back to the wall, making it re-conceptualize the copyright-model in a way fitting to an age of digital and transnational information spaces, global economy and social justice.

Are we on the right way? Are we going toward an age of Post-Copyrightism? I hope so.

“It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done; it is a far, far better rest that I go to, than I have ever known” (Final Sentence of A Tale of Two Cities, Charles Dickens 1859)

2010
11/11
CATEGORY
Capitalism
Copyrights
Information Ethics
Open Access
Politics
Postcopyrightism
4 comments
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 384 other followers

%d bloggers like this: