cc-uk AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Cc-uk mailing list
List archive
- From: "David M. Berry" <d.berry AT sussex.ac.uk>
- To: "RAFFERTY DAMIAN" <Damian.Rafferty AT Culture.gsi.gov.uk>
- Cc: cc-uk AT lists.ibiblio.org
- Subject: Re: [Cc-uk] RE: Cc-uk Digest, Vol 17, Issue 6
- Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 18:07:58 +0100
Damian, Creativity requires that we can reuse culture, and in the production of new cultural works it is generally understood that a limited monopoly right may be in the best interests of the creator to allow them to have an income (but see theorists such as Terry Fisher for alternatives). But this is a balance between a public good and a private interest that has to be carefully managed and that we need to always keep alert to. This monopoly right is extremely tempting (as are all monopolies) as it can bring in untold riches by the simple extension of ownership of a copyright or patent. Put multinational corporations into the equation and it begins to make a great deal of sense for them to attempt to extend copyright indefinitely in order to make the monopoly last as long as possible and the profit to roll in. I fear that rather than making people more knowledgeable, the current creative industry support for this pseudo-education in schools is to confuse the issue enough so that the difference between physical and intellectual property becomes lost. They are distinct types of legal right and they should remain distinct. We should be educating children into understanding why this legal and ethical distinction is important and why it is crucial for our democratic culture that a vibrant cultural commons is needed so that people can use, reuse, transform and remake culture with every new generation. Rather than, as Lessig has said, allowing the past (or multinationals) to control the future. Lastly I would like to add that you are correct in your diagnosis linking the 'consumption' of intellectual property with the copyright regime. This is because owners seeks to restrict and emasculate the consumer so that it would be a crime for them to make new meanings or cultural works with copyrighted material. Creative commons and other similar movements like open-source and libre culture seek to make the consumer active and creative through giving them the ability to use the works in new ways. This is a productive relationship that is extremely important in creativity and the creative act. – David On 21 Jun 2005, at 17:41, RAFFERTY DAMIAN wrote:
|
-
[Cc-uk] RE: Cc-uk Digest, Vol 17, Issue 6,
RAFFERTY DAMIAN, 06/21/2005
-
Re: [Cc-uk] RE: Cc-uk Digest, Vol 17, Issue 6,
David M. Berry, 06/21/2005
- RE: [Cc-uk] RE: Cc-uk Digest, Vol 17, Issue 6, David Hirst, 06/21/2005
- <Possible follow-up(s)>
-
RE: [Cc-uk] RE: Cc-uk Digest, Vol 17, Issue 6,
RAFFERTY DAMIAN, 06/22/2005
- RE: [Cc-uk] RE: Cc-uk Digest, Vol 17, Issue 6, Damian Tambini, 06/22/2005
-
Re: [Cc-uk] RE: Cc-uk Digest, Vol 17, Issue 6,
David M. Berry, 06/21/2005
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.