|
David
- I agree with pretty much all of what you say on a personal level and I am
familiar with the arguments. I take it as a given that everyone on this list
wants to see more creative activity not less. I would just add that whatever the
merits of the current copyright regime, there is no possibility of progress in
this area without people understanding their rights and restrictions in relation
to the law as it now stands.
It
seems inevitable also that more education in this area will come into schools
and so the issue is whether this is left to those within the creative industries
to lead and in many cases even fund.
Therefore, the issue boils down to one of strategy, not intent. Does CC
attempt to create a rival educational sphere or seek to embed its messages in a
discourse within schools that will inevitably involve big copyright
owners?
A
classic reformist dilemma if there ever was one:)
Damian
Damian,
I am rather concerned that more
careful and nuanced understanding is being lost in comments like this. I am
sure that the 'creative industries', as they call themselves, would like us to
understand that the things they sell are a form of property, but in actual
fact what they have is in reality a limited term monopoly granted by
Parliament which is part of a public bargain. This means that it *does not*
equate with physical property, and I think that teaching this in schools is
exactly the kind of backwards step away from creativity that we should be
against.
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:
I hope you can share the 'copyright for kids' learning as this is
a very interesting area. The creative industries are very keen that children
understand that the things they make and consume are a form of property and
those more inclined to CC probably agree that we should all be more
knowledgeable.
In general, the most important thing is safety.
Making sure the children can not be traced back to where they live, or go to
school, if their pictures are used for instance is critical.
I suspect also that children cannot assign
conditions to their copyright meaningfully without adult or most probably
parental advice. Interestingly, if the content that the children remixed was
already on a share-alike agreement, then this would stand. Perhaps the
answer is to educate the children and parents into why you are doing this
and explain that you will be using a share-alike agreement?
Damian
PLEASE NOTE: THE ABOVE MESSAGE WAS RECEIVED FROM
THE INTERNET.
On entering the GSi, this email was scanned for
viruses by the Government Secure Intranet (GSi) virus scanning service
supplied exclusively by Energis in partnership with MessageLabs.
In case of problems, please call your
organisational IT helpdesk
PLEASE
NOTE: THE ABOVE MESSAGE WAS RECEIVED FROM THE INTERNET.
On entering the
GSi, this email was scanned for viruses by the Government Secure Intranet
(GSi) virus scanning service supplied exclusively by Energis in partnership
with MessageLabs.
Please see
http://www.gsi.gov.uk/main/notices/information/gsi-003-2002.pdf for further
details.
In case of problems, please call your organisational IT
helpdesk
______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email
______________________________________________________________________
|
