[FoRK] Creative Industries: from properties to relationships.

Luis Villa luis.villa at gmail.com
Wed Feb 2 12:53:41 PST 2005


Interesting link. I'd contend against the 'even CC is too restrictive'
claim; whether or not there is a moral right to creative individual
work, or whether or not that makes economic sense, there is a strongly
perceived right there for the vast majority of people. In the end,
that is why GPL is way more widely used than BSD, and why Share Alike
is very popular in the CC family- people are most likely to renounce
their own rights /as long as/ they know that others cannot take
without giving back. At least within our own lifestyle, you won't see
a BSD-'licensed' commons- the first giant who comes along and takes
without giving back *cough*Apple*cough* will destroy it. A GPL/'Share
Alike' commons is much more robust to that sort of intrusion, which is
why Novell and IBM are currently pouring money into Linux as fast as
they can print it. So... yes, I think the commons of the feature
(if/when there is one) will still retain the basic notion of property
rights, if only in the pale form of Share Alike.

Luis (rambling today)


On Wed, 2 Feb 2005 21:36:40 +0100, Rob van Kranenburg
<kranenbu at xs4all.nl> wrote:
> Results from the EU-India Workshop/IP Conference, Sarai, Delhi January 2005.
> 
> Creative Industries: from properties to relationships.
> 
> If you are a scientist you believe that it is good to find out
> how the world works, that it is good to find out what the
> realities are, that it is good to turn over to mankind at large
> the greatest possible power to control the world... It is not
> possible to be a scientist unless you believe that the knowledge
> of the world, and the power which this gives, is a thing which is
> of intrinsic value to humanity, and that you are using it to help
> in the spread of knowledge, and are willing to take the
> consequences.
> 
> -- J. Robert Oppenheimer (1904-1967)
> 
> One of the key elements in the nurturing of a climate in which small
> entrepreneurs, corporate structures, smart citizens (as in wired
> citizens) and  buying and or exporting power, create an overtone that
> one might call a cultural economy, is the kind and quality of the
> relationship between formal and informal structures.
> 
> This explains why it is so very hard to 'script' or to top down
> dictate the appearance of a creative industry. The history of the two
> most successful and indepent Dutch media labs, V2 and Waag Society
> for Old and New Media show traces of oppositional groups, organic
> growth, strong personal networks, deep theoretical roots and very
> little planning in the sense of what is recognized as planning in the
> big projects that are hosted and developed by the Dutch Ministery of
> Economy.
> 
> The decisive factor in the development of a successful creative
> industry in a western European context will be the development of a
> new economic agency, tools to operate within a ultra connected
> environment (ubicomp, RFID, biometrics), tools that have to compete
> with a vital individual agency to act and become more independent
> from state and corporate institutions (do it yourself, get your
> medication online, bypass the middlemen).
> 
> These new tools need to be informed by the realization that we have
> moved from an economy of properties to an economy of relationships.
> Any object that is standalone nowadays, is  simply not visible. It is
> not the individual properties of an object that have value, no, it is
> the kind and quality of the relationships that it has with other
> objects that determines its value.
> 
> It is therefore that the IP battles fought at this moment are so
> irrelevant for 21th century possibilities of economic policy agency.
> Winners are those who can move away from the ideas of property rights
> and patents over things and licenses to adapt specific modules for
> services, as money making models. At the Contested Commons Conference
> (Sarai/CSDS, Delhi, January 2005) an impressive number of voices
> argued to go beyond Creative (some rights reserved) Commons, as this
> way of operating leaves the fundamental notions of individual
> ownership and individual rights to specific ideas a person might
> conjure up, intact. Apart from the facts that the notion of
> 'originality' is a specific historic constellation - for in a
> networked world all nodes draw upon the same published data -, that
> this idea of being 'the first' in or with something is a specific
> western historic sociocultural constellation as if this is of any
> matter in our over mediatized globally networked environment.
> 
> That these notions should underly a vision of trade in an age of
> ubicomp and locative pervasive computing in which any businessmodel
> (from Microsoft to Nokia to the iPod) is vulnerable, seems not only
> very unproductive, but also extremely unwise.
> 
> The default in vibrant cities like Bangalore and New Delhi is the
> unplanned, the illegal, and the pirated. The majority of architecture
> is unplanned, creole, and organically tuned to doing business because
> of the clustering of business interest. Directly against western
> economic policies of spreading business interest so as to avoid
> direct competition, in Bangalore and Delhi we find "the old
> clustering story but now with realization that customized
> infrastructure seems fundamental." (Solomon Benjamin)
> 
> As the system of patent and intellectual property rights is crumbling
> in high tech western countries, corporations such as Philips sponsor
> IP Faculties in China.
> 
> Instead of regressing back into an untenable situation that cripples
> creativity and the kind of link management that is required for a
> creative cultural sustainable economy, China and India both would do
> well to take a leap forward away from licenses and individual
> property rights to new forms of scripting solidarity between
> producers and consumers, citizens and policy, money and power.
> 
> A design for commoning, for living together locally in a globally
> connected world, that seems to be the new challenge and agency in a
> cultural economy policy. For this to happen, policy needs to find new
> ways of presenting its data and information. Instead of talking about
> solidarity, it should talk about friendship. Instead of talking about
> profit, it should talk about sustainability. Instead of talking about
> sustainability, it should talk about the trades and the quality of
> work of artisans and small entrepreneurs. It should get rid of the
> essay, the report, the document and start cross media content in
> visual, narrative documentary productions. It should reduce the cycle
> of producing clear information for SME and lone entrepreneurs by
> adopting rapid prototyping and demo or die research strategies. It
> should plan, provide and pay for the infrastructure as broadband and
> wireless have become basic human rights, not outsource
> infrastructural demands to an open market.
> 
> This cripples progress and a creative industry. It should plan only
> the outlines of the wildest vision imaginable, all else is letting go.
> --
> 
> http://www.virtueelplatform.nl/
> http://blogger.xs4all.nl/kranenbu/
> 
> VP mobile:  0031 (0) 641930235
> 0032  472 40 63 72 got stolen and is offline.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> FoRK mailing list
> http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork
>


More information about the FoRK mailing list