SUBSCRIBE TODAY!
Subscribing entitles a reader to complete stories on all topics released as they happen, special features, confidential documents and access to the complete, searchable story archive online back to 2004.
IP-Watch Briefs

Advertisement


Inside Views

Contribute your views! Submit an Inside Views idea to info [at] ip-watch [dot] ch.

We welcome your participation in article and blog comment threads, and other discussion forums, where we encourage you to analyse and react to the content available on the Intellectual Property Watch website.

By participating in discussions or reader forums, or by submitting opinion pieces or comments to articles, blogs, reviews or multimedia features, you are consenting to these rules.

1. You agree that you are fully responsible for the content that you post. You will not knowingly post content that violates the copyright, trademark, patent or other intellectual property right of any third party or which you know is under a confidentiality obligation preventing its publication and that you will request removal of the same should you discover that you have violated this provision. Likewise, you may not post content that is libelous, defamatory, obscene, abusive, that violates a third party's right to privacy, that otherwise violates any applicable local, state, national or international law, that amounts to spamming or that is otherwise inappropriate. You may not post content that degrades others on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual preference, disability or other classification. Epithets and other language intended to intimidate or to incite violence are also prohibited. Furthermore, you may not impersonate others.

2. You understand and agree that Intellectual Property Watch is not responsible for any content posted by you or third parties. You further understand that IP Watch does not monitor the content posted. Nevertheless, IP Watch may monitor the any user-generated content as it chooses and reserves the right to remove, edit or otherwise alter content that it deems inappropriate for any reason whatever without consent nor notice. We further reserve the right, in our sole discretion, to remove a user's privilege to post content on our site. IP Watch is not in any manner endorsing the content of the discussion forums and cannot and will not vouch for its reliability or otherwise accept liability for it.

3. By submitting any contribution to IP Watch, you warrant that your contribution is your own original work and that you have the right to make it available to IP Watch for all purposes and you agree to indemnify IP Watch, its directors, employees and agents against all damages, legal fees and others expenses that may be incurred by IP Watch as a result of your breach of warranty or of these terms.

4. You further agree not to publish any personal information about yourself or anyone else (for example telephone number or home address). If you add a comment to a blog, be aware that your email address will be apparent.

5. IP Watch will not be liable for any loss including but not limited to the following (whether such losses are foreseen, known or otherwise): loss of data, loss of revenue or anticipated profit, loss of business, loss of opportunity, loss of goodwill or injury to reputation, losses suffered by third parties, any indirect, consequential or exemplary damages.

6. You understand and agree that the discussion forums are to be used only for non-commercial purposes. You may not solicit funds, promote commercial entities or otherwise engage in commercial activity in our discussion forums.

7. You acknowledge and agree that you use and/or rely on any information obtained through the discussion forums at your own risk.

8. For any content that you post, you hereby grant to IP Watch the royalty-free, irrevocable, perpetual, exclusive and fully sub-licensable license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform and display such content in whole or in part, world-wide and to incorporate it in other works, in any form, media or technology now known or later developed.

9. These terms and your posts and contributions shall be governed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of Switzerland (without giving effect to conflict of laws principles thereof) and any dispute exclusively settled by the Courts of the Canton of Geneva.

Occupy IP: New Economy Businesses Clash With Old

It may be too much, too late for content providers finally trying to tame the internet, and a fresh approach is needed, writes Bruce Berman.




Special Reports

Non-Communicable Diseases Issue Energises Public Health Policymakers Read More >


Latest Comments
  • Copyrights are unique works set in a concrete mode... »
  • I deeply apprecite the initiative to combat agains... »

  • For IPW Subscribers
    A guide to Geneva-based public health and intellectual property organisations. Read More >

    Monthly Reporter

    The Intellectual Property Watch Monthly Reporter, published from 2004 to January 2011, is a 16-page monthly selection of the most important, updated stories and features, plus the People and News Briefs columns.

    The Intellectual Property Watch Monthly Reporter is available in an online archive on the IP-Watch website, available for IP-Watch Subscribers.

    Access the Monthly Reporter Archive >


    Symposium Calls For End Of Binary Discussion Of Rightsholders Versus Pirates

    Published on 8 September 2008 @ 12:02 am

    Intellectual Property Watch

    By Monika Ermert for Intellectual Property Watch
    LINZ, AUSTRIA – Copyright discussion has become a simplistic binary debate of “pirates that steal everything” versus “rightsholders that want to protect everything,” warned Japanese entrepreneur, blogger and CEO of the Creative Commons Joichi Ito in his opening remarks for this year’s Ars Electronica Symposium in Linz, Austria.

    Ito was curator of the symposium on the “New Cultural Economy” that sought to get beyond the simplistic dichotomy and explore ideas and status of alternative content production and social action using digital networks.

    A lot of things the media artists and activists gathered at the Ars Electronica were doing, for example remixing existing content to create new works, were nearly impossible at the moment “without breaking the law,” Ito said. It is therefore essential to explore “how industry, society and government can be adapted” to the new modes of cultural production in the digital world.

    One aspect of this new production is the participatory aspect, said Ito. “Karaoke is not as good as professional music. Yet people rather want to participate than sit through a concert,” he said.

    Collaborative production processes are inevitable for industry and society as a whole to stay innovative and industry already has begun to rely on them, said Yochai Benkler, co-director of the Harvard University Berkman Center on Internet and Society. The “increasing complexity and speed of change” is pushing the “need to turn to open systems,” Benkler said, adding that it is impossible to rely on centralised production models and on internal capacity. But while some companies had incentivised teamwork and did more outsourcing, there is a fear of losing control.

    A company like General Motors has to be afraid less, said Benkler, “because people just don’t get together on a weekend to build a car together.” Yet the production of culture and knowledge allows for participative production. Anybody can participate and people do not even need any institutional permission to act.

    “Ownership no longer equals authority,” said Benkler, pointing to the competition that a collaborative effort like Wikipedia posed to the Encyclopedia Britannica. Benkler in Linz presented a list of web ventures that started out as small projects, but managed to establish themselves or even make considerable amounts of money, like US musician and songwriter Jonathan Coulton.

    An example of a whole industry breaking away from the traditional music production model is the tecnobrega industry in Brazil. Ronaldo Lemos, director of the Center for Technology and Society at the Fundacao Getulio Vargas School of Law in Rio de Janeiro and director of Creative Commons in Brazil. While a music major like Sony BMG released no more than 13 CDs of Brazilian music a year, the tecnobrega industry now is a multimillion dollar market production of around 400 CDs a year, plus 100 DVDs. Tecnobrega musicians and studios have “skipped normal distribution lines,” said Lemos.

    Musicians record their songs at studios that are competing for the best technological equipment, he said. For distribution they made a deal with street vendors, the pirates. Remuneration from the street vendors is not royalties that go back to the musicians, but the promotional effect for the musicians who earn their money from live concerts, studio equipment presentation concerts and higher quality CDs of their music sold after these events.

    An example of the positive market effect of piracy is the Nigerian film market, according to Volker Grassmuck, media researcher at the Helmholtz Center for Cultural Technology of Humboldt University in Berlin. In Nigeria, “pirated foreign movies created the demand for VCRs and television sets. This led to the original accumulation of capital by electronics dealers like Nnebue that they could invest in film production,” Grassmuck said.

    Piracy also established the networks of duplication and distribution that the Nigerian video film producers could then use. Today Nollywood is second only to Hollywood and Bollywood, he said. “The dynamics were similar to those in 19th century US book publishing,” said Grassmuck.

    Piracy of European books by US publishers created a mass market for books in the first place and capital allocation by the “pirates” then allowed payment to European authors. Piracy earlier had made foreign authors popular in the United States which allowed Charles Dickens to earn the “astonishing sum of $228,000″ during a reading tour in 1867.

    “In the absence of legal copyright an environment emerged that was favourable both to foreign and domestic authors, and to publishers as well,” according to Grassmuck.

    Eva Lichtenberger, a European Parliament member, asked the Ars Electronica panelists if there was any chance that these examples might also work in Europe. At the Parliament, promotion of this kind of “new cultural economy” would normally result in warnings that this might bring down Europe’s culture industry, she said.

    Lichtenberger in fact asked for “help” from the experts and activists at Ars Electronica to inform the EU Parliament about the new developments. She was feeling sometimes like a “pirate on an old tanker ship” that is about to sink, as many older colleagues from the other party groups are not too well informed about what is happening on the internet. In fact, the Parliament is currently discussing measures for tougher enforcement of IP by relying on internet service providers and – behind closed doors – stricter border controls against pirated content was discussed on the international level.

    James Boyle, law professor at Duke Law School and founder of the Center for the Study of the Public Domain, said that alternative production models like in the tecnobrega industry already exist in the EU and the US. Many artists were in fact publishing their work under Creative Commons licenses because it paid off for them.

    “What we have got now,” he said, “is a segregated world.” But the alternative might not be as visible as the classical model. Lemos reported about tecnobrega bands that choose not to accept contract offers by music majors because they would lose the possibility of exploiting their rights further.

    Musician and author Gerd Leonhard warned that the attempt to control the new culture economy in the future would only succeed when establishing a control system of Orwellian dimension.

    “The dangers of an open, shared and connected ecosystem system pale compared to those of a controlled and closed ecosystem,” he said. He expected only those who managed to share cultural flat rate income would survive.

    Monika Ermert may be reached at info@ip-watch.ch.

     

    Comments

    1. Neil Turkewitz says:

      What a profound disappointment. I read the excellent title of this piece only to discover more discussion of how copyright industries just don’t get “it.” Having participated in copyright policy discussions for over two decades, I wholly agree that the debate is frequently–perhaps overwhelmingly–dangerously simplistic and banal. Much fire. Very little light. As such, it was great to see an article whose very premise was that this binary discussion poorly served the interests of societies and policy makers. I looked forward to a thoughtful examination of how copyright advances the public interest, but that there were potential costs as well as benefits that needed to be carefully considered in order to achieve maximum benefit to societies.

      You can imagine, therefore, my disappointment after reading the piece. Just one more exaltation of the value of communal creativity (and ownership), and the evils of “traditional” copyright, except perhaps with the customary nod to the possibilities of a blanket license. Would the reader of this article be exposed to any new idea? Sadly not. Would the reader understand that copyright industries are not opposed to “sharing”–either in the creative process, or the consumption of the fruits of that process, provided that it was done with the consent of the creators? Afraid not.

      No, this piece misses a real opportunity, and serves only as a sermon to those who need no conversion. Those who want to remain convinced, regardless of the real world, that traditional copyright owners are clinging to an immoral business paradigm based on artificial scarcity, and whose only mission is to lock things up where people can’t access them. At a moment when a humanizing conversation seemed possible, the “other side” in a binary debate was again portrayed as clueless. Why? I suppose it is because it is easier to hate, and to steal from, those who are perceived as lacking human values of intelligence and decency.

    2. Vi, lei, recomende IV — Marcial Cambronero says:

      [...] LHC que todavia no destruye el mundo por dicha. En IP-Watch nos anuncian un simposio que pretende acabar con la discusión polarizada de “Piratas y Ladrones de todo” contra “Creadores Egoístas y Protectores de [...]

    3. equinoXio » » El Partido Pirata a la toma del Parlamento Europeo, Lars Gustafsson los apoya says:

      [...] jóvenes paisas) y una cosa llamó mi atención en forma particular, se trata del artículo de IP Watch "Simposio europeo pide que se acabe la polarización titulares vs piratas". El [...]


    Leave a Reply

    We welcome your participation in article and blog comment threads, and other discussion forums, where we encourage you to analyse and react to the content available on the Intellectual Property Watch website. By participating in discussions or reader forums, or by submitting opinion pieces or comments to articles, blogs, reviews or multimedia features, you are consenting to these rules.

    We welcome your participation in article and blog comment threads, and other discussion forums, where we encourage you to analyse and react to the content available on the Intellectual Property Watch website.

    By participating in discussions or reader forums, or by submitting opinion pieces or comments to articles, blogs, reviews or multimedia features, you are consenting to these rules.

    1. You agree that you are fully responsible for the content that you post. You will not knowingly post content that violates the copyright, trademark, patent or other intellectual property right of any third party or which you know is under a confidentiality obligation preventing its publication and that you will request removal of the same should you discover that you have violated this provision. Likewise, you may not post content that is libelous, defamatory, obscene, abusive, that violates a third party's right to privacy, that otherwise violates any applicable local, state, national or international law, that amounts to spamming or that is otherwise inappropriate. You may not post content that degrades others on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual preference, disability or other classification. Epithets and other language intended to intimidate or to incite violence are also prohibited. Furthermore, you may not impersonate others.

    2. You understand and agree that Intellectual Property Watch is not responsible for any content posted by you or third parties. You further understand that IP Watch does not monitor the content posted. Nevertheless, IP Watch may monitor the any user-generated content as it chooses and reserves the right to remove, edit or otherwise alter content that it deems inappropriate for any reason whatever without consent nor notice. We further reserve the right, in our sole discretion, to remove a user's privilege to post content on our site. IP Watch is not in any manner endorsing the content of the discussion forums and cannot and will not vouch for its reliability or otherwise accept liability for it.

    3. By submitting any contribution to IP Watch, you warrant that your contribution is your own original work and that you have the right to make it available to IP Watch for all purposes and you agree to indemnify IP Watch, its directors, employees and agents against all damages, legal fees and others expenses that may be incurred by IP Watch as a result of your breach of warranty or of these terms.

    4. You further agree not to publish any personal information about yourself or anyone else (for example telephone number or home address). If you add a comment to a blog, be aware that your email address will be apparent.

    5. IP Watch will not be liable for any loss including but not limited to the following (whether such losses are foreseen, known or otherwise): loss of data, loss of revenue or anticipated profit, loss of business, loss of opportunity, loss of goodwill or injury to reputation, losses suffered by third parties, any indirect, consequential or exemplary damages.

    6. You understand and agree that the discussion forums are to be used only for non-commercial purposes. You may not solicit funds, promote commercial entities or otherwise engage in commercial activity in our discussion forums.

    7. You acknowledge and agree that you use and/or rely on any information obtained through the discussion forums at your own risk.

    8. For any content that you post, you hereby grant to IP Watch the royalty-free, irrevocable, perpetual, exclusive and fully sub-licensable license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform and display such content in whole or in part, world-wide and to incorporate it in other works, in any form, media or technology now known or later developed.

    9. These terms and your posts and contributions shall be governed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of Switzerland (without giving effect to conflict of laws principles thereof) and any dispute exclusively settled by the Courts of the Canton of Geneva.