|
I thought this comment by Matt Stoller worth responding to. He seems so... frightened.
1) The first point I will make note of is his use of the term "progressive;" I am not sure how many of the people who use this term are fully aware of its history. The Progressives of Woodrow Wilson's day were supporters of racial segregation (for example, Wilson's administration segregated the federal work force for the first time since the Civil War). If I were them, I would think of something else to call themselves.
2) I quote: "One of the key tenets of a progressive society is an acknowledgement that we stand on the shoulder of giants..." I am extremely curious as to who, if anyone would deny this cumulative nature of culture, science, wealth, whatever. It would certainly be possible to take privatization too far, as did the Galambosians, or the commons too far. This observation is entirely commonplace. Just so we know that on *this* point there is basic agreement.
3) And another quote: "The internet shows just how important a sharing society is, with the web largely built upon shared source code, interlinking content, and users who are both consumers and producers of content at the same time." The Internet's development has certainly gotten a huge boost from commercial and proprietary ventures, too, indeed, before the private commercial networks took off it was largely an academic preserve. But we have agreed there should be balance, I will not quibble further.
4) More: "Big content companies - including some of the biggest donors to the Democratic Party - do not like this pattern of usage [that is, consumers both producing and consuming content]." Hmmm... are we sure that is a fair statement of what big content companies do and do not like? Do they *really* object to consumers producing their own content, using little bits and snatches of other works or not? How about, "they do not like people consuming content on a massive scale without paying for it"? Wouldn't that sum it up more fairly? But it doesn't sound nearly so scary, does it?
And drop the blather about hip-hop artists, please. That's just silly. The vast majority of people consuming content for free over the Net are *not producing anything* even remotely resembling hip-hop, fan-fiction, or anything else that the content companies are not particularly worried about. They are, in fact, not producing anything in reliance on fair use or otherwise. (Those that do produce largely rarely rely on fair use either; it isn't that important!).
5) And finally Fair use has outlived much of its usefulness in a market with ever-increasing digital offerings for sale at varying price points, Progress & Freedom Foundation Senior Fellow James DeLong told a congressional subcommittee today.
This is a radical statement. It means that the public no longer has the right to participate in its culture. No, it doesn't. It means that there will in future be a market for tools that the public will need to participate more fully in its culture. You need an excerpt, a million excerpts, to create a new whatever-it-is? Software to put them all together? They will be cheaper by the dozen. Lots will be free. But if there is something that for whatever reason cannot be provided for free, then that will be protected and so it will be provided too. Copyright and access are not opposed, any more than private property means there will be no more social gatherings.
Look at the what the last twenty years has brought us. With the investment of private companies in the Internet, some open standards, and largely proprietary software, we have the World Wide Web. Which is bringing pretty much everyone in the world into contact with each other, starting now even in very poor countries. New networks, especially wireless. New art forms, from computer games to animated computer shorts to who knows what else. New communities, amateur and professional. All kinds of content of every imaginable variety, niche markets being served that were never served before. Enough of the gloom and doom already.
And enough of looking to the legalese for salvation. Fair use is fine as a safety valve in copyright--so long as there is nothing better. But the fact of the matter is that fair use is bafflingly complex and very few consumers understand it. What the future holds is patterns of access that reflect consumer demand. It will be better and better.
The irony of all this is, I feel that a little Prozac would clear up the Progressive worldview nicely. But they don't like pharmaceuticals either.
posted by Solveig Singleton @ 8:49 AM | Access: Commons, Fair Use, Orphan Works, Public Domain, Free Culture Movement, General
Link to this Entry |
Printer-Friendly |
Email a Comment | Post a Comment(0)
|
