I am the first to admit that the basic understanding of the concept of free culture smacked of the principles of communism. Yes, I am a Windows Droid that must be exterminated. However, when you consider the culture in which I have been raised where my values underpin this belief, I may be forgiven. I hold true to the belief that to be educated one must learn, unlearn and relearn. This blog is one such learning experience. What I have learnt so far...:
- Do unto other as you would have done unto you.
- You get what you pay for.
- Always tell the truth and never steal (and kill - but now I am sounding like Moses).
Considering these values, I find it hard to accept that someone who has invested an incredible amount of time, money and commitment would ever want to share their work - FOR FREE! After all, they have worked hard and do not deserve to have their work stolen, ripped off or burned. How would they like it if it was done to them. Anything that is free has got to be inferior and riddled with viruses.
Now begins the unlearning part of my 'education'. I began to read (a lot) about free culture, creative commons and free society and found that the more I read, the more I began to 'fence sit'. Each side of the argument has merit.
There is a lot of information out there in favour of a free culture and many large companies (including government) have accepted the place of creative commons within the culture of their operations.
Examples of adoption of Creative Commons in Australia -
- Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) - ABS website
- Geoscience Australia (GA) - Geoscience Australia website
- Bureau of Meteorology - (BoM) - BoM website
Further afield...
- Google enables users to search the internet for CC-licensed works - Google website explanation
- MIT university has created a web based publication, OpenCourseWare (OCW), of virtually all MIT courses content. OCW is open and available and allows access to lectures, course materials, exams, assessment and solutions. - MIT OpenCourseWare site
These companies actively demonstrate the core belief that culture is a common resource to be shared, not privately owned. Upholding this belief has seen Stallman, and many other proponents of 'free culture', roll up their sleeves and engage in a copyright war that has been waging between authors within government, big business and the public sector for the past 300 years. Prior to the internet and the printing press, "many traditional and indigenous cultures, collectivists in orientation, have had no concept of individual authorship" (Murphie & Potts, 2003, p.67). Songs and stories did not belong to anyone, but were rather part of their oral community. The legal notion of an author having rights to their work for a period of time (copyright) arose in Europe at a time of industrial change (the printing press) and economic growth (capitalism) and ultimately gave rise to legal rights such as the Statue of Anne (Queen Anne that is...) in 1710 and the 'Micky Mouse Copyright Act' of 1976.
The latter proves that big businesses have waged into this war as it has become of economic significance - "the new economy of information based societies" (Murphie et al., 2003, p.68). No better place can this be seen than with the meteoric rise of Microsoft. Yet many of today's great ideas have been created on the backs of creators of the past. As Professor Lawrence Lessig said in a presentation "Creativity and innovation always builds on the past, the past always tries to control the creativity that builds on it. Free societies enable the future by limiting the powers of the past". Was Walt Disney not guilty of "innovation that builds on the past" considering may of his ideas came from other great sources (Brothers Grimm and Steamboat Bill Jnr.). Where would we be as a society if we were to create in isolation and a vacuum?
Digital technology has brought the greatest threat to copyright as any creation in a digital format is easy prey for copying and is difficult to police. This has brought about more insidious ways in which to protect digital material that invades your computer through the back door and violates your privacy....that is another blog altogether though! Where will it end and will this mean the death of creativity? When you consider that information is readily available to us 24/7 and to create original art in any format (music, written, movies, art etc) is becoming increasingly difficult "as all possible styles have been done, and that art now consists of the inventive arrangement of diverse styles...the artist is more likely to be thought of a processor of information, or manipulator of found material" (Murphie et al., 2003, p. 69). As Adam said in the lecture, recipes have been copied and modified since time began...should we police 'recipe piracy' too now?
And so to my relearning stage... Finally I stumbled upon a science fiction short story written by Spider Robins in 1983 titled 'Melancholy Elephants'. It is a very insightful piece for its time and gives much food for thought. The story examines the interaction of copyright and longevity, and the possible effects of the extension of copyright to perpetuity. As can been seen from the length of this blog post, I have researched, deliberated and pondered some more and come to the realisation that we really do not have a choice BUT to embrace a free society if we are to progress into the future.
References:
Lessig, L. Free culture-creative commons. Retrieved 23 January 2011, from: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWR6eiiBhf8
Murphie, A., & Potts, J. (2003). Culture and Technology. Palgrave Macmillan: New York.
Robinson, S. (1983). Melancholy Elephants. Retrieved 23 January 2011 from: http://www.spiderrobinson.com/melancholyelephants.html
Stallman, R. (2009). Keynote speech 'Copyright versus Community in the Age of Computer' Neworks. LIANZZ conference. Retrieved 22 January 2011, from: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/copyright-versus-community.html#footnote1
No comments:
Post a Comment