From the series "Ordinary mail" All
transition, especially if it is fast and furious, necessarily implies a state of confusion, anxiety and uncertainty ... but perhaps also of euphoria. It is like a hospital: children born in a plant and goes with them the joy happiness, hope ... the promise of the future, ultimately, in another, perhaps one floor above or below die elderly or other patients who have exhausted their life cycle and to that end comes the sadness, the frustration ... there is no more than the past and longing. And all parents and grandparents, relatives and relatives happy and sad, match sometime in the cafeteria. For them, the joy of those uncomfortable, although some-not all, and therein lies the crux of the question-can understand, to them, but their grief is inappropriate in the midst of so much joy, although some are calling to moderate the tone a little consideration to those who are sad.
These thoughts come to mind as I read the document "Propietat intel lectual i Internet · Espanya» of Dr. Meritxell Roca Sales, IN3 Universitat Oberta de Catalunya, whose steep come dedicating this weekend just as the former devoted to a similar work by the same author on Free Software in Catalonia and Spain. I'm currently reading the chapter on the different licenses that are conventionally could be categorized as copyleft , and I'm putting it in relation to a reader relatively recently, several authors ("Copyleft. Manual" Ed Dealers Dreams, Madrid, 2006), because both the chapter by Dr. Rock as in the book, refers to the difficulties of the authors in their relations (acceding or repellents) to intermediary companies chrematistic copyright rights that is, to circumvent problems with the informal and rigid, exclusive, exclusive and one-sided management models and the difficulty, of course opposite to manage those rights otherwise.
According to sources cited by Dr. Rock in the world there are about 45 million web pages protected by Creative Commons licenses and go crescendo in an amount not dare to describe as "geometric" but certainly breathtaking. I do not know if these or besides these (the work of Roca not clearly specified), there is more than three quarters of a million musical works benefiting from them.
This blog, for example, is placed under the protection of one of these licenses and as I detect a breach that made me look bad faith, the author can give to secure a note from my lawyers and if there is no understanding, could have a suit that I would, rationally, good chance of winning, so well seen and the Creative Commons are certainly protective. But there, right there, it appears a problem: how panel detects such a violation? Because I do not have monitoring mechanisms or means of my work than the classic ( Digg, Technorati , etc.) That these effects are insufficient. In my personal case, this does not matter because I have no professional interest or profit in what I write: on the contrary, precisely put much effort into the prohibition of commercial use, although, in accordance with the terms of the license I have the right to do so, I am unlikely to authorize even individually and / or exceptionally. But ... What if an author wants their livelihood, or for material performance, with his work? The system of free copying and distribution posed by CC licenses can be good way of marketing, reality is proving every day, more ... How is this marketing? The appropriate entity would appear to be a management company chrematistic copyright rights, but nevertheless, the management model of today's societies is incompatible with the CC model.
Here there is clearly a shock and a problem to be solved. The christening guests happy with their laughter and uncorking bottles, and the sad cries and tears of the relatives of the deceased are they hiding in the hospital cafeteria there are people, majority of whose relatives are not in a situation not very happy but have to fear a fatal prognosis leads to depression and need a proper environment so foreign to flamenco party as to the morgue.
management model, therefore, must change, must be adapted to current reality and the foreseeable future (which also is the most likely fall short of expectations), but management, in itself, should not disappear and, indeed, I guess that will not disappear. That has to disappear or go away this or that particular entity is something that time will tell, and the same applies to the eventual appearance of one or more new entities, but there must be, changed, updated and in line with the times, a management model.
What? Ah, good question! This is an answer that should come from a frank and open dialogue between writers and citizens, but probably would bypass many obstacles, would almost surely a good result.
The problem is that this dialogue is now possible. It is not possible because the vast majority of the authors, almost his entire practice, not only is represented by the existing cupolas of the entities to the service of a very small beautiful group of its own machinery and an unquantifiable but certain amount of political, economic and factual, but is silenced, even by statute, which is incredible, by the same domes. Nor
the Internet community, in turn, is united around a single criterion. If I have spoken of the Creative Commons licenses as conventionally held by copyleft, I must say now that, strictly speaking, are not. For many-or, for many, to areas of difficult but important opinion dimensioning, weighing on the network, there is no acceptable alternative to full license Free and unambiguous, and CC are not, certainly. No doubt behind these sectors, it is possible to explain "how can there be a professional model of artistic creation with a completely free license (which, except for a couple of purely formal, not really, but an update of the work the public domain). And I think this is due to one of two things (or both): or a kind of fundamentalism which explains exacerbation but not justified by the brutality appropriationist or confusion, identifying the nature of work of art and technology of the work (more clearly: the software), both of which appear only on that result intellectual effort, but there any resemblance ends. The software does not end in itself: it requires a machine whose operation must, in a purpose to serve and also could be improved and expanded and that means it can be virtually in the public domain because the business model has sought and found in these other areas that the software needs to be more than a vagary. The artwork, however, is the beginning and end in itself and in itself, is not improved, not extended in any case, just created another inspired by it, and it is a pure phenomenon of intellectual communication of the author to which it is perceived, there is no purpose serve the machine does not need to handle.
does, however, we are certainly many who believe that the crux of the issue with the artistic or scientific work is the possibility some of universal access to knowledge that locks, and we believe that this access is guaranteed smugly if there is free copy and distribution. Not be required, at least as a natural and inalienable right to all. This would be the minimum of citizenship but, a negotiation is a negotiation, we should also be willing to accept that this was the best of creators.
Until this happens, we will not well and the war will continue. Firm in our minimum, but presumed to go up its bar, Internet, network citizens, we should reach a consensus, even tacit, to allow us to establish ourselves in citizenship, broadly understood, with a uniform suction and a tight requirements to modern times. Within
management companies ... I do not know specifically what is to happen, the truth ... or I know but I'd rather not say. But something, something has to change very deep there. I see difficult conversion of the domes; do not think the owners of the farm and will give up for good to their sinecures: in fact they have given ample signs that they will defend tooth and nail to the last drop of blood ... the authors that have gripped. From this side of the counter also very difficult to see a dialogue with these people. I do not see anyone who can represent me sitting at a negotiating table with Mr. Teddy and his cronies and other ilk. I'm sorry, but there did not happen, and that's not important: what matters is that we are many thousands, millions, that we would not, so we had to put up with this guy and his entourage absolutely impossible entente less , the smallest possible good vibes. Teddy Bautista and persons, entities and interests it represents (which is really , not shared by the authors) are the deceased's hospital, which has nothing to peel, which can not be in the future which, after the short hours this regulatory body, will not no other way than the crematorium.
Customers have many things to fix among ourselves before we can integrate, part of a objective conditions (go, man, I had to drop the previous work ...); but big, fat, really tough , beside which ours-that let it ride "is a laugh, so do the authors. They have to get off a high roof and slippery a large, heavy ball that tends to crush or precipitate under vacuum at who is trying to get it out.
Almost nothing, kids ...
0 comments:
Post a Comment