Culture

Open is nothing new

At times I feel that I am forever discussing openness. Mainly – but not exclusively – Creative Commons, Free Software & Open Source. Often I am arguing the basics of the idea with people unfamiliar with the concept and I need to overcome a great deal of skepticism. The skeptics argue that now way can it be a good idea to give away material and they are rarely convinced with the growth of modern examples. They lean back as if to say: just you wait, it will go terribly wrong.

This is why it is nice to present the skeptics with established, old examples. And recently I came across an excellent new old example.

Can you name an eighteenth century furniture designer? Most of us cannot, but all the same many of us are familiar with the name of Thomas Chippendale (1718-1779) and not because of the dancers. Thomas Chippendale was the first furniture designer to become famous – before Chippendale furniture was known by styles, monarchs or famous buyers, but not the designers.

So what did he do?

After working as a journeyman cabinet maker in London he became the first cabinet-maker to publish a book of his designs. The Gentleman and Cabinet Maker’s Director is still available in print today. The amazing thing about the publication was that it created open source furniture and allowed other furniture makers to make copies of his designs. Of course he may have lost a few commissions but going open source ensured that his fame lasted long after his death. Which is more than can be said of his contemporaries.

Sharing is caring – sharing is good business.

Posted on by mklang

Originals, copies and confusions

The word originality has never had a peaceful existence. In its early history it coincided with the issue of plagiarism where an author attempts to claim the works of another as his own. The Roman poet Martial (ca 41 – 104) accused one Fidentinus of repeating works he had not created in the Plagiarism cycle:

Fame has it that you, Fidentinus, recite my books to the crowd as if none other than your own.
If you’re willing that they be called mine, I’ll send you the poems for free.
If you want them to be called yours, buy this one, so that they won’t be mine.

It is from this argument that the author creates the term plagiarist which at the time referred to someone who kidnapped slaves. Read an interesting analysis: Martial 1.29: Appearance and Authorship by Peter Anderson.

According to the myth of creativity in the Middle Ages originality was not a valuable trait the author was supposed to repeat the perfect forms created by the ancients rather than attempt to meddle with perfection. In the film The Name of the Rose (1986) the reactionary character known as Venerable Jorge lays out this position

Preservation, I say, and not search, because it is a property of knowledge as a human thing, that it has been defined and completed over the course of the centuries, from the preaching of the prophets to the interpretations of the fathers of the church. There is no progress, no revolution of ages, in the history of knowledge, but at most a continuous and sublime recapitulation.

With the development of the machinery of reproduction the question of original and copy began to become more interesting. The first printed books attempted to emulate the look and feel of hand-written manuscripts “…because in scholarly circles printed were regarded as vulgar and inferior products…” (Bernard Knox introduction to The Iliad p 5). The copy/original discussion was explored by Walter Benjamin in his essay “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction” (1935). In this essay he noted that that the work of art (the original) had a special aura which the copy doesn’t. From Introducing the Frankfurt School

Benjamin here attempts to mark something specific about the modern age; of the effects of modernity on the work of art in particular. Film and photography point to this movement. Benjamin writes of the loss of the aura through the mechanical reproduction of art itself. The aura for Benjamin represents the originality and authenticity of a work of art that has not been reproduced. A painting as an aura while a photograph does not; the photograph is an image of an image while the painting remains utterly original.

But what happens in the world where the copy becomes art? Where the ready made works of such as Duchamp’s Fountain become works of art through their contact and intentions with the artist? Well they seem to regain their aura. There is even an interesting issue of the copy of the ready mades discussed in Sam Leith’s article in The Guardian A plague of pissoirs is upon us! And there could be thousands more. This re-aura-fication also seems to happen to “everyday” objects with connections to the lives of the rich and famous. Recently Marilyn Monroe’s chest x-ray was sold for $45 000. And this week I read that you could buy J.D. Salinger’s old, uncleaned toilet for $1 000 000 on eBay!

In the midst of all this we are struggling to understand and regulate the copy in digital environment where the copy is the dominant norm. No wonder we are confused. The problem is that we believe in the myth that the physical world has a clear distinction between original and copy – and that this distinction can translate into monetary value. As long as we are confused about the physical world we can never expect to resolve the property of copies in the digital world.

Posted on by mklang

Censorship in EU (Malta)

The tiny island of Malta rarely pops up in my rss reader but when it does I usually pay the news more attention than it deserves. Malta is a tiny island with about 400 000 inhabitants and like most islands is fairly big on introspection. What makes Malta special (for me) is the fact that I spent the first 15 years of my life there so I have experienced the narrow mindedness first hand. Don’t get me wrong the Maltese are friendly and welcoming its just when it comes to politics they are positively rooted in the dark ages. Today an article in the Guardian did come up via my rss and it began

What if there were an EU country where abortion, divorce, and blasphemy in public were all still illegal? Where freedom of expression was limited to saying nothing critical of the Catholic church, nothing that the government could call “obscene”, and nothing against the few noble families who all but controlled it? Surely, given Turkey’s problems, Croatia’s lack of membership, and Iceland’s still pending application, such a place would be expelled? Welcome to Malta.

Of course size matters but it is strange that the island is able to maintain these politics within the framework for the European Union – we should not really be surprised as the EU is still fundamentally an economic alliance and not a organisation founded in human rights. But still Malta is pushing the envelope

In the last year, the Maltese government has banned the play Stitching from being performed, has arrested and put students on trial for writing and publishing an “obscene” story, and has prevented the artist Alexander Stankovski from exhibiting paintings which contained nudity. The updated criminal code will make public obscenity or blasphemy in public punishable by up to a year in jail, even if the words or sentiments are part of a work of fiction, theatre, or art.

What if this had been a Muslim country behaving like this? Wouldn’t the criticism be louder? Is the lack of energy spent in combating blasphemy laws  a form of lazy racism? All over Europe countries are going crazy about the Muslim dress. Clothes! At the same time we accept that we have laws against blasphemy! We are concerned about women’s freedoms and the oppression of religion and yet we support certain religions by silencing criticism.

How is it that Malta is the way it is? The historic and geographic isolation of the island has enabled it to maintain its bizarre positions. In the Guardian article on the censorship of a short story O’Mahony writes a paragraph that neatly sums up the situation:

The Maltese press covered the issue, but in a factual tone. A recent interview with another Maltese writer, Frans Sammut, in the Malta Independent, allowed him the space to say he agreed with the ban of the work. However, with editorials that celebrate the Pope’s stance on paedophiles operating within the Catholic church, one cannot expect the media to help artists that write about blasphemy and their perceptions of the church’s misogyny. Self-censorship is rife on an island where everyone knows everyone else, but general opinion seems to suggest that writers were simply not taken seriously enough before the events of last year to ever fear reproach for what they produced.

Posted on by mklang

ASCAPs charge of the light brigade

The charge of the light brigade was caused when bad leadership sent British cavalry on a disastrous, suicidal charge against superior Russian forces during the Crimean War (1854) (Wikipedia).

The American Society of Composers, Authors and Pubishers (ASCAP) is a typical collecting society. From its about page:

ASCAP is a membership association of more than 380,000 U.S. composers, songwriters, lyricists, and music publishers of every kind of music. Through agreements with affiliated international societies, ASCAP also represents hundreds of thousands of music creators worldwide. ASCAP is the only U.S. performing rights organization created and controlled by composers, songwriters and music publishers, with a Board of Directors elected by and from the membership.

Sounds nice, normal and peaceful. But this peaceful summer scene was shattered in June when ASCAP began mobilizing by asking for additional funds to support ASCAP’s Legislative Fund for the Arts (ALFA). Read part 1 of the letter here, and part 2 here (via BoingBoing 23 June) the letter from ASCAP’s president Paul Williams begins:

At this moment we are facing our biggest challenge ever. Many forces including Creative Commons, Public Knowledge, and the Electronic Frontier Foundation and technology companies with deep pockets are mobilizing to promote “copyleft” in order to undermine our “copyright”. They say they are advocates of consumer rights, but in truth these groups simply do not want to pay for the use of our music. Their mission is to spread the word that our music should be free.

This paragraph is so monumentally misguided its difficult to know where to start.

But lets jump in with: Copyleft is not anti-copyright or against copyright. Copyleft depends on copyright for its existence. Without copyright copyleft cannot work. Copyleft is commonly used in software programs where a programmer who creates software grants others permission to modify that software with the condition that any such modifications – if spread – must be spread under the same conditions. In other words if you take the software I have created and make modifications and then spread that new software you must allow others to make modifications. If you cannot do this you cannot make modifications of my software. That is copyleft. And it is only enforceable because of copyright. In Creative Commons licensing the equivalent to the copyleft term is the share-alike requirement. The story is the same. If I create music and license it under a CC license with a share-alike requirement you can make modifications to that music and spread them but there is a condition that you must allow others to modify the music you and I have created. If you cannot allow this then you cannot use the music I created. So copyleft cannot pose any threat to copyright or to ASCAP’s members.

The organizations that ASCAP wants to fight are also a mystery. Creative Commons is the organization behind Creative Commons licenses which are dependent on copyright. The next two are even more bizarre Public Knowledge, and the Electronic Frontier Foundation are consumer & digital rights groups. They fight for civil rights and technology. What is obvious is that ASCAP either does not understand the first thing about what they think they are “fighting” or maybe they are choosing to be ignorant in the hope that their members will think its sounds good in a classic scare-mongering tactic?

Naturally the replies were not long in coming. Eric Steuer (Creative Director at Creative Commons) wrote a Response to ASCAP’s deceptive claims (30 June)

Last week, the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP) sent a fundraising letter to its members calling on them to fight “opponents” such as Creative Commons, falsely claiming that we work to undermine copyright.*

Creative Commons licenses are copyright licenses – plain and simple. Period. CC licenses are legal tools that creators can use to offer certain usage rights to the public, while reserving other rights. Without copyright, these tools don’t work. Artists and record labels that want to make their music available to the public for certain uses, like noncommercial sharing or remixing, should consider using CC licenses. Artists and labels that want to reserve all of their copyright rights should absolutely not use CC licenses.

Many musicians, including acts like Nine Inch Nails, Beastie Boys, Youssou N’Dour, Tone, Curt Smith, David Byrne, Radiohead, Yunyu, Kristin Hersh, and Snoop Dogg, have used Creative Commons licenses to share with the public. These musicians aren’t looking to stop making money from their music. In fact, many of the artists who use CC licenses are also members of collecting societies, including ASCAP. That’s how we first heard about this smear campaign – many musicians that support Creative Commons received the email and forwarded it to us. Some of them even included a donation to Creative Commons.

Lawrence Lessig reacted quickly (10 July) to the letter in The Huffington Post :

As a founding board member of two of those three organizations, and former board member of the third, I guess I should be proud that a 96 year old organization would be so terrified of our work. And I would be — if there were anything in this fundraising pitch that was actually true.

But there is not. Creative Commons, Public Knowledge and EFF are not aiming to “undermine” copyright; they are not spreading the word that “music should be free”; and there is certainly not yet any rally within Congress in favor of any of the issues that these groups do push.

Lessig then moves to a concrete suggestion:

This isn’t the first time that ASCAP has misrepresented the objectives of our organization. But could we make it the last? We have no objection to collecting societies: They too were an innovative and voluntary solution (in America at least) to a challenging copyright problem created by new technologies. And I at least am confident that collecting societies will be a part of the copyright landscape forever.

So here’s my challenge, ASCAP President Paul Williams: Let’s address our differences the way decent souls do. In a debate. I’m a big fan of yours, and If you’ll grant me the permission, I’d even be willing to sing one of your songs (or not) if you’ll accept my challenge of a debate. We could ask the New York Public Library to host the event. I am willing to do whatever I can to accommodate your schedule.

Let’s meet and address these perceived differences with honesty and good faith. No doubt we have disagreements (for instance, I love rainy days, and Mondays rarely get me down). But on the issues that your organization and mine care about, there should be no difference worthy of an attack.

Paul Williams posted his reply on the ASCAP website (19 July)

Anti-copyright crusaders are currently engaged in a publicity campaign to discredit ASCAP’s efforts to defend the copyrights of our professional songwriter and composer members…

Because of the respect I have for ASCAP’s members and the trust they have put in me, I am focused on those activities that will further ASCAP’s goals to work for fair compensation to music creators for the use of their music.

I don’t believe a debate with Lawrence Lessig will serve that purpose.

I am well aware of those “copyleft” mouthpieces who take a highly critical view of ASCAP’s efforts to protect our members’ rights. That will not change ASCAP’s commitment to doing so. ASCAP exists for one purpose — fair payment to music creators for the use of their music by businesses and others who seek to attract viewers and customers. ASCAP has long welcomed and licensed new technological means of performing its members works, seeking only reasonable fees for those performances. Our members have every right to give their music away for free if they choose, but they should not be forced to do so.

What I find most fascinating is that those who purport to support a climate of free culture work so hard to silence opposing points of view. They will not silence me.”

Instead of addressing any of the errors – which have been pointed out by several people -they continue to repeat the patently wrong statements. When a public person makes a error of this magnitude it is a given that bloggers who know anything about the area are going to be critical – this is the basis for free speech and open society – this criticism is hardly a “…a publicity campaign to discredit ASCAP’s efforts to defend the copyrights…”

The closing letter is amazingly weird – being invited to participate in a debate is the opposite of being silenced!! Being invited to a debate is obviously a mark of respect of ones opponent and respect for the whole open and free speech process. The lack of interest for this process and the ignorance about the “enemies” of ASCAP should be enough to question Williams suitability as a spokesperson.

Seeing the charge of the light brigade French Marshal Pierre Bosquet said “C’est magnifique, mais ce n’est pas la guerre. C’est de la folie” — ” (It is magnificent, but it is not war it is madness) (Wikipedia)

Tennyson wrote the poem: The Charge of the Light Brigade:

Half a league, half a league,
Half a league onward,
All in the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred.
“Forward, the Light Brigade!
“Charge for the guns!” he said:
Into the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred.

“Forward, the Light Brigade!”
Was there a man dismay’d?
Not tho’ the soldier knew
Someone had blunder’d:
Theirs not to make reply,
Theirs not to reason why,
Theirs but to do and die:
Into the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred.

Cannon to right of them,
Cannon to left of them,
Cannon in front of them
Volley’d and thunder’d;
Storm’d at with shot and shell,
Boldly they rode and well,
Into the jaws of Death,
Into the mouth of Hell
Rode the six hundred.

Flash’d all their sabres bare,
Flash’d as they turn’d in air,
Sabring the gunners there,
Charging an army, while
All the world wonder’d:
Plunged in the battery-smoke
Right thro’ the line they broke;
Cossack and Russian
Reel’d from the sabre stroke
Shatter’d and sunder’d.
Then they rode back, but not
Not the six hundred.

Cannon to right of them,
Cannon to left of them,
Cannon behind them
Volley’d and thunder’d;
Storm’d at with shot and shell,
While horse and hero fell,
They that had fought so well
Came thro’ the jaws of Death
Back from the mouth of Hell,
All that was left of them,
Left of six hundred.

When can their glory fade?
O the wild charge they made!
All the world wondered.
Honor the charge they made,
Honor the Light Brigade,
Noble six hundred.

Posted on by mklang

My top 20 non-fiction

OK, so I should be writing but I needs a break and this seems like a worthwhile attempt at procrastination…

Every time someone dares to create a canon they are naturally shot down. But at the same time I really want to list the 20  non-fiction books a well rounded person should read. A list like this can never be complete and I would really appreciate any and all tips on books which should be included:

Richard Dawkins – The Greatest Show on Earth: The evidence for evolution

Richard Dawkins – The God Delusion

Bill Bryson – A Short History of Nearly Everything

Rainer Maria Rilke – Letters to a Young Poet

Karen Armstrong – A History of God: The 4,000-Year Quest of Judaism, Christianity and Islam

David Bollier – Silent Theft: The Private Plunder of Our Common Wealth

George Monbiot – Bring on the Apocalypse: Six Arguments for Global Justice

George Monbiot – The Age of Consent: A Manifesto for a New World Order

John Pilger – Freedom Next Time

Fredrick Schauer – Free Speech: A philosophical inquiry

Rupert Smith – The Utility of Force: The Art of War in the Modern World

John Gribbin – Science: A History 1543-2001

Vandana Shiva – Water Wars: Privatization, Pollution, and Profit

Vandana Shiva – Protect or Plunder?: Understanding Intellectual Property Rights

Ronald Dworkin – Taking Rights Seriously

Neil Postman – Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology

Okakura Kakuzo – The Book of Tea

Amartya Sen – The Idea of Justice

Peter Singer – Animal Liberation

John Stuart Mill – On Liberty

Posted on by mklang

They that do – rule! The actocracy as a form of governance

There is obviously no perfect form of power-system. At present we praise democracy as the ultimate form of government. The main reason for this is that we have moved from power in a small group (autocracy) to people rule (democracy). But is democracy really the ultimate form of group control? Obviously not. In many hierarchical organizations democracy is directly scorned. Simple examples are the military is an autocratic hierarchy and in operating theaters are dictatorships where the surgeon rules supreme.

Working in voluntary net-based organizations democracy is often seen as a viable alternative. Each member has the ability to discuss and participate. However in many of these groups it is increasingly difficult to gather “the people” and it can even be difficult to ascertain who the legitimate participants are. Even when all the right people are available online the medium itself often leads to endless mailing list discussions which, while promoting open debate can often prevent actual action.

Often in such groups the is an interesting practice which may be defined as an Actocracy. In an actocracy the person prepared to do the work actually steers the movement. In this situation work may be carried out. Naturally an actocracy is not necessarily fair in the democratic sense but as with other forms of government their are checks and balances.

Posted on by mklang

Fame at last!

In December 2009 I wrote a positive text in my Swedish blog about the Norska Forbrukerrådet (Norwegian Consumer Council) and their decision to write a report and demand answers from the Norwegian Data Protection Authority on the role of social networking sites in relation to personal integrity. I ended the post with the words:

Detta är ett härligt exempel på socialt patos från en nationell aktör i en globaliserad nätbaserad värld.

Translated: This is a wonderful example of social pathos from a national actor in a globalized network-based world. Today I received an email from the Norska Forbrukerrådet. Partly they wanted to inform me that there report has been sent in:

Facebook operates in a virtually lawless sphere as far as data protection and terms of use are concerned. The terms and conditions are not made available and are subject to frequent changes by the company. The Consumer Council of Norway is therefore asking the Data Inspectorate to clarify what Facebook and other social networking sites can and cannot do under the law.

The complaint against Facebook/Zynga is here (in Norwegian) and their readable report on integrity & sociala medier is here (in English).

On a more personal note the mail contained some really cool news. The Consumer Council has taken the closing words from my original post and put them on a t-shirt! This must be my best quote ever.

Posted on by mklang

Free Culture Research Conference

The deadline for submissions of extended abstracts for the third Free Culture Research Conference (FCRC) is in 10 days. The conference this year will be in Berlin in October 8-9, 2010.

The Free Culture Research Conference presents a unique opportunity for scholars whose work contributes to the promotion, study or criticism of a Free Culture, to engage with a multidisciplinary group of academic peers and practitioners, identify the most important research opportunities and challenges, and attempt to chart the future of Free Culture. This event builds upon the successful workshop held in 2009 at the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard University, organized and attended by renowned scholars and research institutions from the US, Europe and Asia. The first event was held in Sapporo, Japan, in 2008, in conjunction with the 4th iCommons Summit. This year’s event is larger in ambition and scope, to provide more time for interaction in joint as well as break-out sessions. It is hosted jointly by the Free University of Berlin and the Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies and will take place at October 8-9, 2010 at the Free University Campus in Berlin, in collaboration with COMMUNIA, the European Network on the digital public domain. Funding and support is also provided by the Heinrich Böll Foundation.

Check out the full call for papers here. For the sake of full disclosure I am on the Program Committee but their are many impressive names on the committee.

Posted on by mklang

Great News for the Nordic Commons

Not only has Jonas done the work – he even wrote this blogpost which I happily & unashamedly steal. Great Work Jonas!

This is horribly exciting: I’ve been wanting to write more about this for a while now, but we wanted to time the release together with the Nordic Culture Fund. The short story, part of which I’ve leaked before, is that the Society for Free Culture and Software has been granted €49000 in funding for a project to bring Creative Commons to artists. Over the next year, from September 2010 to June 2011 we’ll be organising a series of workshops in some Nordic countries where we will talk about Creative Commons, how to use it, when to use it, and get as many artists as possible to make that first release with a Creative Commons license.

We’ll be organising workshops in Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Iceland and on the Faroe Islands. The workshops themselves will be around April-May 2011, but we’re going to start already in September this year, and during FSCONS in November, to think about how to best approach newcomers to Creative Commons, prepare materials for the workshops and practice presenting Creative Commons to newcomers.

The society is working on this together with Smári McCarthy (IS), Birita í Dali (FO), Christian Villum (DK), Mathias Klang (SE) and Gisle Hannemyr (NO). The funding comes from Nordic Culture Fund and the Nordic Culture Point, and supplements funding which we’ve received for other projects. In total, we’ll spend around €60000 over the next year on CC activities.

Posted on by mklang