TOPIC DEFININTION

For my master course in Remix Culture I have used the topics of creativity and copyright as a starting point for defining my research topic. I will use this post to explore the direction of my interest.

This is not an acedemic post. These are my personal assumptions based on previous experience, work and various literature. I will use my assumptions and beliefs to form a starting point for an academic investigation.

So the first assumption for my exploration is:

Remix is the premise of all creativity

An idea is never yours alone, it spurs from the human collective, traditions, culture, personal encounters and experiences. Gilberto Gilm, former minister for Culture in Brazil aptly stated it: “Sharing is the nature of creation” (RIP:A Remix Manifesto).

We must allow for a sharing culture to advocate innovation. Beyond inspiring new musical compositions, sharing information to utilize the manpower of a global community to find solutions to global challenges – the cure for cancer, solving the energy crisis, space travel – is of utmost importance.
Having information and creative content locked up behind walls of copyright regulations and patents are not constructive in a interconnected world.

Second assumption:

Current copyright systems are not encouraging remix

Historic and current compensation systems are naturally set in place for a reason – and I would argue that reason first and foremost to be concerning the issue of attribution and economic compensation.
In terms of attribution, the system need to acknowlegde the creator behind a work, and furthermore the system is supposed to outline an economic model for compensating the creator for the time and resources invested in the production of a work.

On the economic side the traditional copyright system isn’t directly protecting the creator, rather the person, institution or orgransisation that represent the work and enforce the copyright, who then in turn compensate the creator they represent. I would call this body “the distributor”.
The distributor has traditionally also been in charge of the master copy and the copying machine, controlling the access to a product or work.
With the rise of Internet, the world biggest copy machine is unveiled, but it is not a copy machine that one distributor controls specifically.

Which takes me to the third assumption of my exploration:

Our current copyright system is not protecting the creator, but a business modell that is outdated

The cultural, social and technological development of any society offers an increase in demand for certain skill and type of occupations, and the decrease of others. Lots of current argumentation today in defense of of current copyright systems, seems to come from traditional distributors.
Internet with is inherent open-ended network structure and filesharing as its primus modus operandi has offered its participants to be more than just consumers. Everyone have the ability to share (distribute) close to any digital production with ease. Everyone is an distributor.

Fourth assumption:

The creator can no longer be protected by the distributor chain

And this is where it gets interesting.

What technological and legal compensation systems can ensure attribution and economic compensation for artists today?

In terms of legality Richard Stallmann introduced GPL (General Public Lisence), a free software license intending to ensure that software code can never turn proprietary and be fully shared fully among any project now and in the future. An alternative licensing system, the Creative Commons, initiated by Lawrence Lessig, is an appraoch to encompass the legal sharing of all creative work.
Both of these licenses advocate legal sharing of attributed works, yet none really address the economic consequenses of an creator freely sharing his/her work.

With the whole world as potential distributors of a given work, we need new models to ensure sustainable sharing, or put bluntly: How can we legally and economically open access to digital creative content?

A very incomplete and barely touched upon outline of some of the ideas that have been put forth as alternatives or part solutions:

DIFFERENTIATING NON-COMMERCIAL & COMMERCIAL USE

STATE REGULATED COMPENSATION SYSTEM
The state has a system for measuring the online traffic of individual users, and compensates the various creators accordingly. A fixed cultural fee on the use of internet is collected from each user.

OPEN BUSINESS MODELS
The digital copy is always free and openly available – each creator needs to find his/hers alternative source of income. The free, digital copy encourages distribution and in turn fame/familiarity. This direct connection to an audience is then utilized to push upgrades, related product/services, new collaboration opportunities that can be charged for.

WIKINOMICs AND THE ECONOMY OF PEER-PRODUCTION
The ideas on the economy of collaborative production (e.g. the idea of Wikinomics presented by Tapscott and Williams) seems to argue for the economics of online production, but not so much off-line production – work that demands time and resources from the individual creators outside a collaborative platform.
(The term “online” and “offline production” are presented by Matteo Pasquinelli in his critique of free culture: The Ideology of Free Culture and the Grammar of Sabotage (PDF)

——————————————————————————–

And then I got off track.
I feel like a robot assembling data to tell a story I am not sure I find so interesting.

EDIT:

It is actually not so much about feeling as a robot, more that the topic has such a wide range, that I am challenged in being specific.

Is it interesting to write a paper about potential compensation systems, on a global scale?
What happended to the notion of creativity?
How in depth should it be with the time I have available (medio November) and how original?
What about the more philosophical aspects of the public, the commons, the recursive commons, the creative anti-commons? Copyright versus copyleft in terms of stimulating an active, producing commons.
How can I make this topic be about more than just systems of copyright?

 

2 Responses to 'TOPIC DEFININTION'

Subscribe to comments with RSS or TrackBack to 'TOPIC DEFININTION'.

1. Hm. This is a HUGE topic, and you could spend a lifetime (and might need a law degree) to answer it. As you say, you’ll need to focus it a bit. You’re only supposed to be writing 15-20 pages.

   I think to discuss copyright you really need to include something about the history of copyright. You could look at Pål Dimmen’s MA thesis, which has a chapter or two about that – this would give you an idea of the sort of level you’d want to work at if it was a whole MA thesis (which it is NOT) and you can see the way he works and what kinds of references he uses – and also how he chose research questions. The thesis is not for loan, but you can read it IN the UiB library. Pål Dimmen: Datamaskinell piratvirksomhet : fra Altair Basic til Kazaa, 2003. I don’t remember the exact grade Pål was given, but it was very good, an A or a B I think.

   You say at one point “I feel like a robot assembling data to tell a story I am not sure I find so interesting.” That’s a good warning sign to NOT go down that path! Figure out which bits you DO find interesting and try to focus in on them.

   You don’t want to write about potential systems of copyright that might be fairer than the current one – at least that’s how I read you?

   You’re interested in creativity? The philosophical aspects of the public?

   Would you be interested in particular examples or more in the sort of abstract nature of it all? Different people think in different ways – I think very much in examples and analogies, whereas other people think much more in terms of systems or structures, or on a theoretical level. Do you know which way YOU work best?

   Another issue is what you want to do with your degree later. Perhaps you want to advise clients on ways to work within various kinds of licensing/copyright? Perhaps you want to change the world and improve the copyright system? I don’t know – but think about the kind of knowledge you’d like to have about copyright when you finish this project and see if that can help to guide you.

   Also, remember that the research question WILL become clearer as you work. You still haven’t read that much about the topic, we’re only a few weeks into the semester. And so you can leave it somewhat open for now and trust that it will get clearer as you keep working.

   Does this help at all?

   

   Jill Walker Rettberg

   9 Sep 09 at 04:23

    

2. It does help.

   Especially the reminder of how people think differently.
   I myself tend to think in systems and abstractions. Although I very much believe in finding concrete examples and cases that underline the research question.

   And will look in to that MA thesis

   

   admin

   9 Sep 09 at 05:37

    

 

REFLECTIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website