[FC-discuss] Fwd: [iDC] Some notes on value...[Colleges and copyright legislation]

[Janet Hawtin]

I referenced the colleges and copyright link in this post so thought I
would send a copy here =).
Janet


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Janet Hawtin <lucychili at gmail.com>
Date: Sun, Feb 24, 2008 at 10:56 AM
Subject: Re: [iDC] Some notes on value...
To: idc at mailman.thing.net


On Sun, Feb 24, 2008 at 5:44 AM, Brian Holmes <brian.holmes at wanadoo.fr> wrote:
 > Hello all,
 >
 >  I'm quite sympathetic to the line of thought pursued here. The idea of
 >  the esteem economy is worth developing! But I'd like to ask a question
 >  about brands and freedom:
 >  > in the self-understanding of
 >  > contemporary capitalism, the monetary value of brands are based on
 >  > their ethical values, their ability to accumulate mass affect.
 >  > What creates these ethical values? [...] people pay to use brands in

 If the brand is identity then as with any kind of publicity the
 transparency of that value is what makes it an ethical value. Some
 identities or companies may be in positions to shift the transparency
 of their own identities.


 > > their everyday life and thus freely co-produce their ethical value
 >  > through their constructive consumer practices. On financial markets,
 >  > capital flows to the most attractive brands.  More means more in this
 >  > case, if you have accumulated a significant stock of ethical capital,
 >  > people will freely give you their time and further attention, or, on
 >  > financial markets, their capital.
 >
 >  But how free is this when millions of dollars are pumped into
 >  advertising a brand, analyzing the consumers' use of a product and
 >  reaction to its advertising, then readjusting both brand image and
 >  product (not to mention product placement, store architecture etc) to
 >  fit closer to the model developed by the analysis? Hasn't the
 >  accumulation of mass affect been calculated and engineered?

 A good example of reputation and value is that agademic and research
 papers are now being published online for open access by respectid
 universities. This makes it possible for people who are researching
 specific topics to see which institutions and people within those
 institutions are hot or current or contentious on topics which they
 would like to participate in. This may result in people learning
 without paying. It also increases or changes the reputation of the
 institution publishing but it has been attracting $tudents to
 universities who are open and also doing interesting work.

 The value shift is from the information being the fenced resource to
 the participation in the source community being seen as the aspect of
 the degree to purchase. Attraction of funds around the openly
 published research ideas is also possible.


 >  I ask the question because there is a big emphasis right now on the
 >  freedom of people to do this or that with the net, at the same time as
 >  it is more and more flooded with ads and surveillance. And though I
 >  appreciate all freedoms, I am not sure they expand when you just ignore
 >  real constraints. Still, great post, great thread, this is just a
 >  question of detail.

 Yes there are very real policies and laws being crafted which are
 fragmenting openness
 and reducing access. Copyright is being used to shut people who *have*
 paid for their courses from
 university networks if they share 'copyrighted materials' on the
 university network.

 Given that this suggestion has a legal concern at core it is
 interesting that the nonsense in that statement has not been
 unpacked prior to broadcasting that requirement on the internet:

 **TENNESSEE S.B. 3974 - PIRACY/DIGITAL RIGHTS MANAGEMENT
 Sponsor: Senator Tim Burchett (R)
 Summary: Requires every public institution of higher learning to, by
 January 15 of each year: (a) develop and enforce a policy defining
 computer and network usage that clearly describes and prohibits the
 infringement of copyrighted works over the school's computer and
 network resources; (b) thoroughly analyze its computer network,
 including local area and internal networks to determine whether it is
 being used to transmit copyrighted information and either: (1) certify
 to the Tennessee Higher Education Commission that an analysis
 indicates that the network is not being used to transmit copyrighted
 works and that the institution has not received ten or more legally
 valid notices of infringement in the preceding year or (2) take
 affirmative steps to prevent the infringement of copyrighted works
 over the school's computer and network resources.
 Takes effect upon enactment.
 http://www.legislature.state.tn.us/bills/currentga/BILL/SB3974.pdf

 It is possible that they really do mean that only public domain or
 copyleft material should be traffic on the university networks. Its an
 interesting thought; it would mean it would require the the students
 to publish their own thoughts using public domain or copyleft
 licensing. Which could make this current debate a vintage issue if
 students decide that copyright is a royal pain and take it
 literally/legally to mean what it suggests.

 I think that there is an openness now about what people have to offer
 and people are being hired as speakers and participants based on an
 understanding of the works what people have developed thus far and an
 interest in where that conversation is likely to go next.

 People being able to do this for themselves is a more social means of
 distribution. Traditional media publishers are making suggestions
such as the above
 listed legislation suggestion which aim to secure their own role as
 the people with permission to broadcast. This is about control of
 traditional publishing roles not so much about money back to authors
 as the value in publishing for one's self is that any financial
 interest in your thoughts will come direct to you. People may mediate
 those conversations through an agent but the agent is a different
 relationship than a publisher. The locus of control closer to the
 author because their identity is in their own hands.

 Broadcasters are increasingly likely to try to use copyright and
 intellectual property arguments to claim control or
 income from material broadcast in digital networks. There was already
 an attempt to push a copyright through for broadcasters who transmit
 works at WIPO. It hasn't been successful yet but the danger with that
 is that any news collecting agency could transmit any material without
 prior permission and then have copyright on that material regardless
 of the intent of the author. It is a shift away from any relationship
 between creating and copyright. Larger publishing and media systems
 have more invested in infrastructure than in their own writers and so
 are pushing their interests in the pipes rather than interests in
 partnerships around the generation of new works.

 The choices round these issues will be important to the way we make value.

 Janet