ended up going to the seminar Copyfight, if redeemed me Nacho and his troupe illusionist. Maybe tomorrow they do, these yuppies. Has passed in front of me the great star, built at the last minute and has been screaming "the machine is unstoppable!". Shortly before another guru, Cervera, had said that the software is a moral issue. Also nap. Vagueness as fists.
However, I have taken some notes with loving respect, that's what they are supposed to seminars, to germinate. Although I have felt like an alien, unable to empathize despite my willingness. In total there were about 40-50 people, counting the four speakers, which included a bean silly good-looking and clumsy verb. There has been a funny moment when the lecturer who officiated as master of ceremonies, one Jose Luis, has referred to the girl as someone who writes "a blog that needs no introduction." However, the public "in absentia" has mind several times it has done so unflattering terms as "the girl that before." What that tells me a lot of the poor perception of reality and their own possibilities for these deluded.
Discussion subject requires some familiarity with the issues and terminology. Its main lines: the intellectual property and the decline of the current model of copyright, the great paradoxes of the leading technological revolution after the Internet (the unstoppable machine.) Et alia.
scale first thing that this rumpus, and should have the alarm bells ringing everywhere, is that the supposed utopian revolutionaries staunchest liberals agree on almost every point. Arrojo several ideas in the air:
1) When from these instances is said that intellectual property is free, in fact is subjugating the material of real property capable of acquiring third-party, play and even manipulate it without checking out. Liberty has here only the liberal sense of freedom of movement, understood as imperative as opposed to freedom of disposition. The industry of luxury goods (and culture is one of them, possibly more lucrative) serves, then, the role of property to prevent pooling in the calm of savings and speculation.
2) Until now there has never ordered: Purchase or expropriate you! But today begins to hear: Give or expropriate you!. At the same time takes shape the framework of incentives, such as virtual network that gave birth, for mask the underlying mandate and make it nice. This gift is a sell off, a risk-refundable. Is the counterpart of blind impulse of the consumer: production and non-profit blind, production by production that keeps alive the monster. School unstoppable machine.
3) Apart from the deep differences, observed and cracks in the same presentation of the case in regard to its strategic side. Because, if it claims that it is against copyright, but its uniqueness compared to more open stifling copyleft, modalized and contract, which would represent an alternative, simultaneously, why is justified piracy with excuses such as the right to culture, that is, the right to consume but not produce with guaranteed returns?
4) No right is unlimited. Then, if even the copyright is limited in time to not ruin the social use, but are clearly insufficient, should not you also call them the right to culture, read a free and universal dissemination? Then I wonder: Are revocable licenses in copyleft? That is, how I can buy back the rights they've given up? If not, the system is no less draconian copyright today, saving the detail that the once infamously duped today called generous soul. And if they were, as is the case, should not be considered a copyright for the poor, in the interval recommended to come to better fortune? What will change and who are they kidding?
5) fibs Against socialism practiced by copyleft applaud the anarchic and liberal order: All private property is a small monopoly is always, by definition, antisocial. Because if I can only do what others let me do, I can not grant a right, but notes here and now a de facto situation that may change tomorrow regardless of what I want or remember. Argue that the ideas can not be private property when private property itself, its concept, an idea that has a thousand guards cynicism is frightening. But I've seen and I've heard. With my eyes, my ears. This afternoon.
6) The conflict, therefore, is as follows: Create the least, played the most. Can those they impose their will "de facto", depriving them of any right or reducing it to the symbolic only because they are in the minority? In other words: Can the right of reproduction overcome the building? And this is not only the freedom to create, as it includes also the living of creation, to invest in a serious time to work meets certain competitive features, worthy and enduring.
7) In my opinion, the copyleft part of a database error and is eager to protect the profit of others, understood as direct exploitation, and leave unguarded, however, the sidewall of indirect and negative free use is undefined.
8) is also argued that while the copyright regulated scarcity where there was, now, in times of abundance and technological bonanza, what you want is by artificial restrictions, create gaps necessary to maintain the privileges of which living income. In other words, before there was a shortage of means to disseminate ideas and now there is not, because the scope is potentially global Internet and immediate. But beware: that ideas can spread very easily happen does not mean as much when generating them. If ideas were not limited in its genesis, if only that quality reserve the property, not convertible into bytes, we are privileging the market position of those holding tangible assets to the detriment of those who, based on their competence personal and intellectual, retain only the right expectations. And all to protect the consumer, "id est", the employer (and its contractual splint). Because no one without the other, Cervera dixit.
9) We agree that it is not tradition is plagiarism, but this is not the issue. That what I write or what I write is original or not is immaterial. It need not be and it is enough that is new to any significant degree, to provide utility with respect to what precedes it, which adds value. Is created, by the way, what is not natural, what is human purpose and a particular translation into a language. But, again, is not the issue. Here what is at stake if we consider intelligence as an asset or a service. For me it certainly is an asset. A capital is the set of goods whose nature is to generate returns on a regular basis for which is held in whole or in part, as a service typically generates only once it provides; understood: that gets rid of it or its conditions of possibility ( time, resources, etc.). But no one gets rid of his intelligence. This, then, by nature, a capital, but by convention the fittest, or those in a position to do deliverables, service receiving treatment, claiming to goodwill and keeping the operator in jeopardy.
10) heard today: "The culture industry does not want to sell their products, but alquilártelos." I answer function of capital is not sold or leased, but held without being consumed. Repárese that when we sell a product we are selling only its workmanship, material, what we consume it, not its shape or design. The latter depends on intelligence, which is capital. And can not claim the full provision, nor piecemeal, on a foreign capital that has been transmitted.
11) heard as well: "We need filters, filters to sift through the overabundance of information. And then: "We should pay these filters in place to pursue them." But, I say, are not such "filters" the mediators that they wanted to do without cheaper product? And now we have to pay! A glimpse of the new bureaucracy, new vested interests.
12) The only progress tolerable, in my view, would ensure the recognition of intelligence as capital through its redefinition binding in state law. Under what circumstances? When this understanding, such as creativity, constitute an essential part of the final product sold, eg, in every work or art exhibit.
13) Finally, rinse qur I would not support an extensive application of copyright. Simply once who used some of my creation is paid once, provided they are not profiting from this in subsequent occasions. The current copyright is unfair because it does not set clear limits and, of course, leads to an absurdity. What say! In two absurdities: the copyright (the copyright) and copyleft.
In conclusion, I discuss the following sentence, which was mentioned as a fetish and not just a platitude: "The culture does not exist without an audience." I agree, but then add the nonsense: "Culture is not unilateral," as implying that the viewer is also an artist in one indissoluble process. This fallacy is the answer like this: If we are all artists, no culture, since it has been agreed that for it to give a viewer is required. And if we are all spectators, there is clearly no, because there is nothing to see. Now, if we are both, it is obvious that the culture needs to apply to the viewer, as it is impossible to escape it.
Copyfight, Stretch, acrobats, hairy, redness all. And I take two candles, but still lit, avoiding toxicity discourse that prevailed in the environment. Another bronze maxim: "Culture is a verb not a noun." Culture verbose and pointless, I thought.
0 comments:
Post a Comment