simona.conservas.innmotion on Thu, 10 Jul 2008 11:26:55 +0200 (CEST)

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: <nettime> A citizen response to the recent attacks on freedoms in the name of intellectual property

marius schebella escribió:
> Hi,
> I am still quite new to this list, I have not seen many responses to 
> postings, so I am not sure, if there is room at all for a discussion?
> I'd like to comment on some of the 7 demands...


it is a long debate but i'll try to answer you very briefly and
simplified. (and also in some clamsy english: no time to ask the
translator ;))

please keep in mind that it will be a simplification and - something
i should probably had to explain when i send this text to the list -
that this text it's a practical "manifesto" that it have actually been
spread to the "normal" public opinion to create reactions on the last
attacks that have been made to the society in general not only in a
context of "free culture" movement aware people

simona.conservas.innmotion wrote:
>> 3. That artists be paid equally and fairly, whether or not they are 
>> members of royalty management associations. That artists, if they wish, 
>> be paid mainly for their actual creative work, not for the explotation 
>> it generates.
> ?? not sure what you are referring to here. some monthly income? why 
> should all artists be paid equally? who defines what an 'artist' is? and 
> by whom should they be paid? by the government? are artists better than 
> other people so that they are elegible to receive money, but other 
> working people not? all humans should be paid equally and fairly in 
> regard to their work, no?

we are not difending at all artists above the "rest of the people". in
the capitalistic society, you do your job, you get your money. it's
exactly the "art scene" that is the great garanteer for the cognitive
capitalism to subsiste by wanting that, in its name, the job it's
permanently REremunerate. we defend the recogniction of the ability
of some one but not the permanent monetarization of it. but, in the
reallity we are fighting in, in the local context of Spain (EXGAE,
the organisation writing this text, do real legal attacks and have
just stopped all the trial against users in our region), we need that
all the thousands of precarious workers that are in the entertainment
industry, step out of the royalties managment societies and put their
talent in a more free knowledge anticapitalistic sharing perspective.
tactically, so, we need that they get payed for their job straight
away (for exemple when they write a music for a tv serie) and not
for the explotation of it that mantain them for ever linked to the
industry. in fact the royalties system it is very useful to keep the
worker in a great precariousness. and what is so bad is that the same
art workers are mostly defending this system, mixing up the social
justice with some kind of psycological disorder that they have around
their ego ;).

Let's say that this point 3. - while we get a no.capitalistic society
with egually distribued richness ;) - it is a tactical point to
decease the precariousness of the cultural industy workers, as any
other worker.

> a creative sound artist's income (other than the basic income for social 
> reasons) will come from live performances, from composing soundtracks 
> for film or gaming industry, from royalties if a song is played on radio 
> or television or maybe in a (dance)club (any commercial environment). Or 
> by signing a contract with live nation or one of the big players of the 
> entertainment industry, like the manufacturers of computers, portables, 
> mobile devices, or cable companies, telecom and networking companies and 
> all other companies that rely on "content" to sell their products). 
> besides that, if people agree to honor cultural values ('actual creative 
> work', as you call it) that can still be covered by budgets for artist 
> fellowships, grants, governmental cultural sponsorings.
> Selling traditional sound storage media or selling music online could 
> survive because of higher sound quality or, maybe, accessibility.
> besides that artists will have to live from 1000 other things, like 
> advertisement contracts (covering related staredom outgrowth like 
> creating fashion lines or cosmetics.) or teaching.
>> 5. That the periods in which works become part of the Public Domain 
>> benefit creativity and society. Allowing more than one generation to 
>> live from somebody's work is a way of encouraging parasitism and 
>> creative stagnancy. It deactivates reinvestment and instead of favour 
>> people, as it was designed to do, it ends up benefiting mainly large 
>> multinational companies that distort the original work. We ask that work 
>> becomes public domain within a reasonable period of time, according to 
>> the kind of work, with a maximum of 30 years.
> what? 7, 5, 3, 2 years, even 1 year seems more appropriate to me.

or 0.

>> 6. The defence of the "right to quote" as a vehicle for democratic 
>> expansion of the information society.
> I would say we need legal arrangements not only for quoting but for 
> everything that goes under "fair use": educational context, derivative 
> work... as well as everything that is for private use.
> marius.
that's what i can do with my spanglish. it's more complex
and articulated then this but i hope i had helped to avoid




/Los verdugos siempre buscan excusas para hacerse las victimas. Vamos a 

*CONSERVAS, Barcelona* <>

#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
#  <nettime>  is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
#  more info:
#  archive: contact: