[ox-en] Fwd: <nettime> "Content Flatrate" and the Social Democracy of the Digital Commons
- From: Stefan Merten <smerten oekonux.de>
- Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2004 08:18:00 +0200
Hi!
Below is another voice about the P2P tax / content flatrate.
Mit Freien Grüßen
Stefan
PS: I'll try to correct the misrepresentation of Oekonux.
------- Forwarded Message
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 11:35:25 [PHONE NUMBER REMOVED]
From: Florian Cramer <cantsin zedat.fu-berlin.de>
Subject: [wos] Fwd: <nettime> "Content Flatrate" and the Social Democracy of
the Digital Commons
To: Wizards of OS <wos post.openoffice.de>
Message-Id: <20040715093525.GB1405 mail.zedat.fu-berlin.de>
- ----- Forwarded message from rasmus fleischer <rasmus.fleischer post.utfors.se> -----
From: rasmus fleischer <rasmus.fleischer post.utfors.se>
Subject: <nettime> "Content Flatrate" and the Social Democracy of the Digital Commons
To: nettime-l bbs.thing.net
Reply-To: rasmus fleischer <rasmus.fleischer post.utfors.se>
"CONTENT FLATRATE" AND THE SOCIAL DEMOCRACY OF THE DIGITAL COMMONS
Recently, the communities of IP critics and P2P filesharers has been
hit by a wave of demands for an "alternative compensation system". June
2004 was a month of European breakthrough for the idea of "content
flatrate", as a solution intended to save filesharing, whilst
"compensating" copyright holders who feel that their traditional means
of income are slipping out of hand due to technological development.
Here I will discuss this new tendency, its premises, weaknesses and its
relation to anti-copyright-activism, polemically arguing that
"flatrateism" is a mistake. My observations are based mainly on German
discussions, but also on Swedish, French and American proposals of
"alternative compensation systems".
Of all the different topics on the conference program for Wizards of OS
3 (WOS3), held in Berlin 10-12 June, two things stood out as objects of
some hype. The first was the launch of Creative Commons in Germany, and
the other was the "Berlin Declaration on Collectively Managed Online
Rights". [1] Both these projects can be regarded as examples of what
one could term the "social democracy of the digital commons". But
despite their many similarities, they demarcate two clearly
incompatible strategies.
"DRM and mass-prosecution of filesharers is not a solution acceptable
to an open and equitable society". That's the opening statement of the
Berlin Declaration, which was finalized at WOS under direction from its
two "fathers": Nettime moderator Felix Stalder and Volker Grassmuck,
project lead for Wizards of OS. It is in order to stop DRM (Digital
Rights/Restrictions Management) that the signers of the declaration
recognize an imminent need to come up with a plausible "alternative
compensation system".
The authors of the declaration compare the current development of P2P
with what happened when the tape recorder hit the consumer market in
the 1950s. Instead of trying to control its use, many European
countries chose to levy the sales of empty audio tapes, letting
collecting societies (like the German GEMA, Swedish STIM or American
ASCAP) channel the collected money to copyright holders. "This system
that worked well for forty years holds the solution for the digital
online realm as well", writes Volker Grassmuck. [2] Today, the flatrate
supporters say, the situation is actually not so different ? so let's
cool the whole thing down and try to make a compromise that prevents
full-scale confrontation between filesharers and the copyright
industry.
According to the Berlin Declaration, the "Primary goal of copyright
lawmaking must be a balance between the rights of creators and those of
the public." Well, the problem with such a premise is not only that one
will have to ignore the consequences of an evolution that Walter
Benjamin as early as 70 years ago described as that "the distinction
between author and public is about to lose its basic character",
becoming "merely functional; varying from case to case". [3] More
problematic is that the authors of the Berlin Declaration do not stop
at trying to balance "the rights of creators and those of the public",
but also want to "compensate" the whole crowd of non-creative copyright
holders, from music publishers to heirs of dead creators. A
"compensation" system channeling money from Internet infrastructure to
dinosaurs from a past era ? isn't that exactly "to protect an outmoded
business model of a handful of players in a relatively small industry",
something that the same declaration text defines as "bad policy"?
There are many more questions regarding who to "compensate". In the
declaration sketches written before Wizards of OS, the concept was
named "music flatrate", but then in some weeks it underwent a change.
"Content flatrate" is the new term, as well as the name of an upcoming
campaign to collect signatures for the Berlin Declaration. [4] Well,
What is "content"? Music and film seem obvious. What about Oracle
software at $10.000, should sharing of that be legalized as well as
covered by a flatrate? Of course not, as such a flatrate would be damn
expensive.
All kinds of pictures and textz, from lolita_anal_teen.jpg to
adorno.txt via PDF versions of daily newspapers, are already being
distributed in P2P networks. Consequently, those copyright holders must
also have their part of the money. The proposed collecting societies
must include an array of book publishers, magazines, picture bureaus,
music publishers, journalists, media conglomerates... Now it appears
that quite a high flatrate must be put on every Internet connection,
every CD burner and every iPod in order to please them all. And the
economic question of how to weigh all those types of digital "content"
against each other ? the download quantity in kilobytes obviously would
not work as measure ? that question has not even been raised yet.
"Content" seems to be a category entirely defined by the cultural
industry, to which it simply means anything that you can fill
one-directional mass media with. But, as Florian Cramer has pointed out
on the German WOS-list in some very critical posts about the Berlin
Declaration [5], all talk about "content" is really diffuse.
What about music in the shape of generative software? Does it really
make sense not to classify a videogame as content, but do it with an
interactive DVD? Why distinguish between form and content anyway, and
how to? Florian Cramer also refers to works like the circumventionist
"The Conceptual Crisis of Private Property as a Crisis in Practice", as
examples of how any kind of digital media can be packaged into any
other kind ? making the "content"-category even harder to define. [6]
While the flatrateists want to compensate for reproduced "content",
"free culture" is a key term for the other kind of "social democracy of
the digital commons" mentioned earlier. The latter tendency could be
noticed at many parts of Wizards of OS 3, from Lawrence Lessig's and
Eben Moglen's pompous speeches to small workshops on free media
projects. Broadening the concepts of free software onto other cultural
and social domains has in fact been one of WOS' characteristics from
its start. This year's conference also, as an initiative from its own
project lead, became a forum for introducing quite a different set of
ideas. Unfortunately, the tensions between two strategies "free
culture" and "flatrate" do not seem to have been discussed there at
depth, nor recognized in the scheduling. Neither did De:Bug, the
monthly Berlin ?magazine for electronic life-aspects", in their issue
on filesharing and Creative Commons that came out just prior to WOS3.
[7] After presenting a scenario where one has to choose between the two
sole alternatives DRM and "Pauschalverg?tung", De:Bug of course comes
to the conclusion to support the latter.
The incompatibility may in fact be a reason for why we today have free
software, but almost no music that may be freely distributed and
legally sampled. One important reason is that we do not have a software
monopoly, but in practice a music monopoly.
The present situation for "free culture" is tantamount to this
hypothetical scenario: Imagine if every time someone installed any kind
of free software on a computer, s/he would have to pay a special fee.
The collected money (minus the share consumed by a pretty big
bureaucracy) would then be given to programmers that had registered
themselves at the collecting society, divided in accordance with
statistics over what software most people use. That would mean, every
time you would install Linux, you would have to pay a flatrate fee
going mainly to Microsoft. It's obvious that such an "alternative
compensation system" would not provide a productive climate for the
Free Software-movement.
The scenario may sound unrealistic, but resembles the current state of
the music business. If a song is played on radio, the radio station has
to pay a fee to the collecting society, representing different kinds of
copyright holders. It makes no difference if the song is in the public
domain. Neither if the author of the song actually wants to allow
non-profit radio stations to play his song without charge ? the radio
station will in any case receive a bill from the music monopoly with a
fixed sum of money printed on it.
If the artist thinks that this situation sucks and chooses not to be a
member of these monopolistic organizations, it will still not change
the status of her/his music much: S/he will earn a little less, while
Elvis' grandchildren and other big copyright holders will get a little
bigger piece of the cake. The non-profit radio station will still have
to pay the same amount, and they can't really choose to play
exclusively free music - simply because there almost is none. There is
almost none because the state-sanctioned music monopoly makes it quite
dumb for a musician not to join a collecting society. As a member, your
copyrights are impossible to restrict, you can't just tell your friend
running a caf? that she can play your music for free is she wants ? no,
now the collecting society is responsible for enforcement of your
copyrights. This rigid system makes it harder to build an
infrastructure around "freer" culture, e.g. every "free radio station"
must pay something of a penalty fee ? going directly to the "unfree"
big copyright holders.
The paradox with collecting societies is that the greater part of the
played/downloaded content that is "free" (public domain or GPL-style
licensed), the more money will go to the remainders in the shrinking
"proprietary" part.
Think about the situation for a while. What I am trying to say is that
the possibility to offer culture "free as in free beer" can sometimes
be a necessary prerequisite to achieve the "free as in freedom"
position.
According to Creative Commons international coordinator Christiane
Aschenfeldt, the collecting societies are the biggest obstacles for the
spread of freer licensing in Europe. [8] The Berlin Declaration, on the
other hand, praises the music monopolies as an ideal solution, able to
chill down every clash between the development of digital reproduction
and the prevailing socio-economic structures. "We encourage the
[European] Commission in its efforts to strengthen the role of
collecting societies in the digital age", they write.
Even if "Free culture" and "flatrate" are both at the moment gaining
weight, and that largely through the same channels, they seem like
incompatible strategies in the long run. What happened last month was
that quite a lot of people chose to prioritize the latter at expense of
the former.
June 2004 was a veritable come-out month for the flatrate supporters,
maybe culminating the 25th when The New York Times published not one
but two op-eds by American professors calling for music flatrate.
Referring to a flatrate paper put forward by the EFF in February this
year, Kembrew McLeod proposed a monthly Internet license fee at about
$5 that would legalize filesharing while "compensating" the music
industry with the same amount of money as that they claim they are
losing. [9]
At the same time, support for the Berlin Declaration was given by a
"coalition of German civil society", featuring the globalization
critics Attac, the hacker-alliance CCC, Privatkopie.net and others, in
the statement "Kompensation ohne Kontrolle". [10] Also this year, a
German Gr?ne Jugend (Young Greens) campaign demands a flatrate and
calls for "safeguarding the balance between authors and consumers".
[11] Just a couple of days after WOS3, the German section of Attac
declared its intention to begin a huge informational campaign for a
content flatrate. [12] That was precisely the same day as another
conference was held in Paris, where the two French collecting societies
for performing musicians, Spedidam and Adami, made a common proposal
for an "alternative compensation system" utilizing a music flatrate.
While Spedidam wants to legalize P2P uploads too, Adami wants to keep
them illegal but still collect "compensation" for legalized downloads.
Anyway, the other representatives of the music industry at the
conference were against the idea, preferring DRM-protected downloading
services. [13]
The same positions within the music sector were taken in Sweden last
year, when Roger Wallis, chairman of the Swedish performing rights
society SKAP, proposed a kind of flatrate solution, saying that the
record industry should demand compensation through the ISPs instead of
attacking filesharers. But also in Sweden, representatives of the
record industry's IFPI aggressively opposed the idea (with a typical
Swedish formulation about the terrible dangers of "legitimizing"
morally objectionable behavior).
Commenting a recent university study on the topic, Roger Wallis however
noted, somewhat resigned, that "The stupid thing to do was to stop
Napster, where the traffic was registered. With new P2P-varieties, it
is much harder to get a grip of what's actually happening." [14]
The surveillance part is just another really problematic part of the
flatrate concept. P2P filesharing has become much more diverse and
decentralized since the fall of Napster. Even if companies like
BigChampagne make statistics on what is downloaded through the dominant
protocols, the demands for accuracy would be much greater if the
surveillance provided the economic basis for the entire "content"
industry. Under a flatrate, it's quite sure that some people would like
to hide some of their transactions in "darknets", and some would even
try to manipulate the statistics for profit, raising their own download
count. And then the industry probably would demand a ban on P2P
programs without state certification. (In such a hypothetical situation
we would have to ask ourselves how far from the current DRM discourse
the flatrate actually gets us.)
According to Florian Cramer, the flatrate demands are based upon
outdated technical categories. It's getting harder to distinguish
between local transfers of data, e.g. in wireless environments, and
"filesharing" between different systems. [15] One could also point at
the development of portable MP3 devices designed for wireless P2P
streaming of music between users in public spaces [16] ? should those
downloads also be counted and those WiFi-connections also be taxed with
monthly fees?
But flatrateism is not characterized by its interest for possible
advances of P2P technology. If anything it is a relatively resigned
position; a good illustration is when Felix Stalder explains why he
finds the flatrate strategy necessary on WOS' German mailing list. [17]
He depicts a very pessimistic view of the future, where it is quite
certain that the industry really succeeds eliminating big-scale P2P
filesharing in five years, at the same time calling himself "relatively
optimistic" regarding the possibilities to stop DRM.
Felix Stalder writes: "The usefulness of the Declaration is, in my
opinion, not so much that it proposes a formulated solution, but more
that it opens a door for the argument, that there is an acting space
[Gestaltungsraum] beyond DRM and piracy."
The only question left for him now is how to introduce this
"alternative system" ? "through lobbying or through a radical
practice". It seems implicit that other kinds of
anti-copyright-activism should be subsumed under the party line of
"content flatrate", and not mess too much with the music monopoly.
According to Felix Stalder, there is a lack of alternatives to our
current copyright regime. Except for "content flatrate", the only one
that has been presented is a rather silly one about "alternative value
production" and a "clear separation between copyright and copyleft as
two communication-universes, which run parallel to each other". (He
mentions as an example the ideas of Oekonux, a German Marxist group
standing close to the ex-communist party PDS. Oekonux regards the GNU
GPL as a model for the transformation of society, and their front-man
Stefan Merten has been very critical of the Berlin Declaration. Some
"techies" anyway regards Oekonux as mere political infiltrators trying
to use the free software movement.[18])
This "other alternative" of copyleft as a communication-sphere external
to traditional copyright, and more explicitly the hype around Creative
Commons, was also discussed at the seminar "Art as anti-copyright
activism" at Wizards of OS 3, where Sebastian L?tgert said something
like this: "Personally, I understand Creative Commons more like a part
of the social democracy of the digital commons. Kind of 'Let us keep
some rights and not be too dramatic'."
I think that is perfectly valid also for the Berlin Declaration and the
"content flatrate" tendency. Flatrate and "free culture" constitutes
two similar kinds of "social democracy for the digital commons" ? but
that is not to say that they can be allies. Both currents promise that
they provide methods for mediating the social/economic conflicts set
off by the rise of digital reproduction. Like always, social democracy
is about preventing capital from committing suicide in the pursuit of
short-term profit.
It is characteristic of many flatrateists to downplay the revolutionary
aspects of digital reproduction, placing P2P on a par with older,
analogue copying techniques like the cassette recorder. The "creative
commies", on the other hand, tend to go in the other direction,
expanding licensing concepts from the field of free software onto other
"old" forms of culture.
Flatrateism also is keener to demand political action from the state,
while the people believing more in juridically based licenses like
Creative Commons and GPL have more of a tendency to oppose every
political intervention in form of new legislation. They prefer letting
the technological evolution realize its own immanent potential,
sometimes described as a return to a previous "pure" state of free
information flows (Eben Moglen's keynote at WOS3 was an example of
this).
To say the least, these are sweeping generalizations between two
tendencies. I am not trying to say that these are two distinct groups
of people. Rather two different discourses that sometimes flow
together, but in a near future presumably more often will find
themselves contradicting each other.
While the "free culture/free software" wing, has rapidly gained
strength in countries like India and Brazil (whose minister of culture
is an outspoken supporter of Creative Commons), I have never heard
about any demands for "flatrate" raised outside Europe and North
America. That's not strange at all, as Europe and the US would remain
net exporters of musical "intellectual property" also under a flatrate
system. The online collecting societies proposed by the Berlin
Declaration would constitute ideal institutions for channeling large
amounts of money from Internet users in developing countries, to the
copyright industry. I don't know if the flatrateists have discussed
this, although lobbying for flatrate in WIPO has been considered by
them as a strategy. Anyway, all the processes of copyright law and
"compensation", piracy and anti-piracy already are global, and will
continue to be.
The declaration of support for the flatrate, composed by an "alliance
of German civil society?, is impregnated with an astonishing degree of
nationalism. "The German copyright has the character of an ideal", they
write, aiming at the system with collecting societies and fees on
recording media that now exists in most of Europe. In fact, they don't
seem to have words enough to describe how fantastic conditions this
"unique innovation of German copyright", maintaining a "tradition of
socially committed regulations", have managed to produce (that is,
before the age of digital reproduction). "The federal government ...
should live up to their role as ideal and work for the preservation of
the progressive traditions of German copyright in EU and WIPO." [19]
Oh, this old boring copyright nationalism! Americans praises their
"fair use" as universal principle, Germans their "Pauschalverg?tung"
and the French the particularities of their "droit d'auteur"...
"Why do you want to intervene in our business?", was the spontaneous
reaction of German IFPI chairman Gerd Gebhardt when confronted with the
flatrate proposal, in a debate with Attac arranged by die Tageszeitung.
[20] Indeed, the Berlin Declaration slogan "compensation without
control" does not seem to please some of the ones that the
"compensation" was aimed to please. And if we agree not to please the
music industry, one could ask, why then propose a new system for
channeling them money?
The record industry builds its power and its business model upon the
ability to control people's musical preferences, and it's damn
important for them not to loose their grip over that. It seems unsure
how long they could go on motivating their existence in a situation
where they do not themselves control how music is packaged and
presented, what kinds of collection albums and boxes are marketed, when
the different singles of an album is released in different parts of the
world etc. In fact, one could say that the music industry needs the
money that current copyright laws grant them precisely in order to
exercise control. Filesharing undermines the industry's control not
less than its source of income. If this loss of control would be
legalized under a flatrate, as the Berlin Declaration suggests, it
seems really strange why one should keep "compensating" the record
industry.
The call for "Compensation without control" also seems to connect to
the problem definition of the Free Bitflows conference in Vienna, held
just one week before WOS3 and co-produced by Felix Stalder. The
conference was supposed to depart from a problematic that I find very
well formulated: "there is lots of sharing, but little in terms of
making a living. Money remains squarely in the hands of the old
industry. ... In short, the question is how do innovative production
and distribution come together to support each other. Free Software
seems to have found a way to do just that, but what about the rest of
cultural production?" A seminar on "Alternative compensation systems"
was held there, with Volker Grassmunck holding a lecture titled "In
Favor of Collectively Managed Online Rights" and EFFs Wendy Selzer
speaking for their similar but voluntarily based model. [21]
But I'm afraid that this talk about "compensation" obscures the truth
about the social production of culture, and replaces it with the
already all-to-common myth that copyright money is functioning (or at
least functioned, until P2P came into play) as a "wage" for today's
artists. In fact, nothing could be more wrong. The payments from the
collecting societies are huge for people holding rights to several
radio hits made some years ago, but they are insignificant for most of
the living people involved in "innovative production" of culture right
now. Nothing of this would be changed by a flatrate.
Cultural producers are making their living in a true multitude of ways.
The sale of reproductions is just one. People have other jobs part- or
full-time, they have subsidies of different kinds, some are students,
many get money by performing live and giving lessons. In general,
"workfare"-type political measures on the labor market [22] is a far
bigger threat against most artists than any new reproduction technique.
That is the far from perfect situation of today, but one has to make
some conclusions from that: The problems with copyright can't be
"solved" inside the copyright system. The problems of how to support
innovative production of culture can't be solved just through reforming
the distribution of culture.
Other workshops at Wizards of OS probably succeeded better than the
flatrate workshop in promoting economic support of "innovative
production and distribution". E.g. the free networks movement,
represented at WOS3 with workshops on how to set-up wireless
mesh-routed networks, exemplified with projects already connected to
Berlin independent art institutions. A possibility for some free
culture producers to get the necessary Internet connection cheap or
without cost, eliminating some of those monthly bills that are the
greatest enemy of all culture. The Berlin Declaration, in contrast,
demands more expensive Internet connections, so that money can be
re-distributed to a smaller group of culture producers who has already
succeeded in making their living.
Bifo, asking "What is the Meaning of Autonomy Today??, puts some light
on this whole problematic. The ongoing process of strengthening the
conditions for a "self-organization of cognitive work" is, according to
Bifo, "so complex that it cannot be governed by human reason ... We
cannot know, we cannot control, we cannot govern the entire force of
the global mind." [23]
This argument is not only based on a radical refusal of cybernetics,
but also (reminding of Walter Benjamin) on the premise that we are not
facing a problem to be "solved", but an expression of a social conflict
encompassing all of society, all kinds of production, reproduction and
distribution. The authors of the Berlin Declaration, on the other hand,
seem to suggest the opposite: That human reason can and should propose
economic "solutions", based on re-organizing the "content"-producing
sector. The result is a strategy that has a totalizing character,
proposing a strengthening of the music monopoly rather than its
elimination.
RASMUS FLEISCHER
rasmus.fleischer post.utfors.se
FOOTNOTES:
[1]
Berlin Declaration on Collectively Managed Online Rights: Compensation
without Control
http://wizards-of-os.org/index.php?id=1699
[2]
Compensation Decentral, workshop at Free Bitflows
http://freebitflows.t0.or.at/f/conference/compensationdecentral
[3]
Walter Benjamin: Das Kunstwerk im Zeitalter seiner technischen
Reproduzierbarkeit (Suhrkamp 2003), p. 29
English version:
http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/ge/
benjamin.htm
Remixed verion:
http://www.textz.com/adorno/work_of_art.txt
[4]
http://www.contentflatrate.org/
[5]
http://coredump.buug.de/pipermail/wos/2004-June/000845.html
http://coredump.buug.de/pipermail/wos/2004-June/000848.html
http://coredump.buug.de/pipermail/wos/2004-June/000850.html
[6]
http://coredump.buug.de/pipermail/wos/2004-July/000862.html
Robert Luxemburg: The Conceptual Crisis of Private Property as a Crisis
in Practice
http://rolux.net/crisis/index.php?crisis=documentation
[7]
De:Bug #83. The whole section "Lizenzen ohnr Grenzen", including the
text "Filesharing zwischen DRM und Pauschalabgabe" is now online at:
http://www.de-bug.de/cgi-bin/debug.pl?what=show&part=news&ID=2639
[8]
ibid.
[9]
The New York Times, June 25. Kembrew McLeod: Share the Music; William
Fisher: Don't Beat Them, Join Them
EFF: A Better Way Forward: Voluntary Collective Licensing of Music File
Sharing.
http://www.eff.org/share/collective_lic_wp.php
The EFF proposal is similar to the Berlin Declaration in its demands.
Except that EFF talks about "music" and not "content", the only
substantial difference is that EFF emphasizes an ambition to minimize
state intervention, preferring to make the flatrate voluntary. EFF also
wants the compensation for rights holders to be "based on the
popularity of their music", while the Berlin Declaration formulation
is: "based on the actual use of their files by end users".
[10]
Kompensation ohne Kontrolle
http://privatkopie.net/files/Stellungnahme-ACS.pdf
[11]
"Copy for freedom", the campaign website of the Gr?ne Jugend:
www.c4f.org
[12]
Attac: Informationskampagne ?ber alternatives Verg?tungssystem geplant.
Stiftung "bridge" f?rdert Attac-Kampagne zur "Music-Flatrate",
2004-06-16
http://www.attac.de/presse/presse_ausgabe.php?id=332
[13]
"Franzosen wollen P2P legalisieren", 2004-06-21
http://www.mediabiz.de/newsvoll.afp?
Nnr=156693&Biz=musicbiz&Premium=N&Navi=00000000&T=1
"Musikerverb?nde wollen Tauschb?rsen legalisieren", 2004-06-22
http://www.mp3-world.net/news/66446-musikerverbaende-wollen-
tauschboersen-legalisieren.html
Adami:
http://www.adami.fr/portail/affiche_article.php?
arti_id=188&rubr_lien_int=174
[14]
Dagens Nyheter: "Gratis n?tmusik l?ngt fr?n gratis", 2003-03-18
http://www.dn.se/DNet/jsp/polopoly.jsp?
d=1058&a=120116&previousRenderType=6
"Telia v?grar betala f?r n?tmusik", 2003-03-19
http://www.dn.se/DNet/jsp/polopoly.jsp?
d=1058&a=120509&previousRenderType=6
This year in Canada, the music industry has in fact tried to demand
"compensation" from ISP:s. However the Supreme Court rejected their
claim on June 30.
Wired: "Canada Nixes Internet Royalties"
http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,64062,00.html
[15]
http://coredump.buug.de/pipermail/wos/2004-June/000845.html
[16]
Wired: "TunA Lets Users Fish for Music", 2003-12-04
http://www.wired.com/news/digiwood/0,1412,61427,00.html
[17]
http://coredump.buug.de/pipermail/wos/2004-June/000855.html
[18]
http://coredump.buug.de/pipermail/wos/2004-July/000857.html
[19]
Kompensation ohne Kontrolle
http://privatkopie.net/files/Stellungnahme-ACS.pdf
Quoted in a footnote of this civil society declaration is this piece
from a study (Hugenholtz et al., 2003): "The notion of ?equitable
remuneration?, which is rooted in notions of natural justice and based
on the theory, developed particularly in German copyright doctrine,
that authors have a right to remuneration for each and every act of
usage of their copyrighted works (?Verg?tungsprinzip?)."
[20]
Die Tageszeitung: "Gl?sern sind wir schon l?ngst". 2004-05-25
http://www.taz.de/pt/2004/05/25/a0178.nf/text
In the same article, Gerd Gebhardt also makes an astonishly stupid
statement, trying to compare MP3 piracy with car theft.
[21]
http://freebitflows.t0.or.at/f/about/introduction
http://freebitflows.t0.or.at/f/conference/compensationdecentral
[22]
See for example Aufheben: "Dole Autonomy versus the Re-imposition of
Work: Analysis of the Current Tendency to Workfare in the UK"
http://www.geocities.com/aufheben2/dole.html
[23]
Franco Berardi Bifo: "What is the Meaning of Autonomy Today?
Subjectivation, Social Composition, Refusal of Work"
http://www.makeworlds.org/node/view/69
# 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: majordomo bbs.thing.net and "info nettime-l" in the msg body
# archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime bbs.thing.net
- ----- End forwarded message -----
- --
http://userpage.fu-berlin.de/~cantsin/
- --
Wos mailing list
Wos post.openoffice.de
http://212.42.230.8/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/wos
------- End of Forwarded Message
_________________________________
Web-Site: http://www.oekonux.org/
Organization: projekt oekonux.de