---

This contribution has been the basis of an impulse talk given on the panel discussion copy kills (music kills) capitalism. The content of the slides as well as the additional notes are presented here.

This contribution may be discussed under http://www.opentheory.org/copykillsmusic_en/.

---

1. Background: Oekonux

1.1. Free Software as Germ Form

Oekonux uses Free Software (aka Open Source) as starting point
Very short overview over the theory
• 1st basis: Selbstentfaltung
  Basis of the mode of production
  Selbstentfaltung is something beyond self-realization
  Integrates the societal aspect of human activity
  • Fundamental: Creative development
• 2nd basis: Digital copy
  New technology
  Internet as global remote copy facility
  • Produces abundance of information goods
    Abundance is enemy of scarcity
    Challenges commodity characteristic in a lasting way
• Success through quality
  Mode of production is a pre-requisite for this
  Mode of production does not work under alienated conditions such as wage labor
  Free Software may be destroyed but not integrated
• Germ form for a societal alternative
  Free Software points beyond exchange society
  Mode of production useful for many (all?) creative labor
• Fazit: http://www.oekonux.org/

---

2. Free Software and Music

2.1. Selbstentfaltung in Music

• Similarities to Free Software
  • Individual motivation
    For music this leads to considerable investments in instruments, equipment, and education
  • Creative expression
• Difference to Free Software
  • Artist subject vs. Free Software community
    Bourgeoise notion of art puts individual in the focus
    Questionable because new things are always created on a societal basis
  • Patches are unusual
    However: Modern music forms rely on this
    What is analogous to sources in music?
  • Musiscians usually earn little/no money with music!
    Many Free Software developers earn money in this area
    900 persons in Great Britain make a living by composing
    Very few would get into trouble if they earn less money for their music
• Fazit: Selbstentfaltung is a basis also for music

2.2. Exploitation in Music

• Similarities to software
  • Digital product
    Is thus subject to the features of digital copy
    In particular: Replaces scarcity of material substrate with global abundance
  • Copyright violation by "pirate copies" and P2P
    Not for Free Software!
    Not for Free Music!
  • Concerts as service
    As a live event concerts are not digitizable
    There are many service offers around Free Software
  • Established exploiters
    Software industry exploits software
    Music industry exploits music
    Exploiters are not identical with the creative persons
• Differences to software
  • Fair use / collecting society
  • License to use on basis of works
    Has always been the case for software
    Was unnecessary for music because exploitation worked by binding music to a material substrate
• Fazit: Exploiters have a problem - not the creative persons

---

3. DRM, P2P, CC, CF

3.1. DRM (Digital Rights/Restriction Management)

Copy protection or play prevention, respectively
Most of all: far reaching plans for computers
• Goal: Enforcing of exploitation interests by technology
  Thus is of interest for music industry and other exploiters
  State as classic protector of exploitation interests does play a small role
  • No problem in the framework of market economy
    Exploitation interests need to be protected in market economy
  • More just than collecting societies
    Collecting societies made sense in the analog era when individual billing of uses of works were not possible
    DRM can be more to the point than measures of collecting societies
• Problems of todays DRM attempts
  • Tendency to supervise each and every use of a work exactly
    Deep intrusion in private sphere
    BigBrother
  • With TPM the principle of the computer is cut massively
    Its strength is just the universal digital copy
  • Fair use is not taken into account enough
    Private copies, science, education
  • Transfer of state regulation power to corporations
    With DRM corporations can create their own copyright
    Beyond public control
• Fazit: Why not unobjectionable forms of DRM?
  This would be the solution matching market economy by individual billing
  Apple iTunes shows that success is possible with such models

3.2. P2P (Peer to Peer)

I.e. peer to peer networks such as Kazaa, eDonkey, etc.
Usually there is no real exchange
• System to conceal illegal copies
  At least for music it would be far simpler to have fat, central servers
  There are also other uses for this technology (legal content, load balancing, ...)
• Works as a form of distribution because publishing happens in another sphere
  MTV, radio, and co take over publishing of the products of the music industry
  Unique identification scheme necessary for searching is given by a simple naming scheme (interpret, title)
  More or less does not exist for Free Music
  MTV, radio, and co could change this in principle
• Free Music / Free Content would not need P2P
  Distribution and publishing similar to Free Software
  Wiki-like systems could make available publishing for anybody
  Already today netlabels provide for choice / quality assurance
  P2P could be useful for certain uses nonetheless
• Fazit: P2P is not necessary for Free Content
  Free Software is a good example for this
  Marketing people wonder how Free Software gets known without advertisement

3.3. CC (CreativeCommons)

• Licenses for "some rights reserved"
  • Attribution
  • Noncommercial
  • No Derivative works
  • Share Alike
    GPL is equivalent with SA+BY
• Big movement with good "marketing" (http://creativecommons.org/)
  Apply for all sorts of content
  Are adapted to the national law systems
• Noncommercial helps the Opus Magnum idea
  "I enjoy contributing if it can not be used commercially (aka alienated)"
• Fazit: CreativeCommons further the transfer the idea of Free Software
  There is probably no initiative doing this with more success

3.4. CF (Content Flatrate) / P2P tax

• Charges based on Internet access
• Redistribution to creators of P2P content
• Legalizes P2P copying of material under copyright
• (New) collecting societies as redistributors (VG online)
  So far GEMA is the collecting societies for music in Germany
  So far VG Wort is the collecting societies for text in Germany
  Collecting societies were created because it is impossible to bill analog copies individually
• Fazit: In reality: Flat tax for using Internet
  Needs to be enforced by state
  Is not bound to concrete use

3.5. Critique of P2P tax (1/2)

There is a lot to say here...
• A lot of practical problems
  • Just distribution of money gathered?
    For different media
  • Where shall be the limits?
    Can every web page be registered?
    Proprietary software?
    Deeper problem: digital copy is universal
  • Needs measuring just like DRM
    Measuring without DRM methods are always wrong
  • International use vs. national collecting societies
• Problems with "compensation" / money supply
  • For the creators nothing changes
    At least when the system does not differ fundamentally to GEMA and co
    Publishing companies and collecting societies cash nonetheless
    Money supply doesn't happen so far
    Fundamenal problem: Creators act in a highly competitive sphere and the P2P tax does not make this vanish
  • Flat taxation is unjust
    Connection between arbitrary Internet use and P2P is much less than for instance for CompactCassettes
  • Different remuneration systems would be simpler and more just (Street Musician Model)
    Consumer pays creator directly
    Individual billing is more just
• Fazit: Many problems and little use

3.6. Critique of P2P tax (2/2)

• Subtle effects
  • Introduction of the long worried commercialization of the Internet
    Until now there is a clear distinction between Free and commercial content
    There would be a tendency that all content would be subject to commercialization
  • Creators interested in Freedom would be weakened
    A number of musicians are for P2P etc.
• Missing
  • Does not prevent DRM
    DRM is not forbidden because of a P2P tax
    Especially noteworthy: This is an official goal of the P2P tax!
  • Does not leave the logic of DRM
    Only changes the finance model from individual to tax based
  • Does not strengthen Free Content
    There is no more "uncompensated" content - even when this is wished for by the creators
    For the consumers the distinction between Free and restricted goods is blurred
    In practice consciousness for the problem copyright is prevented ("Now I may copy it even legally - why should I care about copyright?")
• Fazit: A lot of fundamental problems

---

4. Alternative perspectives

4.1. Utopian Oekonux perspective

Important for a political orientation
• Make money supply superfluous
  Selbstentfaltung as the central reason for creating works
• Abolish scarcity of information goods
  Is not justified materially
  Is not just because there are no genius information goods
• Exploitation is no super-historical right of creators
  Something like this is decided upon in a societal process and therefore this can change
  The production outside the guilds was illegal but nonetheless one beginning of the bourgeoise society
• Quality is higher under conditions of Selbstentfaltung
  No looking to exploitation interests when there are no exploitation interests
  Free Software is successful exactly because of this quality
• Fazit: Long-term utopian perspective is clear :-)
  Simply bear this?

4.2. Realpolitik perspective

• How far does DRM get?
  • Technical realization is difficult
    TPM, TCG
    Fundamental redesign of the computer
  • Political implementation is limited
    Fair use
  • Not accepted
    Un-CD campaign of c't
    Widely missing consciousness of injustice
    Which is understandable because nobody looses anything because information goods get more when copied
• Useful acting
  • No P2P tax
    Blurring of the borders between old and new world is the best way to integrate a germ form!
    Enforces what the music industry seems not be able to
  • Make possible coexistence of DRM and Free Content
  • Strengthening of Free Licenses like CreativeCommons
• Fazit: Useful acting seems possible

4.3. Reform of revolution

Old question for leftists
This time with real substance
• P2P tax has all characteristics of a social-democrat solution
  • Kills the top of the new
  • Integrates it into the old
  • Prevents a new development
• Copyright system not useful for money supply?
  At least under digital conditions
  Completely new system of money supply for creators?
• Is music / P2P / music industry that important at all?
  For the development of productive forces Free Science is much more central
• Fazit: May be we are to impatient?
  The basis for a fundamental change is there
  However, each change needs time