Extending The Spectrum Of Openness To Include The Moral Right To Share
from the now-there's-a-thought dept
Prefixing concepts with the epithet "open" has become something of a fashion over the last decade. Beginning with open source, we've had open content, open access, open data, open science, and open government to name but a few. Indeed, things have got to the point where "openwashing" -- the abuse of the term in order to jump on the openness bandwagon -- is a real problem. But a great post by David Eaves points out that the spectrum of openness actually extends well beyond the variants typically encountered in the West:While sharing and copying technologies are disrupting some of the ways we understanding "content," when you visit a non-Western country like India, the spectrum of choices become broader. There is less timidity wrestling with questions like: should poor farmers pay inflated prices for patented genetically-engineered seeds? How long should patents be given for life-saving medicines that cost more than many make in a year? Should Indian universities spend millions on academic journals and articles? In the United States or other rich countries we may weigh both sides of these questions -- the rights of the owner vs. the moral rights of the user -- but there's no question people elsewhere, such as in India, weigh them different given the questions of life and death or of poverty and development.He then goes on to write about the ideas of Sunil Abraham, founder and executive director of the Centre for Internet & Society (CIS) in India. Abraham has created an interesting representation showing the extended gamut of openness, which reaches from proprietary to counterfeiting and false attribution:
Consequently, conversations about open knowledge outside the supposedly settled lands of the "rich" often stretch beyond permission-based "fair use" and "creative commons" approaches. There is a desire to explore potential moral rights to use "content" in addition to just property rights that may be granted under statutes.
Eaves's post examines some of the details of Abraham's map:
Particularly interesting is Sunil's decision to include non-legal "permissions" such as ignoring the property holders rights in his spectrum of openness. He sees this as the position of the Pirate Party, which he suggests advocates that people should have the right to do what they want with intellectual property even if they don't have permission, with the exception, interestingly, of ignoring attribution.
This is something that several Techdirt posts have touched on before. One of the most telling facts about unauthorized sharing online is that people preserve attribution -- there's no attempt to hide who made the song or film. That's probably why survey after survey shows that sharing materials online increases their sales -- something that would be unlikely if attribution were stripped from files. Eaves notes that this aspect ties into a particularly hot topic at the moment -- surveillance:
To Sunil, the big dividing line is less about legal vs. illegal but around this issue of attribution. "This is the most exciting area because this (the non-attribution area) is where you escape surveillance," he declares.
It's a fascinating piece that brings some fresh ideas to an area that has been steadily gaining in importance for some time. I hope that Abraham builds on these thoughts, and publishes some more extended and worked-out explorations of them -- ultimately, perhaps, as a book.
"All the modern day regulation over IP is trying to pin an individual against their actions and then trying to attach responsibility so as to prosecute them," Sunil says. "All that is circumvented when you play with the attribution layer."
This matters a great deal for individuals and organizations trying to create counter power -- particularly against the state or large corporate interests. In this regard Sunil is actually linking the tools (or permissions) along the open spectrum to civil disobedience.
Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: attribution, copyright, culture, developing world, openness, sharing, sunil abraham
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Dick Greger Augustsson
Open doesn't mean "free movies for everyone". Thinking that pretty much dooms the arguments.
(ps: this post will likely be censored and held for an extended period of time... it's the Techdirt way of being "open").
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I think that the actual creators may oftentimes be credited in a more reliable way nearer the Open Content World part of the spectrum.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This is indeed interesting. What if the Intertubes decide to create entire new, imaginary artists and attribute real songs from other people to those artists?
I'll go further: what if the Internet decides to create such imaginary artists and even titles to make insanely famous artists look like innocuous, common terms and make the anti-piracy efforts null or fuck up with the web so awesomely that they'll be unfeasible and utterly unpopular? *wink*hint*wink*
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Which makes sense since the laws are written for the proprietary end of the scale - I don't think he was trying to say anything there about the "intactness" or value of attribution by various methods.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
You can't make it moral to steal.
"ignoring the property holders rights" -- Well, you can try, but like I been telling ya, the moneyed interests fight back, and the result is to WORSEN society: you pirates give them an excuse to ratchet up controls. -- IF you want to fight the class war, FINE, let's LEVEL The Rich. But again, that doesn't mean you get free entertainment: we need a higher goal, a MORAL goal of making the society FAIR.
In sum, this Populist line is NOT like Mike excusing piracy so his rich grifter pals can monetize content they didn't produce!
So what is Mike's position on piracy? -- Here, try to guess!
http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20120810/02111919983/entrepreneurs-vcs-tell -white-house-to-focus-innovation-rather-than-ip-enforcement.shtml#c986
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: You can't make it moral to steal.
What you've been telling us isn't ideologically consistent. Fight back but not this way because reasons. Moneyed interests are grifting content but not JSTOR, they're getting money for the valuable service they provide. You say we should 'LEVEL the Rich' but here we have a situation where 'the Rich' are retaliating and you blame the retaliation on what they're responding to. You can blame the retaliation on the first movers and argue for first moving at the same time.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: You can't make it moral to steal.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Contraception
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: You can't make it moral to steal.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: You can't make it moral to steal.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: You can't make it moral to steal.
[ link to this | view in thread ]