Thursday, January 13, 2011

6co26h2o --> C6h12o66o2.

"Opinions literary" - The theft of intellectual property hurts everyone








Dall ' insert "Booklet" of the magazine "The Wild Bunch" No 526, 25 to 31 March 2003: Copyleft explained to children To clear up some misunderstandings Wu Ming 1
"But if anyone can copy your books and fail to buy them, how you live? " This question is often made, more often than not followed by this remark: "But the copyright is necessary, it must also protect the author."
This kind of utterances shows how much smoke and sand the dominant culture (based on the principle of ownership) and the entertainment industry to be able to blow in the public eye. In the media and in our brains is rampant confusion as regards the ideology of copyright and intellectual property, even if the re-emergence of movements and the changes underway are putting in crisis. Is convenient only for thieves and pests of all kinds to pretend that "copyright" and "copyright" are the same, or that the contrast is between "copyright" and "piracy." Not so. collective Wu Ming's books are published with the following words: "And 'The reproduction, partial or total work and its dissemination by electronic readers for personal use, provided that the purpose commercial. "The basis is the concept of" copyleft "invented in the eighties by" free software movement by Richard Stallman and the company is now common in many areas of communication and creativity, from information science to the arts.

"Copyleft" (dense untranslatable play on words in Italian) is a philosophy that translates into different types of business licenses, the first of which was the GPL [GNU Public License] free software, created to protect it and prevent someone (Microsoft, to make a name at random) from appropriating and privatizing the results of the work of the liberal community of users (for the uninitiated, free software is "open-source code", making it potentially controlled, modified and improved by the user, either alone or in collaboration with others).
If he had remained free software just result, sooner or later the birds we would put on the industry's clutches. The solution was to turn the copyright

like a sock, to turn an obstacle to free reproduction supreme guarantee of the latter. In a nutshell: I put my copyright, then I am the owner of this work, so take advantage of this power to say that with this you can do whatever you want, you can copy it, spread it, modify it, but you can not prevent someone else to do, that you can not appropriate the and stop circulation, you can not put a copyright on it, because there is already one, it belongs to me, and I'll break your ass.






Specifically: an ordinary citizen, if you do not have the money to buy a book of Wu Ming or will not buy it sight unseen, can easily photocopy it or pass it in a scanner with OCR software, or - Much more convenient solution - download it for free from our website www.wumingfoundation.com. This reproduction is not for profit, and with us. However, if a foreign publisher wants to translate and put on sale in their country, or if a filmmaker wants us to the subject of a film, in which case the use is for profit, then these people have to pay (because it is right that "profit" even the rest of us, that we wrote the book). Returning to the question: are we will not lose money?
The answer is a resounding no. More and more examples show that the logic of "pirated copy = copy sold" of logic has nothing. Otherwise you do not understand why our novel Q be downloaded for free for three years now, has come in its twelfth year and has passed the two hundred thousand copies sold. In fact, publishing, circulating more work and more sales. , does the office or the university, and there, the press, do not spend a penny, read it and he likes and he likes it so much that he decided to give it away, and it can certainly not give the figure of a stack of A4 sheets! Then for this reason, goes to a bookstore and buy it. A "pirated" copy = copy sold. Some people have downloaded our book and after reading it, I got six or seven times. A copy of "pirated" copies sold = more. Those who can not offer you the book, because it is in the bill, however, if they like and talk about it around sooner or later someone will buy it or do as described above (download-buy-gift-reading). If someone does not like the book, at least has not spent a penny. In this way, as is the case for free software and Open Source, to reconcile the need for a right compensation for work done by an author (or more generally of a knowledge worker) with the protection of the reproducibility of the work (ie its social use
Even without resorting to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, just explain in a nutshell what happens with our books: a user X is linked to our site and download, say, 54
). It enhances the copyright depressing the copyright, in the face of those who believe they are the same thing. While most publishers have not yet noticed this fact and is still conservative in matters of copyright, is more ideological than commercial questions, but we will not take long to notice. The publisher is not at risk of extinction as the phonographic industry: different logics, different media, different circuits, different the way to fruition, and especially the Publishers have not yet lost my mind, did not react with mass roundups, complaints processes and the great technological revolution that "democratizing" access to the means of reproduction. Until a few years ago it had a CD burner for now is a recording studio, now we have it at home, in our personal computer. Not to mention the peer-to-peer
etc. This is an irreversible change, before which all legislation on intellectual property is obsolescent, it rotting. When copyright was invented three centuries ago, there was no possibility of "private copy" or "not for profit reproduction," because only a publisher competitor had access to printing equipment. All the others could only put his soul in peace and, if they could not buy it, simply give up the books. Copyright was not perceived as anti-social, it was the weapon of a contractor against another, not one against the public. Today the situation has drastically changed, the public is no longer obliged to put his soul in peace, have access to machines (computers, photocopiers etc.). And the copyright is a weapon that fires in the pile. There would also be a different matter to do, moving further upstream: we start from the recognition of the social genesis of knowledge. All ideas that have not been directly or indirectly influenced by the social relations that entertains from the communities they're part of. and then if the Genesis is also the social use must remain so. But this is a subject too long. I hope I explained myself well.







Posted by admin at 6:55 AM

0 comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)