von Marcel Weiß, 5.10.10
Cory Doctorow antwortet auf den fehlgeleiteten Artikel im Guardian, über den ich letzte Woche berichtet habe:
It’s unfortunate that Lindvall didn’t bother to check her facts. I haven’t been represented by the agency she referenced for several years, and in any event, no one has ever paid me $25,000 to appear at any event. Indeed, the vast majority of lectures I give are free[..]
Sein Standpunkt, kondensiert auf wenige Sätze:
The topic I leave my family and my desk to talk to people all over the world about is the risks to freedom arising from the failure of copyright giants to adapt to a world where it’s impossible to prevent copying. Because it is impossible. Despite 15 long years of the copyright wars, despite draconian laws and savage penalties, despite secret treaties and widespread censorship, despite millions spent on ill-advised copy-prevention tools, more copying takes place today than ever before.
Niemand, auch Doctorow nicht, will Künstler davon abhalten, ihre digitalen Werke zu verkaufen, obwohl sie kostenfrei kopiert werden können. Was Doctorow (und unter anderem auch ich) allerdings nicht will, ist, dass Künstler oder ihre Rechteverwerter für die Durchsetzung dieses Erlösstroms den Rest der Gesellschaft in Geiselhaft nehmen:
But here’s what I do care about. I care if your plan involves using “digital rights management” technologies that prohibit people from opening up and improving their own property; if your plan requires that online services censor their user submissions; if your plan involves disconnecting whole families from the internet because they are accused of infringement; if your plan involves bulk surveillance of the internet to catch infringers, if your plan requires extraordinarily complex legislation to be shoved through parliament without democratic debate; if your plan prohibits me from keeping online videos of my personal life private because you won’t be able to catch infringers if you can’t spy on every video.
And this is the plan that the entertainment industries have pursued in their doomed attempt to prevent copying.
So yeah, if you want to try to control individual copies of your work on the internet, go ahead and try. I think it’s a fool’s errand, and so does almost every technical expert in the world, but what do we know?
But for so long as this plan involves embedding control, surveillance and censorship into the very fabric of the information society’s infrastructure, I’ll continue to tour the world, for free, spending every penny I have and every ounce of energy in my body to fight you.
Über die irreführenden Aussagen von Vertretern der Entertainment-Industrie:
You know who peddles false hope to naive would-be artists? People who go around implying that but for all those internet pirates, there’d be full creative employment for all of us. That the reason artists earn so little is because our audiences can’t be trusted, that once we get this pesky internet thing solved, there’ll be jam tomorrow for everyone.
Das ist letztlich das Problem, wenn man entgangene oder wahrscheinlich entgangene potentielle Verkäufe als festen Verlust aka Diebstahl verortet: Man kann unter dieser Prämisse praktisch alles behaupten und als die der Gesellschaft entgangene Alternative hinstellen. Realität spielt dann eine untergeordnete Rolle.
Die Verklärung der industriell organisierten Kulturproduktion, die ich auch immer wieder auf Podien erlebe, ist wahrlich bemerkenswert.
Doctorow über den aktuell stattfindenden Kulturkampf:
Those who say that they can control copies are wrong, and they will not profit by their strategy. They should be entitled to ruin their own lives, businesses and careers, but not if they’re going to take down the rest of society in the process.