On the occasion of the 5th anniversary of Creative Commons licenses, which was exactly at December 15, the four independent organizations: slobodnakultura.org, Biro Beograd, Multimedia Centre kuda.org and Wikimedia Serbia (in charge for Wikipedia in Serbian) have organized the so-called “launch event”, on which they announced that Serbia became forty-something national jurisdiction where these licenses are ‘ported’ into the local legal system. As for a difference from many international events which [at least according to the flickr photos I saw] were quite official or spectacular, and of a cool-liberal-business 2.0 orientation, the promotion of the licenses in Serbia had quite of the reflective dimension. The event took place in Dom Omladine with always never-ending [but more than bearable] panel discussion about IP issues, lasting about 3 hours, together with the enjoyment in excellent Esterházy ‘birthday’ cake, then continued with joining the presentation of Linux Ubuntu 7.10 in cultural center Magacin [both institutions mentioned are oriented towards the youth culture, panelism and cultural activism], and finally with the party in the club Andergraund with several live acts by progressive bands and DJs from the region. Photos from this series of events could be seen here.

If the era of Milosevic was the kingdom of 'piracy' and free consumption of culture [at least in the lagums/margines of self-organized masses of people], then the so-called 'democratic' and 'European' Serbian government started to show its care about legal distribution of “content” and about the issues connected with IP through the use of the most traditional and restrictive laws and applications of classic copyright. This is, of course, not only uncritical, but also represents the unreasonable and snobbish tendency symptomatic for all EU-wannabe countries, who even do not have a developed system of 'cultural industries' nor 'art-market' in the proper sense, but who are more then willing to use the field of cultural production [if not the field of economy, constitution, international politics etc ...] to propagate their neo-liberal belonging to the developed world. In that sense, the promotion of Creative Commons and the discussion about 'virtues' and 'sins' of legal regulations in the distribution of knowledge today was definitely an event worth to point at and to discuss about. For this 'first round' of debate I decided to make something like vox-pops [but not random!] and to pose some basic questions related to such an initiative to the group of activists directly or indirectly involved in the localization of Creative Commons licenses. The 'second round' which, I guess, will bring some more of encompassing criticism, comes in March, when we expect the continuation of the discussion about CC initiative between some prominent world representatives of the movement and the local 'cultural activists' and 'content producers'.

During this Q&A I spoke with Nevenka [Nena] Antic, a legal lead of Serbian Creative Commons project, with Zoran [Yoka] Pantelic of kuda.org, Marcell Mars from MAMA, Zagreb [also check the CC-related EgoBooBits project], Ivan Jelic, who is a local representative of Free Software Network and Internet Society, and Lukatoyboy, a young musician, performer and whatnot from Belgrade...

Blue Monday: Nevenka, you translated Creative Commons licenses into Serbian in both the linguistic and legal sense. What was the most interesting part of this process of translation?

Nevenka Antic: The most interesting part was its dependence on the preceding process of legal analysis. This previous analysis deals with legal and linguistic similarities and distinctions, and also concerns the scope of differences in both legal and everyday practices. The actualization of the process 'from the original to the national version' is realized through the mediation of legal expertise, but its real function is in the realization of the real needs of contemporary world. The law is what keeps intellectual creations closed, but the law, also, could make them accessible. Regarding these facts, making a link between the legal and real life could be perceived as making a link between the law and justice. The translation is only a part of the process of surpassing the law by using its own tools.

Blue Monday: The appearance of CC regulation of the intellectual property is also interesting to observe in parallel with the general legalistic tendency of contemporary Serbian society. During Milosevic's times the legal system collapsed, and everything was left to a kind of peer-to-peer relations, underground and unwritten law. It was also the 'golden age' of 'piracy' and free consumption of all kinds of content. Now, the new 'pro-democratic' government intensively works on establishing a hard-core legal system and ensuring of its adoptation of the European regulations. This can possibly trigger the most restrictive laws on copyright. How do you see, as a lawyer, the CC regulation in between those two systems?

Nevenka Antic: At the first glance, the past of the IP issues in Serbia could be perceived as 'the golden age of 'piracy' and free consumption of all kinds of content.' But, I rather describe that period as a strong system of power, which produced nothing but a simulation of liberties. The CC licensing is just a transformation of non-liberty into liberty. Between the old and the existing system, isolation and integration, I see the CC innovation as the option which is legal, useful, available and accepted. New interactive and normative world is open and alive, and is providing choices of using and reusing of content to actual and potential intellectual community, which seems as the potential of all potentials. Since free legal standards are harmonized with the current national and international legislative, they are valid as much as traditional legal instruments. Since today the world of science, information, education or art is more active and more creative, the rules had to be changed there.

Blue Monday: Yoka, what would be kuda.org’s comment on the launch and localization of Creative Commons licenses? How do you envision its contribution to the 'democratization of knowledge' and 'digital literacy' in Serbia?

Zoran Pantelic - Yoka: This legalization itself is an important event, it is, over all, a project of education, which interprets the fundamental protection of intellectual property and deepens all the aspects of collaborative work. Unfortunately, a few pilot-events related to Creative Commons that took place in Serbia have clearly shown how much all those issues are neglected in the local context. The lack of knowledge is the dominant problem. This especially goes for the field of culture, where precisely the authors [artists, critics, curators etc...] are those who are lazy to inform themselves about their own rights and perspectives, and therefore are incapable to participate actively in the reformation of the law, in the reform created to help them in their next steps. In this way, 'cultural workers' or 'content producers' fully affirm the stereotype about the lack of information and the lack of motivation, which is exactly the language they themselves use in order to criticize the Serbian society as a whole. Because of all that, it is hard to predict what kind of relationships can be put in a motion by the activists and representatives of CC Serbia. The basis is very weak, and there is no 'critical mass', capable to offer an alternative to the new order, which inevitably operates in Europe and is being embraced and adopted by the numerous monopolists in Serbia.

Blue Monday: kuda.org was one of the first promoters of CC. What was your approach and how do you see its results?

Zoran Pantelic - Yoka: The basic idea of collaborative work, of exchange and free distribution, is not unknown, it just took different shape under new circumstances. If we speak about uniqueness or originality of such the attempts, then the euphoria about the new is mostly of Anglo-Saxon origin, and it reflects on the rest of the Europe trough the legal systems. However, the analysis of the culturological practices of the Far East, for example, shows that classic copyright, as the concept was not acceptable from the very beginning. Throughout European avant-garde and neo avant-garde and, finally, with entering the digital age, basic postures on copyright have been critically examined. The idea of copyright fundamentally changes with new technologies, and for us from kuda.org Felix Stadler's views on that problematic were quite important. The whole media archive of kuda.org is offered in a way, which encourages sharing. Free distribution of content enables free access to knowledge, which helps us to exchange ideas with people and to find potential collaborators in the future. We see it as the process of education and sharing information, as well as the way to motivate people for collaborative work. It is one very slow and complex process, and we shouldn't be unsatisfied with the pace of its progress.

Blue Monday: Marcell, you mentioned a possibility of publishing under the 'fuck off' or 'suck my dick' licenses. How do you see the difference between CC and 'fuck off' licensing on the practical level?

Marcell Mars: If there is some content a critical mass of users wants to have the access to, they will have the access to this content, exchanging it over the network. Those users are, according to the legal regulations of today, being considered as criminals, but users don’t really give a shit about that.

A number of producers/distributors of digital data is having interest in that a critical mass of users gets interested in their data. Once their data becomes wide spread they expect material satisfaction or attention/fame in return. One of the ways (to achieve that status) is that their data will become recognized as useful for further hybridization/modification.

Some producers want to be sure that they will not be treated as criminals if they modify/re-distribute some already existing content, produced by others. They can achieve that by either obtaining the permission to use the works from authors/copyright holders (in writing), or by reading from the license itself their rights concerning further distribution or modification of the work. Contacting the author and obtaining the permission in writing is expensive and pain in the ass.
Some producers don't give a shit for permissions.

If somebody publishes a work under the license saying nothing more then 'fuck off copyright', there will be the number of people who will be indifferent enough to modify and distribute such a work without the fear that the author might sue them for misusing the work. Those people are the ones who don't give a shit about any license, and for them 'fuck off' makes absolutely no difference. Also, there are a smaller number of those who will get the message of 'fuck off copyright'. But for this message to function, a certain degree of trust towards the author is necessary (so you won't end up being sued), and probably a certain level of (standpoint or ideologically-wise) identification with the message itself. In any other case this kind of licensing will not function.

This approach, for example, would not function for the projects like Wikipedia, scientific publications within academic systems, or the projects, which would like to make it easier to become the part of BBC, Wikipedia or other significant archive.

Outside of the space encircled by the radar of the market, anything is possible. Within the circle of the relevant market values, for newcomers almost nothing is possible. Nevertheless, there are a certain number of people who think that Creative Commons licenses and the reform of the intellectual property system are the way towards the satisfaction of everybody included in the complex exchange of digital goods. They should be definitely supported, as facing the reality represents a rough game, which requires intermediaries. For the rest, Pirate Bay seems like a less boring shortcut heading to Utopia.

Blue Monday: What do you say when people ask about how the authors can survive in the concept of free licensing?

Marcell Mars: What I say is: I don't know. I am also not sure if I even want to give an answer to that question, if it's the first one being asked. I am often glad to re-direct them to the expensive business education courses. And if they add another, from their perspective a "tricky" question, like "and when you get to the bakery, do you also just take the bread and pay nothing?"... Then I usually say that the only similarity with bakeries is that the time has came that the market position of artists is as unstable as the one of bakers, or the persons standing behind the counter selling that bread. This is not the kind of problem, which could be solved by intellectual property regulations. The reactions dealing with the issue could be seen going in two directions - political activism and new business models. Yes, the world of today is full of contradictions.

If you take the bread from somebody, then that somebody will not have that particular piece of bread anymore. If you take the idea from somebody, that somebody will still have that idea. To take, to have, to have not and similar expressions/verbs are, of course, totally inappropriate applied to the world of ideas, but people tend to use the old maps in the new fields, and it is quite legitimate way of detecting (problems). The problem occurs when the old maps are used for the constitution of the new fields.

Considering the authors in the world of licensing freedom [sic!], the things, for example in the field of music, are looking better then ever: you produce a hit, you play, and here comes the money. The problem is that many keep on forgetting that playing music is a legitimate effort and investment in work and time, and for which it is possible to get some material satisfaction. In other fields of music, where live appearances don't play any significant role, the activities should be hybridized, transformed and joined with some other field for which there is a more successful business model. A similar thing I would recommend for all the other fields. Collect the attention by offering free digital data, and then monetize on that attention in some field, which allows for it. So if it seems to you that you can’t realize your interests in the particular field of your activities, then just give it up, 'for you' it is a bad business. Repressive legal regulations won't do you any help.

Good sources of information on new opportunities:
http://newmusicideas.com
http://newmusicstrategies.com
http://www.futureofthebook.org
To move on is just a few clicks away.

In Croatia, there is also the problem with the market, being small as it is, and on top with the fact that the infrastructure for live music is totally starveling, inadequate (just night clubs) and/or led by the most rotten primitives and mafia out there. But, once again, solving this situation has little to do with legal regulation of intellectual property.