Jesli musimy przystosowac sie do nowego podejscia do informacji, ich znaczenia i problemu autorstwa, w jaki sposób najlepiej urzadzic nasz cyfrowy swiat? Obecnie wielu opowiada sie za jak najwieksza swoboda. Gdy nasze analogowe zycia staja sie coraz bardziej sprzegniete z pojawiajacymi sie mozliwosciami cyfrowymi, idealistyczne podejscie do swiata cyfrowego nie wystarcza. Najgoretsza kwestia jest najprawdopodobniej nielegalne sciaganie materialów z Internetu.
Dyskusja odeszla od róznic pomiedzy korporacjami zarzadzajacymi tresciami, a adwokatami copyleftu, i skupila sie na nowych sposobach na organizacji zycia codziennego i przeplywu informacji i wiedzy w cyfrowej erze.
Verwayen jest przekonany, ze zapewnienie latwiejszego i efektywniejszego dostepu do informacji i tresci automatycznie odsunie uzytkowników od korzystania z „nielegalnych” metod, takich jak np.: BitTorrent. Potwierdza to sukces sklepu iTunes, który zaczynal od udostepniania muzyki objetej prawem autorskim przed usunieciem systemu Zarzadzania Prawami Cyfrowymi (Digital Rights Management).
W swojej pracy Verwayen zajmuje sie optymalnym udostepnieniem cyfrowego dziedzictwa kulturowego. Jest goracym zwolennikiem alternatywnych modeli biznesowych, umozliwiajacych nieskrepowane dystrybuowanie tresci kultury, ale z gwarancja uwzglednienia praw autora. Inspiracja dla jego pracy sa teorie Better than Free Kevina Kelleya, pokazujace jego stosunek do informacji cyfrowej.
NIMK ma w swojej imponujacej kolekcji przeszlo 1400 dziel sztuki video i nowych mediów. Aby zapewnic jak najszerszy dostep do tych prac, NIMK wdraza aktywna polityke dystrybuowania tych tresci kultury poprzez prezentowanie ich na ogólnokrajowych i miedzynarodowych festiwalach i wystawach.
Final debate - Regulation and legislation
11:08 <@timothee> Today Lodewijk will speak with Harry, from Knowledgeland, and Heiner, from NIMK - the Netherlands Media Art Institute
11:09 <@timothee> I'm the website editor, and will make this discussion available on the website after it ended
11:09 <@timothee> even if we don't have many users yet - they are still warmly welcome to participate and interact with the speakers
11:10 <@timothee> Lodewijk, I give the floor to you!
11:10 <@Lodewijk> Let me start with an open question about knowledge rights. Often Creative Commons is being heralded as the future of traditional copyright, but isn?t it just a slight variation of the copyright system, with more nuances (like non-commercial use) but still protecting against free copying?
11:11 <@Lodewijk> it's still far away from the "Information wants to be free" idea...
11:11 <@heiner> Yes it is, but what we really need is a self-regulation systhem
11:12 <@Harry> It gives the creative the option to share his works on his own terms. that is the first step to 'free' information in my opinion.
11:12 <@Harry> What do you mean by 'self regulating' Heiner?
11:12 <@Lodewijk> exactly, thnx Harry: isn't Creative Commons already somewhat selfregulatory?
11:13 <@heiner> It means that a group finds his own rules
11:13 <@Harry> Ok. Can you be more specific?
11:14 <@heiner> Creative Commens is a starting point
11:14 <@Harry> I agree on that. What do you think is missing in that system?
11:16 <@heiner> legislation is a systhem made by people who had power, so alot of others were excluded
11:16 <@Harry> Let me refrase the question: do you think CC is a good starting point for the video artists you are representing?
11:18 <@Harry> Nuance: CC is not a legislation, but a licensing system that allows creators to keep certain rights to themselves and give rights to others as well (certain rights reserved instead of all rights reserved)
11:18 <@heiner> it is a good starting point, because now the artists can decide if they want to show the works for free or not
11:18 <@Lodewijk> Heiner, you see the "old" copyright system as a way of protecting the interest of corporations instead of the artists/creatives?
11:21 <@heiner> lat us see the facts: normaly the clience have to pay if they want to show the works, but there are a lot of works wich could be shown if they were free
11:21 <@Lodewijk> maybe we can compare that with the experience of Harry
11:22 <@Lodewijk> Harry: you used to work in publishing:
11:22 <@Harry> Yes, scientific publishing.
11:22 <@Lodewijk> often the scientists who are doing the research are not being paid for the publication, while the publisher makes good money
11:22 <@Lodewijk> distribution is key, in a way
11:23 <@Lodewijk> is that a model which would work for the cultural domain?
11:23 <@heiner> The general problem is we do not have a bussiness model for free content
11:24 <@Harry> It used to be distribution. In a way, authors gave their work for 'free' to the publisher in return for the service of distribution. Now that has changed. IN the OPen Access movement the autor pays for publication and the work is made avaialble for free.
11:24 <@Lodewijk> actually, I think Harry has a lot of business ,models for free content...
11:24 <@Harry> Let's define free: in my opinion this means free to the end user.
11:25 <@heiner> yes!
11:25 <@Harry> That does not mean there is no revenue model. Nothing is totally free in the end.
11:25 <@Lodewijk> can you give some examples of other forms of revenue?
11:26 <@heiner> We produce open software, but we sell the service
11:26 <@Harry> Exactly.
11:26 <@Harry> Or use the (low res) content to let people pay for the added value of seeing the real work in your building.
11:27 <@Harry> Or use the low res content to attract people to the paid high res conent
11:27 <@Harry> Or use the traffic to the works to attract advertisers
11:27 <@heiner> The problem is that we do not have service for all free products
11:27 <@Lodewijk> but is such a free service something the artists would want?
11:28 <@Lodewijk> recently a group of [dutch] artists gave a petition to the government to protect their rights better, and tax mp3players...
11:28 <@heiner> advertisers do not join the smal providers
11:29 <@Harry> I think you will attract more paid viewers to the high quality content if you put more (CC-ed) content up online for free Heiner
11:30 <@Harry> That could be a start.
11:30 <@heiner> I think so, because a lot of "old" works are not visible anymore
11:30 <@Harry> Exactly!
11:31 <@Lodewijk> but is that entirely the case? on http://ubu.com a lot of work is available, without the consent of the artists or publishers
11:31 <@Lodewijk> somne artists think its great, others don't
11:31 <@Harry> In addition, you are servicing your clientelle with wider distribution (part of your mission)
11:31 <@Harry> That is a different question Lodewijk.
11:32 <@Harry> SHould you or should you not have the consent of the artists, upfront?
11:32 <@heiner> We distribute the actual works by sending 150 DVD to our clience
11:32 <@Lodewijk> I want to find out whether artists want to have their works distributed for free: the Creative Commons model is based on the choice of the creative
11:33 <@Harry> I think we should work out provisions for that. It is not always possible to track down all the creators (orphan works).
11:33 <@heiner> I do not want to distribute for free, last year we paid 7o.ooo euro to the artists
11:35 <@timothee> Harry: some work has been done regarding orphan works
11:35 <@heiner> We get the works for our collection for free, because the artist knoe that the works will be shown worlwide
11:36 <@Harry> I think the discussion needs more focus: there is a macro-discussion going on about what to do with all the works that have public value from artist that are hard to track down. And the viability for Heiner to provide a level of access for 'free' within his current business model.
11:37 <@Lodewijk> indeed, let;s get back to the NIMK. when works are shown worldwide, there is a fee involved, part of which goes to the artist?
11:37 <@Harry> But Heiner, would the artists then not be happy with you putting up their works (again, low res with cc) for 'free'?
11:37 <@Harry> Again, that does not mean there are not other ways of making money for them. It's just part of the businss model.
11:38 <@Lodewijk> Harry, maybe you can explain a bit more about how you see other ways of making money with content still being free to the end user
11:39 <@Harry> IN the new world, you have to give access in some way for 'free' to make money somewhere else. Monty Python put all their works up on Youtube and increased their sales on dvd.
11:39 <@Harry> In a way, look at it as marketing.
11:39 <@heiner> We sent the new works to festivals and musea, they will order it for public screenings. Then they have to pay. 3;% is for us 70% for the artists
11:40 <@Harry> Reality is, whether you like it or not, your works WILL be available on the web anyway. Ask the music industry.
11:40 <@Harry> When you send it to the festivals, that is high resolution?
11:41 <@heiner> I do not have problems with that, this is extra publicity
11:41 <@Lodewijk> so following Monty Python, one way of solving the revenue bit is making works available on dvd. but your "better than free" theory is much wider
11:41 <@Harry> exactly.
11:41 <@heiner> High resolutio, but with a for preview only logo
11:42 <@Lodewijk> Heiner services mainly galleries, who can pay for "premium service".
11:43 <@Harry> THe core of that thought (Kevin Kelly) is that with the internet (copying machine) should should try to sell what is not copyable: the experience of the real thing (movie screening) or the service of providing context to the work (the books you are selling Heiner).
11:43 <@heiner> Galleries are happy with our distribution. We never sell works
11:44 <@Harry> I believe we should (collectively) get out of the trenches of free vs not free. Use the power of the internet as a distribution mechanism and use that to your advantage.
11:45 <@Lodewijk> so Harry, you think it is unavoidable that the content itself will become available for free?
11:45 <@Harry> IN some form or another, yes.
11:45 <@timothee> or at least, appear to be available for free
11:46 <@timothee> most of 'free' websites actually run on ads money...
11:46 <@heiner> We also give universities the possibility to use our collection for aducation. and they pay for it
11:46 <@Lodewijk> do you think there is some morality involved in that? some websites only distribute content for free when it is out of print, otherwise they think you should just buy the product
11:47 <@Lodewijk> ubu.com adds that they also feel free to distribute when it is "ridiculously expensive"
11:48 <@timothee> heiner: what do you want to achieve when asking other bodies to pay for your collection?
11:48 <@Harry> I think the more content is avaiable the better. That is what our knowledge society is based on (and indeed modern society). The morility is that it needs to be avaialble for all at reasonable costs.
11:49 <@heiner> we all try to mix thw business of our products, if the user makes money with the content he should pay, if not it should be for free
11:50 <@Harry> I agree. Do you have plans to make the content available for non-commercial use?
11:51 <@Lodewijk> but cost control used to be in the hands of the distributor [publisher, record company etc]. now internet is taking care of distribution, who can make sure that the creators still get reimbursed for their efforts
11:52 <@Harry> The publisher. Just use the internet as a very effective distribution mechanism.
11:53 <@timothee> Harry: let's take an example - if you put up photographs on your web site
11:53 <@heiner> Yes, we will show the whole works on our website in a low resolution, now we only show 30 secunds of a work.
11:54 <@timothee> with a CC license - and some newspaper 'steals' your pictures. How can you prove they are your pictures?
11:54 <@timothee> in a digital world it's so easy to 'remove' or only keep the part of the content you want to keep.
11:55 <@Harry> True. Look at the Obama case that has been remixed into a great work of art. That's part of the risk. I would be proud.
11:56 <@timothee> I would be proud as well, but from an artistic point of view I can understand it could be scary to imagine every random guy on the Internet could rework my piece of art into something else
11:56 <@Harry> The point is: if you don't put them up online, nobody will see the work in the first place. SO if wide distribution is part of your model, you should be up there.
11:56 <@heiner> I agree, remixing should not be a problem....
11:57 <@timothee> what do you mean heiner ?
11:57 <@timothee> do you actually engage into publishing material that can be remixed and reworked by other artists?
11:58 <@heiner> If other people re-use the works and make a new work with it
11:58 <@Lodewijk> the obama artwork indeed shows that there are new ways to make art. Does that also mean old formats are becoming obsolete? like newspapers, will they just become replaced with internet publishing?
11:59 <@Harry> we did this with an intiative called celluloidremix. We invited artists to remix old film footage from the filmmuseum. Check on blib.tv
11:59 <@heiner> We did it with Elephants Dream (Blender)
11:59 <@Harry> WHole different story.
12:01 <@timothee> Harry: nice initiative - how did it work? Was it
12:01 <@timothee> 'freely remixable' content?
12:01 <@heiner> we have more than 400 artists in our collection. So we have to make new contracts with them. And we will do, but it takes a lot of time...
12:02 <@Harry> I see your point Heiner. Not easy.
12:02 <@Lodewijk> is that why you propose self regulation?
12:02 <@Lodewijk> is there a role for government to organise such a thing centrally possibly?
12:03 <@heiner> Eleohants Dream was complity free, sound, animation etc
12:03 <@Harry> For orphan works, I see a big role for governments to play.
12:04 <@Harry> Collecting societies can play a role in providing agreements on a collective scale
12:05 <@heiner> I do not think so, That was my first point "self regulation" We have to organize the rules
12:05 <@timothee> heiner: who is 'we'?
12:06 <@heiner> The group of producers, distributers and users
12:06 <@Harry> Are there any discussions going on in this direction within that group?
12:08 <@Lodewijk> and is there general consensus about the direction?
12:08 <@heiner> yes, but it is not easy to find one model for all, so we have to make different contracts..
12:08 <@Harry> THere is an initiatieve called 'filmotech' where a group consisting of the NVS, Filmmuseum and Beeld en Geluid are negotiating with Lira, Buma, etc. on making avalable all of the dutch film heritage through video on demand.
12:09 <@timothee> heiner: does this group include artists as well?
12:10 <@heiner> yes, I called them producers
12:10 <@timothee> ah - ok, sorry.
12:10 <@heiner> Is the video on demand free?
12:12 <@Harry> No business model has been set. But in view of all that we've discussed I think at least some of the content will be avaiable for 'free'. And btw, I think free has the wrong conotation, I rather call it 'open'
12:12 <@Lodewijk> Harry, may of your examples are about giving away content in low res, and charging for hi res ["freemium"]. But why would the hires version not become copied and distributed openly?
12:12 <@Harry> Maybe it will be subscription based (9.95 per month for all you can get streaming film?) with 'open' parts
12:13 <@Harry> Eventually high res will be avaiable as well I think. Not the model for the distant (couple of years) future. Freemium is different though: content for free, additional services at a premium.
12:15 <@Lodewijk> sorry, i thought higher resolution was also part of the extra services... my mistake
12:15 <@Harry> You can find anything you want for free. But if you want it easaly accessible, bug free, in context etc. you are willing to pay.
12:15 <@Harry> Itunes model
12:15 <@timothee> :-)
12:15 <@heiner> By the way, there is nearly no Video on demand that makes profit
12:15 <@Harry> Hulu seems to be going the right direction
12:16 <@Harry> But you are right, costs seem to be the main problem.
12:17 <@timothee> Harry: and hulu is only available in the us
12:17 <@heiner> Ok, i have to stop in 5 minutes,
12:17 <@Harry> Because of rights issues.
12:18 <@timothee> Harry: does that mean we should envision a worldwide digital regulation?
12:18 <@Harry> As a consumer, I would be willing to be a fee (subscription) to be able to watch good movies (and Heiner's art) if it was delivered in an easy way
12:18 <@Harry> Yes, but let's start on a european level
12:19 <@Harry> Or a national for that matter ;-)
12:19 <@Lodewijk> Thnx for that warning Heiner: is there questions from the audience to Heiner before he has to leave the discussion?
12:19 <@Lodewijk> we can continue slightly longer with Harry if he is willing ;-)
12:20 <@Harry> Sure
12:20 <@heiner> We could deliver it for low costs, but then we need a big audience
12:20 <@timothee> Harry: but it's easy to fake another 'national identity' if you need to. You can subscribe to proxy services which provide you with servers in many countries, to bypass such restrictions
12:21 <@Harry> You can also but a book on a copying machine. Hard work though.
12:22 <@timothee> Right - but changing a setting in your browser is quite easy, though.
12:24 <@Harry> And again, the point is that you ned to develop a model that im[proves your business the more it is copied. Check out wat the guardian has done: they allow anyone to copy their articles- as long as it is shown within their viewe (with embedded ads). The more it is copied, the better.
12:24 <@Lodewijk> Easy access is the key to the itunes model you say Harry. But it will probably not take long for smart websites that are descending from pirate bays and other "illegal" distributors to make access easy without payment, or don't you think so?
12:25 <@Harry> See my previous argument
12:25 <@timothee> Lodewijk: ThePirateBay is not an illegal distributor ;-)
12:25 <@Harry> anymore
12:25 <@heiner> Thank you all, if you want I could sent you a paper about self-regulation, and more about our futur of distribution.
12:25 <@timothee> Harry: but how do you think it should be tracked?
12:25 <@Lodewijk> thanks a lot for your time Heiner!
12:25 <@timothee> heiner: yes please that would be great - and we could add it to the online space
12:26 <@timothee> thanks!
12:26 <@Harry> Thanks Heiner!
12:26 <@heiner> See you in Zweden!
12:26 <@timothee> Harry: if you want to know how many times your 'work' or 'content' has been viewed, you need to know where are the copies
12:26 <@Harry> embedded players for example
12:27 <@Harry> could still be ripped, but it is an option
12:27 <@Harry> as long as it is easy and not annoying to the viewer
12:27 <@timothee> but it means that the content still remains in a central location - it is not copied but accessed from various locations?
12:28 <@Harry> various options are possible.
12:28 <@Lodewijk> so you think that the easier the access, the smaller the chance people want to "rip" the content?
12:28 <@Harry> yes
12:29 <@Harry> Look at youtube. THey make it easy for you to embed their content in other sites.
12:29 <@Lodewijk> so there is morality after all, as long as you don't make it too difficult for people ;-)
12:29 <@timothee> Harry: but that's precisely my point?
12:29 <@timothee> youtube content is not copied, it's just widely available
12:29 <@Harry> So what's the problem?
12:30 <@timothee> you were talking about a business model that improves when your content gets copied
12:30 <@Harry> Or made widely avaiable.
12:31 <@Harry> Anyone can view it and copy it. Good for the user, good for the creator.
12:38 <@Lodewijk> I don't think we have found definite answers to the new challenges of knowledge regulation, but I want to thank both of our guests for their time and interest
12:38 <@Harry> My pleasure. Look forward to continuing the discussion.
12:38 <@timothee> this will be a discussion to be continued, for sure...
12:38 <@timothee> ;)
12:39 <@Harry> Bye for now
12:39 <@timothee> bye Harry
12:39 <@Lodewijk> everyone in the audience who wants to be informed about the follow up, like Heiners paper about self regulation, can go to http://www.labforculture.org/newknowledge to sign up their email adress
Check http://www.labforculture.org/newknowledge for updates and summaries of the online debates
LabforCulture jest inicjatywą partnerską Europejskiej Fundacji Kultury. LabforCulture jest wdzięczna swoim fundatorom za wsparcie