Debating and critiquing the concept of ‘free and open’
Interesting interventions at the Economy of the Commons conference:
““Content for all, revenues for some.” For this session we explore the theory behind terms and terminologies. What do the terms ‘free’ and ‘open’ mean in their current contexts? How are they used and in what new political condition do they gain resonance? What is open, how open is it, and for whom? Can anything be learned by reconsidering the work of the grand master of openness as a political concept, Karl Popper? Or are there historical examples of open societies and the commons we can draw from to answer these questions? How do we situate unpaid, crowd-sourced content made profitable by companies such as Google in relation to freedom and openness? We should nuance the definition of data or information, asking whether it comes from open archives versus audiovisual material from emerging artists, established reporters or other cultural producers. Is a resource still open if a user’s attention to it is then sold to advertisers? Indeed, is openness an absolute (either/or) concept, is does it make sense to think of openness as a scale? Alternatively, is it possible to develop an ethics of closure? There is no way back to the old intellectual property rights regimes. But how then are cultural producers going to make a living? How can we create sustainable sources of income for the ‘digital natives’? How can we reconcile the now diverging interests of professionals and amateurs?”
Watch the video, with Yann-Moulier Boutang (Multitudes), Dmytri Kleiner (Telekommunisten), Simona Levi (Free Culture Forum), Nate Tkacz (Melbourne University). Moderator is Geert Lovink of the Institute of Network Cultures.
Critique of the ‘Free and Open’ from network cultures on Vimeo.
December 13th, 2010 at 2:18 pm
They don’t make a living for the most part under the old system now. But there are plenty of examples of how they can under the new system if we stop merely asking the question and start putting in the work of to answer it.
I remember when “professional” was a bad thing. But then my day job isn’t threatened by the Internet.