--- /dev/null
+---
+title: Introduction
+author: Jarosław Lipszyc
+order: 1
+---
+
+{% block lead %}
+{% endblock %}
+
+
+{% block text %}
+
+The above report of the meetings of experts does not
+start with a methodological introduction, but a fairy
+tale written by Aymeric Mansoux to the literary contest
+“Future of Copyright” (2012), organized by the Modern
+Poland Foundation. Using a matrix of Vladimir Propp’s
+classic work on the structure of fairy tales, Mansoux is
+looking for answers to the question of the author, and
+participation in culture. Therefore, he leads his female character through the twists and turns of copyright
+and communications technologies, where she collides
+with symbolic protagonists and is looking constantly for
+ways out from the situation with no way out.
+
+In the abundand with meanings fairy tale by Mansoux
+one thing is striking: the total lack of belief that the
+response to the crisis caused by a collision of intellectual monopolies with the practice of communication
+through electronic media can be a “free culture” project based on voluntary licenses and the resulting business models. Ten years ago the success of free software, which has created real and existing alternatives
+to proprietary software, gave hope that a similar effect
+can be achieved in other areas of the circulation of information. We believed that, by using and promoting
+licensing mechanisms, we can “hack the system” and
+create an alternative to the system within the system.
+Today, we know well that this is not true. It is true that
+in some areas free licenses are an effective tool for
+the recovery of subjectivity by authors and users of
+informaton (and a good example here is probably the
+movement of free educational resources), but in a broader cultural practice this tactics is simply ineffective.
+
+Culture is always built on existing narratives. You can
+not participate in the processes of social communication in isolation from pre-existing myths, memes,
+songs; you need to use them in constructing your own
+messages. Culture is not a tool that - like software - we
+use to achieve pragmatic goals. Culture is our identity.
+
+Therefore the only solution Mansoux sees is the total
+abolition of the system of exclusive rights. Does this
+literary diagnosis go too far? Probably so. But not without a reason the recently announced draft of the
+European Commission’s work on copyright is entitled
+“In the pursuit of new consensus ...”. The copyright law is
+currently the most discussed element of the European
+and global legal order. From the protests against ACTA
+(the most mass demonstrations in Poland since 1989)
+to this year’s public consultation of copyright by the
+European Commission, in which a record of 9.5 thousand citizens and companies participated sending in
+over 11 thousand comments, the copyright law awakens emotions.
+
+But although the reform of the system now seems
+inevitable, the direction of change is still uncertain.
+Copyright law is a lens focusing a lot of different and
+complex problems - from issues related to fundamental rights such as freedom of speech, freedom of communication and right to privacy, through constitutional
+models of political life, to tectonic changes in the markets caused by technological changes. The status of
+this legislation determines not only the work of many
+business sectors, but also the basic issues related to
+communication of hundreds of millions of people, a lot
+of citizens treating copyright law as a way of earning
+a living, level of education, or the operation of high
+culture. Therefore, sets of political values are strictly
+associated with the copyright regulations.
+
+Presenting to you the results of workshops devoted to
+reflection on the future of communication by the media and cultures in the era of the information society,
+we need to point out the difficulties associated with
+the speculative and somewhat abstract nature of the
+work done by us. We have adopted the form of work
+inspired by the methodology of foresight. Exploratory
+workshops, to which we invited experts from many
+different fields, were meant to indicate possible directions of change in Europe in the perspective of 2040.
+
+It soon turned out that the key to outline the future
+of copyright and operating models of culture are two
+axes: position of intermediaries in the process of social communication and direction of public policies in
+the field of communication. The construction method,
+and the scope and stringency of intellectual monopolies are mainly due to the latter, but legal solutions are
+derived from the game of many different actors, the
+authorities being only one of them. For example, international treaties taking precedence over the local
+legal system are even in democratic countries proceeded beyond any social control.
+
+Basing scenarios for the future on these two axes is also
+reflected in our diagnosis that the two most important
+trends of development of communication by the media are the development of monopolies towards their
+mediation in communication (including the circulation
+of culture) and the continous increase of areas seized
+by intellectual monopolies. These trends can be metaphorically called “Facebook iceberg” and “Amazon
+iceberg”. The first is the model of a centralized communications system which monetizes privacy, the second is a model of centralized distribution system which
+monetizes monopoly on access to content. Of course,
+in business practice we observe various hybrid solutions, an important role being also played by suppliers
+of equipment and financial services, but for analytical
+purposes this model is roomy enough to be able to serve the description of reality. It is important that both
+models assume the intermediaries control over communications processes. An unattended sphere from
+the point of view of business is a loss, and its existence
+means narrowing of the field on which the circulation
+of information is commercialized. However, similarly as
+the existence of public space in cities or public services
+in the country, the existence of the uncontrolled communicational space is crucial from the point of view of
+the public interest. Democracy and standing behind it
+civic ideals of subjectivity can not exist in an environment where freedom of speech and freedom of communication become empty platitudes due to the lack
+of Agora not under control. The more Amazon iceberg
+is coming to Facebook iceberg, the less space remains
+for the boat of freedom to glide.
+
+Only two decades ago, it seemed that the societies
+braided by communications network would defend
+themselves. Slogans such as “Information wants to
+be free” by Stewart Brand and “Network defines censorship as damage and celebrates it around” by John
+Gillmore were extremely successful in 1990, and the
+myth of the Web as the space of unfettered freedom
+is sometimes taken as fact, what with the aftermath
+of calls for different “Twitter revolutions.” In practice,
+of course, freedom of speech is primarily due to standards of public life, and the Internet media are prone to
+control and manipulation to the same extent as traditional mass media. The emancipatory potential of technology has been definitely overpriced, and this means
+that the freedom of communication has to be arrived
+at by political means. Therefore, the communications
+regulations (including copyright) are so crucial to the
+information society.
+
+Sadly, we have to assume that none of the scenarios
+for the future, which are the result of the work of the
+expert group, presents itself as a utopia fulfilled and
+the Promised Land. Regardless of which direction we
+will develop our civilization, dilemmas, problems and
+difficult compromises are waiting for us. According
+to the well-known thesis democracy is a method of
+avoiding the worst solutions, rather than choosing the
+best. We hope that our report will help identify the directions of change that lead to disaster. To avoid them.
+
+{% endblock %}
\ No newline at end of file
fnp / static.git / blobdiff