Como bien sabemos, las metas de la economía crematistica (el arte del comercio, de la adquisición) no tiene nada que ver con los objetivos del arte y cultura que más bien fomenta la oikonomía (el arte del vivir y de vivir bien)...
Quería introduciros al tema COPYLEFT, un movimiento para combatir el copyright que está dejando que los intereses crematísticas rigen el conocimiento, el arte y la cultura...
El argumento que a mi más me llama la atención es el siguiente concepto; que propriedad intelectual no es lo mismo que propriedad material. Si te doy un objeto físico, ya no lo puedo utilizar ni controlarlo yo. En cambio podría recibir algo, un pago o intercambio. Pero cuando te doy un idea, no pierdo nada, todavía puedo utilizar este idea como yo quiera.
Así que -en el mismísimo espiritu de Copyleft- os copio y pego un poco más información sobre el movimiento, sus ideas y conceptos. Lamento que esté en inglés...
También podeís mirar este peli de youtube que explica copyright, "creative commons" y el tema de los intermediarios, -en castellano.
Do you ever wonder WHY your readers cost 40-50 bucks? Why your textbooks costs hundreds of dollars? Copyright, that's the reason! These publishing companies have monopolies on these journals and books and as a result can jack up the price for you and me with little benefit to the authors.Copyleft is a general method for making a program or other work free (as in copied or modified not free of charge), and requiring all modified and extended versions of the program to be free as well. Proprietary publishers use copyright to take away the users' freedom; we use copyright to guarantee their freedom. That's why we reverse the name, changing "copyright'' into "copyleft.''
The classic argument for copyright is that granting intellectual property rights encourages further creativity and development of such works because the author/artist/scholar will make money and thus have an incentive to continue producing such works.However I feel that this is an overtly capitalist point of view and may not necessarily be true. Here are some reasons listed by wikipedia:
* Making the developer dependent on a system that requires enforcement enslaves them to corporations which are able to carry out this enforcement, but may at the same time limit creative output to what it sees fit.
* Enforcement mechanisms such as digital rights management endanger existing consumer rights like fair use (applicable only in the United States), and can be used to further enslave creators that control this technology. "Trusted computing" platforms may refuse to play, display or execute content that is not properly "certified" by corporations. For example, microsoft could design its Windows software to not support Freeware.
* Little known creators depend on distribution to become popular -- for them, copyright limits their potential outreach, and donations may be a better option. Well known creators can always ask for money from their fans upfront (Street Performer Protocol).
* Article 8 of the Berne Convention may have a chilling effect on freedom of speech and may force an overseas audience to learn the language that the medium in the question is published in, and can cause a foreign company to act against its overseas audience. International copyright law is regarded as controversial by the video game, anime, and manga communities in the United States and Europe, such as Fan translation, Scanlation, and Fansub.
* The socialist anarchist perspective on anti-copyright is that ideas and knowledge should not be owned or controlled. This is perhaps best summed up in Pierre-Joseph Proudhon's slogan Property is theft!. These anarchists do not believe in the concepts of plagiarism and theft of other people's ideas. What is important to anarchists is the refusal to "own" ideas and knowledge as such things are, in their view, not capable of ownership, being part of the patrimony of common human heritage.
* The European Renaissance saw a burgeoning of intellectual talent, the like of which has not been seen since. It occurred before the existence of copyrights, and was spurred by artists copying each other's techniques and works without legal restriction. The argument that copyright law protects and encourages development is seen by many as hype intended to provide moral justification for laws which in fact are there to protect the incomes and wealth of copyright holders, many of whom are not the original developers. The ease and convenience of being able to obtain and preserve many intellectual works across the Internet, it is argued, will lead to greater development if copyright law is abolished. Whilst it may not be possible for popular artists and their agents to make as much money in this scenario, it is likely that popular artists will still be able to make a living by means of advertising and product promotion, as they do at present, or perhaps by busking, if that is the only option open to them.
* Intellectual "property" does not behave like material property. If I give you a physical object I may no longer have use or control of that thing, and may ask for something in return, some payment or barter. But when I give you an idea, I lose nothing. I can still use that idea as I wish.
* Pragmatists argue that technological developments such as strong cryptography, anonymous p2p networks, onion routing and Wireless mesh networks make enforcement of copyright laws unworkable, if not outright impossible.
The fact of the matter is that the creators of the works that are supposed to be protected by copyright benefit very little. They literally get the scraps of the huge profits that the corporation makes.
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2204690598
Saludos, abrazos y besitos,
"Lady P"
