ИнфоКоммунизм - 2 (об авторском праве)

[jayrandom]

Это - продолжение темы ИнфоКоммунизм-1, начатой в предыдущем постинге.

Собственно, спровоцировала меня дискуссия, разгоревшаяся по поводу издательства нот в коммьюнити ru_class_guitar. Дискуссия стара, как авторское право и сводится к тому, хорошо инфопиратство или нет, и кому оно хорошо. Замечательно подытожил дискуссию ptrue (очень советую пройтись по всем линкам), после чего известный скандалист nikitakoshkin обидел нотоиздателя matanya (зайдите к нему, это очень интересный человек), и дискуссия перешла в его дневник, уже на английском.

Повторю свой дисклеймер: я не принимаю в данном случае ничью сторону. Для меня лишь важно, чем всё кончится для нас всех, и почему это так произойдёт.

Существует общечеловеческое свойство - стремления к наживе/халяве. Оно не является специфичным ни для книго/нотоиздателей, ни для писателей/композиторов, ни для потребителей. Это общевидовое свойство. Поэтому когда мы имеем в виду построение "надёжной схемы" (в смысле pikitanа), то мы должны учитывать и это свойство. Разумно ли в рамках повальной доступности рассчитывать на то, что всё население будет сдерживать себя изнутри этическими нормами?

Информация обладает удивительным свойством: если её копировать, то её не становится меньше. Однако, в рамках капитализма, где всё принято соизмерять с деньгами, каждая копия должна быть оценена в некоторую сумму. При размножении цена каждой копии, очевидно, падает. При выяснении вопроса, на сколько она падает, обычно не учитывают информационную связность. Какая мне польза от информации, которая мне всё равно недоступна (находится далеко, написана на непонятном мне языке, и т.д.)?


5. Информационная связность и вопрос воровства информации.

5.1. Начальный этап расслоения - слишком низкая связность.

В древности информация почти ничего не стоила по причине очень низкой информационной связности. Люди жили кучками, и в пределах этой кучки утаивание информации было достаточно проблематичным, поэтому никто и не заморачивался. Если кузнец изобрёл новый рецепт для изготовления стали, то он едва ли пытался это своё знание "продать". Он просто пользовался им и на его основе делал хорошие мечи. Его подмастерьям этот рецепт был доступен, и они, потренировавшись, могли этот рецепт перенять.

5.2. Промежуточный этап расслоения - связность позволяет торговать информацией, текучесть денег/материи = текучести информации.

По мере возникновения торговли (товарной связности) рецепты стали утаиваться - они приобрели самостоятельную ценность - вспомним, к чему привело воровство технологии изготовления шёлка. Ноу-хау, технология стала по текучести сравнима с материей. Это состояние, в котором, как полагают многие, мы до сих пор находимся. Ан нет.

5.3. Заключительный этап, конвергенция - текучесть информации обгоняет текучесть денег/материи.

Возникновение дешёвой электроники и компьютеров со страшной силой подхлестнуло тройственное расслоение многих доселе разнообразных процессов труда на исполняющую программируемую машину, оператора и его специальное знание. Везде, где задачу можно упростить путём программирования, оператор превращается в программиста.

То есть, современный вязальщик - это оператор/программист вязального компьютера, современный пекарь - оператор/программист хлебной печи, современный дизайнер - оператор разнообразных дизайнерских программ, производящий информацию. Не любая информация, произведённая на компьютере, рассчитана на интерпретацию самой машиной (вязка, хлебопечение), есть и такие виды "информации", которые потребляет человек, но, опять же, при посредстве компьютера - книги, музыка, фильмы, изображения/фотографии и пр.

Возникновение интернета привело к дальнейшей конвергенции "языков" - протоколов, стандартов, форматов кодирования. Интернет становится для различных видов информации заземлителем, или сверхпроводником. Что это значит? А то, что сейчас, как и в глубокой древности, информацию продавать нельзя. Тогда это было нельзя из-за слишком низкой информационной связности, сейчас же - из-за слишком высокой.

Учитывая, что всё больше и больше профессий расслаиваются с выделением информационной компоненты, капитализм сам вырыл себе могилу в лице интернета.

То, что информацию становится невозможным продавать в условиях интернета мы наблюдаем де-факто. Не следует думать, что закрытие или "разграбление" Библиотеки Мошкова может что-то решить в данном вопросе. Просто капитализм пытается бороться с нежелательным для себя явлением посредством ударов в "центры" (наиболее простым/дешёвым способом), но технология не стоит на месте.

5.4. Технология point-2-point.

Принцип децентрализации, на котором изначально построен сам интернет, позволяет строить системы без чётко выраженного центра, динамически меняющие свою топологию, и обладающие повышенной живучестью.

Web- и FTP-сервера являются в своём роде центрами, которые возможно отключить выборочно, перекрыв доступ к определённой, собранной на сервере или транслируемой с него информации - то же относится к новостным каналам. Однако P2P-метасети типа KaZaA для обмена файлов, P2P-телефонные сети типа Skype - это ресурс без центра, который в состоянии существовать независимо от определённых серверов, поэтому "вывести" его можно только тотальным контролем за стандартами в сети. С учётом наличия Линукса и Open Source это уже невозможно. Пожелаем Микрософту удачи продержаться, сколько он сможет (мне тут уже спаммеры (!) предлагают WindowsXP за 50 долларов. Смешные они, право :)

5.5. Как заработать инфо-производителю ("креативщику") в рамках ИнфоКоммунизма?

Что будет абсолютно невозможно - это продавать информацию на любых носителях по ценам, сильно превышающим цену носителя. Диски, видеокассеты, книги - относятся именно к таким объектам, и фирмы, промышляющие в этих областях, "посыпятся" прежде всего. Попытка защищаться от воровства в этой области ни к чему не приведёт, ведь система, законодательно запрещающая воровать, должна быть способна наказывать, а в данном случае становится совершенно невозможным наказывать - учитывая интернациональность сети (либо нужно, чтобы правозащитные организации всего мира конвергировали в борьбе с инфопиратством, но эта задача ещё менее реальна).

Представителю любой профессии, связанной с производством снимаемого инфо-продукта (назовём его условно креативщиком) придётся учитывать, что интернет - идеальный заземлитель, и что туда упало, то в определённом смысле пропало. Пропало, как источник постоянного дохода. Однако никто не мешает музыканту, записавшему диск, исполнять концерты, художнику, выпустившему в сеть свои репродукции, торговать оригиналами, а также писателям - торговать твёрдыми копиями своих книг (хотя это уже сложнее).

Давайте представим себе некоторый конечный продукт креативщика ("креатив") как некоторый "заряд". Пока мир состоит из раздельных металических шаров, заряд можно переносить с шара на шар. Но когда возникает металлический заземлитель, при контакте с ним заряд просто уходит в землю. Однако, если у нас есть постоянный приток такого "информационного заряда", то получается "информационный ток". Заземлитель вынуждает нас от зарядов переходить к (по)токам.

Таким образом, из централизованных активно живы будут ресурсы, постоянно обновляющиеся (которые не имеет смысл архивировать для автономной работы). Это и новостные каналы, и любимый нами ЖЖ.

Чтобы вынудить людей платить за некий piece of software, придётся пойти на такое, например, ухищрение: сделать программы зависимыми от некоторого централизованного источника. Причём не формально (программа обращается на сервер за паролем) - такие штуки легко взламываются, а чтобы для этого существовала реальная нужда. Например, если в софт добавляются различные модули с новыми возможностями - такими, которые хотелось бы скачивать.

По извращённой версии этого пути сейчас идёт Микрософт, вынуждая пользователей латать дырки в безопасности через LiveUpdate. Думаю, этот трюк недолго продержится - в какой-то момент с кнута придётся на пряники переходить. А вот online-добавлением пакетов в Линуксе я с удовольствием пользуюсь. К каждой отдельной программе можно придумать свои виды добавок (поддерживаемые форматы файлов, скины, плаг-ины, адд-оны, и прочие приятства), если изначально задумывать их достаточно модульными.

Как же поступать индивидуалу-креативщику? Да точно так же - не застаиваться, "помнить о потоке". Фактически, любой его удачный креатив, за которым удалось закрепить имя (это отдельная тема) - это, в своём роде, "энергия внимания", которой накачивается эгрегор имени. Бесплатными проектами в сети креативщик-индивидуал делает себе имя, которое потом говорит само за себя, когда ему делают индивидуальный заказ или берут на работу.

Маленький вывод: что делать, если работы нет, а "креатив так и прёт"? Заниматься раскручиванием своего имени. Это совершенно реальная инвестиция ресурсов, которая окупается.

(продолжение следует)

UPDATE: Дорогие читатели! Так уж получилось, что лента комментариев под данным постингом выродилась в болото. Честное слово, меня всё ещё интересуют свежие мысли по оригинальной теме. А "невтемные" комментарии решил не удалять. В назидание.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

Хочу выразить своё восхищение этой телегой. Здорово. Надо было Матаню озадачить ей с самого начала, прибавив для более углублённого изучения проблеммы ещё пару подобных,типа вашего предедущего поста. Я просто восхищён ! Жаль, что Вы не вмешались тогда в дискуссию, действительно жаль.
С точкой зрения вашей, кстати, я согласен полностью.

[jayrandom.livejournal.com]

Спасибо за поддержку.
Едва ли я мог бы озадачить этой телегой Матаню с самого начала, ибо написалась она только недавно, этой ночью, уже после того, как я прочитал (почти) всю дискуссию.

К тому же это действительно именно "телега", и мне сейчас просто некогда её переводить на английский. На русском бы дописать...

Можно Вас попросить представиться? Хотя бы ником, дабы не путать анонимов. Спасибо.

[(Anonymous)]

Скажем, BN. А то скандалисты - "они" ведь всюду...Ну их..

[jayrandom.livejournal.com]

Вот видите, уже в одном Вашем случае IP оба раза разный оказался - по нику явно проще :)

Сейчас попытался пригласить Матаню почитать "телегу", но не вышло, ибо у него режим комментирования только для френдов.

[matanya.livejournal.com]

Если Никита сказал что Вы идиот, значит надо внимательно Вас читат.

Не уверен что всё понял, но хочу сказат одно: я не выпускаю информация. Я занимаюсь производство элегантние и красивие объектов, которие содержают в себе продукт размышления живие люди: композиторы, редакторы, гравировщикы, диэайнеры, типография. Когда эти нимфо-коммунисты (это не ошибка...) снимают от туда ноты, они не только воруют, они тоже уничтажают артистически объект. А это мне больно.

(Извините мой не грамотний русский).

[jayrandom.livejournal.com]

Matanya, thanks for your comment. It's perfectly ok with me if we continue in English.

Если Никита сказал что Вы идиот, значит надо внимательно Вас читат.

It seems that Nikita has actually done me a favour despite willing to do the opposite :)

My message was actually a bit "prophetic". I'm trying not to take any particular side of that argument (though I feel sympathy for both sides). Instead, I'm trying to analyse, what would naturally happen with the mixture of uncensored Internet and strong copyright protection laws.

Remember in "The Little Prince" by Saint-Exupery there was a king, who gave only the orders that were "obeyable" by his environment? I think here we get into a similar situation: if we know we can't stop something from happening, it is rather unwise to create a law for which there's no means to enforce it on people.

If the offence consists of selling stolen material goods, it is possible to physically stop the process. But if it is information which is being stolen, it is rather hard to stop, close to impossible. This follows from the volatility of information as such, but this volatility is multiplied manyfold if we speak about the Internet which is by its essence distributed and standartized.

So maybe we need completely different approach for dealing with information? Maybe information and money are truly incompatible/noninterchangeable? I fully understand the need of the artists to feed themselves and their dependants, but is it really that wise to make their wages dependent on the number of copies sold?

Well, we had a temporary solution in the framework of capitalism, but I have a strong feeling that the time of that solution is passing fast. Maybe we should face this problem anew, and try to find a better solution?

I'm not saying I've got a satisfactory solution. But the problem is definitely not a minor one. Sooner or later it will affect almost every professional.

[matanya.livejournal.com]

Nikita is actually on the same side as I am. Our interests here are absolutely the same. What caused this uproar between us is a psychological condition I am not professionally qualified to analyze, but one which can be easily understood as a severe inferiority complex, not allowing even the remote insinuation that under some conditions, his music may become/i> third rate. I was careful to qualify my statement, but that was not good enough. And of course, suggesting that other Russian composers may be a good substitution for third rate music, was too much for the guy to handle, particularly when he personally, has no use for these people. I have published a lot of music by many Russian composers over the last 18 years and it is no secret. For anyone one to throw garbage on composers I published, is an unacceptable insinuation of oneself into my business. I had enough trouble repelling attacks on my musical judgment for having published the music of Nikita Koshkin, publicly in print, privately in conversation and more lately, in several Internet forums. It is indeed sad that the phenomenon repeats itself in the opposite direction.

Anyway, back to the Little Prince: The problem is not so much in the way copyright is administered, but in the way composers are now expected to earn a living. In the era of patronage, there was little concern about copyright, because if a composer was a protege of this or that potentate or nobleman, no one would touch his music. Even today, when composers enjoy the protection of government agencies, foundations and universities, there is actually very little publishing that takes place. Most of the money earned by the big names in the music business is not from the sale of printed paper, but from the generation of mechanical royalties, the money paid by presenters and record labels for the licence to perform and record the music.

The guitar is different, because few guitar composers are supported by institutions. Not in the US and definitely not in Russia. So however meager the royalties for paper sales are, they become an important part of the composer's income.

The only way to change the system is indeed to establish a socialistic systems whereby composers would be supported by the government and would not have to worry about paying the rent and buing groceries. But we already know how that system worked in the Soviet Union.

BTW, I'd be happy to list you as friend in my LJ. But I need to know who you are.

[jayrandom.livejournal.com]

Erev tov, Matanya.

Nikita is actually on the same side as I am. Our interests here are absolutely the same.

I actually meant You & Nikita versus the Russian nympho-consumers. Because I, too, was born in the Soviet Union and I remember very well that shortage of the original printed music. I was hanging around with those photocopies since the age of 6, and this copying also qualifies as a theft, of course. But we were brought up that way, so now it's a hard task to suppress the kind of thinking that "one single copy for a poor child would not change much the fate of the remote and wealthy composer" - sad but true.

Concerning Koshkin's sensitivity... I'm quite familiar with this issue already :( We used to be listed as mutual friends with him, then suddenly there was some quarrel between Nikita and his "new enemies". At the same time he was suffering a bad heart condition. I dared to make an imprudent remark that this heart problem could be directly linked to the way he treated his "enemies", and that it could even go worse if he was not going to stop and reconsider his relations with people. Nikita decided I was threatening him, cooperating with "the enemies", and put me on his black list.

Maybe there could be some intermediate options (between the Capitalist and Socialist extreme points) for creative workers? Like in science we have a system of grants. We explore things, and this exploration may lead, or may not lead, to a discovery or an invention. In any case a scientist is backed up by a certain amount of money to cover his normal living. He may wish to go and teach students, but he doesn't have to.

BTW, I'd be happy to list you as friend in my LJ. But I need to know who you are.

No problem. I'll send you an email, if you don't mind.

[matanya.livejournal.com]

Maybe there could be some intermediate options (between the Capitalist and Socialist extreme points) for creative workers?

There are intermediate options already. My wife is a full professor of music at the Ohio State University, so as a faculty spouse, I am very well familiar with the grant system. But by definition, a professor must be involved in teaching and few of them are exempt, particulalry in music. Some institutions confer a position of Composer-in-Residence on someone, a position that does not involve teaching. But those are hard to come by. One of my composers, Roberto Sierra, held such a position with the Milwaukee Symmphony, which required, besides writing guitar music, also writing music for the orchestra. He then left the position and became a professor of composition at Cornell.

Many composers make a very decent living on commissions. Such comissiones are usally paid for by famous performers, arts organizations, impresarios and, rarely, by publishers. But it takes a certain standing in the general field of music to attract commissioners. Once, at a cocktail party here in Columbus, I approached Krzystof Penderecki with an inquiry about writing a guitar concerto. He smiled and said that the idea is good, but that for the next 11 years, his time is spoken for. Then someone told me that should I offer him a substantial commission, like a quarter of a million dollars, and he might take it up a bit sooner.

The grant system, in essence, is not much different than the Soviet state sponsorship of the arts. To get a grant, you have to be approved by a committee, recieve endorsment for peer reviewers, and generaly be at the right place at the right time. In science, there is one more advantage you have: the ability to demostrate that the product of your work is something new that no one before you was able to demonstrate, and it usually helps if it has some immediate practical applications. All of this does not work in the arts. Mrs. Koshkin, in her до глубине души diatribe against me, was talking about качественная музыка, quality music. Problem with that is that no one, ever, was able to find a universal measurement of quality in music. Whatever we do is based on certain traditions, certain upbringing and cultural background and personal tastes. There are no standards, no norms. If there were, the entire musical experience would have disappeared eons ago.

[de-niss.livejournal.com]

I'm sure that there no way for any sphere to develop without strong capitalistic relations. Free civilized market with competition provides self-regulation of human activity. Centralized regulation will never be an effective ground for any sphere, including guitar culture.

Guitar culture shall be based on guitar business, not on centralized funds or governmental support. Well, let me leave it as axiom; if anybody wants me to prove this, I will do. Economical ineffectiveness of Socialistic system is the best evidence.


Let's come back to the subject of this thread. Unique nature of information is not the prime reason of illegal distribution. There are laws protecting authors, so it is possible theoretically to protect information.

But the world had faced new problem, which is not solved yet.

We all have our own "social contact network", consisting of our friends, enemies, colleagues, other interlocutors. Ten or twenty years ago a social network of a person was geographically localized within bounds of country, or even a city. Distance was a problem for information exchange, and interconnection between different states was too slow.
At the same time, law protection had been performed by governmental and local authorities, who was able to control entire geographical area, that means – to control entire social network of certain person.

What we have now is the globalization with establishing of world-wide information channels. Using Internet, we can talk to each other, and distance is not a problem anymore.

As a result, social network of a person is world-wide today. Interconnecting with each other, people can easily create world-wide social networks; sometimes for good aims, sometimes for crime.

But legislation system, system of law protection and punishment remains state-based!

So we have international networks and separated authorities! Authority of every particular country is not able to control international social networks.

Here's main reason for a number of crimes today, from international terrorism to illegal distribution of information.

We will never be able to fight against information piracy or terrorism, until control system and punishment system are state-based. They shall be transformed to international networks, and that will be the way to control illegal activity of ANY network, including protection of author rights.

[jayrandom.livejournal.com]

Well, you certainly have a point, but I cannot agree with you completely.

In my opinion, the "capitalization" of the artistic activity has brought our world to what it is now, and I am far from believing this is healthy. An artist is who GIVES BIRTH to a piece of art. This is his primary quality. The market implicitly (via money) links that piece of art with the ability of that person to feed his family. That is to say one person will live better because his pieces of art SELL BETTER. The other is starving, because his ones do not sell. Because in capitalizm the sellability of your art is dependent on the mob.

Let me present you with an analogy: imagine yourself being an expectant mother to a wealthy Oriental Sultan's child. If your child is a boy and the Sultan likes him - great! But if you "accidentally" have a girl... oh... poor you. In some really bad cases you might be stoned to death.

Of course, in reality you have a choice. But that choice is, in fact, between believing that what you give birth to is right and feeding the public with what they like. In the first case you may be end up leading quite a miserable life. In the other - you loose your artistic freedom.

Economical ineffectiveness of Socialistic system is the best evidence.

I'm afraid you were made to think what we had in the USSR was Socialistic system. In fact, it was far from that. If you want an example of a real socialist country, go to Sweden, Norway or Denmark. That's where they have the closest approximation. They don't have any centralized distribution of goods there. Funny enough, all of those countries even have kings! :)

There are laws protecting authors, so it is possible theoretically to protect information.

No. Or, if you like it this way, this possibility only exists in theory. It is the nature of the information, its intrinsic property, that disallows any human law-controlled restrictions on it. Its speed, its volatility is completely incomparable. Remember "samizdat"? There could be no way to stop it. No law could make you look into everyone's mind - this is the limitation.

And my point was: if the system can't control things, it should not take such a responsibility. If we can easily track some type of crime, we may punish the person for doing it using the mechanics of law. But it it's going through your hands - what can you do? A law which is unobeyable/unenforcible should go. It's a generic fault in the system, not the classical "insufficient funds spent" problem.

Of course, if we unite all the countries under the Star Spangled Banner, we could have much-much better security... but I believe, this is not your true intention :)

[de-niss.livejournal.com]

I'm afraid you were made to think what we had in the USSR was Socialistic system.

Well, yes, I referred Socialistic system in USSR.

(short offtopic)
Once I had a long discussion with my European colleagues (economists, investors, etc.) on this subject, and we finally agreed that some European countries, including Sweden, Norway and even Germany use word "socialistic" as political catchword, but all key principles of their economies are clearly capitalistic. They are no more than social-oriented capitalism (high personal taxes with further fund redistribution), but not socialistic.

In my opinion, the "capitalization" of the artistic activity has brought our world to what it is now, and I am far from believing this is healthy.

I fully understand your point. Unfortunately, there is no better way to co-ordinate relations between individuals then "capitalization". Despite a lot of defects, that is most effective way today. I hope all artistic people will realize it.

Here's the explanation:

"The market implicitly (via money) links that piece of art with the ability of that person to feed his family."

Correct phrase would be:
The market implicitly (via money) links that piece of art with its value for other people.

That is very basic.

Individuals exchange results of their activity. Money is the instrument of exchange.

An artist eats something, wears something, uses transport, buys furniture, i.e. he uses products, made by other individuals, he uses results of their job. Therefore, an artist shall offer something valuable in exchange, piece of art or whatever.

Market system is the most effective way to determine, which piece of art is desirable and valuable for the society, and which is not valuable.

If other people do not want to exchange result of their job to results of artist's activity, then his activity is only a hobby, not a job.

Centralized supporting system, either grant-based or governmental, is not able to clearly determine, which piece of art is valuable for society, and which is not. You think that guitar composers shall be supported, but somebody thinks it's better to support balalaika instead of guitar. Why not?

And my point was: if the system can't control things, it should not take such a responsibility. If we can easily track some type of crime, we may punish the person for doing it using the mechanics of law. But it it's going through your hands - what can you do? A law which is unobeyable/unenforcible should go.

Exactly!
What I'm trying to emphasize, is that there is no effective world-wide law control system. Politically, the world is still divided into independent countries. But socially, the world is covered by number of international networks. This misbalance has been described by George Soros in his books, that's not my idea

The worst issue is that humanity still don't have even theoretical decision for that problem (well, except to "unite all the countries under the Star Spangled Banner", heh).

The other point is unwillingness of certain countries, including Russia, to struggle with information piracy, I agree with Matanya.

Remember sea piracy (yes, those guys with jolly Roger on a mast), which had been existing during centuries. There was one objective reason: ocean is uncontrollable area. And there was second, subjective reason: some countries supported sea piracy indirectly, allowing those bastards to build docks on their land. As soon as every country started to fight against sea piracy, all crimes were stopped.

Well, information piracy is not exactly the same, but intensive illegal copying can be stopped by simultaneous actions across the world. But here, in Russia, piracy is indirectly supported, because we get more benefits than losses.

(Of course, nothing will stop me from allowing my friend to make a copy, but that will not lead to mass law violation)

[matanya.livejournal.com]

One idea that I have been trying to emphasize is that it is not likely the existing laws would be enforced efficiently, unless it was in someone's interests to do so. A politician who thinks he can get some political currency out of it, or a certain owner of a grupirovka becoming interested in the fortunes of a composer or small time pulisher. Should that happen, the entire network of pirates in the given sphere of influence would instantly come to a screetching halt.

But since, I am sure we can all agree, this is not likely to happen, perhaps the users of these pirate sites ought to consider their own ultimate self interests. It is a simple choice of either satisfying an immediate need, or thinking in long terms. I already mentioned elswhere what happened in Argentina, even before the advent of the Internet. The xerox machine was in such overdrive that the entire Argentinian music publishing industry had gone out of business. And I suspect the situation in Russia is not much different. Eventually, these guys will put us, American and European specialized guitar publishers, out of business too. The what?

[jayrandom.livejournal.com]

I'm actually very much impressed by your Russian. My Hebrew is about 10 words, and I'm not even sure how to write them down.

And I'm especially impressed by this neologism, "nympho-communists" :)

[matanya.livejournal.com]

It refers to some of the comments made by various people in this debate. I need, therefore I get. The instant satisfaction of a physiological or mental urge. The main problem I have in this, is that instead of being besieged by uncontrollable nymphomanics, I am attacked by rapists. Either way, I am too old to handle this kind of assaults...

[jayrandom.livejournal.com]

Well, age also means wisdom, and you are wise enough to take it easy - that's great!