<nettime> thoughts on anti-IP/globalisation/capitalism

[brian carroll <human@electronetwork.org>]

  had one basic thought on IP. i am uncertain as to
  whether this has so far been taken by the approach
  of anti-IP, in that intellectual property should
  not be property.

  thus, if so, an IP movement and a countering anti-IP
  movement might help in some way, in the balancing act,
  but what would be considered a victory, one side winning
  and the other losing, in competition, or, through co-
  operation, that there are concessions made and somehow
  pressing issues are addressed...

  am left wondering, out of ignorance, most likely.

  myself, from a distance, view Intellectual Property
  itself, as not being the main problem, but its definition
  and actions based upon this defining of what is and what
  is not IP, and what measures are enacted to enforce and
  protect it, to hoard it even, as the case may be...

  if issues such as 'public' and 'private' IP were brought
  into the debate, the idea of IP could stand, as in many
  cases, pragmatic societal-economic stuff, it may be a
  necessity (evil as it may be in some respects for many),
  but that, by redefining or further defining the 'idea'
  of IP, may allow a transformation of the debate, a
  clarification beyond opposition to IP, and to the ideas.
  as intellectual property, while a word, is a practice.

  the practice seems to be at issue, its abuse, overriding
  control over ideas/content. a proposal:


- what if there was such a thing as Public Intellectual
   Property (as in fair-use or public domain)

- and Private Intellectual Property (defined by an
   individuals control over their own creations/information).


  naive, yes, i'm sure. but just an idea throwing out here
  in hopes that others may tell me why this simple idea is
  obviously absurd.

  from one perspective it seems that issues such as copyright
  revolve around the IP issue, in some regard. but, that, like
  other information such as videos and photos of public ideas,
  they can become cloistered away in the PRIVATE IP NETWORK
  of IDEAs. thus, the fortress wall, and, oddly enough, the
  opposite of a 'free marketplace of ideas in competition'
  but instead, total regulation over information and its
  free competitive and cooperative dissemination, to find
  the best bits of things/ideas/concepts to go forward.

  a book, for example, costs say 30 pounds on the latest
  cybertheory. to buy (into) the book, one buys (into)
  the ideas, creating wealth that is internal, hoarded,
  while also presupposing some public agenda for the
  future. if this cannot be quoted without fear of being
  a copyright-infringer, if the ideas cannot be discussed
  in public forums as the author, mysteriously hiding
  behind the curtain with all the levers, holds authority
  over its cryptic interpretation, the right and wrong of
  it, what kind of pyramid schematic of the mindspacetime
  does such a scenario create. well, if public, it is surely
  not democratic in the sense that the representation that
  is 'public' is not. and second, all actions go into the
  interior motion of this scheme, whereby power of info-
  rmation and knowledge (sic) feeds back into the PRIVATE
  IP NETWORK of IDEAs. fair enough, for private views.

  but what about the public, the educational aspect of
  ideas, the seperation of money from ideas, and just
  the ideas themselves, as commodities to be traded,
  exchanged, in the marketplace (of ideas, supposedly).
  there are none, or very little, that are not proprietary
  IP ideas anyway. what if there was a definition of a
  PUBLIC IP NETWORK of IDEAs, countering the prevailing
  privitization of the 'free market', and that what is
  presented as public is fair-use, for the public, if
  indeed it pre-supposes public representation. then,
  things like debating ideas (a lost tradition) in
  open forums might occur, questioning outside of
  clean-room intellectulal environments might occur,
  outside the University even.

  so too, anti-globalization and anti-capitalism. in
  a basic sense, given the odds, what is the victory
  to the anti-capitalist movement, an entirely new
  economic/social/political system? or anti-globalization,
  no unrestrained global trade because the markets are
  so messed up and exploit peoples for private gain?

  what if issues such as Public and Private were
  introduced into the logic, into the reasoning of
  these ideas. such that, the winner take all, the
  death do us part of the confrontation, makes a
  strategic shift towards cracking the ideological
  code overriding both sides of the coin. how can
  one win a repeating battle, if one never wins,
  but only the status quo system incrementally
  changes, to appease opposition while going on
  in its same-old same-old ways?

  the psycho-logic in this, it seems from one view,
  is that, a lot of private individuals with a lot
  of power are controlling the lot of things. the
  shared holders are the representative democratic
  masses, voting by their wallets for the direction
  of things, based on an economic agenda as utopia.
  the social is last, the political, the proponent.

  what if, by redefining the wordage, such as
  Public Globalization doing with humans as a whole,
  and Private Globalization doing with private people,
  that is, individual men and women, that a logic could
  be made to address some of the issues, from _both_
  sides, as per the economic, but also the social
  (unaccounted for) and political (sick as it is)
  sides of things. opposition, then, would not be the
  best option, as would getting to a table or an open
  public forum and debating the ideas. to work on
  some fundamental understanding of the situation,
  the ideas, rather than ideological certainty
  that is flawed in its language, not purpose.

  for another example, capitalism, and anti-capital
  ideas. replace capitalism, that is, the reigning
  marketplace, which has its obvious advantages,
  with a whole new system, or re-engineer it in
  some way to make it more effective. not sure
  what the ideas are. just that, anti-capitalism,
  in opposition to capitalism, competes for some-
  thing, intangible in my view. some belief, some
  shared something. but what it is seems hard to
  gauge, in actuality.

  what if, say, capitalism, the economic theory
  that it is, is missing something the way it is
  applied, such as a social dimension. social capital.
  or, that this social capital, is only the secondary
  afterthought of economic capitalism, which is also
  based on PRIVATE CAPITAL, thus, PRIVATE SOCIAL capital
  ideas go forward, as social theory, as free-market
  shell games in the intellectualized theory-spherics.

  what if there were such a thing as a capitalism
  that was firstly, or equally social, and not just
  this, but also Public, in the human sense, in
  the sense that it is a shared and grounded idea.
  i.e., we agree, public is this, capital is this,
  and public social capitalism is a goal. etc.

  if people were infront of the media, in protests,
  and got coverage, they are (or in the case of the
  US, are not) seen by others. consumed. and the
  interpretation of events is out of their hands.
  whereas, in public debate format, the ideas,
  as actions, even regardless of protest but
  protest for these debates, this public represent-
  ation, could facilitate a dialogue, a reasoning.

  yes yes, enlightenment braindrain. it is over,
  reasonin is circular, limited, cannot work. does
  not work. power controls information, truth. yes.
  if one uses the old logic. the old way of doing
  things. the ideological constructs for The Way
  Things Should Work but Do Not. instead, maybe it
  would be worthwhile consider protesting for the
  public debates with a logic which is public,
  which is shared, which is foundation, making
  a discourse which does challenge the assumptions,
  makes clarifications from both sides, and works
  to find cooperation in the primary, not the
  secondary goals (victory), that is, the ideas
  that are realistic, that are public ideas,
  that are being censored out of existence as
  we have yet to have a public discussion, as
  it does not exist in a totally privitized
  worldsphere of multimediated influence, in
  the sense of global eco/soc/political culture.

  some ideas. flame away.

bc

-- 
.. . . . .   .  ..  ..    . . . . ....  ..   ..  ... . . . . . . .
brian thomas carroll		the_electromagnetic_internetwork
electromagnetic researcher	matter, energy, and in-formation
human@electronetwork.org	http://www.electronetwork.org/


#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
#  <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
#  more info: majordomo@bbs.thing.net and "info nettime-l" in the msg body
#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@bbs.thing.net