“Copyright is not natural law”

Between possible problems and dangers: movie copyright and new media in Oberhausen

"The fruit of the thoughts of an author is the holiest, unpackable and personal possession" – So it is already 1791 in the new French Code inspired by enemy and revolution. Not only books and written texts, as is now being debated violently at the dispute over the Google book project, but also moving and unmoved images are by the current, especially with the technical possibilities of digitization revolution of communication channels and procedures completely new intictation forms subject. At the traditional rich "International short film days" In Oberhausen were discussed now "Copyright and the Moving Images, Online"/"Copyright and moving pictures, online". There was a debate between potential problem and dangerous.

"copyright" or "copyright" – In this word difference, only nominalist pea posts, this concept difference actually already says almost everything: the angelsachsian "copyright" is the right to copy something. It is based on the idea that everything that is handed over to the public, but art and culture, in principle, is our property and thus a fundamental open "pubic access" be subject; It is therefore a freedom right of the reader and viewer, which is maintained under certain circumstances and conditions. In case of doubt for the audience, for openness and general public.

That "copyright" By contrast, the German Burgerial Code is a freedom right of the creative, which protects its work against uncontrolled, unwanted and not least unpaid use. In doubt for the gumfer, for private property, for control. The Oberhausen discussion took place in English – now as a confession of the festival to the English understanding, however, would be premature. It was more likely to be due to the composition of the participants.

Web as a natural place for short films

What this is possible with film is obvious: because not only written texts, even the moving pictures are in the digital age to the object of opponent and of the creators uncontrolled multiplication in officials such as private exchange bolts. Just short films like the here in the program of the renowned festival are for the Web 2.0 actually an ideal medium: at "You tube" It is known not only not only inconsistent feature film classics to watch 10-minute happchen chopped – which does not necessarily have the end of all cinematic culture, but maybe simply open new receptionists for seldom film art.

It is also found there, for example, the works of filmmakers from Middle Eastlands like Jordan, which can not afford rough plant campaigns, but in this way but still an international audience can reach and therefore their films targeted after about half a year for the festival evaluation for the free view and put forwarding online. Here you could obey, "Open Access" especially use the dwarfs, those who can not earn money with their films due to qualitative deficiency or lack of interest and marketing possibilities.

However, in the next few months, the works of many filmmakers, which were demonstrated in Oberhausen on screen, were first made via world distribution and galleries for a fee, but very soon after the public premiere also over any of any freely accessible channels and file-share Circulate addresses on the web.

rabbit and Hedgehog

Once again, the Oberhausen discussion, which runs down the debates on the subject of the Angelsachsian area, the British-American capitalism and legal negative liabilities and continental Europe with their Rheinical Economy Model and Romisch said law. At first glance, the winner seems to be able to stimulate: in the covenant from grunous hipster anarchism and the market radical propaganda of neoliberalism / neoonservatism, both the anti-state affects such as freedom-around-all-price morality and the interests of global Corporuses like Google.Inc formed those "California ideology" Deregulation, still the spirit of Web 2.0 dominated. As in the March of Hare and Hedgehog, the regulators always come to Spat.

It is easily overlooking that under the banner of the freedom of the Open Access also the claim of the author’s authority of mental products and thus the freedom of publication is also held – because it always states that their gaps must not sell themselves to survive.

Grassing fatalism?

"Copyright is not natural law", said right at the beginning Rebecca Cleman from New York and curator of the local "Underground Film Festival". Cleman criticized the debate dominant from her point of view "Drive to control". Although Cleman said, the Internet will be more strongly regulated in the future, it concluded – contradictory? -, The classic copyright was to become theoretically and under the conditions of globalization and speed of traffic but in practice only in rare symbolic individual cases like "Pirate Bay" enforceable. "Everything is digital, is soon online, and all that is online, one can somehow also copy." One was not sure if Cleman only brought to the point of grassy fatalism, or whether they recognized a utopia of free communication in all.

At the New York media lawyer Brian L. Frye was clearly clear. He could not only see where there could be a problem here: the Internet Open new exploitation possibilities, one of course, you have to make sure that for rights of use was paid, but their restriction is not to be justified by anything – just "Straight art and culture A publicly good that is not just exclusive Circle reserved" his. "I have no dogmas", Customized Frye the dogma of neoliberalism, "The normative does not interest me."

He threw the Europe "Ideological understanding of the copyright" before. In this context, Fryes has a short demolition of the history of the "Google BookSearch project". Because he remembered that this began that the content of public University libraries (Harvard, Stanford) were put online. Has obviously ask anyone what law libraries overpute to put their content online? Conversely: is virtual lending really worse, as a material? Is not the internet only an extended, technically improved rough library? The true dream of the idea of the universal library.

From how optimism?

The question is Brisant: Is not there something like cultural community, which should be generally available? Why should not you actually trade works of art on private borse? Is it the opponents of "piracy" not alone to protect capitalism?

The counter-argument is also obvious here: Finally, in other cases, it has already proved that the market alone can not regulate anything in the field of culture even less than in others. Where the sudden optimism? Why is hardly any one of those who are normally market opponents apart with the risk of devaluation of creative, artistic work?

Even if media lawyer Frye maybe only a gross cynic (or a unemployed naiver?) In any case, it was interesting to watch that he did not even come into mind that there could be something that is not "For Sale" is that it could give artists, for example, who did not want to see their works in certain associations.

Rescue about collecting societies?

The boundaries between legitimate use of a public good and its abuse are at least by no means set – whether they are ever become, remains questionable. For the Berlin curator Henriette Huldisch will end up to a question of ethics. She reminded of the agreements over "Fair use", which now has many institutions connected. Download just do not be the same as a DVD to steal. "There is a very different sense of justice."

Only striped was very US-centered Oberhausen discussion in the extension, in which even the underfinancing of US schools became the argument to compete for free-online – what does that actually scare the rest of the world? As if not the US government simply had to spend more money for education – in the end the interesting question, why you regulate a coarse part of the economic questions not over levies analogous to the German model of the collecting societies. Then every builder of empty DVDs, computer parts were paying a few cents that are expedient to the authors – but then also had to pay the web providers to whom their customers have lost monthly high bonds, and those on the connection of reliability and many content be interested.

See also:

Impact exchange between baffles and opponents of "Open Access"

Heidelberger Halali

What is links when it comes to copyright?

Like this post? Please share to your friends:
Leave a Reply

;-) :| :x :twisted: :smile: :shock: :sad: :roll: :razz: :oops: :o :mrgreen: :lol: :idea: :grin: :evil: :cry: :cool: :arrow: :???: :?: :!: