no CoPyright and no CuLtura L Cong LomeratesThe substantial gains that are to materialize reside in the fact that the public domain
of artistic creativity and knowledge will be restored. This is the fourth effect of the
changes i propose for cultural market relations. it will no longer be possible to privately
appropriate works that in actuality derive from the public domain. We may highly
appreciate a new work, however it should remain accessible for further creations,
appropriations and for critique, and also for changes and amendments. public debate
will then determine whether the alterations are respectful and whether the original
work commands this respect. if public debate does not materialize it will be a loss for
democracy. independent and well- informed critique must once again come to play an
important part. it is only by testing and dissecting works that we can sense value verses
mediocrity. actually, cultural conglomerates will lose the monopolistic exclusivity over
broad cultural areas because artistic materials will be available to all and there will be
no limitations on the creative adaptation of art.
an extra benefit of my approach is that the absolute character of property, which
wreaks havoc upon our societies, will be loosened and, in this case, undone. in general,
ownership has been allowed to occupy far too central a position in our neo liberal
societies. nevertheless, society needs to become much more vocal about its interests
- for example in the social, ecological and economic sense – and needs to be able to
enforce these interests. in our case of cultural entrepreneurship, it is undesirable even
from a human rights perspective to be able to impose an exclusive property right on a
creation and development in the area of knowledge. Furthermore, this is unnecessary
under normal market conditions.
another effect of my proposals – number five – concerns global economic policies.
if i were minister of economic affairs, or secretary of Commerce, i would be quite
nervous. Viacom, the owner of mTV and paramount, demanded that google pay one
billion dollars for missed copyrights on YouTube, and took the case to court in 2007.
google bought YouTube for 1.65 billion dollars in 2006. every day we see these kinds of
figures pass before our eyes. We see an industry where fabulous amounts of money have
been invested and lost because of copyright issues. one must be blind not to observe
that copyright is in its decisive days – not only owing to digitization. even the massive
criminalization of users of artistic materials does not work any longer. somebody should
sound the alarm and all ministers of economic affairs should listen: the billions and
billions of dollars and euros invested in these huge cultural conglomerates are on the
brink of vanishing into thin air. Currently, the cultural industries are risky businesses.
obviously, they do not like to see it this way.
Poor countriesWill the proposed changes in the structures of cultural markets have a positive effect
for artists and cultural entrepreneurs in poor countries? i strongly believe so, and this
is the sixth, and last, effect of my interventions. There would be no more threat from
huge cultural conglomerates (based in rich or relatively rich countries) that try to
dominate the cultural landscapes of countries in the global south.
nevertheless, it is relevant to investigate how much risk cultural entrepreneurs –
including artists – can bear in poor societies, also in the case in which the (global)
market is a level playing field. evidently, the less that artistic creations and performances