quotation marks have a purpose
Thinking about authorship, property, and technology with Ms. Halbert. (Maybe that should be a title?)
A story which "takes the past through the present and considers the future." We are not neo-luddites who believe that thanks to technology, we are "doomed" to a dehumanized existence, nor do we "uncritically embrace a new technology" without understanding the networks of power within which it resides. (It is important to think of technology as more than just computers, the internet, electronic devices, etc., but as an "application" [of science to industrial or commercial objectives], a "body of knowledge" [that is available to use], a "systematic treatment" [of an art or craft].)
While the progress of technology is a fascinating study in itself, there are important issues veiled in technological discourse: property, authorship, economics, politics, industry, freedom.
"They are all interwoven with the technology itself so that one cannot study technology without also studying the surrounding issues. It is impossible to study the computer without understanding its historical situation. The solid object and the intangible concept surrounding its use are interconnected in the most important of ways.(DH)"
It would be silly to think that the way we speak, the way we express our ideas is not distorted or directed by "technology"; technology not only exists "within language" but it permeates through language, past semantics, and beyond subjects, by reconstituting our so-called "discurive structures." (note: In order to displace the myth that individuals are self-grounding and self-constituting of their identities, ideologies, and social relations, Laclau & Mouffe use the subject in the sense of "subject position". Subject positions are understood to be constituted within "discursive structures" and any appeal to an extra-discursive vantage point in order to ground such positions is illegitimate. However, in order to avoid the problem of reducing subjects to discursive structures, wherein by merely being an effect of a discursive structure the distinction between subject and structure would collapse and the dimension of constitution would become otiose, Laclau & Mouffe move to the level of the relations between subject positions in order to reveal their contingent or articulatory nature.) Technology gains "social acceptability" through the success of those who are paid to convince us we cannot live without it. The discourses which try to "delineate" (NOT "define"; note this difference) new technologies try to solidify the notion of property, that there is a clear distinction between what is mine and what is yours. But today's physical technologies actually subvert this capitalist paradigm by making it easier to share, to copy, and to exchange. (We're sorry says the RIAA, but we can't actually let you use this technology. Its "too dangerous" for you to handle.)
"Stories about authorship and ownership of technology are told in order to naturalize the old-style system of proprietary ownership in this new-style age. These stories are an important aspect of the intellectual property discourse which has the task of enveloping new technologies within its folds.(DH)"
In the face of increased ability to exchange without control, it is important for stories about ownership to be told. Absent a clear understanding of who "owns" new physical technology (computers, software, data bases, and telecommunications being the domain of a few powerful corporations), the average American citizen may mistakenly believe they can communicate, exchange, and share information freely. While intellectual property may be a foreign concept to most people, it is the life !blood! of many industries. How should we consider intellectual property? It seems this is the first issue we should address, perhaps because it is the one we can somehow affect.
The "information age" is a great tool to expose the paradigm we live in. It is "a period where technology is carefully owned and managed, but also an age where the conditions for total "freedom" in information exchange are possible. Anyone who has copied computer software knows that the reproduction is an exact duplicate of the original. Anyone who has used a VCR knows they can tape programs off the television with the press of a button. But these are "illegal" activities. Most people do it anyway. It is called the 'free-rider' problem in economics. Regardless of the disciplinary term, when it comes to information and cultural products, the tendency is to share, or at least be unaware of the illegal act you are committing.
"If you were the owner of a software company, it is in your best interest to ensure that everyone owns a legal copy of your program. Illegal copying harms your ability to maximize profits. However, there is no technological method available to stop illegal copies because the nature of the program is to copy itself. People are allowed to back-up their legal software, but once this element of exchange is introduced copying becomes difficult to control.
"Since you as a software owner cannot directly control the buyers of your software, you involve the law. This works well if someone has decided to sell illegal copies of your software. The 'pirate' is dealt with through laws protecting a certain definition of property. The same process works when you as a software owner charge others with copying sections of your code, replicating the 'look and feel' of your program, or reverse engineering your software. These activities are manufactured as criminal through a legal narrative which describes these activities as crimes against property. These laws are legal stories which identify the bad guy and the punishment they deserve. Staking out new forms of property does not occur without violence and this violence is mostly subsumed under the law.
"Legal avenues are not your only recourse. Because the illegal copying of software is not considered problematic by those who do it, and most Americans are pretty clueless about computers in general, and would just as soon own an 'illegal' copy as an original, the rightful owner must somehow convince everyone to respect the conceptual fences he or she is establishing. This is done through stories about the 'pirates', stories which make them evil, dangerous, and of course, criminal. Public relations and 'education' are the tools of the late 20th century.(DH)"
The "reasoning" (read: discourse) constructed goes like this: The "hard working" software company spent (your) "money" and "time" creating a product. Their "hard work and "ingenuity" (dumb luck, trickery, deceit, and theft of other's ideas) should be "monetarily rewarded" (because execs are greedy) and thus they get to "own" "their" software "exclusively." Anyone caught with "unauthorized" copies is a "pirate." Anyone (including the programmers themselves) who appropriates "aspects" of the "computer code" (their knowledge, their invention) without permission is a "thief." These "pirates" and "thieves" are engaged in "illegal" activities, which deprives the "rightful" "owner" of their "profits." They are also lazy because they "steal" instead of "create." (Ironic?) They should be "punished" for their actions. Enter "lawyers" (greedy, immoral bastards) and "intellectual property."
In this world, a phrase can be owned, via trademark or copyright. (Should Donald Trump own the phrase "You're fired" ??) You need to be careful "of what is painted on the walls, who is cited as authority, and how much one quotes from other sources.The legal realm of intellectual property is constantly in contestation as owners try to protect their proprietary work and others attempt to capitalize on a good idea. Intellectual property can be divided into four basic categories; patents, copyrights, trademarks, and tradesecrets. Each category is protected by legal rules bound by assumptions about creation, productivity, and innovation.(DH)"
IN order to explore the workings of this oppressive, capitalist doctrine of intellectual property, we need to take a look back at the "traditional" idea of copyright, which emerged over 200 years ago and has been a controversial doctrine since its inception. Despite criticism, the traditional story of copyright is rarely questioned and the story is fully embraced by the government and legal communities which defend its assumptions with vigor. I will continue in a purely practical manner, (though you love the power of critical theory, when we ventures into the bitter reality, we need to shed some of our intellectual missives) because a quasi-marxist revolution will not occur in any forceeable future, the power systems in place will not be toppled any time soon, and we have to face the fact that our society is and will continue to be ruled by greed. The information age is upon us; it is here to stay. We ride in its wake, trying to change the formations and structures that it erodes at, displaces (but only temporarily). We need put energy into finding something to replace the centuries old notion of intellectual property instead of investing more time and money into enforcing laws not fit for a digital world. The "traditional" (capitalist.. ok, ok, I'm sorry) idea has draw "territorial boundaries", "property lines" around knowledge and other cultural "goods".
It should not govern our legislative process; as it is currently constructed and enforced, it effectively goes against the basic principle of information (See my previous 'informal paper' on freedom of information). While the subversion of this particular property system is possible, it will not happen without great struggle. There is too much at stake for the power brokers of the today to quietly submit to such a revolution. We need to watch carefully how the discourses and formations concerning information and technology as property are constructed, or we will find ourselves in a future of Orwelian proportions.
The discourses which have been created to entrench private property in the information age use multinationals as "victims," teenage hackers and developing countries as "villains," and involve the government as both a "peacekeeper" and enforcer. The process is not merely about staking out property lines in new technology, but rather in universal knowledge. It is about forcing the average citizen the embrace what "they" want.
This is about how the conceptual fences of private property are drawn around the (in)tangible technological objects which make up our current economy -- software, information, and even entertainment. While there is a possibility that a subversive freedom of information discourse will prevail, if we do not act now, the likely course outcome is increased violence (yes, violence) until intellectual property becomes synonymous with tangible property.
Terry Eagleton writes:
"Men and women do not live by culture alone, the vast majority of them throughout history have been deprived of the chance of living by it at all, and those few who are fortunate enough to live by it now are able to do so because of the labour of those who do not. Any critical theory which does not begin from this single most important fact, and hold it steadily in mind in its activities, is in my view unlikely to be worth very much."
Eagleton's main assertion -- that a work ought to center its humanistic intent -- is especially critical in this inquiry. Intellectual property is a method for ensuring that many are denied entrance to "cultural works." We are driven by, in this case, "a normative concern for the path we are traveling. I see it as one which centers the maximization of property to the detriment of cultural inclusion." (DH)
A story which "takes the past through the present and considers the future." We are not neo-luddites who believe that thanks to technology, we are "doomed" to a dehumanized existence, nor do we "uncritically embrace a new technology" without understanding the networks of power within which it resides. (It is important to think of technology as more than just computers, the internet, electronic devices, etc., but as an "application" [of science to industrial or commercial objectives], a "body of knowledge" [that is available to use], a "systematic treatment" [of an art or craft].)
While the progress of technology is a fascinating study in itself, there are important issues veiled in technological discourse: property, authorship, economics, politics, industry, freedom.
"They are all interwoven with the technology itself so that one cannot study technology without also studying the surrounding issues. It is impossible to study the computer without understanding its historical situation. The solid object and the intangible concept surrounding its use are interconnected in the most important of ways.(DH)"
It would be silly to think that the way we speak, the way we express our ideas is not distorted or directed by "technology"; technology not only exists "within language" but it permeates through language, past semantics, and beyond subjects, by reconstituting our so-called "discurive structures." (note: In order to displace the myth that individuals are self-grounding and self-constituting of their identities, ideologies, and social relations, Laclau & Mouffe use the subject in the sense of "subject position". Subject positions are understood to be constituted within "discursive structures" and any appeal to an extra-discursive vantage point in order to ground such positions is illegitimate. However, in order to avoid the problem of reducing subjects to discursive structures, wherein by merely being an effect of a discursive structure the distinction between subject and structure would collapse and the dimension of constitution would become otiose, Laclau & Mouffe move to the level of the relations between subject positions in order to reveal their contingent or articulatory nature.) Technology gains "social acceptability" through the success of those who are paid to convince us we cannot live without it. The discourses which try to "delineate" (NOT "define"; note this difference) new technologies try to solidify the notion of property, that there is a clear distinction between what is mine and what is yours. But today's physical technologies actually subvert this capitalist paradigm by making it easier to share, to copy, and to exchange. (We're sorry says the RIAA, but we can't actually let you use this technology. Its "too dangerous" for you to handle.)
"Stories about authorship and ownership of technology are told in order to naturalize the old-style system of proprietary ownership in this new-style age. These stories are an important aspect of the intellectual property discourse which has the task of enveloping new technologies within its folds.(DH)"
In the face of increased ability to exchange without control, it is important for stories about ownership to be told. Absent a clear understanding of who "owns" new physical technology (computers, software, data bases, and telecommunications being the domain of a few powerful corporations), the average American citizen may mistakenly believe they can communicate, exchange, and share information freely. While intellectual property may be a foreign concept to most people, it is the life !blood! of many industries. How should we consider intellectual property? It seems this is the first issue we should address, perhaps because it is the one we can somehow affect.
The "information age" is a great tool to expose the paradigm we live in. It is "a period where technology is carefully owned and managed, but also an age where the conditions for total "freedom" in information exchange are possible. Anyone who has copied computer software knows that the reproduction is an exact duplicate of the original. Anyone who has used a VCR knows they can tape programs off the television with the press of a button. But these are "illegal" activities. Most people do it anyway. It is called the 'free-rider' problem in economics. Regardless of the disciplinary term, when it comes to information and cultural products, the tendency is to share, or at least be unaware of the illegal act you are committing.
"If you were the owner of a software company, it is in your best interest to ensure that everyone owns a legal copy of your program. Illegal copying harms your ability to maximize profits. However, there is no technological method available to stop illegal copies because the nature of the program is to copy itself. People are allowed to back-up their legal software, but once this element of exchange is introduced copying becomes difficult to control.
"Since you as a software owner cannot directly control the buyers of your software, you involve the law. This works well if someone has decided to sell illegal copies of your software. The 'pirate' is dealt with through laws protecting a certain definition of property. The same process works when you as a software owner charge others with copying sections of your code, replicating the 'look and feel' of your program, or reverse engineering your software. These activities are manufactured as criminal through a legal narrative which describes these activities as crimes against property. These laws are legal stories which identify the bad guy and the punishment they deserve. Staking out new forms of property does not occur without violence and this violence is mostly subsumed under the law.
"Legal avenues are not your only recourse. Because the illegal copying of software is not considered problematic by those who do it, and most Americans are pretty clueless about computers in general, and would just as soon own an 'illegal' copy as an original, the rightful owner must somehow convince everyone to respect the conceptual fences he or she is establishing. This is done through stories about the 'pirates', stories which make them evil, dangerous, and of course, criminal. Public relations and 'education' are the tools of the late 20th century.(DH)"
The "reasoning" (read: discourse) constructed goes like this: The "hard working" software company spent (your) "money" and "time" creating a product. Their "hard work and "ingenuity" (dumb luck, trickery, deceit, and theft of other's ideas) should be "monetarily rewarded" (because execs are greedy) and thus they get to "own" "their" software "exclusively." Anyone caught with "unauthorized" copies is a "pirate." Anyone (including the programmers themselves) who appropriates "aspects" of the "computer code" (their knowledge, their invention) without permission is a "thief." These "pirates" and "thieves" are engaged in "illegal" activities, which deprives the "rightful" "owner" of their "profits." They are also lazy because they "steal" instead of "create." (Ironic?) They should be "punished" for their actions. Enter "lawyers" (greedy, immoral bastards) and "intellectual property."
In this world, a phrase can be owned, via trademark or copyright. (Should Donald Trump own the phrase "You're fired" ??) You need to be careful "of what is painted on the walls, who is cited as authority, and how much one quotes from other sources.The legal realm of intellectual property is constantly in contestation as owners try to protect their proprietary work and others attempt to capitalize on a good idea. Intellectual property can be divided into four basic categories; patents, copyrights, trademarks, and tradesecrets. Each category is protected by legal rules bound by assumptions about creation, productivity, and innovation.(DH)"
IN order to explore the workings of this oppressive, capitalist doctrine of intellectual property, we need to take a look back at the "traditional" idea of copyright, which emerged over 200 years ago and has been a controversial doctrine since its inception. Despite criticism, the traditional story of copyright is rarely questioned and the story is fully embraced by the government and legal communities which defend its assumptions with vigor. I will continue in a purely practical manner, (though you love the power of critical theory, when we ventures into the bitter reality, we need to shed some of our intellectual missives) because a quasi-marxist revolution will not occur in any forceeable future, the power systems in place will not be toppled any time soon, and we have to face the fact that our society is and will continue to be ruled by greed. The information age is upon us; it is here to stay. We ride in its wake, trying to change the formations and structures that it erodes at, displaces (but only temporarily). We need put energy into finding something to replace the centuries old notion of intellectual property instead of investing more time and money into enforcing laws not fit for a digital world. The "traditional" (capitalist.. ok, ok, I'm sorry) idea has draw "territorial boundaries", "property lines" around knowledge and other cultural "goods".
It should not govern our legislative process; as it is currently constructed and enforced, it effectively goes against the basic principle of information (See my previous 'informal paper' on freedom of information). While the subversion of this particular property system is possible, it will not happen without great struggle. There is too much at stake for the power brokers of the today to quietly submit to such a revolution. We need to watch carefully how the discourses and formations concerning information and technology as property are constructed, or we will find ourselves in a future of Orwelian proportions.
The discourses which have been created to entrench private property in the information age use multinationals as "victims," teenage hackers and developing countries as "villains," and involve the government as both a "peacekeeper" and enforcer. The process is not merely about staking out property lines in new technology, but rather in universal knowledge. It is about forcing the average citizen the embrace what "they" want.
This is about how the conceptual fences of private property are drawn around the (in)tangible technological objects which make up our current economy -- software, information, and even entertainment. While there is a possibility that a subversive freedom of information discourse will prevail, if we do not act now, the likely course outcome is increased violence (yes, violence) until intellectual property becomes synonymous with tangible property.
Terry Eagleton writes:
"Men and women do not live by culture alone, the vast majority of them throughout history have been deprived of the chance of living by it at all, and those few who are fortunate enough to live by it now are able to do so because of the labour of those who do not. Any critical theory which does not begin from this single most important fact, and hold it steadily in mind in its activities, is in my view unlikely to be worth very much."
Eagleton's main assertion -- that a work ought to center its humanistic intent -- is especially critical in this inquiry. Intellectual property is a method for ensuring that many are denied entrance to "cultural works." We are driven by, in this case, "a normative concern for the path we are traveling. I see it as one which centers the maximization of property to the detriment of cultural inclusion." (DH)