Keith Hart on Sat, 9 Oct 2004 13:39:58 +0200 (CEST) |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
Re: <nettime> Reflections on Dan Hunter's Culture War |
Patrice Riemens wrote: >A very good and useful paper, immo, which has attracted some controversy I >fail to understand. Of course, some criticism is possible, and I will >attempt to share mine here. > > It may be that patrice was referring to an exchange on Sarai's commons-law list under the heading 'culture war article', extending into October. http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/commons-law/2004-September/thread.html I wish criticism included saying what is good about a piece of work and not just what is wrong with it. But Patrice made some interesting points. That the 'IP madness' is not just a result of the contemporary prevalence of 'intanglibles', but rather of firms' increased confidence that they can protect their assets without resorting to internal markets (Coase). His finds a parallel with the privatisation of public goods, such as transport services, and takes issue with Hunter's (or the neo-cons'?) view of the public domain as what is left over when private interests have been allocated. Hunter is accused of the usual Anglo-Saxon ignorance of what is going on with French copyright, but Patrice doesn't say how this should alter the conclusions of this 'good and useful' paper. He wants to substitute 'proprietary knowledge' for 'intellectual property' and 'corporate/corporatisation' for 'private/privatisation', believing that this will eliminate much fruitless controversy and incidentally save Lawrence Lessig from the charge of being 'reformist'. I found these arguments pretty hard to follow and I had read Dan Hunter's article in commenting on it for the thread listed above. Here too the question of the scope of 'private property' was raised, with one contributor arguing that the growth of corporate capital after Marx's death made his analysis of what were still then largely individual enterprises irrelevant today. I argued that we need to understand how what was originally a means of guaranteeing personal autonomy could have evolved to the point of being an instrument of corporate global domination; and I endorsed Macpherson's view that states, corporations and individuals can all exercise private property rights (held exclusively against the world) whose antithesis is and always was common property (allowing for the many particular forms that is manifested). The attacks on Hunter's 'inconsistency' launched by Jamie King and Felix Stalder left me gobsmacked. referring to the "Marxist-Lessigist' tendency is a joke, perhaps not a very good one, but it made me smile. talk about a hammer to crack a nut... Hunter's argument is quite straightforward. The right thinks Lessig is a Marxist because he wants to limit the power of corporate capital, but he is very insistent on defending private property and would use the logic of competitive markets against the corporations. This makes him a reformist when it comes to capitalism, whereas the open source movement (however defined) is the truly revolutionary path aiming at replacing private with common property. No-one who reads th earticle with an open mind could be in any doubt about this argument, however commonplace or irritating they may find it. Inconsistent it is not. The paper was co-produced by lessig's outfirt at stanford Law and th eman himself is referred to throughout as Larry, so I doubt if Hunter is offering any more than than an ironic take on the guru's politics, even if his advocacy of the contemporary relevance of classical Marxism is serious. incidentally, he cites with approval another attempt to digitise Marx by Eben Moglen's The dotCommunist Manifesto which may be new to some nettimers: http://emoglen.law.columbia.edu/publications/dcm.html Like many people, I suppose, I have been profoundly educated by lawrence lessig's work. But it can be accused of being excessively legalistic and US-centric. Dan Hunter certainly avoids the first trap, but not the second. he makes some desultory comments about developing countries, but does not address the global character of the class struggle unfolding under a regime of corporate IPR. The last WTO meeting at cancun revealed what can happen if big hitters like China and Brazil join a co-ordinated lobby of the poorer countries. Hunter pointed out how India has stood up to the US-EU juggernaut. Next year will see the fateful issue of pharmaceuticals patents settled there. "Piracy' of copyright material is largely an Asian phenomenon. And, as Lessig makes clear, the US stands in danger of endorsing a pro-business regime that is so rigid and expensive it will accelerate the transfer of production elsewhere. The case is also made forcefully by, of all people, Pat Buchanan in Where the right went wrong. But he too misses the global character of the problem. Keith Hart # 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