A resourceful wheeler-dealer nicknamed ‘Dolltastic‘ scans vintage knitting patterns from the Public Domain into PDFs and claims the Copyright for it. ‘Dolltastic’ sells the vintage patterns on e-bay. In the descriptions of his e-bay auctions ‘Dolltastic’ writes:

Copyright dolltastic 2007 [...] I have produced another vintage reproduction pdf for you to knit! This out of print and in the public domain pattern is very hard to find…

Bullshit! ‘Dolltastic’s’ digital media business model is what I call a Copy-lie! I suppose Dolltastic stands for the fantastic reproduction of Dollars by means of modern digital technology. ‘Dolltastic’ magically turns one Public Tiger into innumerable Private Tigers (Lions…) – and the ignorant e-bay users pay for it, since they don’t know that they can download the same vintage knitting pattern for free.

The Internet is being commercialized. Digital Tigers shit Dollars. And the Service Providers (e.g. e-bay) always get their provision of the deal. Knitting patterns are source code. Is the vintage knitting pattern example just an illustration of the the Fate of the Commons in a Connected World?

There are things (e.g. objects, information) that can be owned and things that can’t because they belong to the public (e.g. language, a Work in the Public Domain) or it would be bad if they were owned by private people (e.g. a public beach, a patent on the production of air).

One problem in todays world is that too many people are allowed to lay claim on things that can not be owned by humans.

Confucius says of himself: “I transmit but do not create. I believe in and love the ancients”. Knowledge and experiences are passed on between humans – sometimes with the aid of analogue or digital media. This is well understood by copyright lawyers. The argumentation that Copyright is derived from property is misused by people who are anxious to appropriate public knowledge and call it private property.

Tomi L. Ahoven writes on his blog “Communities Dominate Brands” that Mobile is the next mass medium, because:

1. today there are three times more mobile phones as personal computers and there are twice as many mobile phones as computers
2. mobile phones are personal
3. mobile phones identify every single media consumer uniquely and distinctly
4. mobile phones are always-on
5. mobile phones are always-carried
7. mobile phones have an integrated payment mechanism
8. mobile phones provide the input tool for a creative impulse

I do not think that the fact that a personal device is predominant leads to the conclusion that the mobile phone is the gateway to the next mass medium. Digital convergence means that any type of Device can be used for accessing and participating in mass media. Granted, the communication Service Providers trouble to seduce more and more users to use Devices with an integrated payment function. At the same time the media industry phases in DRM and brings actions against Users who share Content for free. Tomy’s assumption may hold for large consumer goods brands. However, in my opinion the media industry’s wish to charge Users for Content and Services is not sufficient for creating community domination over communication Service Brands.

A common strategy of mobile phone service providers is to bundle the access to Content and Services (e.g. SMS) with proprietary payment services (e.g. through a SIM card). In my opinion a corollary for Communities Dominate Brands is that Users Dominate Communities. In other words: Users must be able to select the communities of their choice (e.g. become members of non-commercial Autonomous Domains, get a personalized google account,…). The freedom to select a community implies that Users control their digital identies. Users must be able to easily switch between different providers of communication services. As long as providers own User Identities (e.g. identify Users through proprietary SIM cards fixed to mobile phones) Service Provider Brands (e.g. Vodafone, Yahoo, Apple…) will Dominate Communities.

Communication Service Provider Brands will Dominate Communities unless Payment will be independent of Services related to Content and Network Access. Communities will Dominate Brands as soon as Users can create and manage their own digital identities and payment tools. Open Standards for Payment and Open Source software implementations will make Users independent of the major Communication Service Providers. Once Users can access the source code of their communication and payment tools the real P2P Economy will start to flourish.

Tomi and Alan called their book Communities Dominate Brands. I haven’t read it and I am sure that it contains a lot of valuable insight. These are just my comments on the blog article.

Tag für Tag fließt der Rhein von den Alpen in die Nordsee. Ab und zu erfährt seine sonst eher geruhsame Reise etwas Abwechslung durch ein Containerschiff, das mühsam gegen die Kraft der Strömung ankämpft. Immer wieder muss der Kapitän die ganze Kraft seiner Gedanken aufwenden, um zu verhindern, dass sein Frachter im zähen Schleim der Kommentare stecken bleibt, die vom Ufer aus mitfilmende Beobachter unablässig absondern, obwohl er doch nur danach strebt, seinen Lebensunterhalt damit zu verdienen, chinesische Billigprodukte von Holland in die Schweiz zu schippern.

Gleichzeitig haben sich findige Geschäftemacher schon längst überlegt, dass sich die wunderbar rechteckigen Container nachträglich mit AdSense Anzeigen bedrucken lassen – natürlich nur für die sich am virtuellen “Second Rhine” langweilenden Avatare. Die Rechte zum Einspielen der Container Ads haben Sie sich von ihren Content Providern vorsichtshalber schon mal gesichert. Das Leben ist ein langer ruhiger Fluss.

Alex Rühle schrieb:

jeder schreibt selbstreferentiell vor sich hin. Von akkumulierendem Weltgeist ist selten etwas zu spüren.

Dann mach’s doch einfach besser…

Der erste Teil Deiner Geschichte war ja ganz witzig – ich bekam sie mit der SZ am Wochenende ins Haus geliefert und habe sie ganz analog am Fruehstueckstisch genossen. Die Menschen verschwinden im Netz… eine interessante Vorstellung… klingt ein bisschen nach der Matrix. Der Hyperlink am Ende des Artikels hat mich deshalb auch magisch angezogen, ich habe mich vor mein Laptop gesetzt – und dann sowas: willst Du mich auf den Arm nehmen?

Jeder weiss doch, dass Du keine “digitale Spiesserin” bist. Du bist der Alex und ich bin Dein Leser. Wir beide sind drin – nicht koerperlich, sondern mit unseren Gedanken. Wir könnten so schöne Dinge miteinander anstellen… uns ausmalen, wie es hier drinnen aussieht, miteinander rumspinnen, philosophieren. Und die gute alte Tante SZ bezahlt Dich dafuer. Indirekt sogar ich, der die SZ seit 20 Jahren unverdrossen abonniert. Der Heribert Prantl hat das uebrigens erkannt: der Presse-Unterstützungs-Verein besteht bereits.

Stattdessen schwadronierst Du ueber Chips, Festplatten und Pixels. Mannmannmann… Vor jedem Bildschirm sitzt ein Mensch und der hat nicht nur Augen zum lesen, sondern auch Finger zum tippen und vor allem ein Hirn um zu denken.

Komm rein und stell Dich Deinem Leser. Bei Dir oder bei mir.

I can’t recall the last time I was off-line for 5 days. Here is my report:

Without a device connected to a network a user is missing the interface to the digital space. Without being able to communicate with other users a person feels handicapped – caught in the physical space.

When you are off-line for some time your consciousness starts focussing on your body’s point in time and location in space. You will notice again that your consciousness is connected to your senses. The senses (e.g. see, hear, taste,…) are interfaces between your consciousness and objects and events in the physical space. When you communicate with other persons through the digital space your consciousness uses only a small part of these interfaces (e.g. only one ear, only fingertips and eyes,…).

Communication in physical space is constrained in time and space. The “intensity” of experiences in the physical space feels stronger – perhaps because the “bandwidth” of a person’s senses is infinite.

Communication in physical space is related to the role a person plays in a group of people. A user can be represented as an agent or as a “user identity” in the digital space. Depending on the location, time and social context a person is an actor in the physical space. In the physical space “you are what you own” – traditionally people “act” by displaying physical objects symbolizing their social affiliation.

In the digital space you are what you do, not what you own. Some abilities of users in the digital space rely on the design of services. Service providers provide digital media services. Users perform physical work and pay money to service providers in order to improve their abilities in digital space – in almost the same manner as they wear physical objects (e.g. clothes, jewelry) in order to improve their societal status. Apparently the imagination of some people is so focussed on the objects that they need to model the physical world in the digital space.

Although objects and symbols act to represent social affiliation it is amazing to see that relationships between people in physical space and digital space rely on similar mechanisms. As soon as people start to communicate it becomes possible to codify their beings. Service providers offer readymade “codified beings” in exchange for the communication patterns of a person.

On the assumption that moral values (e.g. honesty) count more than economical values (e.g. buying power) it is possible to distinguish between real friends and pretenders simply on the consistency of statements from a person and related to a person. This capability of abstraction dispels the the need of the bulky and costly 3-d interfaces.

Richard Stallman wrote in his text Did You Say “Intellectual Property”? It’s a Seductive Mirage:

The term “intellectual property” also leads to simplistic thinking. It leads people to focus on the meager commonality in form that these disparate laws have–that they create artificial privileges for certain parties–and to disregard the details which form their substance: the specific restrictions each law places on the public, and the consequences that result. This simplistic focus on the form encourages an “economistic” approach to all these issues.

Economics operates here, as it often does, as a vehicle for unexamined assumptions. These include assumptions about values, such as that amount of production matters, while freedom and way of life do not, and factual assumptions which are mostly false, such as that copyrights on music supports musicians, or that patents on drugs support life-saving research.

Copyright is law. In the digital space rights holders and other value-chain users are represented as agents in a digital media environment. A system to manage Copyright in a digital environment enables all users to express their rights in an expression of a work. The DMP has developed a specification for an interoperable platform to manage the rights of users.

DMP uses the term DRM (e.g. in connection with a DRM platform). DMP has defined the term “intellectual property”:

Any identifiable product of the mind attributable to any person(s) or legal entitie(s) that can be represented or communicated physically and protectable by copyright or similar laws.

The people I met on the DMP mailing lists recognize the fact that a user can not own data, because data are information. I agree with Stallman that it is misleading to use the term property in connection with digital media. “Intellectual property” in data is not like “owning” physical objects. The Digital Media project is concerned with the process to define what “intellectual property” in the digital space is. This is an open process.

DMP is also concerned in the economical aspect of the management of user rights. Users negotiate licenses. Contracts are agreements on license terms between users. In case of an agreement on the license terms users can decide to exchange value expressions (e.g. data with a value-chain player who acts as a bank). This exchange will be specified as an open standard by the DMP (Function Pay).

The question if copyright supports musicians in the digital space depends on the digital media business model.

The management of user rights in digital media may be called Digital Media Management (DMM).

A propos music. The producer j-zone wrote in an article about the death of Hip Hop:

… it has never been more evident that the RIAA and their legal vendetta have just pulled the IV. We all knew that the late 80’s way of taking 8 bar James Brown loops and not clearing was bound to catch up to us. I can live with that [...] But then the lawyers and courts got tyrannical. Now 1/8 of a second sample can run you the risk of legal action. [...] I understand melodies, but somebody can own a snare sound now? This is pretty lousy, but to this point it only affected some of the major label stuff and big corporate gigs. No more. Myspace is now shutting down pages that post remixes. WHAT!? I find that completely ass backwards.

It seems that if DRM enters the market Hip Hop musicians will have to create Autonomous Domains for themselves and their fans.

One completely autonomous domain is of course the public domain. The copyright for the drum tabs of the amen break does not exist. Wikipedia writes:

As with many samples, the copyright history of the Amen break is complex.

The copyright history of the amen break is over. Amen. Since these drum beats are in the public domain, every Hip Hop musician can use this sample to make music without paying royalties to a lawyer.

Apparently the “DRM-Fronts” can be grouped by their business models:

The different positions are obvious if one assumes that each proponent strives to maximise his economical advantage by lobbying for his position.

The DMP lobbies for a position that incorporates all business models.

Cory Doctorow reasons that “Open Source DRM” is not possible, because it relies on “Hook IP” which is not user-modifiable:

The whole point of DRM is that it has to be implemented in a very specific way, to cripple certain features that users otherwise want. All DRMs have “Hook IP” — something you have to license in order to implement them. A condition of the license is inevitably that you can’t make the product user-modifiable. That means that it can’t be open. It can only be implemented in crippled, restricted form.

If I understand him correctly, Cory addresses the problem of “patent thickets” in the field of DRM. Indeed this is a problem that needs to be addressed. Otherwise proponents of proprietary software licensing could use “Hook IP” to discriminate proponents of Open Source software licensing.

On the assumption that “Open Source DRM” is possible and with “Open Source DRM” a PC is still a PC the DMP position would create a win-win situation for all proponents.

I wonder if the “DRM-Fronts” will understand that negotiations are more rewarding (for an economy as well as for the digital media users) than a hardening of the situation. Who would be the appropriate party to organize these negotations?

gizmodo writes that Yahoo and Monster Cable join the Anti-DRM front. I don’t know if there is really something like a front but I know a business model that combines music resoures with targeted advertising. This is the business model of Yahoo, google etc. If the major labels bet their money on targeted advertising in the internet and End-users accept to trade their user data for the music digital media users don’t need encryption.

Some End-users might have privacy concerns if the service providers own their User Data and Use Data, but it may mork for the mass media – see commercial television and radio. Other users may dislike that a corner of their music player is reserved to display “spam”. These End-users may prefer to employ a different business model: create Autonomous Domains and use interoperable DRM based on free software tools for expressing in a machine readable way the way they license the copyright of musical works to End-users (e.g. using a CC license). Possibly the business model for CC music is good enough to finance the cost to operate a service to search for CC licensed content.

Alex Ruehle published in the Sueddeutsche Zeitung an interesting article (Die Erlösung des Geistes durch ein Loch im Kopf) on the subject of free life in Amsterdam in reactionary times. It contains valuable insight about the communication infrastructure we should create for digital space and inspired me to make some notes on Autonomous Domains.