Postmodern Theory and Internet George Ritzer
Yüklə 310,84 Kb. Pdf görüntüsü
|
a pirated design and something that’s just part of a global trend. Who owns a look? That is a very difficult question to answer.It takes lots of lawyers and lots of court time, and the retailers decided that would be way too expensive. 11:10 You know, it’s not just the fashion industry that doesn’t have copyright protection. There’s a bunch of other industries that don’t have copyright protection, including the food industry. You cannot copyright a recipe because it’s a set of instructions, it’s fact, and you cannot copyright the look and feel of even the most unique dish. Same with automobiles. It doesn’t matter how wacky they look or how cool they look,you cannot copyright the sculptural design. It’s a utilitarian article, that’s why. Same with furniture, it’s too utilitarian. Magic tricks, I think they’re instructions, sort of like recipes: no copyright protection. Hairdos, no copyright protection. Open source software, these guys decided they didn’t want copyright protection. They thought it’d be more innovative without it. It’s really hard to get copyright for databases.Tattoo artists, they don’t want it; it’s not cool. They share their designs. Jokes, no copyright protection. Fireworks displays, the rules of games, the smell of perfume: no. And some of these industries may seem sort of marginal to you, but these are the gross sales for low I.P. industries, industries with very little copyright protection, and there’s the gross sales of films and books. (Applause) It ain’t pretty. 12:37(Applause) 12:39 So you talk to people in the fashion industry and they’re like, “Shhh! Don’t tell anybody we can actually steal from each other’s designs. It’s embarrassing.” But you know what? It’s revolutionary, and it’s a model that a lot of other industries—like the ones we just saw with the really small bars— they might have to think about this. Because right now, those industries with a lot of copyright protection are operating in an atmosphere where it’s as if they don’t have any protection, and they don’t know what to do. 13:11 When I found out that there are a whole bunch of industries that didn’t have copyright protection, I thought, “What exactly is the underlying logic? I want a picture.” And the lawyers do not provide a picture, so I made one. These are the two main sort of binary oppositions within the logic of copyright law. It is more complex than this, but this will do. First: Is something an artistic object? Then it deserves protection. Is it a utilitarian object? Then no, it does not deserve protection. This is a difficult, unstable binary. 13:45 The other one is: Is it an idea? Is it something that needs to freely circulate in a free society? No protection. Or is it a physically fixed expression Lessons from Fashions Free Culture ………………………………………………………… Johanna Blakley https://www.upworthy.com/the-unexpected-thing-that-fashion-does-hippies-love-and-corporations-are-totally-scared-of 5/6
of an idea: something that somebody made and they deserve to own it for a while and make money from it? The problem is that digital technology has completely subverted the logic of this physically fixed, expression versus idea concept. Nowadays, we don’t really recognize a book as something that sits on our shelf or music as something that is a physical object that we can hold. It’s a digital file. It is barely tethered to any sort of physical reality in our minds. And these things, because we can copy and transmit them so easily, actually circulate within our culture a lot more like ideas than like physically instantiated objects. 14:39 Now, the conceptual issues are truly profound when you talk about creativity and ownership and, let me tell you, we don’t want to leave this just to lawyers to figure out. They’re smart. I’m with one. He’s my boyfriend, he’s okay. He’s smart, he’s smart. But you want an interdisciplinary team of people hashing this out, trying to figure out: What is the kind of ownership model, in a digital world, that’s going to lead to the most innovation? And my suggestion is that fashion might be a really good place to start looking for a model for creative industries in the future. 15:16 If you want more information about this research project, please visit our website: it’s ReadyToShare.org. And I really want to thank Veronica Jauriqui for making this very fashionable presentation. 15:27 Thank you so much. (Applause) There may be small errors in this transcript.
https://www.upworthy.com/the-unexpected-thing-that-fashion-does-hippies-love-and-corporations-are-totally-scared-of 6/6
Know Your Product Rob Horning It’s common to critique social media by pointing out that users believe they are consumers but are in fact are the product, a packaged and labelled audience being sold to marketers, the real “users” of ad-supported social media. Or worse, users are both the product and the labor making the product, all for the benefit of the social-media companies that own it. This means we are not merely deluded but also exploited when we think of ourselves as “consuming” social media. The assumption in this critique is that we don’t want to be a product and instead want the agency and autonomous expression that social media seem to promise. From that point of view, users sign up on Facebook with the goal of expressing themselves and hearing what their friends have to say, but are eventually warped into becoming a kind of reified personal brand through exposure to the product’s toxic affordances of self-quantification. Naive users think they are signing up for a personalized public sphere and then, undeterred by the evident oxymoron, find themselves in a hall of mirrors in which all they can see—and all they end up wanting to see—is themselves. I’ve made that argument in the past, but it seems to presume a sort of haplessness in social media users, who don’t know well enough to stop using services that are exploiting and stupidifying them. It doesn’t seem adequate to explaining the pleasure users derive from social media, even as they become reifying and exploitive. I don’t think users’ continued use is strictly a matter of network effects and sunk costs, or even a matter of a cost-benefit analysis permitted them to make a rational decision that surrendering their personal data constitutes a fair exchange for the services social media offer. Instead, I want to consider the possibility that users enjoy becoming the product. The services that social media supply (holding a “graph” of one’s social connections; amassing and archiving personal data; making the promise of an on-demand audience for oneself plausible; permitting a variety of pre-formatted modes of self-expression; offering algorithmically constituted recommendations of what you should read, who you should know, how you should spend your time; and so on) help constitute the self as something a user can consume. We get to be a commodity and consume it at the same time. We are like the hot dog putting ketchup on itself.
http://thenewinquiry.com/blogs/marginal-utility/know-your-product/ 1/3
This self-commodification does not diminish the user’s self-conception but rather makes the self conceivable, legible. The self as product is inherently not guilty of some of the deauthenticating aspects of agency which threaten the integrity of other versions of the self: being calculating, unspontaneous, manipulative, phony, etc. The self as product can be seen as something that simply is, a given thing articulated in a definite form. It enters the realm of the socially conspicuous. Only as a product can we recognize ourselves as “genuinely” real, given the amount of attention and effort collectively directed at enchanting and foregrounding products within a consumer-capitalist culture. We are ideologically trained, repeatedly, every day, to love consumer goods; naturally we would want to become a consumer good ourselves, to appear deserving of love—from ourselves as well as from other people (who, on social media, offer quantifiable tokens of that deserved love in the likes and so on). Products in consumer-capitalist culture quickly lose their lovability, however, as they lose their novelty. They become moribund. They become trash. Consumerism relies on disposability and the perpetual renewal of consumer desire, of discontented people constantly demanding more for themselves. This allows for the limitless expansion of demand in the economy. Consumer ideology fuses self-growth, also conceived as potentially limitless, to the ability to want more things. This converts an economic imperative into a moral one: I must embrace my limitless potential and find ways to express it, or else fail as a human being. Growth itself, as a personal goal, is adapted from the capitalist necessity of pursuing limitless accumulation in an economic environment of growth or death. Personal growth is a matter of continual dissatisfaction, of refusing to be content, even as we make ourselves into content. Anything that I start to think I know about myself seems not merely familiar but fake. What is real about me is what I discover about myself (usually in the form of fresh desire), not what I already know, which I have consumed already. So the self, as a product, loses its enchantment for us and needs to be revitalized to the extent that it becomes familiar, known, understood. We love ourselves only as a novelty, a mystery, not as a staple product. We want to be able to apprehend ourselves as a new, desirable thing that we can consume and enjoy. This makes us feel relevant, marketable. We can imagine someone buying into the idea of us, and that helps us buy into ourselves. But inevitably our desire for ourselves needs to be renewed, and we will need to be repackaged.
http://thenewinquiry.com/blogs/marginal-utility/know-your-product/ 2/3
It seems untenable to feel authentic only when you’re surprising yourself. Social media try to make this contradiction seem to cohere. They offer ways in which to always consume ourselves anew as new. Algorithmic recommendations in particular cater to this hope of seeing a stranger in the personal data we’ve generated, an alien person we can claim as a real self. They can enlarge our ability to desire (making us grow) while seeming to draw on true information about us that we have somehow provided. Everything you have consumed and expelled online gets purifed and re-presented as new desires, a new you. By processing our personal data into things like Facebook’s Newsfeed, algorithms can present us with a carefully repackaged self. We then get the thrill of unboxing ourselves as if we were a coveted new product and seeing what surprise awaits within. That this box we are continually rewrapped in is also a cage can be more readily excused. In that cage, we will only see what reinforces the central importance of novelty, but it won’t matter as long as we feel new ourselves.
http://thenewinquiry.com/blogs/marginal-utility/know-your-product/ 3/3
About Open Source Ecology The mission of Open Source Ecology (OSE) is to create the open source economy.
An open source, libre economy is an efficient economy which increases innovation by open collaboration. To get there, OSE is currently developing a set of open source blueprints for the Global Village Construction Set (GVCS)—a set of the 50 most important machines that it takes for modern life to exist—everything from a tractor, to an oven, to a circuit maker. In the process of creating the GVCS, OSE intends to develop a modular, scalable platform for documenting and developing open source, libre hardware— including blueprints for both physical artifacts and for related open enterprises. The current practical implementation of the GVCS is a life size LEGO set of powerful, self-replicating production tools for distributed production. The Set includes fabrication and automated machines that make other machines. Through the GVCS, OSE intends to build not individual machines— but machine construction systems that can be used to build any machine whatsoever. Because new machines can be built from existing machines, the GVCS is intended to be a kernel for building infrastructures of modern civilization. Vision We—the countless collaborators upon whose shoulders this Vision stands— imagine a world of innovation accelerated by open, collaborative development— to solve wicked problems—before they are created. We see a world of prosperity that doesn’t leave anyone behind. We see a world of interdisciplinary, synergistic systems thinking—not the isolated silos of today’s world. This work of distributing raw productive power to people is not only a means to solving wicked problems—but a means for humans themselves to evolve. The creation of a new world depends on expansion of human consciousness and personal evolution—as individuals tap their autonomy, mastery, and purpose—bo Build Themselves—and to become responsible for the world around them. One outcome is a world beyond artificial material scarcity— where no longer do material constraints and resource conflicts dictate most of
http://opensourceecology.org/about-overview/ 1/4
human interactions—personal and political. We see a future world where we can say—“Resource conflicts? That was back in the stone age.” Your project is amazing. Thrilling, actually… It’s people like you who really give me hope for the future. —Chris Anderson, TED Curator Interesting ideas. I don’t know of anything quite like it. —Noam Chomsky Values Statement Our core values revolve around open collaboration—which implies the vulnerability to share work in progress, without ego, power struggle, and insecurity. Our core values are efficiency, and the ethics and wisdom to understand what we should be efficient about. In practice, we strive to find effective ways to document our work—to create an open collaboration platform—where we can bring collaborators on boards rapidly. While it is difficult to document—the realtime, cloud collaborative tools of the information age make this easier—and we aim to tap these new tools to document and develop together. The end point of our practical development is Distributive Enterprise—an open, collaborative enterprise that publishes all of its strategic, business, organizational, enterprise information—so that others could learn and thereby truly accelerate innovation by annihilating all forms of competitive waste. We see this as the only way to solve wicked problems faster than they are created—a struggle worth the effort. In the age where companies spend more on patent protectionism than on research and development—we feel that unleashing the power of collaborative innovation is an idea whose time has come. The Beginning When OSE was first founded in 2003, the concept of Open Source Ecology was born. This means a world where open source meets economy meets ecology. This means a prosperous world of people living in harmony with their natural life support systems. The is the initial writing from the OSE Legacy Site: I. What is Open Source? Open Source refers to the model of providing goods and services which includes the possibility of About …………………………………………………………………………………… Open Source Ecology http://opensourceecology.org/about-overview/ 2/4
the end-user’s participation in the production of these goods and services. This concept has already been demonstrated in Linux, the open source computing system. With Linux, a large number of software developers have contributed to creating a viable alternative to the proprietary Windows computer operating system. Many people can readily see the advantages- all Linux software is free. Please read these articles on the concept of Open Source software and its implications for changing business. II. What is Open Source Economics? Our mission is to extend the Open Source model to the provision any goods and services- Open Source Economics. This means opening access to the information and technology which enables a different economic system to be realized, one based on the integration of natural ecology, social ecology, and industrial ecology. This economic system is based on open access- based on widely accessible information and associated access to productive capital- distributed into the hands of an increased number of people. Read about an inspiring example of such an economic model being currently put into practice with respect to manufacturing vehicles. We believe that a highly distributed, increasingly participatory model of production is the core of a democratic society, where stability is established naturally by the balance of human activity with sustainable extraction of natural resources. This is the opposite of the current mainstream of centralized economies, which have a structurally built-in tendency towards of overproduction. III. What is Open Source Ecology? We derive our organization’s name from a concept which refers to the integration of the natural, societal, and industrial ecologies- Open Source Ecology- aiming at sustainable and regenerative economics. We are convinced that a possibility of a quality life exists, where human needs are guaranteed to the world’s entire population- as long as we ask ourselves basic questions on what societal structures and productive activities are truly appropriate to meeting human needs for all. At the end of the day, the goal is to liberate our time to engage in exactly that which each of us wants to be doing- instead of what we need to do to survive. All have the potential to thrive. Today, an increasingly smaller percentage of the world’s population is in this position. About …………………………………………………………………………………… Open Source Ecology http://opensourceecology.org/about-overview/ 3/4
Since 2003, we have gained much more clarity on our mission. We have been transitioning steadily from vision to execution—via the GVCS and the radically efficient, distributed production methods that lead to 1-day production times of heavy machines. This is a metric of efficiency that underlies our work—and indicates that the economic power of distributed production is real—and that open development is the next industrial revolution. We believe that the open source economy is an idea whose time has come.
http://opensourceecology.org/about-overview/ 4/4 Yüklə 310,84 Kb. Dostları ilə paylaş:
|