The similarity between blog and printing press is to obvious to go unnoticed, and many have extended on this allegory. But Eisenstein’s account highlights details which most advocates of the rise of those who were formerly called the audience will likely overlook. Who would have guessed that crowdsourcing is a practice half a millenium old? But indeed, early printers of maps and globes and natural compendia already asked their readers to contribute their discoveries to following editions, as Eisenstein shows. “After printing, large-scale data collection did become subjects to new forms of feedback which had not been possible in the age of scribes.” #

This, of course, is not the collaborative process enabled by the Internet which we see today in the Wikipedia, and which Clay Shirky invests so much hope in. But Eisenstein’s work is fascinating because it allows us to look for the general principles that communications revolutions come with. Enhanced feedback processes, it seems, are one of them. #

I have often heard from sceptics that they don’t see any new ideas in blogs. How can a medium be revolutionary if it just spreads the contents of its traditional predecessors, undermixed with urban myths and conspiracy theories, they ask. A historical perspective seems helpful, because the same is true for the printing press: Early printed books did barely contain any new content; in fact, they often served to spread myths and charlatanry, alongside the same old, unscientific theories as before. #

Eisenstein claims that there is a benefit in knowing three wrong theories instead of one. From comparison, their inconsistence can be realized – and new, better-fitting theories can be devised. We might think similarly about the Internet. My generation has already grown up with near infinite sources of information at their hands, open for comparison. Surely, most people don’t use these intellectual pastures of plenty, but what can they effect as tools of those who do? #

“The Printing Revolution in Early Modern Europe” had originally come to my attention via a mention in Graeme Kirkpatrick’s “Technology & Social Power”. There, the author enhances Eisenstein’s arguments in connecting it with Habermas’ writings on the emergence of the “public sphere”. He writes that “only through the agency of print [...] does it become possible for people to think of themselves as members of an ‘imagined community’, the basis of modern nationalism”. #

The fascinating question that arises is, of course, whether this development will find an equivalent in the social media age. Ala’a Abdel Fattah recently wrote, regarding the current revolutions in the Middle East, that “[f]rom the internet and satellite TV a new pan-Arabism is born”, and Zeynep Tufekci (when rebutting Malcolm Gladwell) touched on hopes for an social media-enabled globalism as a possible force against global problems such as climate change: #

New movements that can bring about global social change will still require people who interact with each other regularly, and trust and depend on each other in somewhat dense networks. Or only hope is if those networks span the globe in a tightly-knit, broad web of activity, interaction, personalization. Real change will come only if we can make friends we care about everywhere and we make bridge ties that cover the world in a web of common humanity that is bigger and more powerful than a handful of corporations and the corrupt, self-perpetuating class of politicians. [...] I say, bring on the hive mind, please let it be global in scale as nothing less will do, and let Facebook and Twitter lead the way. #

I think that’s wildly optimistic. I see very little conversation outside of individual regions, with the exception of a few cross-continent ties (Kenya to Ghana, for instance.) It’s rare to see dialog between Anglophone and Francophone speakers, for instance, and the conceptual barrier that separates sub-Saharan and Northern Africa remains firmly in place in a digital age. I’d love to see digital media emerge into regional media, and will wait to see that before I indulge in Nkrumist fantasies. #

The book places particular emphasis on the plight of libraries, and those who use them, under Argentina’s restrictive 1933 copyright law, and another 2001 one that is cynically named “law for the advancement of the book and the culture of reading”. The country’s regulations are particularly tough, as they do not include exceptions common in most copyright regimes, e.g. for librarians. As Lucía Pelaya and Ana Sanllorenti write, their colleagues are thus constantly under threat from law enforcement if they want to preserve their institutes’ portfolios. Or, as Federico Reggiano puts it, “one cannot pursue serious research in Argentina anymore without becoming a criminal.” #

A case of copyright enforcement that has become known beyond the border of Argentina has been that of Horacio Potel, professor of philosophy at the University of Lanús and webmaster of a series of online libraries featuring Spanish translations of the works of Heidegger, Derrida, and others. In an interview with Beatriz Busaniche, Potel explains his motivation for creating these archives that eventually got him charged by the Argentinian state (the case was later dropped). Works by foreign authors, he says, are often just not available in Argentina. The rights are held by international corporations which neglect them for years, and eventual print runs are small and sell out soon. #

One particularly smart essay, also dealing with publishing monopolies, was penned by Federico Heinz, spokesman of the GNU project. He writes about “electronic books, dry water, and other mythical creatures”. It is a powerful refutation of ebooks, which he says are, in fact, digital archives with a use that’s limited even compared to printed books, only marketed by the publishing industry in order to preserve control over the business. #

While the book features its share of tales about the librarian / artist / student in distress, it also highlights successes from Argentina that might not be known abroad. Marilina Winik, for instance, writes about “copyleft publishing houses”. First there was censorship during the military dictatorship in the seventies and eighties, she finds, later a sell-out to international corporations in the nineties, and finally a national financial crisis in 2001: Reason enough for independent publishers to start using licenses such as Creative Commons, and for some authors to add individual comments like this one by writer Paul Strucchi: #

Everybody may do with this whatever he likes. Distribute me, if you find it interesting. The only thing I ask from you is not to make money at my expense. Just let me know, that’s pretty simple with today’s technology. If you don’t do it, it’s better I never get to know, because otherwise I will trash your car with the steering wheel, and then you can complain to your lawyers. #

Overall, “Argentina Copyleft” is a good starter to get an overview of what is going on with the country’s cultural commons. Some chapters, especially those specific to Argentina, are worth reading more than others, though. #

“Argentina Copyleft” is published under a Creative Commons by-sa license and is available as a free download in German from the Heinrich Böll Foundation and in Spanish from Vía Libre. #

Here’s a video by filmmaker Jon Rawlinson, recorded in the Okinawa Churaumi Aquarium and watched about a million times on different platforms until now: #

Kuroshio Sea – 2nd largest aquarium tank in the world – (song is Please don’t go by Barcelona) from Jon Rawlinson on Vimeo. #

Niggemeier tells the compelling story of this video: #

A particular charm of this film is accounted for by the music, and that Jon Rawlinson actually must not use. Even though he properly names the source and even links to the title on iTunes – he has not asked the group Barcelona, by which the track is, for admission. He has just taken what isn’t his. #

What happened now? #

Many people who liked the track (and who could listen to it and even download it from Youtube at any time) bought the track on iTunes. And the album climbed, although it’s nearly two years old, suddenly into the rock charts of the American iTunes store; e.g. yesterday it ranked 53rd. #

And the band itself had its say and uploaded a video answer on YouTube. In it they say how much they are flattered about Rawlinson choosing their music, introduce themselves, thank and advertise their tour on which they had already met people who noticed them via the aquarium video: #

Niggemeier draws the conclusion that “the moral [of this story] is not that anybody may just ignore the copyright of others [...]. The moral of this story is that not every unauthorized use of a work harms the artist.” #

While I agree with Niggemeier on this, I think this story is above all a brilliant example of how Creative Commons licensing works for the best of artists as well as society. Had their music been CC licensed, Rawlinson had had the right to use Barcelona’s music in his video. If the Creative Commons license had been one that allows for derivative works, that is. #

That’s the reason why I strongly advocate for the use of Creative Commons licenses that enable others to build upon ones own work. Giving others the right not only to share, but also to remix what one has created means providing other artists with material for their creation. The reward can be diverse – and, as we see in the case of Barcelona, even monetary. #

(Ironically, this post is itself a breach of Niggemeier’s copyright.) #

[youtube RZwM3GvaTRM]
Buffy vs. Edward by Jonathan McIntosh is published under a Creative Commons by-nc-3.0 license. #

At this point, “Buffy vs. Edward” could be classified as a nicely done piece of fan fiction. I have seen some better, and many worse, and since I am not very interested in teenage vampires (or vampire slayers, for the matter) I could zap to the next viral video, just as we do so often. #

With this mash-up, by doing so you would miss the best. This is not just fan fiction, this is one of the most sophisticated uses of online video for social change I have seen so far. #

In a guest post for “Women in Media & News”, Jonathan McIntosh writes about his work: #

“Buffy vs Edward is essentially an answer to the question ‘What Would Buffy Do?’ My re-imagined story was specifically constructed as a response to Edward, and what his behavior represents in our larger social context for both men and women. More than just a showdown between The Slayer and the Sparkly Vampire, it’s also a humorous visualization of the metaphorical battle between two opposing visions of gender roles in the 21ist century.” #

“At their best, mash-up videos can serve as a form of critical media literacy, exposing myths and messages embedded in media typically masked by glossy Hollywood productions,” #

“It’s really good, I liked the girl power it showed. I’ve watched it like 10 times and showed it to my friends. It’s the best thing I have ever seen on the internet!” #

McIntosh himself chose to put his mash-up under a Creative Commons license that allows further derivation of his own work. #

He has also taken the opportunity to make his video easily translatable by putting it up on DotSub, crowdsourcing translations in 20 languages. #

The latter two points mean that McIntosh is giving away a lot of his control over his work. He allows it to be spread, even altered, and he encourages others to translate the video in languages he has no command of. It is the best he can do to spread his message. #