Ny åndsverkslov

John Kay i Financial Times med nok en glimrende kronikk. Man kan jo håpe noen norske politikere tenker seg om før de løper de eksisterende mellommennenes ærender i en kamp de åpenbart vil tape. Et tap som kan skje raskt og smidig, eller langsomt og smertefullt. Et utdrag, men les hele kronikken (mine uthevinger).

Britain has for generations enjoyed an enviable competitive advantage in music and book publishing. The future of these industries is now in the hands of three US companies – Apple, Amazon and Google. In the face of supine government policies, only these organisations have had the strength to challenge the political and market dominance of vested interests.

Traditional music publishers and the retailers through whom they distributed are failing, not because less is being spent on music – it is not – but because less is being spent through them. Their decline was probably inevitable, because the digital revolution fundamentally undermined their business model. But the publishers initially made no serious attempt to adapt, seeking instead to use legal powers to shut the new technologies down. These efforts were predictably futile. In books, Amazon rapidly broke the resistance of conventional publishers to making their works cheaply available in electronic format – so rapidly that in the US sales of digital books now rival traditional formats.

As the commercial market is being transformed, anyone who thinks that the policy challenge is to restrict internet piracy has missed the point. Such thinking confuses, as Carter did, the development of successful businesses with the welfare of the industry’s established large companies. The result is that UK companies, and the UK government, are now no more than bit players in a play staged on the other side of the Atlantic. The UK government is at least more enlightened than the European Commission, which seems to be playing in quite another show – one where trade associations and naive artists are the only audience.

Many creative people have been persuaded that these technological developments threaten their interests, but they are wrong. There is huge potential benefit to authors and musicians from faster and cheaper distribution systems, and from a closer relationship between the originator and the user – the bypassing of publishers that these businesses understandably fear.

Oppdatering: Jan Omdahl skriver godt om eG8-møtet i Paris. Som Yochi Benkler sier: “Du kan gjøre nettet trygt for Justin Bieber, eller du kan gjøre det trygt for det neste Skype”. Sålangt ser det ut som om politikerne her hjemme har mest sans for Bieber.

One Comment
  1. Når det gjelder åndsverkslovgivning så har forbrukerne eller utviklingslandene aldri vært spurt, kanskje fordi man har antatt at det er som å spørre om noen vil ha mindre rettigheter. Forlagsindustrien, musikkindustrien og programvarelobbyen har vært de eneste som har fått sin vilje gjennom nesten alle reformer som har skjedd opp gjennom historien. Nå har man erkjent at det har gått over alle støvleskaft, også konservative ip-jurister og ip-økonomer mener nok dette nå. Et eksempel er Christopher May som skriver:

    “This balance, the key issue in the politics of intellectual property,
    was tipped largely in the favour of the owners of IPRs by the TRIPs
    agreement. At the time many argued this was a new standard from which
    owners could build further protection for their rights. However, it now
    seems that the TRIPs agreement rather than finally consolidating the
    expanded rights linked to IPRs, actually represented the high-water mark
    from which subsequent political pressure and contest has forced a
    partial retreat, and the beginning of a return to the sort of balance
    that has been achieved through most of the long, and at times
    contentious, history of protecting intellectual property.”

    http://www.e-ir.info/?p=1899

    Det at EU har lånt øre til multinasjonale selskaper framfor befolkningens generelle interesser er jo heller ingen nyhet, men nå er det i det minste bekreftet av 120 forskere i et gigantprosjekt som har vart i fem år:

    “EU-domstolen har gjennom sine dommer tiltatt seg stadig mer
    innflytelse  på å utforme EUs politikk til beste for multinasjonale
    private interesser.”
    http://www.abcnyheter.no/nyheter/110520/eu-er-ikke-demokratisk

    Men det skjer også mye hyggelig, det er veldig oppmuntrende når CERN, Royal Society, MIT, Stanford, Harvard, NASA, National Science Foundation etc. legger sin tyngde bak krav til åpenhet innen forskningssektoren for eksempel. http://royalsociety.org/policy/sape/

    Medvedev på WEF og WIPO sin leder har også uttalt seg ganske krasst mot dysfunksjonaliteten til IP-lovene i verden, så det er nok stadig mere tvil i maktens bastioner om det egentlig er så veldig hensiktsmessig å bare innrømme ip-lobbyistene stadig utvidede privilegier. Dessuten så er kan man jo lure på hva som skjer når patentporteføljen til i-landene etterhvert går ut på dato, og Kina, Brasil og India eventuelt overtar som ledende patenthavere.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *