"Any argument over what should or should not be considered a
public domain for cultural works stems from one of two positions:
Position #1 -
Everything created by humans is “work”
that is done in order to gain income and
which cannot continue to be done without
that income. Therefore, all pieces of
cultural “work” need to be compensated (usually on a per-unit
basis) if we expect such work to continue. And therefore, to
become a “user” of such work without providing compensation
is to rob the creator of a rightful and necessary payment. This
position—the ethical and economic standard for cultural creation
that we’ve become accustomed to—stems directly from
our evolution through a pre-digital, hard-copy-based world in
which the supply of anything made was necessarily physical and
supply-limited in nature. The physical supply of anything made
was controlled by the maker of that thing, and any units or
copies of it were doled out exclusively by the maker. This condition
quite naturally evoked and supported the above ethic in a
material world that provided virtually no other options.
Position #2 -
Digital technologies of reproduction
have dragged the above ethic into a
world of new production realities; individual
“works” are still being created,
but once a digital copy of a work is released, it’s up for reproducing
grabs. Anyone on the receiving end (the audience) is
capable of making their own indistinguishable copies ad infinitum
and distributing them ad infinitum as well. And these
individuals can do this at home, at little cost, using consumer
technology available to most anyone. In other words, we have
begun to allow the whole receiving end of cultural output to
put themselves in charge of the reproduction and distribution
of others’ cultural work if they so wish.
This Internet-only condition of free public copying may
diminish traditional, per-unit, creator compensation to some as
yet unknown degree. As music makers, for example, we are
no longer in charge of our own music once it actually leaves
our hands in digitized form. We cannot control the further
duplication and distribution of our music by those who receive
it via digital media. This unexpected and perplexing reality has
begun to encourage a different ethic with an unknown economic
standard for digitized cultural work. Those who have
always upheld Position One appear oblivious to this ethic,
but, of course, it’s really nothing new at all, emerging as it does
from a very old ethic, one that every effort of private capitalism
over the last century has sought to deflect, delay, and
smother: the concept of public domain."
Excerpt from TWO RELATIONSHIPS TO A CULTURAL PUBLIC DOMAIN
by Negativland
This 15,000 word essay was part of Negativland’s 2005 CD/video/book/whoopee cushion project “No Business.” It was Negativland’s attempt, circa 2005, to write a definitive essay on the subjects of art, music, copyright law, culture and technology. If you want to know Negativland’s “official” take on these topics, this is the essay to read. Download as pdf
here.