Re: benefits of the public domain and limited copyright terms?

On Tue, 9 May 2000, Dodi Schultz <schultz[_at_]compuserve.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 08 May 2000, Anthony McCann <anthony.mccann[_at_]ul.ie> wrote:
> >
> > I am of the opinion that the conceptualisation of public domain
> > may be causing as many problems as the conceptualisation of
> > copyright. Both work on a premise of more or less 'frictionless
> > space', something which is a consequence of market economics.
> > Public domain, especially when equated with 'traditional', also
> > feeds on the idea of Open Access, which traditional cultures
> > most definitely aren't.
>
> You may be saying something interesting. Can you rephrase that in
> straightforward English, with reference to copyright laws?

I'm not sure how to take the reference to straightforward English, but I can elaborate a little more.

Referring it to copyright laws is a bit of a problem as it is more a question of the silences in copyright law and its associated discourses, not what is there.

Frictionless space refers to the way in which the market (the invisible hand), copyright (the invisible author), and public domain (which is where exactly?) are applied as universal concepts which are separated from any sort of relational understanding of space. This is mainly because all of the above are based on premises which stem from epistemological dichotomies of mind and body which privilege the mind side of things. For an interesting analysis of law and space see (Blomley, Nicholas K. 1994 Law, Space, and the Geographies of Power. New York and London: The Guilford Press). Space and, most importantly, relational space, is often the forgotten ingredient in law and science in so far as it is based on mind-dominated formulations. Once laws or rules are established as truths that apply to all then they do not acknowledge the localisation of knowledges or practices, except in relation to those laws or rules.

Once we identify some'thing' as having 'entered' the 'public domain' it enters the realm of free-for-all, or Open Access property. Nothing with people in the mix is truly open access. By designating certain things as Open Access we remove all opportunity for those things to act as the focus for the accumulation of CULTURAL capital (status, reputation etc.), because the relational dimension is stripped away (apparently). Relationships create friction, and require us to negotiate our way through life. 'Universal' laws work in frictionless arenas that do not acknowledge the complexities of life.

I'm still working on all of this stuff, and as I said, I haven't actually gone near public domain in my work yet. Will be on the road as of tomorrow and will not be able to respond in great detail.

All the best,

Anthony McCann
<anthony.mccann[_at_]ul.ie> Received on Wed May 10 2000 - 11:13:52 GMT