I want to take videos from Youtube, download them, open them and put them back, change the audio, take one of my documentaries of the 'Magnificent' turn of the scenes in Second Life, as I know, the childhood of Miles Davis in the South, moved to New York, scenggiarle dialogues and special effects for films, and then actual pictures, I want to be able to edit every single object audio, video, graphics, presentations that I find on the net, I want to rebuild via Rasella in 3D and put the soldiers of the film Retaliation, we want to put Amendola on his face that tells older interviewed by Bisiach, I want the hand Mona Lisa's loose and like Dali's watch, because everything has been said, the only possible and recombine them, and groped to find a new track of truth.
But the barons of intellectual property not let me. First the authors themselves, seriously believe that it is still able to put together something original, or even ignorant enough to ignore the huge amount of rewriting of old things, and those streets, above, thoroughly refuted, which annually invade the field of knowledge. Then the large multinationals that this slap on the indecent sacred humanity (to own and exchange knowledge as a commodity, through a market), have not only constructed a paradoxical and unfair business empire, but they also bypassed and bent to their will malign the patent law, cloning, inventing and patenting living species, parts of the ecosystem.
They are the ones I create encrypted files, which tell Youtube to closed files, I can not edit. It 'frustrating to have the largest library in the world media does not help you. But not to mention it, change it. To hybridize with itself. To make true experimentation in the audiovisual field. And for this experiment to open the field of all the arts, and with the help of all.
The User-Generated Content is only the tip of the iceberg. The mode of construction processes of know could (and should) change. No longer the old intellectual and lost only one of its dilemmas, but the ongoing dialogue, the rediscovery of the true sharing of studies and content. I can and I want to work alone, fine, but I can not do it without looking, and contemplate if I want to cite or edit the work of others. And besides all the processes taking place in the world now require attention composite, generally, the famous 'collaborative strategies' globally.
We, we who are here, (and finally some of the older generation on our Facebook is realizing the possibilities that open up), we see that, we should push as much as possible to this level human interaction, which should also include the economy, for the management of power, for democracy. But if this movement, this revolution does not start from the artists, authors, by those who produce the content at every level, from the blog on public television, and many are never able to get the economy, let alone in politics. The concept of Open Source should now include also the logic of learning, politics and ethics, the whole society.
In a dream the future, the control infrastructure of the laws of a country is not well managed 15, but 15,000 people, who have the opportunity to examine the electronic voting variants important financial to 150,000 people. The entire management of information is pure and perfect competition, there is no exchange of property, but advances in global and instant knowledge. The economy itself leaves the management scientist to enter in a humanistic, even though post-human.
But authors and publishers association works on behalf of a no longer conceivable 'properties'. And do not comprehend that 'property', in an area where replicability is now complete, is a useless and damaging concept. If the earth is infinitely replicable who never would dream of claiming a property? It would not be such a better more serious' writers' union ', taking care of their value only in the contracting stage, where we are unfortunately very weak, and the works could eventually be sold once. Then the work should pass into the hands of the world.
All this has nothing to do with piracy, nor with an ill-concealed desire to vandalism by hackers. It is one thing to have access to content for work and amend. A different account is to sell the contents of others. Logic would dictate that in an open source world this is all a pointless discussion, but this is where they should change their mechanisms.
The publisher, which until now was concerned about duplicate content and sell it, has been largely replaced. The distributor, who cared to send the content destination, has been largely replaced. Here the difference is much smaller and closer to the author - the public, and Facebook is here to prove it. No more people in the middle.
Think about it: the liberal and progressive thinking that can come together in this revolution?
