1 ReviewWrite review? id=LIm3AAAACAAJ. Wolna kultura. By Lawrence Lessig. About this book. 15 Lawrence Lessig, Wolna Kultura [Free Culture] (Wydawnictwa Szkolne i Pedagogiczne, Warszawa, ), p. 16 See Creative Commons, Choose a . book by Lawrence Lessig. Lawrence Lessig. 2 references. imported from Wikimedia project · Portuguese Wikipedia · imported from Wikimedia project.
|Published (Last):||28 December 2016|
|PDF File Size:||12.55 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||3.84 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
The predominant objective of the anthropology of new media, a specific and rather new research area, is to indicate and analyze social interactions on the Web and its various cultural implications.
The Internet is nowadays the most interesting area of informal—but still organized in a specific, both technologic and narrative way—communication. Being media anthropologists highly interested in various acts of communication, we consider these networked micro-narrations to be the fundamental source of the anthropological research in the globalizing world.
On the Internet there appears a problem similar to the one present in the traditional field work—how to observe human expressions regarding obstacles described by Bronislaw Malinowski in his diary years ago Malinowski The Internet is often regarded as the natural environment of pop-culture. However, the analysis of informal narrations on the Web enables us to treat this platitude of understanding the medium as a serious misinterpretation.
In the anthropological perspective the Internet is a real space of symbolic exchange and the most important way of contemporary communication. The problem is that the Internet is in fact the American technology.
Each medium has its own language which depends on the culture of its origin. Therefore, the fact that the Internet is the American technology results in various forms of representation of American ideologies in the medium. This is a unique form of colonialism which can be regarded as a positive process. In the case of Internet—the American Dream as a cultural and economic myth has been reconstructed and instantly deconstructed. The architecture of intelligence is the architecture of connectivity.
It is the architecture that brings together the three main spatial environments that we live in and with today: De Kerckhove7. One may ask if technology itself can provoke libertarian tendencies or whether the process of technological development leads to the form of technology aimed to offer a new area of freedom. Never ever before—even on ancient Agora—has such an open and transformable sphere of human communication existed.
The space of freedom can be seen differently. For extreme libertarian communities the freedom of the Net should be infinite. For those who as Electronic Frontier Foundation develop from libertarianism to liberalism—it should be strengthened as much as it is possible but without breaking the law. On the other hand, the law should evolve. The problem is that people need to rebuild their understanding of the social contract.
From the beginning of the Internet, and especially after the 11th September, the visible tendency is that the US and EU governments try to control the Web on behalf of the mission of defending citizens from both defined and undefined threats. Never before in a normal democratic political system has an authority controlled private or informal communication process. Citizens used to be free to think whatever they liked. Nowadays such thoughts are registered by the mythologized Intelligence Systems Echelon and Carnivor and can be the fundaments of suspicions or even accusations directed toward a citizen.
Therefore, the sphere of informal communication is interfering with the official discourse—to the detriment of privacy. This is the official translation of liberty. However, there exist alternative translations. The Net, founded as a space of open exchange of data rapidly became the space of overuse of the freedom.
The belief in perfect user—stemming from the Rousseauvian idea of man—has been undermined by the multiple acts of electronic violence. One of the most radical organizations defending the rights of citizens on the Web—Electronic Frontier Foundation—has come to the conclusion that the innocent user is not existing, and in fact this idea has been a kind of a myth of cyber society EFF website .
Therefore, the necessity for the networked society is to provide rules and limitations of liberty. The early individualism of the Web is now replaced with social activities on various levels. From the Internet to the iPod, technologies are transforming our society and empowering us as speakers, citizens, creators, and consumers. When our freedoms in the networked world come under attack, the Electronic Frontier Foundation EFF is the first line of defense. From kulyura beginning, EFF kltura championed the public interest in every critical battle affecting digital rights.
But the Web is, first of all, its users. Today the dream of Ted Nelson, the inventor of hypertext, is beginning to fulfill at last Nelson The Internet content is nowadays not the collection of static, linked data but the dynamic knowledge construction being constantly rebuilt or remixed by Internet users.
On one hand the popularity of projects like Wikipedia indicates the importance of social communication and collective construction of knowledge. It means as well that knowledge is distributed quickly and directly to interested groups and can become the object of discussion.
Knowledge is therefore a social construct and depends on the level of engagement in sharing and communicating—it is in fact a process of dialogue. Openness is here a kind of freedom and ability to control the discourse. Discussions and votings are the basic rules of common monitoring of the content.
Free Culture – Wikidata
Authorship is thus the power of sharing knowledge, not keeping the position of authority. Ideas expressed by Wikipedians are clearly showing constructivist consciousness of this community—where leading ideas are to build the social construct of human knowledge of a particular time in an appropriate form and with all consequences. Society is regarded by Berger and Luckmann as the product of communication and interaction.
They claim that objective reality is always a social construct, the result of inter-human connections, and that man is a social construct as well. This implies the mutual dependency between an individual and a society.
Creators kutlura Wikipedia are aware of these problems, and the product they are creating is regarded by them as a kind of process of negotiation of senses. Wikipedia is both the product and the process. It may seem at the moment not to be very valuable as a product but it is now a very promissing process, which is continuously developing and which has quite a big chance to dolna a valuable product.
Wopna article is being continuously changed and improved, so it has a chance to become really perfect in the end. The idea of Wiki is used not only to create encyclopaedia. It serves as well to construct bases of knowledge by groups of experts. Technologies of Wiki are used for example in very complex procedures connected with design of web applications.
In this discipline knowledge is often disseminated and the only way to gather it is to combine the ideas of a specific group of people possessing different competences and experience on the subject. However, such Wikis are not available for external users.
This is the continuation of former economic order where the knowledge is the consumer goods. Wikipedia is—in opposition to closed analogue and digital knowledge networks—the tool of decommercialization of human knowledge. It revolutionizes the way of thinking of property, especially intellectual.
Lawrence Lessig understood that culture development means remixing its contents freely, operating on masterpieces of previous epochs, rebuilding and reconfiguring texts and images of both well known and forgotten artists Lessig Creative Commons movement works in opposition to American system of law-protected knowledge distribution.
American culture was born free, and for almost years our country consistently protected a vibrant and rich free culture. But the nature of the property that builds a free culture is very different from the extremist vision that dominates the debate today. Free culture is increasingly the casualty in this war on piracy.
In response to a real, if not yet quantified, threat that the technologies of the Internet present to twentieth-century business models for producing and distributing culture, the law and technology are being transformed in a way that will undermine our tradition of free culture. The property right that is copyright is no longer the balanced right that it was, or was intended to be. The property right that is copyright has become unbalanced, tilted toward an extreme.
The opportunity to create and transform becomes weakened in a world in which creation requires permission and creativity must check with a lawyer. Creative Commons fundaments can be found in the concept that each artistic creation can be free or open to remix if its author allows other people to do this CC website.
Instead of closing an art piece in a gallery armored with alarm systems and protected by guards and lawyers specialized in copyright—authors can distribute their works freely and without restrictions or with some only.
Editions of Free Culture: The Nature and Future of Creativity by Lawrence Lessig
The change lawrejce significant—authors often feel imprisoned by the law which disrupts contact with the audience. The aim is to free contemporary electronic culture. Lessig claims that a free culture can develop faster than a closed one—which is positive both for artists and recipients Lessjg What is also important, in this kind of interaction artistic and economic goals are gained as the transmission of senses and creating of the social construct is accelerating.
Creative Commons lets artists leave mediators and distribute the art directly to the audience. This kind of activity provokes of course strong disapproval among lawyers and media owners. This is why Web 2.
Currently societies stand on the edge of the next step: Internet indicates a new way. What does it mean? Although it does not mean that corporations will fall or dissappear not at all, in fact they are even better than ever beforeit means that they are no longer the only power distributing senses.
The kulltura important fact is lawgence the Internet is today the most powerful tool to collect knowledge and retain memory of mankind. Projects such as Internet Archive put emphasis on the storing aspect of the Web. It is not simply a digital library or museum—the logic of this storage is different from the traditional one. This idea is to ensure the open access to cultural heritage on both levels of canon texts and informal narrations.
This is the translation of freedom from the perspective of the mankind memory. Collaborating with institutions including the Library of Congress and the Smithsonian, we are working to preserve a record for generations to come. Open and free access to literature and kultuea writings has long been considered ,awrence to education and to the maintenance of an open society. On one hand the Internet is the biggest lawrencf of semiosis, and on the other—its main problem is the usability of enormous amount of accessible data.
David Weinberger suggests that the Web is contradicting the Aristotelian order of things Weinberger In fact he means Web 2. Therefore, the Web logic is indicated by:.
A page is what it points lexsig. Multiple tags, not simple meanings: A thing gains more meaning by having multiple local meanings. Messiness, not clean order: