Netzpolitik – what's next?

The Guerilla Open Access Manifesto

admin — Thu, 12 Sep 2013 12:42:48 +0000

Information is power. But like all power, there are those who want to keep it for themselves. The world’s entire scientific and cultural heritage, published over centuries in books and journals, is increasingly being digitized and locked up by a handful of private corporations. Want to read the papers featuring the most famous results of the sciences? You’ll need to send enormous amounts to publishers like Reed Elsevier.
There are those struggling to change this. The Open Access Movement has fought valiantly to ensure that scientists do not sign their copyrights away but instead ensure their work is published on the Internet, under terms that allow anyone to access it. But even under the best scenarios, their work will only apply to things published in the future. Everything up until now will have been lost.
That is too high a price to pay. Forcing academics to pay money to read the work of their colleagues? Scanning entire libraries but only allowing the folks at Google to read them? Providing scientific articles to those at elite universities in the First World, but not to children in the Global South? It’s outrageous and unacceptable.
“I agree”, many say, “but what can we do? The companies hold the copyrights, they make enormous amounts of money by charging for access, and it’s perfectly legal – there’s nothing we can do to stop them.” But there is something we can, something that’s already being done: we can fight back.
Those with access to these resources – students, librarians, scientistsyou have been given a privilege. You get to feed at this banquet of knowledge while the rest of the world is locked out. But you need not – indeed, morally, you cannot – keep this privilege for yourselves. You have a duty to share it with the world. And you have: trading passwords with colleagues, filling download requests for friends.
Meanwhile, those who have been locked out are not standing idly by. You have been sneaking through holes and climbing over fences, liberating the information locked up by the publishers and sharing them with your friends.
But all of this action goes on in the dark, hidden underground. It’s called stealing or piracy, as if sharing a wealth of knowledge were the moral equivalent of plundering a ship and murdering its crew. But sharing isn’t immoral – it’s a moral imperative. Only those blinded by greed would refuse to let a friend make a copy.
Large corporations, of course, are blinded by greed. The laws under which they operate require it – their shareholders would revolt at anything less. And the politicians they have bought off back them, passing laws giving them the exclusive power to decide who can make copies.
There is no justice in following unjust laws. It’s time to come into the light and, in the grand tradition of civil disobedience, declare our opposition to this private theft of public culture.
We need to take information, wherever it is stored, make our copies and share them with the world. We need to take stuff that’s out of copyright and add it to the archive. We need to buy secret databases and put them on the Web. We need to download scientific journals and upload them to file sharing networks. We need to fight for Guerilla Open Access.
With enough of us, around the world, we’ll not just send a strong message opposing the privatization of knowledge – we’ll make it a thing of the past. Will you join us?

Wiederabdruck
Der Text wurde 2008 von Aaron Swartz geschrieben und am 7. August 2011
unter http://thescienceofdestruction.wordpress.com/2011/08/07/the-guerillaopen-access-manifesto/ [22.3.2013] veröffentlicht.

Tot war der Autor nie. Urheberrecht für alle: Der ZEIT-Aufruf versucht, einen Keil zwischen die Kreativen zu treiben.

admin — Thu, 12 Sep 2013 12:42:47 +0000

In der Krise wird gerne das Reale beschworen, das vermeintlich Feste und Solide, Anker im Strudel des medialen Wandels, Insel im reißenden Strom der Virtualisierung. So imaginiert Thomas Assheuer gegen Ende seines ZEIT-Essays zum »Tod des Autors« (Nr. 19/12) die chinesischen Arbeitssklaven in den Fabrikhöllen von Apple und Co. als Realität hinter dem Schein der Gadgets, und er deutet an, dass auch der westeuropäische Kreative, »Subjekt als Fleisch und Blut«, noch ein »zweites Leben«, »eine Existenz in der analogen und leibhaftigen Wirklichkeit« führe. Sobald er nur das Netz verlasse, »den täuschenden Schein des Egalitären und die Gleichheit der User«, betrete er das Reale.
Dort, im Realen, wähnt sich offenbar auch jene Gruppe von UrheberInnen, die mit einem Aufruf gegen den »Diebstahl geistigen Eigentums« für eine Verschärfung des Urheberrechts als »historischer Errungenschaft bürgerlicher Freiheit« eintritt – vor allem mit Blick auf Digitalisierung und Internet. Während der kurze Aufruftext in Sachen Urheberrecht erstaunlich im Unklaren bleibt, ist der Hinweis auf die bürgerliche Freiheit prägnant und aussagekräftig. Denn hier sieht sich eine Gruppe in ihrer Freiheit bedroht, einer Freiheit, die in der bürgerlichen Gesellschaft traditionell einer kleinen Zahl »geistig« Arbeitender zugestanden wurde. Diese Freiheit ist in der Tat infrage gestellt, aber nicht durch eine Krise des Urheberrechts oder gar durch eine unübersehbare Masse räuberischer KonsumentInnen, sondern weil das Kognitive, die Produktion von Wissen zur zentralen Ressource des Kapitalismus der Gegenwart geworden ist.
Was sich in Thomas Assheuers Analogieführung zwischen chinesischen Arbeitssklaven und Kreativen andeutet, sind zunächst neue Ungleichheiten der Arbeitsteilung im kognitiven Kapitalismus. Die Domäne des Kognitiven ist heute nicht mehr nur die privilegierte Erfahrung eines Häufleins von »Geistigen« – immaterielle, affektive und künstlerische Arbeit rückt vielmehr ins Zentrum der Verwertung und Ausbeutung. Während die Drecksarbeit und ihre Fabriken zunehmend in die Peripherien ausgelagert werden, setzt sich auch in den globalen Metropolen die Prekarisierung von Wissens- und Kulturarbeit durch. In den diffusen Fabriken des Wissens schuften die Kreativen, ihr Intellekt wird zerstreut und zugleich zur Kooperation angeregt. In diesem Setting gerinnen Kreativität und Wissen zur Ware, die wie materielle Waren gefertigt, fabriziert und gehandelt wird.
Gleichzeitig entzieht sich die Wissensproduktion immer wieder der Warenform. Denn das Wissen durchquert uns, Individuen wie Kollektive. Geist als Eigentum ist die Erfindung einer Epoche, die das Urheber-Individuum in der Logik des bürgerlichen Subjekts als Lichtgestalt der Freiheit konstruiert hat. Heute, im kognitiven Kapitalismus, entsteht Wissen in der Kooperation. Außerhalb ihrer entsteht es nicht. Allerdings herrschen in diesem neuen Kapitalismus Verhältnisse, die an die Frühphase der industriellen Revolution erinnern: Der Ansturm der Kreativen auf die Wissensfabriken, zu denen unsere Metropolen geworden sind, erlaubt es, sie gegeneinander auszuspielen, ihre Löhne zu senken und ihnen überhöhte Lebenskosten im urbanen Raum aufzubürden.
Die Armutsfalle ist höchst real. Aber davon steht im Aufruf kein Wort. Vielmehr klingt im moralisierenden Insistieren der Urheber eine verzweifelte Pose der Spaltung durch: »Wir sind die Urheber« – und nicht ihr! Hier sorgt sich eine Gruppe um ihre soziale Position als AutorInnen, denen das Publikum stumm zu Füßen sitzt. Doch das Publikum ist schon lange aufgestanden.
In der neuesten Ausgabe der Wiener Zeitschrift Kulturrisse mit dem schönen Titelthema »Urheberrecht für alle« fragt sich Elisabeth Mayerhofer: »Warum prügeln Künstler_innen auf ihr potenzielles Publikum ein, anstatt die Verwerter_innen dazu zu bringen, ihre Inhalte in einer zeitgemäßen Form anzubieten?« Aus der anachronistischen Grenzziehung vonseiten des Wir der Urheber spricht die Empörung darüber, dass der Abstand zwischen Autor und Publikum kleiner geworden ist und dass sich eine Vielzahl neuer Rollen und Betätigungsfelder aufgetan hat, in der nicht mehr so einfach zwischen (hochwertiger) geistig-produktiver Arbeit und (niedrigwertiger) materiell-produktiver Arbeit unterschieden werden kann.
Das alles hat nichts mit dem Tod des Autors zu tun, sondern mit seiner Vervielfältigung. Tot war der Autor ja nie, er hatte sich nur einige Zeit diskursiv in den Netzen der Relationalität verfangen, die ihn aber immer wieder produzieren, so wie jeder Autor diese Netze mitproduziert. Und nun zeigt er sich also wieder, und zwar in doppelter Gestalt: einerseits – kaum verdeckt – als Instrument der Kulturindustrie. Dieses Überbleibsel klassisch-fordistischer Industrie braucht die Figur der bedrohten bürgerlichen Kultur und den emphatischen Urheberbegriff des Schöpfers als ideologischen Überbau, unter dessen Schutz einige wenige Spezialisten Massenware für die stummen Endverbraucher produzieren. Kampagnen wie Acta haben den Vorzug der Deutlichkeit, insofern sie die asymmetrische Allianz zwischen verdeckten Verwertungsinteressen und Öffentlichkeit generierenden Künstlerpersönlichkeiten klar ans Licht bringen.
Zum anderen erscheint »der Autor« allerdings auch als Vielheit, in der er nicht verschwindet, aber auch keinen Anspruch auf »Werkherrschaft« mehr stellen kann und will. Vielmehr geht es um flexible, nach vielen Seiten offene Austauschprozesse, die nicht von den alten oder neuen Verwertungsindustrien eingehegt sind. Die Äußerungen dieser Vielheit, das sind nicht nur die künstlerischen Produktionen in Remixes, Samples und Assemblagen, das sind die Äußerungen der heutigen AutorInnen in einem weiteren Sinn, auch und noch immer im Sinne des Urheberrechts, das sind die Äußerungen jeder twitternden Piratin und jedes bloggenden Volksschülers.
Deshalb stellt sich auch das Problem der Abspaltung des Realen vom Medialen nicht mehr in derselben Weise. Im kognitiven Kapitalismus geht es weniger denn je um eine Trennung zwischen »virtueller« Medialität und »realer« Sozialität. Mit den Social Media und den neuesten Gadgets der Bewusstseinsindustrie hat diese maschinische Sozialität längst ein Stadium erreicht, das Mensch-Maschine-Verhältnisse nicht mehr als Beziehung der Unterordnung beschreibbar macht. Real ist gerade das Anhängen an den Maschinen, das Begehren nach ihnen, schließlich auch die Abhängigkeit von ihnen. Nur vor dem Hintergrund dieses heute unhintergehbar gewordenen wechselseitigen Verhältnisses zwischen Mensch und Maschine lassen sich Wege finden, nicht vollständig dienstbar zu werden. Da gibt es keine Realität hinter dem »Schein« der Gadgets, kein »zweites Leben in der analogen und leibhaftigen Wirklichkeit«, genauso wie es keine Flucht gibt in das second life der virtuellen Netze.
Den Austausch in den Zwischenräumen neuer Medien und Maschinen zu verhindern und zu kriminalisieren ist weder erfolgversprechend noch eine adäquate Antwort auf die gegenwärtigen Herausforderungen. Verstellt wird dadurch lediglich der Blick auf die eigentlichen Fragen: Wenn es stimmt, dass Wissen in der Kooperation entsteht, was sind die heutigen Bedingungen der Kooperation? Wie können wir verhindern, dass diese von Akteuren wie Google oder Facebook diktiert werden, die ihre ganz eigenen Monopolstrategien verfolgen? Wie können wir die existenzielle Absicherung von Wissens- und Kulturarbeit auf weitere Kreise ausdehnen? Wie können wir eine horizontale Kommunikation forcieren, in der nicht mehr ein Urheber am Anfang steht, sondern in der Mitte und durch die Mitte Serien der Autorschaft, Verdichtungen, Wendungen und neue Kombinationen entstehen? Wie können wir einen transversalen Intellekt erfinden, in dem die Zahl und die Vielfalt der »Geistigen« und ihrer Austauschprozesse immer weiter vervielfältigt werden?

Wiederabdruck
Dieser Text erschien am 18. Mai 2012 auf Zeit online unter http://www.zeit.de/2012/21/Replik-Urheberrecht [8.9.2013].

Crowdsourcing and Participation. Cheaper By the Dozen. An Introduction to “crowdsourcing”

admin — Thu, 12 Sep 2013 12:42:46 +0000

A few years ago, the telecommunications company Verizon began an experiment with what they called “company-sponsored online communities for customer service,” as part of which unpaid volunteers, motivated by varying degrees of praise, worked as long as 20 hours a week for the company. One of these volunteers reports that he found the experience deeply satisfying because in his role as customer service representative he had the opportunity to help thousands of people. If “handled adeptly,” a study by the telecom giant suggested, such volunteer communities “hold considerable promise.”¹Today, volunteers translate documents, write encyclopedia articles, moderate online discussion groups, fill in surveys, and even provide legal or medical expertise. The Texas Sheriffs Border Coalition used web-based volunteers for their project Virtual Border Watch,² and a similar setup of surveillance cameras and distributed monitors, called Internet Eyes,³ is used to fight shoplifting in the United Kingdom.
There is, of course, a long tradition of people volunteering in hospitals, soup kitchens, museums, and non-profit organizations. Free labor has taken hold throughout the economy. In fast food restaurants, customers took on some of the work that was traditionally performed by waiters. In grocery stores, shoppers “opt in” to use machines that scan their purchases and accept payment, tasks that were previously performed by a cashier. In the fashion industry, companies like Forever 21 appropriate street graffiti for the design of their clothes without crediting or paying the artist.
Or, take the runaway leader in exploitative digital labor: Amazon.com’s Mechanical Turk (MTurk). You don’t have to be a media buff to join MTurk’s “elastic workforce” and “people can get paid by the penny or nickel to do tasks that a computer can’t figure out how to do but that even the dimmest bulb, if he’s a human, can do.”⁴ In one chilling instance, MTurk workers made $ 1.45 an hour, which is exploitative no matter if workers feel used.
Using MTurk, the artist xtine burrough created Mechanical Olympics, which she calls an open version of the Olympic Games where anyone can play and vote for gold medal winners. The Sheep Market,⁵ by artist Aaron Koblin, is a phalanx of 10,000 sheep, all drawn by random strangers through Amazon.com’s task-distribution mechanism.
While free labor has taken hold throughout the economy, the Internet really is the apex of this phenomenon. “Crowdsourcing,” a term that is sometimes used in this context, describes practices that were traditionally performed by one paid person but can now be more effectively executed by large numbers of people who frequently do not get paid. Often, the term is incorrectly applied to peer-production projects, as I will explain later.
“Crowdsourcing” is a thorny practice that simultaneously inspires unambiguous excitement about the potentials of the Open Web and moral indignation about the exploitation of new formations of labor. While this complexity is not always acknowledged, “crowdsourcing” is mobilized in the service of liberal ideologies bur it is also employed in support of non-commercial and explicitly anti-capitalist projects.
Etymologically, “crowdsourcing“ relates to “outsourcing.“ Companies outsource subcontract tasks to hordes of people online who may get the job done swiftly and at rock-bottom costs. However, the term „crowdsourcing“ mischaracterizes projects that bring together peers to create something because there is no centralized entrepreneur who subcontracts tasks.
While the potential for information monopolists to profit from taking ownership of our data and time is ever-present, it is not always realized. Already in the 1910s, advocates of scientific management, Frank Bunker Gilbreth, Sr. and Lillian Gilbreth, conducted time and motion studies, examining every manual twist and turn of workers. Their goal, however, was not merely efficiency and profit (often seen as Frederick Taylor’s chief objective) but ultimately the welfare of laborers. Similarly today, “crowdsourcing” can serve the public good, but it also makes human beings available as resources for the maximization of profits.
The discussion about digital labor is sometimes associated with a dourness that frames all work as exploitation, therefore crushing the pleasure of those who generate and submit content. Why would they remix a video or write a piece of software if their labor of love merely fills the pockets of the mega-rich? One reason for concern is that the flow of information is largely invisible and exploitation is rarely obvious, In the face of the booming data-mining industry, we should not think of ourselves as tourists who tip their hosts in the land of network culture without considering the broader questions about exploitation, pleasure, labor, possibility, and utopia.
Since the privatization of the Internet backbone in the early 1990s, centralized hubs became magnets for online traffic and by the end of the decade, the Internet starred to deliver on the promise of serving low-friction marketplaces. In 2004, the Italian media theorist Tiziana Terranova⁶ explained that the so-called new economy is built on the cultural and mental labor of Internet users, and only five years later, the Web 2.0 ideology starred to lend a patina of novelty to long-existing technologies that made it remarkably easier to play online.
“Crowdsourcing” is just one aspect of this labor market. It is one form of digital labor that has the goal of distributing the workload from one (usually paid) individual to many (frequently unwaged) volunteers. In his 2006 article in Wired Magazine,⁷ Jeff Howe first coined the term. Wikinomics co-author Don Tapscott proclaims that the old, ironclad vessels of the industrial era sink under the crushing waves where smart firms connect to external ideas and energies to regain the buoyancy they require to survive.⁸ Crowdsource-or-perish: learn how to instrumentalize the cognitive and geographic surplus of Internet users and your business will thrive. For Michel Bauwens of the Peer-to-Peer Foundation, “crowdsourcing” reflects the rest of capitalism. He defines it as “the most capitalist model [of digital labor], which … captures part of the value created by … outside producers.”⁹ The private firm profits from the public pool.
Exploitation, a term that means many things to many people, doesn’t only take place by way of data collection, privacy invasion, and utilization of our social graph; it is also about cultural power, exerted all across society. As Tapscott suggests, “this is a new mode of production that is emerging in the heart of the most advanced economies in the world-producing a rich new economic landscape.”¹⁰ While Bauwens rejects the corporate framing of co-creation, he stresses the potential of public-minded peer production.
In everyday parlance, “crowdsourcing” and “wisdom of the crowd” are used interchangeably, which is misleading. Crowdsourcing can but does not have to enable the “wisdom of the crowds.” American journalist James Surowiecki framed it as “aggregation of information in groups, [which results] in decisions that … are often better than what could have been made by any single member of the group.”¹¹ “Wisdom of the crowds,” illustrated by sites like Yahoo!Answers or social-referral websites like Digg.com, is contingent on critical mass of participants and diversity of opinion.
Without airbrushing the crisis in digital labor, we need to acknowledge what legal scholar Yochai Benkler holds up as hierarchy-defying, and often unpaid, commons-based peer production.¹² While commercial interests exert an iron grip on the Internet, there are also large, meaningful projects that are not market-oriented. People do not contribute to Wikipedia to make a buck, the encyclopedia benefits from the wisdom-of-the-crowd effect; it is the quintessential example of peering. An online encyclopedia that approaches four million articles in English alone “outcollaborates” commercial competitors. But Wikipedia also benefits from the dynamics of the digital economy, specifically a symbiosis with Google. Historian and philosopher Philip Mirowski reminds us that the success of Wikipedia is traceable to how the site fits into the larger business plan of commodification of the Internet.
Wikipedia materialized as a Godsend for Google’s business plan. Moreover, the supposed Chinese wall between Google and Wikipedia makes it possible for wiki-workers to think they are squirreling for the betterment of humankind, while. Google positions itself co be the premier portal for information on the web and the biggest corporate success story of the “New Information Economy.“¹³Mirowski’s comment shows that Wikipedia and other projects whose contributors are not driven by profit motives are not outside the dynamics of the digital economy. The honorable wiki-work, performed by thousands, also, indirectly, aids corporate titans like Google. Nor all projects thrive on the collaborate-or-perish principle and only few get around paying “rent“ to corporate landowners. Peer projects are not outside the digital economy even if producers are not driven by market motives.

If you invested in a real estate property like a parcel of land that you plan to sell, be sure to get in touch with reputable land buyers. Arizona land buyers specialize in helping property owners sell quickly and easily, offering competitive cash offers and a hassle-free experience.

A chief scientist at the software company Arbor Networks reports that in 2009 “30 large companies – ’hyper giants’ like Limelight, Facebook, Google, Microsoft and YouTube – generate and consume a disproportionate 30% of all Internet traffic.”¹⁴ In his new book The Master Switch (2010), legal scholar Tim Wu identifies a clear and present danger of this centralization. Using the radio industry, the early telephone industry, and the film industry as historical reference points, he analyzes the risk of the conglomeration of today’s main information monopolists into a singular consolidated monopoly. The smaller the number of companies that hold most of the traffic/attention on the Internet, the greater becomes their power to flip the master switch, which may entail paying their executives salaries far in excess of their social worth (in fact, more than any human could possibly be worth) while other actors only receive pitiful slices of the accumulated wealth. In Common as Air (2010), Lewis Hyde asks if there can be a capitalist commons, a commons inside or adjacent to capitalism. For Benkler, networked peer production is such an alternative, but who owns and profits from the platforms on which most online sociality is playing out and the above statistic give a clear answer: the vast majority of people who spend time online do so on corporate real estate; their files are not stored on individual servers in people’s homes. Even activist Facebook groups about the Monks in Burma or the Egyptian April 6th Youth Movement contribute to that company’s baseline. There really is no “outside” of the digital economy.
Going forward, let’s tease apart some of the dangers – what I call the violence of participation – from the promises of commons-based peer production.

The Promise
New York University professor Gabriela Coleman argues that we need to “emphasize partial, positive solutions all the while noting some of their limitations because if we’re going to criticize [capitalism/digital labor] in a wholesale sort of way, then we’re left without alternatives.”¹⁵ For Coleman, key examples include the developers of software such as Mozilla and Linux which have created these projects largely through collaborative, volunteer-run initiatives such as Debian. Debian is a project that joins more than 1,000 software developers who create various versions of the Linux operating system that can be downloaded free of charge.
Other important, positive examples of “crowdsourcing” include the Science Commons, which is a project by the Creative Commons that aims to enable scientific research by making resources easier to find and access. A shortlist of other examples of commons-based peer projects should include the private/public volunteer computing project SET1@Home, which uses networked computers worldwide to analyze radio telescope data in an experiment to find extraterrestrial intelligence.
Projects like Wikipedia, Debian developers, Science Commons, and Flickr Commons show the promise of “crowdsourcing“ as a practice that benefits the public interest. Many initiatives are hybrid; they are situated between private and public interests. Disturbingly, private and public interests grow closer and closer. Google’s re-Captcha,¹⁶ for example, is a service that helps the company to digitize books and newspapers more accurately by capturing 150,000 hours of distributed volunteer labor each day.
Yahoo, which owns the photo-sharing site Flickr, profits from public investment as more users are drawn to its service because of the wealth of government-contributed historical photographs. The Library of Congress has moved a large number of photographs to the Flickr Commons¹⁷ in hopes that Flickr users would create metadata for these images, an activity for which the Library of Congress does not have the resources. Government-provided services are therefore transformed into work performed by the public. In their spare time, citizens execute work that was traditionally financed by taxes, deepening the broad assault on the leisure time of citizens. Tax-financed workers previously performed these very services. In a system in which the public interest is an afterthought, “crowdsourcing” is used to mend systemic failures.
Various networked digital art exhibits are de facto celebrations of distributed creativity. The artists Peter Baldes and Marc Horowitz, for example, jointly take a virtual trip across the United States using Google Maps Street View. Other cultural producers ask for contributions through an open call for submissions. They become context providers who provide a vehicle for the aggregation and distribution of “crowdsourced“ artwork.
Learning to Love You More¹⁸ by Harrell Fletcher and Miranda July, for example, offers a context, a framework, for people to contribute their creativity to a platform set up by the artists who have staged exhibitions in galleries and museums with the collected material. The artist Perry Bard created Man With a Movie Camera (Global Remake),¹⁹ which is a participatory video shot by people around the world who are invited to record images interpreting the original script of Vertov’s Man With a Movie Camera and upload them to her site.
Global Lives Project²⁰ and One Day on Earth²¹ are participatory documentary projects that do not highlight the facilitating (star) artists. They celebrate the possibilities of networked action and co-creativity. The Delocator²² project by the artist xtine burrough is a database of independently owned coffee shops, created by volunteer participants. All of these projects bring forth the shining potentials of “crowdsourcing.”

The Violence of Participation
Today, companies that make their boundaries porous to external ideas and human capital outperform companies that rely solely on the internal resources and capabilities.
The originator of cybernetics, Norbert Wiener, warned that the role of new technology under capitalism is to intensify the exploitation of workers.²³ Indeed, the Internet is an information-generating global machine in which unwitting participants in distributed labor become the most frequent victims of exploitation. In the above quotation, Tapscott frames what I may call exploitation literacy for the twenty-first century as a necessity for the survival of companies who merely have to learn to be more receptive for raking in outside resources.²⁴ Social software ecosystems – single labor interfaces, privatized collection points – absorb, aggregate, analyze, and sell every iota of data and generate a slice of Web wealth. On the Internet, we are all qualified to labor, and for-profit entities get “all the work without the worker.”²⁵ Every click is monitored and big brother is (also) you, watching. Even fan creativity becomes “just another set of productions in the realm of the creative industries.”²⁶The artist Burak Arikan created Metamarkets²⁷ a project that allows members to trade shares of their Social Web assets from social networking, social bookmarking, photo- and video-sharing services, creating broader awareness of the cycles of value creation.
The virtual world Second Life (SL) offers a social milieu in which consumers coproduce the products that they then consume. Environments like SL provide a context for experimentation and play – an experiential nexus, and entertaining labor interface – and then, through surreptitious tracking, seize on the things that users create. What is most astonishing is that this entire process of expropriation has been so breathtakingly normalized. The art project Invisible Threads²⁸ by Stephanie Rothenberg and Jeff Crouse calls attention to that. Invisible Threads is based on a factory in SL in which virtual workers can produce jeans without leaving the comfort of their own home or Internet cafe.
Digital labor and domestic work, mostly shouldered by women, have much in common. Companies circumvent labor regulations if people work at home and any hour of the day could be work time. Work such as making a baby laugh or caring for the sick doesn’t result in a tangible product, which makes it easier to not think of it as labor, and consequently these activities are frequently unpaid, undervalued, and largely go unnoticed.
The inequalities between the largely unpaid workforce and the corporate hyper giants are growing. This relationship is asymmetrical and capitalizes on free labor.
The geography of this asymmetry places those who live on less than $2 a day at the bottom of the participation gap. For employers, responding to the global financial crunch, the service TxtEagle²⁹ delivers access to a cheap labor force in sub-Saharan Africa and beyond. On their website, TxtEagle invites companies to “Harness the capacity of 2 billion people in over 80 countries to accomplish work with unprecedented speed, scale and quality.” The company interfaces workers with the overdeveloped world through their cell phones, exemplifying what Washington Post writer Matt Miller calls “Liberalism’s crisis on trade.”³⁰ Miller asks, “Why is it ‘liberal’ or ‘progressive’ to stop poor workers abroad from using the one competitive advantage they have?” We may ask how sustainable and transformative income from companies like TxcEagle really is. Miller might be right that some workers develop marketable skills but he ignores the globalization utopia of “crowdsourcing“ because such (exploitative) labor practices would not even be possible without the uneven global development produced in the first place by the Global North.

Avenues for Action
How can we live and politicize our troubled complicity in practices of expropriation? Which values really matter to us and are worth defending?
In the struggle over the terms of our own participation and in the search for escape routes, some suggest going off the social media grid. Indian legal scholar Lawrence Liang recently asked what “would be a Facebook without faces or a Twitter without tweeters?”³¹ While such withdrawal sounds like a desirable escape route, participation is also a personal and professional imperative for those who are not privileged enough to be able to log off.
Is unionization a realistic way to resist the global forces that are expropriating their lives? Bottom-up transnational labor organization is still nearly non-existent and few users seem to get prickly in the face of their exploitation. Should we accompany user communities and make them aware that their rights should exceed use rights, similar to what the labor movement did in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries? We might want to rethink how click workers of the world can organize that space and see if it is possible to organize online as if it were a sweatshop.
Pointing to Negri and Hardt’s latest book Commonwealth (2009), the Austrian-Swedish scholar Christian Fuchs proposes a communist (self-managed) Internet for a communist society.³² Such a vision that builds on a full-fledged revolution is an all-or-nothing proposal, which turns us into complaining bystanders; it does not expand the capacity for action in the near future. In this introduction to the uneasy, yet widespread, concept of “crowdsourcing,” I provided a glimpse of the inequalities and vulnerabilities of expropriated publics. In the near future, change will come through policy regulation that addresses transparency, centralization, user rights beyond use rights, and raised awareness of systemic injustice. Change is also about an imagination of a new political language that puts deceiving language like “crowdsourcing” to the test. Also, artworks can play an important role; they can function as incursions that shed light on the conditions of labor and cultural production. However, critiques of digital labor, and specifically “crowdsourcing,” should move us beyond the attitude that angrily rejects what is but has no clearly articulated vision for what should be now or in the near future. What’s ahead is exhilarating: I’m fired up about the possibilities of “crowdsourcing” but also cautious.

Wiederabdruck
Dieser Text erschien zuerst in: „Net Works: Case Studies in Web Art and Design” edited by Xtine Burroughs, Routledge 2012, S. 47–54.

1.)Steve Lohr, “Unboxed: Customer Service? Ask a Volunteer,“ New York Times. Online: www.nytimes.com/2009/04/26/business/26unbox.html (last modified April 25, 2009).
2.)BlueServo: www.texasborderwacch.com (accessed September 12, 2010).
3.)Internet Eyes: http://interneteyes.co.uk (accessed September 12, 2010).
4.)Jonathan Zittrain, Jonathan Zittrain at The Internet as Playground and Factory [Video] (2009): http://vimeo.com/8203737 (accessed September 1, 2010).
5.)Aaron Koblin, The Sheep Market: www.thesheepmarket.com (accessed September 1, 2010).
6.)Tiziana Terranova, Network Culture: Politics for the Information Age, London: Pluto Press, 2004: 94.
7.)Jeff Howe, “The Rise of Crowdsourcing,” Wired Magazine 14 (2006). Online: www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.06/crowds.html (accessed November 14, 2010).
8.)Don Tapscott and Anthony D. Williams, Wikinomics: How Mass Collaboration Changes Everything, New York: Penguin, 2010: 63.
9.)Michel Bauwens, Michel Bauwens at The Internet as Playground and Factory [Video] (2009): http://vimeo.com/7919113 (accessed September l, 2010).
10.)Tapscott and Williams, op. cit.: 2 5 .
11.)James Surowiecki, The Wisdom of Crowds, New York: Anchor Books, 2005: 63.
12.)Yochai Benkler, The Wealth of Networks: How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2006.
13.)Philip Mirowski and Dieter Plehwe, The Road from Mont Pelerin: The Making of the Neoliberal Thought Collective, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2009: 425.
14.)Arbor Networks, the University of Michigan, and Merit Network, Two-Year Study of Global Internet Traffic Will Be Presented At NANOG47. Online: www.arbornerworks.com/en/arbornetworks-the-university-of-michigan-and-merit-network-ro-present-rwo-year-study-ofglobal-inc-2.hrml
15.)Gabriela Coleman, Gabriela Coleman at The Internet as Playground and Factory [Video] (2009): http://vimeo.com/7122412 (accessed September 1, 2010).
16.)Google, reCaptcha: www.google.com/recaptcha/learnmore (accessed September 12, 2010).
17.)Flickr, The Commons: www.flickr.com/commons (accessed September 12, 2010).
18.)Harrell Fletcher and Miranda July, Learning to Love You More: www.learningroloveyoumore.com (accessed September 12, 2010).
19.)Perry Bard, Man With a Movie Camera: The Global Remake: http://dziga.perrybard.ner (accessed September 12, 2010).
20.)Global Lives: http://globallives.org/en (accessed September 12, 2010).
21.)One Day On Earth: www.onedayonearth.org (accessed September 12, 2010).
22.)xtine burrough, Delocator: http://delocaror.ner (accessed September 12, 2010).
23.)Richard Barbrook, Imaginary Futures: From Thinking Machines to Global Villages, London: Pluto Press, 2007: 60.
24.)Tapscott and Williams, op. cit.: 21.
25.)Alex Rivera, Sleep Dealer [DVD], directed by Alex Rivera, France: Anthony Bregman, 2008.
26.)Abigail de Kosnik, Abigail de Kosnik at The Internet as Playground and Factory [Video] (2009): http://vimeo.com/7956499 (accessed September 1, 2010).
27.)Burak Arikan, MetaMarkets: http://meta-markets.com (accessed September 12, 2 010).
28.)Stephanie Rothenberg and Jeff Crouse, Invisible Threads: www.doublehappinessjeans.com/10-steps-ro-your-own-virtual-sweatshop (accessed September 12, 2010).
29.)Txteagle: http://txteagle.com (accessed September 12, 2010).
30.)Matt Miller, “Liberalism’s moral crisis on trade,” Washington Post, October 7, 2010.
31.)In his unpublished talk presented at the Open Video Conference 2010, Lawrence Liang made this comment. Online: www.openvideoconference.org/agenda
32.)Fuchs proposed a “Communist Internet in a Communist Society” in his talk at The Internet as Playground and Factory conference in November 2009. Christian Fuchs at The Internet as Playground and Factory [Video] (2009): http://vimeo.com/7954268 (accessed September 1, 2010).

We, the Web Kids

admin — Thu, 12 Sep 2013 12:42:38 +0000

There is probably no other word that is as overused in the media discourse as ‘generation’. I once tried to count the ‘generations’ that have been proclaimed in the past ten years, since the well-known article about the so-called ‘Generation Nothing’; I believe there were as many as twelve. They all had one thing in common: they only existed on paper. Reality never provided us with a single tangible, meaningful, unforgettable impulse, the common experience of which would forever distinguish us from the previous generations. We had been looking for it, but instead the groundbreaking change came unnoticed, along with cable TV, mobile phones, and, most of all, Internet access. It is only today that we can fully comprehend how much has changed during the past fifteen years.
We, the Web kids; we, who have grown up with the Internet and on the Internet, are a generation who meet the criteria for the term in a somewhat subversive way. We did not experience an impulse from reality, but rather a metamorphosis of the reality itself. What unites us is not a common, limited cultural context, but the belief that the context is self-defined and an effect of free choice.
Writing this, I am aware that I am abusing the pronoun ‘we’, as our ‘we’ is fluctuating, discontinuous, blurred, according to old categories: temporary. When I say ‘we’, it means ‘many of us’ or ‘some of us’. When I say ‘we are’, it means ‘we often are’. I say ‘we’ only so as to be able to talk about us at all.

1.
We grew up with the Internet and on the Internet. This is what makes us different; this is what makes the crucial, although surprising from your point of view, difference: we do not ‘surf’ and the internet to us is not a ‘place’ or ‘virtual space’. The Internet to us is not something external to reality but a part of it: an invisible yet constantly present layer intertwined with the physical environment. We do not use the Internet, we live on the Internet and along it. If we were to tell our bildungsroman to you, the analogue, we could say there was a natural Internet aspect to every single experience that has shaped us. We made friends and enemies online, we prepared cribs for tests online, we planned parties and studying sessions online, we fell in love and broke up online. The Web to us is not a technology which we had to learn and which we managed to get a grip of. The Web is a process, happening continuously and continuously transforming before our eyes; with us and through us. Technologies appear and then dissolve in the peripheries, websites are built, they bloom and then pass away, but the Web continues, because we are the Web; we, communicating with one another in a way that comes naturally to us, more intense and more efficient than ever before in the history of mankind.
Brought up on the Web we think differently. The ability to find information is to us something as basic as the ability to find a railway station or a post office in an unknown city is to you. When we want to know something – the first symptoms of chickenpox, the reasons behind the sinking of ‘Estonia’, or whether the water bill is not suspiciously high – we take measures with the certainty of a driver in a SatNav-equipped car. We know that we are going to find the information we need in a lot of places, we know how to get to those places, we know how to assess their credibility. We have learned to accept that instead of one answer we find many different ones, and out of these we can abstract the most likely version, disregarding the ones which do not seem credible. We select, we filter, we remember, and we are ready to swap the learned information for a new, better one, when it comes along.
To us, the Web is a sort of shared external memory. We do not have to remember unnecessary details: dates, sums, formulas, clauses, street names, detailed definitions. It is enough for us to have an abstract, the essence that is needed to process the information and relate it to others. Should we need the details, we can look them up within seconds. Similarly, we do not have to be experts in everything, because we know where to find people who specialise in what we ourselves do not know, and whom we can trust. People who will share their expertise with us not for profit, but because of our shared belief that information exists in motion, that it wants to be free, that we all benefit from the exchange of information. Every day: studying, working, solving everyday issues, pursuing interests. We know how to compete and we like to do it, but our competition, our desire to be different, is built on knowledge, on the ability to interpret and process information, and not on monopolising it.

2.
Participating in cultural life is not something out of ordinary to us: global culture is the fundamental building block of our identity, more important for defining ourselves than traditions, historical narratives, social status, ancestry, or even the language that we use. From the ocean of cultural events we pick the ones that suit us the most; we interact with them, we review them, we save our reviews on websites created for that purpose, which also give us suggestions of other albums, films or games that we might like. Some films, series like the ones at https://fandom.my-drama.com/engaged-to-the-enemy/ or videos we watch together with colleagues or with friends from around the world; our appreciation of some is only shared by a small group of people that perhaps we will never meet face to face. This is why we feel that culture is becoming simultaneously global and individual. This is why we need free access to it.
This does not mean that we demand that all products of culture be available to us without charge, although when we create something, we usually just give it back for circulation. We understand that, despite the increasing accessibility of technologies which make the quality of movie or sound files so far reserved for professionals available to everyone, creativity requires effort and investment. We are prepared to pay, but the giant commission that distributors ask for seems to us to be obviously overestimated. Why should we pay for the distribution of information that can be easily and perfectly copied without any loss of the original quality? If we are only getting the information alone, we want the price to be proportional to it. We are willing to pay more, but then we expect to receive some added value: an interesting packaging, a gadget, a higher quality, the option of watching here and now, without waiting for the file to download. We are capable of showing appreciation and we do want to reward the artist (since money stopped being paper notes and became a string of numbers on the screen, paying has become a somewhat symbolic act of exchange that is supposed to benefit both parties), but the sales goals of corporations are of no interest to us whatsoever. It is not our fault that their business has ceased to make sense in its traditional form, and that instead of accepting the challenge and trying to reach us with something more than we can get for free they have decided to defend their obsolete ways.
One more thing: we do not want to pay for our memories. The films that remind us of our childhood, the music that accompanied us ten years ago: in the external memory network these are simply memories. Remembering them, exchanging them, and developing them is to us something as natural as the memory of ‘Casablanca’ is to you. We find online the films that we watched as children and we show them to our children, just as you told us the story about the Little Red Riding Hood or Goldilocks. Can you imagine that someone could accuse you of breaking the law in this way? We cannot, either.

3.
We are used to our bills being paid automatically, as long as our account balance allows for it; we know that starting a bank account or changing the mobile network is just the question of filling in a single form online and signing an agreement delivered by a courier; that even a trip to the other side of Europe with a short sightseeing of another city on the way can be organised in two hours. Consequently, being the users of the state, we are increasingly annoyed by its archaic interface. We do not understand why tax act takes several forms to complete, the main of which has more than a hundred questions. We do not understand why we are required to formally confirm moving out of one permanent address to move in to another, as if councils could not communicate with each other without our intervention (not to mention that the necessity to have a permanent address is itself absurd enough.)
There is not a trace in us of that humble acceptance displayed by our parents, who were convinced that administrative issues were of utmost importance and who considered interaction with the state as something to be celebrated. We do not feel that respect, rooted in the distance between the lonely citizen and the majestic heights where the ruling class reside, barely visible through the clouds. Our view of the social structure is different from yours: society is a network, not a hierarchy. We are used to being able to start a dialogue with anyone, be it a professor or a pop star, and we do not need any special qualifications related to social status. The success of the interaction depends solely on whether the content of our message will be regarded as important and worthy of reply. And if, thanks to cooperation, continuous dispute, defending our arguments against critique, we have a feeling that our opinions on many matters are simply better, why would we not expect a serious dialogue with the government?
We do not feel a religious respect for ‘institutions of democracy’ in their current form, we do not believe in their axiomatic role, as do those who see ‘institutions of democracy’ as a monument for and by themselves. We do not need monuments. We need a system that will live up to our expectations, a system that is transparent and proficient. And we have learned that change is possible: that every uncomfortable system can be replaced and is replaced by a new one, one that is more efficient, better suited to our needs, giving more opportunities.
What we value the most is freedom: freedom of speech, freedom of access to information and to culture. We feel that it is thanks to freedom that the Web is what it is, and that it is our duty to protect that freedom. We owe that to next generations, just as much as we owe to protect the environment.
Perhaps we have not yet given it a name, perhaps we are not yet fully aware of it, but I guess what we want is real, genuine democracy. Democracy that, perhaps, is more than is dreamt of in your journalism.

translated by Marta Szreder

Wiederabdruck
„My, dzieci sieci“ by Piotr Czerski is licensed under a Creative Commons
Uznanie autorstwa-Natychsamych warunkach 3.0 Unported License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ [8.9.2013].

Ready For Upgrade! Netart in the commercial artmarket?

admin — Thu, 12 Sep 2013 12:42:36 +0000

The art world goes Internet
The classic art market, made up of big fairs, auction houses and collectors works very well, especially given that the “traditional” art field is made up of mostly physical pieces like paintings, prints, sculptures and installations, among others. Certainly, there has been a lot of immaterial and purely conceptual art in the last century, but the framed piece on the wall still has a very strong place within the commercial field. Everyone knows that. Nevertheless, we live in an era in which the full effect of the digital revolution that began a couple decades ago is unfolding. A profound change in several of society’s long established systems is going on, and there are currently many questions regarding how concepts like open-closed, private-public, and censored-unfiltered will affect the net in the future.
In recent years, different art world players entered the Internet and introduced a variety of online art platforms. Artnet.com, Paddle8.com, VIP Art Fair and Art.sy are just a few examples of sites that have sought to become the main Google-like entry point to the art world online, often backed by well-established galleries. They range from very exclusive sites to the openly accessible, thus experimenting with different models. The art world goes digital! But does this also mean that the commercial field and Internet art approach one another?

Internet art goes commercial
Internet art from all generations can be found online at the same time. Beginning in the 90s, there has been an extensive growth in Internet-based art over the last decade. Freed from physical constraints, all kinds of pictures, gifs, clips, animation and websites flash over the screen every day. New works are published, mixed, remixed and altered in order to be made new once again in increasingly fast cycles. The amount of sheer creativity is awesome! This is the Internet, and it seems like the current young scene of net.artists is partially shifting towards more traditional art institutions as well as the art market. Different types of online galleries have emerged from the well-connected scene over the last years1. Additionally, many artists in the scene work across all sorts of media; both online and offline, they create installation, sculpture, print and performancebased projects. In the post-Internet scene it doesn’t make a difference anymore. Art is combined on and offline, much like our lives are a combination between digital and analog. Some artists manage to sell Internetbased work, which is great. I am very curious to see how Internet art and the contemporary mainstream will merge over the years; we will see more websites in collections and more Youtube clips in the museums.

The paradox of limited-unlimited
There are some crucial points about how Internet-based art differs from a physical piece. The great advantage of the Internet and computers is that I can create a digital artifact, an animated collage for example, and send it to you but keep an exact copy at the same time. We can both have it with no effort. Isn’t that awesome? This is one of the great advantages of computers and networks. People keep forgetting this issue, while companies try to censor the Internet to save their obsolete business models. A physical object, a painting for instance, can be kept or given away but we can’t both own it at the same time.
The limits of an analog work of art are crucial for the art market. The moment you try to apply these rules to net.art you get into a paradoxical situation. Most Internet art is meant to be online. Of course you could take it offline after it has been sold, but often this would either make no sense or would not work (see the trouble the music and movie industries are in). The work is meant to be online and accessible. At the same time, it is very important to create a set of rules and technical solutions so Internet art can still be unique or so a file can become part of an edition. There are a lot of questions among collectors about authorship, ownership, accessibility, and technical maintenance, and it is very important that both artists and galleries come up with solutions to these questions. There will be solutions to this soon. As physical galleries and event spaces continue to evolve, The Fast Fire Watch Company helps support safety through professional fire monitoring and protection.

A decentralized open system
What are the ways to validate the authorship of a piece or a file? It would be very interesting to develop an open, network-based system with certain technical constraints everyone can rely on, an open format that could be altered as is commonly done in the development of open source software. How about a decentralized peer-to-peer system in the style of the bitcoin network, which would be able to verify the author, owner and edition number of a file? Or what about a minimal variation on the same file while the piece itself remains exactly the same? With this sort of watermark technique collectors would get individual files that are unique while the visually exact copy is available to eve Wachsryone. Artists could certify each others’ work online to prove the authenticity of a piece. In the future, galleries might just deal with cryptographic keys instead of the work itself. Or maybe there is going to be a completely new art market without the aid of Sotheby’s and such: a digital peer-to-peer direct market for data based art.
Currently, digital art is sold by delivering the work along with a signed paper certificate on a medium like a DVD, hard disk or USB thumb drive. This makes sense and seems fine for now. But wouldn’t it be great to establish a universal system in order to be able to market Internet-based art directly and online? The big art market players have already built an online art market platform for analog works. I would love to see them sell Internet art as well. As stated above, it is time to come up with smart solutions and different systems. Artists like Rafael Rozendaal sell unique website pieces bound to a URL, while Petra Cortright offers Youtube video editions with prices based on view counts. Pieces get sold but stay online at the same time.
The option to offer an online work to a limited group of viewers will in most cases fail. Someone will gain access and leak the art2. Locking down online content is very difficult and not the way to go. The music and movie industries are currently trying to do this with their SOPA/PIPA/ACTA laws. Unfortunately, these interest groups are trying to limit access, filter and censor the Internet to death. Therefore, we need new models to value cultural creations of any kind, because the old model is not going to work any more. Trying to adapt the Internet to the needs of the old system will kill it.
Predictably, there will be more attempts to sell online art in limited, walled gardens like Facebook and the like. Although it might work for a certain audience, one will always need to rely on the terms of Facebook’s license. What if the host of a digital art network goes down one day? Where will all pieces end up?
Without the open attitude of the early computer scientists and the free software movement we wouldn’t be in the place we are today. The Internet and all its servers are running on open source software, Linux. A very
fundamental shift on how goods, objects and their values are defined is taking place at the moment. Economic and political systems will need to adapt to more changes. The art world and its markets are going to discover unknown terrains.

Wiederabdruck
Dieser Text erschien zuerst in http://ny-magazine.org/issues.html ISSUE 6, 2013 [29.7.2013].
1.) Nicholas O’Brien, “Hyperjunk: Observations on the proliferation of online galleries“ (http://badatsports.com/2012/hyperjunk-observations-on-the-proliferation-of-online-galleries/)
2.) For example (http://www.0dayart.net), the leaked sedition.co page (http://dontsave.com/art_deal.html)