December 2009, I was here celebrating a project for an extraordinarily important change in
copyright law that would have been the most important liberal advance in copyright law
anywhere in the world.
The most progress anywhere was happening here.
Brazil was a leader.
It took the lead on the development agenda in waipo, pushing waipo to think about issues
other than how to benefit Hollywood and the equivalent.
It stood up to those interests around the world.
It stood up to this form of Northern extremism.
Some think that opportunity for that strength, for that courage is fading.
It seems that if it's fading, it's the same interest, the same special interest that are
diverting reform here as in the United States.
I won't say that it is.
It's not my place.
I don't know enough.
I'm eager to listen to understand whether that's true, but if it is true, we need to
fight this.
The music you produce has that rules of being all analogic or you don't have
it.
No, I don't have it.
I mix everything.
I like digital.
You have to to have guys that produce electronic music that they do31 in electronic equipment
and have a rule that it's all analog, digital.
They're all produced by the devices they create.
If that's how it works, they mix them a little more with digital.
You like that?
A lot.
It's vague, effortless objects.
Actually, this isn't that is BOAT so it's more like OUT.
for Mason University University
in September.
Her work is about free culture
and theooooo
It's a matter of having a free software, free hardware, and then everything is already mixed here because the music is the hardware, you think the recipe for the cake is also free.
What we're going to do later is that we're going to assemble the instruments with people and then make an orchestra here, play, do a performance in the last day, record, record the sound and publish it.
It's incredible how you can free everything to make an orchestra.
It's really cool.
The Copyleft is actually a philosophy created in the 80s by Richard Stalman of GNU, Linux, which was created by the free software Copyleft.
Nowadays it is more of a philosophy than a legal license.
And this may be the main difference with Creative Commons, that it came out at the beginning of the 2000s from Lawrence Lessig, who is a law professor in the United States, and other people.
In my opinion, it came out in a more organized way of licensing that includes, among other things, some Copyleft licenses.
It's a exchange with Copyright, where before Creative Commons existed, which is a more detailed organization of this issue, the guy says,
everything that is being said in Copyright in this case is the opposite.
So you can't copy, you can copy, only I can sell, you can also sell, do whatever you want.
The Copyleft is a general release.
We realize that when we have a common vision, people end up getting closer, institutions, companies, groups end up getting closer.
We started doing a project called Tram Universitario, and through Ronaldo Lemos, he even came to give us a lecture, we met Creative Commons,
we found the idea very interesting, to create a disintermediation.
The artist has already chosen the type of license he wants and has already published that license, avoid a lot of bureaucracy,
and we had this opportunity to launch a Creative Commons book in Brazil, and we realize that it is an idea,
regardless of whether it is Creative Commons or not, but it is a very contemporary idea, because the copyright laws are clear,
they are laws of the past century, at the beginning of the past century, so there was a need for a review.
Creative Commons will allow everyone to adjust, in fact, Creative Commons allows everything,
to be super-free or super-restrictive, to be even public domain.
I just discovered the global warming algorithm, a fundamental thing that will save everyone's lives.
We have to pay now to see, no, public domain, via Creative Commons,
even so that no industry or pharmaceutical company takes this formula and says,
no, it was me who invented it and I have to pay for it, no.
This situation of few earning millions is changing in some way, because we are in a completely different reality,
and we have to think, I think that the cultural industry itself has to think,
not to repress forms of sharing, of archives, it has to think in other forms of earning money with it,
this is something that it doesn't even think about, it invests more in repressing the download and free culture
than to think about other strategies, other business models, to earn money with the cultural works.
So I think that, from the good art that is said, that Creative Commons will give you the work,
it's not like that, it's another form of earning money.
I met Axial through Chico Correio, because I already met him before,
and a little through the internet, researching about the distribution of free music here in Brazil,
and then I already had a website, a well-organized thing on the network,
and there I already worked with this idea of ​​their, even, distribution of the music they produced,
this is a traditional scheme.
The real thing is, your audience exists, the problem is how you get to it.
If you manage to get to it, I'm solved, and this is something that Axial ended up being able to do a little,
to create mechanisms to get to your audience.
When these first of my technological gambiarras gave themselves to Soletas,
I was already able to research other services, there was more PACE, but there was JAMENDO, JAMENDO was very crazy,
it's a service that very few people know, probably in Brazil,
but it's where I have the most silver disc.
I think it's a false problem to make the culture and information difficult,
because first, I am against the total transformation of the law.
I think the law can be modified, especially in the chapter of legal licenses, which is our fair use.
Let's say where technology has not reached, you can adapt the law to this possibility.
Now you transform the law as a whole, the law is very good,
and more than that, it's a recent law, because it's from 1998.
Now, as you act on the law and force the national courts to build a jurisprudence,
therefore, a whole pretorian format around the author's rules,
you have to educate society and demonstrate to society the obligation to respect the author's rights.
There is no such thing as an old law.
The author's right is basically the same,
with adaptations, according to the emergence of new media,
since the 18th century.
Understand that?
To see a digital medium doesn't change anything.
Copy is copy, be it in Cherox or in the digital medium.
Contrafaction is contraffaction, be it in books or in the digital medium.
Plagio is plagio, sale is sale, be it on the internet or on the bookshelf.
The principles are the same, and the application is basically the same.
There is nothing in the expansion of new technologies, in the presence of the digital medium,
that changes anything in relation to the writer, editor and public reader.
If it is in paper books or in e-books, it is rigorously the same.
You make a film, an example that I will tell you.
We saw some actresses who had made the film for the first time in that traditional film,
the old one from the past, then came the video-home, they were not in the contract,
the court judged it as a new fact and as a new work,
and then came the videocassette.
After the videocassette, the music became successful and became DVD,
and so on.
This was not in the time when that film was created.
In virtue of this, the courts have already judged that the actresses should win
half of what they would win from a whole work.
If you use in the iPod all the books, all that you use,
based on modern technology, based on works that already exist,
that the object of negotiation is in the defined contract,
you will automatically take the risk of answering for that.
I think it is necessary to look carefully at the issue of copyright rights in Brazil.
I think that the Minister Gilberto Gil has a very important job,
because he discussed with society a reform in the copyright law,
and today this reform is being thought over.
Regardless of the positions in favor or against Gil's project
or the project of the new Minister of Culture,
it is important for us to verify that there are issues in this law
that prevent something that already happens in society,
for example, the sharing.
Today, if a teacher uses an integral music
of an artist who is guarded under the law,
he is committing a crime.
So, this needs to be relativized.
You need to discuss this law in a way,
obviously preserving the rights that the author has,
but also understanding that society has changed
and that it is necessary to distribute the culture
and distribute education
that does not let it be good, although they are good in materials.
You will only solve this with discussion,
because in practice, many times this happens,
this liberation, these agreements, for example.
Today, for the publisher, we attend, for example,
the teacher's pass, which is a resource that is used
by some universities to prevent copyright.
The authors do not receive copyright,
they are negotiated copyright rights.
So, in practice, this already happens.
So, this negotiation is usually between the author and the publisher.
Very well.
To release a share or copy
and release the distribution of copies on the internet,
in the digital environment,
it is clear that it would greatly expand the access
to cultural information.
At the same time, it would envisage, right?
To make culture is an investment.
For the writer, it is an investment of time.
For the publisher, it is a risk investment,
a capital investment.
To release the share, how does it work?
Most people who discuss creative commons
attack creative commons,
and I am not a representative of creative commons,
for God's sake, they do not understand exactly what it is.
Ah, so I will give everything for free.
Several times, I did not enter,
but I watched discussions about creative commons
and I made a simple question.
I said, this is not an offense,
I do not want to argue with you,
it is not an irony, it is nothing.
What is creative commons?
And the person does not know.
This cover,
this smoke curtain,
creative commons,
this has a purpose.
And what is it?
It is to feed the great international groups.
Because their own creator,
because they start with the install,
with the so-called copelift, right?
And then comes Stanford.
What is his name, people?
Lawrence Lesson.
Lesson lost a demand,
he is a constitutionalist teacher,
lost a demand against Disney,
and left the campaign
with the so-called free culture.
He gave a statement in Switzerland, for example,
that Madonna would not need
to link her musical production
via creative commons.
Why? Because, of course, Madonna is not an idiot,
she will not put her work
graciously for everyone,
she will live of what?
Only shows that she does?
The biggest source of income,
even of artists who sell a lot,
like Roberto Carlos, Madonna, Lady Gaga and such,
if you compare what they have won
in a month of shows,
with which they make or sell records,
the show has always been a much bigger line.
I am talking about those artists
who sell a lot of records.
The artists who sell well,
who sell relatively well,
the biggest source of income
of artists has always been the show.
And in the show, the authors receive,
when they play on the radio,
in the thesis, the authors receive.
Until the other day,
I went to answer an interview
for Creative Commons via Overmundo,
even on this subject,
a bit of creative economy.
And it is the subject of the moment,
because we are now going through
very curious things,
like crowd sourcing,
or people from abroad,
various ways
to make things happen,
with or without money.
And then I always
ask this question,
well, you who then license
in Creative Commons,
that is, people can share
without paying,
you earn money as?
So, the first answer I have
is the following,
the same way I won
before I could license in Creative Commons,
because selling music
does not give money,
it has to be clear,
selling music
gives money
to those who sell
astronomically.
I mean, hundreds of thousands
of sold records
will give you some money.
3,000, 5,000, 10,000
is not enough to sustain
a family.
I have just reached
my digital sales plan
in the stores in the world,
to give about 300 reais
per trimester.
And this is
the standard of an independent artist.
So, in terms of
cultural goods,
it is the matter of immaterial
as a way of
personal growth
of society, of social
and cultural development.
When you transform
this production into a market
in fact,
in the economy as we have
capitalists, it already, in turn,
excludes most of the society
who do not have access
to buying this well
as a market.
So, that is why I think the culture
of networks,
the multiplication of networks,
the transformation of the files
in digital media, easily
transportable,
this well must be free.
That is, it must be fomentated,
it must be thought in other
forms of recruitment
for the artist, which is not
for the sale of the work itself.
And it already exists, actually.
Some things could be updated,
it does not need to be so much
because there are many things that we have
in Brazil already a very
broad legislation, the jurisprudence
formed. Now, while it is not
revised, our legislator does not
follow the advance of modern technology.
Instead of that,
we have to
occur, one thing or another.
Because, suddenly, it is in the software,
the specific law is 9600
and 9 already defines
the software as
a book. So,
it is obligated to compel the other
law to guarantee the right
of the author of that person.
And so, for example, they will open a
lec. When you talk about intellectual
property, in the
foreigners, you talk about industrial property,
it is another law.
So, we have a lec that opens up.
In some moments, it will be interlinked.
So, there should be some repairs.
But I think we do not need to change
everything as they are wanting.
If you intend, therefore,
to understand, or to understand
that the law is defaced
in some aspects,
that you make a punctual transformation.
Among us, this is not intended.
Among us, it is intended to transform
the law as a whole.
And every time you speak
and change the national law,
only the dance comes a question,
the eCAD.
It is the ugly duck of the right
of the author of the Brazilian law.
Because, rigorously,
there was a writer who got it right.
A writer who has a record
of 400 million, more than the
member of the Ministry of Culture.
How can there be a machine like that?
The eCAD must end.
In other words, it is impossible for you to keep
almost an institution
of military clumsiness.
If there is any
militarism in Brazil,
the eCAD is one of these organs that
was still generated in this period.
And it does not have
any regulatory system.
If you knock on the door,
it has the power to make a charge.
You do not value what it understands.
They negotiate, because their situation
today is something like
corruption,
a iron test,
how it is actually done
the payment of that.
There is no sense.
And it is an organization that
does not know the right to be private, to be state.
It works there
in the middle of it.
So it is something that does not fit.
The
free sharing
of cultural production
does not affect
absolutely nothing
about the author's characteristics
of a work.
And this
in the Creative Commons system
mainly is explicit.
The Creative Commons simply does not
have anything to do with copyright.
Whoever fights against this
free sharing
sometimes uses this discourse of
that the author
will be prejudiced.
But in fact it is not that.
Who, most of the time, is prejudiced
is the intermediary.
It is the one who will be with most
of the money
earning a work.
So the author,
most of the time,
wants more than his work to be seen,
to be heard, to be heard,
to be shared.
He wants to separate the author
from the user.
The worst
is not to be able to
divulge. The worst is as before
that you have a work
that is very expensive
to be developed
and you have six doors to hit.
If those six doors that you
looked for do not work,
you have to practically
change
completely your professional way.
Today not. In a laptop
you have more technology than
you can still record
with a quality.
The difference of an hyper-professional studio
of a laptop is increasingly smaller
and you can publish and sell your work,
talk to the final audience.
It is a revolution, literally.
It has already happened some time ago,
but when we stop and put in historical perspectives
it is a very radical change.
It is similar to what happened
with Gutenberg.
As she appropriates herself,
or rather, as someone
who appropriates the work of the other
without this other knowing
and shares this
with the general public,
I understand that this is an invasion
of authority and this
should not be accepted.
But what about the author?
It is what I say to you.
The author, from my point of view
can do everything.
He can fully release
his work or partially
release his work. If he understands
that he must fully release
his work, then he can do it.
There is no problem
on the contrary, we must
guarantee him all the rights
so that he can do it.
What does not seem right to me
is the opposite of that.
It is me not authorizing
the use of my creation
and despite that, it will be appropriated
and used. It is not
corrective like nothing.
It is that creative thing
that we call carapalida.
In fact, this is
an absolutely empty
and artificial mechanism
to be a more creative
man, but it is a nonsense
from a legal point of view.
Here in César, we are
setting up a database bank
with free content,
free music, free movies.
We use this a lot in our offices
and then we try to
help the people
who are taking these works,
entering this culture
and creating other things
by putting a petal
of her creativity
and creating new things.
Because we believe
that
knowledge is made
of other knowledge.
In a way, free culture
is something that is impregnated
in the human culture.
In a way, free culture
creates something
and it has already created
on top of other things
that have already existed,
adding a degree of innovation
adding new ideas.
So nothing comes of nothing.
Everything arises from other things.
The mixture of things
that create new things.
We already work with sharing
in the way we act,
not from the digital point of view
and our materials produced
by the secretariat
were made in a collaborative way
with the teachers
and with the secretariat technicians.
We understand that
a material so rich
could be free
for non-commercial use,
obviously,
of non-governmental organizations,
of other municipalities,
other education secretaries.
Any teacher can
do it, this license
is a license that allows it.
It benefits other education secretaries
and municipalities
that sometimes do not have the
condition to develop
their own material.
So I think it will take a lot
for the publisher
to leave this role,
of this chain.
There will be independent authors,
but no publisher
will always be very relevant.
I believe
that I am 15 years old
in the publishing market.
I think that in 15 years
this structure
will not be necessary.
Or at least
part of it will not be necessary.
I think Gilberto Gil
opened the discussion, but he could not
move in the worst part, which are the structures.
The structures that still react
to the cultural production,
sell space
to someone,
listen to music,
that is, this kind of
concept has to change.
So
I prefer to create, for example,
a direct payment
to the artist.
I do not have to pay for an intermediary
called Eckad.
I can pay directly to the artist.
If he comes to play, I know that so many
percent of the entry, in addition to the combined,
must be read by the artist
in order to break
an idea, to be discussed,
to get out of
this delay that we live.
There is a movement of digital culture
born in Brazil
that is very strong
and that will not stop,
because the young people are there producing,
they are there sharing.
The question is, how do we
adapt our legislation to this reality?
It will not be cool.
We had a law that
people are a model
already defined there
legally. I think people have to
have the freedom to choose.
We need to fight this by, number one, practicing the kind of balance and celebration of creativity, respecting the rights of artists,
creating of commons nowhere more importantly than here.
Now there have been some who have said,
we should be suspicious of creative commons.
After all, it comes from the United States.
And I say,
of course you should be suspicious
of anything coming from the United States.
Of course.
Be suspicious.
Just like you should be suspicious
about the extremism of the war
we export on
extreme copyright protection.
Be suspicious of all of it, but then reflect
on the values
creative commons stand for.
Whether they resonate
with this culture
and this tradition.
Music playing.
