De Framalang Wiki.

Conférence d'Eben Moglen à la Cantine, initiative de la Quadrature du Net et de la Fondation Internet Nouvelle Génération (FING). Vidéo et des détails sur le site de la quadrature du net. Le son de la conférence, en fichier ogg avec une meilleur qualité (merci F.P.) est disponible ici

J'ai pour le moment transcrit un petit morceau de la partie anglophone, le début de la conférence (français) est déjà transcrit sur la quadrature du net. La conférence est longue, appel aux volontaires! Les indications de temps correspondent au [fichier ogg] mis à disposition par F.P.

- ziouplaboum -

En me servant du travail fait par la quadrature du net, en revérifiant et en corrigeant, j'ai défriché jusqu'à la fin du discours (avant les questions).

Les parties incertaines ou inaudibles sont marquées par ??? (Ctrl-F pour les trouver). Il en reste 9 (aux paragraphes 1.1 - 5.4 - 6.1 - 7.6 - 8.3 - 8.7 - 9.1 - 12.3 - 13.4).

Les timings que j'ai mis concernent le fichier OGG, même si je trouve la vidéo ou le mp3 de la quadrature plus compréhensible (le fichier OGG ne contient pas le son original, une sorte de filtre qui enlève le bruit de fond a été appliqué). Pour la vidéo, ajoutez 12 ou 13 secondes au temps indiqués.

- Mc Rack -

Pseudo Code Rôle Statut
ziouplaboum, Mc Rack Transciption En cours


Industrie de la musique (Début anglais)


partie 1 - paragraphe 1

How do they actually work? So let me try to indicate how they actually work now. All over the world, the question of what to do, after sharing becomes inevitable, is already fully in agitation.


The attempt to control music which began at the end of the 1990's is really, despite this last rear-guard action, inevitable and ???.

Controlling music failed:

  • because music files were comparatively small
  • because music files were easily shared
  • because the thirst for music, the hunger for a sound which belongs to *me*, which is the soundtrack of *my life* had been developed by the techonology of the walkman for a generation, by the time the actual digital revolution arrived, and it became possible for people to program their own radio station in their head for a lifetime.

partie 1 - paragraphe 2

In other words, the population that came to the digital revolution had pre-developed a taste for the sharing and freeing of music. And once the means were available in their hands, under their control, once the plasticity of music as bits had become fully realized, all attempts to control sharing were nothing more than an attempt to lock the barn after the departure of the horse.

partie 1 - paragraphe 3

Nonetheless, the recording companies of the world made every single mistake it was possible to make, and they continue to make them!

The first crisis of design was the crisis of the assumption which I referred to in my opening remarks that the technology of music itself could be rendered controlled through Digtal Rights Management and the prohibition on machines to do what you want.

partie 1 - paragraphe 4

The idea was from the beginning, in the secure digital music initiative, to make bits responsive, not to the person in the neighborhood of the bits, but some absent party, a designer whose control over the movement of data that had been reinforced by technology. The music industry pursued this goal with a single-minded intensity that nearly destroyed them. Because it turned out that they were working for Mr Jobs and for nobody else in the end.

It required the experience of the discovery that controlled technology gave the power to determine who make money from music, to the proprietor of the technology rather than the proprietors of the music, to wake the music industry up to the difficulty they had nearly put themselves in.

partie 1 - paragraphe 5

Mr Jobs was in danger of challenging the control of the four companies in the world that control more than 90 percent of the world's popular music before they even noticed what was happening to them. They pulled back from the brink, in what amounted to a tacite alliance with the very people they have also sued and tried to put in jail.

It was only the fact that Mr Jobs' technology wasn't perfect that rescued the music industry from falling into the open mouth of the Apple company, at all!



partie 2 - paragraphe 1

Behind the so-called poprietors of music, there stood the proprietors of Cinema. The owners of what we might think of as the worst, largest, loudest video on Earth. The stuff where everything blows up, you understand.

Their concern for avoiding the difficulties into which the barons of music let themselves has been a remarkable sense of restraint.

partie 2 - paragraphe 2

They have so far restrained themselves from collapsing into the arms of some monopolistic controlled technology, and they have benefited from the rather poor amount of bandwidth service provided to the people of the world by the barons of bandwidth. File size has remained large enough that, at least for a while, only the occasional war on a Norwegian child with the attempt to shut down understanding of how DVDs worked, was necessary to reassure them that the future will remain temporarily profitable.

partie 2 - paragraphe 3

But both industries, and their fellow travelers, depended, for their survival, in the form that they had known themselves, upon denying the fundamental fact with networked societies. Denying in effect, what the infrastructure of contemporary society is all about: Networks are for sharing information. That's the purpose for which networks are designed, and built, and maintained.

In order to prohibit the sharing of information in a world of networks, one basically has to attempt to reverse the flow of technological change.

partie 2 - paragraphe 4

And we have lived through one after another serious attempt to revert the flow of technological change. We have seen, year by year, attempts by the dying cultural industries to restore themselves to the saddle, much as though they had attempted to reverse the flow of automobile technology in aid of the horse care population.

The stable owners, the saddle makers, the bridle makers, and all the rest.

partie 2 - paragraphe 5

We have, in other words, watched as they adapted themselves to the technology of their own creation, by wishing that it would not work quite so well, or quite so fast, or quite so largely, or afford the population quite as much freedom, as the technology itself provided.

partie 2 - paragraphe 6

In short, they found themselves in the position familiar to the 19th century political economists who first speculated on the relationship between the bourgeoisie and its own technology. They are suppressing their own power through their own constant drive to free themselves to better functioning.

They wanted, in short, to sell air, to make it possible to have the benefit of an indefinitely reproduceable inventory, without any change in the price level.

partie 2 - paragraphe 7

They wanted to reverse the general crisis of overproduction that was striking them by readjusting property rights in such a way that overproduction couldn't define, out of existence, and the fluidity of their new product reduced to some icy form in which they could handle it and we could not, without burning our fingers, on that stuff.

partie 2 - paragraphe 8

But of course that isn't the way that it turns out. And so we find ourselves now watching as that last battle shapes itself up.

A battle in which, as we all know, the effort is to find some other person, or persons, who can stand between the failing proprietors of culture and the annoyance, (nay!) even the hatred, that they raise in the very people to whom they wish to sell their products.

“Porter plainte contre vos clients, ce n’est pas un business model”


partie 3 - paragraphe 1

"Sueing your customers," said Michael Dell, at the beginning of this, "that's not a business model, is it?"

A fine question, which eight years after he first asked it has no answer, at least none that Los Angeles can hear!

partie 3 - paragraphe 2

Sueing your customers is of course a very poor business model: no one in the history of capitalism has ever successfully tried it. And it represents a demonstration of the contempt of the cultural industries for their own customers, that they even make the attempt.

Microsoft does not sue the Bank of America; the Bank of America does not sue Ford; Ford does not sue General Electric.

It is well understood that to sue your customers, when your customers are powerful, and rich, and capable of leverage, is a defective idea, defective to the point of self-insanity.

partie 3 - paragraphe 3

The industries which began to attempt to sue their own customers, in the interest of the control of culture, did so because they thought their customers now were weak, and foolish. They were children, and they were assumed to be capable of being frightened. "Ah! let us put a few children in jail. That will stop everything.

Let us charge people for their use of their own culture, that will get them into some state of peacefulness, and they will reorganize themselves as our customers, and they will buy air from us at high prices, and they will go on doing it forever."

partie 3 - paragraphe 4

But of course, this wasn't true at all! What happened instead was that the owners of culture came to find themselves, in general, increasingly irrelevant. Not only because of the actions of the children: that was never the big point.

The big point was that the artists could not be pinned in place, either!

partie 3 - paragraphe 5

The gravest threat to the music industry, at the present moment, isn't the listeners, it's Madonna herself! Always shrewd about where her main chance really lies, she, and others like her, have begun abandoning the recording industry, which no longer has anything to offer them. It wasn't where their money came from in the first place, not even in those fabled second, and third and fourth contracts, where the money is really supposed to be available to the recording artist...

Instead, they have agreed, among themselves, and with the concert promoters, that the future lies in ignoring the recording industry, and they are right!

partie 3 - paragraphe 6

It no longer matters that, when I walk down the street I see a Rolling Stone poster that says the future belongs to Radiohead, because by the time it's on the cover of the Rolling Stone, it's already obsolete. What has happened, in other words, is that control has slipped away.

And all with the upmost course of power with the state is there any hope that that slippage can be hidden from the shareholders, for another minute and a half.

partie 3 - paragraphe 7

This is not actually a game about the restoration of a business: the business is over. This is a game about maintaining the value of stock prices for a little while, in the hope that the investors will not desert as rapidly as both the audiences and the producers.

Unfortunately, this hope too is made to be heard but broken to the reality.

Magnatune.com : maison de disques du 21ème siècle.


partie 4 - paragraphe 1

Which isn't to say, of course, that there is no music business. There are many music businesses.

Let me offer you an example of one: it is called magnatune.com, and I will encourage you to take a look at it.

partie 4 - paragraphe 2

We are talking here about a 21st century music recording company: it does not have any studios; it does not have any repertory executives; it has an owner: John Buckman, who sought to begin a new and fairer form of recording distribution system for artists who chose to bring him finished recordings. As you will see, magnatune.com has now a repertory of approximately 330 artists, including some of the finest performers in the world in almost every genre.

Mozart pianists and technical electronic drummers and bass artists, and folk singers, and singers-song writers and everybody in between, including of course all that jazz.

partie 4 - paragraphe 3

Buy the recordings for whatever you wish. Listen as many times as you like through the Net, without ever buying anything. If you buy a CD, for whatever the price is you care to assign to it, you are automatically authorized to share, with at least 3 of your friends.

Downloading as many formats as you like, and if, by any chance, you lose the recordings, come back and re-authorize yourself, and without any more payment, download again and share again.

partie 4 - paragraphe 4

Need to license some music for commercial use? Click on the website, and standard license terms are available. And the split with the artist? 50-50. No wonder that the repertory is growing.

No wonder that one of the finest concert pianists in the world, leaves Deutsche Grammophon to record for magnatune.com.

partie 4 - paragraphe 5

Well, of course, the recording studio is a property that fits under an arm these days, right? How many are there is this room, recording studios? At least one decent microphone, for which I thank you, and everybody has a recording studio in his pocket.

So, it's not the production cost.

partie 4 - paragraphe 6

It's not the enormous risk of mending to these horrible, and uncreditworthy musicians all that nonsense, from the recording industry over the years. It's simply a merchandizing business. And when fairly conducted, there's plenty for the merchandizer, and plenty for the creator.

There is, of course, little reason even to ask, whether this should be regarded as work-for-hire, though the global music industry refuses to tell you whether it regards those artists under contract to what is making work-for-hire, or not; they tried to handle the best of both ways, for the last 40 years.

partie 4 - paragraphe 7

So we have a music business. It is a business in producing tangible copies of music by people acting in their own interests to get the music that they want, where they want it, when they want it, and treating them responsibly, and without contempt--they're more than willing to pay. But the very idea of treating the audience without contempt is antithetical to the structure of 20th century media enterprises.

Contempt for the audience was the essence of what they did, and how they did it.

Partie 5


partie 5 - paragraphe 1

So, we find ourselves, now, wondering about the conjuncture of technology and greed. How it came to be that everything that was solid melted into air? Well, we know: because they wanted to sell the air. How did it happen that the technologies of the 21st century emerge from the more of the Eddisonian technologies of the 20th? Well, digitization was a higher efficiency and better way of generating technology than the analog technology that preceded it.

And money moved towards the technology of higher efficiency, even as it began to slide the owner of the money off, to the side of the table.

partie 5 - paragraphe 2

Now, of course, the solution is to find somebody else to express contempt for the audience. Who should be the next chosen people to stand in the line of fire between those who want art, and those who want money? How about the Internet Service Providers? Let's see if we can push them into crossfire.

And the state? How about the state? Why don't we get them into it, too? If they have contempt for the authors that will be only usual, correct?

partie 5 - paragraphe 3

Well, not so correct. The state has a limit to the extent of its expression of contempt for its voters. Just as in an era of declining telecommunications profitability, the telecommunications operator too, cannot afford to become too deathly hated.

All very well to be contemptuous, when you are the only phone company in town, but much more difficult to be contemptuous of the people who do the talking when everybody is a telephone company.

partie 5 - paragraphe 4

And have I mentioned Voice over IP? The same thing that happened to music, and that is happening to movies is going to happen, is happening, has happened, to telephone calls. We share the ability to communicate by voice around the world, at low friction, and with almost no cost.


We buy our bandwidth wholesale and ??? to one another retail, at no cost, or nearly no cost.

partie 5 - paragraphe 5

In my law firm, we keep the telephone in the waiting area, in the front, and we allow people to make calls anywhere in the world they want, because they cost us nearly nothing. So, drop in some day, and even if you don't need a lawyer, maybe you need to call Fiji.

It's ok with us!

partie 5 - paragraphe 6

In that environment, the network operators with their declining profitabilities and their inability to establish a retail business, are going to become the enforcers for the owners of culture?

They're going to take all the bullets, and live with all the contempt and all the derision, and all the desire to go find someone else to deal with, because these people are suing their customers? I do not think so.

partie 5 - paragraphe 7

The very idea of banishing people from the Net, as I suggested in my opening, is, after all, contrary to sound social policy, both, for those who sell network services, and for those who have the fate of societies in their guard. You spend a lot of money making a national information infrastructure, only to allow some guy in Los Angeles, pretending to begin exiling your own population because it's good for his business?

You know that isn't really going to work.

partie 5 - paragraphe 8

The question, in short, is how long the farce will go on before it comes to a conclusion, and how much damage will be done in the meantime. And of course, as humanists, we want the farce to end as soon as possible, no matter how funny it may be, because some people will be dangerously hurt. I even have some compassion for the widows and orphans who own the stock.

They deserve far better from the people who are managing their money than they're likely to get.

partie 5 - paragraphe 9

The state will also be a major victim. Because it is a poor strategy, in the state, to render respect for the law a joke. It is a poor strategy for any wise ruler to allow the law to fall into the contempt where it will be put by those who would make use of it for their own matter or purposes, in a way which causes it to become a joke, or a substance of popular discontent.

The sharpest of all weapons against government is always ridicule, and it is ill-advised of any state to make itself ridiculous, for that reason.

Partie 6


partie 6 - paragraphe 1

So where we now are, where it really works, is in the trenches of the relationship between people who understand what technology can do for them, in their lives, and people who do not understand how to make money in the current technological environment. Those behind are pushing very hard. They want allies. They want substitutes. They want people who will stand between them and the firing squad that their own poor behavior has turned civil society into.


And they risk, seriously, the consequences of their own ??? actions.

partie 6 - paragraphe 2

I'm approached almost every week now, by a student in my own university, or, in a nearby university, about the bullying behavior of the Recording Industry Association of America. All those millions of dollars I have previously pointed to, collected by extortion from young people, all of them, magically, it turns out, not owed to any musician as royalties. Odd, isn't that? Almost forty thousand people, almost 18 million dollars... And not one of them, a dollar, owed to a musician as a royalty for anything.

One wonders why, or perhaps not.

partie 6 - paragraphe 3

The children who approach me are people who have done what? They have taken a file off the Net. Or it is said, in a society whose Copyright Act makes no provision for communication to the public, that they were offering to communicate to the public some music in their possession. The Act is one which one can well understand: it's a knock on the door in the middle of the night.

It's a letter of extortion slid under the door: "If you don't pay us money, we will hurt you".

partie 6 - paragraphe 4

I was consulted recently by a distinguished visiting professor of a major American university, come on a short academic visit to a country, not his or her own, who had brought a child's laptop computer from a city far away, because it was the smallest one in the house. And who was then delivered, with the compliance of the university, a letter demanding $40,000 or else...

Because the computer had been sharing music, or offering to share music, or considering sharing music, without the knowledge of its human owner.

partie 6 - paragraphe 5

But why should that be a problem? You are strictly liable for the technology under your control; if it offers to share with anybody else, that's your problem off to the gulag, with you. We should banish you from the Net, because you weren't a responsible member of the network community.

You didn't do as you were supposed to do; you thought networks were for sharing!

partie 6 - paragraphe 6

Obviously, this isn't gonna work. Obviously, new models, in every direction will allow us to nullify this technology, this strategy, this form of law. Obviously, it isn't gonna pay. It's an attempt to maintain a soviet control of populations understandings, in an era of post-soviet free technology.

It's an activity involved in scaring people into the belief that the normal human tendancy to share is somehow wrong, criminal, unacceptable.

Ce réseau est le notre. Laissez-le tranquille!


partie 7 - paragraphe 1

Now, what to do with legislation which purports to put the state on the side of this absurdity? Well, we musn't be too undignified in response. It isn't the state's fault that it's been bought.

We need to disengage, as gently as possible, those institutions which belong to us, as voters in a democratic society, from those institutions which belong to the few who come to own.

partie 7 - paragraphe 2

We need to say, persistently and gently, but without any willingness to go away, or change our grasp at the least, that this society is ours, that this network is ours. That we built it, we made its bits, we made its bytes, we put the copper wire, and the fiber in the ground, we luxuriated in our control of it, we played with it, we tuned it until its end. The network is our instrument; it belongs to us the way the streets and the parks belong to us. It belongs to us, because it's public, because we made it, because it's here, because we cared for it, gardened it, and grew it up.

"Leave it alone!," we need to say.

partie 7 - paragraphe 3

The good mother state should recognize that it is ours and no one else's. They should recognize that, each of those states. Because the alternative is to begin engaging in a slow demoralization of the population's respect for the realities of the rule of law.

Because the alternative is to make it appear that the state can be purchased by the music seller, or the movie seller; by those who have nearly something to pattern, and not even something that we necessarely think does the whole of us any particular good.

partie 7 - paragraphe 4

I spent the last 15 years trying to free the executable layer of software in the network. Not myself, of course!

Just by trying to keep out of trouble, and in good working order, all those wonderful human minds that went to work reforming the technology, making free software, producing things that we need, and giving them away.

partie 7 - paragraphe 5

Along the course of that freeing of the software layer in the Net, we began to free culture. We began to produce the conditions that will reward the makers of the devices for giving us better devices to use. We created the conditions for those devices. We created the environment in which a digital camera's a useful thing to have in every pocket.

We created the conditions under which the things that you can do with a map, and a photograph, and a song file, and a video under production are extraordinary.

partie 7 - paragraphe 6


In my classroom, or a college classroom, or a secondary school classroom, in the United States, these days, if you say to people: "Go, give us a report about something!" Most of the time they don't come back any more with a written document; they come back with a web site, with a multimedia production, with a collection of artefacts of music, and the Wikipedia, and the film we found on the Net, in the way we ??? and all the remixing we have done , and all the putting together, we have created a society of creators, and we have given them the material with which to exercise their arts.

Partie 8


partie 8 - paragraphe 1

In compensation, we have reduced the profitability of certain unimportant businesses. And that's a fair trade, if ever there was one. Oh yeah, they will make noise; of course they will. And they will purchase every politician who is purchaseable.

They will use every last dollar to strangle every last freedom if it will keep them in business another week.

partie 8 - paragraphe 2

I don't propose that we should criminalize that activity. I don't propose that we should sue these people for beeing greedy. I don't propose that we should put them in jail, or banish them from the network, or send them to Siberia!

I don't propose that we should use any of these coercive measures against people who are wrong-headed and believe that next Tuesday will be 1855.

partie 8 - paragraphe 3

We should just ignore them. We should just go about our business. We should just not let the law be bent to their will.


We should acquit the people who are charged, we should ??? the politicians who do their bidding. We should make it clear to people, that contempt for the rule of law is not expressed by sharing.

Contempt for the rule of law is expressed by trying to turn the great majesty of the state and the wonder of our technology into a tool for extracting money from people against their will.

partie 8 - paragraphe 4

Can we do it? Sure we can do it! In fact, we've had 20 years of training, while they were busy trying to figure out how to get just a little bit up at the next turn. We've been doing everything we needed to do: we have the software, we have the hardware, we have the bandwidth, and we have the skill, the daring, and the creative knowledge required for the activity. Culture must become autonomous of those who owned it in the 20th century.

It has almost left the launching pad, it is nearly gone, and at the last minute, they would like us to chain it back up for them and it's not gonna be like that!

partie 8 - paragraphe 5

You're gonna have a hell of a fight, you know! They're gonna make a lot of noise. They're going to get right up there, with the President's visit to the Pyramids you know? It's gonna be the biggest thing on page one for as long as they can keep it there. They're gonna make it appear that every single person who has anything to say against them is some kind of communist who's crawled out from under the rock that Stalin was buried under. They're gonna yell "Pirate!" and "Thief!", they're gonna carry on like the Dickens and all of this isn't gonna make a bit of difference in the long run. Because the story's already written; this is a rear-guard action; this is the last of the last of the last....

And you can prove it.

partie 8 - paragraphe 6

Imagine what it's like to be a child suddenly threatened by a lawsuit. Or, for that matter, a distinguished visiting professor in a country far from home. Imagine that knock on the door that says: "We, the real people of the society, have a gripe with you." Imagine how frightening it is! I've seen a lot of terrified children in the last 6 years.

And I do hold it against the people who terrified them.

partie 8 - paragraphe 7

But no handcuffs, no criminal indictments, no jail sentences...


Mr Murdoch can walk the pathways of his society for as he pleases, and Mr ??? too. You don't need to fight a revolution against ownership; ownership is dying in its own root pace. You just need to walk straightforward, keeping your eyes on the prize; you just need to do what you're already doing: make, and share.

That's the end of it: make, and share.

Partie 9


partie 9 - paragraphe 1

Because, as we create that rich alternative culture, distributed in a million alternative ways, we are dooming those who would have us believe that without them there would be silence; without them there would be no art; without them, culture would be ???.

partie 9 - paragraphe 2

How does it work? It works because human beings are social animals. They communicate, biologically because they must; they interact with one another because there isn't any reality for a human beeing without an interaction. We are traders of symbolic tokens; we began that millions of years ago, and we are long expert in it. And without the opportunity to exchange tokens of meaning with one another, we shrivel up and we die.

It's easy for us to do what we know we're meant to do, and it's hard for anybody to keep us from doing it.

partie 9 - paragraphe 3

That human sociability, that natural tendancy to the exchanges of symbolic meaning, tokenized in a sound, a picture, a moving image, all the various ways in which we have learned, over generations after generations, to make ourselves heard, is the fundamental activity that makes us human.

When we speak of the rights of human beeings in their environnment, when we begin listing the things we think are fundamental, we begin by talking about humans' ability to communicate with one another.

partie 9 - paragraphe 4

And we are very close to one of the great epochs in the history of human beings. The epoch that begins with the ability to connect everybody to everybody else. The epoch that begins when all human minds are capable of interacting without intermediation one with another, five with five, a thousand with two, two with a million, in every geometry, and in every structure of meaning and every form of crying out with love, with grief, with hope, with doubt, with uncertainty, and with religious awe. Human beings are about to come into a communion that has never existed, but which we were always yearning for.

We're about to come into the state of complete sociability for which we were made.

partie 9 - paragraphe 5

And we are now facing a few forms of token opposition, ignorance and poverty and greed, and we face them as we have always faced them; the freedom of communication always had enemies. We were fighting for thousands of years about this.

The whole of the modern history of the European nations is the history of the struggle over freedom of thought over the question: "Who controls the mind and the destiny of people, ordinary people, in their deadly lives? Who controls the ideology of their communication? Who determines what may be shared, with whom, when and how?"

partie 9 - paragraphe 6

We have seen vast sacrifices made for small improvement in the freedom of expression and the right to know. We have seen amazing prices paid by people far stronger and far more determined than we, ourselves, in order to achieve small victories against the refusal to permit the sharing of knowledge. We have seen enormous crises, and great bloodshed, over the ability to share our knowledge and our understandings of the world with one another, without oppression and control. And after all those centuries of labor we're close to the end; we're almost there...

Six billion people on Earth, and by the end of this generation, even if there are 12 billion, we could have connected all of them.

Partie 10


Ignorance, the deprivation of knowledge, and desperation, the deprivation of culture, are preventable diseases now. We know how, at very low cost, to bring to everybody on Earth the ability to communicate. We can destroy ignorance, as the last generation destroyed smallpox. We can eliminate deprivation from everything useful and beautiful, because we have nearly finished digitizing everything useful and beautiful. And once digitized, it has zero marginal cost. If one person can possess it, everyone else can possess it, at almost the same instant, and at almost no additional cost.

So, in an economy of zero marginal cost, where almost everything that is beautiful and useful can be indefinitely postponed and transferred, and copied, and reused, and remixed; in an environment in which everything that we have ever known has become something that we can teach tomorrow, without friction, to anybody who wants to learn it... We are not likely to be delayed at the doorstep by the claims of a few people that they will lose money, when we are home. We are not likely to be prevented from getting to the end of what we meant to do, by people who tell us that they have a business model that doesn't involve everybody's knowing everything they want to know. They have yet to telling us that they are acting in support of ignorance. They have yet to say roundly that their purpose is the permanence of cultural deprivation. They have yet to say clearly that their goal is that you should have only so much art and so much knowledge as you can afford to buy. But soon we will be at grips with them, and they will be forced to declare what is their purpose. We will say: "We have built a Net which can teach everyone, and which can bring all beauty everywhere! Why are you opposed to it?" And they will have to say: "Because we will not be so rich". And then it will be easy to say: "Well, we feel very bad for you. That's too much of a shame for us even to express. C'est dommage, c'est dommage , farewell!" This is the moment that is coming. With a little bit of luck, you and I will all live to see it. We don't have to do much to get there; we nearly need to be perseverent in the pursuit of the right. We know what the right is, now. And they will make that lesson ever more clear by doing wrong. They will make that lesson ever more clear by being more thoughtlessly oppressive; by being more unreasonable in their demands; by being more overt in their determination to bend politics to their will. If we are merely quietly persistent, they will make their screaming heard, and people will do what they do when people scream in the street: they'll call the police. So, we are watching the working out of the last part of a very happy story. Our friends, the owners, the proprietors of culture... they're not so happy. They're not so sure.

You think behind all this bluster, there is certainty and confidence? You think that they are jumping up and down with eagerness to put the Internet service providers and the State between them and you because they are so capable and so fully conscious of their power? Or because they are afraid, because they doubt; because sunlight no longer serves their purposes? Which is it?

Partie 11


Here is how things really work: the cultural industries have another 15 years to run after which time they will either have converted themselves into businesses respectful of the needs of human beings in the 21st century, or they will have been swept to side. Other parties, capable of distributing more frictionlessly, and with less arrogance, will have replaced them. The artists will have moved. Because of course the best that they can say is "We stand for the remuneration of the artist." They say it all the time, you hear it, right? "Without us, no artist will ever get paid... and that's...


" What compensation is due to an artist, when her art has suddenly become visible all around the world, to anybody who wants it? Well? Nobody compulsorily collected on her *behalf*. You mean like the collection societies collecting on her behalf. This is like the people who go from door to door collecting for the charities they never give any money to, right?

If I go out and I start a charity and I collect 18 million dollars from children to pay artists with, and then I don't pay the artists a cent, I'll go to jail! The assumption will be that I'm a thief, a cheater. "Oh no, we're merely collection societies! We're merely the Recording Industry Association; we're not criminals, we're doing what we're supposed to do. All right, I'll give them the benefit of the doubt; I'll call no man "thief" unless he calls me "pirate".

But it seems to me that the question "For who has the structure of the ownership of culture been good?" is unlikely to be answered by the statement: "All the artists made out well." The artists made out poorly. Which is why, as they see the new technology offering them alternatives, they begin to desert. And it was that, not theft by audiences, that all of this technological control and people coercion, was designed to prevent. The real goal of the cultural industries, from the beginning of the digital era, was not to prevent the audience from stealing; it was to prevent the artists from finding out that there were better alternatives. Our machinery of alternative distribution was threatening, not because it stole from artists, but because it promised better to artists than the existing regime. The merchandizer has been using, for the last decade, a very weak psychological proposition: "You, my dear artist, you maestro, your enemy is your audience. I, I alone am your friend" Most musicians are not that stupid; most painters are not insane; most sculptors know perfectly well what's what! Hum? There wasn't an alternative to them. This pseudo-friend, this so-called "ally", was the only game in town! And so they played it. And it mostly hurt them. And they mostly died wishing they were rich.

I do not think that Mick Jagger has to worry about the love of his audience deserting him. I do not think that even the sing-a-song writer, down the street, in the weakest piano-bar in town, has more to be afraid of from the people who love his music, than from the merchandizers. So what is happening is a realignment of alliances.

What is happening is an alliance between those we used to call "consumers," and those we used to call "producers." They are now joined in a network of "prosumption."

Partie 12


partie 12 - paragraphe 1

Think about the digital camera for a moment, and what it means to be a photographer in the 21st century. To have a digital camera is to be immediately connected to the eyeball of anybody who might like what you are looking at.

And we have reduced the friction, in the distribution of images, from the point of taking to the point of receiving, near zero now.

partie 12 - paragraphe 2

Within a year, or two or three or four, you are likely to be offered, by almost every company, with a placard in the airport, a digital camera, wirelessly connected to the Net, which puts your photographs on Flickr the moment you take the picture.

Tagged with your location and time, thanks to the GPS chip in the back, which you might just as well have done without, and probably giving you some alternative to add a few tags with your thumb, after you take your forefinger off the trigger.

partie 12 - paragraphe 3


Should we, in such a world, get all worried about wheather photographers can be stolen from ??? viewers? Not at all! The photographers of the world, over the last 8 years, have largely discovered that free licensing is good for them. The Creative Commons BY-ND-NC license, or the GFDL of the Wikipedia, are licenses which have revolutionized the business of being a professional photographer.

Because you get to spread your work through the Net to every eyeball that might like to see the picture, but the moment that someone needs your picture for an advertisement, they have to come to you for a commercial license.

partie 12 - paragraphe 4

So by discriminating between the commercial user and the casual viewer, the most professional photographers have learned that they can have the best of everything. Their photographs can be in every eye, and every commercial user knows where to find them, and they can get paid. The same basic process of using free distribution as a gateway to commercial...

exploitation of one's own work, as an author, lies ahead of all the musicians and the videographers, as it has come to the photographers.

partie 12 - paragraphe 5

The alternate mechanisms of cultural distribution are up and running. That's why the desperation of the existing owners is so extreme! That's why they have to tilt the pot, and push all the chips they have, into the game between themselves and the state, over who will take the children away to jail, in the police wagon. That's why they have to talk about banishing you from the Net. That's the Net you built. That's the Net you run. That's the Net you use to make other people's lives better.

You have to be banishable from it, because, otherwise, the alternative mechanisms of distribution will do their business and make yours.



Conclusion - paragraphe 1

So we stand there now.

We stand on the cusp of the freedom to communicate, as so many of our forebears have stood before.

We stand at a place from which we can see the Promised Land.

We can see the fulfillment of human beings' needs to communicate and share.

We can see the end of culture which is proprietized in the interests of the few, which reduces the many, to mere consumers.

We stand where the technology of the "prosumer" culture leaves us: almost ready to make everything, for one another, freely.

Conclusion - paragraphe 2

And there are a few last obstacles being put in the way.

A few last ugly little barriers we have to jump.

A few last unfortunate involvements we have to undertake, before we can get over the finish line.

Conclusion - paragraphe 3

I have immense respect for the lawyers, and the politicians, and the organizers, and the dreamers, and the lovers, and the amateurs who came before us.

Because I know how hard their work was, compared to ours.

I know how much they suffered, and I know how much they gave, and I know how little they got.

And we are the beneficiaries of their hopes.

Conclusion - paragraphe 4

We happened, lucky generation that we are, to be alive now.


And we have a few little ??? to sweep away, and we have some blocks, beneath our feet, to kick beyond if we are to get where everybody has always tried to go.

This is the generation in which it happens.

Conclusion - paragraphe 5

It's been a long, long fight, and it hurt a lot of people, but it's almost over.

We are the ones who happened to be here and the difference is, this time, we win!

Thank you very much.


Outils personnels