<videovortex> important questions raised at rhizome

[Geert Lovink]

The Question of Freedom at the Open Video Conference
By Carolyn Kane	 on Wednesday, July 1st, 2009 at 1:00 pm

http://rhizome.org/editorial/2739#more

Does free video uploading and downloading equal democracy? I asked  
myself this question during the recent Open Video Conference,  
organized by the Information Society Project at the Yale Law School  
and the Open Video Alliance, an umbrella coalition for the development  
of an “open video ecosystem”: a “movement to promote free expression  
and innovation in online video.” Conference sponsors include Mozilla,  
Redhat, Intelligent Television, and Livestream. The conference was  
held at New York University’s Vanderbilt Hall, home of the NYU Law  
School from June 19-21, 2009. I attended several of the panels at the  
conference, although it was primarily Yochai Benkler’s opening keynote  
that was of concern.

The mission statement for the conference reads, “Open Video is a  
movement to promote free expression and innovation in online video."  
The conference and its affiliates aimed to respond to outdated  
copyright law in an attempt to open the limits on the circulation and  
distribution of copyrighted material. Gabriella Coleman of New York  
University in her talk, “The Politics and Poetics of DeCSS,”  
demonstrated the historical connection between code and free speech.  
Coleman traced the relationship back to John Stuart Mill, who first  
equated Romantic notions with utilitarian ones in order to justify  
free speech. In the 20th century, figures such as Richard Stallman,  
Peter Salins, and Daniel Bernstein, all further solidified the  
connection between legal rights and code. This history, Coleman points  
out, thus explains the popularity of today’s research into the  
triumvirate of copyright, law, and culture. Ideally, the open video  
culture sought after would be one that would allow for the  
distribution and use of copyrighted video content without the fear of  
lawsuits or legal action.

Yochai Benkler, author of the celebrated book, The Wealth of Networks  
(2006) took the stage in the morning on Friday June 19. His conflation  
of the freedom to access content, as noted above, with freedom in  
general, was suspect. Benkler argued that Open Video was indicative of  
an “open democracy for everyone, everywhere, all the time.” Open Video  
Culture, he said, would usher in the possibility for “anyone to  
express oneself, be creative and innovative.” Benkler also claimed  
that because “millions of people are now looking at [social and  
political] problems” we will thus find millions of, “distributed  
solutions.” In this “free” culture, he continued, “human creativity  
would move to the core.” Aside from the seemingly naïve conflation of  
terms, exactly which society, which “everyone,” and which economic  
system did Benkler have in mind?

Rhizome’s founder, Mark Tribe, also presented at the conference with  
Rhizome’s Executive Director, Lauren Cornell. After the talk, Tribe  
shed some light on the significance of Benkler’s broad statements.  
“Benkler,” he said, "is partially correct. First, the majority of the  
audience members are lawmakers and corporate representatives and thus  
he catered his speech to them.” Secondly, “social media has granted  
more freedom. For instance, look at what the Yes Men can get away  
with.” But at the same time, he added, this freedom, “has no effect on  
social relations, economic inequity and on increasing freedoms for  
those whom it is denied.” Thirdly, this “freedom does not equal  
audiences.”

It is true. When Benkler states that in “Transparent culture, anyone  
can innovate” and thus become “better readers,” this is correct, in  
theory. For instance, random users may upload a video of a protest or  
demonstration to YouTube, or a mashup video of something they found  
online---they may make critical commentaries, subvert normative  
journalistic channels, and gain more insight into how television and  
mass media products are produced and assembled. But again, this does  
not guarantee more perceptive readers, critical content, or an  
audience for that material. As László Barabási points out, the  
majority of internet traffic still flows through major hubs—hubs like  
Amazon and Yahoo, which means that online content generally continues  
to rely on traditional media channels for distribution. Even if an  
independent new media organization may gain an audience, such as Boing  
Boing, or Rhizome, they may not be guaranteed the financial support  
needed to sustain on a long-term basis (this was the focus of Xeni  
Jardin’s talk at the conference, a reporter from Boing Boing).

The situation is nicely summed up by media scholar Geert Lovink, in  
his recent manifesto written with Ned Rossiter. “Web 2.0” they  
explain, “is not for free. ‘Free as in free beer’ is not like ‘free as  
in freedom’. Open does not equal free. These days ‘free’ is just  
another word for service economies…. Where is the enemy? Not on  
Facebook, where you can only have ‘friends’. What Web 2.0 lacks is the  
technique of antagonistic linkage. Instead, we are confronted with the  
Tyranny of Positive Energy...” The utopianism of “open and free” video  
culture, it seems, is correct in that it allows people to do things  
they could not do before. But this does not automatically equal change  
or democracy in itself. Any proclamation of social utopia deserves a  
second look, yet we also need to understand why Benkler framed his  
arguments in the way he did that morning––speaking to an audience of  
lawyers, corporate investors, sponsors, and public relations  
representatives.