Marx’s intellectual property
- This topic has 32 replies, 14 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 3 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
The highbrow New Yorker features the storyhttp://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/currency/2014/05/steal-this-e-book.html
Here is the statement on this adopted by the Party's Executive Committee on Saturday for publication in the Socialist Standard and as a press release. Members and others are free to publicise it on internet forums and anywhereSocialist Party statement on the Marx copyright controversyThis spring, London-based publishers Lawrence & Wishart came under fire online and in the leftist press for allegedly trying to‘privatise’the works of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. By now over six thousand activists have signed online petitions demanding that the “nasty, capitalistic” publishers retract their claim of a copyright ‘monopoly’over the duo’s collected writings. The allegations make for compelling headlines, but in reality the issue isn’t so clear cut.The works of Marx and Engels are valuable because they systematically document and explain the basic economic processes underpinning class societies. And an understanding of these processes is vital for identifying the problems with our own class society—capitalism—and what needs to be done to rectify them. Of course, countless later writers have helpfully summarised, elucidated, corrected, and interpreted Marx and Engels’s works, though many of the original writings remain relevant and worthy of study today.Both men having died in the 19th century, the copyrights on their original publications have long since expired. They are now in the public domain, meaning that, as far as the law is concerned, anyone is free to copy and distribute them. However, this status applies only to the works as they were originally published, unannotated and (usually) in German. Under copyright law, whenever someone produces a new version of a public-domain work that extends or transforms it in an intellectually creative way, such as through editing, critical commentary, or translation into another language, a new copyright is manifested in the novel creative elements. British law fixes the term of copyright at 70 years following the death of the creator, so any translations and critical editions produced since 1944 are likely to be proprietary in the UK.The recent furore over Lawrence & Wishart began when they demanded that the Marxists Internet Archive, a free online library, stop distributing material from a particular modern collection with the title Marx/Engels Collected Works. This collection is a 50-volume scholarly edition and English translation which Lawrence & Wishart had commissioned themselves (in collaboration with two other publishers) between 1975 and 2005. Though as a matter of law the publishers have the right to restrict republication of their own particular edition, their detractors have misunderstood this to mean that Lawrence & Wishart were asserting complete economic control over all of Marx and Engels’s works generally. In reality, the original German texts upon which the Collected Works is based, as well as many earlier English translations and editions of these same texts, remain in the public domain.Certainly the Socialist Party would welcome a move by Lawrence & Wishart to release their Collected Works into the public domain, or under terms which would permit the Marxists Internet Archive to resume distributing it. But at the same time it is understandable why they have so far opted not to do this. Like any other private enterprise marketing a product, their very existence is predicated on their exclusive control of the fruits of their employees’ labour. It is illogical toattack a single commercial publisher for engaging in business practices which are, by economic necessity, no different from those of every other one.What we can do, and indeed what we have always done, is to roundly condemn the entire socio-economic system which has led to the repugnant concept of ‘intellectual property’. Not long ago the notion that anyone ought to be able to claim exclusive rights to the expression of an idea would have been considered absurd. Today, however, legislative and technological measures have enabled and entrenched the commodification of humanity’s intellectual output. While computers and the Internet have long since made it feasible to freely share the totality of the world’s knowledge, the realization of this has been thwarted at every turn by those whose business models require that information, like physical commodities, remain scarce. In the digital world, of course, information is never scarce—entire libraries can be duplicated a thousand times over with the click of a button. Rather than face up to this fact, publishers have collectively erected artificial legal and technical barriers to the distribution of knowledge. Here, as elsewhere in capitalism, technological progress and social utility take a back seat to the preservation of profits.The fundamental problem with the removal of Marx/Engels Collected Works from the Internet, then, lies not with Lawrence & Wishart’s demand, nor with the bourgeois copyright regime which gave it legal force. Rather, it is with the capitalist mode of production in general, in which nothing—not even scholarly editions of socialist texts—is produced unless it can be sold at a profit. Capitalist businesses which are not willing to take such legally sanctioned but antisocial steps as are required to preserve their profits are doomed to fail, only to be supplanted by competitors with no such qualms. We therefore call on working people everywhere to unite for a single political solution: the abolition of the global capitalist system and its replacement with one based on common ownership and production for use instead of for profit.
Apparently our press release gets a mention in today's Independent in "Andy McSmith's Diary" on page 20, if someone wants to check.
Quote:But the good news for the publishers is that they have a surprise defender in the party that claims to be Britain’s second-oldest, the Socialist Party of Great Britain, which says it is wrong to pick on one firm for doing what any publisher would do. Instead we should all “condemn the socio-economic system which has led to the repugnant concept of ‘intellectual property”.Great stuff but how did the Independent get hold of the story? Edit: Just noticed, from the press release. Are press releases a recent thing and who in the party can issue one? Can a local branch?
jondwhite wrote:I believe a local branch can issue a press release in the name of the local branch.Yes, and if it is signed 'xbranch of the SPGB' it will be interpreted by most to be a party statement. I may be mistaken but in the past all statements had to be issued by the EC, which I thought slowed the party's response to events.Anyway, well done to the 'famous media committee' keep up the good work!
The other side of the coin, illustrating another way capitalism distorts things but is quite normal under it:http://www.theguardian.com/books/booksblog/2014/jul/16/karl-marx-das-kapital-sold-for-40000-dollarsNot that this disproves the labour theory of value as this is about the value of something that can be reproduced whereas a first edition of Das Kapital, like unique works of art, can't be. So their price (they have virtually no labour-time value) reflects only the demand for them, as Marx explained in Das Kapital (if the purchaser bothers to read it).
Also in The Independent
Quote:4. Lovely. Socialist Party statement condemns the "repugnant" idea of intellectual property; going on to defend Laurence & Wishart's copyright in an annotated collection of Marx's works.http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/the-daily-catchup-farewell-twobrains-welby-on-assisted-dying-and-intellectual-property-is-theft-9606126.htmlWhich provided a link to Socialist Courier blog publication of the statement with nearly 60 hits resulting from it.What's good about these mentions is that it carries extra info on the party.
Vin Maratty wrote:I may be mistaken but in the past all statements had to be issued by the EC, which I thought slowed the party's response to events.Virtually everything had to be approved by the EC except leaflets advertising meetings.
Rulebook wrote:Branches, Groups and members shall neither publish, sell or distribute any political literature in the name of the Party, excepting handbills and leaflets, which has not been approved by the Executive Committee or the New Pamphlets Committee. Election Statements and Election Manifestos, being Official Party Statements, must be approved by the Executive Committee.Per the letters page in the weakly wanking :http://weeklyworker.co.uk/worker/1019/letters/I thought there was an extant conference resolution permitting members to put the party name on their letters to the press, but this may have just been an EC ruling (I couldn't find any such resolution).
gnome wrote:Virtually everything had to be approved by the EC except leaflets advertising meetings.So press release by media committee is a new thing? Not surprised that the BBC don’t contact us when they need a socialist or Marxist! Most Political parties, universities etc. have a press office. eg http://www.ncl.ac.uk/press.office/press.release/Press releases are taken more seriously than letters from individual members.The party should issue statements regularly on topical issues, Gaza, depression etc. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/10964125/Tories-discuss-stripping-benefits-claimants-who-refuse-treatment-for-depression.html Will raise our profile! Apologies for going off topic.
This press release on intellectual property and Marx was actually belated, drawn up not by the Media Committee nor the EC but requested from Cde Tristan Miller, who understands copyright laws more than the average member and submitted to the EC for approval. (i stand to be corrected on this).I think we may have struck lucky by not being caught up in a log-jam of earlier comments from every tom dick and harry group and our statement stood out as unique in its position (even if some will say it is a continuance of our legalistic Small Party of Good Boys image !!) Surely such statements should be featured on the front page of our website and the link given to it in the press statement which will indeed raise our profile online. Socialist Courier blog has had over 300 page views of the statement, over 60 from the Independent's link to it. SOYMB has had 120 hits on its Statement page and an unknown number who would have scrolled down to it. The Media and the Internet Committees should coordinate on this in future. Not too complicated i would imagine. The SOYMB often tries to provide the party view on currents events such as Gaza by re-doing past articles and performs reasonably well but i am biased. http://socialismoryourmoneyback.blogspot.com/2014/07/gaza-suffers-again.htmlBut it is limited and suffers from not carrying the authority (or originality) of the Party as an official statement would do and which would be circulated through the comprehensive emailing list of the Media Committee (they have been very successful in collating an admirable collection of contacts) .We still got a lot to do but it is refreshing that we can witness benefits so quickly.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.