Video

prezentacija i diskusija Piratbyran i Pirate Bay - aktivizam i ekonomija servisa učestvuju: Rasmus Fleischer, Magnus Eriksson (piratbyran.org), Milica Gudović, Vladan Jeremić, Vlidi (slobodnakultura.org) http://slobodnakultura.org http://ck13.org http://creativecommons.org.yu/cc_salon

PETAK 7. mart, Tribinska sala Doma omladine Beograd Ronaldo Lemos (Brazil, predsednik odbora iCommons International), http://www.domomladine.org http://creativecommons.org.yu/cc_salon http://slobodnakultura.org«

After copyright, Rasmus Fleischer, Magnus Eriksson

Ronaldo Lemos @ msub, belgrade

Tom Medak (mi2.hr) @ msub, belgrade

After copyright, Marcell Mars (mi2.hr)

Video interview with Misko Suvakovic by Prelom Kolektiv, the exhibition-research project "The Case of Students' Cultural Centre in the 1970s", chapter "Testimonies, Memories, Interpretations"

Testimonies, memories and interpretations of the SKC actors bring into the light a more differentiated and complex picture of art and cultural practices than the smoothed and pacifying discourse of dominant art histories. Less being souvenirs of the "good old times", they depict the complex field of different practices, strategies and relations that made up SKC. Those conflicting and, often, conflictual interpretations, also indicate political developments and shifting social positions that represent the stakes in today's games in the production of art and culture and in a broader battle for unified ideological discourse of the neo-liberal era.

Video interview with Dunja Blazevic by Prelom Kolektiv, the exhibition-research project "The Case of Students' Cultural Centre in the 1970s", chapter "Testimonies, Memories, Interpretations"

Testimonies, memories and interpretations of the SKC actors bring into the light a more differentiated and complex picture of art and cultural practices than the smoothed and pacifying discourse of dominant art histories. Less being souvenirs of the "good old times", they depict the complex field of different practices, strategies and relations that made up SKC. Those conflicting and, often, conflictual interpretations, also indicate political developments and shifting social positions that represent the stakes in today's games in the production of art and culture and in a broader battle for unified ideological discourse of the neo-liberal era.

[Dubrovnik, 15^th of June, iCommons Summit day one, the roof of Revelin]

Q: Hi, Ronaldo, and thanks a lot for having time to speak with us. This is the first day of the iSummit. What is the feel of it so far? What do you think, how it will develop from here?

A: First, for me it is a pleasure to be talking with you... My feel about the iSummit is the best possible. First, it's taking place in such a great city, the environment is perfect, but the best thing about it is that you can see that something is going on. Something is going on in terms of how people are connecting, how people are seeing that they can do things together, either together in the same space or together in the Internet, and I think this is very powerful. I think people who are here are motivated not only by intellectual property, but through the fact that they think, they perceive the fact that they can change things. We have big challenges ahead, technology, internet and lots of other things like the decadence of the welfare state, challenges that we have to face in the future. And I think technology is very much at the edge of solving these problems. Not that it is technology that is going to solve them, but in fact technology is the spearhead, it is the first thing that is having to face these new challenges of the new century. My impression is that people here are concerned not only about intellectual property but about new solutions for our old problems.

Q: One of the focuses of this iSummit is the issue of collecting societies still boycotting the collaboration with Creative Commons. We had the chance to talk with the representative of one of the biggest collecting societies, CISAC, but I think the general feeling after that, and after Lawrence Lessig's appearance in Brussels a few weeks ago in front of representatives of societies, is that they are willing to talk, but there isn't much progress really, and it is quite uncertain if there will be any, anytime soon. What do you think, could this problem be solved without actually collaborating with collecting societies?

A: That's a very interesting question, and I think right now there are a few of cooperations between Creative Commons and the collecting societies. The fact that Larry Lessig went to Brussels - whatever happened in Brussels - and the fact that we had somebody from the collecting societies here as well, indicates at least a willfulness to try to initiate a dialogue. Of course I find this very good. If we can work together, that's very good. But, concerning creativity, the person from the collecting society said something I found very intriguing. He said that he represents 2.5 millions authors around the world. I wasn't impressed by this number as I actually think this is a very small number compared to the amount of people who are creating things nowadays through the democratisation of the ways of production - so 2.5 million is actually not much. You have to think about these new constituents, which are not part of the collecting societies and sometimes do not want to be part of the collecting societies, because they know that they can manage their creation in a different way. So this is the challenge that we have to face. How do you rethink the ways that artists/creators can manage their work? Now technology allows you to establish direct contacts with your audience. So this is a challenge not only for the Creative Commons but for the collecting societies as well. And I think they are finally realizing that they have to do something about this problem, because their legitimacy will become more and more questionable if they don't do anything.

Q: In your presentation about what is happening in what you defined as periphery, not just in Brazil or Southern America but in Nigeria and other places, you made a distinction between what you called "legal" and "social" commons. It reminds a lot on the expanding phenomena of exploring the so-called piracy, where something like "grey commons" is defined (Piratbyrån). How compatible, how overlapping those "peripheral" events may be with what is happening through this "pirate" approach in (mostly) Europe right now?

A: That's an interesting thing. This research that we have done in Brazil and in other countries realizes that there are many places in the world in which intellectual property is either unknown, irrelevant or unenforceable. This is a fact, a social circumstance, and you cannot avoid it. But on top of it you realize that in these places business models are emerging that take into account these facts. People develop business models in circumstances in which they cannot rely on intellectual property. And, curiously, in these places there is a lot of innovation going on. Since you cannot count on intellectual property protection in the sense that you are Hollywood and intellectual property allows you to sell your film five times: you sell it to the movie theaters, to TV, to video on demand, and then you sell it on DVD - OK, this is based on intellectual property. What if you don't have intellectual property protection? That means that you have to do something else. You have to innovate the terms of your business model. If you take a look to Nigeria's film industry that's exactly what is happening there. In Nigeria, you don't have a strong IP (Intellectual Property) regime to rely on, and actually from the beginning of the nineties until the late nineties Nigeria didn't have an articulated copyright law, so you could not count on that, and even though, they developed a very sound, a multimillionaire business model for producing and selling audio-visual content that doesn't rely on intellectual property. This is what I think we can pay attention at, because it provides us with different alternatives on how we can do business with intellectual creation. So when you think about this correlation, which sometimes is repeated as a dogma, that you need intellectual property as the only source for motivating intellectual creation, it proves to be completely wrong. Intellectual property can be one of the incentives to be creative, but there are many others. And these other incentives are becoming as important or sometimes even more important than intellectual property itself.

Q: You presented us with various different business models which don't have names yet, maybe they will never have, but I got the impression that they are adjustable and that they are sort of coming from the improvisation, from that non-regulated grey zone... Are we now entering a time in history where there won't be one business model which can be copied and pasted, but various business models, which have to be adaptable to the specific circumstances of a special societies? Or can we derive some patterns and rules that can be applied everywhere?

A: That's an excellent question, and I'm afraid I don't know the full answer. But one of the things we can say for sure is that this emerging model is produced by the fact that these peripheries can be everywhere. They can be in Brazil, in poor countries, in rich countries, they can be in Eastern Europe, anywhere, it's not a thing about poor and rich, it can be the peripheries of London, the peripheries of New York, the mix tape markets, all the things that are emerging out of the pirate radios, it's the same thing. But it's the first time in history that this is happening. This is new. For the first time people appropriate the means of mass production, which is a concept of the previous century, so that everyone is now able to multiply the copies of your work, be it by digital technology, be it by CDs, all this is being democratized. We still don't know what the consequences will be. The impact will be profound. When I mentioned the Nigerian movie industry to a very well known movie maker in Brazil, he told me “Ronaldo, this is not movies, this is not cinema, this is something else”. I was intrigued, I researched and I found an article by the founder of the Cinémathèque Française, a guy named Henri Langlois. He wrote in 1969 that the true cinema would only emerge when the peripheries would appropriate the means of producing audiovisual content and were able to tell their own stories unmediated. This is the time when the true cinema will emerge. And I sent this article to this famous Brazilian director and he never wrote back to me, so I don't know what he thinks.

Q: Discussing ideology, there is a part of Creative Commons movement asking for even more of a "depolitization" of the movement. Then again, Creative Commons and similar initiatives do mess with the very notion of property, which has to be very political, very ideological, and we agreed on that. What would you say about the politics of Creative Commons initiative?

A: Just an example before I answer this question. Politics is completely relevant, for instance, for the definition of what cinema is. The definition of cinema is actually a totally political definition. Because if you define something as cinema, that means that you have state incentives for that particular form of production, that you have certain types of distribution, certain expectations, and so defining something as cinema and defining something as not cinema has a political impact, and this renders the definition of cinema itself as a political definition.

In terms of the Creative Commons project, what is happening right now is the following: you have Creative Commons on one side and you have iCommons as the entity that has been created to take care of the movement. The role Creative Commons are expected to play right now is a legal role. Creative Commons is the guardian of these licenses, it deals with legal problems... iCommons as the movement, and you are totally right, is very diverse. You have people who are in a certain place in the scale, and you have people who are very much like anarchists, like communists, and you have people who are more conservative, they all live together. And this is what makes the movement powerful. Because in spite of these different ideas and different concepts people have, there are a lot of things in which people agree as well. I think this is one of the most important chances of iCommons and learning how to live with these disagreements is one of the things that make us an important and relevant movement.

And another thing I find important is, by doing this, by having one single movement made of disagreements, at the same time we are challenging the structures that were built in the 20^th century. So nowadays left, right, it doesn't mean much. We are building something else, even in terms of ideology, because we are having other ways of articulating what you think and what you aspire, which are completely independent from these concepts, these dichotomies that were made in the 20^th century. So now we are free to reinvent that language, as well.

Q: So you believe that it is possible that it is the process in which some sort of trans-ideological platform is emerging?

A: That's exactly what I mean when I say that technology is at the spearhead of all these transformations. Technology is the first one in which you see this redefinition of concepts, the redefinition of roles, and you can see it clearly. Just take a walk through this conference. You see people from all ranges, from all backgrounds and beliefs, and at the same time you see something that unifies them. How you call it, post-ideology, trans-ideology, para-ideology, I don't know. You still have to reinvent this language.

Q: Our forthcoming CC jurisdiction is not really funded yet at all, and then you told me that Brazilian jurisdiction saw it's first funding 18 months after launching the licenses. Here, so far, we are doing fine with a lot of voluntary work and using of "public" services, like Google hosting of everything and similar... Do you think that now it is possible to get rid of the money in the system, altogether, and to run a small activistic entrprise free of traditional infrastructure costs?

A: I'm not sure that you can get rid of the money, but I'm pretty sure you can hack your way to it. For example, in the Brazilian case I mentioned, we got funding very late in the project, but in the same time we managed to become part of a law school, which was giving us institutional support to develop the project. They were not paying us to do the Creative Commons job, that was something that was paid or motivated by our enthusiasm for the project. But at the same time, if you hack these institutions, if you know how to navigate in the cooperation with other people, to do partnerships, to work together, I think you can find ways that are broader than the mere fact: now we have money, now we can do things. I think it is possible to do things through cooperation and through partnerships, building alliances, and that's actually what is happening in Brazil. Money came after that. We had all the work done, that's a paradox, and then we had money.

Q: Discussing the licenses, have you experienced any difficulties considering using the CC licenses within public service sector? I don't know how it works in Portuguese, but for an average Slavic language user and an older civil servant, it's very hard just because of the language barrier to imagine them saying that thay will license the work under "Creative Commons version 3.0", not to mention the bigger problems in understanding the concept. Is it possible to maybe rethink the names of licenses and to maintain the CC "brand recognition" for the movement behind the licenses, but to introduce some neutral phrases and catchy 2.0 names like flickr, google, digg, etc...?

A: This is a great question, and we had this problem in Brazil as well. The term Creative Commons in Portuguese is very difficult, even how to pronounce it. This is a problem that we had from the beginning. But when we started the project, Creative Commons Brazil launched a challenge, because Brazilians have this capacity of reincorporating other cultures, transforming them and giving them back in a completely different way. So we launched this challenge of who would be the person who would reincorporate Creative Commons in Portuguese and come up with something that is meaningful. I called it “the challenge of the utererizacao” - I know this term is very weird, I will explain where it comes from. There is a famous hip hop song, where they say: “whoomp there it is, whoomp, there it is.” Everybody knows it and it's very popular in Brazil. But we don't know as Portuguese speakers how to pronounce “whoomp, there it is.” So Brazilians transformed it into “uuu-te-re-re”, that sounds similar.

Q: Does it mean anything?

A: Nothing. It doesn't mean anything. And then I launched the challenge that said “we are not going to translate the license - if someone wants, please go ahead, find nicknames, find other words to refer to this license”. Then the minister of culture Gilberto Gil came with a definition that is called licença creativa, which means “creative license” - it was OK, but not that good... And then a guy from Salvador said: oh, in Portuguese Creative Commons phonetically sounds like “criei tive como“ - “I created because I had how”, and sometimes we adopt that. Because it's plain Portuguese and it has a similar meaning as the original license. So what I would suggest, I'm not sure, different cultures have different solutions, but take up this challenge, let people tell you how you should call it, invent nicknames - it makes people closer to the idea and they can reinvent the whole thing for you and can cooperate with you and become re-appropriating, which is for me the most important thing, how people can re-appropriate these ideas and recreate them. That happened in Brazil and it's really nice.

Q: And, for the end, some mid-term or short-term predictions, expectations...

What do you think may happen with the CC movement and generally with the advancement of technology and networking by the time we talk again, maybe this time next year?

A: Well, it's very hard to make predictions. So I'll better do some expectations. I think the expectation that everyone shares is that the movement is going to grow a lot, because there is a simple reason for that: this transformations that we are living at, file sharing, emerging cultural industries from the peripheries, new forms of rethinking the distribution of cultural content, they are going to get deeper and deeper. The challenges and the facts will continue to change, and naturally the response to the facts and the reaction to these facts will also continue to grow. So my expectation is, when we meet next year maybe in Sapporo, we will have a much larger, much more influential movement than we had before, and every year it will be like that, simply because the challenges are only starting. We are only seeing the beginning of the changes of the century. This is one of the communities that have been organized to deal with these challenges and we are doing what we can. I think we are on the right path.

<enditem>

---------------------------------

< link to iSummit 2007 photo set >
http://www.flickr.com/photos/vlidi/sets/72157600941222073

---------------------------------

this was the interview with

Ronaldo Lemos

[the audio & video of this interview @slobodnakultura.org]

special thanks to:

Rebecca Kahn

MAMA, Zagreb

everybody taking part @iCommons Summit 07

and all of you reading this

questions: Vladimir Jerić Vlidi

recorded by: Vladan Jeremić

transcript: Rena Rädle

slobodnakultura.org, Dubrovnik, June 2007.

Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License

The interview with Lawrence Lessig, the founder of Creative Commons and Stanford Center for Internet and Society and the professor at Stanford Law School.

audio & video of this interview @slobodnakultura.org

About: Lawrence Lessig is a professor of law at Stanford Law School and founder of its Center for Internet and Society. He is founder and CEO of the Creative Commons and a board member of the Electronic Frontier Foundation and of the Software Freedom Law Center, launched in February 2005. He is best known as a proponent of reduced legal restrictions on copyright, trademark and radio frequency spectrum, particularly in technology applications. In 2006, Lessig was elected to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.

In his book Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace, Lessig explores the ways in which code in both senses can be instruments for social control, leading to his dictum that "Code is law". Lessig is also a well-known critic of copyright term extensions.

<from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia>

The iCommons Summit ‘07 <http://icommons.org/isummit-07> was organized by the iCommons International, in cooperation with the Multimedia Institute MI2 <www.mi2.hr>

[Dubrovnik, 15th of June, iCommons Summit day one, a cafe downstairs from Revelin]

Hello Mr Lessig, and welcome.

My pleasure.

Q: This year's I-Summit is focused on several specific topics, one of those being how to deal with the problem of collecting societies. We had the opportunity to talk to the representative of one powerful collecting society yesterday, CISAC, and so far it seems that there is not much of the understanding from that side. Is it possible to achieve further progress without the collaboration of collecting societies?

A: Well, it is certainly possible to achieve lots in many very important areas we work in – in education, in science, and with authors and in places around the world that don't have the exclusive control of arts by the collecting societies, without collecting societies. And, that's so... Certainly, in the worst case scenario we'll do that. But I think it is very important that we make progress with collecting societies because – first, from my perspective, the objectives of collecting societies are not inconsistent with the objectives of Creative Commons. We are not in the business of becoming a collecting society, we are never going to be collecting money for commercial uses of our creative works, so we are not in competition with them. But what we are trying to provide is licensing structure, first for a whole class of the creativity they don't care about – amateur creativity, where people are not actually producing stuff for money, and secondly, we are providing a license that allows people to make free non commercial uses of their work, and as long as collecting rights society believes that there is a such a thing, than they should have no objections to allowing their authors to at least have a choice to do that. Though, there are some extremists, who believe that every single use of culture ought to be taxed in some way, they want to build permission societies. I once was at the conference where this women described her vision of utopia, which was permission society for culture – absolutely every single use, regardless by whom and in what context, was in some sense licensed. But I think that extreme view is rare, that the most people will recognize that it is one thing for couple of kids to sit down and remix a video, and it is another thing for NBC to remix a video, and rules are to allow both of these to happen without imposing very strict requirements as being imposed on NBC on a kid engaging in remix.

Q: If we observe Creative Commons kind of a parallel copyright achievement, a grassroots movement evolving to a valid alternative to the huge traditional copyright system, do you see the possibility (if most of national regulations would demonopolize the position of collecting societies) of creating a Creative Commons-like movement oriented towards assembling another grassroots network, which would take care of what collecting societies are doing today?

A: No I don't think we'll ever displace the proper role for collecting societies. I do think that, despite that fact that some of collecting societies movement would not acknowledge this, collecting societies are going to have to change, not because of us, but because technology has radically changed. Hence, competition authorities are much more aggressive about policing these government imposed monopolies, which in some countries collecting society is. So that means that the question is how they change and what they become? Now, I think that ideal role for the artist is to have a choice among collecting societies, competition among collecting societies, so that collecting societies keep their costs as low as possible, they keep the payout to artists as high as possible, they keep their unknown black box funds when they can not find out to whom to give money to as small as possible and that only happens through the competition. So, I think that is an objective we ought to have. But again, I still think that there is going to be a commercial component to what – to culture, and that is not something Creative Commons is going to itself directly support, even though we support structures that complement the commercial component, and I hope do that more frequently.

Q: When you say that we need more competition and demonopolization among collecting societies, you are actually talking about the deregulation of a position of those societies. And it is exactly this deregulation, this grey zone, which traditionally and historically was the source of unexpected, "creative" and inventive  solutions. How do you see this urge to pinpoint precisely what Creative Commons licensing are doing,  introducing even more of a precise regulation in the terms of copyright, compared to the traditional "grey zone", a non-regulated zone where creativity comes from?

A: Well, I certainly agree that uncertainty creates great incentive for innovation and I think for example if collecting societies did not hold monopolies than you would have lots of innovation in collecting societies that would ultimately serve both consumers of music and producers of music much better than the current regime internationally does. But, it doesn't follow from that that everything is better if it is uncertain. So, in a part of the strong motivation for Creative Commons was that copyright law itself is too uncertain. You know, in United States  we have a doctrine called fair use which gives you certain permissions to use work despite the fact it is protected by copyright, but the analysis of Fair Use is extremely complicated. In fact, the Supreme Court has said that the Courts are not supposed to develop simple rules for analysing Fair Use, they are supposed to keep a balancing test – which basically means to go to a court, before you can get a question answered and of course the costs of going to a court could be millions of dollars. So uncertainty there does not create innovation, what it does is chill lots of innovation. Our thinking with licences is to the extent we can draw clear lines, we should. Not all distinctions are in need for clear lines, so the non-commercial line is never to be a clean precise line, but to the extent we can make things simpler, we should. So we have to introduce technology to make it so that the creator can specify precisely the way in which she wants to be attributed, and you can click and you get the link and you precisely cut and paste exactly how you want to be attributed. That's making things simpler and I think we'll try to do that as much as we can.

Q: The very name of Creative Commons licenses is something that is derived from and inherent to English language. It is hardly translatable because of the several layers of the meaning of the word "common". In this region dominated by Slavic languages, it is pretty hard to be pronounced, and it is hard to imagine a fifty-something civil servant issuing a statement and saying that they would licence their further public work on Creative Commons Attribution version 3.0. Have you ever considered keeping Creative Commons movement branded as Creative Commons, but giving licenses some catchy 2.0 name, like flickr, google, digg – something which is easy to be pronnounced in different languages and easy to be remembered, and not in need of any translation at all?

A: We think about this all the time. We thought about it when we launched the licences for the first time, giving the licences particular brand names. And so that continues to be something we think about. The particular issue of how to translate the commons is both an opportunity and a problem. It's a problem because there's not going to be any good translation and you shouldn't imagine that even within English people understand what it means. I mean, it's an obscure idea, especially in the United States, so we have always thought from the very beginning, it was an education process, and that is the opportunity with it. As you try to get people focus on what it is this means, they think more clearly about the world that's around them, they begin to recognize important assets in their culture that are in the commons technically – parks and roads, and culture and holidays, those are components of the commons and that everybody experiences whether they have a word for it or not.  Now, we are open to finding simpler ways to express the ideas, what's happened is not really by our intention. But what's happened is that the icons have become a kind of universal expressions. So BY-NC, of course you have to know something to know what that means, but as a tag that goes with certain licences it is understandable. Where we see government institutions beginning to adopt the licences, they are very precise about what kind of licence they are trying to adopt.

Q: Can you explain in brief why the withdrawal or cancellation of Developing Nations and Sampling Licenses occurred a few weeks ago?

A: We've said from the very beginning we'd launch licences, see how popular they were and simplify based on what was necessary and what was not. Those licences were licences that were not being used, very small proportion of our population was using them, like 0.1% of the licences were sampling licences, and 1.5%, I think, were Developing Nations Licences. So the licences were not serving any useful function, apparently, by the way of being adopted. And also they created ideological problems . The Developing Nations Licence was inconsistent with the movement that was born after Creative Commons, the Open Access Publishing movement. Because publishers being into say: Ok, we'll use The Development Nations Licence because Creative Commons gave it to us, we can say we are open access – and it is not consistent with open access values, so that was not right. And on the other hand, the sampling licence was the simple sampling licence that was blocking the ability for people to share even non commercially their creative work, and making sure that people can at least share non commercially is important to a very significant segment of our community. So they have ideological as well as practical reasons that led us to retire both of them.

Q: Since you mentioned the word "ideological", there is, especially on CC mailing lists, a certain number of people arguing that Creative Commons as a movement and the discussion about the usage of licences should be depoliticized as much as possible. But we are all aware that we are dealing with the very foundation of something which is currently perceived as a property. To introduce changes within the attributes and the system of that "property" can not be anything else but a political act. Then again, the argument is that CC is supposed to present some sort of trans-ideological platform rather than a concrete political movement. What is your view about the politics of Creative Commons?

A: I think Creative Commons is a tool, much like digital camera is a tool. When you pick up a digital camera, or a video camera, you don't have to sign up to a political party, you don't have to say that you are Marxist, or libertarian, or a republican. You pick it up and you use it. There are a lot of people who use the camera, who use it in a ways I disagree with, and a lot of people who use it a in ways I agree with. But, you can't help it say that the consequence of that digital camera is political in a sense that it would empower the whole bunch of people to make a film who could not make a film before. I think that's the same with Creative Commons licences, you don't have to take loyalty of, to use a Creative Commons licence. We would be perfectly happy if Britney Spears used Creative Commons licence. I'm very happy when corporations build business around Creative Commons licences. I am very happy when republicans use Creative Commons licences. I don't have any view that we ought to be insisting on a political program for the licences but at the same time I don't think you can deny that the consequence of the licences is to empower a kind of creativity that otherwise would not be empowered. So that is the political consequence.

Q: Regarding the economical aspects of licensing, a business model of Chris Anderson's Long Tail was usually associated with open source business and open content licences. I think it is fair to say that the long tail business model grew a sort of a long beard now. Is there a new relevant economical theory or business model which may be the support to open content economy, is there a new relevant trend or theory emerging?

A: Chris's long tail is a powerful way of understanding a potential. As he recognizes, the mere fact of long tail doesn't guarantee that people would succeed. down the long tail. It is an opportunity for them to succeed. And the next hard question is how do you move up the tail, how do you as a creator move up the tail. And as he describes in his book, one way to move up the tail is to bring audience  up on stage, make the consumer a producer. So, enabling people to remix your work or to use your work in another kinds of creative context is a good way of becoming better known and therefore move up the tail. And Creative Commons licences, of course, are designed precisely for that. So, I think that that the first iteration of the long tail theory made it sound like a force of nature
 instead of a problem. It's a problem of a long tail. And than a question is how to solve that. Hence, there are plenty of ways which are tools, helping people solve their problems of a long tail.

Q: It is a day one of the iSummit 2008. Maybe it's a bit too early, but can you describe the feel of it so far, and do you have any predictions or hopes for the forthcoming period? Can you give some sort of a short-term estimation on how the things are going to develop, and what the consequences of this iSummit are going to be?

A: For me, the most significant fact is that I don't recognize most of the people who are here. Two thirds of people are not Creative Commons People. And that's a great thing. So I think what is going to happen in the next year is that this movement that is now internationalized is going to become even bigger and more out of control. And I'm excited about that, that's a great opportunity. I think that you are going to see the nodes that Icommons have established actually succeeding in producing innovative new projects that would not have been produced, at least right away, without Icommons doing it, that is going to be exciting, too. I think next year's conference is going to be even bigger and more diverse than this one. I think we are at the stage where things are taking off, hence I expect to see more of that kind of growth in a next short period of time.

Thank you for taking time to give us this interview.
Thank you very much.

<enditem>

---------------------------------
< link to iSummit 2007 photo set >
http://www.flickr.com/photos/vlidi/sets/72157600941222073
---------------------------------

this was the interview with

Lawrence Lessig

[the audio & video of this interview @slobodnakultura.org]

special thanks to:
Rebecca Kahn
MAMA, Zagreb
everybody taking part @iCommons Summit 07
and all of you reading this

questions: Vladimir Jerić Vlidi
recorded by: Vladan Jeremić
transcript: Milica Gudović

slobodnakultura.org, Dubrovnik, June 2007.

Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License