From the late ‘80s an embryonic hostility to copyright law became visible. Fuelled by the fanzine revolution, the aggression of the music industry’s “Home Taping is Killing Music!” and the ease of copying computer games from tape cassettes, this sentiment expressed itself under the legends ‘anti-copyright’. Meanwhile, in a not so distant universe, programmers had already been experimenting with the subversion of copyright laws using the General Public License propounded by the GNU project. The license is an offer to the world to use the work as they like so long as they respect the conditions specified, no contact with the owner is required. The source code for GPL software is always available, and any program integrating GPL elements must itself be made available under the same terms. This quality is what gives the ‘copyleft’ license its viral quality. Every modification and improvement becomes available to all.

Following the completion of the GNU/Linux operating system the GPL’s fame spread like wildfire and began to spawn imitators in domains outside of software. Artists, writers, musicians and film-makers created a babel of different licenses granting to users rights that were taken of them by a copyright law in constant expansion. These licenses were inconsistent with one another and none managed to galvanise a sufficient community to start a movement akin to what occurred in free software.

Creative Commons began in 2002 with the aim of bridging this gap between software and culture. Their site contains a software engine that produces legal documents based on the answers to three questions: - does the producer insist on the association of their name with the work (“attribution”)? - is it available for any form of reuse or only non-commercial activity? - can new (derivative) works be created from it and if so under what circumstances?

we can discern two divergent and clashing conceptions in the users of CC licenses.

The first employs them as instruments designed to guarantee.The 'commons' that this model aspires towards is one based only on consumption. Universal reception is approved but all other rights are reserved, especially control over context and reuse.

The second focuses on amassing a large stock of common materials for whose use no-one's permission is required. The fear of commercial appropriation is put aside for the hope of contaminatory insinuation into the mainstream. At a moment when the general permeation of casualization and 'precarity' become starkly visible, it seeks to secure access to immaterial wealth is a form of insurance over one's own future. Constituting a countervailing block to monopolies based on exclusivity and control, it offers a material base of raw materials that can be continually reworked, improved upon re-elaborated and exploited in any number of unforseeable ways. Contributors are assured that their work will not be appropriated unilaterally. In this sense common (non) property is collective wealth and a form of indirect income analogous to free transport, access to education and housing. In a world of capricious underemployment and restraints on expression it provides a rare guarantee.

The success of the GPL was not based only on legal force; its goals were simple and it provided a clear way for people to share their work with others without fear of being ripped off. In this sense the license is a media itself and a community around which others sharing a dissident idea about how to produce can gather. The two different visions contained in CC make this more difficult. This tension undermines its mobilizing power; there cannot be a creative commons community where 75% of the users nominate terms that neither facilitate new creativity nor provide access to the economic resource for self-sustenance that the proud term commons refers to.

Systems of video-sharing such as V2V and New Global Vision offer a vision of a different mode of production for audio-visual works, but will never reach their full potential until clear rules governing cooperation emerge as shared values. The construction of a true commons means building and securing a shared archive of materials to allow both us to be sustainable in the present and capable of superceding the state of things in the future. The price of the freedom proffered is the relinquishment of the will to control.

Q: Enforcement of these kinds of laws and directives is becoming very fast and pushy. What's the hurry?

I would like to ask you to say something more about consequences of this law enforcement in East European countries. Do you think that you can do that?

The intensity of enforcement derives from the constant pressure exerted via the US Trade Representative. Each year there is a report listing those countries who have been naughty in copyright terms which is based on information provided by organizations like the International Intellectual Property Association ( a cross-industry lobby group) the Business Software Association, MPAA etc. These organizations are employing consultants and investigators all over the place, running promotional campaigns and have excellent relations with the embassies. The annual report comes out in April so in the months immediately prior to this, states must be seen to be ‘pro-active’.

Current enforcement strategies concentrate on production facilities and distribution points, particularly market places.

Countries like Latvia were considered to be important shipment routes for Ukrainian and Russian product so there we will see more action at the border.

Hungary extends duration. Establishment of special police units on internet and IPR crime etc. Increased pressure on ISPs (in Hungary via a 2001 cooperation agreement). Industry gets very upset about the length of time it takes to prosecute a case and demands a rationalization of the court infrastructure. They are also pursuing cable and television companies who broadcast programs without having payed for the rights. Pressure to increase fines and punishments in general.

Pressure on to institute ex parte searches, usually carried out by private parties but in the presence of a law official, conducted without warning with the intention of seizing evidence. Part of civil action.

Kadaka Market (Estonia), Petofi (Hungary) Warsaw Stadium (Poland)

Gaming Cafes in Romania.

ROACT, is gathering information to organize raids on Internet cafés and private locations

Estonia (1) free and 24-hour access to all FTP servers, including passwords in protected servers, etc.; (2) the immediate removal of pirated files (the current MoU requires 48 hours’ response time); and (3) the identification of FTP users by ISPs.