tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post1202049233037136820..comments2024-03-28T16:45:51.051+00:00Comments on The IPKat: Not just an academic question -- but an Abstract oneVerónica Rodríguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger52125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-33139055848535328882015-04-15T16:08:49.114+01:002015-04-15T16:08:49.114+01:00"Is a system that is "autopoietic" ..."Is a system that is "autopoietic" inherently one that does not function along Hegelian lines of "thesis, antithesis, synthesis"? If so, does the fact that it is autopoietic automatically rule out any theory of regulation based on an interactive set of developments of technology and law?"<br /><br />Good point. If Luhmann's theory assumes that these institutions (the law, the economic system, the creative system, etc) all operate separately 'autopoetically' (or according to their own logic), how shall the intervention the authors propose be possible? This is the problem is working with a deterministic social theory-- it problematizes the possibility of social practice.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-59445779152854572002014-06-21T23:44:51.173+01:002014-06-21T23:44:51.173+01:00Mladen,
It is obvious that it is time for you to ...Mladen,<br /><br />It is obvious that it is time for you to read it again (That you have to ask why I so indicate is far more than enough reason).<br /><br />As to the load of self-serving academic claptrap - I've read enough - thanks.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-7138143466303552692014-06-21T21:16:02.311+01:002014-06-21T21:16:02.311+01:00I've read 1984 back in 1975. What on Earth mad...I've read 1984 back in 1975. What on Earth made you think I did not read it? I suggest you read the article by Katarzyna and Primavera and we start discussing its thesis.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10397586815656342740noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-50227141978137668892014-06-21T03:25:41.250+01:002014-06-21T03:25:41.250+01:00Mladen,
Not sure that the "opportunity to pl...Mladen,<br /><br />Not sure that the "opportunity to plug your book" is all that great if you cannot recognize the reference to the author George Orwell is not in your favor.<br /><br />Advertising that you are rather clueless will not promote attention to your blog.<br /><br />May I suggest that you read the novel "1984?"Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-51761844382150803212014-06-20T21:21:35.127+01:002014-06-20T21:21:35.127+01:00Anonymous, thanks for giving me another opportunit...Anonymous, thanks for giving me another opportunity to plug my blog by mentioning the Ministry of Substance - I actually had a go at something akin - how about the Ministry of Design: http://mladenvukmir.net/ministry-of-design/#.U6SWstoaySMAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10397586815656342740noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-48200222846383679892014-06-19T19:28:57.906+01:002014-06-19T19:28:57.906+01:00While saying he would not dare wrap his own intole...While saying he would not dare wrap his own intolerance under a cloak of concern, my dear Mladen Vukmir wears a cloak of hypocrisy proudly.<br /><br />Does Mladen not realize the hypocrisy of his own words in labeling my words of “academic bu11sh1t” as intolerable?<br /><br />Intolerable: too bad, harsh, or severe to be accepted or tolerated : not tolerable<br /><br />So now, a thesis of an article cannot be critically panned (correctly <b>summarized succinctly</b>, as what was asked for in the post) and so identified, if that identification is not one that is “approved?” <br /><br />I nominate Mladen to head the Ministry of Substance.<br /><br />(1984 is closer than it appears.)<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-6387495842046025112014-06-19T17:19:09.811+01:002014-06-19T17:19:09.811+01:00Dear Mladen Vukmir,
This post has already been f...Dear Mladen Vukmir, <br /><br />This post has already been flogged death! Please, could we just give it a rest now, and move on?<br /><br />I can also confirm that I - and perhaps other readers - have now read your blog; well done for concurrently plugging it. I do hope that the readership conversion rate can now move up the ladder.<br /><br />Very best wishes,<br /><br /><br />Fed up IPKat comment-only reader (First Name) with nothing else to do (Surname)Fed up IPKat comment-only reader (First Name) with nothing else to do (Surname)noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-43724384649102635522014-06-19T15:22:50.810+01:002014-06-19T15:22:50.810+01:00Oh, and a one more thing: http://mladenvukmir.net/...Oh, and a one more thing: http://mladenvukmir.net/autopoietic/#.U6LxjdoaySM. I've posted on my blog a comment of what I have seen here at the IPkat discussion. Not really flattering to our humble IP profession.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10397586815656342740noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-47844992034308129182014-06-19T14:43:41.072+01:002014-06-19T14:43:41.072+01:00The Anonymous are a legion, I just want to acknowl...The Anonymous are a legion, I just want to acknowledge the 14.08 one, as I fully subscribe to the view the the grandiloquence is a distraction. I've tried to avoid it in my 100-pager, without trying to avoid the conclusions that not only the IP will change but also that the role of law in modern societies is bound to change. Bite into it and let me know your hate ;)Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10397586815656342740noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-30631620824698225512014-06-19T14:08:45.317+01:002014-06-19T14:08:45.317+01:00Anonymous @ if "autopoietic" is difficul...Anonymous @ if "autopoietic" is difficult, I hope I don't have to explain "irony" in the sense of self-mocking re 100-pager. I took a liberty of offering my approach to criticism too, but I still expect a nod to substance.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10397586815656342740noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-84006644390160967452014-06-19T14:03:06.989+01:002014-06-19T14:03:06.989+01:00I understand this blog post as simply reminding us...I understand this blog post as simply reminding us all (academic, practitioners etc) to attempt to do the following: Keep it simple...(KISS)! <br /><br />We're already overloaded with information in a digital age. Regardless of whether English is one's mother tongue or not, there is no need to be grandiloquent in making your point!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-62516950083023903732014-06-19T12:49:18.565+01:002014-06-19T12:49:18.565+01:00@Anonymous
Given the fact that you are an IP prac...@Anonymous <br />Given the fact that you are an IP practitioner (seems so from the comment you post) of the IP law you must know how the business model of such Journal's looks like. It is not the authors that charge you for the access but the Journal itself. Simple reason for that is that authors write these articles for free. Hence isn't it up to the Journal to decide what type of articles (+abstracts) to publish?It seems that Journal is subscribed not only by the practioning lawyers but mostly by libraries and universities. It seems that it aims also at acedemic readership, hence has some academic and not only practical input. <br />Or may it be the case that the Journal has overestimated the level of some subscribers?<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-70515249394458013382014-06-19T12:31:46.359+01:002014-06-19T12:31:46.359+01:00Is the irony of the following statement lost on th...Is the irony of the following statement lost on this crowd?<br /><br />"<i>I thought I've summarized succinctly enough this abstract in my one hundred pager write-up.</i>"<br /><br />Without more explanation, it appears that if you need to take one hundred pages to "summarize" an abstract, there is NO "succinct" to be found in that summary.<br /><br />I define black as white. So simple.<br /><br />Words mean what I intend them to mean is rather Humpty-Dumpty, that is to say, "whether you <i>can</i> make words mean so many different things."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-87751232058483847502014-06-19T11:02:40.268+01:002014-06-19T11:02:40.268+01:00Dear Anonymous @ 10:24, I hear what you are saying...Dear Anonymous @ 10:24, I hear what you are saying and for the sake of argument I wish to point out that it is certainly Katarszyna and Primavera's right to choose the way they want to express their views and it must be the right of any journal to choose any article they wish to publish. Consequently, it most be a subscribers risk to choose a journal that will not publish "academic bu11sh1t" as someone intolerantly pointed out above. I would not dare to wrap my own intolerance under the cloak of concern for a hypothetical subscriber to what the IPKat called a high quality publication. I think it is much more important to consider the thesis of an article, especially if it is challenging the status quo. I am eager to hear comments on its substance.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10397586815656342740noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-56896338701884624312014-06-19T10:24:50.956+01:002014-06-19T10:24:50.956+01:00Mladen: Katarszyna's legal right to express h...Mladen: Katarszyna's legal right to express her views is not under threat. She can do so in any way she wants. What she sought to do so here was to express her views in a way that is largely incomprehensible to subscribers who are paying a large annual subscription to the journal for the privilege of receiving it. If she really wants people to know what her views are, she should express them in a way in which they can be understood.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-24283812148213042622014-06-19T10:08:11.126+01:002014-06-19T10:08:11.126+01:00As this IPKat knows already I am myself not a stra...As this IPKat knows already I am myself not a stranger to complex takes on IP issues (Pls. see the post at http://ipkitten.blogspot.com.es/2011/10/abundance-of-sources-thoughts-on.html). I am certainly not an academic nor am I fascinated by unnecessarily complex ways of expressing one's views, but I do wish to stand here in defense of a right to freely choose a way of expressing one's views. This is especially necessary at the times when the obvious was overlooked and the IP profession largely failed to discuss the issues brought by the changing relation of the IPRs and social environment in sufficient depth. Why to be put off by a challenging expression of what is otherwise a clear idea. And as for your original post question, I thought I've summarized succinctly enough this abstract in my one hundred pager write-up. Thanks also to Katarszyna for directing us towards the academia.edu, I will gladly repost my article and study theirs.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10397586815656342740noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-73360816582012072722014-06-17T10:03:22.229+01:002014-06-17T10:03:22.229+01:00Thank you IPKat for publishing our response.
For a...Thank you IPKat for publishing our response.<br />For anyone who would be interested in reading the article in full I attach the link to my academia.edu profile where you can (legally!) connect to the whole version of the article published in the International Journal of Law and Information Technology.<br />https://eui.academia.edu/KatarzynaGracz<br /><br />Best regards,<br />Katarzyna GraczKatarzyna Gracznoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-10624159395537470922014-06-17T09:26:56.666+01:002014-06-17T09:26:56.666+01:00Congratulations to Katarzyna Gracz and Primavera d...Congratulations to Katarzyna Gracz and Primavera de Filippi for such a helpful and gracious response to the critique of their abstract. I'm not sure that I agree with their conclusions, but I absolutely defend their decision as academics to explore this interesting approach to the subject.<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-85175018632024352692014-06-17T02:02:28.429+01:002014-06-17T02:02:28.429+01:00Anonymous @ 22:16
I would welcome any new infusio...Anonymous @ 22:16<br /><br />I would welcome any new infusion of thinking from the academic world. You don't mind that I first cleanse of the Tower rot and make sure that it will work in the real world, OK?<br /><br />Note that I too have familiarity with academic Ph.D/post doc "life" and the analytic skills to be had, which happen to be (generally) the same ones that need to be trained out of a good lawyer.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-48584490752795377472014-06-16T22:16:07.004+01:002014-06-16T22:16:07.004+01:00Having both a professional and academic background...Having both a professional and academic background, I would just suggest people to avoid general categorization between academia and professionals (lawyers).<br />It is kind of unfair for someone who tries to bring the analytical skills and expertise developed during a Ph.D or post. doc experience in the professional practice.<br />We shall start considering having a diverse experience as an added value, and maybe we will start bridging the gap between "two worlds" in a way which could benefit the quality of legal production (in general, I dare say!)<br /> Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-84614583226528159482014-06-16T19:14:17.099+01:002014-06-16T19:14:17.099+01:00Class struggles are nothing new.
That's why t...Class struggles are nothing new.<br /><br />That's why there is a golden rule: He who has the gold, makes the rules.<br /><br />The myth of "autopoietic systems" in regards to rights and distinctions created by rights (haves and have nots) can be seen by the fact that if a system were possible (or possible and sustainable) natural evolution would have brought us there a long time ago, and we would not even recognize the need for a discussion.<br /><br />Hence the comment about breathing. <br /><br />Some of the smartest people I know are also the dumbest. The criticism that is by far more biting has little to do with the abstract (there is that hubris arising again).<br /><br />And please enough with the false self-flattery - it is not fear that you generate, as it is merely an observation that the light of unfettered and uncloistered discourse shreds the academic viewpoint and reveals it for what it is: just another (different) "want." (again, academia is rife with a non-merit critique system, in which the desired ruling philosophy is NOT up for debate and hewing to that dominant belief - and how well on hews - marks ascendancy in that "world."<br /><br />The battle of the haves and have nots will continue another day - no matter how much "autopoietic" koolaid is drunk.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-40771683607217268602014-06-16T17:42:18.940+01:002014-06-16T17:42:18.940+01:00Application of the systems theory to the analysis ...Application of the systems theory to the analysis of the current crisis of copyright law allows us to step out of the old and abused narratives of who will pay for this vs art for art's sake as it makes it clear that in many situations the same actor, representing particular interest group, may in fact be a part of many diverse functional systems with competing rationalities. <br /><br />The article shows that such is in fact the case of authors who simultaneously belong to (at least) two different systems of communications: the economic (which is interested in putting limits to sharing through the mechanism of price) and creative (led by the pro sharing logic, which assumes that the value of information grows with sharing), that should both be acknowledged by the modern copyright law if it is here to stay in the digital environment. <br /><br />We would also like to thank Jeremy and the IPKat in general for starting this heated debate. <br /><br />Not even in our innermost dreams did we think that our first important academic publication, would be able to evoke such strong emotions. <br /><br />We also thank Jeremy for making us realise the non-that-obvious importance of abstracts. :-)<br /><br />Because we do believe in what we write, we can assure you that when writing this article we were led by the rationality of the scientific system that is interested in finding the truth, which can only be found through the mechanisms of sharing, constructive criticism and cooperation for the common good.<br /><br />So we invite you all to treat this abstract as a wiki version that might be changed by those who read the article in whole.<br /><br />Let us all learn on the past experience with the use of the cooperation possibilities provided by the new technologies.<br /><br />Best wishes from the Ivory Tower, with special thanks to those of you who believe so much in the power of academia to change the world that are afraid of "machinations afoot with academics".<br /><br />Flattered by the fact that we might belong to such a powerful lobby<br /><br />sincerely, <br />Katarzyna Gracz and Primavera de FilippiKatarzyna Gracz and Primavera de Fillipinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-44454545150637344362014-06-16T17:40:44.813+01:002014-06-16T17:40:44.813+01:00We are both thrilled by the fact that our abstract...We are both thrilled by the fact that our abstract triggered such a heated debate.<br /><br />We absolutely agree that both the abstract and the article should take into consideration the most probable readers of the Journal: “legal and computing professionals and legal scholars of the law related to IT”. Somehow we took it for granted that it is for the Journal itself to decide whether the profile of the article is coherent with the profile of its readers, but perhaps we forgot that an academic Journal will mostly focus on an academic readership. <br /><br />We chose to publish an article devoted to Theory and Sociology of Law into the Journal of Law and Information Technology precisely because we wanted to confront our ideas with people from a different background, who might not necessarily be acquainted with these concepts.<br /><br />We did spent a considerable amount of time trying to explain the dense theoretical and academic language of systems theory in a way that remains understandable to non-experts. Indeed, this caused a decent amount of internal struggles and debates between the two of us - a “Luhmanniac” on the one side, and a pretty much down-to-earth copyright researcher on the other side.<br /><br />Such a heated debate clearly proves that we have failed at the level of the abstract. This, however, also proves that Luhmann was right: our social reality has become so complicated that the communication between different systems that comprise society (e.g. academia vs practitioning lawyers) is increasingly difficult to achieve.<br /><br />Yet, as much as we believe this description of social reality to be true (and scary), we take it as a challenge to translate the abstract for the general public hoping that having read the abridged version of our abstract some of you will be willing to read the whole article and share their ideas on the substance, instead of merely criticising the wording of the abstract. <br /><br />They say that if you cannot explain something in such a way that your grandmother can understand it, then you probably did not understand it yourself. Of course, our grandmothers are well aware of our research, and would have no trouble reading and understanding this abstract, for all the other grandmothers out there, we propose here a revised version of our abstract:<br /><br />The article uses systems theory to explain why copyright failed to adapt to the digital world. According to systems theory, modern society is made up of many differentiated communication systems (such as the systems of law, economics, politics, technology etc.) which serve different functions and operate according to different rationalities.<br /><br />The article specifically looks at how technological advances have stimulated immune reactions into one of these systems: the copyright system, which (as a subsystem of the legal system) can be regarded, metaphorically, as a living organism thriving to survive in the changing environment.<br /><br />Copyright law does not exist in a vacuum, but rather evolves in reaction to changes in its environment. Yet, it appears that, after a long evolution (in the darwinian sense of the term), the copyright regime is, today, at the border of extinction. <br /><br />Indeed, a former flaw in the evolutionary response of copyright law has brought the law to become increasingly unstable, almost unviable in the digital world. Instead of reacting to all the stimuli it was exposed to, the copyright system eventually began to acknowledge some more than others. As a result of lobbying, it became an easy prey to parasites (such as creative industries) eager to reform the law in order to ensure their own survival in the new ecosystem, at the expense of other rationalities.<br /><br />We claim, therefore, that in order for copyright to survive in this new environment, it needs to be reformed to account for the stimuli stemming from all relevant systems and subsystems, rather than favoring one over the others.Katarzyna Gracz & Primavera de Fillipinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-41491363262121876102014-06-16T17:08:34.397+01:002014-06-16T17:08:34.397+01:00The comment about Marxist ideology reminds me of t...The comment about Marxist ideology reminds me of the concept of an anti-language which is spoken by a marginal group to distinguish themselves from a central group, e.g. in Clockwork OrangeAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-92192754054262521212014-06-16T16:44:23.637+01:002014-06-16T16:44:23.637+01:00I came across another paper whose abstract sounds ...I came across <a href="http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00855714" rel="nofollow">another paper</a> whose abstract sounds very familiar:<br /><br /><i>Abstract: The paper explores the mechanisms that led to the current crisis of copyright law in the digital era by applying the concept of law as an autopoietic system. It analyses how copyright law has evolved over the years, and how -- every time a new technology has come to disrupt the system -- the law has evolved to try and preserve the traditional status quo. Today, however, in order to benefit from the new opportunities offered by digital technologies, copyright law must be radically reformed to encourage -- rather than discourage -- the dissemination of online works. This might require a shift from a system based on the concept of reproduction (copy-right) to a system based on the reutilization of works (reuse-right)</i><br /><br />It is from the same authors, and was presented in 2012 at a conference in Helsinki.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com