From “Against Obscurantism,” Sight & Sound (2 Nov. 2010): “Argentinian philosophy professor Horacio Potel on the fight against restrictive copyright laws that are criminalising teaching and research.”
Do you see your case as part of a wider-reaching debate on the dissemination of and access to culture?
The Internet gives us the means to free ourselves from the clutches of the self-proclaimed cultural intercessors and delegates and to chose our own cultural heritage. This makes the old cultural industry nervous, as does the fact that the dissemination of information is taking place so incredibly more efficiently and inexpensively that ever before, makin the dream of free culture potentially available to everyone.
Nothing is being done to bring 20th century libraries up to scratch. They don’t have enough of anything, their stocks are outdated, and at the same time, the libraries of the future are being stifled in their infancy by putting injunctions on librarians. And the ultimate insult is that this is being facilitated by laws with such pompous-sounding names as “the law for the advancement of the book and the culture of reading” which, by defending the monopoly on the right to reproduction, is ultimately rubber-stamping the disappearance of texts and the culture of reading. One should not forget that my trial was intended to close three public libraries. That was the intention of the Argentinian Book Chamber and the cultural attache of the French Embassy. Luckily they failed.
As much as we should avoid the trap of thinking that “the book” belongs to the representatives of the publishing industry, we should also guard against the false belief that copyright defends the rights of the copyright holder. The opposite is the case. Copyright favours the control of our cultural heritage by an ever smaller number of private owners. The copyright is the medium that book-printing corporations use to appropriate the works of writers for purely commercial ends, so that all other companies, and the authors themselves, are robbed of the right to reproduce even their own work. Copyright confers a monopoly on the utilisation of content, and like every monopoly, it prevents competition which could at least bring down the exorbitant price of books. This is particularly pertinent in a country like ours where the majority of philosophy books are printed by foreign companies who compel us to pay through the nose for their products.
Culture, knowledge and tradition are not the work of “authors.” It is astonishing that the same gentlemen who carried the enlightened idea of the free and sovereign individual to the grave so as to sell us the consumerism of the subordinated subject instead, are now appealing to the metaphysics of subjectivity with an eye on maximising profits. And it is astounding that they are choosing to do so in a case that involves Heidegger and Derrida who both opposed the notion of creative subjectivity as the origin of the “work” or the “book.” There are no privileged atoms which are kissed by the muse and spread light among the passive masses. There are no atoms and the constitution of the “author” grows, like everything else, out of the metamorphosis of things that came before.
Heidegger and Derrida showed that before or in the process of the formation of a subject that calls itself “I,” an entire world was already in place, that we are formed before we are, by heritage and tradition, through the passing down and continuation of messages. Moreover, for Derrida everything begins with a summons: with a “come.” His “come” is the signal which calls for sending, the first email which calls for the correspondence in which we are already involved, correspondence with an other which is always there. To put an end to this correspondence is synonymous with death, and this is precisely what the militant copyright fundamentalists want to impose on the Internet in order to domesticate it and use it as a tool for selling their own bric-a-brac. But as Derrida said: “I inherit something which I must pass on: this might sound shocking, but there is no proprietary right to inheritance.” It is this inheritance that belongs to no one and influences all of us; it is this common heritage on which the new is built which is the focus of the attacks on free culture.
Potel quotes Derrida’s “Of an Apocalyptic Tone Recently Adopted in Philosophy” (wr. 1980), trans. John P. Leavey, in Derrida and Negative Theology, ed. Harold G. Coward and Toby Foshay (Albany, NY: SUNY P, 1992) 25-72, orig. publ. in Semeia 23 (1982): 63-98. The essay also appears in Peter David Fenves, Raising the Tone of Philosophy: Late Essays by Immanuel Kant, Transformative Critique by Jacques Derrida (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins UP, 1993) 51-72.