Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
  • Get access
    Check if you have access via personal or institutional login
  • Cited by 6
  • Print publication year: 2010
  • Online publication date: September 2010

10 - Epistemic communities and social movements: transnational dynamics in the case of Creative Commons

Summary

Is it impossible to imagine the lawyers ever on the side of innovation?

Lawrence Lessig (2003)

Introduction

When Victor Hugo in 1878, with an inaugural address at the Paris World exhibition, helped to initiate the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (inured in 1887), he could hardly have imagined that, 120 years later, law professors, artists, and software producers would mobilize worldwide against the successor of the Berne Convention in favor of the free use of intellectual products such as texts, music, and software. The most recent and most obvious expression of this movement is the foundation of “Creative Commons” as a US-based non-profit organization in 2001, which has since extended its operation to over fifty different national jurisdictions. The aim of Creative Commons, according to its statutes, is to build a layer of “reasonable, flexible copyright” into the existing restrictive copyright law. Creative Commons develops licenses that enable people to dedicate their creative works to the public domain – or retain their copyright while licensing them as free for certain uses, on certain conditions.

The organization “Creative Commons,” however, is only the most visible part of a wider transnational community that supports ideas of “free use” and “share alike” in the field of free and open source software (for example, the Free Software Foundation), artistic production, information (for example, the Wikimedia Foundation), and science (for example, diverse open access initiatives1).

References
Benkler, Y. 2006. The wealth of networks: How social production transforms markets and freedom. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Blau, P. M. 1963. The dynamics of bureaucracy: A study of interpersonal relations in two government agencies. Revised edition. University of Chicago Press.
Boli, J. and Thomas, G. M. 1999. Constructing world culture: International nongovernmental organizations since 1875. Stanford University Press.
Brunsson, N. 2003. The organization of hypocrisy: Talk, decisions and action in organizations. Copenhagen Business School Press.
Clemens, E. S. and Minkoff, D. C. 2004. “Beyond the iron law: Rethinking the place of organizations in social movement research,” in Snow, D. A., Soule, S. A. and Kriesi, H. (eds.), The Blackwell companion to social movements. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, pp. 155–70.
Cohen, R. and Kennedy, P. 2000. Global sociology. Basingstoke: Macmillan.
Dahrendorf, R. 1959. Class and class conflict in industrial society. Stanford University Press.
Davis, G. F., McAdam, D., Scott, R. W. and Zald, M. N. (eds.) 2005. Social movements and organization theory. Cambridge University Press.
Della Porta, D. and Tarrow, S. 2005. Transnational protest and global activism. New York: Rowman and Littlefield.
Djelic, M.-L., and Quack, S. (eds.) 2003. Globalization and institutions. Redefining the rules of the economic game. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Djelic, M.-L., and Quack, S. 2008. “Institutions and transnationalization,” in Greenwood, R., Oliver, C., Suddaby, R. and Sahlin-Andersson, K. (eds.), Handbook of organizational institutionalism. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 299–323.
Djelic, M.-L., and Sahlin-Andersson, K. (eds.) 2006. Transnational governance. Institutional dynamics of regulation. Cambridge University Press.
Dolata, U. 2003. Unternehmen Technik. Akteure, Interaktionsmuster und strukturelle Kontexte der Technikentwicklung: Ein Theorierahmen. Berlin: edition sigma.
Eisenhardt, K. M. 1989. “Building theories from case study research,” Academy of Management Review 14 (4): 532–50.
Green, M. 2002. “Napster opens Pandora's Box: Examining how file-sharing services threaten the enforcement of copyright on the Internet,” Ohio Law Journal 63: 799–818.
Haas, P. M. 1992. “Introduction: Epistemic communities and international policy coordination,” International Organization 46 (1): 1–35.
Haas, P. M. 2007. “Epistemic communities,” in Bodansky, D., Brunnée, J. and Hey, E. (eds.), The Oxford handbook of international environmental law. Oxford University Press, pp. 791–806.
Helfer, L. 2004. “Regime shifting: The TRIPs agreement and new dynamics of international intellectual property lawmaking,” Yale Journal of International Law 29: 1–81.
Hemmungs Wirtén, E. 2004. No trespassing. University of Toronto Press.
Hemmungs Wirtén, E. 2008. Terms of use. University of Toronto Press.
Keck, M. E. and Sikkink, K. 1998. Activists beyond borders: Advocacy networks in international politics. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Lawrence, J. 1996. “Intellectual property futures: The Paper club and the digital commons,” in Ess, C. (ed.), Philosophical perspectives on computer-mediated communication. State University of New York Press, pp. 95–114.
Lessig, L. 2003. www.lessig.org/blog/2003/08/sigh_mp3com_we_hardly_knew_you.html, blog entry from August 7.
Lessig, L. 2004. Free culture: How big media uses technology and the law to lock down culture and control creativity. New York: Penguin Press.
Lessig, L. 2005. http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/5661, blog entry from October 6.
Merton, R. K. 1968. Social theory and social structure. Enlarged edition. New York: Macmillan.
Miller, D. and Slater, D. 2000. The Internet: An ethnographic approach. Oxford: Berg.
Möller, E. 2006. “The case for free use: Reasons not to use a Creative Commons-NC license,” www.opensourcejahrbuch.de/download/jb2006/chapter_06/osjb2006–06-02-en-moeller.pdf.
Morgan, G. 2001. “Transnational communities and business systems, global networks,” A Journal of Transnational Affairs 1 (2): 113–30.
Ren, Y., Kraut, R., and Kiesler, S. 2007. “Applying common identity and bond theory to design of online communities,” Organization Studies 28 (3): 379–410.
Tarrow, S. 1998. Power in movement: Social movements and contentious politics. Cambridge University Press.
Tarrow, S. 2000. “Transnational contention,” Working Paper RSC No. 2000/44. Florence: European University Institute.
Tilly, C. 2004. Social movements, 1768–2004. Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers.
Ven, A. H. and Poole, S. M. 2005. “Alternative approaches for studying organizational change,” Organization Studies 26 (9): 1377–404.
Vedres, B. and Stark, D. 2008. “Opening closure: Intercohesion and entrepreneurial dynamics in business groups.” Manuscript. Budapest: Central European University. www.personal.ceu.hu/staff/Balazs_Vedres/papers/vedres.stark.intercohesion2.pdf.
Vertovec, S. 2001. “Transnational social formations: Towards conceptual cross-fertilization.” Transnational Communities Programme WPTC Working Paper 01–16. University of Oxford.
Wayner, P. 2002. Free for all. How Linux and the free software movement undercut the high-tech titans. New York: HarperCollins.
Witzel, A. 2000. “Das problemzentrierte Interview,” Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research 1 (1): www.qualitative-research.net/fqs-texte/1–00/1–00witzel-d.htm.
Yin, R. K. 1994. Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.