"Fascism attempts to organize the newly created proletarian masses without affecting the property structure which the masses strive to eliminate. Fascism sees its salvation in giving these masses not their right, but instead a chance to express themselves. The masses have a right to change property relations; Fascism seeks to
give them an expression while preserving property."
(Epilogue)
There is an irony that an essay that hoped for the transformation of property relations through new media is itself subject to the law of property.
"Your letter of July 8, 1996 addressed to Jonathan Cape Ltd. has been passed on to us, the owner of the rights of the works by Walter Benjamin. I am sorry to say but electronic rights will not be released to the essay by Walter Benjamin. We also have to inform you that we have an agreement with Harvard University Press for a several volume edition of the works by Walter Benjamin with regard to the English Language. With Kind regards. Yours sincerely."
(Helene Ritzerfeld, Suhrkamp Verlag, July 16 1996)
"Thank you for your fax dated 8 July concerning 'The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction' from Illuminations by Walter Benjamin. The underlying rights to reproduce this essay in electronic form are held by Suhrkamp Verlag, Lindenstrasse, Suhrkamp Haus, D-6000, Frankfurt 1, Germany.The right to use the English translation is held by Harcourt Brace in New York.A new translation could be commissioned but you would have to clear this with Suhrkamp. We hope this answers all your questions. Yours sincerely."
(Howard Watson, Permissions Controller, Random House UK Ltd., July 29 1996)
"... We appreciate your commentary to your enquiry regarding Walter Benjamin. We regret however to inform you that the rights requested will not be released also not to previous versions or translations. And, by the way, only the essay published within our collected edition of the works by Walter Benjamin is valid. Yours sincerely."
(Helene Ritzerfeld, Suhrkamp Verlag, August 19 1996)
"In general terms, the law gives rights to the photographer over the real. Photography is exercised on a real already invested with property. Each photograph has to be recognised as the result of a particular kind of 'personal vision'. The appropriated real therefore becomes the property of the photographer. In the late '70s, it was argued that the labour of the machine becomes the labour of the subject (that is the photographer). Photography benefits from legal possession on condition that it becomes the mark of the author.
What the historical illustration reveals, paradoxically, is how the capitalist mode of production threatens bourgeois property rights and ideology. The history of modern reproduction technologies from the birth of photography are a reminder that mechanical forms of reproduction destroy the exclusivity of art as a commodity. The potential radicality of photography has always been that the images infinite reproducibility destroyed or weakened the commodity form of art. This is Walter Benjamin's argument... which still has a bearing on developments today."
(John Roberts, conference paper from, In Defence of the Image, Camerawork, 1995)
"The thing you have to remember is for him technology was to be affirmed because of its political impact and whatever we say about fascism it was a mass movement and we are talking about mass access to forms of communication in the new technologies of which he would have approved... So he would also be very much in favour of the Internet and the totally unregulated Internet. The distinction between the culture producers and the culture consumers becomes totally blurred, if not eliminated so that anyone can produce culture... it takes effort to shore up something like computer technology as a product, a commodity for sale... For instance, zeroxing simply destroys private ownership of the written word and so we have to have elaborate laws that we establish that. What we're saying is that there is not only a democratic potential in these technologies, there's a socialist potential..."
(Susan Buck-Morss, interview)
In the age of digital reproduction, copyright now means the right to copy anything (until elaborate property laws attempt to stop you!).