The Semiotic Hacking

How to unleash the creative and inventive intelligences to favor innovation

The Semiotic Hacking by Thomas Bonnecarrere is licensed under a Creative CommonsAttribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Cover picture : Free Universal Construction Kit by F.A.T Lab (2012), under a CC BY NC SAlicense

Semiotic Hacking logo : Thomas Bonnecarrere (2014) under a CC BY NC SA license

For more information about Creative Commons licenses,

go to:

http://creativecommons.org

For Viêt, and for a universal Internet.

“Really good coders build entire universes out of ideas”

Jamie Allen.

“Life can be much broader once you discover one simple fact : Everything around you that

you call life was made up by people that were no smarter than you and you can change it,

you can influence it, you can build your own things that other people can use”

Steve Jobs

“Alice came to a fork in the road. 'Which road do I take?' she asked.

'Where do you want to go?' responded the Cheshire Cat.

I don't know,' Alice answered.

'Then,' said the Cat, 'it doesn't matter.”

Alice's Adventures in Wonderland

Table of ContentsI. Introduction and initial reflections................................................................................................1

II. The hacking, Free and cypherpunk philosophies as core of the semiotic hacking..................2

1. The hacking philosophy...............................................................................................................21.1. Hacking and DIY philosophy...............................................................................................41.2. The spirit of exploration.......................................................................................................51.3. Ethics and hacking...............................................................................................................5

2. The Free philosophy....................................................................................................................62.1. Analysis of the freedom concept..........................................................................................62.2. Analysis of the Free software philosophy............................................................................72.3. Nonfree softwares and restrictive technologies.................................................................122.4. Material/immaterial goods and inherent characteristics in relation to the free software philosophy.................................................................................................................................15

2.4.1. Goods within the physical and digital worlds............................................................152.4.2. Common rival, non-rival and anti-rival goods...........................................................16

2.5. Free culture........................................................................................................................182.5.1. The colonization of the common culture....................................................................202.5.2. New legal tools to empower potential creators..........................................................21

3. Analysis of the cypherpunk philosophy.....................................................................................223.1. Encryption and privacy as core parts of the cypherpunk philosophy................................233.2. Datalove.............................................................................................................................24

4. Creative and inventive intelligences..........................................................................................264.1. Creative intelligence...........................................................................................................26

4.1.1. The exercise of freedom over the cognitive process..................................................274.1.2..Making unexpected connections................................................................................284.1.3. The framing - reframing process................................................................................284.1.4. The social dimension of the creative intelligence......................................................29

4.2. Inventive intelligence.........................................................................................................314.2.1. Strategic intelligence..................................................................................................314.2.2. Inventive thought........................................................................................................31

III. Analysis of the semiotic hacking process.................................................................................34

1. The complex observation...........................................................................................................341.1. From complex receptor to complex observer.....................................................................34

2. The context of observation.........................................................................................................352.1. The development of a favorable context to optimize the semiotic hacking.......................362.2. Groups of belonging and groups of reference....................................................................362.3. Intergroup relations, categorization and discrimination.....................................................372.4. Social representations........................................................................................................392.5. The group's cohesion..........................................................................................................402.6. Social influences as main threat for creativity and innovation..........................................402.7. Innovation within groups...................................................................................................412.8. The situations of group and creativity................................................................................462.9. Model matching of the task - network of communication.................................................472.10.Matching nature of the task - structure of the group.........................................................472.11. The matching nature of the task - social structure............................................................482.12. Matching between the representation of the task – nature of the task.............................482.13 Evaluation, competition and creativity within groups......................................................49

3. Synectics....................................................................................................................................504. The mastering of intelligence and ignorance in order to optimize the interpretation and the creative process..............................................................................................................................51

4.1. The network and the network strategy...............................................................................514.2.Analysis...............................................................................................................................524.3. Question – answer and prevision.......................................................................................544.4. The fight against the retention of information...................................................................564.5. The fight against disinformation........................................................................................574.6. The memory.......................................................................................................................584.7. The technical and legal dimensions of the memory...........................................................594.8. Internet network and strategic intelligence........................................................................60

5. Global evolved collective mind.................................................................................................635.1. The groups' design and functioning...................................................................................635.2. Groups of belonging and groups of reference....................................................................645.3. Clusters and networks........................................................................................................67

5.3.1. Clusters.......................................................................................................................675.3.2. Networks....................................................................................................................69

5.4. Technical infrastructure......................................................................................................725.5. Code...................................................................................................................................72

5.5.1. Global supra-ordinal goals and superordinate social identity....................................735.5.2. Culture of the network and collective intelligence.....................................................765.5.3. Ethics, sharing and fun as core values........................................................................78

5.6. Content...............................................................................................................................825.6.1. Viability and sustainability as main issues.................................................................825.6.2. The anticipation of potential abuses against the commons........................................835.6.3. Documentation and memory to favor the cognitive appropriation............................845.6.4. The promotion of the contents....................................................................................86

IV. The hacking of the semiotic process..........................................................................................86

1. The relation to the observed representamen..............................................................................861.1. Actual, virtual and virtualization – actualization dynamic.................................................861.2. The different kinds of observation.....................................................................................891.3. The different kinds of relation to the object.......................................................................901.4. The dimensions of the mind...............................................................................................911.5. The interpretamen in the semiotic process.........................................................................911.6. The representamen's design and design's model................................................................931.7. The complete observation and experience with a digital representamen...........................971.8. Metadata to enrich the interpretation of a digital representamen.......................................981.9. Deceptive designs and mental models of a digital representamen.....................................991.10. Reverse engineering as mean to enrich the interpretamen.............................................1011.11. Dark patterns..................................................................................................................1041.12. Online lures....................................................................................................................107

2. The reading process.................................................................................................................1102.1. Semantic fields, inference, mental models and reading strategies...................................110

2.1.1. Inference and mental models....................................................................................1122.1.2. Code is poetry...........................................................................................................1152.1.3. Inference and strategic intelligence..........................................................................1182.1.4. Reading strategies.....................................................................................................118

3. The navigation process............................................................................................................1213.1. The cognitive navigation within the semantic space........................................................1213.2. Linear and hypertextual navigation..................................................................................127

4. Crystallized and fluid intelligence in the inventive intelligence process.................................1294.1. Fluid intelligence in the creative intelligence..................................................................1294.2. Crystallized and fluid intelligence in the strategic intelligence.......................................129

5. The right to read and write anonymously................................................................................1355.1. Read-only VS read-write cultures....................................................................................1355.2. The right to read anonymously........................................................................................1405.3. The augmented reading....................................................................................................1435.4. Open work........................................................................................................................145

6. Wave – particle duality and observer effect as core parts of the complex observation and semiotic hacking..........................................................................................................................153

6.1. The increase of the observed representamen's momentum..............................................1606.2. The cognitive conflict between wave-like, particle-like and wave – particle dual observations............................................................................................................................164

7. Serendipity and abduction as means to optimize the creative semiotic process......................1657.1. Serendipity.......................................................................................................................165

7.1.2. Serendipity in the cyberspace...................................................................................1687.2. Abduction as means to optimize serendipity and stimulate the semiotic process............169

7.2.1. Definition of abduction............................................................................................1697.2.2. The “background theory” as necessity for abduction...............................................1707.2.3. Abduction and observation process..........................................................................1717.2.4. Abduction and explanation of the puzzling fact.......................................................1737.3.5. Abduction and choice of observation.......................................................................1757.2.6. Abduction and social context...................................................................................1767.2.7. The potential negative effects of the social environment.........................................1767.2.8. The potential beneficial effects of the social environment.......................................1787.2.9. Abduction and representamen's design.....................................................................180

V. Branding strategies, intellectual property and their hacking................................................181

1. Intellectual property as mean to control the individuals' mind................................................1811.1. Mental DRMs, cognitive silos and their effects on the creative process.........................183

1.1.1. Mental DRMs...........................................................................................................1831.1.2. Cognitive silos..........................................................................................................1851.1.3. The cutting-off the creative process.........................................................................1881.1.4. The possible misinterpretations................................................................................192

2. Branding strategies and means to hack them...........................................................................1942.1. The branded semiotic process..........................................................................................194

2. 1.1. Definition of a brand...............................................................................................1942.1.2. Branding strategies...................................................................................................1952.1.3. Advertising and sponsorship....................................................................................2002.1.4. The colonization of culture.......................................................................................2012.1.5. The semiotic loop.....................................................................................................2032.1.6. The competition between brands..............................................................................2052.1.7. Mergers and synergies..............................................................................................2072.1.8. Brandscendence........................................................................................................2122.1.9. Legal strategies to develop and protect the brand's power.......................................214

2.1.9.1. The identity as rivalrous resource.....................................................................2142.1.9.2. The moderated legal strategy............................................................................2182.1.9.3. The lack of legal strategy..................................................................................221

3. The hacking of the branding strategy and of the intellectual property....................................2233.1. Hacking the trademarked representamens.......................................................................223

3.1.1. Neologisms...............................................................................................................223

3.1.2. Names of parody......................................................................................................2233.1.3. IceCat........................................................................................................................2243.1.4. Replicant...................................................................................................................225

4. Emulation as clear example of “cross-brand interoperability” in order to hack programmed obsolescence and preserve a cultural patrimonial........................................................................2265. The hacking of copyright.........................................................................................................227

5.1. Creative Commons...........................................................................................................2275.2. Copyleft............................................................................................................................2285.3. Voluntary public domain..................................................................................................2285.4. Copyheart and intellectual disobedience..........................................................................230

6. The hacking of trademark........................................................................................................2327. Synectiction as mean to disrupt the branding strategies and unleash the creative thought.....233

7.1. Cognitive empowerment and disempowerment...............................................................2387.2. The problem solving process...........................................................................................239

7.2.1. The management of constraints................................................................................2398. The creative framework...........................................................................................................2419. The search for interoperability as mean to disrupt the branding strategy and unleash the semiotic process...........................................................................................................................24410. Cognitive capitalism as value through mental representations..............................................24411. Cognitive commonism as mean to enrich the semiotic process............................................24612. The Free Universal Construction Kit and the achievement of interoperability between conflicting systems......................................................................................................................24713. Sustainability as core principle of the interoperability and Free philosophy........................249

VI. Conclusion.................................................................................................................................250

Annexes............................................................................................................................................258

Annexe 1......................................................................................................................................259Annexe 2......................................................................................................................................260Annexe 3......................................................................................................................................261Annexe 4......................................................................................................................................262Annexe 5......................................................................................................................................264Annexe 6......................................................................................................................................265Annexe 7......................................................................................................................................266Annexe 8......................................................................................................................................267Annexe 9......................................................................................................................................268Annexe 10....................................................................................................................................269

I. Introduction and initial reflections

The purpose of this theory is to develop a new paradigm based on the hacking philosophy, initiated bythe community of hackers from MIT in the 1980's and theorized by Richard Stallman, which can befully integrated within the creative and inventive intelligence processes. In other words, we are goingto propose a new paradigm which aims at unleashing these two processes in order to not onlystimulate innovation, but also favor the development of strong mental resistances against potentialabuses likely to weaken it. Our initial interrogations are induced by several analysis coming from thefields of human sciences (philosophy, linguistics, information-communication, social psychology andeconomy), computing, law and quantum physics. These different but complementary domains willmake us consider, throughout our analysis, the world (composed of the physical, digital and psychicvirtual dimensions) as a “branded and legally framed semiotic system”. Here are some analysis that fedour reflections to develop this new paradigm :

- Peirce’s theory of signs states that all modes of thinking depend on the use of signs. According tohim, every thought is a sign, and every act of reasoning consists of the interpretation of signs. Signsfunction as mediators between the external world of objects and the internal world of ideas. Signs maybe mental representations of objects, and objects may be known by means of perception of their signs.Semiosis is the process by which representations of objects function as signs. It is a process ofcooperation between signs, their objects, and their interpretants (mental representations);

- Some researchers like De Bonis (1996) state in their work that “everything is cognitive”, Thisparadigm is confirmed by Bohr (1935) and Heisenberg analysis, who demonstrated that the act ofobservation (whether by an individual or a group) necessarily has to be considered to meaningfullyanalyze our world;

- Ferguson (2011) depicts in his film Everything is a remix the interconnectedness of our creations andhow current laws and norms miss this essential truth. Lessig (2001, 2008) depicts the “remix culture”with the presentation of a new cultural paradigm born with the computer-era and technically inherentto the digital world, the “read-write” culture. “Culture is remix” is also one of the slogan of influentInternet advocacy groups such as La Quadrature du Net to defend remix as a fundamental right for theexercise of creativity;

- Klein (2000), in her book No Logo, analyzes what she calls our “branded world” by emphasizing theomnipresence of brands within our societies and the control they exercise on the commons as well ason our relation to them. She also emphasizes the “brand, not product” economic paradigm ruling ourcorporate world;

- Lessig (2001), in The future of ideas, analyses “the fate of the commons in a connected world” andthe threats the increasingly depriving copyright laws pose to creativity and innovation. In Code andother laws of cyberspaces, he emphasizes the “code is law” paradigm”. Maurel (2014) demonstratesthat this paradigm has now shifted to “law is code” . Thus, law is now deeply integrated in the code,and conditions the digital contents as well as the individuals' relation to them. Stallman analyzes the

1

“smart” and “deceptive” connected objects and the risks they represent for individual's rights andprivacy, considering them as “tools of power” likely to alienate the individuals deprived of theirfundamental freedom to exercise control over them. Finally, Assange (2013) states that “Internet hasbecome the nervous system of our societies”, while Zimmerman (2014) emphasizes the fundamentalimportance of the network's “universality” in order to preserve this exceptional common good fromcontrol by private entities.

Finally, our reflections are fed by Frasca's extended Peircean semiotic model which we will analyzeand enrich. We will thus analyze throughout this work how technical and legal issues areconditioning/shaping the individuals' relation to the world, and will try to propose a new paradigm inorder to “hack” it via the unleashing of the creative and inventive thoughts.

II. The hacking, Free and cypherpunk philosophies as core of the semiotichacking

1. The hacking philosophyThe main literal definitions of the verb “to hack” are1:

- To cut or hash with repeated and irregular blows;

- To break up the surface.

Richard Stallman (1980), creator of the GNU operating system, founder of the Free SoftwareFoundation and one of the first hackers from MIT, defines this philosophy : “It is hard to write asimple definition of something as varied as hacking, but I think what these activities have in commonis playfulness, cleverness, and exploration. Thus, hacking means exploring the limits of what ispossible, in a spirit of playful cleverness. Activities that display playful cleverness thus have "hackvalue". For him, hacking is an idea of what makes life meaningful. He adds that everyone's first hackconsisted to walk in the wrong direction on an escalator : “That is not the way it's designed to be used,but can you make it work?”

There are many definitions of the hacking philosophy but here are the ones which will structure ournew paradigm.

For Müller-Maguhn (2013), hacking means “not following the official rules but understand theprinciples and build something new with them”.

Stallman emphasizes historical facts at the origin of this philosophy : “Hackers typically had littlerespect for the silly rules that administrators like to impose, so they looked for ways around. Forinstance, when computers at MIT started to have "security" (that is, restrictions on what users coulddo), some hackers found clever ways to bypass the security, partly so they could use the computersfreely, and partly just for the sake of cleverness (hacking does not need to be useful). He however

1 http://www.thefreedictionary.com/hack

2

operates a clear distinction between hacking and cracking, which refers to security breaking.2.”Youcan help correct the misunderstanding simply by making a distinction between security breaking andhacking—by using the term "cracking" for security breaking. The people who do it are "crackers".Some of them may also be hackers, just as some of them may be chess players or golfers; most ofthem are not. Jérémie Zimmerman (2014), co-founder of the advocacy group La Quadratiure du Netwhich specializes in the defense of the individuals' liberties in our digital society confirms thisdistinction, stating that “hackers are builders, not destroyers”.

The “Mothership Hacker Moms” community (community of Californian mothers sharing “hackvalues”) define hacking in those terms : “Hacking is a general term that means modifying an object oridea to fit your own needs. You can hack a recipe, a computer program, or in our case, we hacked ahackerspace to suit mothers.” When asked about the definition of hackerspaces, they state : : “We’re amembership-based, community-operated creative space where do-it yourselfers share tools,intelligence and community. Hacker/maker culture and values support open source, peer-learning,shameless amateurism and unabashed dabbling, dilletantism, experimentation and healthy failures inhacking yourself and your subject.”3

Like Stallman, they operate a clear distinction between hackers and crackers. According to theRequest for Comments RFC 13924, a hacker is “A person who delights in having an intimateunderstanding of the internal workings of a system, computers and computer networks in particular.”The Conscience of a Hacker (also known as The Hacker Manifesto) is a small essay written on January8, 1986 by Looyd Blankenship AKA The Mentor. It states that hackers choose to hack because it is away for them to learn, and because they are often frustrated and bored by the limitations of standardsociety.

Jean Marc Manach (2012), journalist specializing in the Internet and digital technologies, states thatone of the hacking philosophy's core principle is “act without asking permission” (i.e., acting withoutbeing afraid of potential negative consequences such as social sanction). For Harvey5, in 1986, theword ``hacker” is generally used among MIT students to refer not to computer hackers but to buildinghackers, people who explore roofs and tunnels where they're not supposed to be : “A “computerhacker”, then, is someone who lives and breathes computers, who knows all about computers, who canget a computer to do anything. Equally important, though, is the hacker's attitude. Computerprogramming must be a hobby, something done for fun, not out of a sense of duty or for the money. Ahacker is an aesthete.”

All these different concepts such as the taste for disobedience to official rules in order to explore new“creative paths” likely to trigger new opportunities and lead to potentially unexpected/ unintendeddiscoveries, as well as the aesthetic dimension, will be fundamental in our analysis of the semiotichacking philosophy.

2 “I coined the term "cracker" in the early 80s when I saw journalists were equating "hacker" with "security breaker".3 http://mothership.hackermoms.org/about/faq/4 https://tools.ietf.org/pdf/rfc13925 http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~bh/hacker.html

3

Key texts structuring the Internet principles and the hacking philosophy are the Hacker Manifesto6,The cathedral and the bazaar by Eric S. Raymond7, the declaration of independence of the cyberspaceby John Perry Barlow and Code : Version 2.0 by Lawrence Lessig. The hacking philosophy is based onthe culture of amateurism and the learning through experiment and failures to feed the memory andoptimize knowledge of observed systems.

Coupled to Müller-Maguhn's definition, hacking will often denote in our work the action ofdeconstructing a sign, analyzing and understanding its principles and building something new with it inorder to stimulate the creative and inventive thoughts as well as the semiotic process. Our newparadigm, which aims at hacking the semiotic process to unleash it and stimulate the creative andinventive thoughts in order to optimize the exercise of freedom over these processes, will also bestrongly inspired by Zimmermann's (2014) definition of the hacker culture : "The hacker culture isabout the power humans have over their creation””8.

1.1. Hacking and DIY philosophy

We will integrate in the hacking philosophy the Do It Yourself (DIY) one, for these two philosophiesshare common core values and are, as we consider, intrinsically bound.

According to Wolf & McQuitty (2011), the Do It Yourself is the method of building, modifyingsomething without the aid of experts or professionals. They describe DIY as behaviors where"individuals engage raw and semi-raw materials and component parts to produce, transform, orreconstruct material possessions, including those drawn from the natural environment (e.g.,landscaping)". A DIY behavior can be triggered by various motivations previously categorized asmarketplace motivations (economic benefits, lack of product availability, lack of product quality, needfor customization), and identity enhancement (craftsmanship, empowerment, community seeking,uniqueness).

According to Wikipedia9, “The DIY ethics refers to the ethic of self-sufficiency through completingtasks without the aid of a paid expert. The DIY ethics promotes the idea that anyone is capable ofperforming a variety of tasks rather than relying on paid specialists. The DIY ethic requires that theadherent seeks out the knowledge required to complete a given task. Central to the ethic is theempowerment of individuals and communities, encouraging the employment of alternative approacheswhen faced with bureaucratic or societal obstacles to achieving their objectives.”

These two philosophies thus share in common core values such as :

- The search for creativity fed by empowerment, autonomy via self-sufficiency and independence fromprivate entities likely to exercise a closed and centralized control;

- A sense of initiative similar to the “act without asking permission” paradigm as well as a disinhibited

6 http://www.phrack.org/issues.html?issue=7&id=3&mode=txt7 http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/cathedral-bazaar/8 https://twitter.com/SurSiendo/status/461894447299457024/photo/19 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DIY_culture

4

approach toward the exploration, creative and inventive processes (i.e., ideology linked toamateurism), thus empiric experience as true source of knowledge and value within the creative andinventive processes;

- They both thrive in a favorable creative framework10, i.e., in openness and freedom. Freetechnologies and common goods (as core parts of the Free philosophy we are about to analyze) arethus considered, both for lots of hackers and DIYers as a good mean to favor autonomy andindependence (i.e., self-sufficiency) and favor the individual or collective exercise of freedom,creativity and inventiveness. They also both contribute to stimulate the individuals' creative andinventive thoughts.

1.2. The spirit of exploration

Patrice Franceschi (2013), French explorer and adventurer, defines the true meaning of theexploration spirit11. For him, what defines it are the taste for freedom and knowledge, a will of non-conformism and an ability to take risks (which inherently induces, from our point of view, the abilityto endorse and accept their responsibility). This spirit can animate philosophers, such as Kant whonever left its city of Königsberg but who achieved a copernician revolution of the thought by writingits Criticism of the pure reason. The spirit of adventure is thus not synonymous with exoticism. Thecourage necessary to think and tell the world the great philosophers invent does not have to beunderestimated, as well as the spirit of adventure they demonstrate. He then emphasizes the conceptof arété 12, intrinsically bound to the spirit of adventure and exploration, whose virtues are : the taste offreedom and knowledge, a willingness to nonconformity and a risk capacity. Brought together, theydefine the spirit of adventure that drives both sailors, mountaineers or philosophers. Finally, he thenstates that in ancient Greece, the highest human potential was knowledge (or wisdom). All otherhuman abilities derive from this fundamental one. If the arété's highest degree is knowledge and study,the highest human knowledge is the knowledge of oneself. In this context, the theoretical study ofhuman knowledge, which Aristotle called "contemplation", is the highest human capacity and themeans to achieve the highest degree of happiness.13

The spirit of adventure and exploration thus fits perfectly the hacking philosophy as defined byStallman, based on the love of exploration of the possible, of uncertainty and originality. Ourparadigm will also place these values at its core. We will thus consider that knowledge is necessary forthe exercise of freedom, which is necessary for true creativity to be expressed.

1.3. Ethics and hacking

Stallman's analysis always refer to “ethical hacking”. For him14, “Just because someone enjoys hacking

10 We will aanlyze this concept later.11 http://ragemag.fr/patrice-franceschi-lesprit-daventure-ne-rime-pas-avec-lexotisme-38177/12 From the greek word ἀρετή, virtue13 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrice_Franceschi14 The Hacker Community and Ethics: An Interview with Richard M. Stallman, 2002

5

does not mean he has an ethical commitment to treating other people properly. Some hackers careabout ethics but that is not part of being a hacker, it is a separate trait. (...) Hacking is not primarilyabout an ethical issue. (…) Hacking tends to lead a significant number of hackers to think aboutethical questions in a certain way. I would not want to completely deny all connection between hackingand views on ethics. The hacker ethics refers to the feelings of right and wrong, to the ethical ideasthis community of people had—that knowledge should be shared with other people who can benefitfrom it, and important resources should be utilized rather than wasted.15.”

However, he considers that it is something really important for communities, by thinking of ethicalissues in these terms :

The way I reached my conclusions about which freedoms are essential for using software, andwhich kinds of license requirements are acceptable, is by thinking about whether they wouldinterfere with the kinds of use of the software that are necessary to have a functioningcommunity.” We will consider ethics as a fundamental part of the semiotic hacking philosophy,for we consider that its integration within the creative and inventive thoughts optimizes theirrespective processes as well as the mastering of the collective intelligence, which is afundamental process to irrigate them. Let's now analyze the Free philosophy Stallman referswhen he talks about “ethical hacking”.

2. The Free philosophy“Freedom has two enemies : oppression and comfort. The second one is the most dangerous”

Pierre Bellanger

2.1. Analysis of the freedom concept

Freedom will refer, in our work, to several definitions coming from different fields of knowledge :

- The Free philosophy : First defined and developed in the computing field by Stallman, starting from1983 with the development of the Free software movement;

- Social psychology : Joule (2011), co-inventor of the “compliance without pressure” theory, statesthat the psychosocial knowledge emphasizes that the subjects declared as “free” behave the same wayas those who have not been declared free or who have been declared “constraint”16. However, thesimple “declaration of freedom” significantly increases the probability to see these subjects “submit” tothe experimenters' requests, in a laboratory as well as in the street. The effects of rationalization (a-priori adjustment of the ideas to the acts) and of commitment (resistance to change, tendency tpoaction,...) are more pregnant among the subjects declared free than the others. Most of the time thoseeffects are not observed among the subjects who have not been confronted to this declaration of

15 http://memex.org/meme2-04.html16 http://www.psychologie-sociale.eu/?p=203

6

freedom. Beauvois (2011) states that “the only freedom in life is not the one to say Yes. It is the one tosay No”. These concepts will be fundamental in our analysis of the branding strategies as well as in thepsychological defense strategies, at the core of the semiotic hacking philosophy;

- Assange (2014), on Information as flow and power, states: “For self-determination - either as agroup or as an individual - you need true information. The process of being and becoming free is theprocess of collectively and individually learning new information about the world and acting on it. Thesame process is one of the foundations of civilization. In communities, that means we have to be ableto communicate among ourselves - to pass on our knowledge and to receive that of others.Information is fundamental for our position of power toward the world around us. A knowledgeablepublic is an empowered public is a free public.” This paradigm will be complementary to the Freephilosophy which rests upon cognitive, technical and legal empowerment, collective intelligence andexercise of freedom to transform the world;

- Chomski (1990) states that freedom necessarily requires opportunities to be exercised. We will try topropose in this work possible means to create new opportunities allowing the individuals to enjoyfreedom by actually exercising it.

2.2. Analysis of the Free software philosophy

According to the GNU.org website17, “Free software” means software that respects the users' freedomand the community. It thus means that the users have the freedom to run, copy, distribute, study,change and improve the software. Thus, “free” is a matter of freedom (“free as in free speech”), notprice (“free a in free beer”).18

According to Matt Lee (2011), campaigns manager at the Free Software Foundation (FSF),“Stallman’s model for software freedom was the 1970s MIT AI19 Lab. The social contract of the AILab embodied the principles and benefits of free use and development of software. It is important torecognize that this is the historical emergence of an (approximately) ideal model rather than ahistorical accident or contingency. It is also important to recognize that Free Software is reform with adefinite model in mind rather than radicalism with an unknown trajectory.”20

Stallman makes a clear distinction between the “Free” and “open-source” concepts, whom heconsiders as an ideological conflict. Thus, while open-source software refers to the individual's choiceof commodity (via the possibility for anyone to improve and correct the software in order to benefitfrom collective intelligence), Free software refers to the individual's choice of freedom overcommodity. In other words, freedom is a matter of principle, a personal “ideology”. A Free softwaredefender will consider, unlike an individual supporting “open-source” softwares for their intrinsicqualities that a Free but not rich/powerful program will still be preferable than a rich and powerful

17 https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html18 In order to waive all ambiguities, we will always use a capital “F” standing for the Free philosophy.19 Artificial Intelligence20 https://gitorious.org/foocorp/foo3/source/ff66568bfcc4691575aeb723e6191da4bf709023:exploring-freedom.lyx#L782-3177

7

“nonfree” one. Lee (2011), talking about this “free” concept, states : “Once you have heard that itrefers to freedom rather than price, it calls to mind freedom. The word open never refers to freedom”.

The four fundamental freedoms composing the Free philosophy are, according to the Free SoftwareFoundation21:

- The right to use the program, for any purpose;

- The right to access and study its source-code;

- The right to modify it and adapt to one's needs, without restriction;

- The right to share it without restriction.

Stallman summarizes the Free philosophy using France's famous devise : “liberty, equality,fraternity” :

- Freedom : Via individuals' cognitive, technical and legal empowerment to transform the programsthey use;

- Equality : The FSF states that “Free software developers guarantee everyone equal rights to theirprograms.” This equality is ensured by the “universal” nature of these programs, i.e., with the samepotentiality of access and participation in their collective open, decentralized and non-discriminatingprocess. Their development thus rests upon an inclusive philosophy : any skill can be useful for beingpart in the communitarian process.

- Fraternity : Via solidarity at the core of the collaborative communitarian development. AlexisKauffman (2013), co-founder of the Framasoft community dedicated to the promotion of the Freephilosophy in the French-speaking countries, thus emphasizes that according to the Free philosophy,an individual using a Free software de facto becomes a member of the community gravitating arounda specific project. A Free program's intrinsic nature/core design thus encourages the unrestrictedsharing of knowledge and solidarity.

Stallman states that the four freedoms granted by a Free software are fundamental to exercise freedomover it. They are thus necessary for the individuals' empowerment (cognitive, technical and legaldimensions) via an unrestricted control to prevent abuses and enclosure/alienation to a closed andcentralized source owned by a private entity. This control can be freely exercised both individually andcollectively. The community of users and developers are thus encouraged to work together to controlthe programs they use. This collective, open and decentralized control is necessary for the communityto exercise to ensure and sustain the program's viability and sustainability. Stallman thus emphasizescertain limitations in the individual exercise of control over Free programs. Thus, most individuals donot know how to program and programmers do not have time to study the source codes of all theprograms they use. They thus need a collective unrestricted control in order to favor the exercise offreedom. The two first freedoms thus empower the individuals with the right to exercise individualcontrol over the programs, and the last two ones empower them with the right to exercise a collective

21 Stallman voluntarily started by “Freedom 0”, in reference to the binary code.

8

control over it.

The Free software philosophy thus largely rests upon trust in a community. If an individual or a groupdoes not possess the cognitive skill to fully exercise a power/control over a program (e.g., power toread and analyze a source code, whatever its language), he can trust other individuals possessing andexercising it to control the program's viability and sustainability. The open and decentralized collectiveintelligence process around the program thus allows to develop a global “social regulation”, as anyonecan potentially read the program's source-code and correct, thanks to this total transparency, potentialattempts of abuse (e.g., via the integration of “malicious features” in the code) likely to be sociallysanctioned. Social influences are thus efficiently integrated in the program's design in order to regulatepotentially abusive behaviors toward it, i.e., making it impossible for private entities to corrupt it.Moreover, the possibility to copy, share and fork the program at any time makes the attempt of privatecontrol/abuse inefficient and useless.

Mohit Kumar (2014), Founder and Editor-in-Chief of “The Hacker News”, Cyber Security analystand Information Security researcher, gives the example of the Firefox software : “Firefox iscompletely open source, which means its source code is available to everyone and anybody can verifyit and can detect flaws. Anyone can verify the official Firefox executable (available on the website fordownload) by comparing it with the compiled executable version from the original source code (alsoavailable for download).22 Brendan Eich (2013), inventor of the Javascript language and CTO of theMozilla Foundation, states : 'Through international collaboration of independent entities we can giveusers the confidence that Firefox can not be subverted without the world noticing, and offer a browserthat verifiable meets the users' privacy expectations.”

Chopa & Dexter (2007) analyze the “FOSS (Free and Open Source Software) phenomenon: “TheFOSS phenomenon is the subject of numerous political, economic, and sociological studies, allreacting to the potential for radical change it embodies. These studies focus mainly on four claims.(…) FOSS is a novel technology for producing software : it "represents a new mode of production--commons-based peer production" (Benkler, 2002) and is "a critique of existing laws, contracts, andbusiness practices . . . with the potential to explicitly change the 'political-economic structure ofsociety” (Kelty 2002). Therefore, it is supported by new microeconomic, political, and personaldynamics that may shed light on other areas of economic productivity and modes of collaboration.This new mode of production serves as the basis for examinations of its historical antecedents,parallels from other (sub)cultures, and potential application to other domains of inquiry and culturaland scientific production (Ghosh 2005). (…) From the perspective of software engineering, FOSS'sproponents tout the superiority of its bazaar-like development model over the rigid cathedrals ofproprietary software houses (Raymond 2000).”

For Zimermann (2014), Free technologies constitute fundamental “common goods of the humanity”and are made to last thanks to open standards, open source code favoring the permanent improvementand creation of derivative versions,... unlike the closed/depriving ones which are designed to beobsolete in order to favor their users' consumption and dependency. Mastering the technologies (only

22 http://thehackernews.com/2014/01/Firefox-open-source-browser-nsa-surveillance.html

9

possible with Free software respecting the four fundamental freedoms) means mastering our destinies(not controlled by private entities) in the digital world. This philosophy thus rests upon the individuals'cognitive sustainability, via the preservation of the pertinence of all the knowledge, experience andskills acquired with the observed and used object (with manipulation, reverse-engineering,...).Zimmermann adds that the sustainable design of a Free software allows its users to develop a richexperience (favored via its unrestricted use) and to keep exploiting/enriching this knowledge. He thusdescribes his own personal experience, by saying that he started using Gnu/Linux as operating systemin the 90's and that the different conventional “inputs” to be entered in the terminal in order to “givecommands” to the system and get specific “outputs” are still the same and have never been changed.This sustainability thus makes him feel “gratified”, for the useful knowledge he acquired through hispast experience with the system is still valid today. Moreover, the interoperability between theoperating systems based on Gnu/Linux allow the users to switch from one system to another and stillexploit their knowledge and experience acquired with the use of a specific one.

Let's now analyze the concept of empowerment. Yochai Benkler, in The wealth of networks, statesthat “Internet leads to an empowerment of citizens”. This opinion is shared by Benjamin Bayart, whostates that while printing allowed people to read, the Internet allowed them to write”. Rick Falkvinge,founder of the Pirate Party (world-wide political movement engaged in the defense of the fundamentalliberties in our digital societies) states that“Empowerment is not giving people power, people alreadyhave plenty of power, in the wealth of their knowledge and motivation, to do their jobs magnificently.We define empowerment as letting this power out." We will distinguish several interconnecteddefinitions :

- Cognitive and behavioral : “In” and “out” phase of Paley's “informational flow”23, via the ability toaccess information and knowledge and enrich it via personal interpretations, as well as benefiting froman open and decentralized collective intelligence. For Bayart, Internet forms true citizens, able toargue and defend personal points of view and point out mistakes committed by others. In the sametime, its intrinsic nature favors the development of humility, as the open and decentralized nature ofthe network can give anyone the possibility to copy, share and archive data, thus potentially anythingan individual can do and say within online public spaces such as forums or blogs. This power can beused against the criticized individual, who can see his previous public online interventions re-emergeand be exploited to compromise or contradict him with new public expressions and actions produced.The Internet and the digital world in general (in correlation with the development of powerful creationtools) thus generated new possibilities of expression, whether through writing, creating from scratch ortransforming/remixing existing elements/objects, i.e., contributing to develop a new form of culture :the remix culture (Lessig, 2009). Finally, Stallman (2012) states that Free softwares, by granting theindividuals the four fundamental freedoms, are designed to allow him to modify it without requiringpermission/consensus24;

- Social : With the possibility for anyone to “take the lead” with personal initiatives (DIY philosophy)

23 We will analyze this paradigm later.24 http://www.creationmonetaire.info/2010/11/dialogues-avec-richard-stallman.html

10

and the possibility for anyone to enter, quit and re-enter the communitarian process at any timewithout altering the global functioning (P2P structure). The individuals can thus, via these new socialconfigurations, change position without compromising the social structure's stability and sustainability,and adopt new identity using pseudos likely to favor their disinhibition via the encryption of theiridentities and actions produced online. These specificities are likely to enlarge the individuals'cognitive system by considering new behavioral, social and cognitive possibilities, i.e., favor theirdisinhibition and the production of new behaviors. This disinhibition will also be fed by phenomenasuch as social support and social recognition (favored by the Internet open and decentralized structureand the possibility for anyone to easily find other individuals, groups or communities that share sameinterests);

- Technical : Via the freedom to access the source-code of the programs and modify it withoutrestriction;

- Legal : Via legal licenses granting the individuals the four fundamental freedoms necessary toexercise their creativity, inventiveness and control over the programs used and favoring disinhibition inorder to optimize the “out” phase of the informational flow;

- Responsibility: Inherently induced by the freedom and the necessity to preserve other's freedoms(e.g., via the share-alike term).

All those dimensions composing the Free philosophy are intrinsically bound (e.g. the technicalempowerment dimension requires a specific legal framework and contribute to enlarge the individuals'cognitive system by making their virtual psychic reality richer, vaster and more complex.

Diversity (with inherent choice) and empowerment are also at the heart of the Free philosophy. Thesecore values thus strongly encourage the divergence of opinion likely to induce a cognitive conflict andthus innovation, as well as the possibility to choose between different Free programs in order to allowanyone to select, choose and fits his personal needs (adapted to everyone's needs). For example, anindividual appreciating the use of the Ubuntu program is offered a wide choice, depending on hispersonal needs, between a large variety of “derivative version” such as Kubuntu, Lubuntu (for oldcomputers), Ubuntu Studio (for multimedia tasks),...

Choice, necessary to exercise freedom, is thus fundamental for it empowers people and makes themdecide (i.e., be active) which programs best fit their needs and personal values. For example, anindividual can choose a Replicant mobile OS (administered by a community of developers) instead ofAndroid (administered by Google), LibreOffice (administered by a foundation) instead of OpenOffice(administered by a corporation), Firefox (Mozilla Foundation) instead of Chromium (Google) etc.

Benkler (1996) emphasizes two key-concepts which constitute core parts of the Free philosophydevelopment :

- The “commons-based peer production” : Defined as the collaborative efforts based on sharinginformation 25;

25 http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/23/magazine/the-internet-we-built-that.html?src=dayp

11

- The “networked information economy” to describe a "system of production, distribution, andconsumption of information goods characterized by decentralized individual action carried outthrough widely distributed, nonmarket means that do not depend on market strategies."

Michie, researcher in artificial intelligence, highlighted the importance of ethics and Free culture inthe control of computers : “Computers are becoming powerful and versatile assistants. (…) Weunderstand the past, to understand the present. We understand the present, to understand the future.(…). The past is the key to the future. This information and cultural revolution has roots in the freeculture and computing movements of the last decades. A few dedicated men had foresight tounderstand the capabilities of the machines they were building. Thanks to their legacy of an ethicalframework for computing, we find ourselves in this empowering position.”

When asked about globalization, Stallman says that “the world-wide free software community is anexample of beneficial globalization : people share knowledge with the whole world.” (…) He adds that“My goal is that we help each other to live better together. Advancing human knowledge is a part ofthis; making sure it is available to everyone is a part of this; encouraging the spirit of cooperation is apart of this. Those goals apply to various parts of life, but in the area of software they direct onetowards free software.” Joi Ito defines the ‘sharing economy’, in which unrelated individuals, often inremote parts of the world, ‘work’ together to produce private and collective goods. These definitionsthus emphasize the necessity for collective intelligence, which is a core principle of the Freephilosophy and the semiotic hacking.

2.3. Nonfree softwares and restrictive technologies

"DRM fails completely at preventing copying, but it is brilliant at preventing innovation"

Cory Doctorow

The Free software movement opposes the “nonfree” softwares, i.e., proprietary programs whosesource-code is not accessible and whose legal license do not grant its users the four fundamentalfreedoms to exercise a control over them. As “nonfree” softwares are both technically closed (theindividuals do not have access to the source code of the program) and legally depriving (theindividuals are not granted the four fundamental freedoms), we will always refer to them as“closed/depriving” softwares. This will thus emphasize both their technical and legal nature. Theseclosed/depriving softwares forbid the users to exercise a control over the technology they are using t isthus legally impossible to audit/check or modify the source-code. Okhin (2013), hacker and memberof the Telecomix “collective”26, thus states that these programs require for their users a “blind trust” touse them, and can not be trusted. This opinion among closed/depriving softwares is widely sharedamong the hackers and the Free software communities.

Stallman emphasizes an important reason for this lack of trust toward these “depriving” programs :they can integrate in their source-code DRMs, for “Digital Rights Management”. However, he prefers

26 We will analyze their complex nature later.

12

to speak about “Digital Restrictions Management”, for these technologies are designed to restrict andcontrol the users' experience “malicious features”, without them being aware of them (for hidden intheir closed source-code). For him, “Digital Restrictions Management is the practice of imposingtechnological restrictions that control what users can do with digital media. When a program isdesigned to prevent you from copying or sharing a song, reading an ebook on another device, orplaying a single-player game without an Internet connection, you are being restricted by DRM. Inother words, DRM creates a damaged good; it prevents you from doing what would be possiblewithout it. This concentrates control over production and distribution of media, giving DRM peddlersthe power to carry out massive digital book burnings and conduct large scale surveillance over people'smedia viewing habits.”27

Stallman qualifies these programs as “defective by design”as well as “treacherous”28, for they bothrestrict the users' experience with them and their designers are exploiting the necessary “blind trust”toward these “tools of power” to exercise a control over them (e.g., via monitoring or censoringcontents). He also analyzes the main issues induced by this “free compliance” toward treacherousprograms, which can be considered as “digital handcuffs” controlling the users, and as a “threat toinnovation in media, the privacy of readers, and freedom.” DRM only works if the "I can't let you dothat, Dave" program stays a secret. Cory Doctorow (2012), EFF Special Advisor, states : “ Once themost sophisticated (…) attackers in the world liberate that secret, it will be available to everyone else,too. Certainty about what software is on your computer is fundamental to good computer security, andyou can't know if your computer's software is secure unless you know what software it is running.”

In fact, Stallman talks about “treacherous computing” in order to short-circuit marketing strategieswhich emphasize a new term, “secure computing”, in order to favor trusted relations toward theirclosed/depriving systems. For him, it is “the proponents' name for a scheme to redesign computers sothat application developers can trust your computer to obey them instead of you. From their point ofview, it is “trusted”; from your point of view, it is “treacherous.” Closed/depriving hardware is thusnot secured for its owner (official design) but against its owner.29 (officious one).

These “malicious features” integrated in closed/depriving programs can thus be used to spy on theirusers, restrict them or even attack them with the presence of “backdoors”. Backdoors integrated in aprogram can allow the program's designer/rights holder(s) to exercise a total remote control over it.Any malicious features that is not already integrated in the program today can thus be potentiallytomorrow. The FSF (2006) uses clear examples to describe the issues raised by DRMs : “Would youever shop at a book, video, or record store that demanded permission to send employees to your hometo take back movies, novels, or CD's for any reason? Would you buy something that broke when youtried to share it with someone else?”

Doctorow (2013) analyzes the DRMs integrated in the Apple products : “Apple, having committeditself to preventing users from using their computers in certain ways, must now take on a further and

27 http://www.defectivebydesign.org/what_is_drm_digital_restrictions_management28 http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/can-you-trust.html29 http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/can-you-trust.html

13

further-reaching set of restrictions in service of that -- locking down APIs, shipping updates thatdowngrade the software, exposing user privacy, breaking core development tools. No end in sight --not until Apple decides that what you do with your computer is your own business.”

Maurel (2014) describes the “DRMs” not only as “digital handcuffs” but mostly enforcement systemsof automatized application of Law. These programs thus allow the privatization and potentiallyabusive censorship, with possible mistakes (e.g. Youtube's ContentID and its several arbitrarycensorships). In other words, they constitute a major threat for the individuals' fundamental rights likereading or writing. For Ertzscheid (2013), the DRM is the acceptance of a right of control (i.e.inspection) by the machine. We will deepen these two analysis further in this work. We will alsochoose throughout it to qualify closed/depriving and “DRMized” systems (and considering theirintrinsic characteristics emphasized by Stallman) as both “defective by design” and “deceptive bydesign”.

Lessig (2001) emphasizes the revolution the Internet network produced for creativity and innovationthanks to its intrinsic design :

The Internet revolution has produced a counterrevolution of devastating power and effect. Theexplosion of innovation we have seen in the environment of the Internet was not conjured fromsome new, previously unimagined technological magic; instead, it came from an ideal as old asthe nation. Creativity flourished there because the Internet protected an innovation commons.The Internet’s very design built a neutral platform upon which the widest range of creators couldexperiment. The legal architecture surrounding it protected this free space so that culture andinformation–the ideas of our era–could flow freely and inspire an unprecedented breadth ofexpression. But this structural design is changing–both legally and technically.

Intellectual property can thus constitute a major threat in the development of these “common goods”.Stallman thus created, in order to “hack” intellectual property30, a brand new legal license, theGNU GPL, based on the possibility to benefit from the four fundamental freedoms but also forcingthe users to not deprive others from these same freedom (i.e., share-alike license). “Finally, everyprogram is threatened constantly by software patents. States should not allow patents to restrictdevelopment and use of software on general-purpose computers, but in those that do, we wish to avoidthe special danger that patents applied to a free program could make it effectively proprietary. Toprevent this, the GPL assures that patents cannot be used to render the program non-free.”

As we said, Free softwares make, by essence, these attempts of corruption/privatization difficult orimpossible. Their design thus allows their respective communities to protect their common goodsagainst potential attacks from private entities, desiring to exercise a control over them. As the Gnu.orgwebsite states : “Because it is transparent, free software is hard to use for surveillance. This makes it acrucial defense against invasions of privacy by the NSA and the world's big Internet andtelecommunications companies. The FSF is building a movement to develop and expand the existinglibrary of free software tools that everyone can use to make the NSA's job harder. In addition, we are

30 We will analyze this practice in detail later.

14

continuing to grow the work that we have done for almost thirty years to promote and defend all freesoftware.”

A famous technological paradigm, always highlighted by Free software activists, is “Whether youcontrol technology or be controlled by it”. More precisely, the individuals can choose whether toexercise their freedom via Free technologies, or “freely comply” to closed/depriving deceptive and“defective” ones. For Zimmermann (2014), we are now at a crossroad, with two possible scenariinvolving the Free Vs. nonfree technological paradigms and already defined by our actualtechnological and legal framework :

- A techno-totalitarian society where technology is used to control people; or

- A Free utopia, based on the individuals' empowerment and freedom via the use and mastering ofFree technologies which respects their four fundamental freedoms to exercise creativity andinventiveness without restriction on an open and decentralized way.

2.4. Material/immaterial goods and inherent characteristics in relation to the freesoftware philosophy

2.4.1. Goods within the physical and digital worlds

Soudoplatoff emphasizes the fundamental principle of the digital world : “When we share a materialgood, it gets divided but when we share an immaterial one, it gets multiplied”. Schneier (2010)confirms this analysis by stating : “trying to make digital files uncopyable is like trying to make waternot wet.” The physical world, however, possesses inherent constraints making it really hard for a goodto be completely non-rivalrous : physical constraints thus make the acts of copying and modifyinggoods hard or impossible (e.g., if complex structure and composition with rare elements,...).

According to Stallman (2012), a digital object, unlike a physical one, is easy to modify if theindividual knows the languages used to code it. The only barriers likely to restrict/prevent this actionare the technical enclosure of the code and a depriving copyright license. Maurel (2012) states that aphysical good (i.e. “rivalrous” nature), once digitized, enters a logic of “non-rivalry” and “economy ofabundance”. However, technical restrictions integrated in their code such as DRMs can contribute to“recreate scarcity” among these goods

A physical good is usually owned and controlled by the user. Its designer can thus hardly restrict theusers' experience with it (e.g., a pen maker can not prevent an individual having purchased one of hisproduct from writing what he wants). However, other constraints apply to it. A simultaneousdecentralized sharing is totally impossible for physical constraints (atoms' characteristics) that thedigital world (made of bits) does not possess.

He then analyzes the difference between digital and physical goods in accordance to the Free softwarephilosophy and its four fundamental freedoms :

- Freedom 0 is generally possessed by physical objects, via their ownership;

15

- Freedom 1 depends on the good's structure (e.g., open/Free or closed/depriving). The possibility toreverse-engineer in order to analyze its structure and constitution is however usually respected;

- Freedom 2 (freedom to change and adapt the object) is not easy to exercise, for physical goods donot have “source-code”. They however possess a specific “constitution” or “recipe”, but it can be noteasy to change if the good's architecture/composition is complex. Moreover, some objects, like a chip,are not transformable without being destroyed. This, unlike digital goods, is not necessarily due toanybody's malice or fault, but to practical constraints inherent to the physical world's characteristics;

- Freedom 3 is meaningless for physical goods, for the act of copying them is impossible (due to thephysical world's inherent constraints), even if it has been successfully modified.

3D printing : from bit to atom

The digitization of a physical good processes the transformation of atoms into bits (i.e., entering alogic of abundance and “non-rivalry”) while the 3D printing aims at transforming bits into atoms. Adigital CAM31 file can thus be freely shared and copied (unless designed to not be via a DRM) and bepotentially printed anywhere in the world, as long as the creative framework is favorable (e.g., 3Dprinter capable of printing it by respecting its characteristics). The digital file can thus be consideredas an anti-rival common good (especially if Free legal license and open format) but the printedphysical files will necessarily constitute a common rival ones (due to their inherent constraints).

2.4.2. Common rival, non-rival and anti-rival goods

Samuelson (1954) in The Pure Theory of Public Expenditure, defines a public good, or as he calls it a"collective consumption good", as follows : "goods which all enjoy in common in the sense that eachindividual's consumption of such a good leads to no subtractions from any other individual'sconsumption of that good.” In other words, it is both non-excludable and non-rivalrous in thatindividuals cannot be effectively excluded from use and where use by one individual does not reduceavailability to others.

Rivalry is an economic paradigm describing the characteristics of a good. A good can be placed alonga continuum ranging from rival to non-rival. The same characteristic is sometimes referred to assubtractable or non-subtractable (Ess & Ostrom, 2006). A rival good is a good whose consumption byone consumer prevents simultaneous consumption by other consumers (Weimer & Vinning). A goodis thus considered non-rival if, for any level of production, the cost of providing it to a marginal(additional) individual is zero (Cornes & Sandler, 1986). Non-rivalry does not imply that the totalproduction costs are low, but that the marginal production costs are zero.

According to Crouzet (2014), common goods are divided into two broad categories32:

- Limited resources whose ownership equals to a spoliation through space and time. Example : when Iburn oil, I deprive future generations while imposing pollution;

31 Computer-Aided Manufacturing 32 http://blog.tcrouzet.com/2013/11/26/amis-commonistes/

16

- Almost unlimited resources whose ownership is meaningless due to is abundant nature.. Example : Ideclare owner of the air in a bottle makes no sense because everyone can imitate me.

Physical (i.e., tangible) goods, due to the physical world's inherent constraints we have already defined,are rival goods and can be whether durable (e.g., a hammer) or nondurable (e.g., food). More globally,private ones (which inherently induce property, i.e., potential theft) can be considered as rival goods,even from the digital world. For example, some digital goods such as domain names can also beconsidered as rival ones and induce techniques such as cyber-squatting.

A Few goods are thus completely non-rival, as rivalry can emerge at certain levels. For example, theuse of a road or the internet network is non-rival up to a certain capacity. If overloaded, its use by newindividuals can thus decreases speed for others. Rivalry is thus now more and more viewed as as acontinuum, not binary category (Fuster Morell, 2010), where many goods are somewhere between thetwo extremes of completely rival and completely non-rival.

Fuster Morell (2010) proposes a definition of digital commons as "as an information and knowledgeresources that are collectively created and owned or shared between or among a community and thattend to be non-exclusive, that is, be (generally freely) available to third parties. Thus, they are orientedto favor use and reuse, rather than to exchange as a commodity. Additionally, the community ofpeople building them can intervene in the governing of their interaction processes and of their sharedresources".

Wikipedia and Free softwares can thus be considered as digital commons. The Internet is also oftenqualified as “global common”33. However, Maurel (2014) states that the integration of technicalrestrictions in its “code” layer (Benkler, 1996) tend to threaten this nature, as the Free nature of thecode layer is necessary to consider it as a common good. We will analyze this “law is code” paradigmfurther in this work. For Raymond (2012), “The Internet is technically rivalrous in the sense that thecomputer networks on which it depends (its “physical layer”) accommodate a finite amount of traffic.At peak usage times, especially in congested sections of the network, users may receive a degradedexperience; that is, bandwidth-intensive use by a large number of users may mean that many receivelower-quality service.” Leung (2006) quotes from Weber (2004) : "Under conditions of anti-rivalness,as the size of the Internet-connected group increases, and there is a heterogeneous distribution ofmotivations with people who have a high level of interest and some resources to invest, then the largegroup is more likely, all things being equal, to provide the good than is a small group.” Free digitalcommon good can thus be considered, due to their intrinsic technical and legal characteristics, as non-rivalrous and “abundant” (i.e., evolving in the economy of abundance), for can be potentially infinitelyowned, copied, modified and shared without altering.

Digital common goods can however be privatized, considering both their “content” and “code”. Thus,a public domain good can be, as we will analyze further, “absorbed” by a private one 34, enclosedwithin silos (i.e., closed/depriving ecosystems) and “damaged” via DRMs in order to prevent their use,

33 http://www.cigionline.org/publications/2012/10/internet-global-commons34 We will analyze it later.

17

study, modification and diffusion. The integration of DRMs in a digital program whose initial intrinsicnature is common and non-rival induces, for Maurel (2012) an “artificial creation of scarcity” in aworld whose intrinsic characteristics/principles rest upon the economy of abundance.

We will consider closed/depriving and “DRMized” softwares as “rivalrous” and “non-durable” goods,for they are designed to be :

- Bound to one single individual or one single device : via “personal code”/commercial licensenecessary to use it in order to prevent its sharing and collective use/consumption (e.g., if has to beused within a silo where the individual is clearly identified and controlled via DRMs). The activationof the license thus makes it impossible for someone else to use it on another device/account.

- Obsolete : for example, it can be designed to “lock up” after several uses such as a limited payabledemo of a videogame35in order to stimulate the individual's consumption and the commitment towardthe product or the brand it is designed to be interpreted as standing for36.

DRMs thus not only damage digital goods (according to Stallman's analysis) but also subvert them bytransforming their initial intrinsic non-rival nature, as part of the economy of abundance, into privategoods as part of the economy of scarcity, in order for the rights holders to “artificially” exercise thesame rules they apply in the physical world, based on the economy of scarcity.

Weber developed the concept of anti-rival good, which refers to the opposite of a rival good : themore individuals share an anti-rival good, the more utility each person receives. An anti-rival good canbe considered as a public good because it is freely available to all (i.e., non-excludable) and non-rival(its consumption by one person does not reduce the amount available for others). According to Lessig(2006), a particular natural language meets the criteria as language is an anti-rival good.37 Freesoftwares can be considered as anti-rival goods for the more these common goods are shared, usedand studied (via a collective audition of the source-code), the more valuable they become for its users,via the development of an open and decentralized collective intelligence process enriching both itsintrinsic nature (e.g., via the writing of code,...) and its “informational environment” (via thedocumentation produced to favor its appropriation and use by individuals,...). These two parts are thusfundamental for the Free software philosophy (Okhin, 2013) and can only be optimal via a wide openand decentralized use. For example, the Krita (Free drawing software) core development team statesabout the contribution by the Krita community in order to track bugs via an open and decentralizedaudit of the program : “ This work is an ongoing process and thanks to your bug reports we spend lesstime finding them and more time polishing and creating features.”

2.5. Free culture

Free culture is a concept mainly defined by Lawrence Lessig (2004) in his book Free Culture : HowBig Media Uses Technology and the Law to Lock Down Culture and Control Creativity. This cultural

35 For example, the Rayman Legends payable demo was limited to 30 trials, after what the program got “locked”.36 We will analyze it later.37 http://www.lrb.co.uk/v27/n16/lawrence-lessig/do-you-floss

18

and legal paradigm opposes to “permissive culture”. Both these cultural and legal paradigms (as wellas the Free software philosophy we have analyzed) are based on copyright. According to the UnitedStates Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), “a copyright protects works of authorship, such aswritings, music, and works of art that have been tangibly expressed.38Betsy Rosenblatt (1998), fromHarvard Law School, states that “the copyright in a work vests originally in the author(s) of the work.The author(s) may transfer the copyright to any other party if she(they) choose(s) to do so. Subject tocertain limitations, the owner of a copyright has the sole right to authorize reproduction of the work,creation of a work derived from the work, distribution of copies of the work, or public performance ordisplay of the work. This right lasts for the life of the author plus fifty years; or in the case of acopyright held by an entity, for seventy-five years.”39

Stallman (2012) emphasizes three broad categories of work, that contribute to society in certain waysas well as his personal opinions about what their legal nature should be :

- Works you use to do practical jobs, i.e., “functional works” : They can be aesthetic, but this aspect issecondary. They include programs, recipes, educational works, text fonts, patterns for 3D printers tomake useful objects,... These resources have to be free (i.e. respects the four fundamental freedoms);

- Works that present certain people's thoughts, view and testimony : These do not necessarily need tobe free, for they are not used to do a practical work, but to see what certain people think. To publishmodified version without the author's permission can misrepresent the author (unless makes sure itrepresents his opinion accurately);

- Artistic and entertainment works : Their primary function is aesthetic. He states that there arevaluable arguments on both copyright and copyleft sides. Thus, artistic integrity (i.e., moral right) islikely to be threatened by the work's modification. On the other hand, modification can be acontribution to art (i.e., “remix culture”), if the author makes a clear distinction between his derivativeversion and the original work. For example, Shakespeare and Mozart's work which would have beenforbidden with our current copyright laws.

His view about “works of opinion” and “artistic works” has however been criticized by Masutti andJean (2013). For them, “Never a free license (which deals only with copyright - expression, form) willauthorize a change implemented so that this change affects the integrity of the work. As part of awork conceived by its author as open and collaborative, modification by a contributor is fullyrespectful of the work's integrity. However, if the work was focused on a clearly impropermodification to the representation that was its author, it would be quite valid for an author to stop it onthe basis of his moral right (the same way he could do in the absence of free license), especially if thework was used to convey messages clearly contrary to the intent of the author.”

Thus, according to Rosenblatt (1998), moral right protects the right of any creator to be correctlyinterpreted as the author of the work by the public and to not be compromised in reputation and honorby any “harmful” alteration. It protects against wrong identification of the work's author and attempts

38 http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/basics/definitions.jsp39 https://cyber.law.harvard.edu/property/library/copyprimer.html#anchor4198064

19

to his reputation via the alteration of the work likely to be interpreted as the reflect of the author'spersonality and opinions. Using a restrictive “depriving” legal license for works of opinion thus seemsmeaningless, for copyright law already protects the creators' integrity via the fundamental andinalienable moral right.

Let's now analyze the opposition between permission and free culture. Permission culture is a culturalparadigm resting on copyright, where the rights holders' permission is required any time an individualwants to share or modify a copyrighted work. This can lead to serious restrictions and constraintsexercised on potential creators and strongly leash creativity, by “cutting off the creative process”(Seemel, 2014).

According to Lessig (2004), “The Internet has set the stage for this erasure and, pushed by big media,the law has now affected it. For the first time in our tradition, the ordinary ways in which individualscreate and share culture fall within the reach of the regulation of the law, which has expanded to drawwithin its control a vast amount of culture and creativity that it never reached before. The technologythat preserved the balance of our history—between uses of our culture that were free and uses of ourculture that were only upon permission—has been undone. ”

Copyright thus leads, for Stallman (2012) a “war on sharing”. This statement is shared by otherlawyers such as Maurel or Lessig. According to him, copying and sharing is easy, but they [the rightholders] want people to strop doing it, by proposing many restrictive methods such as DRMs and sues.This constitutes, according to him, an unjust horizontal and centralized power. Sharing thus has to belegalized to end this war.

Davis Guggenheim, film director, thus states to illustrate the consequences of permissive culture oncreation : “I would say to an 18-year-old artist, you’re totally free to do whatever you want. But—andthen I would give him a long list of all the things that he couldn’t include in his movie because theywould not be cleared, legally cleared. That he would have to pay for them. So freedom? Here’s thefreedom : You’re totally free to make a movie in an empty room, with your two friends.”

2.5.1. The colonization of the common culture

Copyright and permission culture can generate abuses from rights holders, based on the exploitation oftheir “intellectual properties”. One clear example of copyright abusive use is the “copyfraud”.Mazzone (2006) describes it as:

- Claiming copyright ownership of public domain material;

- Imposition by a copyright owner of restrictions beyond what the law allows;

- Claiming copyright ownership on the basis of ownership of copies or archives;

- Attaching copyright notices to a public domain work converted to a different medium.

He argues that copyfraud is usually successful because there are few and weak laws criminalizing falsestatements about copyrights : there is lax enforcement of such laws, and few people are competent to

20

give legal advice on the copyright status of commandeered material. A clear example of copyfraud isthe Warner exercising an abusive legal control over the “Happy Birthday to You” song, and which hasalways succeeded in legally preserving its rights on it, each time obtaining the condemnation of theaccused entities infringing this “property”.40Copyfraud is thus, in a nutshell, a strategy of preservationof control over copyrighted material via the claiming from private entities of stronger rights than theones they are actually legally granted.

Lessig (2001) also emphasizes the privatization of the commons before the democratization of thetechnologies allowing anyone to easily copy, modify and share cultural works : “Before the computerera, the culture belonging to the public domain (common goods) was vast and rich, but could only bereally copied, modified and shared on a large scale by rich individuals or organizations who couldafford to purchase or rent technologies to copy, modify and diffuse it. The common culture thus couldbe truly appropriated by a minority. That induced a massive colonization of the common culture byprivate organizations and brands such as Disney, whose first successes where all based on the creativeinterpretation of public domain tales.”

Stallman (2013) confirms this analysis, by emphasizing the fact that the privatization of culture isexercised by closed and centralized powers. The individuals are thus, according to Lessig andStallman, technically empowered by more and more powerful technologies facilitating their creativeexpression, but also more and more disempowered from a legal point of view, with increasinglydepriving copyright laws protecting the intellectual properties against “infringements” (i.e., exercise ofcreativity) by being used as source of inspiration for future works. This statement is shared by JedHorovitz, businessman behind Video Pipeline, who says : “We're losing [creative] opportunities rightand left. Creative people are being forced not to express themselves. Thoughts are not beingexpressed.” These strong restrictions and aggressive legal strategies based on copyright protectionagainst infringements can favor the individuals' internalization of restrictive laws, and generatecognitive phenomena likely to leash or prevent creativity. We will analyze these phenomena further inthis work. Maurel (2012), thus proposes a change of legal paradigm toward digital goods in order to“end the war on sharing” : consider all digital goods as common goods. We will pursue this analysislater, by emphasizing creative means to hack the abuses from intellectual property.

2.5.2. New legal tools to empower potential creators

Considering this serious threat for the future of creativity and innovation, Lessig co-founded in 2004,with Elric Eldred, the Creative Commons licenses. According to the official website 41, CreativeCommons enables the sharing and use of creativity and knowledge through free legal tools.” Theirfree, easy-to-use copyright licenses provide a simple, standardized way to give the public permissionto share and use creative work — on conditions of your choice. CC licenses let you easily change yourcopyright terms from the default of “all rights reserved” to “some rights reserved”. The Organizationhowever explicits the fact that their licenses are not an alternative to copyright : they work alongside

40 http://boingboing.net/2013/06/13/lawsuit-happy-birthday-is.html41http://creativecommons.org/about

21

and enable creators to modify their copyright terms to best suit their needs.

The Creative Commons thus does not try to fundamentally reconsider copyright (we will analyze someattempts later), but to propose what he considers as complementary tools necessary to empowercreators and stimulate creativity and innovation, while sustaining the “future of ideas”. He thus tries todevelop a new kind of economy called as “hybrid”, where copyright and copyleft harmoniouslycohabit. Talking about his personal opinion about free culture, Lessig states :“The free culture that Idefend is a balance between anarchy and control. A free culture, like a free market, is filled withproperty. It is filled with rules of property and contract that get enforced by the state. But just as a freemarket is perverted if its property becomes feudal, so too can a free culture be queered by extremismin the property rights that define it.”

Free culture, based on Free legal licenses granting the four fundamental freedoms, thus aims atempowering individuals and “ensures that anyone is able to create without restrictions from the past”(Lessig, 2004) and more specifically civil society, toward “intellectual properties” whose rights, ownedby their creators or by the entities having acquired their “patrimonial rights” have been extended in away which makes it hard for new creators to exercise their creativity based on these proprietaryresources. The Free culture movement, as well as the Free software philosophy, both aim at “hacking”copyright in order to give more power (i.e., more freedom) to civil society in order to favor theircreative and inventive expression. We will also deepen this analysis further, by analyzing the cognitiveissues induced by intellectual property and the possible means to hack it in order to unleash theinterpretative and semiotic processes and earn back “psychic sovereignty”.

3. Analysis of the cypherpunk philosophy

Eric Hughes (1993) defined the basic ideas of this philosophy in A Cypherpunk's Manifesto :

Privacy is necessary for an open society in the electronic age. …

We cannot expect governments, corporations, or other large, faceless organizations to grant usprivacy …

We must defend our own privacy if we expect to have any. …

Cypherpunks write code. We know that someone has to write software to defend privacy, and ...we're going to write it. ...

According to Julian Assange (2013), “This movement covers many domains, from reform to copyrightto sharing of information. The cypherpunks thought most of these problems in the 1990s by setting anearly goal to prevent States to monitor communications between individuals. At this time, themovement was still in its infancy and hardly seemed significant. Now the Internet has merged with oursociety, to the point of becoming its nervous system, somehow, this movement is taken very

22

seriously." For Hughes (1993), the "punk" part of the term indicates an attitude : “We don't muchcare if you don't approve of the software we write. We know that software can't be destroyed and thata widely dispersed system can't be shut down42. Levy (1993) states that "Crypto Rebels"This is cryptowith an attitude, best embodied by the group's moniker : Cypherpunks.

3.1. Encryption and privacy as core parts of the cypherpunk philosophy

Encryption constitutes, for cypherpunks, a necessity to preserve the individuals' privacy and exerciseof freedom. For Assange (2012), "A well-defined mathematical algorithm can encrypt somethingquickly, but to decrypt it would take billions of years – or trillions of dollars' worth of electricity todrive the computer. So cryptography is the essential building block of independence for organisationson the internet (...). There is no other way for our intellectual life to gain proper independence fromthe security guards of the world, the people who control physical reality."43

Cypherpunks also strongly defend the usage of Free technologies, for they are the only ones which canreally be trusted, via their possible audit at any time by anyone. Zimmermann (2014) emphasizes thatmathematics (necessary to develop encryption algorithms), possesses the characteristics of a common :no copyright or trademark can be deposited on any theory or language. This particularity, coupledwith the development of Free encryption softwares such as GnuPGP constitutes, for Zimmermann, a“light of hope” within the globalized surveillance society.44We will emphasize the fact that thecypherpunk philosophy shares strong connections not only with the Free philosophy but with thehacking one. Thus, one of its core principle is to understand how the network works and what itsweaknesses are in order to optimize the protection of personal data.45. Its main attitude is also basedon disobedience to official rules and on creation as form of expression and protest.

According to Okhin (2012), encryption is necessary, for only way to ensure secure communications byguaranteeing that only the emitter and receptor can open it and know it is a message (instead ofrandom numbers observed by an external individual, who do not have the possibility to meaningfullyinterpret it). He thus emphasizes the necessity to encrypt communications, and use open anddocumented protocols (i.e., Free technologies/standards) in order to be sure of what the programs weuse can do46. He then gives clear examples highlighting the need for encryption in order to protect theindividuals' fundamental privacy : many political dissidents from countries like Syria have beenarrested by authorities after having used closed/depriving softwares such as Skype to communicatewith foreign journalists. The only way we can trust a program is thus for him to clearly know what it isand what it can do. Closed/depriving programs, requiring a “blind trust”, thus can not be trusted.

Zimmermann also emphasizes the importance of encryption for freedom of expression and theexercise of the hacking philosophy. The level of privacy granted by its use can thus favor the

42 http://www.activism.net/cypherpunk/manifesto.html43 http://www.theguardian.com/media/2012/dec/07/julian-assange-fugitive-interview44 https://www.laquadrature.net/fr/ventscontraires-jeremie-zimmermann-nous-nen-sommes-quau-tout-debut-de-laffaire-snowden45 http://owni.fr/2012/03/04/hackers-forment-journalistes/46 http://vimeo.com/37860186#at=49

23

individuals' disinhibited experimentations within cyberspace, and attenuate the social influences likelyto leash/condition their behaviors. Moreover, the use of encryption can also allow the individuals todisrupt/short-circuit the digital system's business model based on his “free compliance” toward theproduction of personal data (e.g., metadata and other digital trails left unconsciously), in accordance tothe “data as value” economic paradigm. It can thus decrease the risk of potential abusive control overhis personal online activities and experience by private entities or authoritarian Governments.

Encryption is thus a real necessity for the individuals to truly exercise their freedom online andunleash their creativity, via a disinhibited expression requiring net neutrality to be optimal. It is alsofundamental to short-circuit the potential attempts of control over personal online experiences byprivate entities.

3.2. Datalove

Datalove is a concept defined by Telecomix. Here is the definition they give47:

Datalove is the love of communication. No matter what kind of communication. "Let data flow"is nothing else but "keep communication alive".

Datalove is so exciting! It's all about the availability of data. What people do with it is not thequestion. The point is : people need data. Need to get it. Need to give it. Need to share it. Needto do things with it, by means of it.

Datalove is caring about what makes things possible. After that - here come the difficulties. Andthe possibilities. Datalove is embracing the uncertain.

Sadly, old misconceptions and rivaling interests exist and try to hinder the flow ofcommunication, and thus the datalove.

Datalove is about appreciation of being able to understand, perceive and process data altogetherfor the enjoyment and progress of all sentient beings. Datalove is creating peace and knowledgethat has thus far been hindered by the obstruction of communication. Datalove is freedom inpractice. Datalove induces the free and no restricted (thus no discrimination nor censorship) ofdata. That means within the digital world the free and non restricted flow of information and ofcommunication, whatever their nature.

They thus emphasize the datalove's creed :

Data is neither good nor bad

47 http://datalove.me/about.html

24

There is no illegal data

Data is free

Data can not be owned

No man, machine or system shall interrupt the flow of data

Locking data is a crime against datanity

Love data

Zimmermann (2014) states that datalove could be defined as the “love for the network” and itsuniversal nature. Telecomix highlights via this concept emphasizes the importance to respect theinternet's intrinsic anarchic and neutral nature (i.e., in accordance to its initial design). They state :“It's a data driven concept. It is about the flow of data that is released into the wilderness of the net. Ifdata of any kind is exposed to the internet, it has to be treated equally from then on. If some data ismeant to be private, it should not reach the internet in the first place. There is no delete function in theinternet. This can not be changed. It has nothing to do with datalove.”

According to Telecomix, “An important principle (…) is to be a neutral carrier instead of judging andselecting the data in question. Some of us on an individual level might not like a particular type ofinformation, media, or idea, but they understand the fact that the restriction of the circulation of anypiece of data, unavoidingly leads to the restriction of the flow of all of it. They also emphasize a majorissue induced by the application of intellectual property within the cyberspace : “it is also important tounderstand that "intellectual property" is a logically and morally illegitimate concept. Speaking ofintellectual property is an attempt to force an inherently acorporal substance (data) to behave and begoverned in the manner of physical objects. This cannot work, and whenever it is attempted,repression and fascism are the logical and entirely predictable outcomes48. In a world of datalove, thisis unacceptable."

Bayart (2013) emphasizes the duty for an internet provider to respect this net neutrality :“Nevertheless, the legality of the content should not be treated on the network, because it is toodangerous. Because it leads to solutions of automated police, because it inevitably leads to abuse ofpower. Because that is the doorway to the reversal of the burden of proof. Finally, because itreconsiders freedom of speech”. He adds that the value of the information passing through the pipes ishuge, as evidenced by the current capitalization of Google, Facebook or Apple. The temptation is thusgreat for anyone who own these pipes to take a look at what's going on. Or prioritize particularcontent, against remuneration.49

Zimmermann (2014), who contributed to the development of the datalove principles, prefers to talk

48 We will analyze the issues induced by“rigid” intellectual property applied in the digital world later.49 http://www.bastamag.net/Jetez-votre-box-connectez-vous-a-l

25

about “net universality” instead of “neutrality”, for this word is more meaningful for individuals. Thus,he defines the net universality as the same potentiality of access and of participation to the internetnetwork. If the network neutrality (technical point of view) is preserved, then anyone can potentiallyaccess contents online (unless censorship is being applied due to copyright infringement) and producenew ones, i.e., enrich the collective creative and inventive processes.

He adds that the the hackers' duty is to preserve the Internet as a common good, via the defense ofthis net universality and of the datalove principles.

The datalove philosophy thus emphasizes fundamental issues inherent to the internet network and itsevolution, :

- The necessity for a neutral/universal internet network, and the dangers from its infringement via thediscrimination of online data in favor of other ones;

- The intellectual property issues we have analyzed likely to threaten the common nature of henetwork (code layer) and the exercise of censorship within the cyberspace (content layer).

The cypherpunk philosophy thus defends concepts which are fundamental for the individuals' exerciseof freedom and creativity within the cyberspace. Privacy and same potentiality of access andparticipation to the development of a common good are thus necessary for the optimization ofcollective, open and decentralized collective intelligence processes as well as the right for anyone toexpress themselves reflected and made possible by the internet. In a nutshell, we will state that thismovement aims at defending and protecting, via the use of technical measures, the right to “read andwrite anonymously”50.

4. Creative and inventive intelligences

“Change your thoughts and you change your world”. Norman Vincent Peale

4.1. Creative intelligence

We will focus on Bruce Nussbaum's paradigm about creative intelligence, and will enrich it withother analysis in order to develop a richer paradigm about this key-concept for the semiotichacking theory.

According to Nussbaum (2013), “Creativity is all about making connections and seeing patterns.It’s not a light bulb that goes off in your head. Before that light bulb goes off, lots of things arehappening. Lots of ideas. We need time to step back and make connections between thosethings. We need to stop being hyperconnected and deliberately take a moment to be mindfulabout what we’re doing. This requires personal and collective independence and freedom.”51

This definition highlights some important points we will correlate with other analysis :

50 We will analyze this concept later.51 NUSSBAUM Bruce, Creative intelligence : harnessing power to create, connect and inspire, Harper Business, 2013, 368 p.

26

- The importance of calm and distance to favor reflexion, awareness and the creative thinking is,as Tisseron (2013) states, fundamental both for the thinking and the memorization process;

- The cognitive sovereignty is necessary to exercise freedom.

Let's focus on this second point and try to determine how to achieve and exercise this cognitivesovereignty, at the core of the creative intelligence process.

4.1.1. The exercise of freedom over the cognitive process

Daniel Schneidermann (2013), journalist and media critic, gives his experience about howindependent media achieve their intellectual independence. For him, it is because they do not spendtheir time analyzing the mainstream informational flow : “Unlike all his colleagues, Mediapart 52 doesnot follow diligently, daily, traditional political affairs within the meaning of horse racing.”Disconnecting to the mainstream “informational agenda” thus allows them to focus their cognitiveresources on key-topics, and thus optimizes their reflexive and investigative process. Not beingprisoner of the agenda setting (MacComb, 1960) with influence techniques such as “gloomypropaganda” (Beauvois, 2011) aiming at shaping and conditioning the cognitivo-perceptive system isthus an efficient mean to earn back psychic sovereignty and develop cognitive defenses about potentialattempts of abuses and control over it. Moreover, strategically overlooking advertisement can favor theresistance against branding strategies based on the interpretative conditioning and likely toleash/condition the individuals' creative thoughts (we will analyze it further). Extensions like Adblockare thus likely, once installed on a web browser, to optimize the navigation and reading processes.

The development of the “serendip attitude” and the efficient exploitation of serendipity 53 can stronglystimulate and feed the creative intelligence process. Cognitive empowerment, based on diversity(favoring choice, i.e., freedom) through rich knowledge and culture (“knowledge is power” paradigm)is also necessary to truly exercise freedom over the cognitive process, via the enriching of theinterpretative possibilities during the observation of representamens. The disobedience to official pathsand rules such as representamens' design) is also fundamental. We will analyze how to do it later.

Nussbaum's definition allows us to notice some clear connections with two paradigms about freedomwe have already analyzed : Stallman's Free software philosophy, which puts the individual andcollective control at its core, and Beauvois analysis, which emphasizes the disobedience as only meanto exercise it. We will also emphasize a strong connection with the hacking philosophy. Anotherkey- paradigm emphasized by Paley (2014), the “intellectual disobedience” will be analyzed further inthis work. Nussbaum then gives this advice to optimize the creative intelligence process : "Find acreative friend to play with either at work or outside work. Travel. (…) See something that’sdramatically different and think about it. Disconnect every day for 20 minutes and think about whatyou’re doing and how you can do it better. Think about your creativity and then go back in.”

Disobedience and exercise of control will thus be considered as fundamental to stimulate and unleash

52 An independent online press organization.53 We will analyze these concepts later.

27

the creative intelligence process. The individual has to exercise it by disobeying the officialrules/norms (core principle of the hacking philosophy) and develop a resistance against socialinfluences (likely to leash/condition his creative thought), while remaining careful about potentialcognitive biases/traps likely to leash the creative thought and freeze the semiotic process. He thus hasto preserve an open-mindedness toward other individuals' ideas and personal attitudes, necessary forthe generation of a potential cognitive restructuring, i.e., innovation. Disobedience will alsonecessarily imply the individual's choice of freedom (via the inherent cognitive uncertainty) overcommodity/security.

4.1.2..Making unexpected connections

As Nussbaum highlights, the creative intelligence is about making connections between ideas. Thiswill refer, in our semiotic analysis, to the connections between thought-signs, with specific sign-vehicles whose consideration is necessary to achieve a meaningful semiotic relation. This processrequires to be optimal the unleashed exploration of new creative paths (outside the official onesalready defined) as well as the development of reading strategies to optimize the production ofmeaning. Specific rules such as the search for interoperability and cognitive practices likesynectiction54will also favor the optimization of the creative intelligence.

For him, the individual has to be mindful about what he is doing. This will refer, from a cognitivepoint of view, to the development and integration of a cognitive awareness (metacognitive process) inthe creative intelligence process. This is fundamental to exercise freedom over his cognitive systemand optimize his resistance against potential cognitive traps as well as attempts of control likely toleash/condition his creative thought. The integration of new representations/ideas in his semioticprocess is thus likely to trigger new thought-signs and stimulate the creative and inventive thoughts.

He then gives his opinion about the Dell and their strategic mistakes that induced a loss of influencewithin the computing market : “They don’t realize that their creative model wasn’t about computers. Itwas about everything. If they allowed us to put together the things we wanted to put together, like aniPhone or another smartphone, it would be wildly successful. They think they are a computercompany, and they’re not. They’re a creative assembly company.”

This analysis highlights a fundamental principle which will will constitute the core of the semiotichacking theory : the consideration of a potential infinity of connections between elements to unleashthe creative process.

4.1.3. The framing - reframing process

Nussbaum pursues his definition of creative intelligence by emphasizing the framing process :

Framing is a powerful tool of creativity and innovation. Framing is how we interpret the worldand how we engage with it. It's about meaning and understanding, not simply perception.

54 We ill analyze this process alter.

28

Understanding how we frame enables us to reframe, to change how we see and interpret. That'sthe core of creativity. We frame our narratives, the storyline of our lives, how we make sense ofthe world and where we place new data and information. We can reframe that narrative. Weframe our engagement with the world as well. We used to be born into a small number of socialengagements—family, village, neighbors. Now we make hundreds, thousands of our ownengagements and frame each very differently. (...) Understanding the engagement frames in ourlives allows us to reframe them and create new engagements.

The cognitive framework can constitute, if too rigid, a threat for the creative process. Reframing itwill thus be necessary in order to fight against natural cognitive traps and biases likely to leash orfreeze the interpretative process. These phenomena can thus be developed by habit, strongcommitment likely to induce a crystallization of the attitudes, a choice of cognitive commodity (i.e.,certainty) over freedom (i.e., uncertainty).

Hillesley (2014) states : “The idea of free software, as conceived by Stallman, wasn’t entirely originalor new. Stallman was not the first to give away software, or to be committed to the idea that softwareshould be free; but Stallman, GNU and the GPL brought a narrative to the concept of free software,and gave it a unifying story and a purpose that took it beyond its academic origins. Like most ideasand movements that make a difference, free software began on the fringes – and to the uninitiated, wasa shockingly unrealistic idea. Stallman’s narrative helped to define the meaning of free software forthose who already practiced it, and gave those that followed a set of tools and values against whichthey could measure their own relationship to their work, whether they agreed with his ideas or not.”

The creative intelligence will thus imply the individual's permanent reconsideration of his relation tothe world, in order to stimulate his thought-process and feed his creativity. In other words, he willhave to permanently reconsider his observed environment (e.g., by considering new possible cognitiveand behavioral patterns in his relation to it) in order to keep stimulating his creative process, andconsider new possibilities or potentialities likely to be actualized and enrich it. The hackingphilosophy, with the disinhibited and unleashed exploration of the possibilities, can also optimize thisprocess. The reframing can thus be favored by the “thinking outside the box” (core part of thisphilosophy) and will necessarily require a “loose” cognitive framework as well as the full integrationof the cognitive awareness in his creative process. Other techniques, based on the mastering ofintelligence, will also allow the individual to optimize this process and will be analyzed further in thiswork.

4.1.4. The social dimension of the creative intelligence

For Nussbaum, creativity is social : “When you read books about creativity today, the narrative ofcreativity is that it is a brain function or it’s a genius thing. It is rare and comes out of the individual.But when you look at almost all the innovations that are meaningful in our lives today (...), they’re alldone by two or three people.” This definition is, as we will see, pretty close to the “invention”definition proposed by Besson and Uhl (2010).

29

Talking about the classic brainstorming sessions, he states : “ You go to a lot of brainstormingsessions, you have people throwing ideas out that have absolutely no relation to the specific topic athand. In these kinds of environments, people hold back their best ideas. They’re not going to share itwith strangers. (…) We need to replace brainstorming with Magic Circles—places where two or threesmart people who trust each other can come together and play at connecting disparate dots ofknowledge in an open-ended kind of game.”

This analysis highlights the necessity of an efficient collective intelligence process, whose coreprinciple rests upon the individuals' disinhibition toward the expression of their personal attitudes andideas. The creative intelligence process thus requires an optimized strategy based on :

- Management of ideas : In order to favor the cognitive conflict and stimulate the possibilities ofinterpretation and the cognitive restructuring.

- Management of antagonisms : In order to preserve the socio-affective climate within the group andmotivation to encourage individuals to be a part of it.

Familiarity and trust between the members of a “magic circle” (i.e., small autonomous groups ofcreativity) can thus favor their disinhibition. However, they can also induce potential traps if not wellmanaged. Thus, these individuals, if too close, might lose their critical and reflexive skills, or mightfear to threaten, via the expression of their private attitudes or new ideas, the positive socio-affectiveclimate. Distant communications can thus favor their disinhibition, especially if encrypted (end-to-endwith full trust between the emitter and receptor as well as toward the technical infrastructure). Thistechnical process can thus favor the disinhibition, via less fear of being monitored by potentialuntrusted third-parties intercepting them (also likely to generate social influences and leash theircreative expression).We will analyze more in detail how to optimize it later.

The refusal to share new ideas or creative hypothesis55can also come from selfish goals (e.g., based onthe “information is power” paradigm). This potential voluntary retention of information thus has, tonot weaken the collective creative intelligence process, be transformed into a taste for sharing. Thedevelopment of a “global thought” and intrinsic motivation (Pink, 2011) will allow the creative groupsto overcome these natural phenomena. Once again, the hacking and Free philosophy can favor thisstrategy of management of creativity. Jérôme Ruskin (2012), founder of the Usbek and Ricamagazine, thus emphasizes that the hacking philosophy has succeeded in reconciliating the individuals'selfish and altruist natural needs. The Free software philosophy is also based on the individuals'motivation through both selfishness (e.g., will to get social recognition,...) and altruism. As Stallman(2012) states : “One person can belong to a community and work in a business at the same time.Nevertheless, there is a fundamental conflict between the communitarian attitude and the commercialattitude. I would not say that the communitarian attitude is good and the commercial attitude is bad. Itmakes no sense to aim to eliminate the commercial attitude, because that is simply selfishness, andselfishness is vital. People must be selfish to a certain extent, just as they ought to be altruistic to acertain extent. To abolish selfishness would not make sense, even if it were possible”.

55 As part of the abduction process we will analyze further.

30

In a nutshell, the creative intelligence rests upon several key-principles :

- The disobedience to official rules;

- The love for unexpectedness and unknown (i.e., “serendip attitude”);

- The open-mindedness and the making of connections between potentially any kind of object;

- The collective intelligence (optimized by the mastering of intelligence) as core part of the process.

We are now going to analyze another fundamental concept based on the development and optimizationof the innovation process : the inventive intelligence.

4.2. Inventive intelligence

The inventive Intelligence is a concept developed by Bernard Besson, expert in competitiveintelligence and Renaud Uhl, specialist in the resolution of technical problems via formalizedmethodologies, and can be summarized as the combination of strategic intelligence and creativity. It isinteresting to notice that this concept was born from the meeting of these two experts and the synergybetween their complementary skills and knowledge.

For Besson and Uhl (2010), “Strategic intelligence gives the inventive thought questions, informationsand knowledges based on a networked organization. The inventive intelligence transforms ignoranceinto profit. They define the invention as the actualization of a creative act.

4.2.1. Strategic intelligence

The strategic intelligence is organized around strategic control of information in order to detect threatsand opportunities of all kinds. It is a continuous cycle of questions and answers. Finding out what wedo not know and ways to respond to it is the first attitude to have to maintain a strong position. It isalso organized around the control of its networks (via the identification of all actors influencing withinand outside the organization), memory (via the identification of what is known orally or in writing)and analysis (how to interpret the information to give them meaningful content and make decisions).

4.2.2. Inventive thought

Besson and Uhl emphasize several key-points about this concept :

- Innovation can not live without the association of strategic intelligence and inventive thinking.Strategic intelligence provides information and validates the concepts generated by the inventivethought;

- Inventive thinking promotes ideas, strategic intelligence ensures their transformation into successfulinnovation through the use of all levers available to the organization;

- Inventive thinking is organized around a process : strategic intelligence identifies and brings togetherall actors in innovation, whether inside or outside the organization;

31

- The inventive intelligence, through the combination of these two approaches provides theentrepreneur an identification of barriers to innovation method, a clear vision of the innovationassociated with simple and effective tools process;

- Innovation is not limited to have ideas or collect good information : it is a whole.

Here are core phases of the inventive intelligence concept Besson (2010) emphasizes and defines :

- Demystification : “The organization has to develop a thought conducive to the inventive one.Inventive thought demonstrates that innovations, whether small or big, exist in any domain and can beproduced by anyone.” This phase thus aims at favoring the individuals' disinhibition in order tounleash their creative and inventive thoughts;

- Motivation : “The organization develops a collective affect, rhythm, imagination, arecognition/rewarding of everyone's contribution. The collective appropriation will be the first phaseof its promotion. Around an idea initially expressed through words, the organization federates all itsteams around drawings, then models to share a collective vision of the project. The idea is a being thatneeds to be fed and whose sustainability has to be ensured”. This phase highlights the importance ofincluding the individuals in the collective intelligence process, without any discrimination, as well asthe free voluntary involvement in the creative and inventive processes. Intrinsic motivation (Pink,2011) will be the core of this strategy;

- Organization : “The organization innovates by developing a competitive intelligence systemoptimizing the inventive thought. The organization invents questions and validates answers. Theinnovative global process is fed with strategic intelligence and its three coordinated dimensions :memory, analysis and network”. This phase emphasizes the question – answer virtuous cycle we willanalyze further;

- Reformulation : “The organization reformulates its problems or projects. The initial demand is oftena perceived source of solution to a different problem.” This analysis emphasizes the need to “reframe”(Nussbaum, 2012) and to “think outside the box”, i.e., to develop a global thought toward the differentproblems, with interconnections between them in order to favor the potential discovery of unexpectedcorrelation;

- Observation : “The organization observes its immediate environment in all the domains in order tosolve its problems with the possessed means, at low-cost. Simple and low-cost solutions are alwaysexploitable. The good idea is often a close idea.” This phase highlights the importance of the strategicintelligence in the determination of the creative framework56and the optimization of the problem-solving process;

- Anticipation : “The organization anticipates the technological evolutions. It questions the past and thefuture of the technicals to anticipate on the future tendencies.” This process will concern, in thesemiotic hacking process, the anticipation of the creative framework's evolution (social, technical,legal and financial dimensions) in order to enlighten the current decisions (e.g., decision to postpone

56 We will analyze this concept later.

32

the reification process in the expectation of a future favorable context, allowing to not wasteresources):

- Model : “The organization models its problems to make connections between knowledges and skills.These methods allow it to make connections between different worlds of knowledge (e.g. nature andindustry)”. This phase emphasizes the optimization of the creative process via the “hybridization ofknowledge” (Marcon, 2009);

- Fertilization : “The organization explores the sources of external innovation and favors the freshperspectives offered by its skills. It valorizes the new ideas to overcome reticences and worries. Anidea is like a snowflake in one hand : vulnerable. Fertilization helps transform the snowflake into asnowball, it strengthens the idea.” This process will thus aim at optimizing, via the collectiveinterpretation process, the transformation and expression of the idea (as “anti-rival good”) feeding itwith collective intelligence reading. It will also aim at developing a Free environment conducive to itsoptimal transformation and future evolution, i.e., as part of the context (Seemel, 2013) for futurecreations/inventions;

- Promotion : “The organization exploits its networks and the capacities of its competitive intelligenceto protect and valorize its innovation.” This phase, finally, highlights the importance of the collectiveintelligence process in the insurance of the innovation's viability and sustainability. In our analysis, theobjective will be to protect the creations/inventions about potential appropriation and colonization byprivate entities. The communication about it thus has to involve a wide community of members inorder to optimize the innovation's visibility and popularity of the inventions/innovations. Social andtechnical networks will be used to spread it and make it more visible, attractive, resistant and resilient(via mirroring and Streisand effect in case of attempt of censorship,...). We will deepen this analysislater.

Bessona and Uhl's inventive intelligence analysis highlights a fundamental idea : the necessity of theintegration and management of strategic intelligence to optimize the innovation process. The efficientdevelopment and exploitation of the memory, analysis and network, the management of information,knowledge and ignorances will thus allow to optimize the collective intelligence, at the heart ofinnovation. Intelligence (i.e., management of information) is, according to Moinet (2009), a realculture which has to be fed and exploited in order to optimize the understanding of the environmentand take enlightened decisions. This process shares some important similarities with the hacking andthe Free philosophies, such as :

- The full integration and the management of uncertainty (via the question - answer virtuous cycle) tostimulate the creative thought and favor innovation;

- The strategy of social inclusion in the collective intelligence process (i.e., anyone can be a part of it,despite of its position, knowledge or skills);

- The importance of a rich observation and interpretation based on the deep understanding of theenvironment the individuals evolve in, in order to exercise freedom;

33

- A will to influence this environment in order to exercise a control over it (optimized via theinformation and knowledge, necessary to take enlightened decisions and reframe the engagement withit).

Intelligence and its management will thus constitute the main power to exercise freedom via controland disobedience. This exercise will be optimized if the social system is autonomous and sovereign57.Considering the semiotic process, this practice will aim at enriching the interpretation ofrepresentamens, i.e., giving the individuals more freedom over their interpretation.

III. Analysis of the semiotic hacking process

1. The complex observation

"Others have seen what is and ask why. I have seen what could be and asked why not”

Robert F. Kennedy

1.1. From complex receptor to complex observer

Fourquet-Courbet, in A century of influence theories (2010), emphasizes the concept of “complexreceptor”, who possesses the following characteristics : historicized, socialized and contextualized.Frasca (2007) analyzes in his expanded semiotic model the importance of the context of observationfor the observer's interpretation of representamens, via the production of meaning and knowledge(e.g., via experience) likely to influence his interpretation of a representational object such as a workin movement (Eco, 2000).

We will refer in our analysis in this work to a “complex observer”, which will qualify the entity whoproduces mental representations from an observed representamen (i.e. interpretamen andinterpretant), as emphasized by Peirce and Frasca. We will also consider the complex receptorcharacteristics to analyze the individual as observing a branded representamen (i.e. designed by thebrand's owner to orient/condition his observation and interpretation). We will integrate the individual'ssocial context (whether socially isolated or surrounded) and the potential social influences (whethercoming from actual “objective” or purely virtual “subjective” sources) in our semiotic analysis.

The observation process we will analyze throughout this work thus involves a “complex observer”who possesses the following characteristics :

- Historicized : The individual has acquired knowledge and experience, produced commitment(private and/or public) likely to shape/crystallize his attitudes toward specific objects. The individual'slife is composed of positive and negative (perceived) experiences made of both successes and failures(whether internally or externally attributed) and of lessons learned from previous experiences likely to

57 According to our analysis of the sovereignty concept.

34

generate a personal knowledge both at the individual or the collective scale, and potentially managedvia the strategic intelligence process. The individual might also possess a historical relation with aspecific brand likely to condition his present and future relation to it via the colonization of hisimaginary and mental representations, i.e. of his relation to the world58. This conditioned relationmight moreover be even more pregnant if the individual evolves in a quasi-monopolistic brandedworld, where one superbrand (e.g., Disney) controls the major part of his cultural life;

- Socialized : The individual evolves among specific social groups (of belonging). He might alsopossess a formal or informal relation to specific groups of references. These different social groups arelikely to exercise social influences on him and induce a cognitive restructuring if cognitive conflict ordissonance, based and depending on the individual's will and desire for his social evolution (change orpreservation of the current social position,...);

- Contextualized : The individual, when observes a representamen, evolves in a specific context :social (socially isolated/surrounded,...), technical (technical infrastructure) and legal context (withrules applying to both the individual's social environment and to the observed representamen (e.g.,with DRMs).

We will also consider the observer's attitudes toward the “thought-signs” generated by therepresentamen, for they constitute a major issue in the semiotic process (e.g., likely to be exploited toorient/condition the individuals' attitude and interpretative process). Zanna & Rampel (1960)emphasize the three dimensions of attitudes :

- Affective : Composed of the predisposition to evaluate whether positively or negatively a specificobject. Can be conditioned with familiarity and unconscious influence techniques such as evaluativeconditioning;

- Cognitive : Composed of the beliefs and/or knowledge the individual possesses about the object.Fourquet-Courbet (2010) adds that the affective dimension is studied whether as a content ofcognition (i.e. “hot cognition”) or as a variable influencing the treatment of information process;

- Conative : Composed of the way the individual is going to behave toward the object. Can beconditioned via manipulation (e.g, “free” commitment,...”).

58 We will analyze this branding strategy and its potential effects later.

35

2. The context of observationThe context of observation will be fundamental in our analysis. The three fundamental dimensions wewill consider in this context will be the social, the technical and the legal ones. We will try todemonstrate throughout this work that they are nowadays intrinsically bound. We will even state, as wewill see via concrete examples, that they have merged in our digital society to form a global ecosystemdesigned to exercise at the same time technical, social and legal constraints, restrictions and influenceon the individuals observing a “protected” representamen. Here are the main issues which have to betaken into account (we highlight the fact that we will refer most of the time whether to the observationof technical or digital representamens) :

- Social environment awareness/perception : Social isolation or surrounding,...;

- Technical environment awareness/perception : Awareness of the technical context, e.g. of theobservation ecosystem's technical characteristics (e.g , observation within a silo);

- Legal environment awareness/perception : Awareness about the rules/laws applying to the context ofobservation (e.g., depriving environment);

- Social trust : Trust in third-parties involved in the representation of the observed representamen(Assange analysis we will analyze later) and in those involved in the audit of the technologies (e.g., incommunity involved in the collective reading of a Free software's source code);

- Technical trust : Trust in the technology used to observe the representamen (e.g. if closed/deprivingor Free reading ecosystem,...);

- Perceived identity : Whether identified or anonymous;

2.1. The development of a favorable context to optimize the semiotic hacking

We are now going to analyze several methods and techniques likely to be used in order to optimizecreativity in groups and networks involved in the creative and inventive processes. This socialdimension will be fundamental in our semiotic analysis, for individuals or social systems are likely toinduce strong influences and provoke a change on the individuals' cognitivo-perceptive code, i.e., intheir interpretative process.

For Abric (1971), all the technics of creativity target the same objective : waive the affective, social orcognitive constraints weakening the creative imagination. The main obstacles to creativity are :

- Individual and collective traditions and customs : It is necessary to break the resistances to change.Traditions and customs can also weaken or freeze the semiotic process and generate a “final logicalinterpretant” (Peirce);

- Authority, their weight on statuses and roles : W need to suppress the submission to authority,whether from a chief or an expert;

- The universe of social and cognitive norms : We need to suppress conformism and uniformity;

36

- Reason and rules of functioning, its frameworks and barriers : We need to give up the rationalbehavior, or overlook it during the phases of creation.

We are first going to define several fundamental concepts in order to understand our future propositionof social system whose design aims at favoring creativity.

2.2. Groups of belonging and groups of reference

According to Bailly, a group gathers individuals who define themselves as members of this group. It isthis sense of belonging that binds the individual to one or more groups and binds the group together,and which plays an essential and mediator role between the individuals. A group is not a simplejuxtaposition of individuals but a collective, the principle of grouping is based on a report, symbolic orreal, in which weave community actions and thoughts that guide the behavior of members. It is notonly practical action but also a mental form, through which structure the personal and collectiveidentities.

The members of a group identify themselves and refer to one or several groups. Groups of referenceoften refers to concrete groups we already belong or we would like to belong to. These groups serve asreferences and guide the thinking and actions of the individual who refers to it. Thus, groups ofreference are groups to which the individual relates personally as a current member or to which itaspires to reattach psychologically. In other words, those whom he identifies or desire to identify(Shérif).

Bailly adds that we can distinguish the “active” groups of reference, which are a source of standards ofjudgment leading to specific behaviors to the “passive” ones, which essentially allow the individual torecognize himself as part of a group different from others.

The belonging to a group inherently induces a social identity. Social identity is, according to Fischer, a"psychological process of representation resulting in the sense of existing as a singular being and beingrecognized as such by others. It induces self-esteem and self-awareness ." It highlights the perceptionthat the individual's self is determined by its group membership. Therefore, intergroup relations aremarked by this sense of belonging.

Dubois (1996) emphasizes several key-points necessary to favor the feeling of belonging :

- Respect and consideration : The perception of respect and consideration has a critical impact on thesense of belonging. It is therefore impossible to develop a high sense of belonging and mobilize peopleif they do not feel considered, respected and valued;

- Clarity of the task : The clarity of the task executed by the members has a positive impact on thedevelopment of a sense of belonging ;

- Stimulating task : Self-realization , i.e., the full use of personal and professional capacity, is animportant factor of motivation and psychological balance. Weinberg and Gould (1997) emphasize thatthe creation of the group cohesion requires two different forces acting on the members : attractiveness

37

and control means. Firstly, the group's attractiveness refers to the individual's wish to haveinterpersonal interactions with other group members and his desire to participate in group activities.Merely being in a group and interact with others provides a sense of satisfaction with group members.Control means, then, refers to the benefits a member may withdraw from its association with thegroup.

2.3. Intergroup relations, categorization and discrimination

Tajfel, et al. studied intergroup relations based on the theory of social identity. He thus demonstratedthat relations between groups of individuals merged with this awareness generates a categorizationamong the individuals. For Tajfel, categorization is the fundamental process of the intergroupdiscrimination phenomena. According to Deschamps, this process is at the origin of the group'sidentity. Categorization is the cognitive process to group objects which possess the samecharacteristics and share common properties in the same category. Its function is to simplify theenvironment, to better control it, because our cognitive capacity is limited. Categorization has twoeffects on the perception of objects (Tajfel and Wilkes, 1962; Mc Garty and Turner, 1992) :

- Effect of contrast : The categorization reinforces the perceived differences between the elementsbelonging to different categories;

- Effect of assimilation : The categorization emphasizes the similarities between the elements that arepart of the same category.

We will emphasize that social categorization has the same functions and the same effects, but itsobjects are individuals. According to Autin, social categorization is "a cognitive tool which segments,classes and orders the social environment and which allows the individuals to undertake various formsof social action". She adds that social categorization also defines the place of everyone in society.Group membership is referred when individuals define themselves and are defined by others asmembers of the group. Social groups therefore provide their members with a social identificationcalled "social identity”. Social identity is defined as the part of the individual's self-concept resultingfrom the awareness that this individual has to belong to a social group as well as the value andemotional significance it attaches to this membership.

This categorization inherently generates a discrimination in intergroup relations. According to Fischer(2001), discrimination is a "behavior which results in scornful and vexatious behaviors towardindividuals or groups that are the object of a prejudicial treatment." Thus, “the prejudice acts as aframework and discrimination is considered as an operationalization process." His work allowed himto highlight what he calls the “minimal groups paradigm ", where he demonstrates that the mere factof belonging to a group is a sufficient condition for individuals to produce discriminatory behaviortoward other groups. Thus, intergroup relations are marked by this" sense of belonging ". The naturalprocess of social categorization will generate in the minds of individuals stereotypes and prejudices.

Stereotypes are, according to Leyens, shared beliefs about personal characteristics of a group ofindividuals. For Lippmann, they refer to the simplified descriptive categories based on beliefs and with

38

which we qualify other people or other social groups. Stereotypes can produce negative effects. Assome researchers like Leyens emphasize, they would have a direct effect on the group's performance,especially when they are made salient, activated.

Fischer completes this analysis by saying that the stereotype is characterized by its uniformity whilethe prejudice has a larger character assessment that incorporates a set of various stereotypes of race,gender, religion or social class. If the stereotype is rather descriptive and collective, prejudice wouldbe more individual and normative. Prejudice expresses the structural character of socialrepresentations , while stereotypes refer to their functionality.

Prejudices constitute an attitude of the individual with an evaluative dimension, often negative , towardcertain types of individuals or groups, based on their own social status. This is an acquired dispositionwhose purpose is to establish a social differentiation" (Fischer). Rosenberg and Abelson add thatprejudice has the characteristics of any attitude and consists of cognitive and behavioral dimension.Thus, it is the result of a combination of belief and value.

According to Lewin, a group is something else than the sum of its elements composing it; it is the waythese elements get structured and organized, and not their intrinsic characteristics, that characterizes it.It thus can not be reduced to the individuals composing it. From that perspective, the group has itsown reality, and forms a system of interdependence.

There are several types of groups that can be characterized according to various parameters. We mayretain, for example, their size, their life (temporary (short -term, mid -term, long-term) or permanent)and their operating modes. The system of interdependence, specific to a group at one point, explainshow the group and its conduct, i.e., both the inner workings that action on the external reality. This iscalled the “group dynamic” (Lewin, 1944). According to him, the individual's behavior is determinedby both his characteristics and the characteristics of his social environment. This is thecomplementarity between the individual, the group and the environment that constitutes theindividuals' “living space” . In this perspective, the group is designed as a dynamic whole. This whole“groupal dynamic” possesses specific properties. The main one is linked to the group's evolutiondepending on the surrounding reality, which is itself evolving . The group is integrated in a social fieldwith dynamic properties; it is thus in interaction with the environment. This is particularly importantin the issue of changing social representations (Guimelli) and the introduction of new practices(Lewin).

2.4. Social representations

The consideration of social representations will also be fundamental in our analysis. For Herzlich(1972), "A social representation is a process of mental and symbolic construction of social reality.This is a (social) picture, meaningful and complex, that integrates individual experience, socialrelations and social values " Abric (1996) defines them as "an organized and hierarchical set ofjudgments, attitudes and informations that a particular social group develops about an object."According to Jodelet (1989, 1991), they are "forms of social thought, called as from common sense,

39

shared and socially developed, inducing special knowledge." He highlights five fundamental charactersof social representations. The content of the social representations can be varied : opinions, images,beliefs, stereotypes and attitudes.

Moliner offers five essential criteria for an object to be considered an object of social representations :

- The object must have a social status, importance for individuals. These are often polymorphicobjects, composites, controversial;

- The object must be a matter of communication between individuals. Social communication is theorigin of the formation of social representations. An object that is not a matter of communication andinteraction between individuals in a group can not be an object of social representation;

- The object must be provided with an identity issue. It carries an issue related to group identity andcohesion. The challenge is identity when the group was formed around the object;

- The object representation must be inserted into a social dynamic. This dynamic involves severalgroups that interact to propose the object (social comparison about the object) ;

- The object must not be a subject of scientific knowledge for the group (it is a naive thought).Scientific knowledge is not developed collectively through social interactions as regulatory authoritiescontrol the dissemination and validity of the information about the object.

2.5. The group's cohesion

Cohesion in a group may designate several elements : the force of attraction, group morale orcoordination of efforts of its members. This may be influenced by several factors :

- Homogeneity : The group members are attracted to benefit people of equivalent status. Statusdifferences show differences of interest and reduce the level of adherence to group (Adams);

- External threat : The threat helps a group to clarify its objectives and encourages its members towork together toward a common goal (Stein);

- The intergroup competition increases cohesion, while intragroup competition decreases it.

2.6. Social influences as main threat for creativity and innovation

The main threats are constituted by the natural social influences within groups, and its differentprocesses of attitude change due to them (emphasized by Kelman, 1953) likely to leash/weaken thecognitive conflict, i.e., the innovation process :

- Conformism : Can be said to occur when an individual hopes to achieve a favorable reaction fromanother person or group. He adopts the induced behavior not because he believes in its content butbecause he hopes to gain specific reward or approval and avoid specific punishment or disapproval byconforming. Thus the satisfaction derived from compliance is due to the social effect of acceptinginfluence;

40

- Identification : Can be said when an individual accepts influence because he wants to achieve a self-defining relationship to a persona or a group. It occurs when people take on the views of others bothpublicly and privately. The individual actually believes in the responses he adopts throughidentification. He adopts the induced behavior because it is associated with the desired relationship.Identification however constitutes a superficial influence : it does not reach the system of beliefs andlasts as long as the source remains attractive;

- Internalization : Can be said to occur when an individual accepts the influence because the content ofthe induced behavior (the ideas and actions of which it is composed) is intrinsically rewarding. Headopts the induced behavior because it is congruent with his value system.

We will also emphasize the groupal thought (Moscovici, 1963), defined as the individuals' undisclosedfear of breaking their group's consensus (i.e., the socio-affective climate), whether if they wish it tosucceed and fulfill its objectives (for any kind of reasons, whether strategic, affective,...) or if they donot want to take any risk by exposing their personal opinion about the group's attitudes orbehaviors/actions. This natural phenomenon, if not managed, can constitute a serious threat forcreativity and innovation.

2.7. Innovation within groups

The “magic circles”, as core part of Nussbaum's creative intelligence concept, induce the developmentand management of small creative groups. For Lewin, the group can be the support or the facilitator ofchange. Let's thus focus on the different issues and opportunities (thanks to several studies led on thisproblematic) that can be exploited within social groups in order to develop a richer understanding ofthe creative and innovation processes, as well as means to favor them.

Nemeth and Wachtler (1983) emphasized the following facts :

- The subjects confronted to a minority give more new just answers than those confronted to amajority;

- The subjects confronted to a minority give more new ideas (whether right or wrong) than othergroups placed in other situations;

- The majority situations induce a higher degree of dissatisfaction, of embarrassment and offrustration than in the minority ones.

Their experiment demonstrated that the majority and minority influences rest on two distinctprocesses :

- The majority is really efficient to attract the subjects to just solutions they propose, i.e., to a strictconformism. However, if the minority less induces this kind of behavior, it allows a decentration andanalysis that takes the different opinions into account, favoring the production of new solutions.

- The presence of a constant and active minority within a group has to be considered as a factorfavoring the group's creativity. Those results highlight the ones obtained by Moscovici and Lage

41

(1978) showing that the minority influence is way stronger in contexts where the norm is the searchfor originality rather than “objectivity”.

Let's now focus on the norms which determine the judgment an individual has on particular objects.Moscovici (1979) emphasizes three norms :

- Norm of objectivity : Where it dominates, relates to our need to test opinions and judgmentsaccording to the criteria of objective exactitude. It gives prime to majority;

- Norm of preference : Presumes the existence of more or less desirable opinions reflecting differenttastes;

- Norm of originality : Chooses the judgments and opinions according to the degree of novelty theyrepresent and the degree of surprise they can cause. It gives prime to minority.

According to the norm, the minority will be considered whether as “deviant” (norm of objectivity) orsimply “original” (norm of originality). Mugny and coll. (1981) demonstrated that a minority exercisesa more important influence in an originality normative framework than in a majority one. Moreover, aminority adopting a flexible style of behavior exercises more influence than the ones adopting a rigidone (Ricateau, 1971; Mugny, 1982).

Mugny (1976) emphasizes two levels of influence :

- The public social answer (superficial);

- The cognitive structuring underlying the social answer : System of values, of beliefs, of informationsinfluencing (composition), orienting (direction) and structuring the public expression of an answer.This system, comparable to the immersed part of an iceberg, is really much more important than thepart on the surface. The social answers are the result of the pressure exercised by the source ofinfluence and can be whether effective or symbolic (even if not clearly signified, it intervenes in theway the subjects apprehend and understand their social environment). Thus, the majority, thanks tothe system of representations within the subjects (ideological pre-construction), possesses apotentiality of pressure superior to a minority.

Doise and Moscovici (1980) emphasize two kinds of minority sub-groups :

- The nomic : Possesses a clear system of norms and values in opposition to the majority. Its refusal ofthe majority norms is not due to its lack of understanding or of adoption of the majority norm, butaffirms its opposition by adopting a distinct position and adopting an alternative norm, a counter-response answering more narrowly than the dominant norm to its beliefs, to its needs and to theeffective reality. The nomic minority is the one who produces the most efficient influence;

- The anomic : Lacks personal norms. Its transgression of the dominant norm is only due to its lack,for example, of psychological or social resources necessary to adopt the majority norms.

Abric (1971) states that this is this nomic or anomic characteristic that makes a minority or a deviantan active or passive partner in the social relations. Both of them adopt a non-conformist behavior, and

42

are characterized by their refusal to recognize the majority norm or the dominant answer. However,Abric (1971) states that a minority needs, to be considered a s a potential source of influence, to havea coherent and well defined view. It also needs to be socially recognized, with its own specificqualities, by the majority. It needs to be motivated to obtain, reserve or increase their visibility andmake the majority recognize its existence. It does not have to neglect their efforts to be remarked,identified and listened. According to Moscovici (1979), it is in this process of obtaining visibility andsocial recognition that we can correctly evaluate the right of the minority to act and provoke changesin its material and social world, like its capacity to bring others to share its points of view.

These are the two effects the minority influence can produce on the individuals composing themajority :

- Modification of their verbal answer (public expression) : Conformism and preservation of thepersonal perceptive code;

- Modification of their latent perceptive code : Internalization and real influence modifying hisperception and judgment.

Abric adds that the minority influence is hardly produced during the interaction and gets easier as soonas the risk to be categorized as deviant decreases. After the interaction, the tacit efforts, rejected tounderstand what the minority thinks or perceives bring the subject to think and perceive how theminority would have done. This happens, for example, when the minority leaves the place, or when theinteraction stops and when the individuals feel they can behave more freely. The minority answer getsless threatening and brings them useful informations to elaborate (i.e., structure and organize) theirown judgment.

We also notice an effect of private influence without the effects of public influence (Moscovici andPersonnaz, 1980; Doms and Van Avermaet, 1980). This means that a minority can change theindividual's perceptions or judgments, without it being perceptible within the group.

In a nutshell, the minority challenges the social consensus by introducing divergence and conflictresulting which can be perceived as threatening, for it produces a disruptive effect and generateuncertainty. The individuals are confronted to two incompatible judgments in a situation where onlyone is acceptable. Whether the individuals will lose their trust in what they see or think, or willconsider the validity of what the other sees or thinks. In both cases, they will feel obliged toreestablish the consensus. The higher the conflict (e.g., if the individual is strongly engaged in hisposition), the stronger the individual's obligation to solve it. Thus, the minority questions the socialconsensus and increases the uncertainty and doubt among the majority group. Thus, this minorityincites the majority to solve this cognitive divergence/conflict, until it reduces the disagreement viacertain concessions.

Abric finally emphasizes that the only conclusion which really corresponds to the realities of the factsis that a majority exercises a powerful public influence but a less private one. Many individuals thusconform to the common opinion in presence of the group, but then go back to their own private ones.

43

In other words, the pressure from the minority is more efficient on the private dimension, whereas it isthe contrary on the public one. He adds that the minority influence can induce a reexamination of theindividuals' judgment/appreciated object. This influence does not always induce a modification of thepublic answer, but can be operated at a more latent level, by a deep transformation of the structure ofanswer (influence on the latent structure of the answer via a modification of the perceptive code).

An example of minority influence : from journalism to “hacking journalism”

Let's consider a clear example of minority influence exercised in the domain of journalism havinggenerated a major innovation. This influence and innovation however not occurred within a smallgroup of individuals but among a world-wide community of individuals.

Julian Assange, hacker and programmer who was involved in the construction of one of the first publicinternet service providers in Australia, developed in 2006 (right before the launch of the Wikileakswebsite), a new paradigm about information and journalism in the digital age, based on thecypherpunk philosophy which represents his core personal paradigm : “transparency for the powerful,privacy for the weak”. Assange thus defined clear new original norms and values about journalism andthe management of information in order to regulate the political and economic powers.

The creation of Wikileaks aimed at revolutionizing the journalistic domain and the way information isacquired by those professionals but also by hackers, who know and build the technologies necessaryfor this new form of journalism to be exercised. The team behind Wikileaks partnered up with severalrenown media worldwide (i.e., it did not adopt an extreme position toward their mainstream majority“colleagues”). Its publicized leaks, whose climax was the 2010 leak of 10.000 American diplomaticcables, largely contributed to develop the movement's visibility and popularity worldwide, whileprovoking an important debate about this new non-conformist kind of journalism. Wikileaks earnedmore and more social support from journalists and civil society, allowing it to get really popularworldwide, and the massive adoption of the “transparency” value among the journalists, the civilopinion and the political power (with the “open data” as new tendency).

The different social recognitions for key-individuals involved in the Wikileaks operations, and moreglobally in the leaks of sensitive informations via encrypted systems, strongly contributed to givecredibility and legitimacy to this movement. Assange thus won the Sydney Peace Foundation's goldmedal for championing people's right to know, Bradley Manning won the the 2013 Sean MacBridePeace Award and Edward Snowden (who exposed via a massive leak of classified documents thePRISM scandal), received in 2014 the Pulitzer prize, awarding achievements in newspaper and onlinejournalism, literature, and musical composition in the United States. It is interesting to notice thatnone of these individuals are actually “official “journalists, but were awarded these high distinctionsfor their journalistic practices. We will add that this innovation perfectly reflects the hackingphilosophy, which states that official statuses do not matter, only concrete actions do (culture ofamateurism).

According to Simon Rogers (2013), journalist at The Guardian, “Wikileaks changed the vision of the

44

redactions.”59Some important redactions like The New York Times thus adopted the codes of the new“datajournalism” concept, which can be defined as “how journalists are coping with a flood ofinformation by borrowing data visualization techniques from computer scientists, researchers andartists”.60Rogers adds that datajournalism can be considered as “the new punk.”61The community ofhackers involved in journalistic practices worldwide emphasized the really important technologicalissues traditional journalists did not take into account during their investigations. Thus, the security ofcommunication is, according to these individuals, at the core of the protection of the sources and theoptimization of the acquisition of new sensitive informations. For example, Telecomix helpspromoting the cypherpunk philosophy by developing technologies and sensitize journalists andpolitical dissidents in sensitive countries to encryption in order to favor the leak and acquisition ofinformation, i.e., optimize the investigative practice. According to Assange (2013), sources inpossession of sensitive informations are thus more likely to share them if they are proposed a stronglyencrypted/secure communication systems. For Zimmermann (2014), Assange's informational andjournalistic norms and practices was validated by their concrete application allowing to verify theirviability and efficiency.

This innovation was made possible by technologies such as the Internet network and Free software.Sylvain Parasie (2011) emphasized this innovation coming from the hacker community by proposingthe term "hacker journalist" supposed to gather the computer enthusiasts and journalists in order tomake journalism evolve62. Manach (2013), emphasizes that "In the United States, journalists areformed to both journalism and hacking. 'Hacker' in the true sense of the term, that is to say, developapplications, find brilliant solutions to technical problems. The ability, when facing a problem with noobvious solution, to adapt to find one."

Wikileaks thus succeeded in operating a merger between two apparently distinct worlds (with specificskills, codes and practices) and form a new efficient practice that benefits from the hybridization oftheir respective knowledges. It thus not only generated a strong innovation within the journalisticdomain but also succeeded, via the democratization and integration of the hacking philosophy at thecore of this new paradigm, to play a major role in the rehabilitation of this term whose meaning hadbeen, according to Stallman, perverted by the media in the 1980s.

We will also emphasize another interesting example to illustrate the actions of another active minoritycomposed of “hacker journalists” : the Reflets.info website. It is an informational website whoseredactors are benevolent and for most part not journalists. This team has decided to work as bothjournalists and hackers (according to Stallman's “playful cleverness”) by integrating a lot of “lulz”(derivation of LOLs for "laughs out loud") in their articles dealing about really serious topics. Thisteam, despite of its investigative efficiency, is largely overlooked by the mainstream journalists.However, the informations they acquire and produce as a result of their investigation about focusing onsensitive topics (e.g., the massive surveillance of political dissidents in totalitarian States made

59 http://ecrans.liberation.fr/ecrans/2012/01/04/wikileaks-a-change-la-vision-des-redactions_950912?page=article60 http://datajournalism.stanford.edu/61 http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/may/24/data-journalism-punk62 http://www.laviedesidees.fr/Le-journalisme-hacker.html

45

possible by French companies selling DPI63technologies are often reused by official journalists andredactions, while not attributing them the paternity.

This team is a really interesting case, for its members pretend to be journalists, while having decidedto not adopt the codes of their professional environment. Here is what they state in one of theirarticle64:

Our editorial line is hard to follow, even sometimes we publicly expose our differences ofopinion in our publications. Reflets seeks to address information with other methods, analternative approach to those commonly used. This approach, these methods are related to theculture of the network, not necessarily to those of journalism schools. And the network cultureis messy65, libertarian, i.e., based on the freedom of everyone. Thus, our magazine does not haveany hierarchical organization, sometimes messy, but sometimes relevant and often visionary(…), all without any imposed editorial line… So we alternate shamelessly between investigativejournalism, mood articles, feature articles, and reactions to the news. We are a disparate groupof journalists technicians, activists. We regularly make orthographic mistakes, as an insult to theprofession. We infuse Lulz in the heart of articles about serious topics. We switch from deepinvestigation to geek joke…

We have been following tirelessly for almost three years now the issues that concern you. Weproduced before everyone several scoops that would not deny (traditional) investigationjournalists. We publish articles on an almost daily basis, and we managed to conquer a fairlysubstantial readership. Would the reasons why other journalists ignore us be found in sociology?Would we break too many codes to be accepted by our colleagues in their silver tower?”

We consider that this is also a pretty good example, for here the “official” redactions, while largelyreusing (i.e., validating) the informations provided by the Reflets website, do not officially supportthe “journalists” behind it, with their “deviant” attitudes and behaviors breaking most parts of theclassic journalistic codes via their promotion of a “disruptive” merger between humor andseriousness.

2.8. The situations of group and creativity

Groups of creativity have been studied by Nemeth & Wachtler (1983). Innovation (which refers to theindividuals' change of attitudes/cognitive restructuring) involves phenomena such as minority influence(Moscovici and Faucheux, 1963). Three situations of group can be emphasized (Abric, 1971) :

- Situation where the group's performance is highlighted, in an inter-group evaluative and competitivecontext;

63 “Deep Packet Inspection”.64 http://reflets.info/dis-papa-cest-quoi-cette-bouteille-de-reflets/65 Inspired by The Cathedral and the Bazaar text as core of the Internet and hacking philosophies.

46

- Situation where the individual performance is highlighted in an intra-group evaluative andcompetitive context;

- Situation where there is no performance (individual or groupal) dimension, and no intra/inter-groupevaluation and competition.

The two kinds of nature of tasks taken into account in the following studies about groups are :

- Problem solving : Requiring a deduction, method, rigorous thought.

- Creativity : Requiring intuition, creativity and invention.

For Abric (1971), the three objective factors of the group situations are : the network, the task and thesocial structure.

Kogan and Wallach (1964) demonstrated that when a group composed of individuals with divergentideas are brought to discuss situations, it usually chooses more risky solutions than if the decisionwould have been made by the different individuals composing it. This constitutes a more favorablefactor for creativity.

Hall and Watson (1970) demonstrated that heterogeneity can favor creativity, provided the socio-cognitive conflicts (induced by the potential inhibition of certain members toward others perceived as“more skilled”, blocking of communication due to conflicts of attitudes,...) are considered andregulated in the situation. The explicit consideration of the conflict by the group thus induces a betterglobal performance as well as the discovery of new and original ideas. Their results confirm the onesobtained by Triandis (1963) about dyadic creativity : heterogeneity of attitudes and aptitudes of twosubjects in interaction does not favor the performance itself. However, in experimental situationswhere the members of the dyad have been trained to communicate with the other, the heterogeneousdyads are the most creative. Abric concludes that when the stress associated to the group'sheterogeneity is reduced (for example thanks to communication) the positive effects of thisheterogeneity can develop and generate a high creativity. It also emphasizes the necessity of a certaintype of animation within the groups of creativity, centered on the regulation and the installation of apositive relational climate. According to Collaros and Anderson (1969), what matters is not the realbut the perceived heterogeneity.

2.9. Model matching of the task - network of communication

The network of communication can be defined as the whole effective possibilities of communicationbetween the members of the group, i.e., the whole effective possibilities of communication betweenthe members of a group.

Flament (1965) introduced the “model of the task” concept. It can be defined by the whole minimalcommunications necessary considering the task' nature. He demonstrated that the performances of agroup are optimal if there is isomorphism between the network of communication and the nature ofthe task. In other words, the network of communication does not possess specific properties, and thus

47

has to fit the type of task to fulfill.

2.10.Matching nature of the task - structure of the group

Faucheux and Moscovici (1960) analyze the relations uniting the structure of the task and thecommunications actually exchanged within the group. Two kinds of task are emphasized:

- Task of problem resolution : Supposes an organization and a coordination for requires thedevelopment of a common strategies. The task of problem solving favors the emergence of centralizedgroup structures;

- Task of creativity : Individual initiatives, non coordinated with others, can develop without degradingthe achievement of objectives, provided they are simply returned and controlled by the group oncethey have produced a result. The task of creativity favors a majority of homogeneous group structures.The group's performance is optimal when adopts a structure of communication matching with theconstraints of the task (centralized for a problem, non-centralized for creativity).

Moreover, each kind of task produces a specific kind of communication within the group. ForAbric (1971), each kind of task produces a particular kind of communication within the group :

- “Speech-communications” (targeting the whole group, composed mainly of informations) insituation of problem solving;

- “Exchanges” (interindividual, general and critical).

Faucheux and Moscovici thus emphasized that the nature of the task determines the structure of thegroup and their communications, and that the performance is optimum when there is isomorphismbetween the task and the group structure. This performance is well-determined by a second system ofmatching : the matching nature of the task - structure of communications.

2.11. The matching nature of the task - social structure

Poitou and Flament (1967) have analyzed the interaction between the social structure and the modelof the task. They emphasized a “principle of functional matching between the structure of the task andthe group's social structure. From a social structure of a group corresponds a whole of tasks this groupcan achieve the best productivity... Otherwise, the matching between the group and its task reinforcesthe social structure.” This demonstrates the third system of matching, which concerns the task and thesocial structure.

2.12. Matching between the representation of the task – nature of the task

Abric (1971) states that all the previous studies focused on the role of the objective structure of thetask, and thus overlooked an essential dimension of the situation : the symbolic dimension. In otherwords, it does not consider the fact that any reality is always appropriated by the individuals, i.e., thereexists only “represented realities” for the individuals or the groups.

48

He defines the representation of the task as “the theory, or the system of hypothesis, that individualselaborate on the nature of the task, its finality, the means to deploy to fulfill it and the necessarybehaviors for its efficiency.

Studies on the representation of the tasks (Abric, 1971) demonstrated that :

- The representation of the task is the key-variable that determines the group's performance. Twodistinct representations of a same task induces two different performances;

- The performance of the group is optimal in situations where the representation and the nature of thetask match;

- The representation of the task, and not its effective structure, determines the structure ofcommunications and of the exchanges within the group. The “creativity” representation favors theemergence of non-centralized structures, including in situations where the group solves a problem andwhere the nature of the task (cf. Faucheux and Moscovici, 1960), should only generate hierarchicalstructures of communication. The “problem” representation favors the generation of hierarchicalstructures, even in situations where the group is confronted to an effective “creative” task that shouldinduce homogeneous structures. The only exception is when the the structure of the task is so muchpregnant that it does not induce different representations of the reality : only in those situations thenature of the task is decisive. The more ambiguous and complex the task is, the more therepresentations are going to play a key-role;

- The representation of the task determines the cognitive approach adopted by the group. The“problem” representation favors the activities of control whereas the “creative” ones favors a moreheterogeneous and original production. The representation determines the kind of dominant activitywithin the group, induces the fulfillment of a specific product b the group;

Those results thus emphasize the existence of a fourth matching system directing the groupsphenomena : the performance of a group will be optimal when the representation of the situation -nature of the task match.

2.13 Evaluation, competition and creativity within groups

Glover (1979) analyzed the respective effects of three situations of group :

- Situation where the group's performance is highlighted, in an inter-group evaluative and competitivecontext;

- Situation where the individual performance is highlighted in an intra-group evaluative andcompetitive context;

- Situation where there is no performance (individual or of group) dimension, and no intra/inter-groupevaluation and competition.

Glover is going to focus on the obtained results on four different dimensions of the studiedperformance (find all the possible uses of a given object) :

49

- Fluidity : The number of different answers;

- Flexibility : The number of different kinds of answers;

- The richness of elaboration : The ability to enrich an answer;

- Scarcity : Scarcity of the proposed answers.

He emphasized that each context produces a specific effect on the different cognitive dimensions ofthe task :

- The non-evaluative context favors the richness and originality of the production of the group, butreduces its fluidity and flexibility;

- The evalutive-competitive context favors the group's fluidity and flexibility, but inhibits its richnessof elaboration and originality;

- In competitive and evaluative situations, the centration on the group induces a higher cognitivefluidity and flexibility than the one obtained when the group is centered on the individuals. However,this difference of centration does not influence the processes of elaboration and originality.

3. SynecticsThe synectic method comes from the Greek and means "the joining together of different andapparently irrelevant elements". It has been emphasized by Gordon (1965) and essentially rests on theconscious and organized use of the metaphor. It aims at optimizing the development of the creativethought in a group situation, and to be used in situation of problem solving. Gordon considers that theheuristic use of metaphor is at the core of creativity. The main idea is thus to incite the group togather, combine and get apparently unrelated elements closer. Thus, the method, collectively practicedand exploiting the group's dynamic, aim at “making the unusual familiar and the familiar unusual ”. Itrequires, to be effective, a fun and relaxing atmosphere, aiming at giving the participants the look andthe attitudes of a child facing reality. For Gordon, “Game, as a state-of-mind and faculty of inventionis, for the adults, the exact replicate of the attitudes and faculties of a child.” He considers that thisdisposition has to be cultivated and deliberately exploited to favor the creative activity. According toGordon, Synectics research has three main assumptions :

- The creative process can be described and taught;

- Invention processes in arts and sciences are analogous and are driven by the same "psychic"processes;

- Individual and group creativity are analogous.

This method implies the systematic use of three analogies :

- Personal analogy : It consists to ask the participants to identify themselves to an element of thestudied problem and imagine the reactions, behaviors and postures they would develop. For example,the members of the group might identify themselves to a tree, a windmill, etc;

50

- Direct analogy : It consists to use a the knowledge of a specific discipline in another one (similar tothe Besson's “model” phase of inventive intelligence and connection between “worlds of knowledge”to favor creativity). We thus transpose the knowledge from a known domain to find the solutions of aproblem within another one. We will illustrate this analogy further in this work with a clear example;

- Symbolic or fantastic analogy : It consists to substitute to a problematic object whether a symbolicimage (e.g., a crystal ball for a psychological test) or oneiric images based on the fantastic anirrationality. The goal is here to exploit illusion, the poetic language, the dream, in order to favor theproduction of new ideas or a new way to apprehend the problem.

Synectics requires groups as heterogeneous as possible, in order to increase the divergence ofattitudes, i.e., the cognitive conflict. We will propose, inspired by this method (which shares somestrong similarities with the different philosophies composing the semiotic hacking we have analyzed),a new cognitive practice based on synectics applied to the semiotic process, which will aim atstimulating and unleashing it, which we will call synectiction.

4. The mastering of intelligence and ignorance in order to optimize theinterpretation and the creative process

The strategic intelligence process will be at the core of the semiotic hacking philosophy. We thusconsider it will play a major role in the interpretation and semiotic processes, for its differentdimensions (memory, analysis and network) will allow to feed them and strengthen their efficiency.We are thus going to analyze them in order to develop a richer understanding of its implementationand the different issues bound to its practice.

4.1. The network and the network strategy

The network is a "net" consisting of various members and "nodes", i.e., meeting points. According toBakis, "it is a collective situation made of connections and actors." According to Marcon and Moinet(2007), the network is a "living organism" that has spikes of activity and which can be put to sleep.We must therefore, as an individual, respect a "biological rhythm" not to degrade its effectiveness.They also add that the human network allows :

- An economy of means (time, energy, finance) as the word spreads much better than writing;

- A synchronization of thoughts and actions.

Marcon and Moinet (2010) emphasize that any network, to actually produce beneficial effects for thegroup, must be accompanied by a true "network strategy. Thus, "the network strategy is to create, ormore often to activate and direct the created bonds between actors in a project." According to them, itis important for the project be clearly formulated because from its formulation will depend :

- The people involved;

- The identification of environments to integrate (domains, actors ...);

51

- The identification of the key success.

A network allows the members to exchange precise questions and answers. Well exploited within agroup, it allows to optimize the “mastering of intelligence” via the question – answer virtuous cycle.

The network is truly essential to the innovation strategy of the organization, as it feeds the group's"global thought” by creating links between individuals. According to Besson, the more unexpected andnon-conformist these links are, the more they allow to detect and emphasize the ignorances. The linksbetween individuals are more important than the links between informations. He also highlights that itcan be very wise to maintain good relations with the "warning" networks, i.e., those which always alertthe organization when there are problems.

It is necessary to support the process of creating links between individuals to develop and optimize the"infostructure", i.e., the "glue" between people, so that people of the network will speak the samelanguage and understand each other. This can be codes, interests and a common culture. It is alsofundamental to optimize the acquisition of relevant and useful informations to develop networks withmany "structural holes”66(Burt, 1992) promoting "information benefits" via a better dissemination ofknowledges and skills within the organization.

For Besson, each of us is recognized in several networks who practice a specific skils and language.All networks have a collective memory that contains the answers to possible questions. Thisemphasizes the fundamental need to federate all the networks around the same core system of valuesin order to favor the interconnection, the interoperability and the “global thought” necessary for thenetwork strategy to be optimal.

It is however important not to develop too much affect-based networks, for it can cause an excessiveconvergence of judgment and a standardization of attitudes, which can distort the individuals'perception and the analytic and reflective skills. It is therefore essential to find a good compromisebetween affect and reflection and keep in mind that each individual within networks should retain itsown attitudes. As cognitive conflict is essential for innovation, the multiplication of points of view andthe ability of individuals to adopt personal and external perspectives to various problems is necessaryto optimize the analysis and the collective reading practices.

The networks will work better with a flexible management system rather than a directive one. Thisanalysis is similar to the vision promoted by communities of practice based on shared values andcommon interests encouraging individuals to get voluntarily involved on these communities. Membersof a community thus identify closely to them and are bound by the knowledge they share and developtogether. However, some fundamental differences are to be considered between communities ofpractice and networks.

It is important, to optimize the exchanges within these networks, for the members to adopt aformalistic profile. Thus, it is essential to use existing networks in an ethical way and focus on

66 According to Burt, a structural hole is a relationship of non-redundancy between two contacts. Contacts are redundantif they know they are directly or indirectly in a situation of "structural equivalence", that is to say, they know the sameindividuals.

52

maintaining good interpersonal relations instead of being focused on results at all costs. This approachis the requirement to maintain a general trust, real cement of the relations between individuals. Autilitarian approach is thus counter-productive because it leads to a general distrust among themembers, and quickly degrade the positive results achieved so far.

4.2.Analysis

For Besson & Possin (2001), the analysis is the interface that connects the organization and theoutside world, the link between ignorance and knowledge, between the network and the memory. Itsfunction is to "criticize and evaluate the organs of acquisition of information”. It is thus designed to"excite the memory and the network" and must therefore be in conflict with the other two functions.This conflict is necessary for innovation.

A good analysis within a social system is based on the multiplication of perspectives (internal andexternal) to expand its analytic capacities. The organization thus has, in order to optimize its analytic,treatment of the information fluxes and innovation processes, to practice the “collective reading”. Thispractice consists to incite several individuals (ideally from within and outside the group) to analyze thesame strategic information. It allows to considerably enrich this information by providing severalinterpretations of the same problem (which, as Besson notes, “is a perpetual and imperfect flow thatrequires relentless additions and comments, and is intrinsically inscribed in a continuous and anincomplete context”. For Beson & Possin (2001), “The strategic intelligence knows that theinformation is less worth than the reader, and that the reader is less worth than the readers. The valueof the information will depend on the number of diverse and varied skills which will have access to it.An information in itself only has a relative value. Read, commented and valorized by a maximum ofmen and women, the information will often get an unexpected value.”

The collective reading also helps the group to generate new ideas with a much higher added-value thanif hey had been produced by a single individual or only within it (which can easily, as we haveanalyzed, suffer from natural phenomena likely to weaken this necessary diversity of interpretation). Itis thus also necessary, to optimize the collective reading process, to interrogate the members of thegroup's external networks. As each member possesses an external network (consisting of friends,family, colleagues,...), it can be very interesting to “activate” and exploit these “nets” to improve thegroup 's intelligence strategy. Just as we need an external perspective to help us see clearly when welooked too long at a problem, the group must solicit the external view and interpretations in order topreserve a " multilateral " vision and not be weakened by possible cognitive traps which could damageits decisional process, i.e, its evolution.

According to Lesca and Caron, developing a process of collective intelligence in the organizationallows it to overcome its natural cognitive biases. Thus, " When an individual is confronted alone towarning signals (e.g, weak signals acquired by the strategic monitoring practice ), he has to interpretthem. But these signals are fragmentary, incomplete, ambiguous, etc. We know that this interpretationis highly subjective and will be conditioned by the individual's cognitive preferences (Nioche and

53

Laroche, 1994). It will also be conditioned by his specific experience. The creation of a collectivevision, however, will significantly reduce the individual's cognitive biases and subjectivity." They addthat "This approach allows to generate a consensus and the collective action. In a sense, creating avision accepted by the group and reduce the subjectivities and the biases, are both goals and means.These are ways to generate the collective and consensual action of members of the organization inorder to favor its successful adaptation to the changes of the environment."

Besson and Possin (2001) state that the strategic intelligence is necessarily a team work, for it allows adetachment toward an object, a sharpened objectivity and a sharing of tasks. The analysis is situated atthe core of the information cycle, and does not only possess the elaboration of questions and thevalidation of the answers. It also aims at reducing the retention of informations to anticipate, to fightdisinformation and build original models of economic analysis. They highlight the fact thatinformation has to be shared and discussed.

We must therefore keep in mind that the collective reading requires the cultivation of the differenceswithin the group so that each individual preserves his personal opinion and can thus help produce areal added value in the analytic process. It is important to not try to standardize the individuals'perceptions, likely to leash their analytical skills and diminish the tremendous human resourcesavailable to the group, which might not be initially suspected. As we said, this difference is reallyfundamental to bring out new ideas and favor the cognitive conflict, i.e., innovation. This analyticalwork, such as the memory and network management, will thus allow the group to optimize his“management of ignorance" process.

According to Besson and Possin, ignorance is, in a group or an organization, fundamental and must bemanaged through the practice of strategic intelligence (“The strategic intelligence considers theignorance as important as knowledge”). This practice is necessary because according to them,"Whoever controls the ignorance and questions holds the power." Controlling the question - answercycle within a group or an organization thus allows to generate a real “mastering of intelligence”.

A good way to achieve it is to encourage the members to ask questions and produce discovery reportswithin the group, in order to create new ideas and attract the attention of other members on new "grayareas", likely to potentially generate new opportunities. The memory of the organization mustconstantly evolve, in order to favor the emergence of constantly new ignorances for the group and"anticipate future curiosities”..

Let's now focus on the fundamental question – answer virtuous cycle and the prevision process whichconstitute the core of the strategic intelligence.

4.3. Question – answer and prevision

For Besson and Possin (2001), prevision means seeing through time and space. It is always a dialog,between the one(s) that foresee(s) and the one(s) who receive(s) the prevision. The reception induces acomplex reception and a decisional phase. The decisional phase can be influenced by phenomena suchas social influences or intraindividual ones through cognitive biases and other decisional traps.

54

According to Besson and Possin, the information has a natural tendency to create networks, and isfavorable to all the legitimate or illegitimate connections. The obtained answers do not alwayscorrespond to the asked questions. They can open up new horizons and possibilities. Conformism canalso favor the retention of information, and will have to be fought in order to optimize the strategicintelligence process. It is a subtle balance between speech and listening, and is not the solitary act ofthe one(s) who makes the prevision. It is also the consideration (attention, mobilization of cognitiveresources) and taking into account (integration within the analytic and decisional processes) of apotentially surprising, unexpected and disturbing fact likely to threaten the cognitive balance/stability,the socio-affective climate,...

They add that the more original the prevision is, the more it shakes the certainties. To be wellreceived, the prevision has to get shaped with conformism in order to not look excessive, for excessiveis insignificant for the common sense. It knows that the unthinkable is unforeseeable. Thus, mostindividuals often prefer to keep it secret, even if obvious, in order to threaten the global stability(social, cognitive) of the group. This analysis also highlights the different natural social phenomena wehave defined earlier.

The mastering of intelligence necessarily requires to integrate in the analytic process the heavytendencies. The consideration of these heavy tendencies in the analytic process is as important as thedetection of the weak ones. They are, according to Besson and Possin (2001), fundamental data,hardly reversible on the short-term, that we can not overlook in any intellectual, information orstrategic projection. For example, the future of the energetic resources, the rising of individualism,new ways of life and innovative moral values. However, analyzing the answers to the elaboratedquestions is not enough. It is also necessary to anticipate the threats and opportunities, i.e., detect andinterpret correctly the weak signals.

For Besson and Possin, “foreseeing is mostly seeing through time and space. The strategic intelligenceis a tool of anticipation which allows to foresee the unknown from the known. The anticipation is adialog between the one who foresees and the one who receives the prevision. It is both theannouncement and its acceptation, a subtle balance between the speech and the listening.. It has to bethe consideration of the individual's speech which surprises or disturbs.”

According to these two experts, a weak signal is a written or oral information, allowing to guess athreat or an opportunity. This is the first piece of the puzzle. It is only useful if it is detected andcorrectly analyzed on time. They can be found anywhere and in all circumstances. Their acquisitionproceeds most of the time to the intuition and sharp observation and can be favored by thedevelopment of observatories or “radars”. For Salmon (1999), “What we have to detect is the momentwhere a tendency weakens, which constitutes the prelude to a new one”. The capture of the weaksignals announcing this change, as well as the observation of their evolution through time, is thusnecessary.

The group has to be able to fully integrate uncertainty in its analytic process, i.e., accept theintegration of the informations generating cognitive uncertainty and a disturbance in their

55

interpretative process. This acceptance for the group is fundamental to favor the potential change ofattitudes and the innovation in the interpretative process, i.e., to optimize the semiotic process andfavor the prevision. It will thus allow it to take more enlightened and efficient decisions and favor itsadaptation process, which inherently requires innovation.

From a semiotic point of view, the interpretation of weak signals will necessarily be based, accordingto this definition, on a secondness level. Thus, the observed representamen will be interpreted as a signbeing related to an object by a perceived link of contiguity. This interpretation of a weak signal as asinsign standing for a potential threat or opportunity can be based on a personal experience andindividual and collective analytic process. The prevision, the interpretation and the decisionalprocesses will include, in case of disturbing/disrupting fact, the choice of observation (concept we willanalyze further in this work).

It will also require the strategic monitoring practice about the observed representamen's environment(technical, legal, social, financial,...) in order to favor the capture of weak signals and the anticipationof its evolution. For example, the group can foresee the privatization of a common good (e.g., a Freesoftware) via its absorption by a private entity by interpreting a detected weak signal about it. Thissignal can be, for example, a strong interest this private entity is developing toward the software, e.g.,by investing in its development which was initially only supported by benevolent. This anticipation canhelp the individuals analyzing this signal to take a wise decision, such as forking the program byexploiting its current permissive legal license in order to ensure its sustainability and avoid its futurecensorship, i.e., preserve the possibility to own it and manipulate it in the future. A clear actualexample of signal likely to be interpreted can be, for example, the information stating that RichardBranson is currently massively investing in the Bitcoin company67.

For Besson and Possin (2001), the rational and detailed study of a phenomenon reduces the vision andthe perception of the irrational. Rational reassures toward the future, even if we guess this future willbe irrational prevision is only useful if it answers good questions, and asking the good questions ismore difficult than answering to them. The question – answer cycle deserves renewal and attention.The strategic intelligence is a dialog which is permanently structured around questions and answers,and revision depends on the quality and of the renewing of the dialog. The best way to foresee is thusto elaborate pertinent questions. Defining the questions consists to organize the objectives and clarifywhat we want to know. The strategic monitoring aims at acquiring the answers to those questions.From this observation, this monitoring, will be generated unforeseen questions, which are often thegood questions.

The management of ignorances also requires the creation, within the memory, of “informationalblanks” (formalized ignorances, unexplored connections,...) likely to attract new informations, answersan thus questions. The question - answer as well as the problem - solution virtuous cycles both require,to be optimal, the group's decolonization of its cognitive system (in order to fight against the cognitivebiases/traps) and an empowering environment (technical, social and legal). We will analyze this issuelater. The best analysis is thus the one that generates new and unexpected questions, which will enrich

67 http://www.businessinsider.com/richard-branson-bitpay-statement-2014-5

56

the process' added value.

4.4. The fight against the retention of information

The phenomenon of retention of information (i.e., not disclosure/expression of the detainedinformation) can be induced by social influences phenomena (e.g., fear to threaten the socio-affectiveclimate and generating a cognitive conflict and uncertainty in the analytic process) we have analyzed,and induce self-censorship. For example, an individual might choose to not disclose the informationhe possesses, even if this information can strongly enrich the group's analytic process, for fear ofmisinterpretation likely to threaten his social position, etc. The reluctance to the formalization of thepossessed information (i.e., from oral to writing) can also be induced by the individual's fear of beingtracked, monitored or intercepted by a third-party during the diffusion process.

For Besson and Possin (2001), self-censorship is a disease which threatens the internal network, and a“self-mutilation” for the group or the organization. It is unfortunately permanent and hard to fight.However, we can emphasize certain means to favor the individuals' disinhibition and voluntaryinvolvement in the intelligence process :

- The valorization of the transmission of each information, whatever its estimated value;

- The development of a “culture of intelligence” (with the collective intelligence and the strategicintelligence state-of-mind at its core), a global thought favoring the intrinsic motivation;

- The use of influence and manipulation techniques such as free compliance to the request concerningthe transmission of information;

- The attribution of specific social roles in order to favor the individuals' implication in the process;

- The use of encryption for the interindividual communications in order to favor their disinhibition andactive participation in the intelligence process.

Besson and Possin add that the members involved in the memory and network have to search forinformation with enthusiasm, but this quest and this zeal do not have to prevent a natural suspiciontoward any information, whatever its origin. This is why the role of analysis is fundamental. Manyactors of the strategic intelligence process possess informations whose importance, valor or evenreality might not be perceived.

4.5. The fight against disinformation

Besson and Possin (2011) define disinformation as a weapon used to make an adversary believe acertain number of things, in order to make him make bad decisions which go against his interest, butfavorable to the disinformer's. In other words, it aims at influencing the adversary's interpretation ofhis environment (i.e., his reality) in order to favor his “free” engagement (via the decisional process) ina costly path, which will be likely to favor his self-manipulation via cognitive traps such as the absconsone.

57

For Besson and Possin, fighting disinformation requires knowledge, imagination, a sense of thenarrative and the ability to “profile” the adversary. An attentive reading of all the informations abouthim allows to earn experience in order to decrypt the messages and detect the networks ofdisinformation. The paths of disinformation are in general more usual and regular than the ones of the“honest” and "uninterested” information. For them, “The true difference between information anddisinformation is that the second is more expensive than the first one. The lie needs more complicatedmises en scène than innocence.” this cost incites to carefulness and conformism : disinformation isrepetitive and has to be easily detected.

However, the careful reading of the informations is not enough : it is also necessary to “profile” theadversary. This profiling will consist to exercise a “role playing game”, which will aim atunderstanding the adversary's cognitive system in order to favor the anticipation of his reaction andbehaviors.

Fighting against disinformation also requires to develop a strong knowledge about the navigation andthe acquisition of information online. We will analyze this issue further in this work.

4.6. The memory

A group or organization, in order to be well managed and prevent the loss of knowledge and skillswithin it (risk of "amnesia" likely to constitute a major threat for the analytic and decisional processes)must necessarily have a "memory" that lists all the informations (open/white68), written and oral, aswell as the knowledge and skills produced and possessed by the members evolving within it.According to Besson and Possin (2001), “The memory is the ability to link informations identifiedinside and outside the organization. It is an attitude, an organized curiosity and requires to be built anaudit of the information assets and of individuals' knowledge”. It should therefore help identify and listall the open informations useful for the analysis and decision-making processes. It is not naturallylimited to the data produced and acquired within the organization but exceeds its "walls”. They addthat “An efficient memory is a memory whose reflection is more based on fluxes than in stock. Ifstorage of information is an investment for the future, the immediate redistribution to the interestedindividuals skilled at treating it is an investment in the present. (…) The diffusion of information hasto be the main rule”. Assange (2012) feeds this paradigm stating that “By favoring the transmission oftrue informations about their environment, men give themselves the means to make the right decisionsand act on it.”

This requires for the organization to maximize its diffusion of information process (and thus theinventory one) in order to limit the natural phenomenon of retention or bargaining of information.Memory will thus also improve the knowledge management, whose goal is that information spreadsoptimally and is sustained within an organization. The listing of both the group's successes and failures(likely to be naturally overlooked) will be fundamental in order to optimize the future analysis basedon the learning from the past, and optimize the analytic and decisional efficiency. The optimization of

68 Freely accessible informations.

58

this work will also help to develop the inter-personal communication, support the vital virtuous cycleof question – answer and highlight the " areas of ignorance " which will enrich the organization'smemory, via continuously new informational needs and reflections. We will keep in mind that to beuseful and relevant (i.e., to optimize the analysis and the decision making processes within the group),this memory must be regularly consulted and operated by individuals as well as enriched via a constantgeneration by the individuals of emerging issues and strategic informations.

Besson and Possin qualify the memory as an “organized curiosity”, which has to mobilize a smallgroup of people permanently, while the the network mobilizes the entire members of the organizationpunctually. The memory is thus fundamental for the group, for it creates a true " mutual interest"within the members. It thus allows the individuals to be aware of the different resources available suchas the other individuals' skills and knowledge for their common project, which can favor their will towork together and evolve positively within the group, beyond all differences and potentialantagonisms. It finally makes it easy to identify useful networks in the search for oral and closedinformations, necessary to optimize the analysis and decision-making processes.

4.7. The technical and legal dimensions of the memory

For Besson and Possin, the memory is designed to be augmented and resilient, modular, extensibleand, once well defined and developed/optimized, has a natural tendency to grow. The determination ofthis growth determines its quality. Information attracts information and if, at first, it feeds withrestricted objectives, the individuals/groups in charge of the investigations (via the question - answercycle) will generate a growing appetite. That's for this reason the software used to technicallyadminister the memory has to be unachieved, extensible and adaptable.

This description fits perfectly the characteristics of a Free software with its inherent (i.e., designed)possibilities of unrestricted modification, transformation, forking or extension via add-ons. The Freesoftware's intrinsic qualities, such as the viability, sustainability and security, can also fit theorganization's technological needs to ensure and sustain its extensible and modular memory.Moreover, using a Free software to develop and manage the memory will allow the group/organizationto have a full sovereignty over its system, and not depend on a third-party likely to exercise an abusivecontrol over it or restrict its experience with “digital handcuffs” (Stallman, 1980).

Choosing Free technologies for the memory thus ensures the group/organization to benefit fromsustainable digitized informations and knowledge, and optimizes its analytic process by avoidingpotential abuses such as censorship or arbitrary suppression of data from a private entity owning thetechnological system (whose access to the “core”, i.e., the source-code is denied by it). An efficientdigital memory is thus necessarily built on Free standards and is entirely owned and controlled(technical and legal dimensions) by the group/organization administrating it, and not by third-parties(i.e., no relation of dependence and “blind trust”). The use of open standards can also favor thetechnical interoperability with other systems, i.e., the connection between different memories in orderto create a richer and more valuable informational system. Free softwares such as MediaWiki

59

(powering famous projects such as Wikipedia) and code (e.g., HTML) can constitute perfecttechnologies for the production, sharing and preservation of information and knowledge within thedigital world.

Besson and Possin thus refer to the “meccano principle” to qualify the extension of the memory. Thismemory thus has to be composed of empty and full alveolus. The full ones favor the informationalfilling of the memory (i.e., the development of certainty) and the empty ones stimulate the curiosity,the need of growth and quest for extending the informational existent and thepossibilities/uncertainties.

The Wiki is a really good example of collective intelligence technology based on an open anddecentralized production of information and knowledge. Let's consider a clear example by analyzingthe online memories of Fablabs. The Fablab collective situated in Rennes states on his wiki pageentitled Fablab Rennes : listing of the mutualisable resources69: "Like the recension page of resourceson Brest, we propose to identify resources in Rennes or near Rennes that we could put together to turna place of personal fabrication. Square meters, time available for workshops, materials... The fablabperhaps already exists in our heads and our garages!” We can find on this website really usefulinformations concerning the Fablabs near this geographic area, such as the listing of the activities ledby the organization, of the local network70, i.e., the cartography of the different interconnected localorganizations bound by the same philosophy, of the different local resources available, a mailing list tobe kept posted of all the news from the organizations, etc. The wiki content is released under aCreative Commons Attribution - ShareAlike license and thus allows anyone to copy, modify and shareit without restriction. Another website, administered by the Fablab Foundation lists all the differentFablabs in the world, in order to easily cartography this global network71.

The Free licenses of these memories thus aim at favoring the interconnection and interoperability withother ones sharing the same code (i.e., respecting the values and principles of the MIT's FablabCharter72). Any other Fablab or collective can thus use this content and connect/merge it with its own,in order to enrich its own memory. The share-alike term of the Creative Commons license moreoverobliges anyone to release the modified content (i.e., integrating this one) under the same license, i.e.creating a positive legal contamination which aims at ensuring the interoperability between them andprevents any attempt of privatization.

4.8. Internet network and strategic intelligence

For Besson and Possin (2001), the Internet shares strong links and a surprising resemblance with thestrategic intelligence process. Thus, they are both inscribed in the same logic of globalization of theeconomy and of planetary exchange of information. For de Rosney (2000), “Internet is not atechnology, its a new space-time, the cyber space-time, which creates new situations of exchange (…)

69 http://bzhlab.wikidot.com/fablab-a-brest

70 http://bzhlab.wikidot.com/reseau71 http://www.wikia.com/ 72 http://fab.cba.mit.edu/about/charter/

60

between men. Internet is the embryo of a planetary brain where the man is the neuron”.

They thus state that the Internet network has become the main tool of the strategic intelligence, whenthis process has become one of its most essential application. Like the strategic intelligence, theinternet network is at first a memory, or more precisely, the possibility to reach millions of memoriesworldwide, just like the strategic intelligence which belongs to those who implement it.

We will add that they both require, to be optimal, a “culture of the network”, i.e., a goodunderstanding of these systems, and their functioning with their respective opportunities and threats ifnot well managed, in order to optimize their efficient exploitation and enriching. According to Bessonand Possin, the access to the internet network requires, like the strategic intelligence, a question or aseries of questions, and these two tools require the preliminary existence of an intellectual curiosity.The quality of the questions will determine the quality of the answers (e.g., the navigation process,which can be stimulated by the abduction and the “serendip attitude” we will analyze further).

The access to the answers requires in both cases the mastering of specific languages. These languagesare used to build questions to navigate in the ocean of memories and select the innumerable answers tothe asked questions, to synthesize and analyze them. We will analyze the several issues linked to theselanguages (i.e., code layer of the network infrastructure) as well as examples of Free tools aiming atoptimizing the online navigation process further in this work. Like strategic intelligence, the internet isin a perpetual growing, because the answers and questions get reproduced via a dialog. These twosystems are permanent cycles of answers and questions.

Finally, they state that the network, like the strategic intelligence, works on the prehistory of the ideas,of the technicals, of the discoveries. Before the right freezes or protects them, the two tools havealready achieved their tasks,which is to grab and exploit opportunities or detect threats.

The Internet Archive as example of global and common collective memory

The Internet Archive project aims at developing a common good of the humanity, by hosting all theFree resources of the network. It is building a digital library of Internet sites and other culturalartifacts in digital form. It promotes a universal access to all knowledge, and is based on Free contentsand code (open standards to favor the interoperability between other systems). Like a paper library,they provide free access to researchers, historians, scholars, the print disabled, and the general public.

Here is what they state on their website to define their goal :73

Without cultural artifacts, civilization has no memory and no mechanism to learn from itssuccesses and failures. And paradoxically, with the explosion of the Internet, we live in whatDanny Hillis has referred to as our "digital dark age."

The Internet Archive is working to prevent the Internet - a new medium with major historicalsignificance - and other "born-digital" materials from disappearing into the past. Collaborating

73Https://archive.org/

61

with institutions including the Library of Congress and the Smithsonian, we are working topreserve a record for generations to come.

At present, the size of our Web collection is such that using it requires programming skills.However, we are hopeful about the development of tools and methods that will give the generalpublic easy and meaningful access to our collective history. In addition to developing our owncollections, we are working to promote the formation of other Internet libraries in the UnitedStates and elsewhere.

- From ephemera to artifact: Internet libraries can change the content of the Internet fromephemera to enduring artifacts of our political and cultural lives. "I believe historians need everypossible piece of paper and archived byte of digital data they can muster. The SmithsonianInstitution sees the value, and has affiliated with the Archive to preserve the 1996 campaignWeb sites, official and unofficial”. Dan Gillmor, computing editor, San Jose Mercury News, 1September 1996;

- Protecting our right to know: Most states have pre-Internet sunshine laws that require publicaccess to government documents. Yet while the Internet has generally increased public access toinformation, states have just begun to amend those laws to reflect today's Internet environment.According to Bill Chamberlin, director of the Marion Brechner Citizen Access Project at theUniversity of Florida's College of Journalism and Communications, such laws are being enacted"piecemeal, one state at a time," and cover information that varies widely in nature - everythingfrom "all public records" to specialized information such as education reports and the licensingstatus of medical practitioners. In the meantime, while public officials are posting moreinformation on the Internet than their state legislatures require, there's little regulatory controlover exactly what is posted, when it's taken off, or how often it's updated. This leaves a gap thatonline libraries can help to fill;

- Exercising our "right to remember": Without paper libraries, it would be hard to exercise our"right to remember" our political history or hold government accountable. With much of thepublic's business now moving from paper to digital media, Internet libraries are certain tobecome essential in maintaining that right. Imagine, for instance, how news coverage of anelection campaign might suffer if journalists had only limited access to previous statements thatcandidates had made in the media. "The Internet Archive is a service so essential that itsfounding is bound to be looked back on with the fondness and respect that people now have forthe public libraries seeded by Andrew Carnegie a century ago.... Digitized information,especially on the Internet, has such rapid turnover these days that total loss is the norm.Civilization is developing severe amnesia as a result; indeed it may have become too amnesiacalready to notice the problem properly. The Internet Archive is the beginning of a cure - thebeginning of complete, detailed, accessible, searchable memory for society, and not just

62

scholars this time, but everyone”. Stewart Brand, president, The Long Now Foundation.

- Establishing Internet centers internationally : What is a country without a memory of itscultural heritage? Internet libraries are the place to preserve the aspect of a country's heritagethat exists on the Internet;

- Tracing the way our language changes : During the late 19th century, James Murray, aprofessor at Oxford University, built the first edition of the Oxford English Dictionary bysending copies of selected books to "men of letters" who volunteered to search them for the firstoccurrences of words and to trace the migration of their various meanings. Internet librariescould allow linguists to automate much of this extremely labor-intensive process;

- Tracking the Web's evolution : Historians, sociologists, and journalists could use Internetlibraries to hold up a mirror to society. For example, they might ask when different ethnicgroups or special interests or certain businesses became a presence on the Internet. "We don'tknow where this Internet is going, and once we get there it will be very instructive to look back.”Donald Heath, president of the Internet Society in Reston, Virginia;

- Reviving dead links : A few services - such as UC Berkeley's Digital Library Project, theOnline Computer Library Center, and Alexa Internet are starting to offer access to archivedversions of Web pages when those pages have been removed from the Web. This means that ifyou get a "404 - Page Not Found" error, you'll still be able to find a version of the page”;

- Looking back : With a "way-back machine" - a device that displayed the Web as it looked on agiven date - historians and others would literally have a window on the past.

The digital collective memory, especially if based on Free code and content layers, is thus trulynecessary to optimize the humanity's preservation of its cultural patrimonial and avoid attempts ofcensorship, i.e., the exercise of abusive power based on the erasure of the past, like authoritarianstrategies described in Orwell's 1984 or used by the Chinese Government (Clauzel, 2014). thismemory is thus, as we have already stated, fundamental for the analytic process and the preservationof the analytic and interpretative processes but also for the creative and inventive ones, which arelargely fed by past culture, i.e., past “contexts” (Seemel, 2014). However, the current technical andlegal evolution of the internet network, and more specifically the paradigm shift from “code is law” to“law is code”, as well as the tendency of privatization of the public domain and ever- growingextension of the copyright protection (Lessig, 2001; Maurel, 2012) strongly threatens this fundamentalcommon good. We will analyze these different issues further in this work.

5. Global evolved collective mindWe are going to try to propose a new paradigm, based on the synectic method, aiming at developingan optimal social system based on the different philosophies as well as the several social phenomena

63

we have emphasized, which we will call global evolved collective mind. We will consider both thecreative groups and the networks, for these last systems constitute a fundamental part of the inventiveintelligence and allow to optimize the collective intelligence process. The core design of the systemwill be influenced by the characteristics and principles (social, technical and legal) of the internetnetwork, the Free software and the Free Universal Construction Kit we will analyze further.

5.1. The groups' design and functioning

Here are the core characteristics and principles we have selected from the different philosophies,which structure our new social paradigm :

- Open and decentralized networked structure;

- Neutral and universal;

- Interconnection and interoperability at the core of the system;

- Common and anti-rivalrous nature;

- Three layers of of a communication system : technical, code and content;

- Possibility to clone (e.g., copy/mirror), and fork (e.g., take a new direction, while remaininginteroperable and potentially interconnected to the initial one.

5.2. Groups of belonging and groups of reference

The groups of belonging will refer in our system to both the local one(s) the individual evolves in, andthe global one (i.e., global community) he de facto belong to via his whether passive (e.g., simple useof a Free program) or active involvement in a project (e.g., by contributing to develop/improve Freeresources). In other words, his belonging to the global community can be effective via his committingor not participation to local actions feeding the global dynamic and collective intelligence of the globalcommunity. The group(s) of reference will imply whether both the local one(s) and the global one, orsimply the local or the global one, via his simple desire to be a part of whether a local attractive localgroup or a global community.

Here are the different characteristics of the evolved collective mind74we will consider for our groups ofcreativity :

- Norm of originality in order to favor the permanent cognitive conflict, via the constant disinhibitedproposal of new ideas by the individuals. The individuals are used and encouraged to analyze, criticizeand challenge the existing (ie., reframing process). The minority influence is fostered and encouragedin the group by promoting flexible norms favoring the social impact;

- The individuals produce individual and collective reflection, analysis and new ideas. They preservetheir individual attitudes, and possess an enlarged vision and perception (i.e global thought and

74 Based on our theory about the development of a favorable social context for collective intelligence and innovation (2012).

64

“thinking outside the box” favored by the hacking philosophy). The anonymous expression has to bemade possible and favored;

- Encouraged cognitive diversity to optimize the collective reading via the favoring of the cognitiveconflict and their public expression in order to favor innovation;

- Management of collective intelligence : Culture of intelligence within the group (question - answervirtuous cycle and permanent search for new problems likely to generate new solutions75);

- Information is pluralistic : Allows a diversity of representations and realities, and its management ispracticed collectively (each member is encouraged to-have a role in this process);

- The individuals are encouraged to interact (i.e., trained to communicate at the intragroup andintergroup levels) and exchange views and perspectives in order to optimize the negotiation andcohabitation processes within the group (anthropological conception of the communication). Thestructure of communication is decentralized;

- System based on voluntary commitment, autonomy, initiative, mastery and goal as core part of theintrinsic motivation as well as intra and intergroup cooperation unleashing the individuals' creativity;

- Management of antagonisms : With specific techniques such as crossed-categorization, role playinggames and supra-ordinal goals;

- Group welded by common values, respect and mutual listening.

The feeling of belonging will be favored by the strong ethical values composing the group's “code” (aswell as the global community he evolves in/is connected to). Ethics, collective intelligence and strongvalues such as liberty, equality and fraternity will have to constitute core parts of the system of values,in order to favor this feeling of belonging and “limit the individuals' selfishness” (Stallman, 2002). The“ethical” hacking philosophy promoted by Stallman will also favor the reconciliation and harmoniouscohabitation between the individuals' natural selfishness and altruism (Ruskin, 2012). The “us” willhave to refer, in order to strengthen the groups' cohesion, to the external groups which neither belongnor refer to the global community and who share a dichotomous system of value, i.e., “code” 76. In ourcase, it will refer to the individuals actively defending the privatization of the commons and thedevelopment of proprietary, exclusive, rivalrous and conflicting goods (i.e., with conflicting designsreflecting the “war of design”77 according to FAT, 2012).

Small “primary” local and heterogeneous groups will be useful to allow the individuals to benefit fromoptimal social relations. The minority influence, and more globally the cognitive conflict within themembers, has to be fully integrated in the group's design. The main norm, for creative tasks/goals,thus necessarily has to be originality in order to favor the public expression of the minorities in theinventive intelligence process.

The search for creativity as main social norm can strongly optimize the individuals' disinhibition and

75 According to the question – answer virtuous cycle emphasized by Besson and Possin (2001).76 According to the transposition of Benkler's paradigm about communication system.77 We will analyze this concept later.

65

unleashed creative thoughts/processes. The norms based on the search for consensus and conformismto the majority's attitudes have to be proscribed in order to optimize the collective and inventiveintelligences. The individuals' disinhibition within the group will be favored by the do- ocraticfunctioning and the hacking (including the DIY) philosophies, composing the semiotic hacking globalone. Thus, they will favor the individuals' affirmation/expression of their identity, by attenuating thepossible social influences (optimized by the possible anonymity and favorable social norms optimizingthe experimentations). The semiotic hacking philosophy can thus strongly optimize the creativeefficiency of the groups by favoring the cognitive conflict and the individuals' disobedience andexpression of private attitudes/new creative ideas in order to experiment and feed the collectivecreative thought in return.

The collective reading process will also be optimized if the individuals are encouraged to publiclyexpress their own interpretation of the collectively analyzed problems. The hacking philosophy, withthe culture of network, decentralization and amateurism, can strongly increase the individuals'disinhibition within heterogeneous groups. The group's creative efficiency will be optimized by itsdecentralized structure of communication, its matching between the “creativity” representation-of-the-task and the decentralized structure of communication. The individuals' intrinsic motivation, as well asthe possibility to communicate via encrypted channels and benefit from a cypher/anonymous identity)can also favor the individuals' disinhibited experimentations and proposition of new solutions likely toinduce a cognitive conflict, i.e., innovation.

The group will have to possess clearly defined norms, with interoperability with other ones in order tonot be perceived as “extreme” by individuals evolving outside it. The tasks (whether creativity orproblem-solving) and goals also have to be clearly defined in order to favor the individuals' clearrepresentation and efficient involvement in it as well as their “feeling of belonging” (Dubois, 2001). Inother words, this clarity aims at favoring the group's cohesion and the interindividual exchanges withinit as well as favoring the collective intelligence, which will be fed and irrigated by a fluid strategic one(aiming at optimizing the collective analysis and decisional processes within the group). Theindividuals' representation of the two kinds of tasks will have to induce their respective optimalconfiguration (i.e., matching representation of the task – structure of communication), depending onthe situations the group will have to face or generate to innovate and adapt. This clear and salientposition will favor the development of its attractiveness and influence among his external socialenvironment and favor its chances to induce a minority influence, for example among the defenders ofa strong intellectual property policy who do not actually agree (even if unconscious) of the copyright'slegal term in their entirety (Seemel, 2013). The collective intelligence will have to be developed andwell-managed (e.g., via the semiotic hacking philosophy and its core components) in order to favor theproblem - solving process.

The hacking philosophy, the inventive intelligence and the synectic will favor the creative search ofsolutions, via the reformulation process, the “thinking outside the box” and the connection betweenproblems in order to actualize unexpected meaningful solutions. The individuals composing it will thushave to be used to connecting or merging different “worlds of knowledge”, via the “absorption” of

66

other knowledges from other fields and their integration in their individual and collective reflections, inorder to stimulate their creative and inventive thoughts. They can also favor the development of theiropen- mindedness and the enlarging of their cognitive system via the removal of “mental barriers” or“cognitive silos” between different domains78. The Free Universal Construction Kit, which we willanalyze further, is a really good example of problem-solving process through creativity fed by thehacking philosophy.

The groups will thus have to be designed to favor the social support and facilitation via its efficientimplementation and daily practice. This is fundamental to optimize the synergy between the membersand their intrinsic motivation for being part of this collective system/process. The HackerMomcommunity thus emphasizes the need of social support and facilitation in order to favor and strengthenthe expression of creativity : “ HackerMoms is founded on the idea that mothers need a creative outletand stimulating environment of encouragement and support to explore.”

Social facilitators might be used to favor and optimize the social intra and intergroup relations.According to Doyle (2007), a social facilitator is "An individual who enables groups and organizationsto work more effectively; to collaborate and achieve synergy. He or she is a 'content neutral' party whoby not taking sides or expressing or advocating a point of view during the meeting, can advocate forfair, open, and inclusive procedures to accomplish the group's work”. According to Kaner (2007),"The facilitator's job is to support everyone to do their best thinking and practice. To do this, thefacilitator encourages full participation, promotes mutual understanding and cultivates sharedresponsibility. By supporting everyone to do their best thinking, a facilitator enables group members tosearch for inclusive solutions and build sustainable agreements”. The social facilitator can thus alsoplay a major role in the management of antagonisms process. We will emphasize that the facilitator isalso at the core of several social projects linked to the hacking philosophy, such as Rick Falkvinge'sswarmwise (2013) or the hackathons.

Finally, the disinhibited social interactions and the cognitive conflict, necessary for innovation tohappen, will be favored via the group's possibility to use cypher communication (i.e., by usingencryption to secure their exchanges) allowing them to interact anonymously, and optimizing thedisinhibited production of information, knowledge and expression of new creative/inventive ideas.

5.3. Clusters and networks

Let's now focus on the clusters and networks, as well as the intergroup relations whose connections(whether potential or actualized) form our global community. We will base our analysis on thetransposition of these concepts from the computing domain to the social one.

5.3.1. Clusters

According to the International Conference Computer Systems79, the computer clustering approach

78 We will analyze this later.79 Network-Based Information Systems : First International Conference, NBIS 2007, p. 375.

67

usually connects a number of readily available computing nodes (e.g. personal computers used asservers) via a fast local area network. The activities of the computing nodes are orchestrated by"clustering middleware", a software layer that sits atop the nodes and allows the users to treat thecluster as by and large one cohesive computing unit, e.g. via a single system image concept. Ourinterconnected local groups will be based on the cluster concept. For Bader and Pennington (2001),“Clusters are usually deployed to improve performance and availability over that of a single computer,while typically being much more cost-effective than single computers of comparable speed oravailability.”80The components of a cluster are usually connected to each other through fast local areanetworks81("LAN"), with each node (computer used as a server) running its own instance of anoperating system. Computer clusters emerged as a result of convergence of a number of computingtrends including the availability of low cost microprocessors, high speed networks, and software forhigh performance distributed computing.

Clusters will thus qualify in our paradigm an interconnection of local groups, evolving in the samelocal area, with strong exchanges between them at the local scale. The geographical proximity betweenthe different groups composing the cluster will optimize the “time-response” of their exchanges, justlike an individual's connection to a server physically situated closed to his actual position is faster thanto a one situated far from him. This proximity thus favors the physical meetings/interactions and thedevelopment of trust, necessary to optimize the interindividual relations and the strategic intelligenceprocess. Fast local area networks and short circuits will allow to optimize the intergrouprelations/exchanges (e.g., of information, physical “rivalrous” goods,...) within the cluster, and favortheir collective actions on the physical world (via a strong collective, strategic, inventive and territorialintelligences).

Clusters and short circuits between local autonomous groups composing the global community willoptimize the strategic intelligence process, via the favored understanding of the “external” local groupsand issues (i.e., the detection of weak signals in correlation with the heavy tendencies). It will alsofavor the groups' collective exploitation of local “external” networks in order to strengthen the cluster'sanalytic and decisional processes (i.e., its collective intelligence) as well as its presence and influenceon its area. The collective intelligence between the interconnected groups composing the cluster,managed by this process, will thus optimize the monitoring, the detection and the environment'sevolution, both at the local and global scale. The inventive intelligence, fed by the synergy betweenthese groups, will also strengthen the innovation and adaptation to this ever- changing environment,while favoring the cluster's influence on it via the expression of creativity and inventiveness (hackingphilosophy) as well as the development and exploitation of an efficient territorial intelligence strategy.This strategy will thus be fundamental to optimize the investment and management of the system's“technical layer”.

The local groups/clusters composing the global community will be qualified in our work as“autonomous”. This term thus refers to both their restricted geographic area (i.e., short-circuits

80 http://www.cc.gatech.edu/~bader/papers/ijhpca.pdf81 A local area network (LAN) is a computer network that interconnects computers within a limited area such as a home, school, computer laboratory, or office building using network media.

68

allowing fast, easy and efficient physical connections between individuals) as well as to these differentresources :

- Social : The group/cluster possesses a sufficient number of individuals in order to ensure its efficientworking (to accomplish its clearly defined tasks) and sustainability;

- Technical : The group/cluster owns and controls its technical infrastructure (favored via Freeprograms,...). Can be optimized via the mutualization of local “rivalrous” resources (e.g., Fab Labcollective in Britain or in San Diego);

- Financial : The group/cluster possesses sufficient means to ensure its viability and sustainability. Itdoes not depend on other “nodes” of the global networked community (necessary to preserve thedecentralization of power and prevent potential abuses from one group/cluster on another one):

- Cognitive : The group disposes of an autonomous efficient strategic intelligence process (e.g., itefficiently monitors, analyzes and influences his environment).

The privatization and centralization of the local and global collective intelligences composing theglobal evolved collective mind is prevented by the social groups/clusters' intrinsic design, as well as :

- Favorable Free technologies storing it and used to diffuse it (i.e., sovereignty over the technologicalmeans);

- Legal licenses favoring their diffusion on an open and decentralized basis, in perfect accordance tothe digital world's intrinsic nature (anti-rivalrous and economy of abundance) and the positivecontamination via the share-alike license and the possibility to fork the group at any time.

The autonomy of the local groups or clusters is fundamental to optimize the decentralization of powerwithin the global networked community, and avoid potential abuses and exercise of control by a localentity, based on the dependence of one or several groups/clusters on other one(s) and likely to threatenthe network's resilience. This potential abuse might thus threaten the open, decentralized collectiveintelligence process based on the local groups' empowerment (as well as the different memberscomposing it),necessary for them to truly exercise their freedom. It is thus a key-characteristic inorder to maintain the horizontal relations in the intergroup relations, with no hierarchy likely to favorabusive exercises of power (interdependence to achieve common supra-ordinal goals).

TelecomixDA (self-defined as “A fan club devoted to the ideals of telecomix and cryptoanarchy beinga Cyber Utopian state without government or social classes also specializing in art of peace, or whatan utopia would look like”, defines its design in these terms : : “Organize without a clear leadership ormembership status. Have anyone joining your discussions be a part of your cluster. If they don't agree,they will leave soon anyway. Organize like a gang or a pack. Don't use pyramidal structures orformalized positions. Be nomadic in thought and associate yourself with many others”. This designemphasizes the importance of social mobility (Lewin, 1944) and an horizontal structures based on ado- ocratic approach.

69

5.3.2. Networks

The global evolved collective mind will thus be constituted and fed by this potential infinity of localgroups and clusters. This networked community will have, in order its intelligence and resilience to betruly optimal, to develop a strong synergy between these different local systems composing it. Theintergroup relations will have to be well managed in order to achieve this goal.

The networked global community will be composed of two levels of “nods” :

- Groups and clusters (intergroup relations) : With potential intergroup connections likely to beactualized, via concrete communications and collective actions operated by several groups/clusters.Optimization of the collective “local” intelligences via connections or mergers between local onesproduced by local groups/clusters;

- Individuals (interindividual relations) : With their own respective social network, inside and outsidetheir local and global group(s)/community.

Our global networked “evolved collective mind” shares strong similarities with Besson and Possin's“global brain” paradigm about the Internet and the strategic intelligence process we have analyzed.This global network has to be, like the internet network, “universal”. Thus, anyone needs to have thepossibility (i.e., same potentiality between the individuals) to be an actor within it, e.g., by creating itsown group/cluster enriching the global networked dynamic as well as its resilience, and potentiallyconnect to other ones. This same potentiality requires a Free “code” (i.e., inclusive and anti-rivalrous),in order the individuals/groups wishing to be a part of it to be “empowered” toward its application (viafavorable technical and legal dimensions,...). This Free nature will be fundamental for our network tobe considered as a common good (according to Maurel's analysis of the internet network as a commongood, 2014). It also requires, as Besson and Possin (2001) highlighted, a good awareness andunderstanding of the possibilities offered by this collective intelligence as well as a good methodologyto interrogate and exploit it (e.g., to identify specific local groups/clusters or networks in order toachieve specific goals). The evolved collective mind will thus refer to the optimized synergy betweenthe individuals composing the networked community in order to develop an efficient global collectiveand inventive intelligence processes.

As Bayart (2007) and Lessig (2001) emphasize, innovation and intelligence (content, database,computers which work) is situated at the edge/periphery of the internet network. Free softwares andInternet are intrinsically bound and interdependent : the Internet could not have been created withoutFree softwares, for Free standards and technologies were used to build its architecture. Then, thedevelopment of Free softwares on an open and decentralized basis requires the internet to share andexchange source code.

Crouzet (2013) emphasizes the main characteristics of what he calls the “economy of peace”, bygiving the example of a scientific discovery :

- Everyone has access to the same information (i.e., same potentiality of access and enriching);

- Very fast propagation, since everyone can adopt it (i.e., access, copy and share) without asking

70

permission;

- No real competition between producers, who can therefore collaborate, with an efficient beneficialfor research (they work on improvements rather than reinventing the wheel).

The economy of peace, based on collaboration and contribution, thus allows to optimize themanagement of the resources at the local and global scale : the individuals, groups and clusters canthus focus on the improvement of already actualized goods, or on the creation of brand new ones thathave not yet been defined.

Ambrosi's (2012) definition of the philosophy of the commons fits well our social paradigm :

What connects the multiple practices of the commons is a very critical reading and a worldviewthat is the " good life ", that is to say, the coexistence between humans, harmony with natureand responsible and equitable sustainable development. This philosophy is based on a system ofvalue that promotes inclusion, sharing, participation, collaboration, peer to peer, the collectiveinterest, respect and the valuing of the difference and hybridization. This last aspect (thedifference and hybridization of cultures, generations, skills, etc.) is considered as an asset in theparticipation, cooperation and creative collaboration. In the same sense of the openness topluralism, there is also a rejection of dogmatism. It does not say, for example, that working forthe collective interest, the common good denies or excludes special interests. (…) We rather saythat the common good prevails the collective over the individual, the cooperation overcompetition, the use over ownership, etc. We finally note the importance given to affect inrelationships based on the the common good. The desire often prevails over the need among themotivations of men and women to act together for a common good that transcends individualinterests.

This definition of what he calls the “economy of creative contribution” thus emphasizes the differentfundamental principles we have already defined and analyzed, and which compose the core of thesemiotic hacking philosophy :

- The harmonious cohabitation between the individuals' selfishness and altruism within a collective andcooperative global project (supra-ordinal goal(s) to ensure harmonious and non-conflicting socialrelations);

- The inclusive (i.e., non-discriminating) nature of the communitarian system's design;

- The importance to connect, merge and “hybridize” cultures and knowledges in order to stimulate theinventive intelligence and creativity;

- The desire to belong and refer to a group perceived as attractive and beneficial for the individuals;

- The open-mindedness in order to avoid cognitive rigidity and dogma.

The economy of collaboration and contribution, at the core of the global evolved collective mind,shares the following characteristics :

71

- No real competition, i.e., conflict between the individuals/groups/clusters, for collective enriching ofthe same economic dynamic based on the commons anyone can benefit;

- Horizontalization and cooperation to produce common goods and fight against a common adversaryin the “war of sharing” ) between them. Managed and channeled cognitive conflict via the groups'intrinsic design : full interoperability, for same code/social representations and legal nature betweenthe groups and their productions (i.e., content). Part of a global common good;

- Collective open and decentralized collective intelligence process, and part of the strategicintelligence in order to optimize the evolution of the global community, and the defense against acommon adversary.

Bernard Stiegler (2014), philosopher and director of the Institut de recherche et d'innovation (IRI),sees the Free software as the matrix of the economy of the contribution; it is indeed an industrialactivity that no longer robs people of their knowledge but rather develops individual and collectiveknowledges. However, this matrix can be applied in almost all industrial activities in the future : smartenergy networks, where we are no longer consumers but curators, re-materialization (3D printing ...),agriculture (AMAP, Open Source Ecology …).82

Stallman (2002) emphasizes that “Computers and the web make it much easier to work collaborativelyand continuing to improve publications. He also supposes that this will become even more true in thefuture, as people develop better ways to do it.

We are now going to transpose Benkler's three layers of a communications system in our new socialparadigm.

5.4. Technical infrastructure

Let's first consider the technical infrastructure. This layer will refer to the physical or digital areasinvested and managed by the groups and clusters to structure their activities and exercise theircreativity. These areas/spaces will possess inherent characteristics and constraints, which will have tobe considered, managed (e.g;, via a territorial intelligence strategy) and potentially bypassed by thegroups/clusters evolving within. These constraints can be for example rivalry and economy of scarcitywithin the physical world. Like the internet network system (with servers hosting data), this layer willbe most of the time private (i.e., owned and managed by local entity/ies evolving within it).

5.5. Code

Let's then analyze the”code” layer. The code will refer in our analysis to the common “language”(Besson and Possin, 2001) shared by the different individuals, groups and clusters composing theglobal networked community, i.e., the culture and system of values/representations that federates themwithin our global community, both at the intragroup and interindividual/group levels, and structurestheir collective actions. This code can be whether inclusive (e.g., Free philosophy) or exclusive (e.g.,

82 http://romainelubrique.org/bernard-stiegler

72

based on elitism), interoperable or conflicting with other ones (e.g., based on strong discriminationtoward individuals or social categories). According to our paradigm, this commonly shared code has toallow the different local groups/clusters to efficiently communicate and participate in collectivecentralized or decentralized actions, i.e., ensure their interoperability. It will thus have to constitute forthe global community an “anti- rivalrous good” : the more it is shared and cognitively “appropriated”,the more valuable it becomes (for the wider the global community, i.e., the stronger its potentialpower of intelligence and influence). In a nutshell, its diffusion and appropriation will optimize thepotentiality of a rich, strong and resilient collective intelligence between the individuals sharing it, andstrengthen the global system's efficiency and resilience, as well as its visibility and attractiveness, i.e.,its influential power.

5.5.1. Global supra-ordinal goals and superordinate social identity

The individual and collective reference to a same global community will be the core part of the globalevolved collective mind's code : the individuals, local groups and clusters thus have to definethemselves as members of a global community via a superordinate social identity, which aims atfederating them and optimize their potential connection and collaboration.

Common supraordinal goals, such as the protection and development of the commons, and asuperordinate social identity favoring the “global thought” are necessary for the social relations to beoptimized within the global networked community. These supraordinal goals will be defined by thecommonism philosophy, and will concern in our paradigm the development and protection of thecommon goods to ensure the individual and collective empowerment in their exercise of creativity andinventiveness. The individuals will thus be strongly encouraged to enrich and protect the “ commonpool” likely to be exploited by anyone in order to stimulate an open, decentralized and globalcreativity/inventive intelligence. The defense and protection of the internet's neutrality/universalitywill constitute a fundamental part of this supra-ordinal goal, for this network is necessary to ensure theefficiency of our global networked community's functioning, as it allows the different local systems toeasily communicate and exchange information and knowledge. It is also, as Besson and Possinemphasizes, a core part the strategic intelligence process, which plays a fundamental role in thesemiotic hacking practice. The “love” for the network as well as the individuals composing it and theirunrestricted exchanged of information and knowledge will refer to the datalove philosophy we haveanalyzed. These individuals' supra-ordinal goal/role (which consists to enrich a global collectiveintelligence dynamic that anyone can benefit and enrich in return) will thus be fundamental for theensuring and sustainability of the harmonious relations between them.

The individuals' reference to the same global community will aim at developing a “global thought”,necessary to develop an optimal global system and decrease the risk of social categorization likely toinduce discrimination within the global networked community. This collectively shared (on the open,decentralized and worldwide basis) thought (i.e., perception/awareness of the belonging to a globalcommunity) will be favored by the internalization of the “think global, act local” paradigm, at the corepart of the system's “code”. The global evolved collective mind will thus be developed and sustained by

73

a strong system of core values and this superordinate social identity, as well as by a global collectiveintelligence stimulated by a potential infinity of connections and synergies between the different“neurons”, i.e., the groups and individuals composing it. The local memories developed by the groupsand clusters will have to be modular, extensible and interoperable in order to optimize the globalmind's strength and resilience.

Here is the main social paradigm , defined by the Fab Lab Foundation, which will define our groups'social identity83 : “To be a Fab Lab means connecting to a global community of learners, educators,technologists, researchers, makers and innovators - a knowledge sharing network that spans 30countries and 24 time zones. Because all Fab Labs share common tools and processes, the program isbuilding a global network, a distributed laboratory for research and invention.”

A strong and attractive superordinate social identity can moreover favor the individual's intrinsicmotivation and voluntary engagement in the global process via the proposal (i.e., initiative) orparticipation in already triggered local actions. This system of value as well as this global collectiveidentity will have to be clearly defined and interpreted in order to favor the individuals' feeling ofbelonging and identification to them, as well as their “correct” interpretation by individuals evolvingboth inside and outside the global community (i.e., mental association in the semiotic process). Thecommon anti- rivalrous nature of the code is fundamental to ensure the inter and intragroupinteroperability (i.e., the harmonious/non-conflicting social relations), as well as the universal natureof the global networked community. Free licenses, and more specifically the “contaminative” ones(i.e., via their share-alike term), will be useful to protect the code's common nature and favor its“symbolic appropriation” (Gunthert) while protecting it against a potential privatization or “semanticalteration” or “corruption” via its abusive exploitation by entities who do not respect it. An opentrademark84can also be an interesting mean to legally protect the global superordinate social identityagainst potential abuses likely to threaten its meaning via the individuals' mental association85

(Doctorow, 2013).

The global social category and superordinate social identity will necessarily have to be inclusive (e.g.,like the Free philosophy according to Kauffman , 2013) in order to favor the actualization of new localgroups, clusters and the multiplication of the potential interconnections likely to stimulate the globaldynamic. The status of community member thus has to be de facto granted to anyone who uses,promotes, shares or enrich the “common pool” developed and sustained by the global community.Crossed categorizations within different groups/clusters can also be a good mean to decrease the riskof discrimination between them and favor their interoperability/harmonious horizontal and “neutral”(i.e., non-conflicting) relations. This crossing can be operated via collective actions with “local” supra-ordinal goals and social playing roles (e.g., in the analytic process).

The development of a worldwide interoperability between a potential infinity of local groups/clusters,all united (via our clear, attractive and inclusive code) under the same global networked community

83 http://www.fabfoundation.org/fab-labs/setting-up-a-fab-lab/the-people/84 As proposed by Maurel (2013) and whose concept is closed to the Wikimedia Foundation trademark policy.85 We will analyze this issue later.

74

will have to be considered as a civic role within it in order to achieve the fundamental supra-ordinalgoals based on the protection of the commons against their privatization/“enclosure”. The practice ofinventive intelligence as well as the hybridization of knowledges can favor the development andachievement of interoperability between the different creative groups.

The intrinsic motivation can also be favored by the collective development of a good on a fully open,decentralized and universal basis, whose core motivation to cooperate and contribute is the commondesire to benefit from a rich and attractive good. Pink (2010) emphasizes a system of functioningbased on three fundamental principles of intrinsic motivation, based on a better consideration of theindividuals' deep desires :

- Autonomy : the desire to rule his own life;

- Mastering : the desire to bloom in something that matters for him;

- Goal : the feeling that what he does lies within something more important than him.

For him, most problems inducing a need for innovation and creativity can usually only be solved byadopting an external point of view. Intrinsic motivation allows to expand the analytic and reflexivecapabilities of individuals, favoring the emergence of new solutions. The only constraint which doesnot interfere with this process is to tell people that the work must be done (i.e., setting goals). Forhim, individuals who are granted autonomy over the organization and working methods are generallymore satisfied and happy to participate in these tasks. There is also a clear improvement in the qualityof the work produced and in the individuals' commitment toward their work.

Free softwares, the Wikipedia project or collective translations of an existing work are good examplesillustrating this kind of open and decentralized co-creation made possible by a neutral internet. TheBlender Foundation thus states on the Free software website : “Blender is being made by hundreds ofactive volunteers from around the world; by studios and individual artists, professionals and hobbyists,scientists and students, VFX experts and animators, game artists and modders, and so on. All of themare united by the desire to have access to a fully free/open source 3D creation pipeline. People canjoin us to work on parts of the software, on the websites, documentation, education, design proposals,testing, and many more topics.” Serdar Yegulalp (2013) analyzes, in an article entitled The future ofLinux : evolving everywhere the communitarian development of Linux : “What matters most is notwho's contributing, but in what spirit. Linux advocates are firm believers in contributions to Linux, nomatter what the source, as a net gain - as long as the gains are contributed back to the community as awhole.”

Finally, the multi-cultural open and decentralized production of Free culture can also be an efficientmean to favor the intergroup cohesion. The Blender Foundation's Gooseberry project is a goodexample. This will constitute the first open 3D feature movie, developed by this foundation and twelvedifferent studios worldwide. Its development is based on the creation of specific “local” parts(developed by these twelve studios), which have for main mission to express their own specific artisticculture. The final movie will thus be composed of these twelve different cultural expressions,

75

meaningfully bound by the common plot/storyline.86All these different studios are thus gathered andbound by the same love for Free culture and the Blender Free software. The Blender community thusconstitutes both their common group of belonging and of reference, and these different groups allshare a common supra-ordinate goals : developing the first 3D open movie and contributing toimprove the Blender software for further works as well as to allow anyone to benefit from theseimprovements.

Finally, the clear definition of a common adversary as well as concrete and serious threats which haveto be collectively faced, analyzed and smartly managed to be transformed into opportunities (strategicintelligence process) in the achievement of the supra-ordinal goals can also help federate theindividuals and optimize the local and global social cohesion. Here are several important threatsemphasized by the April, advocacy group for the defense and promotion of the Free softwares : 87 :

- DRM : Digital handcuffs that the law prohibits circumventing;

- Patents on software : Allow appropriation of ideas and blocking software development except for afew multinationals;

- Forced sale : Makes the purchase of software, usually Microsoft Windows or Apple MacOS,obligatory when buying a computer, which is illegal;

- Treacherous computing : Unfair computing (sometimes called "trusted") blocks the operation ofprograms that are not authorized by the manufacturer.

The “war of sharing” (Lessig, 2001) and the “war of design” (FAT, 2012) can constitute goodarguments for the local groups and clusters to unite and overlook their potential antagonisms in orderto preserve fundamental values and practices which are truly necessary for creativity andinventiveness. The harmony in the intergroup and interindividual relations within the globalcommunity will thus be optimized if these relations are based on a relation of interdependence(Lewin, 1944), in these clearly defined “wars”. This strong cohesion can also be reinforced by thecollective understanding of potential strategies of power/control over them, such as the attempt toimpose competition between them in order to divide them (e.g., the introduction of competitionbetween them by private or public entities for the obtaining of subventions). This awareness offinancial dependence toward specific entities inducing competition (i.e., conflict) between groups orclusters from the same global community can thus incite these groups/clusters to imagine newfinancial means, e.g., by soliciting an open and decentralized community via crowdfunding.

5.5.2. Culture of the network and collective intelligence

The code of the global evolved collective mind will be composed of the semiotic hacking philosophyand qualified as the “cement” of the interindividual and intergroup relations within the same globalnetworked community. It will thus constitute the fundamental part of the global network'sinfostructure : the individuals composing the global community will be federated by this strong, clear,

86 https://cloud.blender.org/gooseberry/87 https://www.april.org/en/les-4-dangers

76

attractive and inclusive common culture of collective and inventive intelligence and network, i.e., ofinnovation based on local empowerment and individual or collective initiatives to enrich andstrengthen a global collective dynamic. Our code will be based on the culture of network. This culturewill include the following dimensions :

- Social : With the culture of the strategic intelligence, hacking and datalove as core of the networkedrelations and practices;

- Technical : With the characteristics of the internet network (open, decentralized, neutral andcommon good), with same potentiality of access and participation in order to optimize its functioningand resilience. We also include the datalove as part of this technical dimension of the “networkculture”, for this “affection” concerns both the individuals composing the network and the technicalnetwork itself which is, as we said, necessary to optimize the social relations and collective actionsworldwide.

It will also refer to these different social levels :

- Intragroups : Internal and external networks (specific to each individual evolving within), withspecific strategies/methodologies to develop and manage (as analyzed by Marcon and Moinet, 2007 aswell as core part of Besson and Possin's strategic intelligence process);

- Intergroups : Between the different groups/clusters forming the global networked community orbetween other ones evolving without but sharing same interests/culture and values.

Interoperability between the “nodes” will have to be achieved both within and outside the globalcommunity, in order to not be perceived as “extreme”, and increase the potentiality of minorityinfluence phenomena within other social systems evolving outside the global community (i.e., neitherbelonging nor referring to it). All the intelligences worldwide will have to be perceived by themembers of the community as potentially interconnected. The interoperable nature of our differentlocal social systems, via their collective sharing of a common inclusive code, will aim at avoiding the“war of designs” between them. This conflict between the systems might thus be induced bycompetitive relations, with each systems not designed to cooperate and work together (i.e., connect ormerge their own intelligences), for possessing conflicting goals and interests (e.g., defend privateproperties/rivalrous goods) or are forced by their economic environment to be in conflict.

The different groups composing the global evolved collective mind will thus have to be interoperablein order to favor the potential connections and mergers between “nodes”, likely to enrich the collectiveintelligence process at the local scale as well as, by extension, the global one. The more connections(i.e., actualized links between the local groups/clusters) and the more the potential roads (i.e., socialrelations) the individuals, groups and clusters within the global network can take to enter inrelation/communicate with other ones (i.e., the less dependent from specific entities), the stronger theglobal network.88This will necessarily require a favorable context : Free legal licenses and Freetechnologies sustaining them as well as an economic paradigm (defining and structuring the social

88 According to Zimmermann's analysis of the internet (2013).

77

relations) based on collaboration and contribution.

The Telecomix DeviantArt group emphasizes the importance of the development of an open,decentralized and worldwide network : “If it is within your means, travel a lot. Talk to people whereever you go, and tell them about what you are doing. Tell them to join you if they like the idea, thuscreating a network within your country/region of the world, perhaps even internationally” (…) Joinother activist groups. Invite them over and throw even more nice parties. Hospitality is imperative -your place is your friends place! And there is always a sofa to sleep on, where ever you go.”Bauwens(2014), theoretician of the Peer to Peer Economy and founder of the P2P Foundation, emphasizes thecompetition several organizations like cooperatives have to face : “ Though they are internallydemocratic, they often participate in the same dynamics of capitalist competition which underminestheir own cooperative values.” This undesired competition influencing the social systems can alsoinduce a strong self-compromise, for example by taking undesired but perceived as “necessary”decisions. For example, The Mozilla Foundation, in direct competition with powerful private entitiessuch as Microsoft or Google, took the hard decision to compromise their values by integrating DRMsin the Firefox web browser's source code in order to not lose its users.89 Bauwens thus proposes, basedon Kleiner's idea, the adoption of a “Peer Production License”, in order to create a legal tool favoringthe development of a sustainable “economy of the commons”, articulated with the classic marketeconomy. He advances the thesis that this license could constitute a missing link between themovement of Free culture and that of the Social and Solidarity Economy, allowing them to mergewhile exceeding their own contradictions. In other words, this license could help “foster opencooperativism.””90

The culture of hacking (with the “thinking outside the box” attitude), coupled to the culture of thenetworked collective intelligence (with strategic intelligence to exploit and manage it), can alsooptimize the collective problem - solving process, by favoring the search and discovery of original andunexpected (i.e. creative) solutions to actual problems (Manach, 2012). Coupled to the norms oforiginality and search for creativity, they can favor the extension of the collective creative frameworkand favor the individual and collective expression of creativity via Free tools and resources comingfrom the developed, protected and promoted “common pool”.

The connection between different “worlds of knowledge” will be favored by the practice of synecticand inventive intelligence, as well as the strategic intelligence practice, and more specifically thehybridization of knowledges in order to develop a “cross-fertilization” (Massé & Thibault, 1996) andenrich the open and decentralized collective intelligence process. For Marcon (2012), hybridization ofknowledge is what happens when scientists integrate in their works and reflections the knowledges of“non-scientists” in order to enrich them, make them evolve and open up new possibilities, and vice-versa. This collective enriching based on the merger between different domains requires for thescientists to “vulgarize” their knowledge in order to make it accessible to anyone. This vulgarization isthus necessary to optimize this “fertilized” collective intelligence whose value is way higher than if the

89 http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/may/14/firefox-closed-source-drm-video-browser-cory-doctorow90 http://bollier.org/blog/bauwens-use-peer-production-license-foster-%E2%80%9Copen-cooperativism%E2%80%9D

78

different social categories discriminate each other. This potential infinity of “neutral” connections ormergers between different “interoperable” knowledges is thus necessary to optimize the collectiveintelligence process as well as the inventive intelligence, i.e., creativity and innovation within theglobal network.

5.5.3. Ethics, sharing and fun as core values

Ethics, inclusion, sharing of knowledge, “hack values” such as playful cleverness and culture ofintelligence will be at the core of our code and will help develop, strengthen and sustain theindividuals' intrinsic motivation to be an active part of the global collective intelligence process. Theethical development and achievement of the tasks/goals is fundamental to ensure theinterindividual/intergroups' social relations' sustainability. The individuals, groups or clusters' networkstrategy necessarily have to be based on an “ethics of mean” (Marcon, 2010) in order to sustain theharmonious and trusted relations between the different actors composing it/them. The whole processof the network strategy (development, optimization, activation and exploitation) thus has to stick toethical values in order to preserve the trust within the network, necessary to sustain the strategicintelligence process. Ethics in the networked practices is thus necessary to preserve trust andlegitimacy among the individuals composing it. The individuals, groups and clusters will thus have toremember that the harmonious social relations' sustainability is more important than the achievementof the collective works/projects at all cost.

Ethics in the hacking practice is also necessary to regulate the selfish natural dimension of theindividuals (Stallman, 2002). Trust in the network, linked to the individuals, groups or cluster'saffiliation to the global community, will be fundamental and can only be achieved via transparency inthe collective actions (i.e., “enlightened trust”). The superordinate social identity can also be used as a“brand”, as we said earlier, in order to not only federate the individuals around it but also to favortheir trust toward the different “branded” objects/projects.

Sharing, as well as solidarity, will constitute core values necessary to sustain the open anddecentralized “global” collective intelligence. The culture of use instead of ownership (Rifkin, 2001)can thus be promoted and defended in order to incite the individuals to share their “rivalrous”resources with other individuals, and decrease the potential antagonisms likely to be favored by a toomuch attachment to these goods. A mutualisation of rivalrous resources (as practiced in many FabLabs) can be an efficient mean to get the individuals used to this collective use and ownership.

The individuals' self-perception as member of a global community can also favor the effect ofreciprocity (Cialdini, 1993) i.e., stimulate their will to contribute to it, by “giving it back what it gaveto them”. A clear example is given by Gael Langevin, sculptor and model-maker who uses Freeresources (e.g., Blender software) for his work and desires to contribute to the Free philosophy byreleasing his InMoov robot as open-source, allowing anyone to benefit from his work.91He alsoproposes on his project's official website a cartography of the InMoov builders worldwide in order to

91 http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1qip7t_une-prothese-bionique-homemade-futuremag-arte_tv

79

favor the sharing of information and knowledge between this community.92

The Telecomix DeviantArt group emphasizes the necessary disinhibited “playful” attitude towardexperimentations and the importance of sharing information and knowledge to enrich the globalcollective intelligence : “Don't be obsessed with doing things "right". Instead of thinking too much,tinker instead. Proceed by way of experimentation, try things out. If they fail, make sure to laugh alittle, then try a different way. Collect experiences in your wiki, learn from the mistakes. Share allknowledge freely with others.”

The diversity of means for the achievement of the different tasks/goals will have to be encouraged, inorder to respect the individuals, groups or clusters' personalities and culture and preserve their intrinsicmotivation to be part of the global collective networked intelligence. Thus, an individual who is afraidto fail in his project might not desire to unveil it to the public until he has actually fulfilled/achieved it.This individual might also be afraid of being copied by a private entity which might “absorb” his workand privatize it under the creation of a new proprietary good before he finishes his own work. Anotherone might desire to solicit from the very beginning of his project an open and decentralized collectivereading, in order to enrich his work via, for example, the constant proposal of constructive criticsduring the development of his project (e.g., Blender Foundation's Gooseberry project, with thepossibility for anyone to exchange with the development team and contribute to it by sharing ideas andsuggestions). While a group/cluster might choose to develop a project under heavy secrecy (withoutsharing it to anyone outside the local entity), the time for it to be completed and released as aFree/common good, another one might thus opt for a totally open and transparent developmentprocess. The only fundamental norm thus has to be the respect of an “ethical” development (i.e., inaccordance to the semiotic hacking philosophy) as well as a common finality.

The core object of our social system's representations will thus be the common goods, for theyconstitute the core of all the different philosophies and “methodological tools” composing our semiotichacking paradigm. As we said, they are necessary to optimize the individuals' empowerment andcreative freedom, as well as ensuring the core principles structuring the Free philosophy as well as oursocial system : liberty, equality, fraternity, universality and interoperability. Moreover, they allow us todefine a clear identity and position against entities who want to privatize them, e.g., by criminalizingthe acts of copying and sharing in order to favor the cohesion within the local groups/clusters andwithin the global networked community. Ryan Merkley (2014), CEO of Creative Commons,highlights the importance of being part of the Free culture community and highlights many issues wehave considered in our analysis93 :

Why am I joining CC? Because its success is so vital, and I want to ensure we succeed. Creativity,knowledge, and innovation need a public commons — a collection of works that are free to use, re-use, and build upon — the shared resources of our society. The restrictions we place on copyright,like fair use and the public domain, are an acknowledgement that all creativity and knowledge owesomething to what came before. Without a robust and constantly growing collection of works

92 http://www.inmoov.fr/builders-near-you/93 http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/42693

80

available for use and reuse, we lose the kind of innovation and creative inspiration that gave usDisney classics, hip-hop, and the interoperable Web. The consequences of failing to grow andprotect the public commons present themselves as lost opportunities: discoveries not made,innovations left undeveloped, and creativity unrealized. It’s complex and hard to quantify, but alsodangerous to ignore. A public commons is a driving force to advance human knowledge, and isessential infrastructure for the global economy.”

He also emphasizes the paradigm shift about the motivation to produce cultural content : “And today’sbattles over copyright often ignore the fact that the Web has dramatically shifted the motivations forcreators : it’s no longer only about money. Many do it just for the love of their craft, or just to be seenin the world, and still more are finding ways to share their work and get paid at the same time.”

The global social system, just like the Internet network and a Free software, has to be intrinsicallydesigned to make its corruption impossible. Any member or individual outside the local groupscomposing it thus need to have the possibility to create, anywhere and at at any time, a new group, i.e.,a new part of the global network. If the cognitive conflict is too important within the group and themajority does not to integrate the minority's point of view (e.g., toward the group or a work inprogress' evolution and direction), the minority needs to have the possibility, thanks to the group'sdesign, to “fork” it and create a new one, whether temporarily (e.g., the time to achieve a differentwork) or permanently (e.g., to take a new direction and explore new creative paths).

This new potential creation has to be fully part of the initial group's intrinsic design. This creation willhowever have to remain interoperable and potentially interconnected to the initial one (for the twosocial systems share the same “core” code, i.e., belong and refer to the same global community andspeak the same “language”). The two groups will thus have the possibility to connect or merge thegroups at any time, e.g., if they find a new consensus about their evolution and future. As Bayart(2011) states, the internet network can not be “owned” by any single entity, for the network iscomposed of a potential infinity of “nodes” privately owned. A clear example coming from the Freesoftware domain is given by LibreOffice. This program was born from a split from the Open Office'score development team, who did not agree with the Oracle (i.e., the company having purchased theprogram) corporate strategy. They thus decided to leave it, in order to fork the program (exploiting theFree license) and sustain its development via the creation of a dedicated Foundation named TheDocument Foundation. However, the two programs remain fully interoperable thanks to their Freecode and legal licenses.94

Choice and modularity, concerning in our paradigm social mobility and adaptation, are fundamentalto preserve the individuals, groups and clusters' freedom and intrinsic motivation within the globalcommunity, as well as ensuring their sustainability via an optimized capacity of adaptation to theirenvironment. They thus need to have the possibility to change of social position, as well as of socialstructure, at any time in order to adapt to new configurations (e.g., new unexpected tasks with specific

94 https:// digitizor.com/2010/11/01/and-so-the-exodus-begins-33-developers-leave-openoffice-org/

81

constraints and problems to be managed and solved in order to pursue the achievement of the supra-ordinal goals). As Mark Baker, Ubuntu Server product manager for Canonical states : "Open-sourcedelivers freedom of choice. It naturally encourages modularity (…) With open-source you can choosethe best components for your situation”.

The universal and Free/inclusive nature of the code shared by the local entities favors the globalsystem's sustainability for anyone can potentially copy (i.e. imitate) or fork any local system (i.e., copyby preserving the initial base/structure of the group/cluster, but adopt a differentdirection/functioning). These new social systems will moreover remain interoperable with the otherones (i.e., preserve the global stability/harmony between the social relations), via the belonging to thesame global community and the same supra-ordinal social identity. It is thus meaningless to try to“enclose” it. Okhin (2012) illustrates this characteristic of a global social system by stating that theTelecomix “disorganization” strongly encourages anyone to copy or fork their “source-code.”

5.6. Content

Let's analyze the “content” layer. This dimension will refer to the result of the collaborative creationsproduced by the global community, which aim at pursuing the supra-ordinal goal we have analyzed :develop, protect and promote the common goods.

5.6.1. Viability and sustainability as main issues

The main issues concerning the content dimension concerns the viability and sustainability of theproduced resources. The permanent creation, enriching and modification of common goods thatcontribute to “enrich” the “common pool” as well as the “context” and stimulate the individuals'inspiration for a potential infinity of future works. These resources require to be freely exploited bypotentially anyone to be stored in viable, sustainable and “neutral” (i.e., non-discriminating) places.The technical context thus plays, as well as the legal one, a fundamental part of the preservation ofthese resources.

The goods produced by the individual or local groups/clusters will be whether physical (rivalrous) ordigital (anti-rivalrous). Rivalry can however be “bypassed” by new technological means such as 3Dprinting, which can strongly optimize the sharing of contents worldwide via the fast, easy and legalsharing of digital files and their potentially infinite “reification”. It can thus favor the transformation of“anti-rivalrous” data into physical “rivalrous” goods with their inherent constraints. Digitization ofphysical common goods (e.g., books) can also be a good mean to favor this fast and easydissemination worldwide and optimize the good's sustainability. The digitization of the culturalpatrimonial belonging to the public domain thus constitutes a fundamental part of the protection ofthe commons.

We will consider, as we will analyze later, that a good's sustainability is determined for an importantpart by its observation and interpretation, whether via a simple cognitive treatment or via the creationof new works based on it. The consideration of the technical, legal and cognitive dimensions is thus

82

fundamental in their preservation and in the insurance of their sustainability. DRMs, deprivinglicenses as well as “mental DRMs” have to be proscribed and removed in order to favor theindividuals' empowerment via Free legal and technical tools as well as cognitive strategies to achievethis “removal”. In other words, the community has to proscribe the use of DRMs (which inducerestriction, control, discrimination and “damaging” of the goods) in their creations, in order to favorthis universal access and sharing as well as the unrestricted expression of creativity. Transparency inthe actions and/or in the final creations (via open source-code, recipes,...) is thus necessary to favor the“enlightened trust” toward them and prevent the potential abusive exercise of power/control byindividuals or local groups/clusters (e.g., via the potential integration of DRMs within source-codes).The possibility to “disrupt culture” (BNF, 2014), for example via remixes or mashups (culturalpractices we will analyze later) thus has to be not only protected but also encouraged.

5.6.2. The anticipation of potential abuses against the commons

The monitoring of potential abuses will constitute a full part of the open and decentralized strategicintelligence process, in order to detect as soon as possible the potential threats against the commons,especially if these resources are stored on closed/depriving servers (for digital goods), whose owner islikely to exercise an arbitrary censorship at any time. As we will analyze further in this work, thisthreat has become truly concrete, via the automatization of the censorship in the cyberspace exercisedby private entities. The content's viability and sustainability will thus be optimal if a wide communityof individuals observe and enrich it without restriction (characteristics of a Free legal nature). Thehigher the number of individuals observing, manipulating, enriching, copying and sharing it, the morevaluable it will become (if abundant/anti-rivalrous, e.g., within the digital world). The use of Freelicenses for the contents produced by the global networked community can favor their legal diffusionas well as their both symbolic and operational “universal” appropriation (Gunthert) as the individualsare empowered to exercise the four fundamental freedoms on them. Open standards, as well as Freelegal licenses are thus necessary, especially for “functional works” (Stallman, 1996), in order to favortheir collective appropriation and enriching. Open standards are also necessary for the works to beconsidered as truly “Free”95. The Document Foundation thus emphasizes the important issues thatmight be faced when closed/depriving formats are used to produce contents designed to be sustainableand enrich “memories”96 :

A routine problem encountered by computer users today is the discovery of personal digitalcontent created years ago and stored in old, outdated file formats. Frequently, these old filescannot be opened by any application on the user's current operating system. The users are, putsimply, locked out of their own content. The most common reason for this inability to access olddata is the use of proprietary file-formats that result in vendor lock-in.

Going forward, the obvious solution to this problem is to use true open standards that are duly

95 According to Kauffman's analysis we will analyze further.96 http://www.documentliberation.org/

83

and fully documented. But as things stand today, we must face a daunting reality: a significantamount of our legacy digital content is encoded in proprietary, undocumented formats.

The Document Liberation Project was created in the hope that it would empower individuals,organizations, and governments to recover their data from proprietary formats and provide amechanism to transition that data into open file formats, returning effective control over thecontent from computer companies to the actual authors.”

The preservation of the produced common resources, as part of the “common pool”, thus has to be afundamental part of the communitarian process, in order to prevent a potential privatization, i.e.,“enclosure”, especially if the resources belong to the public domain (e.g., via copyfraud).

One of the main threats concerning the content dimension is thus the potential exercise of abusivecontrol by entities evolving whether within or without the global networked community. The collectiveintelligence, via for example the collective reading and several efficient dissuasivetechniques/phenomena based on social influences such as the Streisand or Flamby effects97, can beuseful to create a global open and decentralized (i.e., strong and resilient) deterrence.

As the Document Foundation emphasizes, the retention of information (e.g., about the use of specificprograms) has to be prevented. The development of a strong documentation is thus fundamental toempower the individuals and not allow local entities exercise an abusive power over them based onignorance and “blind trust”.

Another “threat” for the global community's sustainability is represented by the individuals who usethe produced common goods for commercial “private” purposes, but who do not give-back to thecommunity the result of their innovation. According to Al Gillen (2013), program vice president forsystem software, “Such a move would put Linux users at the mercy of people who may consumeLinux and provide it as a service but don't return their innovations to the community as a whole. Itmay take a decade or more for such a shift to happen, but it could have negative implications for Linuxoverall, and to commercial vendors that sell Linux-based solutions." Jim Zemlin (2014) executivedirector of the Linux Foundation, thus emphasize an important threat for the common goods'sustainability he calls the “corporate co-opting” : “Another possible threat to Linux is corporate co-opting -- not of the code itself, but of the possibilities it provides.”

5.6.3. Documentation and memory to favor the cognitive appropriation

The collaborative and rich production of documentation about common resources is also fundamentalto favor their use and democratization via a wide appropriation likely to stimulate a dynamiccommunitarian development. This open and decentralized collective intelligence is thus not onlyfundamental during the creation/development phase, but also for the insurance of the actualizedresource's viability (e.g., via collective reading aiming at tracking bugs within a program's source-

97 Bayart (2011) defines these two phenomena : the Streisand effect is a missed attempt of censorship of an unpopular content online, and the Flamby effect is a missed attempt of censorship of an already popular content. In both cases, this censorship induces a massive propagation of the content online, as well as its strong popularization.

84

code) and sustainability (via its free copying and sharing increasing its resilience against potentialabuses such as censorship). The more documented the Free resources, the richer the individuals'understanding and interpretation, i.e., the higher the possibility for them to contribute efficiently inreturn in their development. Moreover, a strong documentation is, as we said, necessary to favor theindividuals' “enlightened” relation and trust toward the good.

Florence Devouard (2014) analyzes the “ Wiki skills”, and, emphasizes how synergic methods changecollaborative culture98 :

When Wikipedia became mainstream around 2004-2005, the wiki environment invented in1995, finally got public attention. It rapidly became a frequent platform for communityknowledge based projects. The benefits for the participants are not so much about learning touse a wiki software, it is about all the soft skills they acquire on the way: trust in themselves andothers, collaboration and collaboration skills… Such benefits suggest that teachers and trainersshould use wikis and wiki alike tools more frequently with the expectation of empowering civicbehavior, social inclusion, employability, cultural understanding, autonomous learning andwikilove between human beings.

Stallman emphasizes the importance of Free documentations to optimize the accessibility, i.e., theinclusive dimension of the Free software philosophy : “The biggest deficiency in free operatingsystems is not in the software—it is the lack of good free manuals that we can include in thesesystems. Many of our most important programs do not come with full manuals. Documentation is anessential part of any software package; when an important free software package does not come with afree manual, that is a major gap. We have many such gaps today.”99

The documentation can also be coupled by a strong and reactive social support (e.g., on dedicatedforums) to help beginners wishing to use a Free software by answering their specific questions thatmight not have been anticipated by the contributors to the documentation. The potential generation ofnew unexpected questions about the resources can thus help enrich the documentation in return andintegrate the “beginners” in the collective intelligence process about the specific good. It can also favorthe “horizontal” social relations and the lack of discrimination between skilled individuals, amateursand beginners, each of these different categories being able to optimize the good's developmentprocess. In a nutshell, it can help stimulate the necessary question – answer virtuous cycle and enrichthe strategic intelligence process. The open and decentralized (i.e., inclusive and non-discriminating)collective intelligence process will be necessary to favor the emergence of new unexpectedconnections of actors between different groups or local networks, and the actualization of new socialstructures/movements based on it.

As we said, rich, well managed local memories as well as an optimal interconnection between them, isnecessary to favor the easily identification for an individual, group or cluster(s) of the wanted

98 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sp5qyGfHXj499 http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-doc.html

85

resources necessary to fulfill his projects, and favor (via serendipity) the discovery of new ones likelyto enrich the analytic process and the perspectives for future projects. According to Besson and Possin(2001), “Every producer [of information] needs to have the right to diffuse what he has read or writtenby himself. The memory will be in that case a crossroad whose role will be to facilitate and memorizethe transactions (flow) of data within the organization.” It will thus be fundamental to encourageeveryone to be a part of it and enrich its content as well as its diffusion, i.e., allow the intelligenceprocess to be optimal via its “real-time living” (Besson and Possin, 2001).

As we said, the full sharing of the memories, composed of the experiences (with successes andfailures) acquired during the development of contents, is fundamental to enrich the global collectiveintelligence dynamic and optimize the management of the resources via the common beneficial of thelocally acquired experiences and knowledges. For Besson and Possin, there can be no global andstrategic vision of the intelligence process without a methodical and permanent centralization of theinformations collected. The memory has to be the main diffuser of information, but does not have tohave the monopoly on this activity. An efficient methodology based on the strategic intelligence (viaacquisition of informations, detection of signals and knowledge management) and the inventiveintelligence processes (via serendip attitude,...) will thus have to be exploited in order to detect thepotential opportunities (i.e., new potential connections between networks) and actualize theconnections between informations and knowledges in order to open up new possibilities.

The disinhibited and unrestricted sharing of informational resources, as well as the production ofpertinent questions is likely to stimulate the global evolved collective mind's memory in order to favorits global enriching (by benefiting from the anti-rivalrous nature and the abundant economic dimensionoffered by the digital world). It can also favor its accessibility via viable and sustainable centralizedmemories (in order to favor its interrogation and exploitation), while allowing anyone to copy/mirror itin order to strengthen its resilience in case of potential abuses aiming at taking the content down.

5.6.4. The promotion of the contents

The promotion constitutes a core part of the inventive intelligence process we have analyzed. Theexploitation of the different networks and the capacities of the potential infinity of localgroups/clusters, with their respective external networks, can be exploited to spread the contents andincrease their visibility outside the global community to reach new audiences. The communicationabout the produced contents thus has to involve a wide community of members in order to optimizethe innovations' visibility and popularity, as well as communication strategies in order to optimizetheir visibility and popularity. The Krita team thus states on the project's official website : “Krita needsto regularly announce new releases or fund-raising efforts on a variety of websites/blogs/socialnetworks. This requires a lot of coordination work and perhaps a smart strategist.” Social andtechnical networks, with phenomena such as copying and mirroring, can also be used to spread it andmake it more visible, attractive, resistant and resilient via the generation of potential “Flamby effects”.Several groups like the FAT Labs propose to be a part of this phase, by qualifying themselves “themarketing branch of the open-source community” (FAT, 2012). Audio-visual promotional and “viral”

86

contents, like the ones created to promote the Free Universal Construction Kit we will analyze later,will constitute good means to optimize this process.

IV. The hacking of the semiotic process

1. The relation to the observed representamen

1.1. Actual, virtual and virtualization – actualization dynamic

"Virtual reality corrupts, absolute reality corrupts absolutely." Roy Ascott

Deleuze (1993) posed the basis of the opposition between actual and virtual, by defining these twopoles as the two dimensions of an individual's relation to an object. For Lévy (1995), the virtual is notopposed to the real, but to the actual. He also emphasizes the clear distinction between the possibleand virtual : the possible is already constituted, but evolves in the “limbos”, and will get reifiedwithout a change in its determination or its nature. According to Tisseron (2012) “Our relationshipwith the real world is tense all the time between two poles. One is made of the concrete existence ofthe object or the person with whom we relate to : the actual pole. The other is due to our expectationsand our projects on him : the virtual pole. The balance struck between investments vested in one andthe other of these two poles results on what is called our "sense of reality", which is nothing but a frailand always threatened synthesis. The transition from the actual to the virtual, defined as avirtualization movement, is actually the condition for new forms of actualization.

Lévy compares virtualization as a temporary “desubstantiation” defined by the combination of threeadditional characteristics :

- Deterritorialisation : We move from a delimited activity to a delocated functioning. What waslocated in the actualization becomes deterritorialised in the virtualization;

- The “Moebius effect” : In the virtualization, the private elements are put in common while the publicelements are subject to anyone's subjective integration, under a personalized form. There is bothindividualization and collectivization, which blurs the borders between public and intimate. What wasindividualized in the actualization becomes collectivized in the actualization:

- Desynchronization” : What was synchronized in the actualization becomes desynchronized in thevirtualization.

In a nutshell, the actualizations are located (instanced in the here and now), synchronized andparticularized : the intimate and public parts are distinguished. Conversely, the virtualization isdeterritorializing (detachment of the here and now), desynchronization and detachment of theintimate- public landmarks. Tisseron (2006) highlights the fact that the whole process multiplies thepossible, by creating a “deterritorialised”, desynchronized and collectivized functioning.

We move from a configuration characterized by an exclusion of the cohabitation of the contraries to a

87

one that admits it. This change of identity can be summarized by evoking the transition from“whether... or....” to “both...and....”. Lévy also emphasizes that the psychic movement is virtualizingby essence, and that “the psychic element offers a canonical example of the virtual”. For example, anindividual observes a branch, but “sees” a stick. The psychic virtual is thus, according to Tisseron,permanently actualized through affects, while the human's look on the things surrounding himpermanently virtualize them to adapt them to new needs. He adds that the virtualization allows toextract temporarily from the present to anticipate the future. The actualization of the virtual getsincarnated in the new use.

Lévy gives the example of a virtual community : A virtual community can for example be organizedon a peer basis via telematic communication systems. Its members are united by the same interests,the same problems : geography, contingent, is neither a starting point nor a constraint. Though "out-there", this community comes alive with passions and projects, conflicts and friendships. It liveswithout any place of stable reference : everywhere where its mobile members are... or anywhere.Virtualization reinvents a nomadic culture, not a return to the Paleolithic or the ancient civilizations ofpastors, but conjuring a medium for social interaction where relationships reconfigure with minimalinertia.”

Is is fundamental to emphasize that the digital online world can be considered as as real as the physicalone. Peter Sunde (2013), co-founder of the Pirate Bay100, thus states that the Internet (i.e., cyberspace)is for real, just like the physical world, by highlighting his disapproval of the “In Real Life” (IRL)expression. He prefers instead to use the expression “Away From Keyboard” (AFK). The digital worldthus inherently requires a technical infrastructure (according to Benkler's paradigm), and everyprogram or “place” within the cyberspace is stored somewhere in a server/computer. We might thusstate that a digital program is, in a sense, located, for dependent on a physical infrastructure.Moreover, several restriction techniques like the DRMS are used to “artificially” transform the digitalgoods' intrinsic anti-rivalrous and abundant nature into rivalrous ones, bound to specific onlineaccounts or technical devices. Pierce (1868) states that “No present actual thought (which is a merefeeling) has any meaning, any intellectual value; for this lies not in what is actually thought, but inwhat this thought may be connected with in representation by subsequent thoughts; so that themeaning of a thought is altogether something virtual.” For Deleuze (1993), “The relation between theactual and the virtual is always a circuit, but in two ways : the actual sometimes refers to the virtual asother things in large circuits, where the virtual is actualized, sometimes the actual returns the virtual asits own virtual, in smaller circuits where the virtual crystallizes with the actual”. We thus consider,based on these definitions, that the virtual and actual poles of the relation to an object (observed as arepresentamen) is thus fundamental to consider in the analysis of the semiotic process. Finally, Lévyemphasizes that if virtualization was only the passage from one reality to a set of possible, it would bedereifying. But it involves as many irreversibility in its effects, indeterminacy in its process andinvention in its effort as actualization. Virtualization is one of the main vector for the creation ofreality. " He adds that “When virtualization and actualization are associated, world and life are in a

100 One of the most famous and resilient file-sharing website.

88

permanent enriching” and emphasizes two key-concepts : heterogenesis (integration of “otherness” inthe interpretative process), as core part of the virtualization process and its contrary : alienation(reduction to the real, i.e., leashed virtual with no virtualization process).

Virtualization clearly refers to the interpretative process. We will thus integrate this concept, as well asthe virtualization – actualization dynamic101, in our semiotic analysis. We will also consider that this“psychic movement” can be conditioned by several techniques, as well as be “unleashed” by other“cognitive techniques” we will propose and analyze further in this work. It also fits perfectly thehacking philosophy, based on the disobedience of the objects' “official rules” (i.e., functions, design'smodel...) in order to use them differently (i.e., actualization in new uses). Thus, according to Tisseron(2012), “Virtualization is not a way to prefer the psychic representations to reality, but it is a processthat multiplies the multiple representations from a unique stimulus, allows to change of perspective inthe resolution of a problem, to get rid of old thought-patterns, i.e., to innovate, provided it is followedby an actualization allowing to enjoy its fruits.” Virtualization can thus be qualified as the mentalexpression of creativity (favored if unleashed) and the actualization as the concrete expressionconfronted to reality (in conflict or not with it, e.g., if conflicting design between two observedrepresentamens). The creative framework, concept we will analyze further, will also be fundamental toconsider in this dynamic.

1.2. The different kinds of observation

Here are several kinds of observation we will consider throughout this analysis :

- Direct or indirect : Direct observation or presence of third-parties in between the observer and theobserved object that makes the observation possible (e.g., a web browser is necessary to read awebpage or play an online game) with inherent issues such as dependence on third-parties/in betweenelements and social/technical trust, as well as viability and sustainability. In both cases, this social ortechnical trust toward the third-parties or the object itself can be :

- “Blind” : Based on a relation of informational/cognitive dependence (e.g., lack ofinformation/cognitive skills, ignorance about the observed element's composition and functioning dueto its closed/depriving nature and absence of documentation about it);

- “Enlightened” : Based on information and knowledge acquired from “rational” facts (e.g. close socialrelation with intimate knowledge or access to an open and decentralized cognitive power exercising astrong control over the element/entity, via openness and transparency);

- Plain or cypher observation : Likely to favor whether inhibition (if plain) or disinhibition (if cypher);

- Individual or assisted/mediated (social and/or technical) : Socially isolated or surroundedobservation, likely to favor inhibition or disinhibition with exercise of social influences (whether froman actual source or a perceived). The observer whether observes the object alone or is assisted in hisprocess by other entities optimizing it. The observation process can be assisted :

101 From now on, we will write “V – A dynamic” for commodity purposes.

89

- Socially : Collective observation/reading and collective intelligence via social interactions,with also potential social influences likely to induce a cognitive restructuring toward the observedobject. This collective observation can induce a potential cognitive conflict if different interpretationsare expressed, i.e., a change of perception/interpretation and innovation. The assisted observation canthus disrupt/subvert the observation process via the exercise of social influences induced by socialinteractions and a change of attitudes/interpretation of the observed object (Asch, 1970). It can alsoenrich it via the collective intelligence phenomenon and the collective reading practice (Besson &Possin, 2001). The collective observation process can also depend, as we have already analyzed, on thegroup's social norms such as objectivity or originality (Doms & Moscovici, 1976);

- Technically : Via smart, connected tools allowing the individual to “augment” his observedreality, by providing him with with new informations likely to favor or weaken his observation process.The assisted observation will share some similarities with the “assisted daydreaming” conceptemphasized by Tisseron (2012).

- The complete or incomplete observation : Observation of the object's nature (technical, legal,....) andof both its content and code (i.e., composition). A complete observation is necessary to develop astronger knowledge and a more accurate observation, for only way to ensure the object's viability (i.e.make sure the code matches the content). For example, a Free software with its inherent possibility toread/audit its source code to detect any potential malicious features generating a “deceptive” contentand “damaged” good. The incomplete observation, based on the “content-only” observation, induces abiased observation and interpretation, for the individual is forbidden to access key informations aboutthe object's design and complementary informations such as commentaries from the object'sdevelopers present in a digital program's code.

We will also consider the observation process as inherently contextualized (with social, technical,financial and legal dimensions). For example, the observation of a closed/depriving digitalrepresentamen within a silo102. The consideration of this context will be necessary to optimize theinterpretation process. Some observation contexts can thus exercise a strong social influence (via apermanent tracking/monitoring,...) and compliance toward the rights holder's intellectual property,favored by the fusion between law and code likely to modify/condition the observation context andprocess. Seemel (2014), artist and Free culture activist, emphasizes that the context of observation isfundamental in the observation and interpretation processes. The social context is thus likely to be asource of whether impoverishment of the observation and interpretative processes (via the individual'sinhibited relation to the observed object), or of enriching (with social interactions likely to induce acognitive conflict via divergent interpretations of the same object, i.e., a potential change of attitudes(via validation process and re-observation integrating new elements about it). It can also favor thecollective intelligence, i.e.,the development and exploitation of informations and knowledge,collectively developed/acquired, likely to enrich the interpretation of the representamen. For example,the observed object's viability can be optimized via a collective reading of its source-code; a collectiveV – A dynamic is also likely to enrich the object's interpretative possibilities, via the actualization of

102 We will define this concept and the issues it involves in the observation process later.

90

new uses or the modification and enriching of new functionalities. Finally, the creative framework(Ancel, 2006) can whether leash or unleash the interpretation process and the V – A dynamic, i.e. thecreative and inventive thoughts/processes.

1.3. The different kinds of relation to the object

The relations of an individual to an object can be :

- Owned or rented : The individual whether possesses full rights on it (if owned), or isrestricted/constrained in his relation to it (if rented). For example, a digital file purchased on an onlinecommercial silo is solely rented, and the individual having purchased it is only granted the right toread it under strict conditions. If the object is branded, the individual might own it as an object (e.g., ifphysical good such as shoes) but not as a brand brand being simultaneously interpreted whenobserving it (e.g., the Nike brand, strictly owned by the the Nike company);

- Branded or generic : relation to a familiar brand (commitment, history with it, part of theindividual's life and culture likely to favor the freezing of the semiotic process and generate a finalinterpretamen/interpretant) or to a generic/neutral object/representamen;

- Hierarchical : Master/slave or slave/master relation (e.g. if branded object, the individual can be a“slave” both toward the object (e.g. cognitive dependence,...) and/or the brand it is interpreted asstanding for);

- Familiar or non-familiar : The individual, when observes a familiar object, possess a cognitivecertainty and stability which can be induced by habit as well as a strong commitment toward it, andfavor cognitive biases shaping/conditioning his observation and interpretative process. Thisconditioning is likely to freeze the semiotic process via a final logical interpretant (Peirce, 1910), aswell as positive attitudes toward it (Courbet, 2014) and a crystallized observation/interpretation(leashed virtual and crystallization of attitudes);

- The plain (identified) or cypher (anonymous) relation : Encrypted or plain (e.g. with HTTPS,encrypted or HTTP/unencrypted protocols), within a silo or a Free environment,...

1.4. The dimensions of the mind

Based on these different paradigms, we will divide, in our analysis, the virtual pole of an individual'srelation to an object in two “states”, which emphasize the different issues we will analyze all along thiswork :

- Leashed : Conditioned by the representamen's reality (e.g., design103reflecting specific intentions fromauthors or rights holders) with rigid interpretation (matching the author/rights holders' intentions)and/or the individual's inherent cognitive biases weakening his interpretation of the observedrepresentamen;

103 Important concept we will analyze later.

91

- Unleashed : Rich interpretation beyond the observed representamen's official “interpretative rules”.

We will analyze these two dimensions later, for we consider it is important to first introduce andanalyze other key-concepts. We are now going to analyze the semiotic process, by introducing a key-element which constitutes a fundamental part of our semiotic hacking paradigm : the interpretamen.

1.5. The interpretamen in the semiotic process

For Peirce (1931), a sign is something which stands to somebody for something in some respect orcapacity. It addresses somebody, that is, creates in the mind of that person an equivalent sign, orperhaps a more developed sign. That sign which it creates he calls the interpretant of the first sign. Thesign stands for something, its object. It stands for that object, not in all respects, but in reference to asort of idea, which he has sometimes called the ground of the representamen. The interaction betweenthe representamen, the object and the interpretant is referred as 'semiosis' (ibid., 5.484). In otherwords, he states that a sign is a sign because it is interpreted by somebody and that interpretationcreates a new sign, the interpretant, which would be an idea that the observer has about the originalsign. The representamen is similar in meaning to Saussure's signifier whilst the interpretant is similarin meaning to the signified (Silverman, 1983).

Frasca (2007) emphasizes that Peirce's model of sign does not take into account that therepresentamen could be dynamic, which is necessary to analyze and explain simulations. He thusproposes an extension of this model by adding another element : the interpretamen, which denotes theidea the individual has about the representamen. This new element is thus necessary to optimize thesemiotic analysis and the understanding of dynamic representamens (i.e., composed of multiple statesstanding for different objects). He gives the example of a Transformer toy, composed of multiplestates (each one standing for a specific “”source object”, but requiring to be fully understood to beaware of this “dynamic” nature (i.e., accurate interpretamen).

To be aware of this nature requires to manipulate the toy in order to “activate” the different designedstates, and to be aware of a specific “rule of behavior” :

As Murray (1997) states, one of the main pleasures of digital artifacts is transformation. Byapplying a rule of behavior (i.e. to manipulate the toy in certain way), the player discovers thatthe robot can become a plane. In other words, the player discovers the possibilities of the systemthrough manipulation. As Aarseth (1997) explains, this manipulation is not trivial, such as theflip of pages in a book, but requires that the player get engaged into a process of decision-making that will affect his experience of the system. This process of manipulation andtransformation is what renders possible the interpretation of the multiple facets of a simulation.

This concept can however, according to him, not only be applied to simulations but to any kind ofsigns. By separating Peirce's category of representamen in two different ones (the representamen andinterpretamen), he operates a differentiation not considered in traditional semiotics, for the reason thatsigns usually have only one state and remain unmodified for different observers.

92

The term “cognitive framework” refers to the interpretive system through which individuals processinformation and make sense of their experiences (Weick, 2001). Mutual understanding depends uponthis shared interpretive system (Chia, 2000; Taylor & Roichaud, 2004). Differentiating therepresentamen and the interpretamen thus allows to analyze specific signs like “works in movement”(Eco, 1989) such as cybertexts, toys or works of art. Frasca adds that “movement” must be understoodin the same way as Murray's concept of “transformation” in computer software where he includes,among others, Calder's mobiles” (a type of kinetic sculpture constructed to take advantage of theprinciple of equilibrium). The interpretamen analysis leads him to emphasize key elements which willstructure our semiotic hacking paradigm : the representamen's design and design's model. We informthe reader that we will, from now on, refer most of the time as the representamen to qualify an object“observed and interpreted as a representamen” by an individual, i.e., triggering both an interpretamenand an interpretant in his mind as well as a potentially infinite “semiotic process”.

1.6. The representamen's design and design's model

We will consider the “design” based on Stallman's “defective by design” paradigm and will take intoaccount the designer(s)' potentially “malicious” intentions toward the representamen's interpretation.The representamen's design will thus refer to its “conceptual nature”, i.e., its intrinsic nature asthought and determined by its creator(s)/rights holder(s).104Here are the characteristics of design wewill consider in our work :

- Technical dimension :

- Open or closed : Allowed access or not to its structure and composition (source code or “recipe”);

- “Complete” or “defective” : With the representamen's full possibilities likely to be explored orrestricted, for example via DRMs restricting its complete functioning, observation and use, i.e.,“damaging” it (Stallman, 2010);

- Conflicting or interoperable : Discriminating representamen not tolerating external elementsexcept the ones determined by the creator(s) or neutral;

- Static or dynamic : One “state” or several ones designed and likely to be observed (e.g., work inmovement which can be transformed, modified and adapted);

- Plain or cypher : A digital representamen can be encrypted to prevent its identification and/or itsreading (Okhin, 2013) or plain (meaningfully observable by anyone without a necessary decryptionprocess);

- “Perishing” or sustainable : Designed to be obsolete (e.g., rivalrous nature of a good and

104 As we will see, the rights holders (who might be different from the object's creator), are likely to exercise a strong influence on the determination of the object's design.

93

programmed obsolescence of a closed/depriving software or hardware according to Zimmermann,2014) or sustainable (via open standards, a strong open and decentralized community involved in itssustaining optimizing the representamen's resilience via the possibility for anyone to copy, share,modify and fork it) such as a Free software according to Zimmermann (2014) or Le Toqueux (2014).

- Legal dimension :

- Free or depriving : Can deprive the individuals of their four freedoms (Free philosophy) orempower them by allowing them to use, access the core, modify and share the object withoutrestriction;

- Branded or generic : With trademark policy and possible legal sanction in case of infringement.

- Cognitive dimension :

- Trustful or deceptive : Based on the representamen's transparency or opacity (e.g., lack ofdocumentation to favor the ignorance and “blind trust”, or freedom to access its source-code/recipe, aswell as strong documentation to favor the “enlightened” one. Can exploit the individuals' trust in orderto favor their influence and manipulation, i.e., control via the representamen;

- Branded or generic : With branding strategies aiming at conditioning the interpretative process orwithout any observable branded sign on it;

- Discriminating or accessible : Requires reading skills to read the object meaningfully. Thisproblem can be solved via learning (e.g. learning code to read an digital program's source-code andhave the ability to understand its design and composition, as well as to modify it to create new thingsfrom it). It can also be strategic (e.g., use of complex technical words in a confidential work to preventits understanding even if “”plain” reading) and/or encrypted to prevent their identification and/or theirreading.

- Social dimension :

- Inclusive or exclusive : Whether open (i.e., accessible to anyone) or discriminating (e.g., aclassified document designed to be accessed and interpreted by a specific category of individuals orgroups of individuals).

This design can be strategically exploited by the observed representamen's creator(s)/right holder(s) inorder to leash and condition the individual's deduction about it, wit inherent expectations, i.e., thevirtual pole of his relation to it. The observation process can be strategically conditioned (via influenceand manipulation techniques, technical and legal restrictions,...) to be incomplete if the observed

94

representamen has been designed to prevent it. For example, a SaaS' intrinsic design makes theexploration of its possibilities impossible, via the prevention of fundamental practices such as reverse-engineering (Stallman, 2012).

As digital closed/depriving representamens forbid the individuals to try to understand theircomposition and functioning, their only legal interpretation is based on their “incomplete” observationand manipulation (e.g., via inputs – outputs,...) of their user-interface. A closed and deprivingrepresentamen is thus designed to be interpreted partially, i.e., only with the official informationsprovided by its creator(s)/rights holder(s). The “deprived” observers are thus not intended/allowed toobserve it outside the defined “official paths”, and thus develop an incomplete interpretation of theobserved representamen's nature. They are legally forced (for getting other informations than theofficially provided ones is considered illegal) to blindly trust the official informations provided by itscreator(s)/rights holder(s). Zimmermann (2014), Stallman and Falkvinge (2013) thus all consider thatclosed/depriving programs are inherently deceptive and defective and should not be trusted. Only Freeprograms (common goods respecting the user's fundamental freedoms) have to be considered for atrusted digital experience.

The representamen's can imply a “design's model”. This concept was introduced by Johnson-Laird(1986) in his book Mental Models and became a crucial concept in HCI (Human-ComputerInteraction). Norman (1990) defines it in Design of Everyday Things as the idea that a user has of asystem based on his interactions with it. He states that people form mental models through experience,training, and instruction. Dix, et al. (1993) state that mental models are often partial : the person doesnot have a full understanding of the working of the whole system. They are unstable and are subject tochange. They can be internally inconsistent, since the person may not have worked through the logicalconsequences of their beliefs. They are often unscientific and may be based on superstition rather thanevidence. However, often they are based on an incorrect interpretation of the evidence. Frasca statesthat the key of this definition is in the words “incorrect interpretation” : “Semiotics only analyzesinterpretations : it does analyze signs as it, independently on what were the intentions of the entity thatemitted it. On the other hand, HCI's goal is to make sure that the designer's intentions match the user'sinterpretation. In other words, that the user's mental model is identical to the design's model. However,HCI theorists’ idea of interpretation of simulations heavily relies on the designer’s intention. Theyusually pay attention to what the author meant and not on what is interpreted by the observer.”Similarly, Eco (1979) has presented the concept of a “model reader” that the author has in mind whencreating his work. The “model reader” is an ideal reader that is “supposedly able to dealinterpretatively with the expressions in the same way as the author deals generatively with them.”

The mental model concept fits the virtual pole of an individual's objectal relation to a representamenwe have analyzed. Like the virtual pole, it is often biased and based on affects, cognitions and habitsabout it (Tisseron, 2012), likely to evolve and induce new actualized models. Mental models andpreconceptions, similar to prejudices, are likely to induce a discrimination toward the observedrepresentamen (e.g., refusal to integrate elements likely to induce a cognitive conflict). A too muchrigid mental model/categorization process (based on prejudice) can weaken the individual's perception

95

and adaptation to his familiar semiotic environment as well as his ability to express creativity on it, viaa freezing of his interpretative process. This prejudice and categorization of the observedrepresentamen can be, just like social categories, developed unconsciously by an individual tooptimize the mobilization of his limited cognitive resources and favor the production of meaning fromhis environment. This conditioning can also be favored by influence and manipulation techniques (e.g.,exploited in branding strategies) aiming at crystallizing the individual's attitudes toward specificobjects and by a“blind trust” toward the object and its designer(s) likely to favor his cognitivedependence and the conditioned interpretative process (interpretamen and interpretant).

Nielsen (1995) emphasizes ten general principles for interaction design, probably one of the most wellknown set of usability guidelines105 :

- Visibility of system status : The system should always keep users informed about what is going on,through appropriate feedback within reasonable time;

- Match between system and the real world : The system should speak the users' language, with words,phrases and concepts familiar to the user, rather than system-oriented terms. Follow real-worldconventions, making information appear in a natural and logical order;

- User control and freedom : Users often choose system functions by mistake and will need a clearlymarked "emergency exit" to leave the unwanted state without having to go through an extendeddialogue. Support undo and redo;

- Consistency and standards : Users should not have to wonder whether different words, situations, oractions mean the same thing. Follow platform conventions;

- Error prevention : Even better than good error messages is a careful design which prevents aproblem from occurring in the first place. Either eliminate error-prone conditions or check for themand present users with a confirmation option before they commit to the action;

- Recognition rather than recall : Minimize the user's memory load by making objects, actions, andoptions visible. The user should not have to remember information from one part of the dialogue toanother. Instructions for use of the system should be visible or easily retrievable whenever appropriate;

- Flexibility and efficiency of use : Accelerators -- unseen by the novice user -- may often speed up theinteraction for the expert user such that the system can cater to both inexperienced and experiencedusers. Allow users to tailor frequent actions : Aesthetic and minimalist design;

- Dialogues should not contain information which is irrelevant or rarely needed. Every extra unit ofinformation in a dialogue competes with the relevant units of information and diminishes their relativevisibility;

- Help users recognize, diagnose, and recover from errors : Error messages should be expressed inplain language (no codes), precisely indicate the problem, and constructively suggest a solution;

- Help and documentation : Even though it is better if the system can be used without documentation,

105 http://www.nngroup.com/articles/ten-usability-heuristics/

96

it may be necessary to provide help and documentation. Any such information should be easy tosearch, focused on the user's task, list concrete steps to be carried out, and not be too large.

These principles are called "heuristics" because they are, according to Nielsen, more in the nature ofrules of thumb than specific usability guidelines. They also emphasize fundamental principles we havealready analyzed, such as control and freedom for the user, as well as strong documentation and socialsupport in order to enrich his “mental model” and favor his experience with the system, as well as his“enlightened trust” toward it.

Frasca states that for an individual to discover new states of an observed dynamic representamen (e.g.,a Transformer toy, with each state standing for different source objects), i.e., to fully experience it, heneeds to apply a specific rule of behavior : “In order to fully appreciate the toy you need somethingmore than the mere object : you need a rule of behavior. In this case, the rule is “if you performcertain movements, your toy will change its state”. Without that rule, the toy is simply a robot; with it,it becomes a Transformer, a dual state toy.” The manipulation of both the observed representamenand of the context of observation (independent variables) are thus necessary to develop an optimalrelation/experience to it).

Frasca gives another example with the Calder's mobiles : “Calder's mobiles can be pretty immobile ifthere is a lack of wind. Therefore, the perception of the mobile itself, as a representamen, will varydepending on the amount of wind of a particular moment (or in the ability of the observer to producewind or push the structure to make it move).” Thus, “an observer who sees a Calder's mobile withoutwind would consider it simply as a statue, without learning its ability to move. The interpretamen inthis case will be different to the one of an observer that can see it moving, even if their interpretation(interpretant) is similar or different.” The perception of the object (as representamen) can thus varydepending on the context of observation (e.g., a statue observed on a sunny, cloudy or rainy day) or onthe observer's ability to manipulate this context/environment, i.e. to manipulate independent variablesto enlarge and make the observation process more accurate. The rule of behavior can constitute anecessary mean to optimize the interpretation process via a complete observation of therepresentamen and the development of a richer interpretamen considering the representamen's entirepossibilities reflected in its dynamic design. Frasca then assumes that the more different theindividuals' interpretamen of an observed representamen (e.g., a text), the more different theirinterpretant (e.g., the book the read and interpreted text stands for) is likely to be.

We will emphasize, as we will analyze in detail later, that a work in movement's design can be whetherclosed/depriving, open/depriving or Free. We will also extend Norman and Eco's paradigms aboutmental models, by integrating the technical and legal dimensions of the systems, for we consider theyconstitute major components and issues of the interpretative process.

1.7. The complete observation and experience with a digital representamen

The individual's complete relation to a system is defined whether by its relation to the interface(interaction via input – output) and to its source code. The access and possibility to enrich the code

97

(granted if Free nature) is necessary to actualize new possibilities/functionalities on the user interface,i.e., enrich the representamen's reality. The observation of a digital system can thus whether be partial(simple relation to the GUI) or complete (relation to both the source-code and the GUI). Thecomplete observation (requiring the right to access the source-code, i.e. open nature) is necessary toensure the system's viability and explore his possibilities by manipulating its interface (GUI) andcomparing it to the code in order to enrich its interpretation (interpretamen) as whether viable/trustfulor deceptive/treacherous system.

Jordan Mechner (2014), creator of Prince of Persia, emphasizes the importance of the analysis of adigital program's source-code, in order to develop a rich interpretation of its development process andof its creators' intentions106 :

Video game source code is a bit like the sheet music to a piano sonata that’s already beenperformed and recorded. One might reasonably ask: If you have the recording, what do youneed the sheet music for?

You don’t, if all you want is to listen and enjoy the music. But to a pianist performing the piece,or a composer who wants to study it or arrange it for different instruments, the original score isvaluable.

It’s possible, up to a point, to reverse-engineer new source code from a published video game,much as a capable musician can transcribe a musical score from listening to a performance. Butin both cases, there’s no substitute for the original document as a direct line to the creator’sintentions and work process. As such, it has both practical and historical value, to the smallsubset of the game-playing/music-listening community that cares.

Oliver (2012), one of the Critical Engineering team's member, emphasizes the benefits of thefundamental “right to read” : “Finally there is the right to read. Software which allows its source codeto be read innately benefits learning; I can study other people's code, or even the code of the tool I'musing, to work with it in undocumented, unintended ways or use what I learn to improve my ownsoftware. I can't imagine not having the right to read the software I'm using.” The acquisition ofinformation/knowledge to enrich the interpretation can also so be optimized via an efficient collectiveintelligence process (especially if open and decentralized) and a collective reading as part of a well-managed analytic process (from the strategic intelligence methodology we have analyzed). It is alsonecessary to optimize the hacking practice, via the understanding of the observed representamen'srules and principles, in order to disobey to them and explore the limits of its possibilities (Müller-Maghun, 2013).

1.8. Metadata to enrich the interpretation of a digital representamen

According to the USGS (United States Geological Survey), metadata describe information about a

106 http://jordanmechner.com/blog/2012/04/source/

98

dataset, such that a dataset can be understood, re-used, and integrated with other datasets. Informationdescribed in a metadata record includes where the data were collected, who is responsible for thedataset, why the dataset was created, and how the data are organized. Metadata generally follow astandard format, making it easier to compare datasets and to transfer files electronically. Metadatathus refer to the data providing information about one or more aspects of the data, such as :

- Means of creation of the data;

- Purpose of the data;

- Time and date of creation;

- Creator or author of the data;

- Location on a computer network where the data were created;

- Sandards used.

The USGS emphasizes several key-points about metadata :

- Metadata create longevity for data;

- The use of metadata is necessary to understand and re-use data;

- Access to searchable metadata helps avoid data duplication and reduces workload;

- Metadata enables the sharing of reliable information;

- Metadata transcend people and time;

- Data are not complete without a metadata record.

For example, a digital image may include metadata that describe its resolution, its date of creation, itsauthor, the tool used to create it, etc while a text document's metadata may contain information aboutits length, its author, its date of creation, as well as a short summary. They can constitute anopportunity to enrich the interpretative process, as well as a major threat for the individuals' privacy ifnot well managed. They can thus :

- Allow to detect and interpret some contradictions between the author's public attitudes and hisprivate one. For example, a logo designed by a Free software activist can reveal, when inspection ofthe metadata, that it was actually designed via a closed/depriving software, i.e., in total contradictionwith his official values;

- Favor the identification of an author, who would not want his identity to be revealed. A clearexample comes from François Fillon, French Politician who created a Twitter account under thepseudonym @fdebeauce. The inspection of the avatar's picture profile allowed internauts to identifythis individual behind the account, the precise location of the place the picture was taken as well aspersonal informations such as his mail address.107

107 http://www.lesinrocks.com/2011/12/28/actualite/les-malheurs-de-fillon-sur-twitter-continuent-114779/

99

- They can allow to develop a clear understanding about the individual's activities, even without havingaccess to the document the metadata refers to. This last point is really important, as demonstrates theEFF campaign against NSA surveillance called “Why metadata matter” (see Annexe 1). They thusemphasize the fact that even if the NSA does not have the legal right to access digital contentsproduced by an individual or a group of individual, it is perfectly possible for this organization, as wellas for any third-party intercepting these contents, to develop a clear understanding and richinterpretation of these individuals' activities.

1.9. Deceptive designs and mental models of a digital representamen

A digital representamen's deceptive design can be observed both in its code and content dimensions. Aprogram's GUI108 is usually designed to be attractive and intuitive, but is less rich in information thanthe program's source code, with comments from developers favoring its interpretation (Stallman,2012). Its “clean” nature can be strategic to favor the individual's focus on really few informations andfavors his use of the system by not being overwhelmed with too much informations about the system(in accordance to Nielsen's heuristic principles). This technique can however also be used to deceivethe user, by favoring the development of a simple interpretamen and weakens his interpretativeprocess by luring his observation : while the program's GUI is composed of only a few “official”elements, its source-code might actually host many hidden malicious features such as DRMs,backdoors or trackers.

The mental model of a digital system is usually formed largely by the interpretation of its perceivedactions (outputs) and its visible interface (UI). Frasca emphasizes that the designer's usual goal is toreduce the distance between the representamen and the interpretamen. We will consider that this goalcan concern both deceptive by design (closed/depriving and DRMized programs) or viable (open orFree ones) and can be achieved whether via :

- Deception/disempowerment : With closed/depriving technical and legal dimensions favoring acognitive dependence toward the representamen's official informations, i.e., a “blind trust” toward it,or strong branding strategies aiming at conditioning the interpretation process, via a crystallization ofattitudes toward the representamen109; or

- Empowerment : Via an open or Free nature, allowing the individuals to develop a rich and accurateinterpretation of the representamen's reality.

The design's model of the system can thus aim at deceiving the user and exploit his trust toward thesystem in order to favor the exercise of power/control over him by the system's true owner. Severaltechniques can be used such as :

- The illusion of ownership : the individual believes he has a legal control over it, whereas therepresentamen's rights are entirely owned by the entity commercializing it (e.g., a digital file

108 “Graphical User Interface”.109 We will analyze it later.

100

purchased on a silo110);

- The illusion of control : Master/slave relation, with the representamen exercising an abusive controlover a voluntarily deprived and alienated individual (cognitive and legal dimensions);

- The illusion of viability and security : with “blind trust” and the exploitation by the representamen'sdesigner(s)/rights holder(s) of deceptive terms to qualify it such as “trusted computing” or “secureboot”,...;

- The illusion of freedom : The individual falsely believes he is granted freedom via therepresentamen. This perception can be favored via manipulation techniques exploiting it to favor thevoluntary compliance to the representamen's rules;

- The illusion of distinctiveness : The individual perceives and interprets the representamen as“unique”, whereas it is actually a generic and standardized object. This perception can be favored viaan efficient branding strategy protecting a specific identity we will analyze more in detail further.

The interpretamen can moreover possess some constraints necessary to consider in order to optimizethe observation and interpretation processes. Constraints to be considered can come from :

- Specific unconscious features shaping the individual's experience : Tailored experience with theobserved representamen, e.g., “filter bubble”;

- The individual's limited cognitive resources : Favoring the categorization process, with inherentprejudice and discrimination phenomena;

- The creative framework111 (Ancel, 2006) : Likely to shape the interpretation via a potential alienationto the reality (Lévy, 1995).

The intimate understanding of a system, as core part the hacking philosophy is thus necessary todevelop a rich and accurate interpretamen, as well as develop defenses against potential attempts ofabuses from the observed representamen's designer(s)/right(s) holder(s). The full understanding of itspossibilities can only be achieved via the reverse-engineering practice and is fundamental to anticipateits potential future behaviors, such as the exercise of an arbitrary automatized censorship of contentsor the sending of personal data to unknown third-parties.

1.10. Reverse engineering as mean to enrich the interpretamen

Reverse-engineering constitutes a core part of the semiotic hacking philosophy. This fundamentalpractice is fed and stimulated by a strong curiosity and will to explore the observed representamens'limits of their possibilities. As we said, the deceptive design of a representamen can be definedwhether on its code (e.g., via DRMs and “officious design”) or on its content (“dark pattern” we willanalyze further). Without the access and reading of the source-code, the individual's interpretamencan not be complete and accurate. The interpretation process is thus dependent (informational point of

110 We will analyze this issue later.111 Concept we will analyze later.

101

view) on the closed/depriving representamen's designer(s)/rights holder(s), and is likely to be moreeasily influenced and manipulated by them through this representamen. It thus can be used, asStallman (2012) states, as a “tool of power” against the user.

The reverse-engineering practice can thus allow to understand the observed representamen's rules andprinciples, i.e., develop freedom over it, via the possibility to exercise a more important control bydisobeying to them in order to create something new (e.g., by virtualizing the representamen andactualizing new states/uses based on new defined rules).

The FAT Lab (2012) emphasizes the importance of reverse-engineering for the exercise of creativity :“With the Free Universal Construction Kit112, we hope to demonstrate a model of reverse engineeringas a civic activity: a creative process in which anyone can develop the necessary pieces to bridge thelimitations presented by mass-produced commercial artifacts. We hope that the Kit will not onlyprompt people to create new designs, but more importantly, to reflect on our relationship with materialmass-culture—and the rapidly-evolving ways in which we can better adapt it to our imagination.”Laurent Bloch (2014), researcher in cyber-strategy at the Institut Français d'Analyse Stratégique(IFAS) emphasizes that using something without knowing how it works is the definition ofunderdevelopment. Learning how digital and technical systems work is thus necessary to not beunderdeveloped.113

Reverse-engineering is thus necessary to develop and exercise a true freedom (via knowledge) overdigital representamens, as well as to understand the new issues of the digital world such as the current“law is code” technological paradigm. It can also be used to decrypt and understand the strategies usedby the program's creator(s) in order to abuse the user, such as :

- Commercial strategies aiming at luring the user : For example, a videogame integrating in its source-code voluntary locked and hidden characters, so the entity commercializing it can incite the players topay (via a DLC) in order to “unlock” them.114;

- Informations about the representamen's future possibilities : For example, the Injustice : Gods AmongUs videogame whose source-code inspection by players allowed them to discover the names of futureplayable characters115;

This practice can also allow to discover old informations/elements initially defined but not kept in therepresentamen's official version, such as designed but abandoned levels in a videogame.

Reverse-engineering, like the manipulation process defined by Aarseth (2007) is however onlyefficient if the individual gets really engaged into a decision-making process that will affect hisexperience with the system. This engagement is necessary to produce meaning from the new elementshe observes and interprets during this practice (i.e., producing meaningful informations andknowledge likely to enrich his interpretation). This cognitive process thus requires specific skills in

112 Creation we will analyze in detail later.113 http://www.lemonde.fr/economie/article/2014/07/01/laurent-bloch-la-france-est-en-train-de-rater-la-troisieme-revolution-industrielle_4448233_3234.html?utm_source=dlvr.it114 http://www.gamespot.com/articles/capcom-explains-street-fighter-x-tekken-on-disc-dlc/1100-6364712/115 http://www.gamespot.com/forums/topic/29381942/injustice-gods-among-us-4-dlc-characters-revealed

102

order to decrypt and understand the observed representamen's “officious design”, via for example themeaningful interpretation of malicious features.

This fundamental practice is however more and more ignored by the individuals, who develop rigidrepresentations and expectations based on familiarity and blind trust toward attractive devices designedto be interpreted with a leashed/conditioned virtual pole of the relation to them. In an interview givento the rhizome.org website116, Oliver (2012) analyzes the phenomenon of internalization of theclosed/depriving softwares' inherent norms and values by the users of these programs, and how itaffect their relation to them : “We think through tools both before and while we use them and themore we depend upon a tool the more we are changed by it. In the software space, certain ideologiesand expectations have become deeply rooted. People expect their tools to be 'intuitive', 'seamlessly'interoperating with other tools. They expect them to look 'sexy', what ever that means. Thissymptomatically asserts that not seeing what's going on 'under the hood' is always good and genericuser interface standards is always desireable."

Oliver, Savičić and Vasiliev (2011) developed a new philosophical movement, largely inspired by thehacking, cypherpunk and Free philosophies, called the Critical Engineering, in which they highlightthe importance for contemporary society of using and manipulating technologies. They wrote amanifesto where they define its ten core principles117:

0. The Critical Engineer considers Engineering to be the most transformative language of ourtime, shaping the way we move, communicate and think. It is the work of the Critical Engineerto study and exploit this language, exposing its influence.

1. The Critical Engineer considers any technology depended upon to be both a challenge and athreat. The greater the dependence on a technology the greater the need to study and expose itsinner workings, regardless of ownership or legal provision.

2. The Critical Engineer raises awareness that with each technological advance our techno-political literacy is challenged.

3. The Critical Engineer deconstructs and incites suspicion of rich user experiences.

4. The Critical Engineer looks beyond the 'awe of implementation' to determine methods ofinfluence and their specific effects.

5. The Critical Engineer recognises that each work of engineering engineers its user,proportional to that user's dependency upon it.

6. The Critical Engineer expands 'machine' to describe interrelationships encompassing devices,

116 http://rhizome.org/editorial/2012/sep/5/artist-profile-julian-oliver/117 http://criticalengineering.org/

103

bodies, agents, forces and networks.

7. The Critical Engineer observes the space between the production and consumption oftechnology. Acting rapidly to changes in this space, the Critical Engineer serves to exposemoments of imbalance and deception.

8. The Critical Engineer looks to the history of art, architecture, activism, philosophy andinvention and finds exemplary works of Critical Engineering Strategies, ideas and agendas fromthese disciplines will be adopted, re-purposed and deployed.

9. The Critical Engineer notes that written code expands into social and psychological realms,regulating behaviour between people and the machines they interact with. By understanding this,the Critical Engineer seeks to reconstruct user-constraints and social action through means ofdigital excavation.

10. The Critical Engineer considers the exploit to be the most desirable form of exposure.

These principles emphasize fundamental issues we have already analyzed, such as :

- The importance of controlling the technology instead of being controlled by it;

- The necessity to understand its rules and principles in order to exercise freedom;

- The necessity of a critical and reflexive relation to the technology;

- The importance of connection between several “worlds of knowledge” in order to stimulate creativityand produce a “cross-fertilized knowledge”.

However, a representamen can, as we said, be designed to make the reverse-engineering practiceimpossible (e.g., a SaaS with distant and strongly restricted relation to it). In this case, the leak ofconfidential information (Assange, 2006) becomes the only mean to develop an accurateunderstanding of a closed/depriving program. The potential debate, like the worldwide one generatedafter Swnowden's revelations. can also favor a regulation from entities exercising control over theirusers' program via deceptive by design programs. For example, Microsoft decided to promote a newtransparency policy after the presence of backdoors in their system's source code 118), in order topreserve their users' trust. Closed hardware, such as the iPhone is thus opposed from a design andphilosophical point of view to open hardware (e.g., Raspberry Pi119). These devices are thus designedto condition and inhibit/leash the semiotic process via their closed/depriving nature. We are now goingto analyze a specific kind of deceptive design : the “dark pattern”.

118 http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/02/03/microsoft_to_build_transparency_centres_for_source_code_checks/119 For example, this website dedicated to the hacking of the hardware : http://raspberrypi-hacks.com/

104

1.11. Dark patterns

According to Brignull, et al., (2013), “A Dark Pattern is a type of user interface that appears to havebeen carefully crafted to trick users into doing things, such as buying insurance with their purchase orsigning up for recurring bills. Normally when you think of “bad design”, you think of the creator asbeing sloppy or lazy but with no ill intent. This type of bad design is known as a “UI anti-pattern”.Dark patterns are different – they are not mistakes, they are carefully crafted with a solidunderstanding of human psychology, and they do not have the user’s interests in mind.” The collectivestates that “The thing about Dark Patterns is that you design them from the exact-same rulebooks thatwe use to enhance usability.”

This definition fits perfectly the HCI's concept of mental model as well as our “deceptive by design”paradigm we have analyzed. Dark patterns are thus strategically designed to deceive the individuals, byexploiting influence and manipulation techniques in order to condition their interpretation of thesystem, i.e., their virtual pole of their relation to it, with conditioned expectations and preconceptions.The goal is thus to exploit their cognitive weaknesses in order to exercise an abusive power over them.

Harry Brignull (2013), Independent User Experience Designer, gives a clear example by analyzing adark pattern in the iOS operating system120:

“Let’s start with a little game. In iOS, there’s an ad tracking feature that allows advertisers toidentify you (albeit anonymously). It’s turned on by default. Let’s see if we can work out how toturn it off together. Go into your settings and scroll down. (…).

We’ve found it! Even better, it says “Limit ad tracking off”. So ad tracking is off already. I’m notbeing tracked, thank goodness. But wait a minute. It doesn’t say “Ad tracking – off” it says“Limit ad tracking – off”. So it’s a double negative. It’s not being limited, so when this switch isoff, ad tracking is actually on. Off means on! This is actually a great example of what I define asa Dark pattern. It’s a user interface that uses manipulative techniques to get users to do thingsthey would not otherwise have done.

Here are the several kinds of dark patterns the collective behind the website darkpatterns.orgemphasizes121 :

- Bait and Switch : The user sets out to do one thing, but a different, undesirable thing happensinstead. This is one of the oldest tricks in the book, and it is very broad in nature – many dark patternsinvolve some kind of bait & switch;

- Disguised Ads : Adverts that are disguised as other kinds of content or navigation, in order to getusers to click on them;

- Faraway Bill : Utility companies traditionally sent out monthly bills by snail mail, but today they tendto put them online – leading to bills that are rarely seen and easily forgotten. How you receive your

120 http://www.90percentofeverything.com/2013/07/23/the-slippery-slope/121 http://darkpatterns.org/

105

bills is framed by companies as a choice between “offline” and “online”, but is in fact also a decisionof “push” versus “pull”. With snail mail bills, you received a detailed breakdown each month. Withonline bills, few companies will email you the detailed breakdown, citing security concerns. Instead,you have to remember to log in, then go through the tedious process of navigating to your most recentbill. As a result, a certain proportion of people just don’t bother – and as a result they forget about thecosts of the service, and aren’t able to react unexpected additions to the bill;

- Forced Continuity : The user signs up for a free trial on a website, and in doing so they are requiredto enter their credit card details. When the trial comes to an end, they automatically start getting billedfor the paid service. The user is not given an adequate reminder, nor are they given an easy and rapidway of cancelling the automatic renewal. Sometimes this is combined with the Sneak into Basket darkpattern (as alleged in the Vistaprint class action lawsuit.). This dark pattern was previously known as“Silent Credit Card Roll-over” but was renamed since the term “forced continuity” is alreadypopularly used in Marketing;

- Forced Disclosure : In return for a free or low-cost action, the site requires the user to discloseextensive personal information – unnecessary to the transaction in-hand;

- Friend Spam : A site or game asks for your Twitter or email credentials (either via the passwordantipattern or via OAuth for an allegedly benign purpose e.g. finding friends who are already usingthat service), but then goes on to publish content or send out bulk messages using your account – i.e.from you. This technique is commonly used by viruses – but even well-known companies sometimesengage in “friend spam”;

- Hidden Costs : A hidden cost occurs when a user gets to the last step of the checkout process, only todiscover some unexpected charges have appeared, e.g. delivery charges, tax, etc;

- Misdirection : The attention of the user is focused on one thing in order to distract its attention fromanother;

- Price Comparison Prevention : The attention of the user is focused on one thing in order to distractits attention from another;

- Privacy Zuckering : “The act of creating deliberately confusing jargon and user-interfaces whichtrick your users into sharing more info about themselves than they really want to.” (As defined by theEFF). The term “Zuckering” was suggested in an EFF article by Tim Jones on Facebook’s “EvilInterfaces”. It is, of course, named after Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg;

- Roach Motel : The “Roach Motel” is a broad category of Dark Pattern that subsumes most typeslisted on this site. Put simply, a Roach Motel makes it very easy for a user to get into a certainsituation, but then makes it hard for them to get out of it when they realize it is undesirable. Emailnewsletter unsubscription is a well known example – whereby it is typically easy to subscribe, butmuch more effort is needed to unsubscribe. The revised CAN-SPAM 2008 rules state that thispractice is forbidden for emails that have a primary purpose “to advertise or promote a commercialproduct or service”. (Unfortunately, CAN-SPAM does not cover “transactional or relationship”

106

messages);

- Road Block : When the user’s progress to task completion is restricted or stopped by something elseon the screen;

- Sneak into Basket : The user attempts to purchase a specific item. However, somewhere in thepurchasing journey the site sneaks an additional item into their basket, often through the use of an opt-out radio button or checkbox on a prior page;

- Trick Questions : The user is required to respond to a question (typically in the checkout process),which, when glanced upon quickly appears to ask one thing, but if read carefully, asks another thingentirely. This pattern works because it is normal for users to employ high-speed scan-reading on theweb – see Steve Krug: ”We don’t read pages. We scan them.“).

These several kinds of dark patterns highlight classical techniques of mental conditioning, such as thecapture of the individual's attention in order to favor the unconscious overlooking of key - elementslikely to disrupt his interpretation of the observed representamen, as well as his positive cognitiverelation to it. Influence and manipulation techniques such as foot-in-the-door or abscons trap can alsobe used, based on the scaling of commitment toward the system, via the production of more and morecommitting actions to favor the crystallization of the individual's attitudes toward it as well as theprobability of future behaviors in its favor.

The individual's mental model, via the crystallization of his attitudes due to his free compliance andhis unconscious overlooking of potentially compromising “sign-vehicles” (likely to trigger dissonantthought signs inducing a cognitive conflict, i.e., uncertainty and instability), can thus be easily shapedand conditioned. The awareness about these techniques is thus the best way to defend against them,i.e., to optimize the development and exercise of freedom (with inherent control) over these deceptivesystems. Just like reverse-engineering is a fundamental practice to meaningfully observe and interpreta closed/depriving representamen (code dimension), the “deconstruction” of these influence andmanipulation techniques are fundamental to not be deceived by the observed representamen's content.The individual thus has to exercise his freedom, which inherently induces disobedience according toBeauvois (2011). This freedom has to be necessarily optimized via the development of knowledgeabout both the observed representamen's deceptive nature with specific techniques likely to beexploited by its creators and of the potential “cognitive flaws” likely to be exploited by them.

We are now going to analyze another kind of deceptive digital system : the online lures.

1.12. Online lures

Assange (2014) analyzes the online lures, while proposing an interesting solution to solve thisproblem : “The basic internaut uses cryptographic tools every day without even knowing it. Thus, ifyou register your password on the Amazon website or that of your bank, there is behind the log -in anextremely common cryptographic technology, called HTTPS.” He then emphasizes fundamental issueof the cyberspace : “When you connect to a site , such as the CIA's, how can you be sure that it is the

107

site of the CIA and not a lure? The answer is in the machine : your Internet browser – let's say Firefox– possesses, prerecorded, cryptographic keys or certificates for about sixty private companies, whosefunction is to provide the cryptographic keys to all other sites. In theory, this works perfectly in thebest of all worlds. In practice, the sixty private companies that manage the allocation of cryptographickeys are themselves imperfect ; it happens that some of them, corrupted, deliver false certificates, orsome cryptographic keys are pirated and therefore false certificates are manufactured with them. Inother words, the certification system has many defaults.”

Netcraft, an internet services company based in Bath, England, highlights this risk coming from themanufacturing of false certificates, and emphasizes a major problem coming from a currenttechnological trend represented by the use of closed/depriving “apps” : “ The fake certificates bearcommon names (CNs) which match the hostnames of their targets (e.g. www.facebook.com). As thecertificates are not signed by trusted certificate authorities, none will be regarded as valid bymainstream web browser software; however, an increasing amount of online banking traffic noworiginates from apps and other non-browser software which may fail to adequately check the validityof SSL certificates.” They add that researchers from Stanford University and The University of Texasat Austin found broken SSL certificate validation in Amazon's EC2 Java library, Amazon's andPayPal's merchant SDKs, integrated shopping carts such as osCommerce and ZenCart, and AdMobcode used by mobile websites. A lack of certificate checks within the popular Steam gaming platformalso allowed consumer PayPal payments to be undetectably intercepted for at least 3 months beforeeventually being fixed.122

Once again, this highlights the major risk of using not viable closed/depriving programs which can notbe audited and corrected by an open and decentralized worldwide community in case of flaw likely tobe exploited by potential attackers. The use of Free and richly supported/documented web browsers,such as Firefox or Chromium, is thus fundamental to decrease this risk inherent to the cyberspace.

Online lures can however not only be created by private entities. Newstweek is a clear example of howeasy online information and digital systems can be manipulated by anyone to deceive individuals andexploit their trust in order to abuse them and exercise a control over their interpretation process. It is adevice designed by Oliver and Vasiliev (2011), two members of the Critical Engineering core team.Here is how the official website of the project defines it 123:

Newstweek is a device for manipulating news read by other people on wireless hotspots. Builtinto a small and innocuous wall plug, the Newstweek device appears part of the localinfrastructure, allowing writers to remotely edit news read on wireless devices without theawareness of their users.

While news is increasingly read digitally, it still follows a top-down distribution model and thusoften falls victim to the same political and corporate interests that have always sought to

122 http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2014/02/12/fake-ssl-certificates-deployed-across-the-internet.html123 http://newstweek.com/

108

manipulate public opinion.

Newstweek intervenes upon this model, providing opportunity for citizens to have their turn tomanipulate the press; generating propaganda or simply 'fixing facts' as they pass across awireless network. As such, Newstweek can be seen as a tactical device for altering reality on aper-network basis.

Newstweek also signals a word of caution, that a strictly media-defined reality is a vulnerablereality; that along the course of news distribution there are many hands at work, from ISPworkers, numerous server administrators and wireless access point owners.

Moreso, with the increasing ubiquity of networks and their devices comes greater ignorance asto their function, offering a growing opportunity for manipulation of opinion, from source todestination.

In a nutshell, this invention can be defined as “a small innocuous wallplug allowing anyone to remotelymanipulate news read by other people on wireless networks” and aims at exploiting journalists' trustand deceive them in order to manipulate them by conditioning their informational environment fed bymajor online sources. It has thus been designed to raise awareness about the easy manipulation ofinformation and the important issue represented by a “blind trust” toward mainstream informationalsources. The danger constituted by a “strictly media-defined reality” can be connected withSchneidermann's paradigm about independence we have analyzed, based on the necessity todisconnect from the mainstream “media circus” in order to develop a cognitive sovereignty. Thisdisconnection is thus necessary to not be influenced and conditioned by the “agenda setting”phenomenon. The doubt and questioning of the informational sources (core part of the culture ofintelligence) is also necessary to optimize the cognitive resistance against potential abuses or strategiesof disinformation or propaganda orchestrated by media corporations.

Assange also analyzes two fundamental questions to be considered during an exchange of digital filesvia the internet network :

- How to be sure of the viability of the document?

- How to be sure that this document has not been intercepted by a third-party in order to modify itscontent?

For him, the only viable answer resides in the use of cryptography. It is thus possible to give aninviolable cryptographic signature to a document, that guarantees its authenticity. He thus depicts hiscurrent ambitious project to solve this major problem : the diffusion on the internet network ofinalterable informations (i.e., with impossibility to modify their source-code), protected from anyprivate or public interventions.

The representamen's design can thus be strategically deceptive (intended by its creator(s)), in order tolure the users and condition their interpretation as well as their behaviors toward it. Its

109

closed/depriving and deceptive design, especially if coupled to an aggressive legal policy from itsrights holder(s) such as legal bullying124, can favor the individual's internalization of its official rulesand weaken its virtualization to exercise creativity on it. In other words, it can condition the“colonized” individual's (cognitive dimension) interpretation and leash its scientific observation125, byalienating him to these official rules. This alienation to the observed representamen's “official reality”is likely to condition the individual's expectations (i.e., virtual pole) toward it. The leashed/conditionedobservation (e.g., via restricted manipulation/experimentations or the impossibility to access therepresentamen's composition) can strongly weaken the potentiality of unexpected discoveries aboutthe representamen's features likely to threaten the conditioned interpretation. It thus can decrease thepotentiality of cognitive restructuring toward it via an enriching and development of a rich, complexand accurate interpretamen (i.e., closed to the representamen's “objective” nature, e.g., with bothunderstanding of its official and officious design).

A critical relation to an observed digital representamen is thus fundamental in order to decrease therisk of deception and manipulation, likely to condition the interpretative process. The permanentquestioning, coupled to a rich knowledge about the different potential risks in the digital world, is thusnecessary to optimize the reading process we re about to analyze.

2. The reading processReading is a complex process including a combination of perceptual, psycholinguistic and cognitiveabilities (Adams, 1990; National Institute of Child Health and Human Development [NICHHD],2000). We will consider the reading process within both the physical and the digital world for eachpossesses, as we will see, specific characteristics and issues. We will also try to demonstrate theimportance of considering the social, technical and legal dimensions in this process, for they constitutefundamental parts of it.

124 Technique we will analyze further.125 With specific processes e will analyze later.

110

2.1. Semantic fields, inference, mental models and reading strategies

Let's first consider Eco's “open work” analysis we have introduced earlier. For him, an open work is atext which is not limited to a single reading or range of readings; it admits complexity (…) andactually encourages or requires a multiplicity of readings. He gives as example musical compositionsby Stockhausen and Boulez in which the score requires the performers to make choices or interpretthe score in their own manner. He also cites texts which on the surface are more traditional : “InKafka the reader relates to the text on the level of metaphor but without a clear mapping ofmetaphors. There is no fixed symbolism by which to unlock the meaning of Gregor Samsa’smetamorphosis. In Joyce’s Finnegan’s Wake he describes that the use of puns to set up ambiguities.”Eco argued, in Opera Aperta (1962), that literary texts are fields of meaning, rather than strings ofmeaning, that they are understood as open, internally dynamic. Those works of literature that limitpotential understanding to a single, unequivocal line are the least rewarding, while those that are mostopen, most active between mind and society and line, are the most lively.

Lévy (1995) analyzes the reading process, by emphasizing the individual's personal cognitiveengagement, necessary to develop an efficient reading : “Such is the work of reading : from linearity orinitial flatness, this act of tearing, wrinkling, twisting, sewing the text opens up a living environment.The space of meaning does not preexist to the reading. This is by exploring it, mapping it, that weproduce it, that we actualize it.”. The virtualization - actualization dynamic is thus necessary tooptimize the reading process, by actualizing new interpretative possibilities and exploring newsemantic fields/ranges of reading.

He adds : “The passages of the text virtually maintain a match, almost an epistolary activity, that weactualize somehow, by following or not the author's instructions. Factors of the text, we travel fromone edge of the space of meaning to the other, by being helped by the system of addressing andpointers whose author, publisher, typographer have marked. But we can disobey the instructions, takeshort cuts, produce forbidden folds, build secret and clandestine networks, make other semanticgeographies emerge.”

This analysis of the reading process fits perfectly the hacking philosophy, which places disobedienceto the official rules at the core of the expression of creativity. The disobedience to the interpreted“official rules of reading” defined by the author and potentially the rights holder(s) (if different) is thusnecessary to exercise freedom and explore new semantic fields, i.e., exercise creativity via the V – Adynamic, as well as enrich the representamen's meaning by reframing the classic mental model.

As we said, Eco (1979) emphasized the concept of “model reader”, which corresponds to an idealreader that is “supposedly able to deal interpretatively with the expressions in the same way as theauthor deals generatively with them.” On the same basis, we will emphasize a “problematic reader”,which will refer to a reader developing, consciously or not, a dichotomous or at least discordant mentalmodel about a work, which threatens its author's intended model, via the potential influence andmanipulation strategies deployed to favor the matching. The problematic reader of a closed/static workwill thus be an individual who disobeys (consciously or not) its official interpretative rules explicated

111

in its “strings of reading” to virtualize the text and actualize a potential infinity of new interpretations.Conversely, the problematic reader of an open work will be an individual who rigidly interprets theopen nature of the read work as “internally static”, with one single intended “official” interpretation.This individual, by focusing and sticking too much, for example, to the words instead of the meaning(“poor reader” according to Anastasiou and Griva, 2009) might thus not produce the intendedpsychological engagement in his process, and not exercise the intended freedom and creativity. Thealienation to the text's official interpretative rules (e.g., if designed static work and intended rigidmental model), can thus be prevented by the adoption of a “problematic reading” approach, based onthis disobedience and the exploration of new semantic fields and interpretative potentialities likely tobe actualized.

The read text can thus be “hacked”, according to Stallman's definition. The individual can freelyexplore the limits of the text's designed “semantic structure” in order to develop and enrich his“cognitive map” likely to be exploited and constantly improved (e.g., via collective intelligence) tooptimize his navigation process. This cognitive process is in a way similar to the students' explorationof the roofs and tunnels of the MIT campus where this philosophy was born. The taste for exploration,necessary to explore the “semantic off-piste” (i.e., outside the official tracks defined by the author(s))and part of the “reader's model”) also fits perfectly Franceschi's spirit of exploration we have analyzed.Thus, the individual's love for cognitive uncertainty, non-conformism (e.g., different from themajority's mental model) and “risk” (inherently induced by the disobedience to the interpreted text'sofficial rule) can strongly optimize the individual's cognitive exploration and navigation processes. Itcan also favor the discovery of initially unexpected interpretative potentialities likely to be actualizedin new original possible ones. Moreover, this actualization is likely, if expressed publicly, to generate acognitive conflict likely to induce innovation within a social group.

Guthrie and Wigfield (1999) emphasize that the readers’ involvement in the text is of crucialimportance since they should develop, modify and even reflect on all or some of the ideas displayed inthe text. This emphasis of the importance of psychological engagement in the reading process issimilar to the manipulation process, as defined by Aarseth (2007). The reader thus has to mobilize andefficiently manage his cognitive resources in order to optimize his reading and interpretative process.This is fundamental to discover the “internally dynamic” nature of an open text as well as to optimizeits “symbolic” cognitive appropriation and its enriching via an “unleashed” V – A dynamic leading tothe actualization of new interpretations/meanings stimulating the semiotic process. The individual thushas, to optimize his reading process (i.e., unleash the exploration of its possibilities as well as thecreation of new ones) to freely manipulate, transform (Murray (2007), “disrupt” and enrich the readtext (BNF, 2014). All these fundamental processes for the exercise of freedom and creativity in thisprocess require, as we will see, a favorable “creative framework”.

2.1.1. Inference and mental models

The inference is a logical operation, i.e., an “educated guess” that an individual makes based on theinformation which he perceives and interprets, combined with his own experience. The individual's

112

inferential process while reading is based on the interpretation of “textual evidences” triggering it.Textual evidences refer to specific informations within a text that we use to support our inferences.Inference is based on the individual's culture and experience, which has to be exploited to develop andoptimize his interpretative process. As we will see, the inferential process and the mental modelconcept we have analyzed earlier are intrinsically bound. The inferential process can be composed ofthe inductive, deductive and abductive ones126.

Textual evidences and clues voluntarily left by the author to orient the interpretative process in thedirection of his work's “design's model” can be whether obvious or pretty subtle, depending on hisintentions toward it. It can also involve the assumption of a fundamental culture for the reader topossess and mobilize in order to fully understand the referential evidences (i.e., characteristics of theauthor's “model reader”). For example, the author can voluntarily assume that the reader of his text,which is a part of a global story, has initially read his previous works in order to detect and understandthe references to them via subtle hints. Evidences can thus be used by the author to orient the reading,via the emphasis of clear or vague directions, i.e., as pointers and markers to indicate whether clearlyor vaguely the “semantic path” likely to be followed or “hacked” in order to develop an accurate orpersonal/subjective (if intended) interpretation. The detection of these evidences is thus fundamentalfor the reader to develop a rich and accurate interpretamen matching the text's design's model. AsCharles Eames (designer, architect and film director) states, "The details are not the details. Theymake the design.”

However, not all detected “textual evidences” might actually constitute fundamental elements tointerpret correctly in order to develop an accurate interpretation of a work. Some might have been leftunconsciously and involuntarily by the author, and might be correctly interpreted as giving keys ofunderstanding about the work's “meta-textual context”. Let's thus consider a reader who particularlyappreciates a specific author. This reader learns, by watching an interview given by this author, thatthis individual has a particular affection for straw hats for he usually interprets them (purely personaland arbitrary convention) as standing from the “freedom” value. The reader thus integrates thisparticular information in his knowledge about the author. He then reads one of the author's bookincluding the reference to a straw hat that has apparently no real importance in the story. He thenmight interpret this reference to this object not as a textual evidence aiming at helping and orientinghis interpretation process, but as the expression of the author's unconsciousness during his writingprocess. This inference can be strengthened by the reader's supposition that the object's purelyconventional signification is not known by anyone, except the individuals who might have watched thesame interview (idea comforted by the low number of view on the website it was uploaded). In otherwords, he assumes (personal interpretation) that this detected evidence is hardly probable to be anactual part of the work's “design's model” developed and intended by the author.

We will also assume that the inferential process can be influenced by the individual's feeling offreedom in his reading and interpretation. Thus, a reader is likely to develop a reactance phenomenonif feels threatened in his interpretative freedom, via for example the perception and detection of too

126 We will analyze these processes later.

113

much explicit “strings”, “trails” and “pointers” left by the author as too much “rigid” (Lévy, 1995;Eco, 2000). This reader might thus interpret these evidences as a will from the author to condition andleash his interpretation of a work, i.e., his reading process. The preservation of a certain perceivedfreedom to explore new personal interpretative paths can be favored by the use of inferential texts(i.e., designed to open up new creative possibilities via its suggestive/open nature). The individualmight also interpret these explicit evidences as a sign of despise from the author, who does notconsiders his readers as capable enough to correctly interpret his work without clear signs. As we said,culture, but also knowledge and experience, is fundamental for the reader to optimize his readingprocess. We will thus assume that the higher the individual's culture, knowledge about the read textand reading experience (i.e., good reader with reading strategies we will analyze further), the higherhis degree of freedom over his interpretation process. In other words, the more “distinctive” and“subjective” nature of the individual's mental model, the higher his exercised freedom toward the readtext's “design's model”, via a conscious or unconscious disobedience to its official rules, i.e., the lessrisk of alienation to its reality, via an unleashed virtual pole of his relation to it. The not matching cangenerate frustration from both the author and the reader. For example, Jonathan Blow, game-designerand creator of Braid, declared that he was disappointed that certain hints he had left in his work hadnot been remarked and interpreted by the players and the journalists.

Poetry is a good example of “dynamic textual representamen” (i.e., designed to stimulate theinferential process) as a poet thus usually tries to say a great deal with little words. This characteristicsbrings us to emphasize the obvious connection between this particular literary style and the hackingphilosophy : hacking, like poetry, focuses on efficiency in the creative process. Stallman (2012) thusemphasizes that one of computer hackers' hobby is to write an “efficient” code, i.e., complex actionswith as few command as possible. He thus qualifies some poets and composers, like Guillaume deMachaut, as hackers. Jim Morrisson also emphasizes the intrinsically dynamic nature of poetry : “Realpoetry doesn’t say anything ; it just ticks off the possibilities. Opens all doors. You can walk throughanyone that suits you.” Aesthetics, at the core of both poetry and the hacking philosophy, isemphasized by Jay Hoffman (2012), who states that “Beauty can be found in complex systems thatare driven by simple principles.”

According to Trachan and Terry (2000), specific poetic styles such as metaphor, simile or metonymcreate a resonance between otherwise disparate images—a layering of meanings, forming connectionspreviously not perceived. The several defined meanings of interpretation (i.e., dynamic representamen)are thus part of the same “design's model”.

We will emphasize three specific poetic genres that seem to illustrate efficiently our analysis :

- The allegory : According to Bedford/St. Martin's, it is “A whole world of symbols. Within anarrative form, which can be either in prose or verse, an allegory tells a story that can be readsymbolically. Interpreting an allegory is complicated because you need to be aware of what eachsymbol in the narrative refers to. Allegories thus reinforce symbolic meaning, but can also beappreciated as good stories regardless of their allegorical meaning.” In a nutshell, an allegorical poemhas two meanings : a literal and a symbolic one. An allegorical story is a narrative having a second

114

meaning beneath the surface one. It is thus deigned to grant the reader the possibility to freely explorethe text's actualized “vast semantic fields”, while making a potential infinity of connections andactualizing new meanings and interpretations. It can also be used to propose a work accessible to anykind of readers, via the possibility of whether “simple” or “complex” (i.e., cognitively demanding)interpretations;

- The metaphor : A metaphor is a figure of speech that describes a subject by asserting that it is, onsome point of comparison, the same as another otherwise unrelated object. In other words, it is afigure of speech that compares two unlike things without using like or as. Richards, in The Philosophyof Rhetoric (1936), describes a metaphor as having two parts : the tenor and the vehicle. The tenor isthe subject to which attributes are ascribed, and the vehicle is the object whose attributes areborrowed. Cognitive linguists such as Lakoff (1980; 2003) and Kövecses (2002) emphasize thatmetaphors serve to facilitate the understanding of one conceptual domain, typically an abstract onelike "life" or "theories" or "ideas", through expressions that relate to another, more familiar conceptualdomain, typically a more concrete one like "journey", "buildings" or "food". According to Kövecses(2002), “A convenient short-hand way of capturing this view of metaphor is the following : conceptualdomain (A) is conceptual domain (B), which is what is called a conceptual metaphor. A conceptualmetaphor consists of two conceptual domains, in which one domain is understood in terms of another.A conceptual domain is any coherent organization of experience. Thus, for example, we havecoherently organized knowledge about journeys that we rely on in understanding life.” Metaphor ishowever not necessarily linguistic. Metaphors can thus also map experience between two nonlinguisticrealms. Blechner (2001), in The Dream Frontier, describes musical metaphors in which a piece ofmusic can "map" to the personality and emotional life of a person. Musicologist Leonard Meyer(1956) demonstrated, in Emotion and Meaning in Music, that purely rhythmic and harmonic eventscan express human emotions. As we will see, the use of metaphor will be really useful to optimize the“hybridization of knowledge” process;

- Irony : Partridge (1997), in Usage and Abusage, writes that "Irony consists in stating the contrary ofwhat is meant.” Fowler (1926) states that the use of irony may require the concept of a doubleaudience : “Irony is a form of utterance that postulates a double audience, consisting of one party thathearing shall hear and shall not understand, and another party that, when more is meant than meets theear, is aware both of that more and of the outsiders' incomprehension. This analysis is prettyinteresting, for it emphasizes the consideration for two possible “mental models” from the readers, i.e.,the consideration of two categories of individuals exposed to the same representamen but developing adichotomous interpretation, with the second category likely to discriminate the first one. We will alsopresume that the hacking philosophy and its “playful cleverness” can also optimize the use, as well asthe detection, of irony.

The “poetic attitude” is likely to be applied to many different creative activities, and can allow theindividual to stimulate his creative intelligence, by getting used to unleash his interpretative process, aswell as his V – A dynamic, via an optimized mobilization of his cognitive resources and culture. Openworks, designed to favor the diversity of interpretations via a dynamic nature triggering, if efficiently

115

interpreted, vast and rich “semantic fields”, can thus constitute ideal genres to stimulate the readers'creativity ans well as favor their cognitive engagement in the reading process. In this sense, poetry thusfits perfectly the semiotic hacking philosophy, for it is designed to be interpreted as standing forseveral possibilities (i.e., the different “layers of meaning” defined by the author) and is likely to beenriched by a potential infinity of new ones, via its intrinsic virtualizing nature. Miller, from SuffolkUniversity, emphasizes that exploring the patterns created by the formal elements of literature helpsthe reader to understand more deeply a text’s meaning and the nuances that enrich that meaning, andthat is kind of formal close reading of the text is fundamental to any analysis of literature.

2.1.2. Code is poetry

One famous slogan within the computing domain is “Code is poetry”. Ishac Bertran, interactiondesigner and artist whose work revolves around the relationship between people and technology,compares code and poetry, by emphasizing their respective characteristics127:

- Poetry is considered a form of literary art in which language is used for its aesthetic and evocativequalities. It contains multiple interpretations and therefore resonates differently in each reader;

- Code is the language used to communicate with computers. It has its own rules (syntax) andmeaning (semantics). Like literature writers or poets, coders also have their own style that include -strategies for optimizing the code being read by a computer, and facilitating its understanding throughvisual organization and comments for other coders.

Hoffman (2012) emphasizes the definite structural similarities128 :

When writing code, a good programmer knows to indent a line in order to show a childhierarchical connection to the line that precedes and follows it. Parenthetical statements indicatethat a function can be unpacked and extended, thus giving it more a more select purpose. In theDickinson poem, every other line is indented, so a sort of echo and response hierarchy is givento the words. Italics are used for emphasis, a rough highlight as your eye passes them by, givingthem a special meaning, just like the parentheses in our code. (…) But deeper down the rabbithole we go. Read the Dickinson poem out loud. One of the nice things of well written poetry isthat it has a flow. Everything just feels like it is in the right place. As you read through, yourwords jump naturally from one line to the next. When we are coding, this should be our goal aswell. Each line connects to the one above it, and bridges it to the next. A good programmer canread through a well crafted Loop and feel that same sense of kineticism. Poetic flow is differentfrom prose because it is not determined simply by grammatical structure, but by the way eachword naturally bounces to the next, unveiling something more essential through theirjuxtaposition.

Code has the same effect; each function, each coding phrase infuses with the words around it to

127 http://code-poems.com/index.html128 http://torquemag.io/code-poetry/

116

create meaning. Each line, juxtaposed with the next, is able to do something that neither coulddo on its own. But they must connect naturally, and flow into one another. Sounds poetic, right?

Hoffman also develops his “microscopic bits of art” concept, by comparing code to typography :

Just like typographers, programmers deal with indexical symbols that we piece together aslogically as we can. Like the letters of Bringhurst’s prose, these microscopic bits of art havemeaning all on their own, be it a function, a conditional statement or even a HTML header tag.But the beauty of these symbols comes when they are assembled together into a meaningfulstructure. A process that sounds simple, but is in fact wonderfully complex.

He then emphasizes the power of inspiration that code can generate in potentially anyone's mind :

Coding standards exist for a reason, and if you follow them, you will find that you will not onlyachieve a beautiful poetic flow, but code won’t even feel like code. Instead, it will be a sort ofopaque expression and inspire an implicit understanding even for someone who has never seen aline of code in their life. The beauty of the code exceeds the restricted domain of coders anddevelopers, but can reach anyone who has no coding skills or notions.

He finally states that design is all about solving problems, and that coding rests on the same process :

You will probably hear more than once in your life that design is all about solving problems.Well it turns out that so is code. For each problem we may face, there are likely dozens ofpossible solutions. So much so, that it can often be overwhelming. It’s easy to rush into gettingstarted, and open up a dozen tabs with different Google searches all of which suggest a differentsolution. But instead, embrace the poetic process. Think about the realm of possibilities that liebefore you, and choose the one that feels most natural. Before you begin, choose which door youare drawn to. It will be much easier to walk through. Thus, for each problem an individual islikely to face, there are likely dozens of possible solutions. This multiplicity in the solutions islikely to be overwhelmingly if not well managed and dealt with the proper “poetic” attitude. (…)So now, when you go to sit down to write your own code, consider flow, consider thesignificance that lies between the lines. Work towards connecting microscopic bits of art to buildsomething that not only proposes a solution, but creates meaning in it’s own right.

In a nutshell, the poetic process aims at simply, beautifully and efficiently describing complex“semantic systems” designed to trigger (once meaningfully interpreted) vast “semantic fields” likely tobe freely explored and potentially hacked by “good readers” (Anastasiou & Griva, 2009). The “poeticattitude”, as part of the hacking philosophy, can thus strongly stimulate the individual's creativeintelligence, likely to favor his hacking practice, i.e., his search for creative and original solutions to aspecific problem (Manach, 2012). This attitude can also favor the “problematization” of the observed“solution” (Hoffman, 2012; Lévy, 1995) and the actualization, via an “unleashed” V – A dynamic, of abrand new one.

117

The focus on the need to describe simplistically and efficiently complex systems can be related to thehybridization of knowledge's core characteristic, which resides in the vulgarization of complexscientific works in order to facilitate their meaningful reading/cognitive appropriation by non-scientistsand favor the co-construction of a rich meaning fed by this “cross-fertilized” intelligence. The work onvulgarization thus shares some strong similarities with the poetic process, for it aims at :

- Favoring the individuals' interest to the vulgarized knowledge : Requires an important work onattractiveness (e.g., via the use of widely appreciated conventional signs);

- Favoring the understanding of complex concepts by potentially anyone : Requires the use of specificevidences, widely recognized and understood, likely to trigger meaningful interpretations;

- Favoring the co-construction of knowledge and collective creative process : Optimized with a “goodreader” (used to engage cognitively with a text) possessing a vast and rich culture (favors the semanticexploration process) and disinhibited in his reading process. This disinhibition is fundamental tooptimize the hacking practice and the enriching of the work, via the actualization of new possibilitiesof interpretation and the creation of new ones).

Beauty, as inherent characteristic of poetry, favors the individuals' ability to be attracted(attractiveness), interested (stimulates their curiosity, necessary for expressing creativity), surprised oreven amazed. These effects are likely to stimulate the individuals' cognitivo-perceptive system, byfavoring its attention on the element, its observation, analysis and potential will to make the initialpoem even more beautiful or adapted to his own subjectivity. The dynamic and virtualizing nature ofthe poem can also stimulate his imagination and his consideration of potential original connectionslikely to be actualized (core part of creative intelligence and hacking). It can thus favor the creation ofcomplex and original compositions whose combination can produce deep and rich meanings andinterpretations likely to reflect, if expressed, the reader/author's personality.

However, the interpretative process can be influenced or conditioned by the privatization/colonizationof the individual's mind which is likely to shape a rigid and “depriving” process. In other words, it canbe weakened by a leashed objectal relation to the observed representamen129 as well as theinternalization of cognitive restrictions such as “mental DRMs or “cognitive silos” weakening thepotentialities of connections between “conflicting” intellectual properties via the reduction of thecultural diversity. The creative framework, i.e., a favorable context, is fundamental for the readingprocess to be optimal.

2.1.3. Inference and strategic intelligence

Inference also plays a major role in the analytic process, as core part of the strategic intelligencedefined by Besson and Possin (2001). More precisely, it plays a fundamental role in :

- The decisional process : Via the interpretation of weak signals to anticipate phenomena and takeefficient decisions in order to get prepared to them;

129 We will analyze this major issue later.

118

- The fight against disinformation : Via the detection of specific evidences likely to favor thedevelopment of an accurate mental model toward the observed deceptive representamen. Thisdetection is based on Besson and Possin's advices to recognize disinformation, and requires to beoptimal a good knowledge about the potential disinformers as well as a good experience in the analyticprocess;

- The prediction phase : Inference prediction process (Besson and Possin, 2001). The collectiveintelligence can also be fundamental for the development of a rich and accurate understanding of acomplex representamen such as a film or a videogame.

The collective reading, as basis of the analytic process, is fundamental to enrich the inferentialprocess, via the potential integration of new interpretative possibilities from a collective intelligence,which will be optimized if open and decentralized in order to benefit from a multi-cultural, i.e., richerprocess. Paris, Wasik and Turner, 1991) add that in reading, especially in reading comprehension,readers have been found to employ a wide range of strategies, while they are engaged incomprehending text, since reading comprehension “involves conscious and unconscious use of variousstrategies, including problem solving strategies to build a model of meaning” (Johnston, 1983). We arenow going to analyze the reading strategies likely to be used to optimize the reading process.

2.1.4. Reading strategies

According to Pereira-Laird and Deane (1997), strategy is conceived as a deliberate goal-directedaction, which can be either conscious, unconscious or automatic. More precisely, reading strategieshave been defined as specific, deliberate, goal-directed mental processes or behaviours, which controland modify the reader’s efforts to decode a text, understand words and construct the meaning of a text(Garner, 1987; Afflerbach, Pearson, & Paris, 2008). Reading strategies have been usually classifiedinto three broad categories, depending on the level or type of thinking processing involved : cognitive,metacognitive and social affective strategies (Chamot, 1987; O’Malley & Chamot, 1990). The goal-directed action, as core part of the reading strategy shares some similarities with Franz and Mallot'sparadigm about navigation we will analyze further, as well as Sandri's analysis of serendipity andabduction processes in order to optimize the hypertextual navigation and the problem-solving process.The concepts of crystallized and fluid intelligence will also constitute an important part in the theanalysis of these strategies.

Anastasiou and Griva (2009) emphasize that cognitive strategies involve direct “interaction” with thetext and contribute to facilitating comprehension, operate directly on oncoming information andmanipulating it in ways that enhance learning. Under the heading cognitive strategies can be classifiedthe following ones : ‘underlining', ‘using titles’, ‘using dictionary’, ‘writing down’, ‘guessing from thecontext’, ‘imagery', ‘activating prior knowledge’, ‘summarizing’, ‘using linguistic clues’, ‘using textmarkers’, ‘skipping the difficult parts’ and ‘repeating words or phrases’. These different strategies fit, aswe said, the concepts of manipulation as defined by Aarseth (2007) and the psychological engagementwith the text in order to discover potentially dynamic “states” (i.e., defined/intended interpretativepossibilities) and develop a rich and accurate understanding of the text's “design's model”.

119

These different cognitive strategies involve key-concepts we will analyze further, such as :

- The importance of a rich culture to favor the understanding (i.e., develop a mental model inaccordance to the design's one) as well as the exercise of freedom over the read text (stimulates theV – A dynamic);

- The importance of a well developed and sustainable memory (Besson and Possin, 2001), regularlyenriched and exploited in order to enrich the reading process as well as stimulate the V – A dynamicvia the providing of pertinent questions about the read text. This virtuous cycle is thus likely to attractnew answers and enrich its analysis and interpretation, as well as the unexpected discoveries enrichingthe reading process;

- The importance of the right to manipulate the text (whether if physical or digital support) to favor its“cognitive appropriation”. We will add the right to do it “anonymously” in order to decrease the risksof social influences and self-censorship likely to leash/weaken or prevent the manipulation process;

The cognitive strategies can however be conditioned/restricted via techniques such as :

- The integration of DRMs in the text preventing its unrestricted and disinhibited manipulation andenriching without restriction (i.e., denied “right to read and write”) and anonymously (Stallman, 1996,Lessig, 2001; Ertzscheid, 2011);

- The internalization of “mental DRMs” and “cognitive silos” : Favoring the unconscious restriction ofthe interpretative process;

- A strong branding strategy : Conditioning the reading process.

Several techniques are thus likely to be exploited by the author(s)/rights holder(s) in order toorient/condition the reading process. As we have analyzed with dark patterns, specific works can bedesigned to attract and monopolize the readers' attention on specific areas/evidences in order to favorthe overlooking of potentially compromising informations/evidences likely to compromise the work's“design's model” if meaningfully interpreted. For example, the use of complex words standing for (ifcorrectly interpreted) compromising elements likely to threaten the potential influence andmanipulation strategies integrated in the work's design. Strategies of “mental defenses” can thus beintegrated in the “arsenal” of the cognitive strategies likely to be deployed in the reading process.

Metacognitive strategies are higher order executive tactics that entail planning for learning,monitoring, identifying and remediating causes of comprehension failure or evaluating the success of alearning activity; that is, the strategies of ‘”self planning”, “self-monitoring”, “self-regulating”, “self-questioning” and “self-reflecting” (Pressley & Afflerbach, 1995; O’Malley & Chamot, 1990).Metacognitive strategies involve planning, monitoring, and evaluating that take place before, during,and after any thinking act such as reading. In contrast, cognitive strategies refer to integrating newmaterial with prior knowledge. In other words, cognitive strategies/skills are necessary to perform atask, while metacognitive strategies are necessary to understand how the task has been performed(Garner, 1987; Schraw, 1998), as they involve both the awareness and the conscious control of one’sleaning. Demetrious uses the term hypercognition to refer to self-monitoring, self-representation, and

120

self-regulation processes, which are regarded as integral components of the human mind.

According to Snow, Burns, and Griffin (1998), skilled readers are good comprehenders. They differfrom unskilled readers in “their use of general world knowledge to comprehend text literally as well asto draw valid inferences from texts, in their comprehension of words, and in their use ofcomprehension monitoring and repair strategies” (p. 62). Pressley and Afflerbach (1995) pointed outthat skilled readers approach the reading task with some general tendencies. For example, they tend tobe aware of what they are reading; they seem to know why they are reading; and they have a set oftentative plans or strategies for handling potential problems and for monitoring their comprehension oftextual information.

Unskilled readers (typically young developing readers and some inexperienced adolescents and adults),on the other hand, are quite limited in their metacognitive knowledge about reading (Paris &Winograd, 1990). They do relatively little monitoring of their own memory, comprehension, and othercognitive tasks (Flavell, 1979; Markman, 1979) and tend to focus on reading as a decoding processrather than as a meaning-getting process (Baker & Brown, 1984). In addition, they are less likely thanskilled readers to detect contradictions or resolve inconsistencies in understanding text.

Anastasiou and Griva (2009) confirmed this analysis via an experience which demonstrated that goodreaders generally use more frequently meaning-oriented reading, while poor readers adopt a word-centered model of reading, try to process word meaning rather than trying to comprehend and retainthe meaning of the text. Thus, they report less frequently certain ‘demanding’ cognitive strategies, suchas guessing from the context, activating prior knowledge, using imagery, keeping meaning in mind, aswell as strategies based on linguistic features of the text.

A too much “rigid” mental model, based on cognitive certainty and stability and a “leashed virtual”pole of the relation to the observed representamen can favor the reader's alienation to its “design'smodel”, via a perfect matching between the reader's model and his triggered interpretation (i.e.,without any expression of his personality and subjectivity in it). Metacognitive strategies are thusfundamental to truly optimize the reading process, for they can favor the individual's mental resistanceagainst potential influence and manipulation strategies, via an awareness of his own potentialbiases/flaws conditioning his reading while processing it. These strategies can thus allow the reader todevelop a better awareness and understanding of his cognitive relation to the read representamen.They can thus, for example, allow him to “unlock” the individual's interpretation process, by “settinghim free” from his initial alienation (e.g., via crystallized attitudes) to the representamen's “rigidreality”, i.e., to its internally static nature/design's model. They are thus, especially if the readingprocess is practiced collectively, to prevent or at least decrease the risk of a standardization of theinterpretations as well as a majority pressure toward potentially “divergent” readers if the uniformedinterpretations are expressed publicly. Reading strategies can also be optimized by specificmethodologies designed to stimulate the critical and reflexive approach in the reading process, such asthe question – answer cycle emphasized by Besson and Possin (2001) we have analyzed. Thismethodology can thus allow to strengthen not only the production of meaning from the read text, butalso “around it”, via the potential discovery of initially unexpected informations about its context or

121

from other representamens enriching it once connected. The connection between several differentinterpretations of the text, in order to potentially discover some similarities and connections likely toenrich the reading process, can also be used as an interesting reading strategy to stimulate the creative“off-piste” interpretation.

Reading strategies can, if well exploited, strongly enrich and strengthen the analytic process. They canalso be useful to optimize the creative and inventive intelligences (via an optimized V – A dynamicand “problem-solving") and can be enriched via the use of methodologies from the strategicintelligence process. The development and recurrent exploitation of strategies involving both cognitiveand metacognitive awareness can help the individuals/groups to strengthen their understanding of theirinterpretative process. In other words, reading strategies can favor the resistance against potential“informational attacks”, by developing a “problematic” mental model not matching the observed text's“reader's model”. The doubt and questioning of specific “evidences” can thus help favor the detectionof potential strategies of disinformation (via repetition and other techniques defined by Besson andPossin, 2001), i.e., to “short-circuit” them. A strategic and critical approach both toward the readinformation (via necessary doubt and pertinent questioning) and the potential individual and/orcollective cognitive biased/flaws likely to be exploited by a disinformer in order to orient/conditiontheir interpretation (i.e., psychic virtual reality) is thus necessary.

3. The navigation process

3.1. The cognitive navigation within the semantic space

As Lévy (1995) states, the reading process is about tearing, wrinkling, twisting and sewing the text inorder to open up a living environment, and the actualization of a space of meaning via its explorationand mapping. This process thus requires an active cognitive engagement in the process, as our analysisabout reading strategies emphasized. He also describes the reader's cognitive travel from one edge ofthe space of meaning to the other, by being helped by the system of addressing and pointers whoseauthor, publisher, typographer have marked.

Franz and Mallot (2000) define navigation as "the process of determining and maintaining a course ortrajectory to a goal location". It is also the term used for the specialized knowledge used by navigatorsto perform navigation tasks. All navigational techniques involve locating the navigator's positioncompared to known locations or patterns. For Rell Pros-Wellenhof (2007) it can refer in a broadersense to any skill or study that involves the determination of position and direction. Some people thususe measures of distance and absolute directional terms (north, south, east, and west) in order tovisualize the best pathway from point to point.

Tolman's (1948) postulated the existence of a cognitive map, internalized in the human mind which isthe analog to the physical lay-out of the environment, and argues that information impinging on thebrain is "worked over and elaborated....into a tentative cognitive like a map of the environmentindicating routes and paths and environmental relationships.” Dillon, et al. (1990) emphasize thatmany theorists agree that the acquisition of navigational knowledge proceeds through several

122

developmental stages from the initial identification of landmarks in the environment to a fully formedmental map. The identification of landmarks will thus refer in our analysis to the detection andinterpretation of the system of addressing marked by the different individuals involved in the creationof the representamen, as emphasized by Lévy. The reader thus has, to build and actualize his cognitivemap with its inherent “semantic space”, likely to be explored on a leashed or unleashed cognitiveapproach, and “skeleton framework” composed by his knowledge and experience about therepresentamen and his identification of the textual evidences orienting his interpretation process. Thisbuilding and actualization can be optimized via the use of reading strategies and a strong cognitiveengagement.

The individual's cognitive map shares some strong similarities with the mental model concept , definedby Norman (1990) as the idea that a user has of a system based on his interactions with it. As Normanemphasizes, the individuals form mental models through experience, training, and instruction. Dix, etal. (1993) state that mental models are often partial, unstable and subject to change. Mental modelsare thus, like cognitive maps, developed and enriched by the reader's knowledge about the observedrepresentamen and his experience based on his interaction with it (as defined by Lévy, 1995). Dillon,et al. (1990) state that according to Tolman's cognitive map concept, we represent knowledge in termsof highly salient visual landmarks in the environment such as buildings, statues, etc. Thus werecognize our position in terms relative to these landmarks. (...) This knowledge provides us with theskeletal framework on which we build our cognitive map.

The “skeletal framework” of the cognitive map thus constitutes the core of the individual's mentalmodel developed about the observed representamen. It can be whether rich or poor, wide or narrow,partitioned (with delimited and discriminated semantic areas) or global (potential interconnection ofsemantic areas, from the text or from other works in order to enrich it). Schema can be defined asmental model of aspects of the world or of the self that is structured in such a way as to facilitate theprocesses of cognition and perception130. We will interpret this analysis as emphasizing the individual'scategorization process developed consciously or not in order to facilitate the meaningful observation ofa representamen, in accordance to his limited cognitive resources. This can induce, in the case of theactualization of a cognitive map, to phenomena such as a discrimination toward specific elements inorder to preserve a “meaningful” (i.e., certain and comfortable) interpretation. The observation andinterpretation of always the same perceived evidences can thus favor the unconscious overlooking ofother ones likely to trigger new thought-signs (via different sign-vehicles than the ones already used inthe semiotic process) and enrich the interpretation. The practice of the creative and inventiveintelligences can however favor the fight against this potential risk for creativity.

The exploration and mapping (via the “active” reading) of the actualized space of meaning thusdevelops the individual's mental model, which is unstable and subject to change via the integration ofnew informations/knowledges in his cognitive map. This characteristics emphasizes the instability ofhis attitudes (cognitive dimension) about the observed representamen, and his potential change ofperspectives in his observation process as described by Tezuka and Tanaka (2013).

130 http://www.thefreedictionary.com/schema

123

Lévy (1995) precises that we can disobey the instructions, take short cuts, produce forbidden folds,build secret and clandestine networks and make other semantic geographies emerge. Lévy's analysisthus emphasizes two possibilities of interpretation toward the observed representamen's “design'smodel” :

- Obedience to the official interpretative rules : Favoring the reader's leashed virtual pole of hisrelation to the observed representamen and a possible, if too much conditioned interpretative process,alienation to its official design;

- Disobedience : Via the exploration of new actualized paths fed by personal culture and originalconnections between works,...Short-cuts and alternative semantic paths, outside the official trackdefined by the observed representamen's design's model (requires its accurate understanding in orderto be “hacked”).

The reader's goal (inspired by the “goal-directed action” characteristic of the navigation process) isthus for the reader to develop, via the efficient interpretation of the “landmarks” (i.e., evidences), ameaningful and rich interpretation/mental model matching or not the observed representamen'sdesign's model (whether static or dynamic). This goal thus depends on his will and project (as part ofhis virtual pole of the objectal relation to the text. It can thus be, for example :

- To develop a rich and accurate mental model matching the representamen's design's model;

- To exercise creativity toward it : Via the disobedience to the interpreted official rules.

Disobedience is thus necessary to open up new paths likely to be explored and favor the enriching ofthe interpretation via the actualization of new possibilities and a widening of the semantic space, viathe emergence of new semantic geographies/areas likely to be freely explored to actualize newpossibilities and enrich the interpretative process. The individual's relation to the text is likely to bereframed via the V – A dynamic, discriminating (e.g., via “cognitive silos” and discrimination betweenknowledges/cultural references) or neutral (via open-mindedness and “serendip attitude likely to favorthe discovery and the integration of new disruptive cognitions likely to favor the cognitiverestructuring and an innovation within the actualization of new interpretative possibilities within thecognitive map).

As we said, the system of addressing marked by the author(s) and the other individuals involved in therepresentamen's creation, aim at orienting the individual's perception (e.g., via influence strategies)and interpretation, in order the reader's mental model to match the representamen's design's one. Thestrings of meaning (Eco, 1969), defined in a static representamen, are thus likely to be whetherfollowed “blindly” (i.e., without any personal engagement) or disobeyed to exercise freedom on theinterpretative process. The sewing of the text as well as the “mashup” and “disruption” of the observedrepresentamen (Kauffman, 2014; BNF, 2014) can favor the exercise of creativity and theenriching/transformation of the cognitive map. We will presume that the richer the unexpectedconnections between “semantic areas/fields” (e.g., via connection between different “worlds ofknowledge” sharing the same lexical and/or semantic fields), the more original the interpretation of the

124

text.

Tezuka and Tanaka (2013) analyze sightseeing, and emphasize that “In sightseeing, tourists eithertravel along a tour course or stroll around. Although tourists using a tour course will not miss popularplaces of interest, they have less of a chance of finding unexpected spots. In contrast, strolling touristshave more chances to encounter unexpected spots or events.” According to them, sightseeing involvesboth well-known and little-known places of interest. Tourists on a regular course can visit well-knownspots efficiently, while unguided tourists can also check out little-known places. Based on this analysis,we will emphasize that the author can orient, like with sightseeing, the observer's attention on specificevidences (as part of his work's design's model) via the use of specific strategies. These strategies can,for example, aim at avoiding the potential observation of disruptive elements (i.e., likely to induce acognitive uncertainty and a potential restructuring compromising the representamen's design's model).

The content's context (i.e., of the observed representamen's context) can enrich, according to Tezukaand Tanaka (2013) the viewer's experience, by extending his interest and relating different topics. Thisanalysis emphasizes the possibility the individuals have to reframe their relation to the observed world,via the changing of perspectives optimized via a new engagement in their objectal relation. They canthus take new directions (i.e., outside their usual paths) in order to explore new semantic routes. Their“skeletal framework”, fed by their knowledge and experience about the observed representamen, islikely to be reframed in order to favor its permanent enriching. Tezuka and Tanaka also emphasizethat sightseeing tourists are able to change perspectives by checking maps, view, scenery or makeclose observations of the place of interest. This analysis emphasizes the possibility for the individualsto enrich their interpretation process, via :

- A reframing of the observed representamen : For example, via a new cognitive engagement andmanipulation process (led by another rule of behavior,...). This can stimulate the actualization of newinterpretative possibilities (i.e., via new paths and directions), of new semantic areas, via theactualization of new connections and directions enriching the exploration of the limits of therepresentamen's possibilities. This process can be favored by a disinhibited objectal relation to theobserved representamen and an unleashed V – A dynamic;

- The use of collective intelligence : Represented by the use of a map, i.e., of other individuals'interpretation of the same observed representamen. Optimized if open and decentralized process.

The individual's permanent “reframing” can thus be useful to unleash the navigation process and theenriching of the cognitive map as well as the widening of the actualized semantic spaces.

Let's now consider navigation methods likely to be used by readers/observers. Navigation methodshave been defined by Andreano and Carill (2009), who emphasized two basic methods :

- Allocentric navigation : Is beneficial primarily in large and/or unfamiliar environments. Thisnavigation strategy relies more on a mental, spatial map than visible cues, giving it an advantage inunknown areas but a flexibility to be used in smaller environments as well;

- Egocentric navigation : Relies on more local landmarks and personal directions (left/right) to

125

navigate and visualize a pathway. This reliance on more local and well-known stimuli for finding theirway makes it difficult to apply in new locations, but is instead most effective in smaller, familiarenvironments. More optimal for certain and stable environments and for resolution of problem task(structured).

These two methods are likely to characterize the readers/observers cognitive patterns used,consciously or not, to navigate within their cognitive map.

Let's first consider the egocentric navigation. This method can be favored by the individual's followingof the interpreted official landmarks, for example to preserve his cognitive certainty and comfort in hisinterpretative process. This “official” and familiar interpretation, based on the representamen's officialinterpretative rules, is likely to favor the individual's crystallization of the attitudes toward theobserved representamen, i.e., an alienation to its defined reality weakening his ability to actualize newpossibilities. The egocentric cognitive navigation is thus likely to favor the cognitive certainty, stabilityand comfort and weaken the risk of unexpected discoveries necessary for innovation (e.g., via thediscovery of unexpected paths/directions). It can thus weaken the chance of taking new paths anddirections likely to enrich the interpretation process as well as the cognitive maps.

The egocentric navigation can also favor the monotonic inferential relation to the observedrepresentamen131. The individual's will to not get personally engaged in his interpretative process canbe a reason of his adoption of an egocentric navigation, via a voluntary disempowerment toward theobserved representamen based on the “blind” following of its interpreted official rules/design's model.We will presume that the egocentric cognitive navigation, is based on inductive or deductiveinferences, increasing the individual's certainty in his interpretative process. However, this cognitivecertainty and comfort is also likely to strongly decrease his ability to welcome uncertainty (via thedetection of new unexpected evidences triggering new interpretative possibilities), i.e., innovation viathe abduction process and the actualization of new semantic areas/spaces.

A too much sticking/compliance or internalization of the observed representamen's interpretative rulesis thus likely to leash the individual's creative thought and his chance of cognitive restructuring, i.e., ofactualization of new semantic areas and interpretative possibilities. This familiar cognitive process canalso favor the unconscious overlooking of new unexpected evidences, or the reconsideration of thealready interpreted ones. In other words, it can leash/crystallize his virtual pole of this relation to theobserved representamen (with crystallized representations and expectations).

Let's now focus on the allocentric navigation. This cognitive pattern is likely to favor the individual's“creative semantic navigation”, via the disobedience to the official/mainly expressed rules ofinterpretation and a personal engagement in the reading process. We will also remind that the V – Adynamic is necessary to enrich the actualized space of meaning and the interpretation of the read text,for likely to strengthen the individual's cognitive flexibility and optimize his chance of cognitiverestructuring and innovation in his interpretative process.

Allocentric navigation is thus optimal for the creative intelligence process via the the navigation

131 We will analyze this concept later.

126

through unfamiliar, uncertain and potentially unexpected semantic environments and for creativitynature of the tasks (decentralized structure). The exercise of freedom over the interpretative process,via the exploration of unfamiliar environments increasing the chances of unexpected discoveries islikely to enrich the interpretation process via the actualization of new or richer interpretativepossibilities. It can also decrease the risk of alienation to the observed representamen's reality andstimulate the V - A dynamic, necessary for the enriching of the cognitive map, via the actualization of“richer versions”. The individual can thus focus, via this cognitive pattern, on the observedrepresentamens' meaning (i.e. skilled reading) instead of the representamens themselves (poorreading). This approach favors the semantic connections, and stimulate creativity by increasingfreedom over the interpretative process. The development and enriching of the creative map can befavored by the exploration spirit (Franceschi, 2013) as well as the “poetic” and “serendip” attitudes(Hoffman, 2012) and the culture of intelligence in order to favor the enriching of the cognitive map(via the integration new informations, knowledge and answers likely to generate new answers). Thehacking philosophy and the exploration of observed representamens' limits of their possibilities, viathe disobedience to its official rules, can also strongly optimize it.

McNamara and Shelton emphasize that finding novel routes through a familiar environment has beenthought to rely on survey knowledge—knowledge of the spatial layout of landmarks defined in acommon reference system. The finding of new “semantic routes” in a familiar environment fits prettywell the hacking philosophy, with its exploration of the limits of the possibilities and actualization ofnew ones from a well-known observed representamen. Based on this analysis, we will consider in oursemiotic analysis the discovery (optimized by “serendip attitude” and the abductive inference process)of new interpretative possibilities (i.e., semantic routes and directions) from an observed familiarrepresentamen. This creative process thus requires a reconsideration, i.e., a virtualization of theobserved representamen via a reframing process, and the actualization of new interpretativepossibilities enriching the individual's cognitive map. From a semiotic point of view, it will thusconsist to discover new possibilities of meaningful semiotic relations from a well-knownrepresentamen (i.e., with a rich interpretamen).

The actualization of new semantic paths (via unexpected discoveries, i.e., serendipity) likely to beexplored in order to open up new directions/semantic places requires the unleashed interpretation ofthe observed familiar representamen and the making of new semantic connections in order tointegrate new temporary uncertainty and actualize new possibilities. The making of connectionsbetween “worlds of knowledge” and cultural domains is necessary to optimize the actualization of newsemantic areas opening up new interpretative possibilities and widening the global semantic space.The temporary uncertainty (via the virtualization process and the problem-solving process to achieve ameaningful semiotic relation) is likely to stimulate the creative thought and prevent the freezing of thesemiotic process.

The “creative navigation”, via the ability to connect several semantic fields necessary for serendipityand innovation to happen, requires a “cognitive interoperability” between them, i.e., open-mindednessand cognitive flexibility. New meaningful connections can thus be actualized by the interpretation of

127

specific evidences triggering semantic or linguistic connections between other known elements, likelyto produce original interpretations and open up new creative possibilities. For example, the reading byan individual of a text about the rigid property of a physical element in case of shock can trigger in hismind a connection with an individual's cognitive rigidity threatening its cognitive structure in case ofshock. In other words, the reader's focus on the global meaning triggers, thanks to his prior knowledgeand experience, an unexpected connection between two different “worlds of knowledge” which bothshare the same lexical and semantic fields, and generates new semantic areas likely to be explored andenrich his cognitive map. This phenomenon is similar to Besson and Possin's inventive intelligenceprocess based on the connection between different worlds of knowledge in order to stimulatecreativity.

3.2. Linear and hypertextual navigation

The linear and hypertextual readings/observations both involve different cognitive processes. Tisseron(1995) analyzes the two main kinds of intelligence :

- The crystallized (or sequential) : Codes our thoughts, which can be simultaneous, so they can situatethem in an order of succession. It applies, for example, to reading, writing and spoken language, andplays a fundamental role in the capacity to build a narration, and to be able to perceive ourselves as theactor of our story;

- The fluid (or simultaneous) : Allows to treat simultaneously several informations without the need toestablish an order or a hierarchy. The individual uses this kind of intelligence when he observes apainting or a picture. His eye can thus focus at any time on a different point without knowing whatpart of the space has to be observed first.

Tisseron adds that language, writing and books were invented as a mean to objectivize and amplify hisabilities linked to his sequential intelligence. Pictures and digital worlds were invented as means toexplore and amplify his capacities linked to his fluid intelligence that language and books do notconsider. Considering this definition, we will presume that :

- The linear reading/observation favors the egocentric navigation, with the necessary following of theindividual's designed rigid structure, with official “marked” trails/paths due to its linear structure. Thereader's freedom is limited (only present in his interpretative process and his navigation through hisactualized semantic space) for he has to follow the author's sequential order to truly make sense of thetext (i.e., develop an accurate interpretamen by determining the representamen's design's model).

- The hypertextual one favors the allocentric navigation, with the possible uncertainty and serendipityfavored by the “serendip attitude” we will analyze further. The allocentric navigation involves thestructural, semantic and textual dimensions (e.g., via the navigation through parts of a text, throughtextual evidences, or via the making of connections with prior knowledge/culture (according to ouranalysis). As Serres states, knowledge was before divided in sects, but today hypertextual readingallows to create original bridges. The hypertextual navigation thus allows the individual to exercise amore important freedom in his reading process, via a personal choice concerning the read text's

128

structure. It can however be easily turned into an egocentric navigation, with a biased route knowledgevia phenomena such as filter bubbles we will analyze further.

Tezuka and Tanaka (2013) state that with the advent of hypertext it has become widely accepted thatthe departure from the so-called "linear" structure of paper increases the likelihood of readers or usersbecoming lost. There is a striking consensus among many of the "experts" in the field that navigationis the single greatest difficulty for users of hypertext. Some researchers like Conklin (1987) andMcAleese (1989) thus emphasize the possibility to "get lost in hyperspace”. According to Hammondand Allinson (1989), "Experience with using hypertext systems has revealed a number of problems forusers....First, users get lost...Second, users may find it difficult to gain an overview of the material...Third, even if users know specific information is present they may have difficulty finding it”. Specificsearching methodologies, as part of the strategic intelligence process, thus have to be necessarilyknown and applied by the individuals, in order to favor their online navigation.

Elizabeth Daley, executive director of the University of Southern California’s Annenberg Center forCommunication, emphasizes the structural change induced by the grammar from the digital world.According to her, grammar is about “the placement of objects, color, . . . rhythm, pacing, andtexture.” But as computers open up an interactive space where a story is “played” as well asexperienced, that grammar changes. The simple control of narrative is lost, and so other techniquesare necessary.” Thus, author Michael Crichton, while having already learnt the narrative of sciencefiction., had to learn a totally new craft to design a computer game based on one of his works. He thushad to learn a new grammar based on the use of fluid intelligence, via questions to consider such ashow to lead people through a game without feeling they have been led (Lessig, 2008).

Bavelier et al., (2012) emphasize that the digital culture, especially videogames, improves theindividuals' capacities of visual attention such as identification of targets, flexibility, stimulates theattention and a capacity of probabilistic inference.

The benefices of the two cultures resulting of these two intelligences are thus complementary :

- The book stimulates the habits and automatisms that relief the thought, but especially the possibilityfor anyone to become a narrator of the stories he “experiences” (via the actualization of a semanticspace and its leashed or unleashed exploration). Reading books allows the individual to build thenarrative intelligence and to appropriate his own story;

- The digital culture stimulates interactivity, innovation and favors the capacity to face theunpredictable.

We will emphasize that technically open digital systems, like videogames, may have been designed tosolicit both the crystallized and the fluid intelligences, depending on its “layer” :

- The content layer can have been designed to explore and amplify the individual's fluid intelligence,via the player's immersion in a digital world;

- The code layer, which contains the game's intrinsic nature and structure, is similar in its structureand nature to a poem (Hoffmann, 2012) and a musical partition (Mechner, 2014). Its open access thus

129

allows to stimulate its reader's crystallized intelligence.

4. Crystallized and fluid intelligence in the inventive intelligence processThese two intelligences, as well as their respective “cultures” (Tisseron, 2012) are both involved in theinventive intelligence process. We will distinguish, as part of the inventive intelligence :

- The creative one : For the generation of original ideas phase, in accordance to Nussbaum (2012) andBesson & Uhl (2012);

- The strategic intelligence : For the development and protection of the idea phase according to Besson& Possin (2001) and Besson & Uhl (2012).

4.1. Fluid intelligence in the creative intelligence

As we emphasized, the creative intelligence process is about making unexpected connections betweenideas. It thus inherently requires the use of the fluid intelligence in order to make unexpectedconnections between ideas/thoughts, and actualize new meaningful original ideas. As Tisseronemphasized, the fluid intelligence favors the treatment of simultaneous informations, This fits prettywell the search for interoperability between systems and “worlds of knowledge” as well as the“inventive jumps” process likely to be used to stimulate the creative thought. The simultaneoustreatment of potentially conflicting elements (e.g., designed to discriminate each other viaincompatible structures) can thus allow to stimulate the virtualization – actualization dynamic and thecreative problem-solving process in order to actualize a meaningful connection/merger. We willanalyze it in detail further in this work. Moreover, as digital culture stimulates innovation, it will favorthe optimization of the creative process.

4.2. Crystallized and fluid intelligence in the strategic intelligence

Thomas Ollivier (2010), specialist in strategic intelligence, emphasizes that the strategic intelligenceprocess is a mental gymnastic which requires creativity and a mental flexibility, both in the strategicapproach and in the use of softwares, as well as a power of deduction. Cognitive flexibility, as maincharacteristic of the fluid intelligence as well as allocentric navigation and survey knowledge, are thusnecessary for an optimized strategic intelligence process.

Besson and Possin (2001) state that the intelligence culture consists to “lose time beyond the horizon”,in order to “live tomorrow today”. It thus inherently requires to avoid the development of cognitivecertainty and comfort, likely to weaken the cognitive flexibility necessary for the permanent reframingof the environment (via an “enlightened” decisional process). They thus emphasize the importance ofopen-mindedness and constant evolution within an uncertain environment. The main strategies we willconsider in this analysis will be :

- Of search : Via the mental development of an optimal trajectory within the cognitive map fed by arich knowledge about the used tool(s);

130

- Of innovation : Via the inventive intelligence process we have analyzed. a search strategy (visualizethe process, via a good knowledge of complex/elaborated requests and the functioning of the digitaltools used in the interrogation process.

The development and exploitation of the memory (as defined by Besson and Possin, 2001) implies theuse of both the crystallized and fluid intelligences to produce a truly efficient result. As they state,strategic intelligence is “a global view of reality” and “a quest in perpetual renewing and becoming,whose vocation is to fill in space, past, present and future”, which allows to adapt by understandingand apprehending the environment. The intelligence culture thus favor the spatialized representationsand the allocentric navigation, for it requires a permanent exploration of the unknown and uncertain(via the Q – A virtuous cycle enriching the memory).

Besson and Possin's definition of the memory as “organized curiosity” also perfectly illustrates thischaracteristic. Allocentric navigation and fluid intelligence are thus necessary to truly optimize theanalytic and decisional processes fed by a strategic "spatialized” global view and the consideration of apotential infinity of connections between informations likely to be actualized. It also requires the useof a crystallized intelligence, for its construction and exploitation requires to navigate within an“informational tree”, designed to facilitate the construction of a meaningful understanding based on alogical sequential semantic structure. Its interrogation and exploitation allows to create a narrationlikely to be exploited. For example, it can allow to favor the determination of the causes and proved,possible or potential consequences of specific actions/events whose informations concerning them arestored within the memory, and favors the analysis of the past and present and the anticipation of thefuture. As they state, the efficient memory is limitless, and its alveolus constitute “open questions”calling a potential infinity of answers (i.e., informations “attracted” by them). The memory's structureis thus based on both a sequential and simultaneous informational environment/ecosystem composingthe infocenter. Based on Besson and Possin's analysis, we will define the memory's extension in twoparts, each one implying a specific kind of intelligence in its development and exploitation :

- The sequential extension (first, second,...) : As “tree” structure favoring its reading and exploitation,and filled or empty alveolus placed under a sequential logic and likely to attract new informationsforming a part of the next “extension”.

- The simultaneous extension, divided in two dimensions :

- Intra-memory : Filled or empty alveolus likely to be connected to other ones in order to favorthe discovery of potential new meaningful connections;

- Inter-memory : Via a networked interconnection of organizational memories, both internaland external, central and peripheral. Requires to be optimal an interoperability and non discriminationbetween them (neutral and universal network). This extension allows to create richer and morecomplex infocenters.

The alveolus can thus be considered as potential “connectors” favoring the actualization of new

131

meaningful connections between informations and memories in order to favor the development of arich and complex global informational system likely to be easily exploited. The “organized curiosity”thus aims at creating unexpected connections between informations, in order to actualize richerinterpretations of the observed environment or representamen. As Besson and Possin state, the mostunexpected the connections, the richer their added value. The intellectual challenge will be to developbridges, links and inclusions to make several objects/signs compatible within a common mentalassembling (creative intelligence) and actual (inventive intelligence) while sticking to an ethicalframework (ethics and aesthetics).

The memory's structure can thus be qualified, according to Besson and Possin, (2001), as “meccano”.Its potential infinity of extensions (both sequential and simultaneous) is likely to constitute anetworked global infocenter. The construction of the memory, via a logic “tree” favoring thenavigation within it and its exploitation, also reflects the need for order and hierarchy betweeninformations. However, the simultaneous extension of the memory requires to be designed with theFUCK philosophy (as defined by FAT, 2012) :

- Neutral : Interoperability between the networked memories (with no “war of design”, i.e., nodiscrimination between them, with neutrality as core principle allowing to create rich and complexaesthetic systems designed to be attractive (i.e., “work of art”). Natural phenomena such as retentionof information have to be prevented;

- Functional : With an ergonomic design favoring its exploitation and enriching, and inciting theindividuals to be a part of these processes. Ergonomy is a key dimension of the memory, for this“organ” will have to favor the easy and efficient interrogation and navigation within. Optimizednavigation frameworks within digital informational systems have been developed. We will, forexample, emphasize the Search Metaphoric Framework developed by Tezuka and Tanaka (2013) foroptimizing the navigation within digital libraries;

- Universal : The same potentiality of access and enriching has to be granted, and the development ofa “global consciousness” favoring the individuals' self-categorization as actors of the same “intelligentnarration”. We will emphasize that the “sectarianism” can not only concern the informations andknowledges, but also their producers and providers. It is thus necessary to make the intelligenceprocess fluid via the development of a favorable culture of intelligence and a global thought, as weemphasized in our evolved collective mind analysis.

The internet constitutes, as we said, a fundamental part of the strategic intelligence process, and morespecifically of the acquisition of information (i.e., via its interrogation and exploitation) of this “globalmemory” and monitoring (i.e., surveillance of the actuality concerning a specific element). It hasinitially been designed as a “bazaar-like” global memory, likely to be interrogated via efficientmethodologies (Besson & Possin, 2001) and optimizing the acquisition of information process.Assange (2013) emphasizes the fact that the internet was initially designed to be a “house aiming at

132

hosting all the knowledges of humanity”, with current weak foundations (due to the privatization ofthe technical infrastructure and code layers) threatening both its viability (via the creation of lures)and sustainability (via the possibility of arbitrary censorship).

The memory of the strategic intelligence has to include, according to Besson and Possin, an “InternetLook-out” (as emphasized by Revelli, 1998) and has to be composed of three specific profiles, whichemphasize the need for both crystallized and fluid intelligences :

- An expert in information systems : Has to be able to develop the technical infrastructure and to solvethe technical problems of connection to the internet, the setting of the programs, the security issues,etc;

- A cybersearcher : Has to be able to efficiently crawl and interrogate both the “visible” and the“invisible” web (i.e., composed of the hardly or not indexed webpages);

- An analyst who specializes in the treatment of information : Has to be able to index, structure,format the data set, amalgamate with other sources and "build" them by giving them meaning in orderto produce “elaborated” information, then intelligence.

Ollivier (2010) emphasizes the importance of narration in the strategic intelligence process. He thusproposes a particular methodology to optimize the monitoring process, and more specifically thediffusion of the collected informations to the individuals in charge of the decisional process within anorganization. It is thus fundamental to “build and tell a story” based on the collected networkedinformations and the specific interpretations from their analysis in order to favor its cognitiveappropriation by the decision makers. The decision makers have to be the main “actors” of theseelaborated stories, for their role will be to take enlightened decisions in order to face anticipatedthreats or opportunities in order to provoke the “most desired future”. It is thus necessary to imaginecredible scenari of events/consequences likely to happen in the future based on this intelligence work.These anticipated future evolutions will have to be accompanied with concrete propositions, in orderto facilitate the integration of the monitoring and prediction results (via strategic recommendations) bythe individuals involved in the decisional process. This narrative process thus aims at favoring thedecision makers' cognitive appropriation of a complex informational construction as well as favoringtheir acceptance of potentially compromising/disruptive informations and interpretations likely tothreaten their cognitive certainty. The narration process thus has to not only emphasize the severaldetected threats to face (via weak signals,...) but also propose possible solutions to turn them intoopportunities. The scenari have to contain defined possibilities of action as well as their anticipatedconsequences. The decisional process thus have to be fed by the development of a rich and crediblenarration based on the validated informations from the memory and the prediction based on the pastand present informations via the construction of several possibilities of scenari. The permanentactualization of new narrations based on a regularly updated analytic process is necessary to survive inan ever-changing environment (via adaptation through innovation and enlightened decisions).

The prediction phase, and more globally the innovation process based on the strategic intelligence,thus involves both the use of the crystallized and fluid intelligences via a subtle combination of

133

allocentric navigation with spatial representations and both networked and narrative informationalconstructions to understand and apprehend perceived and interpreted rich and complex environments.The innovation process, at the core of the creative and inventive intelligences, can however bethreatened/weakened by several traps based on a too much crystallized intelligence and egocentricnavigation. These traps can distort perceptual, reflective and analytical capacities and thus impair thefunctioning of the innovation process within the organization. Among the main traps, we canemphasize :

- The abscons trap : Psychological trap created in the mind of an individual when he is engaged in aseries of costly acts. If these actions do not produce the expected and hoped results, it will be difficultfor him to give up and question his commitment, for doing so may compromise his importantinvestment conceded to achieve his desired goal;

- The floor lamp syndrome : The individual is convinced that the solution lies in its immediateenvironment and can not imagine other possibilities;

- The frog syndrome : The individual focuses so much on a particular point that he forgets thereasons why, and thus lacks his main objective;

- The fixing on detail :The individual responds at all costs to deal with an emergency while the issueis elsewhere, and that his decision will be counter-productive;

- The flight forward :The individual builds the future from a past projection, referring to alreadylived situations where parades were beneficial.

Jean-Luc Hannequin (2010), specialist in strategies of economic intelligence and innovation,emphasizes several factors that may affect an organization's decisional rationality :

- The acceptable : It is sometimes easier to reason from socially acceptable elements rather thanadopting reasoning from factual ones;

- The pressure : High stress situations lead to stop on details, to favor elements of forms or ofpresentation;

- The shortcut : The individual thinks he goes to the essential most often due to lack of time,motivation or sufficient resources (knowledge and skills).

The leader may also borrow inadvertently "false paths" that can be very damaging to the group if notavoided. These can be :

- The mirror driving : Building the future from a projection of the past, by referring to situationsalready lived for which countermeasures have been beneficial;

- The risk of endogamy : Focusing the attention on competitors, innovating by imitation, following the

134

fad, looking for consensus;132

- The mirage of the trend : The individual analyses an already obsolete information;

- The myth of the champion : The charisma of a personality becomes the norm, a standard, a model ofsuccess.

The individuals can thus adopt familiar reasoning based on certain cognitive patterns such as theegocentric cognitive navigation, with an application of "ordinary" solutions, or make decisions inresponse to a situation rather than from a comprehensive analysis of the environment and context. Theindividuals involved in the strategic intelligence process thus have to be attentive and "pro-active" inthis process, via the permanent proposal of new ideas and solutions as well as informations andquestions likely to improve the analytic and decisional process via the enriching of the memory (e.g.,via the filling of emphasized “areas of ignorance”133 or raising new issues generating new informationaland cognitive needs for the group).

We will also emphasize, as major threats, the “mental DRMs” (e.g., via an overlooking of certaininfocenters whose access and exploitation is falsely interpreted as “illegal”) and “cognitive silos” (e.g.,with a too much focus on the central memory and a neglection of other peripheral ones). We willanalyze these two phenomena later. We will also emphasize that the “sectarianism” can not onlyconcern the informations and knowledges, but also their producers and providers (via phenomena suchas retention likely to weaken the intelligence process. It is thus necessary to make the intelligenceprocess fluid via the development of a favorable culture of intelligence and a global thought, as weemphasized in our evolved collective mind analysis.

The strategic intelligence process thus aims at decreasing the risk of potential enclosures in familiarand comfortable environments, via the analysis of a clear trajectory and the anticipation of the futureon a “particle-like” (i.e., certain and stable) basis. The main risk is induced by a too much exploitationof the crystallized intelligence and egocentric navigation based on route knowledge in the analytic anddecisional processes, likely to strongly weaken the capacity of innovation and adaptation. Cognitivecertainty, with familiar cognitive patterns/trajectories (i.e., egocentric navigation) and obsession on thepast can thus be really prejudicial for an organization. The adoption of new cognitive patterns and thegiving up of old “obsolete” ones (i.e., not adapted to the new configurations anymore) is thusnecessary. Rigid cognitive patterns are also likely to freeze the semiotic process as well as theindividual's creative thought and fluid intelligence necessary to innovate and adapt, and induce acrystallization of attitudes weakening the chance of cognitive restructuring, i.e., of change ofperspectives and innovation. An intelligence process based on a too much cognitive certitude and adeductive inferential process is thus likely to prevent the risk of abduction and of creativity, via theformulation of a creative hypothesis (Sandri, 2013). The use of digital systems, and especially theWeb, requires as we said the use of efficient methodologies and strategies to optimize the acquisitionof informations. However, it is also fundamental to integrate in this process a methodology based on

132 Similar to the groupal thought phenomena (Moscovici, 1960) we have analyzed earlier.133 Unknown information and ignored" (Hayek).

135

serendipity and the abductive inferential process in order to favor the chance of unexpecteddiscoveries, i.e., of creativity within it. We will analyze how to optimize this process later.

5. The right to read and write anonymously

5.1. Read-only VS read-write cultures

Lessig, in Free Culture (2008) outlines two distinct cultures :

- The read - only culture : It is the culture the individuals consume more or less passively.” Theinformation or product is provided by the content industry, that possesses an authority on thatparticular product/information. According to him, it is the world of media from the twentieth century;

- The read - write : Digital technologies do not possess the analog ones' inherent constraints. Theyallow the individuals to copy, share, modify and create content easily and quickly (Stallman, 2012). Hethus adds that “The twenty-first century could be different. This is the crucial point : It could be bothread and write. Or at least reading and better understanding the craft of writing. Or best, reading andunderstanding the tools that enable the writing to lead or mislead. The aim of any literacy, and thisliteracy in particular, is to "empower people to choose the appropriate language for what they need tocreate or express." It is to enable students "to communicate in the language of the twenty-firstcentury.” As opposed to the read-only culture, the read-write one has a reciprocal relationshipbetween the producer and the consumer. Lessig considers that digital technologies, such as blogs,provide the tools for reviving read - write culture and democratizing production.

The read -write culture implies the necessity for individuals to develop a true literacy toward thetechnologies they use, in order to get empowered and exercise freedom over them, i.e., prevent apotential abusive control by “literate” entities. According to Lessig, “The aim of any literacy is to“empower people to choose the appropriate language for what they need to create or express.” It is toenable individuals “to communicate in the language of the twenty-first century.” Daley and StephanieBarish, director of the Institute for Multimedia Literacy at the Annenberg Center, illustrate thisdefinition by describing one project they ran in a high school. They gave students an opportunity to usefilm to express meaning about gun violence a topic they were familiar with. They thus used acombination of images, sound and text : The project "gave them a tool and empowered them to beable to both understand it and talk about it," (…) "If you had said to these students, ‘you have to do itin text,’ they would’ve just thrown their hands up and gone and done something else.” According toLessig, that tool succeeded in creating expression—far more successfully and powerfully than couldhave been created using only text. Because expressing themselves in text is not something thesestudents can do well. Yet neither is text a form in which these ideas can be expressed well. The powerof this message depended upon its connection to this form of expression.

Daley (2002) emphasizes the importance of teaching the construction of meaning in Education :

Education is about giving students a way of “constructing meaning.” To say that means just

136

writing is like saying teaching writing is only about teaching kids how to spell. Text is one part—and increasingly, not the most powerful part—of constructing meaning. As Daley explainedin the most moving part of our interview, What you want is to give these students ways ofconstructing meaning. If all you give them is text, they’re not going to do it. Because they can’t.You know, you’ve got Johnny who can look at a video, he can play a video game, he can dograffiti all over your walls, he can take your car apart, and he can do all sorts of other things. Hejust can’t read your text. So Johnny comes to school and you say, “Johnny, you’re illiterate.Nothing you can do matters.” Well, Johnny then has two choices: He can dismiss you one candismiss himself. If his ego is healthy at all, he’s going to dismiss you. But instead, if you say,“Well, with all these things that you can do, let’s talk about this issue. Play for me music thatyou think reflects that, or show me images that you think reflect that, or draw for me somethingthat reflects that.” Not by giving a kid a video camera and . . . saying, “Let’s go have fun with thevideo camera and make a little movie.” But instead, really help you take these elements that youunderstand, that are your language, and construct meaning about the topic. That empowersenormously. And then what happens, of course, is eventually, as it has happened in all theseclasses, they bump up against the fact, “I need to explain this and I really need to writesomething.

Media literacy, as Dave Yanofsky states, is the ability to understand, analyze, and deconstruct mediaimages. Its aim is to make individuals literate about the way media works, the way it’s constructed, theway it’s delivered, and the way people access it. According to Daley, “Probably the most importantdigital divide is not access to a box. It’s the ability to be empowered with the language that that boxworks in. Otherwise only a very few people can write with this language, and all the rest of us arereduced to being read-only”. Literacy is thus fundamental for the hacking philosophy, in order toexercise true freedom (i.e., creativity) over observed and meaningfully interpreted representamens.According to Zimmermann (2014), our expression is nowadays directly bound to the Internet. Bayart(2010) emphasizes that while books taught people how to read, the internet taught people how towrite. He thus emphasizes what he calls the “evolution of the internaut”, from the “kikoolol” to“commentator”, to “author” and finally “animator”. His analysis describes the natural evolution of aninternaut, who at first transposes the “read-only” culture from the physical to the digital world, butthen naturally adopts a “read - write" as he gets more and more engaged and confident in thenetworked communitarian culture. Creativity in the digital world is thus inherently expressed via thewriting process, whether of code or content. Digital technologies have, according to Lessig (2008) andStallman (2012), made the creative process accessible to anyone, while the net universality grants, aswe said, the same potentiality of access and participation for anyone. In other words, anyone isgranted the same potentiality of reading and writing to enrich the network. We will focus here only onthe code and content layers, as our analysis focuses on the creative process within the digital world.

As media literacy is necessary to understand and develop a cognitive resistance against potentialinfluences and manipulations from media, digital literacy constitutes a core need in our digital age. Ithas thus now become fundamental to learn to read the code layer, in order to better apprehend the

137

digital world and identify its potential threats such as tracking and enclosure, i.e., control via privateentities. Digital literacy is also necessary to truly exercise freedom within the cyberspace.Shneiderman (1999) complete this “techno-literacy”paradigm by stating : "It's not enough to teachstudents to surf the 'Net, we must teach them to make waves." The Creative Commons Foundation(2014) also defends this right to read and write, favored by permissive legal licences, by stating that“read-only is not enough.”

The read -write culture, with digital literacy, is at the core of the open and decentralized collectiveintelligence phenomena the Free philosophy rests upon. The FSF emphasizes several motivations forindividuals to write code and improve Free softwares (i.e., digital anti-rivalrous common goods) andbe a part of the creative process. Here are some in relation to our analysis :

- Wanting a better program to use : People often work on improvements in programs they use, inorder to make them more convenient;

- Education : If you write free software, it is often an opportunity to dramatically improve both yourtechnical and social skills; if you are a teacher, encouraging your students to take part in an existingfree software project or organizing them into a free software project may provide an excellentopportunity for them;

- Professional reputation : If you write a successful, useful free program, that will suffice to show youare a good programmer;

- To be admired : If you write a successful, useful free program, the users will admire you. That feelsvery good;

- Gratitude : If you have used the community's free programs for years, and it has been important toyour work, you feel grateful and indebted to their developers. When you write a program that could beuseful to many people, that is your chance to pay it forward;

- Fun : For some people, often the best programmers, writing software is the greatest fun, especiallywhen there is no boss to tell you what to do. Nearly all free software developers share this motive.

According to Lessig (2006), the open architecture of the Internet lets people who don't have powerdesign great innovations134. However, Lessig emphasizes that copyright laws restricting creativity andinventiveness has bloomed as the Internet network developed and whose access got democratizedworldwide. He thus states (2008) that "What before was both impossible and illegal is now justillegal". He thus emphasizes that “Now the default is control. Copyright presumptively regulateseverything, and the law supports this control over the use of culture.” He also emphasizes the power ofcontrol restrictive technological features such as DRMs can offer rights holder(s) toward theindividuals : 'Technology will increasingly make it simple for content owners to control how and whenyou get access to their material, and how you use it.” Stallman (2012) confirms Lessig's analysis bystating that copyright and depriving licenses induce an unjust power over the individuals, who aretechnically and legally controlled by the technologies they use, and are ignorant about what it really

134 http://www.internetnews.com/bus-news/article.php/3585731/Lessig+Makes+Plea+For+ReadWrite+Internet.htm

138

does. They are thus at the total mercy of the copyrights owners, who can do almost anything they wanton the objects, such as controlling the users' experience with it via monitoring tasks (e.g., collect ofpersonal data in accordance to specific business models based on the commercial exploitation ofprivate data). Depriving legal licenses can also offer a perceived security and commodity, for theindividuals may know that the objects they use can easily be replaced thanks to its guarantee.However, this guarantee only applies if the individuals do not break the “all-rights-reserved” terms ofthe depriving license. In other words, the users of the object have no control over it and can easily beenslaved within a totally closed and depriving centralized ecosystem where they do not own theobjects they purchase/consume, and are not granted any freedom to exercise control or power overthem.

Intellectual property laws will support this read - only internet. Indeed, copyright in the digital worldgives content owners more legal control over the use of their content than in the physical world. In thephysical world, there are plenty of uses of creative work that are beyond the reach of copyrightbecause these uses do not produce a copy – for example, reading a book. But in the digital world, asevery use of creative work technically produces a copy, every use, in principle, requires the permissionof the content owner. And thus, as technology better controls how content gets used, the law will backthat control up.

Stallman (1980) and Bayart (2007) analyze the change of paradigm toward the Internet, from itsinception (anarchic open and decentralized system with no security measure) to nowadays(centralizing infrastructure, with mergers and synergies of big corporations controlling its access andexercising a more and more increasing control over the individuals' digital life via their enclosure onsilos). Lessig emphasizes the fact that the Internet can enable both read -only and read-write culture,depending on its intrinsic structure, but that more and more restrictive and depriving intellectualproperty law support a “read- only internet”. Bayart completes his analysis by qualifying the currenttendency of centralization and enclosure of the network as “Minitel 2.0”.135 This tendency tocentralization is, paradoxically, based on an illusion of freedom within it. Thomas Fourmeux (2014),librarian and member of the collective SavoirsCom1 (engaged in the promotion and development ofknowledge as common good) thus states that “The cosmetic opening in closed systems based on thefreemium model (Deezer, Spotify) infringes the “real” free”.

La Quadrature du Net (2013) analyzes the “private copyright police”, aka “robocopyright” alreadyexercising censorship and regulation of the contents online. ”This system leads to the establishment ofa private copyright police, acting outside the control of the judiciary and gradually drifting towards asystem of blind censorship. Possibility of counter-notification has been provided through a call, butalso the heaviness of this procedure to the ordinary citizens, the impartiality of this device isquestionable, since some beneficiaries as Universal obtained privileges allowing them to obtainwithdrawals as they wish.”136.

The more and more denied read – write culture, optimized via the “law is code” paradigm and the

135 http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/d55dfe52-77d2-11da-9670-0000779e2340.html136 http://www.laquadrature.net/en/node/7125

139

“robocopyright” within the cyberspace, also threatens the online contents value. Ferguson (2011) thusstates that "The hard truth is that most creations are worthless immediately. Most books, films,albums, computer applications, or whatever else are met with not just indifference but disuse.” Awork's intrinsic value thus rests on its observation and interpretation, both via its cognitive treatment(as we will see in a future chapter, the representamen's meaning is made via its observation) andwritten interpretation, for example via the creation of remixes and mashups, i.e., its “disruption”according to BNF (2014). However, strong and threatening copyright policies can also weaken thecopyrighted works' sustainability. As Gwenn Seemel (2013), artist and copyright activist emphasizes,more and more artists decide to turn away from copyrighted works and go find other sources ofinspiration, for fear of legal sanction from their rights holder(s). This issue thus induces a loss of theworks' intrinsic value and “meaning”, for as we said, the observers are the ones who, throughobservation and interpretation, create and enrich them. This disruption of the culture is thus, forKauffman (2014), necessary to make it live and ensure its sustainability, for example via the creationof new original works likely to enrich the cultural context (Seemel, 2013) and stimulate creativity. Thedisruption of the observed representamens' design's model is also necessary to enrich its reality, viathe actualization of new possibilities or the creation of brand new ones based on them. We will thusassume that the more subjectively/creatively observed and interpreted the representamen, the richer itsintrinsic meaning and value.

Stallman, Lessig, Maurel and other copyright activists all militate for a strong reform of copyright law,in order to give back power to the public toward copyrighted contents. A reform of copyright thus hasto allow these contents' lifestime to be extended, via their collective appropriation of the work in orderto ensure its viability. The Budapest Open Access Initiative thus defends an open access to digitalworks137: “By “open access” (…) we mean its free availability on the public internet, permitting anyusers to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of these articles, crawlthem for indexing, pass them as data to software, or use them for any other lawful purpose, withoutfinancial, legal, or technical barriers other than those inseparable from gaining access to the internetitself. (…) Open Access gives readers extraordinary power to find and make use of relevant literature,and that it gives authors and their works vast and measurable new visibility, readership and impact.”

As Lessig (2008) emphasizes, “Less control produces more creativity”. Read - write culture, and moreglobally creativity and innovation, thus inherently require to be optimal an open, decentralized anduniversal networked infrastructure, as well as a true digital literacy, necessary for the individuals toexercise freedom within the cyberspace. Free contents and codes are also, as we said, necessary tooptimize the individuals' legal expression online, for the privatization of these layers is likely tothreaten both the viability and the sustainability of new creations considered, potentially considered as“illegal” and censored for copyright infringement.

5.2. The right to read anonymously

Stallman, in his 1997 short-story The right to read, emphasized a major issue represented by the

137 http://www.budapestopenaccessinitiative.org/

140

DRMs and the tracking technologies integrated in closed/depriving programs' source code. Thesefeatures are designed to restrict and condition the individuals' experience with their closed/deprivingdigital systems. They have, nowadays, become usual in technological objects'' design. Thus, accordingto the Mozilla Foundation (2014), 93% of the top 1,000 websites include third-party cookies thattrack the individuals moves online.

The generalization of surveillance by technologies is likely to strongly condition theobservation/reading process, not only from a technical point of view (e.g., via the “self-destroying” ofthe observed representamen after a specific number of times), but also from a cognitive one, via thegeneration of social influences. As Ertzscheid (2013) emphasized in his definition of the DRMs, thesefeatures can constitute the individual's acceptation of a right of inspection from the machine towardhis activity within the digital world. Stallman (2012) adds that DRMs can allow a computer tosystematically disobey its owner. We can thus qualify this relation as a compliance (whether consciousor not) from the reader toward the observed representamern's abusive control over him.

Moreover, DRMs inherently transform, according to the FSF (2010), viable digital goods intodamaged ones. The reading of DRMized representamens is thus both conditioned and damaged,preventing the individuals to benefit from a fully complete experience with their observed DRMIzedrepresentamen. This can induce serious issues for the reading process, such as the strategic alterationof a text by its right holder(s) in order to prevent its copying and illegal sharing. For example, theSiDiM DRM is programmed to operate subtle modifications on proprietary texts by altering words,punctuation and other text elements so that every reader having legally purchased a copy receives aunique version. This DRM is defined in a Wired article138:

German researchers have created a new DRM feature that changes the text and punctuation ofan e-book ever so slightly. Called SiDiM, which Google translates to “secure documents byindividual marking,” the changes are unique to each e-book sold. These alterations serve as adigital watermark that can be used to track books that have had any other DRM layers strippedout of them before being shared online. The researchers are hoping the new DRM feature willcurb digital piracy by simply making consumers paranoid that they’ll be caught if they share ane-book illicitly.

As each content is designed by the rights holder(s) to be unique, via the integration of distinctive“watermarks”, the observation and interpretation of the author's original version (which has beenvoluntarily altered to prevent its piracy) gets more difficult in closed and deprivingenvironments/ecosystems.

We will consider the different elements composing a reading ecosystem, as the operating systemrunning the programs and the web browser, necessary to read the online pages. Here are thus threedifferent ecosystems, with specific characteristics concerning the reading process within the digitalonline world :

138 http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2013/06/new-ebook-drm

141

- Apple ecosystem : Totally closed and depriving ecosystem. All rights reserved (the individual doesnot have any right except the one to use it under strict conditions). The disobedience to these rules caninduce legal sanctions;

- Google ecosystem : Partially closed. Can be analyzed and modified (Android's source-code isavailable and likely to be legally modified and its logo is under a permissive Creative Commonslicense). However, anonymity is hard to reach via the presence of tracking features and the company'sbusiness model based on the “data as value” paradigm;

- Firefox ecosystem : Free ecosystem (total transparency, four fundamental freedoms inducing theright to read and write anonymously on an entirely personalized ecosystem where he can exercise afull individual and collective control over it). This initial Free nature is however getting compromisedvia the introduction of DRMs in the program's source-code.

Let's thus consider, based on this new configuration, two individuals having purchased the same bookon two different environments : the first one bought it on a physical book shop and the second one on adigital silo. In the first case, the individual owns his book, possesses the exact version of the author,and is free to both read, write and share without any restriction. The second one, however, does notown the book : he purchased a “reading license” of a DRMized digital file designed to be read only byhim. To ensure that the reader does not violate the copyright infringement detained by the rightsholders, the DRM modifies the book's content, so he will be immediately identified if the book gets“pirated”. These two individuals, however having purchased the exact same book, thus do not read thesame content and are granted radically different degrees of freedom over it. It is thus likely to assumethat they might develop a totally different interpretation based on this difference of experience andrelation to it, coupled with their different reading process (e.g., linear VS hypertextual navigation).

The individual's internalization of the depriving copyright policies (with identification,tracking/monitoring, renter status toward the observed file, strict reading conditions,...) is also likely tostrongly influence the reading process. Basic and fundamental values such as anonymous reading,ownership of the book allowing to write on it and share it without restriction, are thus likely to becomeimpossible via the generalization of DRMized digital reading.

Let's now consider a fictional example in order to clearly illustrate the privacy issue in the readingprocess. Winston, the main character of Orwell's 1984, is in possession of Goldstein's book (whosereading is considered by the Party as illegal and likely to induce a strong sanction) and wants to read itin order to learn more about the Party and the totalitarian society he lives in. Le's consider that thisbook is a digital file, which requires to be read a personal connection to a digital silo, under an officialidentity (e.g.., via a personal code). Winston thus knows that reading it on his technological device ispurely suicidal, for the Party will be warned of his reading process as soon as he opens the DRMizedfile. The too much constraining reading ecosystem/context is thus likely to decide him to not read thebook in order to avoid the proved risk of being “betrayed” by its technological device and arrested.

DRMs thus constitute a major threat for the reading process, by compromising both the observedrepresentamen's viability and sustainability. We will thus presume that these new technologies change

142

the reading process, for each reader of the same book will not read the same text (interpretamen),whereas the same “source-object” (the book) was initially bought. They thus may be likely to developa different interpretamen, while all sharing the same interpretant. The DRMs are also designed toprevent, in certain cases, the sharing of the file, via its binding to a personal silo whose access requiresa personal code. DRMized files are thus designed to prevent their collective, open and decentralizedreading, e.g., the development of an optimal collective intelligence around the same book. The right toprivacy (as core part of the cypherpunk philosophy) is thus fundamental to weaken these influenceslikely to condition/leash the individual's reading and observation processes, and favor fundamentalpractices for the development of a rich interpretamen such as a disinhibited manipulation process andhypertextual navigation. Eich (2013) emphasizes that the use of Free and encryption technologies isthus necessary to “disrupt the silos”, so that “silos do not know you anymore.”

The Ghostery plug-in is an efficient mean to develop a more anonymous/private reading process withinthe cyberspace. According to the company developing this web browser extension, online privacy canonly be achieved and enjoyed through the acquisition of knowledge about the trackers and theirrespective owners (composing the “invisible face of the net”) and control over them (both at theindividual and collective scale, on an open and decentralized way in order to benefit from a richercollective intelligence with an accurate perception and an efficient channeling of trackers' potentialabusive power over the users. It thus incites the individuals to disobey the observed representamen'sdesign's model, by overlooking the directly observable official interface (content layer) to “see throughit” and focus on its source-code and acquire accurate informations about its composition concerningtracking technologies. It also allows the individuals to exercise a control over it by choosing or not todeactivate the undesired “malicious features”. In other words, it allows to disrupt the observeddeceptive by design representamen, and adapt it to specific needs such as a desire for a private readingonline. This plug-in also allows to acquire information and knowledge about trackers likely to threatenonline privacy, exercise an abusive control over the users by observing their daily online activity,influencing/conditioning his online reading (via advertising) and transform them into “commercialproducts” (via the “data as value” business). In other words, it allows an open and decentralizedcommunity to exercise both individual and collective control over the tracking features, via theirlisting and enriching of its database and the production of information and knowledge about them(e.g., how to deactivate them,...) in order to counter-influence them.

The Ghostery functioning thus fits the hacking philosophy, for it allows the individuals to acquireknowledge about deceptive representamens, via the observation of initially “hidden” features designedto exercise a control over them, i.e., to disobey the observed representamen's official rules andbuilding something new with it, via its personalization based on the deactivation of specific or all thetrackers integrated in its source-code. It also fits Stallman's paradigm emphasizing the “war” betweenthe public trying to exercise power and control other the technologies they use and these technologies'true owners (technical and legal dimensions). These kind of technologies also emphasize the necessityfor the individuals to have control over their informational environment. Specific Free plug-ins such asIP Flood, Privacy Badger (developed by the EFF) or HTTPS Everywhere can allow to customize and

143

personalize the reading digital online environment in order to optimize the reading process, forexample via the removal of disruptive elements sch as advertisement, with the use of extensions suchas AdBlock. However, the trusted reading device (e.g., the Firefox Free software) can be subverted,via the installation of closed/depriving extensions to personalize the reading process. Other tools likeVPNs, proxies or ad blockers can be used to “disrupt” digital silos and bypass the “filter bubble”generated by closed/depriving programs.

5.3. The augmented reading

Augmented reality technologies can be used to develop a richer reading/observation process. WendyMackay (2014), Director of Research at INRIA who specializes in the human-machine interaction,states that augmented reality technologies can be useful for certain complex situations where there aremany informations to consider in the real world, such as students on a medical simulations who haveto make diagnosis. They can thus help simplify the observation of the environment by makingpriorities and give an efficient way to navigate in a complex real world. AR technologies can optimizethe sequential or simultaneous observation of key-evidences, and favor an efficient interpretation ofthe environment or of a specific representamen. They can favor the development of a betterobservation and interpretation of a complex environment/representamen's, and favor its apprehensionby making it whether more simple or richer.

AR technologies can be provided by technological devices such as smartphones, smartglasses orsmartwatches. We will once again emphasize the importance of the technical and legal dimensions inthis process, especially with closed/depriving technologies. It is thus necessary for an individual whoseobservation/reading is assisted via AR technologies to develop a strong knowledge about them via theacquisition of information about their technical (e.g., deceptive and defective design) and legal natureas well as eventual compromising informations about them likely to enlighten the trust or distrust inthem. Just like the reading process is optimized via a metacognitive awareness (Anastasiou & Griva,2009), the augmented reading process is optimized via a rich and accurate knowledge of the usedtechnologies' characteristics and functioning, i.e., awareness about their possibilities and possible flaws(i.e., present in its design) likely to compromise the reading process' viability. As we said, thisknowledge (favoring the enlightened trust) is hard to acquire if fundamental practices such as reverseengineering are forbidden and made impossible by the technology's designer.

Specific representamens are designed to be observed via specific technological devices, and can thusnot be meaningfully interpreted by an individual. For example, QR codes require to be meaningfullyobserved a connected device which will translate the observed representamen it into a human-readableone.

The focus on the augmented informations can lessen the focus on the real world. Cognitive resourcesare, unlike computing, limited which can not be exceeded. The individuals thus have to deal with thisinherent limitation in their observation process. The more the focus on the augmented informations,the less the attention to the world around him. The exercise of censorship by AR technologies toward

144

the observed environment/representamen can also weaken the augmented observation/reading process.For example, we can imagine a specific “sensitive” geographic area censored by Google Glasses, dueto its censorship in Google Map.

The use of AR technologies can also induce a modification of the individual's perception andinterpretation of his observed environment/representamen. An individual who thus pays too muchattention on the provided informations from his technological device can thus, paradoxically, be morefocused on the digital informational environment aiming at augmenting his observation of therepresentamen, rather than on the representamen itself. These technologies are thus likely to leash theindividual's reading process, via an alienation to the informational environment provided by the ARtechnology. They can also weaken the cognitive strategies necessary to develop an efficient readingprocess. Thus, the individual alienated to the technology for his observation and interpretation processmight lose fundamental abilities such as an efficient exploration of the limits of the observedrepresentamen's possibilities (via its unleashed manipulation,...), and navigate on an allocentric basis.The individual observing the world through augmented reality technologies can thus not see better, butmore. This increasing quantity of information received is likely to induce a necessary management inorder to avoid to be overwhelmed and powerless via a loss of ability to develop a meaningfulobservation and interpretation.

The daily use of AR technologies can favor the development of a cognitive dependence to them, byweakening the individuals' personal cognitive skills (i.e., in his mobilization of prior information andknowledge). This use can also favor the adoption of an egocentric navigation, fed via theindications/evidences emphasized by the technology used as well as leash/weaken serendipity, via theenclosure within a certain and comfortable cognitive environment. An individual's cognitivedependency on a closed/depriving AR technology not only depends on this used technology, but byextension on the private entity controlling it. We will thus consider the connected objects as “tools ofpower” (Stallman, 2012) likely to exercise a control over the individual and an “unjust” power basedon secrecy (via technical closeness and a legal depriving policy). This control can also be decentralizedand exercised by other entities than the legal owner (e.g commercial partners in the business ofpersonal data (e.g. Facebook or Google services) or Governmental organizations exercising a power ofauthority on the legal owner(s) in order to get a control over the individual's activities on it. Thiscontrol can be exercised on a deferred basis (e.g. collect of the data on the company's servers) ordirectly (e.g., via the installation of backdoors in order to have the possibility to control the devicewithout referring to its owners.

An important risk constituted by the use of AR technologies is constituted by their potential crackingand manipulation by a third-party taking control over the device and, by extension, of the individual's“reality” via the modification of his augmented informational environment. The reading of QR codescan, for example, be manipulated by a third-party to deceive the observer helped in his process by ARtechnologies. According to the website Unitaglive.com139, “Hacking a QR code means that the actiontriggered would have been modified through a manipulation. This is not possible, since this is the way

139 https://www.unitaglive.com/qrcode/can-qrcodes-be-hacked

145

the small square modules are arranged that determines this action (the data is encoded by the modulearrangement). To change this action, one would have to change the arrangement of the modules. Thisimplies physically modifying the QR Code if it has been printed. QR Codes cannot be hacked, but itis possible to replace a QR Code by another or to create a QR Code that will redirect to maliciouscontents.”

Recognition technologies can be easily deceived by individuals deploying strategies aiming atdisrupting their capacities. The URME initiative is a pretty good example. Invented by Leo Selvaggio,it aims at deceiving the facial recognition technologies in order to disrupt the globalized surveillancesystem. Savaggio (2014) states about his invention140: "When you wear these devices the cameras willtrack me instead of you and your actions in public space will be attributed as mine because it will beme the cameras see.” He also emphasizes that his invention succeeds in deceiving the Facebook facialrecognition system, which has some of the most sophisticated facial recognition software around. TheURME mask is thus a clear proof that recognition technologies can be easily fooled and disrupted, aswell as the individuals using them. We will also emphasize that while a technological device mighteasily be deceived by these strategies, it is pretty easy for a human being who pays close attention toan individual wearing this kind of mask that he his not who he pretends to be. The URME thusefficiently illustrates the potential issue of a too much reliance on AR technologies and the neglectionof natural analytic capacities in the observation and interpretative process.

AR technologies, initially designed to be efficient auxiliaries helping individuals in theirobservation/reading processes, can thus easily be turned into opponent which do not improve butweaken and negatively condition these processes. Closed/depriving and DRMized characteristics canalso constitute signs of a defined ability to exercise an abusive control over the technological device'susers (i.e., as part of its intrinsic design).

5.4. Open work

As we analyzed earlier, Eco's open work concept refers to the work's design's model. An open workthus possesses fields instead of strings of meaning, is internally dynamic and admits complexity, i.e.,actually encourages a multiplicity of interpretations. We are going to see that the “open” conceptapplied to a work can actually refer to many other dimensions, whose characteristics were developedor influenced by the Free and open-source philosophies as well as the internet network.

The main concept is the “open design”. It was first coined by Kadushin in 2004, and was formalized inthe 2010 Open Design Manifesto (Vittouris & Richardson, 2012). According to Nuvolari (2004) andRobert (1983), the sources of this movement (via the sharing of manufacturing information) can betraced back to the 18th and 19th century. Bessen and Nubolari (2011) emphasize that aggressivepatenting put an end to that period of extensive knowledge sharing. More recently, principles of opendesign have been related to the free software and open source movements (Vallance, et al., 2001).Raymond, O'Reilly and Augustin (1997) established "open source" as an alternative expression to

140 http://www.cnet.com/news/urme-anti-surveillance-mask-lets-you-pass-as-someone-else/

146

"free software" and Perens (1997) published the Open Source Definition. Dr. Kiani (1998) realizedthat designers could benefit from open source policies, and in early 1999 he convinced Dr. Vallanceand Dr. Nayfeh of the potential benefits of open design in machine design applications (Vallance,2001). Together they established the Open Design Foundation (ODF) as a non-profit corporation, andset out to develop an Open Design Definition (Vallance, 2001). The principles of open design areclosely similar to those of open-source hardware design and the creation of a hardware designcommunity based on the spirit of Free software.

Other terms are used to refer to the open design concept141 :

- Open collaborative design;

- Free design;

- Free and open design;

- Open-source design;

- Open-source hardware;

- Open design and engineering;

- Open Peer-to-Peer Design.

We can notice that both the “open” and “Free” terms are used to refer to open design. This highlightsthe ideological conflict Stallman emphasizes between the open-source and the Free movement, withcommodity or freedom as core values. An open-work, used for example by the Blender Foundation toqualify its productions, actually refers to a Free work respecting its readers' four fundamentalfreedoms. We thus presume that open content (accessible) and Free content (likely to be read, studied,modified and shared without restriction) constitute totally different designs and design's model. Boththese concepts, applied to design, however share as common characteristics the economy ofcollaboration and contribution we have analyzed earlier.

An open work as defined by Eco is designed to be interpreted originally. The open work conceptinherently implies, as we said, a design's model and a “model reader”, with intended whetherclosed/conflicting or open/interoperable mental models developed by individuals reading it (cognitivecommunicational dimension of openness we are going to analyze). The developed mental model of anopen work can thus be leashed/conditioned by a cognitive silo (e.g., favored by a branding strategy andan aggressive legal policy) or unleashed via a full interoperability between other works. Theinterpretation as “open-work” can thus consist to consider the intended possibility of any kind ofinterpretation from the observed representamen. The interpretamen thus is intended to beopen/dynamic and not closed/static. The work's design's model can be reflected in its code's nature :whether closed or “open” as part of the read – only paradigm or Free, as part of the read – write one.

The open design characteristics thus inherently require to be meaningful a Free legal license, such asCC-BY-SA or Art Libre. We will thus consider that the choice of a depriving license for an open

141 http://www.adciv.org/Open_collaborative_design#Names

147

work such as CC BY NC ND or “all rights reserved” is meaningless, for it does not allow theindividuals to write over it (read-only paradigm), i.e., develop a concrete interpretation of the work viathe materialization of their own vision reflected in a brand new work. A truly open work, in order tobe truly “meaningful”, thus has to allow its unrestricted and complete observation as well as thepossibility to copy (i.e., own it as an anti-rivalrous good), modify and share it in order to optimize thecollaborative interpretative and creative processes around it, via an open and decentralized reading andcollective intelligence process. The observation and interpretation of the work can also be made, inorder to be optimized, in comparison with other pieces (as part of its cultural cultural context, i.e.having served as inspirations for its creation) and with other derivative ones. An open work, designedto stimulate the observers' interpretation via a dynamic nature, can thus be designed to fit whether the“read – only” or “read – write” culture, i.e., be whether restrictive or permissive.

A digital open work also inherently requires the choice by the author(s) of a Free code and an openformat such as PNG, HTML5 or Webm, in order to ensure its universal reading, i.e., its truly opennature. A Free content but not free code of an open work is thus likely to induce discrimination, i.e.,compromise the work's open value/design. A good example is the No es una crisis documentary. Thiswork's authors had deliberately chosen a Free license in order to favor its free access worldwide.However, they released their work under a proprietary Flash format, making its reading impossible forindividuals navigating online with only Free technologies and who did not want to install aclosed/depriving plug-in to read it. The team behind the documentary was proposed by a group oflibrists to liberate it via a “liberathon”142in order to create a “truly free” alternative version likely to bechosen instead of the nonfree/closed one143.

Considering the different dimensions of openness we have emphasized, we are going to analyze aconcept influenced by the Free and open-source software movement, the “open collaborative design”.According to the AdCiv (Advanced Civilization) website, Open collaborative design involves applyingprinciples from the remarkable free and open-source software movement that provides a powerful newway to design physical objects, machines and systems. All information involved in creating the objector system is made available on the Internet – such as text, drawings, photographs and 3D computer-aided design (CAD) models – so that other people can freely re-create it, or help contribute to itsfurther evolution. It is essentially the same principle that is used to progress scientific knowledge,however in reality it is much more open and transparent than much of contemporary scientificresearch. The process is generally facilitated by the Internet and often performed without monetarycompensation. The goals and philosophy are identical to that of the open-source movement, but areimplemented for the development of physical products rather than software144. Open design is a formof co-creation, where the final product is designed by the users, rather than an external stakeholdersuch as a private company. Open collaborative design is a nascent field that has huge potential toradically alter the way we create goods, machines and systems – not only for personal items but all theway up to components of national or global infrastructure.

142 http://www.framablog.org/index.php/post/2013/11/21/no-es-una-crisis-documentaire-libre143 http://www.noesunacrisis.com/144 http://adciv.org/

148

A clear example of open collaborative work, via an open development process (inclusive, anyone canparticipate in the work's creation) is the Agata open work, whose development is based on acommunitarian basis. This project was established in late 2013 by Arthur Shamshadinov, director of aRussian Kazan-based Propellers studio. Here is what he says about this open project 145: “Shortly afterthe beginning, this project was supported by volunteers who started contributing concept art, making3D models, writing the script and even composing music. Since then the discussion has been takingplace on a public page at VK.com. Almost all of the decisions are made by voting, everyone canparticipate.” As we said, this kind of open collaborative creation inherently requires, to be trulyoptimal, a universal internet granting everyone the same potentiality of access and participation to theproject.

Stark's paradigm about open-design also emphasizes the will to empower the individuals and givethem more freedom in their creative process and in the domain of both aesthetic and functionalcreation. This famous designer participated in the creation of an online collaborative platform, TOGor “All creators together”146. This platform provides a wide collection of open source designs, withcustomers offering the possibility to be involved in the conception, taking ownership of the practice ofmaking and sharing ideas. According to Starck (2014), “TOG is the only company who shows clearlythat the only acceptable next trend is the freedom of choice and the freedom to be different”. Eachclient is thus offered the possibility to enjoy the piece as a naked design object, while also getting theopportunity to form their own personal mix through colors, pattern and geometry.147This initiativeonce again emphasizes the importance of openness, freedom and collaboration in the creative processoptimized via a universal internet network. Starck adds that anyone from around the globe can uploadtheir personal touches to already established designs. For example, communities and local tribes areinvolved in the creative customizing process, developing decorated slip covers in straw or pearl chairsfor a chair, or translating their traditional patterns and techniques in contemporary design elements.

The “open” work designation, whose use gets more and more democratized, can thus refer to manydifferent dimensions, each of them inducing potential influences on the reading process. We will thusemphasize the following ones :

- Semantic : Based on Eco's “open work” paradigm, with fields of meaning and “flexible” design'smodel with expectation of a dynamic interpretation;

- Legal : The work's legal nature grants the readers the right to read its content and code (e.g., source-code or recipe) or read and write over it, empowering them in their reading. The CC0, CC BY andCC BY SA are all licenses legally defining a work as “open” or “free cultural” as defined by Möller(2006). If the work possesses an “all rights reserved” or a CC BY NC ND license, we will considerthat its legal nature is “closed”.

- Compositive : The work's author(s) disclose(s) the entirety of the produced assets to the readers (asopen contents), so they can develop a rich and accurate understanding and interpretation of his work.

145 http://libregraphicsworld.org/blog/entry/agata-teaser-released146 http://www.togallcreatorstogether.com/ 147 http://www.designboom.com/design/open-source-furniture-philippe-starck-for-tog-04-08-2014/

149

An open production pipeline and a full disclosure/sharing of information and data about the workconstitute core characteristics of a collaborative open design. However, we will emphasize that anauthor's voluntary decision to disclose all his work's assets in order to enrich its readers' interpretationcan induce “illegal” sharing and modifications by them (independent legal status of the author's will) ifthe author does not explicitly legalize it via the choice of Free licenses (as all work is copyrighted bydefault);

- Developmental : The work's creative process is fully disclosed by its author(s). The public can thusobserve its development pipeline from its inception to its achievement as whether empowering ordepriving (legal dimension) work. The public can thus observe the author(s)' reflections toward theirwork in real time, allowing to optimize the understanding of their creative process and enrich theirinterpretation of the future work;

- Communicational : The communication term here refers to the concepts of interoperability/neutrality and conflict/discrimination when connected/merged works. This dimension can cover thefollowing domains :

- Technical : Free code and format, with open interoperable standards to ensure the technicalinteroperability between different works, and Free tools to achieve it in order to favor its remake,remix and re-purpose (Blender Foundation, 2006);

- Cognitive : Interoperable or conflicting/discriminating mental representations. Correlated withpermissive Vs depriving licenses as well as design and design's model (with potential silos andcognitive silos weakening the interpretation as potential part of a mashup mixing several differentworks). This dimension concerns the meaningful simultaneous thinking about different works;

- Contributive : Inclusive development process, i.e., universal, with anyone granted the samepotentiality of contribution. This dimension is emphasized by Pablo Vasquez (2013), Blender CGartist and director of the open movie Caminandes, who states about his successful crowdfundingcampaign : “Thank you all who made this possible, you helped improving Blender *and* brought tolife cartoons for everybody to share around, learn and study from the files that will be on the USBCard.”

These different dimensions of openness emphasize a more or less important degree of empowermentfor the public toward a work. Here are several degrees of empowerment :

- Cognitive empowerment, divided in two ones :

- “Semantic” : Via ranges of meaning allowing the personal expression of creativity in theinterpretation of the work;

- Informational : Via the access of all of the production assets used to create the work. This offersthe possibility to develop a richer and more accurate interpretamen, via the access to its intrinsic

150

structure and composition.

- Legal : Via the choice of Free licenses for both the content and the code (with open standardsfavoring its universal reading and non subjugation by a private entity exercising a control over hisexperience via potential malicious features such as DRMs).

- Technical : Via the release of all the tools used to create the work necessary to read and write over it.Optimized if Free formats and tools in order to favor its universal access, whatever the readingdevices/ecosystems used to observe it (for digital works).

According to this distinction between the dimensions of openness, we will thus state that an open work(semantic dimension) can also be, for example, depriving in its legal, social, developmental andcommunicational ones. Conversely, a closed (i.e., static) work can be legally, compositely anddevelopmentally open (i.e., inclusive in its development process). We will also highlight the fact thatan open (semantic) work can be closed in its compositional, legal, cognitive, technical and contributivedimensions.

An open (contributive) work can also be whether achieved or unachieved. For example, acollaborative translation of a closed (semantic) work's development process, made on an onlinecollaborative platforms such as Framapad, is open (contributive) during a certain laps of time, andclosed once achieved. It will thus potentially be :

- Still pursued but meaningless : For example, an online collaborative translation can be used bycontributors to translate an initial work and publish this translation once finished within the delimitedlaps of time. Once this time is over and the translation is copied by the group of contributors to bepublished, this created collaborative work can still be modified by anyone who connects to theplatform and create a new work from it. However, this new version will be considered as meaninglessif this page, forsaken by the initial authors, is not visited anymore;

- Never achieved : For example, a Free work, designed to be always in perpetual evolution via thesame potentiality of contribution for anyone. A good example is the Super Tux Kart videogame,which grants anyone the possibility to enrich it and extend its possibilities via the creation of newcharacters and levels.

An open work (technical and legal dimensions) can thus be designed to be permanently enriched orextended via the creation of add-ons (extensions of the work which remain optional and extend itspossibilities) or via direct contributions to its code and content in order to increase its meaning, valueand resilience. Free softwares are good examples of fully open “functional works”. Let's thus considerthe GIMP Free software. Jehan Pagès (2013), one of the core member of its development team,states : “GIMP is expandable and extensible. It is designed to be augmented with plug-ins andextensions to do just about anything.” The work's enriching of new functions is likely to change itsinterpretation by individuals. For example, the GIMP can be mainly considered as a photo editor for aphotographer, a drawing program for a painter or a game maker by another individual who is

151

considering the program with its G'MIC plug-in148, which proposes specific functionalities allowing tocreate digital or physical (once printed) games like puzzles149.

We are now about to analyze an example of open work which fits most of the different dimensions ofopenness we have emphasized.

An example of Free open work : Elephant's Dream

Elephant's Dream is the first 3D animated “open movie” directed by Bassam Kurdali and produced bythe Blender Foundation. Its official website describes it that way150 :

Elephants Dream is a story about communication and fiction, made purposefully open-ended asthe world’s first 3D animated “Open movie”. The film itself is released under the CreativeCommons license, along with the entirety of the production files used to make it (…). Thesoftware used to make the movie is the free/open source animation suite Blender along withother open source software, thus allowing the movie to be remade, remixed and re-purposedwith only a computer and the data on the DVD or download.

Kurdali (2013) talks about the story and its voluntary open semantic dimension : "The story is verysimple—I'm not sure you can call it a complete story even—It is about how people createideas/stories/fictions/social realities and communicate them or impose them on others. Thus Proog hascreated (in his head) the concept of a special place/machine, that he tries to "show" to Emo. WhenEmo doesn't accept his story, Proog becomes desperate and hits him. It's a parable of humanrelationships really—You can substitute many ideas (money, religion, social institutions, property)instead of Proog's machine—the story doesn't say that creating ideas is bad, just hints that it is betterto share ideas than force them on others”151. It is thus interesting that the story itself illustrates thecognitive conflict between two individuals toward a purely “artificial” reality :

- The old man, Proog, is full of cognitive certainty and comfort. He is used to navigating on anegocentric basis, by always following the same cognitive patterns and interpretative directions towardhis psychic virtual reality (“The machine is like a clockwork”). He acts as a tour-guide in order toshow the other protagonist the sights of his “virtual world” . He looks to get used to evolving in thisfamiliar environment, and to have lost the sense of reality (“Why can't you see the beauty of thisplace? How perfect it is?”). We can thus presume that he developed a psychic virtual reality too muchdisconnected to the actual one, and that this disconnection induced a cognitive enclosure within this“perfectly safe” place;

- The young man, Emo, is at first curious to discover Proog's virtual world , but gets more and more

148 Developed by the Groupe de recherche en informatique, image, automatique et instrumentation de Caen ( GREYC UMR CNRS) and released under a CeCILL (GPL-compatible) license. Here is the presentation of the G'MIC : “G'MIC has been made available as an easy-to-use plug-in for GIMP . It extends this retouching software capabilities by offering a large number of pre-defined image filters and effects. Of course, the plug-in is highly customizable and it is possible to addyour own custom G'MIC-written filters in it.”149 http://la-vache-libre.org/gmic-1-5-8-2-disponible-introduction-dun-filtre-puzzle-qui-roxe-du-poney/150 http://orange.blender.org/background151 http://www.maxforums.net/showthread.php?t=93390

152

skeptical about it and asks questions disrupting the “machine”'s stability (i.e., Proog's cognitivecertainty and stability). He wishes to disobey the official rules in order to explore new sights andplaces. His attitude and behavior emphasize a will of allocentric navigation fed by an exploration spiritand serendip attitude favoring the unexpected discoveries and innovation.

As we said, this movie fits many of our defined dimensions of openness we have emphasized :

- Open development : According to the movie's official website, “By keeping such projects contentfocused and temporal, it also is possible for a wide range of currently active volunteers to participate.Not many people are in a position to give up a career (study, job) to become full-time employed onthe projects of their interest. But there are many active volunteers prepared and motivated to do thisincidentally for shorter time spans”;

- Open tools : Favoring the work's appropriation and remix for the public, via its common technicalnature, not discriminating via the universal nature of the tools used to create it. The software used tomake the movie is the free/open source animation suite Blender, along with other open sourcesoftware, thus allowing the movie to be remade, remixed and re-purposed. The team behind the movieemphasizes, talking about their motivations via this open movie, that one of the main goal is to searchfor efficient ways to increase the quality of open source projects in general;

- Open format : The movie can be downloaded under the Free Webm format, allowing anyone to readit from any device without restriction (no DRM nor depriving licenses applying to the work's code);

- Open legal license : Empowering legal license favoring the work's unrestricted appropriation by thepublic, via a legal access and reading of both its content and “code”;

- Open design's model : Designed to be openly interpreted, with ranges of meaning composed ofsubtle hints designed to trigger a wide range of interpretative possibilities. Kurdali (2009) thusemphasizes the movie's open semantic design by talking about its composition of ranges instead ofstrings of meaning : “There are lots of little clues/hints about this in the movie—many little thingshave a meaning—but we're not very "tight" with it, because we are hoping people will have their ownideas about the story, and make a new version of the movie. In this way (and others) we tie the storyof the movie with the "open movie" idea.” He thus highlights the different degrees of empowermentwe have emphasized earlier, granting anyone the same right to create from this work (i.e., read - writeparadigm).

The open work concept thus covers a wide range of dimensions, which necessarily have to beconsidered to truly optimize the readers' empowerment, i.e., their interpretation of the work and, byextension its meaning, value and lifestyle. The diversity of interpretations thus has to be favored bylegal, technical and “ethical” choices from the author(s) in order to truly unleash the public's readingand writing (i.e., creative) process.

153

6. Wave – particle duality and observer effect as core parts of the complexobservation and semiotic hacking

“Our notion of reality is built on everyday experiences. But wave-particle duality is so strangethat we are forced to re-examine our common conceptions” Niehls Bohr

Bohr (1935) states that quantum physics force a ‘radical revision’ of our attitude to physical reality.For Heisenberg (1957), “We have to remember that what we observe is not nature in itself but natureexposed to our method of questioning.” Everett (1957) developed a theory about the ‘many worlds’interpretation in order to explain that physical reality requires an independent observer to convertstates of superposition (where all possibilities, expressed mathematically as a wavefunction exist) intoone singular position. He thus proposed that the material reality we perceive is merely one part of aninterconnected wavefunction of all possibilities that continue to exist. Our reality is thus merelyrelative to our observation. Observation is fundamental to deal with the wave – particle duality. TimDavis (2012) analyzes this curious phenomenon152: “Wave-particle duality refers to the fundamentalproperty of matter where, at one moment it appears like a wave, and yet at another moment it acts likea particle.” He then analyzes the differences between waves and particles :

- “The properties of particles can be demonstrated with a marble. The marble is a spherical lump ofglass located at some point in space. If we flick the marble with our finger, we impart energy to it -this is kinetic energy, and the moving marble takes this energy with it. A handful of marbles thrown inthe air come crashing down, each marble imparting energy where it strikes the floor.”;

- “Waves are spread out. Examples of waves are the big rollers on the open ocean, ripples in a pond,sound waves and light waves. If at one moment the wave is localised, some time later it will havespread out over a large region, like the ripples when we drop a pebble in a pond.” Matter and lightexhibit properties akin to both a particle and a wave description. For example, electrons can be locatedand appear as particles. They can also be diffracted by crystals, and appear as waves. An electronnever exhibits both wave-like and particle-like properties simultaneously. They thus sometimes behaveas particle or as wave, depending on the individuals' choice of observation. The wave carries with itenergy related to its motion. Unlike the particle the energy is distributed over space because the waveis spread out. The electron exhibits both particle and wave-like behaviors. While the electronpropagates through space like a wave, it interacts at a point like a particle. This is known as wave-particle duality”.

Professor Russell Stannard (2013) looks at the wave-particle paradox and emphasizes that the verywords “wave”, “particle”, “electrons”,... are all words used specifically to describe observation. It isthus a misuse of language to try to use these words to describe what might exist in between theobservation153. Bohr believed that the wave function represents our knowledge of the physicalphenomena we are studying, not the phenomena itself. In this sense, it is a potential which is realizedonly when we make an observation; this observation causes the wave function to "collapse" into the

152 http://theconversation.com/explainer-what-is-wave-particle-duality-7414153 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_nvgGk8A3oo

154

actual manifestation of the route taken. Wigner claims that it is the entry of human consciousness intothe picture that causes the wave function to collapse. Finally, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle tellsus that it is impossible to simultaneously measure the position (i.e., where it is) and momentum (i.e.,how fast it is going) of a particle with infinite precision. As the thinking and the production ofmeaning are two same processes of semiosis with two different angles, we will emphasize thatsemiosis and quantum physics both focus on the observation and interpretation processes in theproduction of meaning analysis.

Santon (2012), in Revising attitudes on reality : quantum physics and visual art, tries to use specificphenomena emphasized in quantum physics such as the observer effect to transpose them to the visualart domain and propose a new approach to the perception and creation of reality. She thus argues thatvisual art might assist us to conceive quantum concepts outside the bounds of scientific formalism andto possibly revise our attitude towards physical reality. She analyses one of her creative works entitledDribblejuice (2010-12) stating : “Through the method of interaction with the work - sitting on a child’schair to view the horizontally-mounted upside down painting through the mirrored peep-hole - I amendeavouring to upset traditional viewing techniques and to dislodge ideas about the ‘reality’ ofviewing artwork, hopefully giving an expansive experience to the viewer. Additionally, the act ofpeering closely into the peep-hole reproduces the activity required in the quantum world to manifestone particular stream of reality in the ocean of all possibilities.” We will emphasize that these twoconcepts (“streams of reality” and “ocean of possibilities”) share some strong similarities with Lévy'sactualized semantic fields and Tollman's cognitive map concepts we have analyzed earlier. Based onthese analysis, we will consider in our semiotic analysis that :

- A representamen can be observed whether as a wave or as a particle, depending on the individual'schoice of observation and virtual pole of his relation to it;

- The observation of the representamen as particle will refer to its interpretation as a clear, meaningfuland “located” representamen clearly standing for a precise object (meaningful semiotic relation, withclear thought-signs). This kind of observation can be favored by a certain and comfortable cognitiveframework (e.g., “leashed” virtual pole of the relation to the observed representamen, likely to inducean alienation to its reality). The cognitive process will imply a sequential (i.e., crystallized) intelligencevia the consideration of one single interpretative possibility through time and will be favored if theindividual possesses a cognitive rigidity and uses familiar cognitive patterns;

- The observation of the representamen as a wave will refer to its interpretation as a “world ofpossibilities” whose meaningful observation requires to locate one “wave-pulse”, i.e., isolate oneinterpretative possibility and temporarily overlook the other ones in order to actualize a meaningfulsemiotic relation. We will qualify the representamen's wavefunction as the interpreted class of possibleobjects the individual observing it considers in his semiotic process. This kind of observation can befavored by a rich and dynamic interpretative process. The cognitive process will imply a simultaneous(i.e., fluid) intelligence via the consideration of several interpretative possibilities for the sameobserved representamen at a time. This process will be favored if the individual possesses a cognitiveflexibility and uses flexible cognitive patterns. The observation of one possibility instead of the other

155

determined ones collapses the wavefunction and allows the observer to actualize meaningful semioticrelations. The location of one wave-pulse to produce meaning within the observed “wave-like”representamen can be turned at any time into a particle- like observation, via the permanentoverlooking of other possibilities to focus entirely on this isolated one;

- The observation of the representamen as wave – particle dual element is likely to induce a cognitiveconflict and disrupt the observation process as well as inherently induce a choice of observation(observer effect) in order to put an end to this conflict/discomfort. This choice will thus be favored bythe individual's will to develop or preserve a cognitive coherence toward the observed representamen(necessary to develop a meaningful actualized semiotic relation), via the consideration of dichotomousstates within the observed representamen. It will also imply a choice of context for the observation ofthe selected state within the virtual pole of his relation to the representamen : whether choice toobserve it within a “world of possibility” (i.e., relative) or as permanently isolated/located interpretant(i.e., absolute);

- The observation of the representamen's position will refer to its meaningful interpretation (i.e.,actualized semiotic relation with certain and meaningful interpretant relating the representamen to aspecific object) at a T time. This will imply for a particle-like observation the generation of one clearlylocated thought-sign (interpretamen). For a wave-like observation, it will imply the location of one“wave-pulse”, i.e., one interpretative possibility within the considered ones;

- The observation of the representamen's momentum will refer to the consideration of the individual'sknown (i.e., already defined) interpretative possibilities. The simultaneous observation of all thedefined states of a dynamic representamen such as a Transformer is thus likely to induce uncertaintyin the semiotic process (via the diffusion of the cognitive resources to try to produce meaning frompotentially conflicting states with different characteristics such as a plane and a car). In other words,the more interpretative possibilities the individual observing a representamen considers, the morefreedom he exercises over his semiotic process, via more choice likely to induce more cognitiveuncertainty. The representamen's meaningful wave-like observation thus requires for the individual tooperate a choice within his known interpretative possibilities (i.e., the location of one “wave-pulse”).Thus, the simultaneous interpretation of an open work according to two different contradictory –however credible and meaningful – interpretations is likely to disrupt the semiotic process, via thesimultaneous integration of two dichotomous thought-signs within it;

- The observed representamen's “momentum” can be increased via the V – A dynamic, and theactualization of new interpretative possibilities based on the observed and interpreted sign-vehicles.This process can be favored if the representamen's design is semantically open (i.e., “intrinsicallydynamic” and “virtualizing by design”) and if the individual's virtual pole of his relation to it is richand unleashed (e.g., via rich culture and “good reading”). The individual's open-mindedness, cognitiveflexibility and psychic elasticity (e.g., used to stimulating his V – A dynamic and dealing withcognitive conflict by integrating other interpretative possibilities in his cognitive framework) is thusnecessary for innovation to happen. This innovation will be induced by a cognitive restructuring

156

favored by the integration of other interpretative possibilities, whether actualized by himself or byother individuals. In a nutshell, we will thus consider :

- The richer the knowledge, awareness and consideration of interpretative possibilities aboutthe observed representamen, the more its momentum;

- The more stimulated the V – A dynamic, the more the chance to increase the observedrepresentamen's momentum and the more the individual's freedom over his semiotic process (for themore actualized interpretative possibilities offering a wide range of choice) but also the more cognitiveuncertainty (if the different possible “positions” are observed simultaneously). We will emphasize twocharacteristics of this observation :

- The lesser the momentum, the more the individual's interpretation is likely to beenclosed in a certain, stable and familiar cognitive environment and favor its alienation to the observedrepresentamen's reality (Lévy, 1995), i.e., to be turned into a particle-like observation;

- The more the observed representamen's momentum, the more the individual'scognitive freedom over its design's model (especially if designed to be restrictive and alienating, e.g.,if closed/depriving, DRMized and branded). This can thus increase the individual's cognitive defensesagainst influence and manipulation techniques, via the exercise of freedom over the observedrepresentamen by disobeying to the majority representations/attitudes about it, i.e., to the officialand/or majority actualized interpretations of the representamen (optimized if permanent V - Adynamic).

We will also, based on these different considerations, highlight a resemblance between thefluid/crystallized intelligences and the wave/particle characteristics :

- The fluid intelligence allows to develop simultaneous thoughts. This is similar to the characteristicsof the wavefunction and the “world of possibilities” composing the wave. This can stand, in oursemiotic analysis, for the actualized semantic fields, with no sequential order (possibility to observemeaningfully any located “position” without any precise order) as well as a spread out “energy”(distributed over space). This last point will refer, in our analysis, to the “spread out cognitive energy”(i.e., mobilized cognitive resources for perception, attention, interpretation and memorization). Thesimultaneous intelligence will thus be solicited in the observation of several considered possiblepositions at a T time (i.e., observation of the wave-like representamen's momentum);

- The crystallized intelligence allows to develop sequential thoughts. This is similar to the particlecharacteristics and the particle-like observation, with a clear trajectory and “located” position (withlocated “cognitive energy”) every time the individual observes the representamen as a particle.

The fluid intelligence (referring in our analysis to the simultaneous observation and interpretation ofseveral interpretative possibilities) thus requires, for the semiotic process to be meaningful, theisolation of one possibility in order to actualize a meaningful semiotic relation. A good example is the

157

optical illusion of the young lady and the old woman154, which requires for the observer aware of theexistence of the two interpretative possibilities to isolate one shape and overlook the other one in orderto produce meaning within his semiotic process. For example, the individual can choose, in hisreading process, a specific semantic path within a possibility of many actualized ones. This analysisfits Santon's paradigm based on quantum physics with the observation of a stream of reality in anocean of possibilities. The rhematic interpretant shares some strong similarities with the wave-likeobservation for it only refers, in the relation to the object, to the qualities of the observedrepresentamen (i.e., firstness structure), which are also the qualities of a whole class of possibleobjects. The rheme is thus neither true nor false and is equivalent to a variable in a functionalproposition. It functions like a form with blanks to be filled in or a space on a questionnaire (e.g., “...is red"). For example, a person's portrait, with no other indications, represents a whole class ofpossible objects: the people who look like the portrait.155

The wave-like observation thus refers to the interpretation of the observed representamen as standingfor whole classes of possible objects, based on its intrinsic characteristics as well as the individual'svirtual pole to it (with expectations and intentions toward it). It can thus be based, as we will see, onthe different levels of the Peircean semiotic model : firstness (qualities), secondness (contiguity andpractical experience) or thirdness (rules and laws) and be enriched via a modification of the observedrepresentamen (i.e.,”writing process”). This enriching is thus likely to increase its momentum, via theintegration of new sign-vehicles triggering new thought-signs/interpretative possibilities. Theunleashed wave-like observation based on the disinhibited enriching of the observed representamen toactualize new meaningful semiotic relations will be at the heart of the synectiction practice we willanalyze further in this work. We will also emphasize that the particle-like observation can be favoredby the secondness and thirdness structures, with the development of familiar cognitive patterns andbehaviors reflecting a too much compliance to the observed representamen's design, i.e., its officialinterpretative rules (i.e., deductive interpretation). This leashed relation to the observed representamenis likely to favor the development of induction (via a familiar experience with the observedrepresentamen, with egocentric navigation between the virtual and actual poles of his relation to it)likely to be urned into deduction (via the crystallization of attitudes toward it and internalization of theinterpreted rules). The individual's alienation to the observed representamen's design's model (via hisconscious or not choice to obey the observed representamen's official rules) is thus likely to favor aparticle-like observation, depending on the representamen's design (whether static or dynamic, open orclosed). As we said, the representamen's design (with inherent design's model) can be composed ofstrings or ranges of meaning (implying the use of crystallized and/or fluid intelligences). Theinterpretative possibilities of an observed dynamic representamen can be based on :

- Only its dynamic design (i.e., alienation to its reality and defined official rules);

- On its dynamic design (thirdness) and experience with it (secondness), for example via its usual useaccording to a purely subjective and arbitrary actualized state (with initial V – A dynamic);

154 http://www.coolopticalillusions.com/optical_illusions_images_2/images/youngwomanoldlady.jpg155 Nicole Everaert-Desmedt (2011), « Peirce's Semiotics », in Louis Hébert (dir.), Signo [online], Rimouski (Quebec), http://www.signosemio.com/peirce/semiotics.asp.

158

- On its dynamic design, experience with it and intrinsic qualities (firstness), whether initially presentin its design or enriched by the individuals;

As we said, the observed representamen's design and design's model can be whether :

- Static : Closed, designed to be interpreted as a particle and likely to alienate the individuals to itsdefined reality (official design). A closed design can be favored by closed/depriving nature preventingthe individuals to access informations about its composition (forcing a “blind” trust), a depriving legallicense preventing its modification and a branding strategy aiming at crystallizing the individual'sattitudes toward the observed representamen; or

- Dynamic : Open, designed to be interpreted as wave-like and potentially stimulate the individuals'V – A dynamic, i.e., its interpretative skills (e.g., via abductive inferential process), with strings orranges of meaning (Eco, 1963). An open design can be favored via a required/intended cognitiveengagement and decisional process in the interpretation. Conversely, a reified but not intended to beobserved and interpreted state (i.e., officious state such as a malicious feature within a deceptivesystem) can be designed to be “meaningless” for the individuals observing the deceptiverepresentamen (via their unawareness of its existence) while being fully “meaningful” for therepresentamen's creator/rights holder(s). Thus, this officious feature allows them to exercise an abusive“hidden” control over the representamen's users. We will analyze this issue in detail later;

- Dual : Intended wave – particle dual interpretation, with choice of observation between twodichotomous designed states.

- Discriminating or interoperable : Encloses/leashes the semiotic process or opens up newinterpretative possibilities (i.e., stimulates the wave-like interpretation). Can be strategic in order topreserve a distinctive interpretation (i.e., particle-like or leashed wave-like) or protect a clear identity(e.g., core principle of the branding strategy we will analyze further).

The Bitcoin is a really good example of program favoring the unleashed wave-like observation via thepossibility to create a potential infinity of new programs based on its Free source-code. Its intrinsicvirtualizing by design nature is emphasized by this article depicting the creative process of a younghacker having developed an unleashed and strongly stimulated virtual pole of the relation to theBitcoin software156:

Most people think of bitcoin as a form of money, if they think of bitcoin at all. But 19-year-oldhacker Vitalik Buterin sees it as something more — much more. He sees it as a new way ofbuilding just about any internet application. Borrowing code from this rather clever piece ofsoftware, independent hackers have already built applications such as the Twitter-style socialnetwork Twister, the encrypted e-mail alternative Bitmessage, and the unseizable domain namesystem Namecoin. But Buterin believes that many other applications can benefit from the geniusof the bitcoin software, and that’s why he’s joining forces with several other hackers to createsomething called Ethereum.

156 http://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise/2014/01/ethereum/

159

The Duct Tape is also a good example to illustrate the stimulation of the unleashed and creativeobservation process, based not on its official design (which aims at fixing things) but on its intrinsiccharacteristics favoring its manipulation and modification. Thus, this invention can easily stand foralmost anything once transformed (via individual or collective V – A dynamic) such as a wallet, a hator a rose.157

The wave – particle duality concept thus fits perfectly the design, design's model and mental modelones. A dynamic representamen is thus designed to be observed and interpreted as a wave, i.e.,standing for several possibilities of interpretation, but mainly or exclusively according to its officialrules. Thus, if a Transformer toy, with three designed states (e.g., robot, plane and car) is onlyobserved as a robot, then we will presume that the two other states (the plane and the car) aremeaningless, for they are not considered in the observation process, i.e., integrated in the semioticone. Its observation as a static representamen (with only one interpretamen standing for the samesource object at each observation) is thus likely to induce a “particle-like” mental model with a certainand stable “trajectory”. Conversely, a “static” deceptive by design one, especially if closed/deprivingnature based on “blind” trust toward its official design, is designed to be observed as a particle. Its richand accurate meaning (i.e., dynamic interpretation, with observation of both its official and officiousdesign) will however only be produced by its complete observation, e.g., via the practice of reverse-engineering and the disobedience to its official rules.

The enriching of the observed representamen's dynamic design via the focus on its intrinsic qualities islikely to disrupt its official design's model defined by its author. Let's thus consider a Transformer-liketoy composed of three official states : a robot, a car and a plane. This toy is thus officially designed tobe interpreted as standing only for these three official states (intended mental model) via theapplication of a rule of behavior necessary to observe them. However, the individual observing itnotices that this toy is made of plastic and can thus easily float on water. He will thus add anotherinterpretative possibility in his semiotic process, observing the representamen as a “wave” possiblystanding (if located) for a boat, considering its intrinsic characteristics. The toy's creator might thusconsider this original and unintended interpretation as a threat, for he also commercializes “dynamic”toys with an official boat design. The individual having “hacked” the toy (via the disobedience to itsofficial rules to adapt to his needs and expectations) might thus not desire to purchase a new toyspecifically designed to possess the boat state. The hacking philosophy, which aims at systematicallydisobeying the official rules to build something new, thus allows to stimulate the dynamic/wave-likeobservation , via the virtualization and actualization of new semiotic relations.

6.1. The increase of the observed representamen's momentum

The observation process, based on the wave – particle duality and the choice of observation, inherentlyinvolves the notion of “movement”, “direction” and “energy”. This also shares some resemblances withthe V - A dynamic (as moving of configuration from one actualized state to another one) as defined byLévy (1995) and the “work in movement” as defined by Eco (1963). As we said, the observed

157 http://www.wikihow.com/Make-a-Duct-Tape-Wallet

160

representamen can thus be whether clearly located (if particle-like observation) or “spread out”,requiring for the observer the location (via cognitive isolation) of one “wave-pulse”, and enriched via apsychic movement (i.e., V – A dynamic). This psychic process can be favored by open works such asworks in movement. The “speed” will thus be generated by the psychic dynamic and the “kineticenergy” produced by it (whether leashed or unleashed, via expression of creativity and creativeintelligence. Kinetic energy is the energy of motion. There are many forms of kinetic energy :

- Vibrational : The energy due to vibrational motion;

- Rotational : The energy due to rotational motion;

- Translational : The energy due to motion from one location to another.

We will retain, in our analysis, the translational form. The production of kinetic energy in theinterpretation process is thus produced by the V – A dynamic stimulating the semiotic relation via themoving from one actualized meaningful interpreted state to another one (according to Lévy's analysis,1995). The increase of the observed representamen's “speed”, via the enriching of interpretativepossibilities thus induces the increase of its momentum (i.e., frequency if wave-like observation)which stimulates the observation and interpretative processes, i.e., the semiotic one. This psychicprocess will also enrich the observed representamen's reality for, as Lévy (1995) states, world and lifeare in a permanent enriching when virtualization and actualization are associated. The individual'spsychic movement and use (via efficient mobilization) of cognitive resources are thus necessary toenrich the meaning of observed representamens. The V – A dynamic, as psychic movement necessaryfor creativity and innovation to happen, is favored by a psychic flexibility an a wide and flexiblecognitive framework. It can also be favored by intrinsically dynamic kinetic works, as made possiblefor example via specific construction sets (FAT, 2012). The cognitive “kinetic energy” will thus implythe psychic dynamic and a potential cognitive restructuring as source of innovation in the semioticprocess. As we analyzed earlier, a work's lifestyle depends on its observation and interpretation. Thus,a work's “frequency” (whose value resides in its rich, diverse and unleashed individual and collectiveinterpretation offering a wide range of interpretative possibilities) will be optimized if observed andinterpreted with a strong cognitive diversity coming from an open and decentralized process.

The actualization of new possibilities for an observed representamen can concern the three levels ofthe semiotic model :

- Firstness : Via its new qualities likely to trigger new interpretative possibilities/thought-signs;

- Secondness : Via for example a change in the context of observation or use and the discovery ofinitially unexpected consequences when use in a specific context158;

- Thirdness : Via the actualization of new rules/conventions (e.g., a consensus toward anoriginal/unintended mental model with a different semantic field from the original design opening up

158 For example, an individual has purchased a flute to play music in his house. He however realizes that, when used in a new context (i.e., a forest), its whistle systematically attracts birds. This initially unexpected property discovered whether voluntarily or not will thus allow him to actualize a new meaningful semiotic relation, by relating this observed flute to the birds systematically attracted by its sound when played in a natural environment.

161

new semantic paths and interpretative possibilities,...).

The V – A dynamic is thus optimized, as we said, if the individual observing the representamenpossesses an unleashed virtual pole of his relation to it (e.g., with strong original expectations towardit) as well as with the serendip attitude and an optimized abductive process bound to it 159. The practiceof hacking, and especially of reverse-engineering, aims at developing a complete observation andenriching of the interpretation process as well as increasing the individual's freedom over his semioticprocess. This practice can thus, as we analyzed earlier, favor the chance of unexpected discoveries andfavor the abduction process likely to stimulate the creative intelligence (according to Sandri's analysiswe will analyze further). The exploration of the limits of the observed representamen's possibilities isthus likely to favor the discovery of more sign-vehicles likely to multiply the interpretativepossibilities, outside the official rules/semantic paths intended to be taken by the observedrepresentamen's creator and as part of its intrinsic design and design's model.

The direction/trajectory (via the motion of the observed representamen) will also refer to theactualized and explored interpretative directions/semantic paths within the actualized cognitive mapand semantic fields. Allocentric navigation can thus favor the chance of unexpected discovery of neworiginal paths to explore. It can also stimulate the observation process, via an unleashed navigationbetween the virtual and actual pole of the relation to the observed representamen. Flexible cognitivepatterns, coupled to specific expectations from the observed representamen (inductive and deductiveinterpretation processes) can favor the chance of serendipity and innovation/enriching the cognitivemap and semantic field. Conversely, an egocentric navigation coupled to rigid cognitive patterns (i.e.,via an alienating deductive interpretation) based on a strong certainty and familiarity in theobservation process is not only likely to prevent the increase of the observed representamen'smomentum. It is also likely to slow the process down (via the more and more overlooking of initiallyconsidered possibilities) and to induce a transformation into a particle-like nature.

Familiarity, cognitive certainty/comfort coupled to restrictive physical, digital or psychic “features”such as DRMs, mental DRMs or cognitive silos are thus likely to freeze of the semiotic process via thegeneration of a final logical interpretant favored by the leashing/conditioning of the virtual pole of therelation to the observed representamen. In other words, they can strongly weaken or prevent theincrease of the observed representamen's momentum (via the actualization of new interpretativepossibilities) and the fluid intelligence via the simultaneous thinking and the partitioning/conflictbetween competitive representamens interpreted as conflicting. We will thus presume that the moredisinhibited the individual's relation to the observed representamen (e.g., via manipulation andcognitive processes such as reverse-engineering,...) and stimulated/exploited creativethought/intelligence in the observation process (via disobedience to the representamen's officialrules/design's model such as the search for the interoperability between representamens designed to beconflicting), the more the observed representamens' momentum.

The increase of the observed wave-like representamen's momentum fits the “do not surf but makewaves” paradigm emphasized by Shneiderman (1999). Thus, it is important for the individual who

159 We will analyze these concepts and their importance in the creative process later.

162

wants to develop his creative intelligence toward the observed representamen (and by extension hisfreedom) to not only explore the limits of the observed representamen's possibilities, but to explorenew potential and actualize new ones (via the V – A dynamic). As we will see later, the representamenhas to be observed as a “world of possibilities” (i.e., already defined) likely to be enriched by apotential infinity of new ones in order to optimize the semiotic hacking process. The actualization ofnew functions is thus likely to stimulate the semiotic process, and the enriching of new characteristics(via the modification of the representamen) is likely to enrich its interpretative possibilities, via newobservable sign-vehicles triggering new thought-signs relating the observed representamen to newobjects.

The representamen's momentum can be, as we said, increased via an increase of the number ofindividuals observing it. The collective intelligence and the multiplication of diverse interpretativepossibilities (favored if favorable social norms for collective intelligence and cognitive conflict, i.e.,innovation) is thus fundamental for the collective interpretation process to be optimal. In other words,the more observed and cognitively appropriated the observed representamen, the more valuable (i.e.,meaningful) and resilient it becomes. The resilience term will here refer to the observedrepresentamen's sustainability in case of “shock” such as an attempt of censorship. This is similar tothe peer-to-peer principle, with the speed of the online sharing process depending on the number ofindividuals involved in the process (the more the individuals involved, the faster and resilient itbecomes).

The creator's choice of the observed representamen to release it under a permissive/empowering legallicense can favor this collective appropriation and increase of momentum, i.e., value via meaning andresilience. As the EFF (2014) states, “By giving up power over our art, our art gains more power”.The FAT Lab (2014) emphasizes the gain of momentum of a representamen via the increase of itspopularity, i.e., the multiplication of its observation and interpretation : “The project inspired manyother DIY offline network projects and since last year after Snowden the site gained again newmomentum. It is interesting how this and similar projects are perceived in a different light today.” Freedigital goods constitute the perfect example of virtualizing by design goods (i.e., designed to beobserved and enriched on an open, decentralized and unrestricted basis), for they are designed to beviable, sustainable and resilient via their anti-rivalrous nature.

The liberation of closed/depriving representamens can thus constitute a really efficient way to increaseand optimize their value and resilience via the increase of their momentum. Let's consider two clearexamples. The first one is the Blender software, which was initially a closed/depriving program whosedevelopment was strictly reserved to the company commercializing it. After the company gotbankrupt, a world-wide community decided to purchase the software in order to release its sourcecode and turn it into a new Free program. Blender has now become one of the most successful Freesoftware and is evolving extremely quickly, benefiting from a world-wide community of fans anddevelopers. The second example is the Glitch videogame. This initial closed/depriving MMO shut itsservers on December 2012, leaving a community frustrated to not be able to keep playing this game.However, its creators/legal owners decided to embrace the Free culture and released all the assets used

163

for the game under a public domain license (explicit right to do anything with them withoutrestriction). Two months later, several new projects based on the game bloomed online, giving Glitchanother life thanks to the support of a legally empowered community.160

The Streisand and Flamby effects are also good examples of the increase of the observedrepresentamen's momentum, i.e., of its value (through meaning) and resilience. Based on theseanalysis, we will thus presume that :

- The more copied and shared (i.e. multiplied and decentralized), the higher the work's resistance andresilience;

- The higher the cognitive conflict between observers about an observed representamen, the morelikely innovation is to happen;

- The more the actualization and expression of new ideas, the richer the observed representamen'spossibilities and the more its momentum;

- The more the observed representamen's momentum (i.e. the more stimulated and frequent the V - Adynamic), the higher the observer's freedom (i.e. control over his own mind) and the lesser the risk ofalienation (as defined by Lévy, 1995);

- The more closed/centralized power the author exercises about his work (e.g., via closed/deprivingnature), the less value and meaning the work is likely to develop (for favored standardizedinterpretations induced by “blind trust” toward its official design);

- The more open/decentralized the representamen's development process, the richer its meaning andvalue is likely to be, via a higher probability to increase the observed representamen's momentumfavored by the same potentiality of access, ownership and unrestricted observation, interpretation andenriching. Favored if the representamen is designed to be viable and sustainable;

- The more discriminating (social, cognitive and technical dimensions) the work's design, the less itsvalue is likely to be developed (for less chance of collective reading and intelligence about it;

- The more standardized and matching the author's model the interpretations of a depriving work are,the more power the author possesses over the individuals' mind toward his work;

- The more diverse and divergent with the author's model the interpretations of a representamen is, themore empowered/free the individuals and the less risk of abusive power the author is likely to exerciseover them;

- The more the momentum of an observed “wave-like” representamen (interpretamen and/orinterpretant), the wider the interpretative possibilities, and the more spread out” the cognitiveresources if observed;

160 http://opensource.com/life/14/2/creative-commons-enables-return-glitch?utm_content=buffer8b760&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer#.Uv0k4FarzLs.twitter

164

- The more the momentum, the harder it gets for the representamen's right holder(s) to anticipate theindividuals' interpretations of their “intellectual property”161. Likely to lose it (e.g., if genericide/loss ofmental association (Doctorow, 2013) or if expressed differently (new expression likely to induce newlegal rights and threaten the “exclusive rights” on the idea);

- The more closed/centralized the representamen's development process, the more the risk of loss ofmomentum (via closed/depriving and static designs likely to favor the individuals' alienation to itsreality).

6.2. The cognitive conflict between wave-like, particle-like and wave – particle dualobservations

Davis (2012) emphasizes that “Colliding particles will bounce off each other but colliding waves passthrough one another and emerge unchanged. But overlapping waves can interfere - where a troughoverlaps a crest the wave can disappear altogether. When two waves occupy the same place at thesame time, they exhibit constructive and destructive interference- their amplitude combine and eitheramplify or cancel out- producing sequential lines and dark lines.”

We will emphasize a resemblance between this phenomenon and the cognitive conflict between twodifferent interpretations of the same observed representamen. Thus, the observation by two individualsobserving the same representamen as a particle (i.e., excluding other interpretative possibilities)induces, if expressed, a cognitive conflict between two “rigid” and “excluding” interpretations. Thecognitive conflict can be induced, for example, by :

- The production of different interpretamens (e.g., rich/unleashed against poor /leashed ideas of therepresentamen or conflict between “altered” ones such as DRMized representamens designed to beunique for each observer;

- The production of different interpretants (via distinctive relations to different objects) with the sameor similar interpretamens (e.g;, mental models of a system).

Conversely, two individuals observing the same representamen as a wave (i.e., acceptance of otherinterpretative possibilities/inclusive process) will be more likely to enrich their respective cognitiveframework and “map”, and to organize a cognitive restructuring likely to induce an innovation. Thecollective practice of wave-like observation can thus favor the “cognitive interoperability” and thechance of cognitive restructuring via a better managed cognitive conflict.

The cognitive conflict can also be generated by the observation of both a representamen's official andofficious design, cohabiting within the same deceptive by design observed entity (i.e, designed todeceive the ignorant observers and hide them its true nature). This dichotomy between the official andofficious designs (e.g., with dichotomous values and semantic fields) will induce an interpretativeconflict based on the wave – particle duality characteristics. As we said, it denotes the existence of twocontrary states cohabiting within an observed entity, which require a choice of observation (via the

161 We will analyze this issue later.

165

overlooking of one state) in order to allow the actualization of a meaningful semiotic relation. Thepermanent overlooking will be necessary to preserve a potential cognitive dissonance based on thecommitting relation to the observed representamen. For example, an individual observing twodichotomous states within a closed/depriving and branded (i.e., appreciated for strong values triggeredby its official positive design) representamen might develop a strong cognitive dissonance if observesthe officious negative one. The consideration of the officious design thus disrupts and threatens hiscognitive certainty and comfort. The cognitive conflict generated will be favored if he was initiallystrongly committed toward the official design, and is likely to induce his choice to overlook it. Theobservation of the representamen thus requires a choice of observation between these twocontradictory/dichotomous designs (observer effect) to produce meaning and ensure a cognitivecertainty/stability while avoiding a cognitive conflict between these two conflicting states with oneunintended to be observed (as part of its “design's model).

7. Serendipity and abduction as means to optimize the creative semiotic process

7.1. Serendipity

"In the fields of observation, chance favors only the prepared mind”. Louis Pasteur

Walpole (1754) qualifies serendipity as “unexpected discoveries, made by accident and sagacity”.Thagard (1999) distinguishes three kinds of serendipity :

- To find something that was not sought;

- To find something that was sought but on an unexpected way;

- To find something but that is something quite different than what was originally thought (e.g., Javaand Post-It).

Baumeister emphasizes that sagacity (attention and cleverness) is necessary to turn luck intoserendipity. Sagacity denotes the quality of being discerning, wise, sound in judgment, farsighted andable to make good decisions. Discernment denotes the exhibiting keen insight and good judgment.Farsight stands for, in relation to our analysis, two things : the capability of seeing to a great distanceor planning prudently for the future.

Serendipity can not be programmed, but favored. Dunbar & Fugelsang (2005) sate that “Scientists arenot passive recipients of the unexpected; rather, they actively create the conditions for discovering theunexpected and have a robust mental toolkit that makes discovery possible.” They suggest thatobservational rigor can be harnessed to make more discoveries, and also that various investigationsinto the scientific method itself (e.g. philosophical, historical, psychological) have all supported theidea that serendipity ("happy accidents") plays an important part. For Sandri (2013), serendipityinvolves both perception and cognition.

Swiners & Briet (2007) emphasize the “serendip attitude” in order to qualify the optimal state-of-

166

mind to favor the unexpected discoveries as well as their exploitation (necessary to produceinnovation). They also emphasize a particular cognitive operation necessary to stimulate the creativeand inventive intelligences/thoughts they call the “inventive jump”. This cognitive process is prettysimilar to the “model” one emphasized by Besson & Uhl (2010), for it aims at transposing oneobserved phenomenon from one “world of knowledge” (e.g., nature) to another one (e.g., industrialworld, i.e., invention). Here serendipity requires a cognitive operation involving, for example, sagacityor imagination in order to transform an unexpected discovery into invention. This concept can also berelated to the culture of intelligence emphasized by Moinet (2010) placing astonishment at the heartof the process, and Besson and Possin's (2009) analysis of the “memory as attitude” and as “organizedcuriosity” we have already analyzed.

Here are two examples of discovery and innovation induced by an “inventive jump”:

- Safety glass : Moving from a glass bottle, fallen from a table which did not break, to a windshield forautomobile;

- Velcro : This invention was born from the creative observation of bardanne hooks (from thebardanne fruit) clinging to socks.

The serendip attitude allows the individual to “prepare” his mind and optimize his cognitivo-perceptive system in order to avoid natural cognitive biases such as the categorization phenomenonand its inherent discrimination (referring in our analysis to discrimination within the semioticprocess). It thus permits to fight against the conditioned observation and interpretation process (i.e.,with the “wave-like” observation of the representamen and interpretation as standing for a potentiallyinfinity of objects (no cognitive silo,..). Cognitive silos and the categorization phenomenon are thuslikely to condition/shape the cognitive framework and favor the discriminated interpretation likely toleash/weaken the creative and inventive thoughts.

Analyzing this concept allows us to notice strong similarities with the hacking philosophy. Thus, the“playful cleverness” and unleashed “exploration of the limits of the possibilities” definitions given byStallman can optimize the serendip attitude, by introducing the notion of “fun”, i.e., of intrinsicmotivation to be active in the “unleashed” navigation and exploration processes. For example, it canfavor the disinhibited/unleashed manipulation according to Aarseth (2007) as well as the allocentricnavigation within the actualized semantic map and the virtual and actual poles of the objectal relation.Its core principles (exercise of freedom via disobedience to the official rules and playfulcleverness/curiosity to explore the limits of the possibilities) thus fit perfectly the serendipity process.The reverse-engineering practice is thus fundamental to be integrated in the serendipity process (i.e.,as part of the unleashed manipulation and complete observation) in order to understand the observedrepresentamen's principles and build something new with them. It is also fundamental to integrate inthe observation process a critical distance toward the observed representamen in order to favor its“cold” reading (i.e., led by the cognitive dimension of attitudes) instead of the “hot” one (led by theaffective dimension likely to weaken/condition the interpretative process as well as the creative andinventive thoughts). The “bipolar navigation” can also be optimized by the mastering of intelligence

167

process and the “memory attitude” (Besson & Possin, 2009), via for example the management ofignorances (development and exploitation of the Q – A virtuous cycle as well as “informationalholes”/alveolus likely to attract new unexpected informations in the navigation and explorationprocesses.

According to Sandri (2013), serendipity favors the successive hypothesis and fits the flexiblemethodologies. It can only be generated if the searcher accepts his mistake. “It would thus be a stateof availability, reflexivity and open-mindedness that would allow the individual to consider mistakes asconstructive.” This definition can be coupled with Besson & Possin's analysis about the importance tovalor and fully integrate failures in the intelligence process in order to feed and develop the collectivememory and analytic processes. As we analyzed earlier, the mastering of intelligence process is thusbased on the creation of “intelligences” between the informations extracted from the listing andanalysis of failures and ignorances. The more the failures are examined, the more accurate theintelligence process gets, emphasizing identical situations, individuals (potentially revealing abetrayal), prejudices due to the social categorization phenomenon (likely to induce strong cognitivebiases and a generalization that threaten the partitioning and local analysis of the information withinthe memory) and unexpected configurations (social, cognitive, financial, legal and technical).

The mastering of intelligence can thus contribute to optimize the discovery of new unexpectedpossibilities and potentialities, by feeding the interpretation as well as the creative and inventivethoughts via the integration of uncertainty in the interpretative process (i.e., “wave-like interpretation).Finally, the optimization of the individual and collective V – A dynamic can be favored by the choiceof the creativity nature of the task (if observation operated in group) likely to favor the cognitiveconflict, i.e., innovation as well as an open and decentralized process likely to favor the actualization oforiginal and unexpected ideas.

Considering these definitions and analysis, we will state that the development and optimization of theserendip attitude is an empiric process based on the consideration of both successes and failures inorder to develop a higher form of knowledge. It requires, to be optimal, an open, wide and flexiblecognitive framework likely to be enriched and stimulated with the creative and inventive intelligencesin order to fight against cognitive biases such as categorization, stereotypes and prejudices (i.e.,cognitive certainty and comfort weakening the unexpected discoveries). This specific attitude will alsorequire for the individual a “spirit of exploration” as defined by Franceschi (2013). The individual thushas to be used to making unexpected connections while exercising freedom in the observation andinterpretation of representamens. This attitude can be favored by the search for interoperability andcreativity (e.g., as main social norms within a group) and via the navigation and exploration of thevirtual and actual poles of the relation to the observed representamen. It can also be optimized via anunleashed observation, manipulation and experimentation processes (favored via ownership andanonymity according to Zimmermann, 2014). These processes are thus necessary to develop a richerinterpretation and explore the different interpretative possibilities as well as new potentialities likely toenrich, once actualized, the observed representamen's reality.

168

7.1.2. Serendipity in the cyberspace

According to Nussbaum (2013), “digital literacy is the ability to accidentally discover what we arereally looking for. Today, the question is no longer to find information, but to find the rightinformation among all those available globally. There is no need to travel far or long to discoverdifferent cultures, music, movies or even exchange or instantly feel emotions through "hypertextnavigation.” The easy discovery of new cultures and emotions is similar to the datalove philosophy(Zimmermann, 2014) we have analyzed. The “global thought” and the culture of astonishment withinthe cyberspace can thus strongly optimize the serendipity online.

The Internet is a good place to develop a rich interpretation of observed representamens. This networkthus constitutes a really good way to share informations and knowledge about anything, to findcommunities of interests toward specific objects/elements, and to become a part in open anddecentralized creative and inventive processes. In other words, this network can be an optimal“collective memory”, according to our global evolved collective mind analysis. From a technical pointof view, serendipity online requires, to be optimal, a neutral and universal network. This characteristicis thus fundamental to optimize the navigation by ensuring the same potentiality of access andparticipation for everyone and no discrimination of data within the network.

The exploration of new creative and inventive paths in the observation process can also be optimizedvia the use of encryption (as core part of the cypherpunk philosophy we have analyzed) in order tofavor the individuals' disinhibited observation and interpretation processes based on experimentations(Zimmermann, 2014) and an unleashed navigation. Serendipity can thus be strongly favored via theintegration of this philosophy : it can favor the unexpected discoveries and a disinhibited observationof representamens likely to be perceived as “compromising”, “sensitive” or dissonant with theindividual's social norms from the social environments he evolves in during the observation process.

Several techniques can also be used to optimize the navigation and serendipity online. For example,erasing digital trails and using “fake” identities in order to disrupt the “filter bubble” and other siloslikely to “capture” the individual in a closed and depriving ecosystem favoring zemblanity instead ofserendipity. The use of Free softwares for the online navigation (e.g., Firefox with add-ons such asHTTPS Everywhere, Privacy Badger or TOR) can also be used to optimize this process. Customizingthe web experience is thus necessary to favor the online secure/cypher navigation and to optimize theunexpected discoveries. Navigation skills such as the ability to produce elaborate requests in order tooptimize the navigation and search of information online can also be useful.

7.2. Abduction as means to optimize serendipity and stimulate the semioticprocess

7.2.1. Definition of abduction

According to Peirce, abduction is a sudden intuition that would gather assumptions to arrive at acomprehensive understanding of a phenomenon. The abductive suggestion comes to us like a flash. It

169

is an act of sight (insight), although an extremely fallible sight. He gives this example of abduction :“Imagine that upon entering a room, I see a table with a handful of white beans on it, and next to it, abag of beans. I observe that this bag contains only white beans. I then formulate the hypothesis thatthe beans on the table came from this bag.” Abduction is an argument that appeals to firstness in orderto formulate the rule (it is a hypothesis, and therefore a possible rule), whereas induction is based onsecondness (the rule follows from repeated observation of actual, contingent facts), and deduction fallsexclusively under thirdness (as a rule, it justifies itself).

Abduction is thus situated among the three phaneroscopic categories Peirce defines to understand howthe human apprehends phenomena : firstness, secondness and thirdness. The abduction is of the orderof firstness because it comes from intuition and is about considering the possible. Abduction belongsto Peirce's argument category of signs interpreted at the level of thirdness whose distinction dependson the nature of the rule that binds the representamen to its object. The argument, in the case ofabduction, may consist of formulating a rule in the form of a hypothesis.

Here are the three rules binding the observed representamen to its object as commented by Sandri(2013) :

- Formulating a rule in the form of a hypothesis that would explain a fact : abduction.

- Result of the facts : induction. Induction refers to operations that establish generalizations design andtest the consequences derived from assumptions ; it is of the order of secondness. Secondness is thecategory of the reaction, the existence of the subject of the meeting with the feeling of uniqueness. Itis the perception of being on something else where there is meeting with the concrete, it is thecategory of discounting;

- Imposed on the facts : deduction. Deduction draws conclusions, it builds actualized relationships, it isabout the third peircean principle : thirdness. Thirdness is the category of mediation that connects andbuilds meaning, otherwise the system of objects would be an arbitrary and unmediated juxtaposition .Deduction is the operator of generality. It favors the structuring thoughts and interpretative habits withmental dispositions in accordance to the observed representamen's design one(s) and expectationstoward the representamen's design (i.e., familiar virtual pole of the relation to it).

Aliseda (2006) defines abduction as “a reasoning process invoked to explain a puzzling observation.”Sandri (2013) defines this concept as a “method for forming a general prediction without any positiveinsurance that it will succeed in a particular case or usually, its justification being that it is the onlypossible hope of our future conduct to rationally adjust, and induction based on past experienceencourages us and gives us strong hope that in the future, it will succeed. It is then assumptions,unfounded suggestions, but can lead to understanding more complex phenomena, because theassumption will be subsequently verified by induction”. For her, abduction reports on the specificity ofreasoning that goes to the hypothesis, its logic is that of the creative interpretation and innovation.Abduction allows the individual to formulate creative hypothesis, which is subject to a certainnormativity induced by a background, from a design we seek to experience and is directed by theresolution of a problem. This is the suggestion of an idea for Mirowski (1987). It allows to introduce

170

new ideas based on the flexibility of the designer compared to its présupposés.

As deduction (with cognitive certainty) is based on experience and imposed by facts (concrete ruleconfirming or infirming the initial hypothesis), it favors the anticipation of the observedrepresentamen's future positions (i.e., meaning produced from actualized semiotic relations for futureobservations). Abduction, via the formulation of a new creative hypothesis, is thus likely to induce achange of interpretation (via cognitive restructuring toward the observed representamen).

A relation of inference is monotonic if the addition of premises does not undermine previouslyreached conclusions; otherwise the relation is nonmonotonic. Deductive inference is thus monotonic:if a conclusion is reached on the basis of a certain set of premises, then that conclusion still holds ifmore premises are added. By contrast, everyday reasoning is mostly nonmonotonic because it involvesrisk (inherent and necessary for creativity and innovation and favored by thedisobedience/transgression of the existing and the majority norms) : we jump to conclusions fromdeductively insufficient premises. We know when it is worth or even necessary (e.g. in medicaldiagnosis) to take the risk. Yet we are also aware that such inference is defeasible—that newinformation may undermine old conclusions. This paradigm thus emphasizes the need for anallocentric navigation within both the actualized semantic field/cognitive map and between the virtualand actual poles of the relation to the observed representamen. As we said, it is fundamental for theindividual to develop a wide, open and flexible cognitive framework and an unleashed relation to therepresentamen. The wave-like observation (with the consideration of several possibilities ofinterpretation instead of a single isolated “particle-like” one, is thus necessary to favor the open-mindedness necessary for the optimization of serendipity, and by extension the abduction process.

7.2.2. The “background theory” as necessity for abduction

Sandri states that abduction starts with the observation of a surprising/puzzling fact. “This startingpoint is fundamental and, although Peirce did not really explained, it is probably what led him to seethe scientific process as a continuum in three stages. For a fact only surprises if something else wasexpected. To expect anything else, there must have been prior to deduction and induction. We had afirst hypothesis (that Aliseda, 2006, called background theory). This hypothesis has been the officiallisting is less, that is to say, a specification in terms of predicted effects : if this theory is true, thenthat's what I should observe. Thus in effect defines Peirce's deduction. The background theory aboutthe observed representamen is thus necessary for abduction to happen, and analyzing how to optimizeits development sounds fundamental for optimizing the creative process.

This theory will be optimized by the semiotic hacking philosophy. This philosophy and its practicewill thus help to strongly develop and enrich this “scientific process” (composed of deduction –abduction and induction) via the understanding of the observed representamen's rules and principles(core part of the hacking philosophy according to Müller-Maghun, 2013) optimized by the unleashedexploration as well as the “serendip attitude” (Swiners & Briet, 2007) and the mastering ofintelligence (Besson & Possin, 2001). We are now about to deepen this analysis by focusing on theobservation process.

171

7.2.3. Abduction and observation process

The context of observation is fundamental to consider in order to fully understand the optimization ofthe interpretative process. Abduction thus requires, to be favored, for the individual to unleash hisobservation of the representamen he interprets and relates to an object in the actualization of thesemiotic process. As we have already analyzed with serendipity, this disinhibition is necessary tooptimize creativity and inventiveness.

Abduction is a starting point to understand complex phenomena. The triggered induction (viaabduction, i.e., with the observation of a specific surprising case) comes from successive observationsof the same representamen and is likely to confirm the creative hypothesis by the potential generationof a rule (deduction). The abduction process has to be favored via the enriching of the interpretamenhelped by the rich and accurate understanding of the observed representamen's official and officiousrules and principles (if deceptive by design via its reverse-engineering and the acquisition ofinformations such as its legal and technical nature coming from an open and decentralized community.This is fundamental to develop inductive and deductive inferences, necessary for this creative process.The deductive interpretation of an observed representamen is thus based on a developed rigid orflexible (via serendip attitude) mental model (via interpretative habits such as mental dispositionstoward the observed representamen). This mental model we have analyzed earlier is thus developed,according to Norman's definition, via the experience acquired by the user based on its interaction withthe observed and manipulated representamen.

Here are the several dimensions necessary to be considered in the study of abduction and theobservation process :

- Cognitive dimension : Defining the individual's cognitive relation to the observed representamen;

- Social dimension : Defining the social context where the observation process is operated;

- Technical dimension : Defining the technical context where the observation process is operated;

- Legal dimension : Defining the legal context where the observation process is operated.

Let's first consider abduction in comparison to serendipity and the “serendip attitude”, for these twoconcepts share interesting similarities and connections with complementary natures. According toCatelin (2004), serendipity allows an exploratory logic, that favors imagination and astonishment whenhappens an unexpected phenomenon. Sandri (2013) states that abduction is a process of normalizationof a surprising fact. It is an effort of reasoning when there is a rupture of our system of expectations,an “imaginative” reasoning soliciting the individuals' knowledge. She adds that serendipity allows anexploratory logic soliciting imagination and astonishment. The serendip attitude is thus, as we said,similar to the culture of intelligence which places astonishment at its core, but also to the explorationspirit as defined by Franceschi (2013) and the culture of the hypertextual navigation (with allocentricnavigation). All these cultures are thus based on a flexible cognitive framework and an unleashedvirtual pole in the relation to an observed representamen. The individual's horizon of expectations(emphasized by Jauss, 1978) likely to be disrupted via the observation of a puzzling fact, can be

172

compared to his virtual pole of the relation to the observed representamen with his prior knowledge,representations and expectations, as well as to his cognitive map developed via experience. It can thusbe whether rigid or extensible, and is likely to be disrupted by a divergence between the observedrepresentamen (actual pole) and the horizon of expectations toward it (virtual one). We will alsoconsider that abduction shares some similarities not only with serendipity and the “serendip attitude”,but also with the V – A dynamic theorized by Lévy (1995). As creative hypothesis generating newcreative ideas and enriching reality, it is, just like this “psychic movement” from one actualized (i.e.,clear and certain) semiotic relation to another one, one of the main factor of enriching of the observedrepresentamen's reality. It thus enriches the observation and interpretation processes by stimulating thecreative and intelligence thoughts.

Let's now consider the individual's cognitive relation to the observed representamen. This relation is,as we have already analyzed, composed of three dimensions : cognitive (knowledge about theobserved representamen), affective and conative (tendency to action toward it). It can also be critical(critical mind and emotional distance favoring the “cold”/“rational” observation and interpretation,dominated by the cognitive dimension) or crystallized (observation and interpretation dominated bythe affective dimension). It can also be shaped by the individual's commitment, trust (whether blind orenlightened) and knowledge about the representamen. A too much strong commitment toward it canthus weaken, as we will analyze, this process as well as the interpretative one.

As Sandri said, abduction starts with the observation of a puzzling fact and requires initialexpectations (i.e., “background theory” developed by induction and deduction) to happen. Thisobservation generates for the individual a surprising/unexpected problem which will have to be solvedwith the elaboration of a possible rule/creative hypothesis enriching the interpretative process andlikely to generate, via induction then deduction, a new interpretative rule.

This puzzling observation is likely to induce whether a cognitive consonance (i.e. in accordance withthe initial cognitive relation) or dissonance/conflict, inducing two possible reactions : whethercognitive restructuring (i.e., innovation) or crystallization of attitudes toward the representamen(Festinger, 1957).

If consonant (e.g., in accordance to the initially interpreted and integrated values), this observation islikely to enrich and strengthen the individual's initial interpretation and his attitudes toward theobserved representamen, likely to be crystallized. The cognitive relation to it will not be disturbed. Atoo much crystallized cognitive relation to it (whether positive or negative) can weaken the observationand interpretative processes as well as abduction, for the individual is more likely to overlook/ignorethe puzzling fact (whether consciously or not) in order to preserve his cognitive certainty, stability andcomfort toward the observed representamen. Let's first analyze the possible risk of crystallization ofattitudes in the creative semiotic process. The crystallization of attitudes toward the observedrepresentamen is likely to be induced by a strong commitment toward it (via production of behaviorsand free compliance to specific requests, a blind trust, etc). If the individual has developed a“free”compliance to it (e.g., via a strong branding strategy based on manipulation techniques), the individualis likely to internalize the observed representamen's rules and values (via feeling of freedom or control

173

over it). If the individual observes a disruptive element triggering an uncomfortable thought-sign notfitting his initial cognitive relation to the observed representamen, he is likely to develop a cognitivedissonance, with an inherent need for justification (self-observation with cognitive awareness andinherent choice) and for production of meaning (i.e., rationalization) toward the observedrepresentamen. For example, the initially trusted and appreciated representamen observed as a particle(with certain, stable and comfortable observation and interpretation) can be turned into an observed“wave-particle” dual one, i.e., with the cohabitation of two dissonant/conflicting cognitions producinguncertainty in the process. The “disruptive” element will thus be likely to be whether overlooked (e.g.,in order to preserve the initial cognitive certainty, stability and comfort) or integrated in theinterpretative process and enrich it via the formulation of a creative hypothesis/possible rule(abduction) likely to lead to a new rule (deduction) and enriching the semiotic process.

Serendipity and abduction can be optimized via the metacognitive awareness (open-mindednessnecessary for serendipity) favoring the avoidance of cognitive biases/traps such as the “self-affirmativecognitive bias” or the crystallization of attitudes via a too much strong commitment and “free”compliance toward the representamen's design or familiarity likely to be exploited by brands tocondition the individuals' interpretation process (Courbet, 2014). Serendipity and abduction can alsobe favored by the collective, open and decentralized observation and interpretation of the samerepresentamen (favors the cognitive conflict and innovation) and if the main norm within groups is thesearch for creativity. A too much strong deductive interpretation (e.g., rigid mental model) is likely toweaken the observation and interpretative processes (e.g., by inducing a “particle-like” interpretationand a leashed virtual pole of the relation to the observed representamen).

7.2.4. Abduction and explanation of the puzzling fact

The abduction process is likely to be influenced by a cognitive disempowerment toward the observedrepresentamen (e.g., via compliance to its official rules and a loss of responsibility in its process). Itthus can lead, if the astonished individual is too much disempowered toward it, to an externalattribution toward the observed puzzling fact. For example, a too much strong disempowermenttoward the observed representamen (i.e., with choice of comfort/security instead of freedom) canattenuate the cognitive dissonance in case of observation of a compromising fact from the observedrepresentamen as well as the efficiency of the abduction process, i.e. of the creative one.

Let's take three clear examples reflecting three possible scenari of attribution and explanation linkedto the cognitive relation to the observed representamen in case of observation of a compromising fact.

1) An individual, used to fully “blindly” trust (i.e. cognitively disempowered) his closed/depriving andbranded smartphone, observes that the answer it gave him when used the GPS (as part of the “bundledpackage”) was false and led him to commit a mistake and lose his way. The fact is that he is the onewho actually made a mistake while using the application. The objective causes (not interpreted by theindividual) are in this example the individual's lack of knowledge about the use of the applicationstrengthened by his cognitive blind trust toward his smartphone. Moreover, this cognitivedisempowerment has led the individual to “freely” accept his alienation to his “smart object” he does

174

not control (via lack of knowledge toward it). This individual is thus more likely to attribute themistake to the device in order to avoid reconsidering his own attitudes and behavior, i.e., not toreconsider his own use and risky/dangerous “blindly trusted” relation which constitute the twoobjective causes of this mistake. This reconsideration (requiring humility) would thus incite him toenrich his knowledge toward the application in order to avoid repeating the same mistake in the future.This individual might thus formulate the hypothesis (abduction to explain this puzzling fact) that thesmartphone is deficient, for it is the first time he notices a mistake committed by it (false perception ofthe fact induced by the cognitive disempowerment).

2) An individual who is totally committed to his smartphone and to the brand it is designed to beinterpreted as standing for (mental model matching with the representamen's design's one) observesthat his device does not respond (output) as expected according to his personal experience with it andits official rules (induction and deduction) when gives specific commands (input). This perceiveddisfunctioning is thus likely to make him commit mistakes. His crystallized attitudes both toward thesmartphone (with internalization of the representamen's design, i.e.., official rules and rigid deductiveinterpretation) and the social group he is used to evolve in is likely to induce a false assumption suchas the rejection of the fault on another group. He is thus likely to explain this disruptive fact via anexternal attribution, and more specifically via an exogroup discrimination strengthening the prejudicestoward a competitive group perceived as “interested” in the smartphone's disfunctioning in order tofool the individual's group of belonging and commit mistakes.

3) An individual who “blindly” trusts (i.e. cognitively disempowered) his closed/depriving andbranded smartphone (strong commitment and affective cognitive relation to the brand he interprets itas standing for) observes that his device has erased one of his stored file he purchased on a silo. Theobjective cause comes from the smartphone, and more specifically to its “deceptive by design” and“DRMized” nature. In fact, this problem actually comes from the remote control exercised by theentity having created it via the backdoor integrated in order to exercise an invisible control (here, viacensorship) over the users. Instead of reconsidering the smartphone's viability and reliability (likely tothreaten his strongly positive and blindly trusted relation), the individual formulates the hypothesis thathe is the one who does not use it correctly (internal attribution). In other words, the blindly trustedsmartphone is not observed as it should be by the individual in order to correctly interpret thispuzzling fact (i..e., as tool of control designed to deceive the user).

These false assumptions would thus have been prevented if the individuals had developed, inaccordance to the semiotic hacking philosophy, a strong knowledge (i.e., rich and complexinterpretation) toward the smartphone, a critical distance (i.e., via the choice of cognitiveempowerment in order to exercise freedom over it instead of being disempowered via the choice ofcommodity, and a metacognitive awareness (in order to fight against potential cognitive biases andinfluence/manipulation techniques used by the smartphone's designers to condition its interpretationand use (i.e., the users' experience with it).

The favorable cognitive relation toward the observed representamen in order to favor serendipity andabduction can thus be favored by the culture of hacking and more specifically of “reverse-engineering”

175

(Stallman, 1980; FAT, 2011; Young, 2013). The “unleashing” of the cognitive process toward theobserved representamen thus requires for the individual to fight against natural cognitive biases (suchas stereotypes/categorization phenomena) and the potential internalization of “strategic” ones such asmental DRMs and cognitive silos. More globally, the exploitation of the semiotic hacking philosophyin the observation and interpretation of the representamen is likely to favor the optimal abduction viathe clever integration of this new puzzling “disruptive” fact within the interpretative process and theformulation of pertinent creative hypothesis (i.e., not based on biased considerations). The efficientmanagement of the cognitive conflict, generated by the observed puzzling fact, is thus necessary forthe individual to enrich and re-organize his cognitions i.e., favor innovation and enrich hisinterpretation process (via abduction, induction and deduction).

7.3.5. Abduction and choice of observation

The choice of observation will be based on the observer effect. Thus, an individual observing arepresentamen can whether choose (consciously or not) to observe it whether :

- As a particle : Certain and stable, with comfort/meaning in the observation of its position andmomentum; or

- As a wave : World of interpretative possibilities, with uncertain position until the individual decidesto locate one possibility in order to achieve a meaningful semiotic relation. The integration of thepuzzling fact as a potential new state likely to be actualized (if confirmed) as new interpretative rule islikely to enrich his interpretation but also to make it more uncertain. The elaboration of a possiblerule/creative hypothesis (via abduction) is thus necessary in order to re-develop a cognitive certaintynecessary for the semiotic process to be meaningful.

As we said, the individual can choose (consciously or not) to observe a representamen as a particle inorder to preserve the cognitive certainty, stability and comfort. For example, an individual who blindlytrusts his smartphone and who possesses a strong positive cognitive relation to the brand it is designedto be interpreted as standing for is used to observing it as a “brand extension”, carrying the brand'sstrong values like viability, reliability, security and freedom. He is thus used to observing it as aparticle, with crystallized attitudes toward it. If he discovers one day that this smartphone is “deceptiveby design” and can also be interpreted as a tool of control designed to exercise a control over him(carrying characteristics interpreted as dichotomous with the initially interpreted “official” ones), hemight develop a strong cognitive dissonance and choose to overlook it (i.e., preserve a “particle-like”interpretation based on full trust). This choice thus allows him to not deal with cognitive uncertaintyand discomfort, i.e., threaten his initial comfort and feeling of “security” and “freedom” (as part of thebrand's values). The conscious choice of observation as a particle, even if aware of the objective“wave-like” nature (due to the dichotomous designs defined by the smartphone's creator) can thusallow the individual observing it to preserve his cognitive stability and comfort. In other words, thechoice of commodity over freedom, as described by Stallman, can be strategically exploited bydesigners/rights holder(s) in order to optimize the individuals' voluntary compliance/alienation to theirdefined interpretative rules in order to weaken/prevent the potential risk of cognitive restructuring

176

toward their product, likely to threaten their “intellectual property”.162

A clear example of wave-particle duality requiring a choice of observation is the Google Maps case inthe Ukrainian – Russian conflict for Crimea. Google thus decided to operate a “diplomatic” change inhis online cartographic service in order to fit the respective claiming and expectations of the twocountries toward Crimea. The same map thus presented two contradictory informations : observedfrom Russia, Crimea was presented as a Russian territory, while as a Ukrainian one when observedfrom Ukraine163. This arbitrary change in its service is thus likely to induce a puzzling observation foran individual used to observing this area of the world using this closed/depriving and branded onlineservice on different places (e.g., Russia, Ukraine and Poland). The used service is the same (GoogleMaps) but represents different maps with contradictory informations requiring, the choice betweentwo contradictory possibilities in order to actualize a meaningful semiotic relation.

7.2.6. Abduction and social context

The social context can play a fundamental role in the observation process (based on abduction,induction and deduction). There are different social configurations to consider in the observationprocess like social isolation (favoring a disinhibited process) or surrounding with inherent socialinfluences likely to weaken/condition it if inhibited or to strengthen/optimize it via the collectiveintelligence process if the individual is disinhibited and the collective creative intelligence process iswell-managed.

7.2.7. The potential negative effects of the social environment

As we already analyzed earlier, social influences (whether conformism, identification orinternalization) are likely to leash/condition the individual's observation process. They are thus likelyto prevent his unleashed observation via disinhibited manipulation and exploration of the observedrepresentamen's possibilities likely to favor the unexpected discoveries, the abduction as well as theinduction and deduction toward this new observed puzzling fact.

If the interpretative rules/background theories applied by the group toward the observedrepresentamen are too rigid and internalized by the majority, the “divergent” individuals might bestrongly leashed in their abduction process (for strong pressure from the majority perceived), andconsciously decide to overlook the observed puzzling fact in order to avoid a cognitive conflict andpreserve the cognitive stability and comfort toward the observed representamen as well as his positionin the group. Strong and rigid rules about the observed representamen coupled to the individual'sgroup of belonging exercising strong influences on him toward it are thus likely to favor itsinternalization and the overlooking/conscious “particle-like” choice of observation in case ofobservation of a compromising “disruptive” fact.

The groupal thought (Moscovici, 1976) can also leash and weaken the abductive process, via the

162 We will analyze this issue later.163 http://www.numerama.com/magazine/29075-google-maps-rend-la-crimee-russe-en-russie-ukrainienne-en-ukraine.html

177

individuals' fear of breaking the group's consensus and socio-affective climate (cohesion,...), whetherif they wish it to succeed and fulfill its objectives without “disrupting” issues (e.g., for strategic,affective reasons) or if they do not want to take any risk by exposing their creative hypothesis aboutthe observed representamen's puzzling fact. The individuals' will to preserve their socialstatus/position (self-interest) and not slow down the consensus process (common interest) coupledwith the fear of being marginalized by the group (will to preserve the social status and position andthreaten the collective decision's efficiency) can thus dissuade him to express whether his puzzlingobservation or the creative hypothesis/possible rule formulated to explain it.

Social influences are thus likely to weaken the creative collective observation, interpretation andproblem-solving process (with abduction, induction and deduction) via a leashed/discouraged publicexpression of divergent creative hypothesis likely to favor the cognitive conflict (especially ifrigid/crystallized interpretations/attitudes toward the observed representamen).

Let's take a clear example, by considering a community strongly dedicated to a specific brand. Thestrict rules to integrate it are a strong devotion to it, via the purchasing of many expensive brandedproducts. This group is based on a strong social pressure exercised on the members about the brandand favoring the internalization of its attitudes, considered as a “lifestyle” for the members. Let's nowconsider an individual having succeeded in integrating the strongly attractive (as perceived by him)and be accepted by its members, who discovers that the branded product is “deceptive by design” andis actually a tool of control over its users. This discovery emphasizes its designer's (also rights holdersof the brand) bad intentions toward it. This individual, who has produced a strong commitment towardthe group and the brand (based on a blind trust and religious/dogmatic cognitive relation to the brandand its “extensions” (values, branded products absorbed by it via techniques such as evaluativeconditioning,...), is likely to not dare to formulate his creative hypothesis and try to confirm or infirmit (i.e., develop a “scientific process”) for fear of social sanction. The social pressure might leash theindividual in his scientific approach operated to confirm or infirm his new creative hypothesis/possiblerule defined to explain this puzzling observation. He thus might not dare to freely manipulate theobserved representamen or make experiences with it. This approach can also be leashed/conditionedvia the individual's identified social situation likely to favor his inhibition and leash his experimentalprocess toward the observed representamen (Zimmermann, 2014).

7.2.8. The potential beneficial effects of the social environment

The social environment can also enrich/optimize the “scientific observation”, provided it is wellmanaged by specific practices based on the semiotic hacking philosophy. The sharing of informationand knowledge (as part of the mastering of intelligence process exploiting the collective intelligence)can for example strongly optimize the individual's interpretative process. The initial rule (deduction)about the observed representamen is likely to be more developed and enriched if collectivelyelaborated (for fed by several observations and experiences toward it (induction), especially if theobserved representamen is complex (i.e., with rich and vast fields of designed possibilities) and hard tobe completely and “efficiently” observed by a single individual (e.g., a videogame).

178

Abduction can be favored via a collective intelligence process optimized by the mastering ofintelligence practice. The collective sharing and exploitation of information and knowledge (via thenetwork dimension of the mastering of intelligence process) is thus likely to develop and enrich theinterpretation of the observed puzzling fact (abduction). It however requires an efficient developmentand exploitation of network, with a free/voluntary involvement in the intelligence process, which canbe optimized by intrinsic motivation, culture of astonishment (favors the puzzling observation) and ofintelligence favoring the elaboration of hypothesis and possible rules.

The confirmation or refutation of these elaborated creative hypothesis can also be optimized by acollective process (e.g., via collective manipulations and experimentations), favored if open anddecentralized for less social influences and cypher exchanges/relations. If expressed by someone elseobserving the same representamen (inducing a cognitive conflict for two divergent interpretations), thecognitive conflict generated might incite the individual to produce meaning in his cognitive system andin his interpretative process, i.e., operate a new richer - however more uncertain, observation via theconsideration of this divergent interpretation and a validation process (Paicheler & Moscovici, 1976)likely to induce a change of attitudes toward it and make the semiotic process evolve.

The “neutral” nature of the network (as part of the mastering of intelligence process) is fundamentalto optimize the development of knowledge toward the observed representamen (i.e., its interpretation)by testing as many creative hypothesis as possible. The semiotic hacking can strongly optimize thisprocess, via its several core parts we have analyzed. The formulation and experiences/manipulations toconfirm or infirm the different creative hypothesis thus does not have to suffer from any discriminationin the group or network in order to optimize the development of knowledge toward the observedrepresentamen. The well managed collective interpretation of the observed puzzling fact is thus likelyto favor the elaboration of several creative hypothesis (favored if disinhibited individuals used todealing efficiently with cognitive conflict). This collective observation, especially if operated on anopen and decentralized basis, can favor the observation process and the development of a richcollective interpretation fed by the subjectivities of the different individuals involved in this process(favored if cognitive diversity).

Bernard Besson (2010) tells us about a very explicit anecdote about the importance of taking intoaccount the opinions and ideas of any individual without discrimination (i.e., regardless of their statuswithin the group), in order to optimize the abduction process and avoid false assumptions via theefficient exploitation of the collective intelligence. A company which specialized in the manufacture ofyogurt tried to implement a new technique of lactation in order to produce a new flavor. This processfailed every-time it was experimented. The leaders thus thought that the technique initially consideredas viable was actually not. A guard within the company, who was not involved in this industrialprocess, then shared one of his personal observation : the lactation process was always operated at thesame time than a train passing nearby which provoked perceptible shocks. He thus formulated thehypothesis that this train could have been the cause of the successive failures, and suggested to changethe schedule of the lactation process in order to determine if this event had or not an impact(confirmation of invalidation of this new creative hypothesis). The next test, respecting the ward's

179

advice based on his abduction was a success, demonstrating that the process was actually optimal andthat the true problem preventing the obtaining of the initially expected results was indeed the train andnot the process itself, as initially considered.

Specific social norms such as search for creativity can also favor the cognitive conflict among groupsvia a disinhibited interpretation and public expression. In other words, it can optimize the potentialityof innovation, as well as of serendipity and abduction (for developed collectively, considering thepotentially divergent interpretations of the observed puzzling fact). This optimized abduction is likelyto be confirmed via an optimized induction (for encouraged unleashed observation via manipulationand experimentation) and deduction, more likely to be reconsidered via a collective open-mindednessfavoring innovation through a well managed “collective reading” and cognitive conflict (Besson &Possin, 2001).

Favorable social norms can also, as we analyzed earlier, favor the emergence of active minorities,necessary to fight against the natural tendency to conformism likely to favor the individuals'disinhibition and ability to express publicly their potentially divergent interpretations of the collectivelyobserved representamen. Active minorities defending divergent interpretations can thus be, ifencouraged to express themselves within the group(s) they evolve within, important parts of theabduction process, by emphasizing divergent interpretations inciting the group to observe unexpectedpuzzling facts they otherwise would have not observed and interpreted for various reasons such as theones we have emphasized. Minority influence can thus favor, if optimized via conducive socialnorms/context, the individuals' “wave-like” observation or the cognitive restructuring towardrepresentamens initially observed as particles (with leashed virtual and crystallized attitudes).

The semiotic hacking can thus be used to favor the development of a social context favorable for the“scientific process” in the collective observation. The Free philosophy, based on unleashed collectiveintelligence, via co-construction and sharing of knowledge on an open and decentralized basis andwithout restriction can also be used to favor the exercise of freedom, via collective control over theobserved representamen and an unleashed observation involving the exploration of the limits of itspossibilities. The collective monitoring about the observed representamen (online and offline) is alsonecessary in order to feed and keep the observation process updated, for it allows the individuals to beaware of any new actualized versions/possibilities (e.g., whether of the same observed representamenor remix of it to create brand new ones). This collective practice is particularly pertinent if theobserved representamen's nature is Free, i.e., designed to be freely enriched and extended.

7.2.9. Abduction and representamen's design

The representamen's design is fundamental to consider in the abduction process and more globally the“scientific observation”, for it can whether favor these processes or weaken/prevent them, dependingon the observed representamen's creator(s)/rights holder(s)' intentions. The representamen's strategicdesign to condition the individuals' interpretation can be based on a branding strategy, e.g., with thepresence of specific sign-vehicles strategically integrated to weaken/condition this process, by favoringthe “affective” and irrational relation to the observed representamen (more easily influenced by

180

techniques such as evaluative conditioning) instead of the cognitive/rational one. The “backgroundtheory” can thus be strategically defined to be rigid and “dogmatic” in order to prevent the risk ofpotential cognitive restructuring. This potential change can thus be triggered by the formulation ofnew creative hypothesis/possible rule (abduction) toward the interpretation and explanation of therepresentamen's design (i.e., reflecting its creator(s)/rights holder(s)' intention toward the observers'mental model(s)).

As we said, the Free/anti-rivalrous nature of the representamen can also be strategically exploited byits creator to incite the individuals to be a full part of its development process, by actualizing withoutrestrictions new possibilities in order to enrich its reality. This evolutive design based on an open anddecentralized development process makes the unexpected discoveries more probable, while the“scientific observation” process is made richer but also more complex. In fact, this design, especially ifa strong community is involved in the representamen's development process, makes the potentiality ofobservation of new “puzzling facts” higher. The expectation (via the deduction toward it) is thus waymore uncertain, for an innovation/unexpected actualization can happen anywhere at any time. Therepresentamen's observation thus requires, to be optimal, the practice of mastering of intelligence, andan active monitoring about it to to keep it updated (as analyzed earlier). The respect of the individuals'privacy (as core part of the Free and cypherpunk philosophies) by the observed representamen (e.g.,no tracking feature, no forced identification,...) also favor the disinhibited observation as well as theunexpected discoveries (serendipity) and the formation as well as experimental process in order toconfirm or infirm it.

The representamen's design also implies both an “ideal” and a “problematic” observer. The “idealobserver” is, as we have already analyzed, an individual whose cognitive and behavioral patterns(constituting his experience with the observed representamen, e.g., via the navigation between theactual and virtual poles) will match the representamen's design's model (i.e., its creator/rightsholder(s)' intentions). The concepts reflect the representamen's author/rights holder(s)' intentionstoward their observers' interpretation. Here are several examples we have emphasized for each kindof design :

- Ideal and problematic observer and abduction toward a closed/depriving representamen : The “idealobserver” will be, if the observed representamen's design is closed/depriving and “deceptive”, anindividual who does not try to confirm or infirm his creative hypothesis in case of observation of apuzzling fact, for has too much internalized the representamen's official design and the illegal nature ofthe manipulation and experimentation processes on it, i.e., “mental DRMs” preventing him to confirmor infirm his abduction. The “problematic observer” will be an individual who bypasses the technicaland legal restrictions (choice of freedom, with inherent uncertainty and instability, i.e. cognitivediscomfort) in order to explore the observed representamen's possibilities and get a completeunderstanding of its constitution and functioning (e.g., via the reverse-engineering practice). Thisstate-of-mind can allow to favor his “scientific observation” by overlooking the observedrepresentamen's inherent restrictions imposed by its creator(s)/rights holder(s) in order to prevent thedevelopment of a rich, complex and accurate interpretation likely to compromise its strategic design

181

aiming at conditioning it;

- Ideal and problematic observer and abduction toward a Free representamen : The “ideal observer”will be an individual whose curiosity is stimulated and who freely explores the observedrepresentamen's possibilities and fully exploits the collective intelligence of the community around itin order to optimize the unexpected discoveries as well as the formulation of creative hypothesis andits confirmation or infirmation via induction and deduction. The “problematic observer” will be anindividual whose observation process is conditioned/weakened by his “rigid” cognitive frameworkcolonized by law via the internalization of mental DRMs likely to favor his inhibition, even whenobserving a Free (i.e., empowering) representamen.

The closed/depriving nature of a representamen can also stimulate the individual's suspicion, i.e., thepure speculation impossible to be legally confirmed or infirmed. This speculation is likely to induceuncertainty within his interpretative process, strengthened by his impossibility to make it certainwithout the access to the observed representamen's constitution (e.g., in order to consider the presenceof malicious features confirming his suspicion of “deceptive by design” nature). The only way toinfirm or confirm is to acquire “illegal” informations, via reverse-engineering or a leak of informationsfrom the representamen's private entity having designed it. Without concrete proofs confirming theinitial suspicion/possible rule formulated to explain the observation of a “puzzling fact” (e.g., theautomatic suppression of a digital file on a silo), this abduction is likely to be interpreted as paranoiaby other individuals having been exposed to the observer's creative hypothesis.

V. Branding strategies, intellectual property and their hacking

1. Intellectual property as mean to control the individuals' mind

Nina Paley, artist and copyright activist, analyzes the concept of intellectual property in itsphilosophical definition and states that this concept can also be applied to the individuals' mind. In anarticle entitled Intellectual Property is Slavery (2009), she states that “Everyone deserves [the] right totranslate one’s rights into reality, to think, to work and keep the results – in other words to freelythink, express, and own the contents of their own mind. That is what “intellectual property” should(but doesn’t) mean : everyone’s right to their own mind.”164According to Lessig (2004), “Theexceptions to free use are ideas and expressions within the reach of the law of patent and copyright(...). Here the law says you can’t take my idea or expression without my permission : The law turns theintangible into property.”

By analyzing the legal definition of intellectual property, Paley (2012) remarks that intellectualproperty means exactly the opposite of the definition she gave :

It transfers ownership of the contents of your mind to others. It alienates the ideas in your mind,from you. Is there a song running through your mind right now? It doesn’t belong to you (...).

164 http://blog.ninapaley.com/2009/11/04/intellectual-property-is-slavery/

182

You are forbidden to express it; “performance” requires permission. “To think, to work” –interpret – “and keep the results” – record and sell copies of - the song in your mind, are illegal.Thus Intellectual Property gives alien, private owners title to our minds. We may think culture(songs, text, images) only in secret; any expressions of cultural thought belong not to the thinker,but to the IP owner. Your thoughts are “derivative works”; someone else has title to them. Youmay have “Porgy and Bess” in your mind, but interpreting or singing it out loud is forbidden.That part of your mind belongs to Gershwin's heirs and their lackeys. (…) Legally defined“Intellectual Property” is, quite simply, someone else’s ownership of your mind. If they own theright to express what lives in your mind, the right “to think, to work and keep the results,” thenthey own your mind; they own you. What can we call that, except slavery?”

Ideas (i.e., intangible goods) are thus likely to be privatized and turned into depriving goods from alegal point of view. This usually anti-rivalrous resource, as well-defined by Thomas Jefferson 165, canthus be controlled by laws based on intellectual properties. This poses a serious problem for thesemiotic process, whose ideas (as both interpretamen and interpretant) triggered by the observation ofrepresentamens can thus be “owned” by private entities and colonize the individuals' mind (as we willanalyze further in this work).

According to John Perry Barlow, co-founder and vice chairman of the Electronic Frontier Foundation,"human creativity, like its species of origin, arises from the processes of nature. Like the rest ofnature, all ideas are part of a seamless whole, a commons. If, in our greed, we chop the ecosystem ofMind into unconnected pieces, we will despoil it just as we are destroying the rest of our environment.Trying to own thought exclusively is as dangerous, selfish, and shortsighted as trying to own oxygen.We might enrich ourselves but asphyxiate our descendents.”

Intellectual property, and especially its abusive exercise, is thus likely to allow rights holders toexercise a control over the individuals' thoughts. It is thus fundamental to consider this major issue ofour societies in the analysis of the semiotic process. The individuals' mental alienation to Law can befavored by the internalization of “mental DRMs” and “cognitive silos” leashing their creativity via theconditioning of their interpretative, reflexive and behavioral processes.

Let's thus consider several individuals' interpretation of the Mad Hatter character :

- The first one is “branded” by Disney and has not read the original book by Lewis Carroll (i.e. has notdeveloped his personal interpretation from the text or interpreted the expressed character in thedrawing included in the book, in the public domain). His interpretation (i.e. mental representations)will thus be fed by the “privatized” dimension of his mind, and likely to match with the Disney'sexpected mental model (toward his intellectual property). This individual might thus, for example,interpret the character with the Disney's copyrighted design.

- The second one is “branded” by Disney and fond of their cinematographic adaptations. He hashowever read Carroll's original book but prefers the Disney versions. He is thus more likely to develop

165 “He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.”

183

an interpretation based on the Disney's copyrighted adaptation(s) of this character,, i.e. choice ofcompliance toward a depriving mental thought-sign (perceived as more attractive, can be optimizedwith a strong branding strategy) instead of a Free/common one giving him control over his mind;

- The third one is a big fan of Carroll's original book and has not seen any of the Disney. His mind canthus be considered as “freer” than the two first ones concerning this fictional character;

- The last one has only read an HTML version of Carrol's book (derivative work) without the originalillustrations. His only representation of the character is thus only made of his own interpretation of thecharacter described in the book (purely personal/subjective). His only interpretation will thus be fedby his “personal” interpretation he has full control over.

1.1. Mental DRMs, cognitive silos and their effects on the creative process

1.1.1. Mental DRMs

The “mental DRM” concept has been emphasized by Lionel Maurel (2011), librarian and member ofthe collectives SavoirsCom1 and La Quadrature du Net, which aim at defending the individuals'freedoms in our digital society. According to him, mental DRM is Law's true goal : model theimaginary to prevent the individuals to consider alternatives. Its main goal is to make the individualsinternalize the legal prescriptions toward copyrighted contents. It thus constitutes a “cognitive tool ofcontrol” over the minds restricting the thought process, just like DRMs are technical tools of controlrestricting users' experience with a digital program. Paley (2014) refers to “inner censors” to qualifythese mental restrictions accepted by the individuals denying their own “mental sovereignty.”

The internalization phenomenon implied by the mental DRMs means that the individuals make theirown the copyright policies' rigid and depriving system of values. For example, they can firmly believein the legitimacy of depriving licenses to protect cultural works and paradigms such as art ascommercial product and property requiring to be strongly protected against violations (i.e., “all rightsreserved” paradigm). The internalization of these mental restrictions (e.g., turned into core personalvalues) thus aim at shaping and conditioning the individuals' cognitive framework as well as theirbehaviors based on legal considerations such as the copying of a copyrighted work or the creation of abrand new one inspired by copyrighted ones (e.g., derivative work). Fourmeux (2013), librarian alsoengaged in the collective SavoirsCom1 emphasizes a personal experience he had within libraries :"Some professionals impose themselves mental DRMs. They thus censor themselves, are reluctant toimplement projects because they perceive them as illegal, because it does not match their ethics oflibrarian. The Copy Party166 was a glaring example, where I could talk with professionals who do notadmit that users can make personal copies, with their own material, documents that are available at thelibrary.”

Maurel's analysis emphasizing the fact that mental DRMs can prevent the individual's fromconsidering other alternatives can make us consider these internalized restrictions as new cognitive

166 Events organized in order to promote the right to copy copyrighted contents within libraries, for private uses.

184

biases threatening the efficiency of the observation and interpretation processes (i.e., the semioticone), via for example the too much important focus of the attention on the observed works' legaldimension instead of their intrinsic qualities. In other words, mental DRMs can induce amonopolization of the individuals' cognitive resources and favor their cognitive alienation via theleashing/weakening of their creative thought over copyrighted works, such as criticism via thedevelopment of new original ideas and the creation of brand new works based on them. Paley(2012)thus talks about her past conditioned personal experience as an artist : “It made me crazy as an artistas I was looking at legal licenses instead of looking at art”.

We will consider that the highest degree of mental conditioning via mental DRMs is when theindividual operates a “thought suppression”. According to Wegner (1989), thought suppression is theprocess of deliberately trying to stop thinking about certain thoughts. It is often associated withobsessive-compulsive disorder, in which a sufferer will repeatedly (usually unsuccessfully) attempt toprevent or "neutralize" intrusive distressing thoughts centered around one or more obsessions. It is alsorelated to work on memory inhibition.

Crimestop, as defined by Orwell (1949) in his novel 1984 is also a clear example of dangerous mentalconditioning likely to be internalized by individuals. This is the definition he gives of thispractice :“Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of anydangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors,of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored orrepelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. Crimestop, inshort, means protective stupidity.” Crimestop is practiced by the population of Oceania in Orwell'sdystopian story. Thoughtcrime is also a key concept in Orwell's authoritarian Party. It can be definedas an occurrence or instance of controversial or socially unacceptable thoughts. The term is also usedto describe some theological concepts such as disbelief or idolatry (Lewis, 2000) or a rejection ofstrong social or philosophical principles (Glasby, 2011).

These two dystopian concepts share similarities with the mental DRM one. Thus, mental DRMs aimat making the individuals internalize legal restrictions on their thoughts in order to model and shape(i.e., control through the legitimized intellectual property concept) their own cognitive system. Theconcepts of illegality and property applied to the individuals' mind thus inherently induce the conceptof “illegal thought”, whose detection and potential “suppression” can be favored by the individuals'self-censorship. Thus, the individual's choice to not express, for fear of legal sanction, a specific idea(e.g., by creating a work) which he perceives as illegal, prevents other individuals to observe it, getsinspired by it, and potentially enrich it via new original ones. The idea's value and meaning, developedby its cognitive treatment (via individual and collective interpretation) and expression (i.e., lifecycleaccording to our previous analysis), thus risks to be strongly threatened and impoverished due to thismental conditioning.

However, Maurel (2012) emphasizes that the digital world's intrinsic characteristics, favoring as wesaid the acts of copying, sharing and remixing, makes the mental DRMs less efficient to incite theindividuals to self-regulate (i.e., self-censor) toward copyrighted contents. The cultural industries have

185

thus decided to intensify their legal repression policy in order to threaten the individuals and try toearn back control over their thoughts and behaviors. Their legal strategy thus shifted frominternalization to compliance toward legal prescriptions for fear of legal sanction from powerful rightsholders exercising aggressive strategies to protect their intellectual properties. Inspired by Ertzscheid'sdefinition of DRMs, we will consider that mental DRMs also induce the individual's suffering of socialinfluences weakening his creative thought and inducing a leashed/conditioned virtual pole of therelation to copyrighted contents. We will moreover transpose Maurel's Law is code paradigm we haveanalyzed earlier from a digital system to the individual's cognitive one. Mental DRMs thus aim atregulating the individuals' behaviors (main goal of a DRM) via the internalization of restriction (i.e.,deprivation) toward legally depriving content. They can be favored by the individuals' fear to bemonitored and sanctioned (e.g.,via censorship, legal sanction,...) inducing a choice of cognitivecomfort and certainty (i.e., commodity) over freedom, and its inherent uncertainty and risk

Mental DRMs thus induce self-censorship likely to prevent :

- The production of specific behaviors such as copying and sharing copyrighted material (forconsidered as illegal and fear of sanction);

- The production of specific ideas (thought suppression such as in Orwell's 1984, based on “thought-crime”);

- The expression of certain ideas : Via the creation of new works based on copyrighted (i.e.,depriving) works,...

Mental DRMs can thus strongly weaken the creative process (based on disinhibited observation,interpretation and expression) via the conditioning/impoverishing of both the reading and the writingcultures. They can also be pretty effective, as we will see, to protect a brand against genericide andexercise a control over the individuals in their relation to it. Let's analyze the major issue mentalDRMs constitute for the creative process.

1.1.2. Cognitive silos

Based on the definition of the silo as “walled garden”, we will emphasize that cognitive silos constitute“cognitive enclosures” or “partitioning” between several conflicting thoughts/ideas (i.e., as perceivedand interpreted) induced by an individual's internalization of their conflictive natures determined bytheir respective rights holders. As silos are based on the exercise of control over individuals by privateentities via the choice of commodity (with attractive closed/depriving environments) over freedom, wewill consider that cognitive silos are based on the individual's cognitive alienation to certain andcomfortable (i.e., convenient) semiotic relations (with inherent cognitive relations to the generatedideas) and specific cognitive patterns.

Cognitive silos play a fundamental part in branding strategies, for they aim at shaping and conditioningthe semiotic process in the observation of specific representamens, via the absorption of key-conceptsby proprietary virtual entities such as brands (as we will analyze further in this work). The individuals'

186

internalization of the “war of design” (FAT, 2012) between competitive thought-signs (based on theprivatization of ideas we have analyzed) thus induce a cognitive partitioning, with an impossibility todevelop simultaneous “competitive thoughts” (as defined by their respective “rights holders”), withinthe semiotic process. Its main characteristics are thus :

- The individual's cognitive alienation to certain, stable and depriving semiotic relations comforted byrigid and familiar cognitive patterns (i.e., conditioning/preventing his V – A dynamic necessary toactualize new meaningful semiotic relations);

- The lack of interoperability between the actualized semiotic relations : With discrimination betweenthe thought-signs (interpretamen and interpretant, fitting the observed representamens' design'smodel). The conflicting/discriminating semiotic relations are thus based on Whether...or...configurations, preventing their connection or merger necessary to generate original ideas.

Cognitive silos can thus induce a conscious or unconscious discrimination, via the individual'sinternalization of the conflict and competition between different ideas (with domination of one overthe other(s)). The individuals can overlook specific ideas likely to disrupt their cognitivecomfort/stability induced by, for example, their positive cognitive relation with another one (e.g.,relation to a strong distinctive brand). They thus aim at making the individuals generate rigid, leashedand distinctive ideas, whose “meaning” can only be perceived if considered isolated from other“conflicting” ones (with inherent discrimination). In other words, the individuals having internalizedcognitive silos can generate whether a particle-like observation/interpretation with no simultaneousthoughts, or a leashed wave-like one with no possibility to be enriched. Cognitive silos thus fullyexploit the necessity for the individuals to focus on “located” ideas in order to optimize their cognitivetreatment.

Cognitive silos aim at conditioning the following dimensions of the semiotic process :

- Direct thoughts : Direct triggered interpretamen and interpretant when observe a representamen(with specific sign-vehicle). Can be favored by the individual's internalization of mental DRMsinducing a focus on the representamen's legal dimension;

- Simultaneous thoughts : Particle-like or leashed wave-like semiotic process with no virtualizationprocess necessary, via the V – A dynamic, to make new original connections between different ideasand actualize new meaningful semiotic relations;

- Sequential thoughts : Frozen or “enclosed” semiotic process, via the generation of whether a finallogical interpretant or a “closed semiotic loop”.167

They thus aim at conditioning the observation and interpretation of specific representamens (via afamiliar “particle-like” observation or a leashed wave-like one, which does not consider otherinterpretative possibilities than the ones usually considered (fitting the observed representamen'sdesign's model). The individual's virtual pole of the relation to the observed representamen is thusconditioned to be leashed in order the creative thought, necessary to exercise freedom over it, to

167 We will analyze this concept later.

187

“freeze”.

The mental conditioning will be operated at two levels :

- Alienation to the observed closed/depriving representamen's design's model favoring thecrystallization of attitudes toward it;

- Cognitive discrimination between “competitive” ideas induced by the first phenomenon. Forexample, similar ideas (e.g., key-concepts such as freedom or entertainment) can be “absorbed” bydifferent competitive brands (we will analyze this issue later).

Semiotic loops and the freezing of the semiotic process are thus likely to leash it and weaken thechances of innovation requiring a cognitive conflict/uncertainty and restructuring via the V – Adynamic.

We will refer to the “semiotic categorization” to qualify the individuals' natural categorization processinvolved in their interpretation of observed representamens in order to facilitate their production ofmeaning considering their limited cognitive resources and their inherent cognitive biases. The semioticcategorization can thus, like the social categorization, induce :

- A cognitive favoring toward the appreciated ideas whose attitudes about it are crystallized;

- A discrimination over other ones not appreciated or likely to threaten the first idea's integrity (e.g.,brand values).

The individual's strong cognitive relation to an object (e.g., a brand) can favor the natural developmentof a self-categorization (e.g., as member of a brand's community) with inherent endogroup favoringand exogroup discrimination based on prejudices. Rigid and crystallized attitudes (i.e., particle-likeinterpretation) can also prevent the simultaneous thinking about several “conflicting” ideas and induceboth a simultaneous and a sequential discrimination (via not consideration of other competitivethought-signs likely to disrupt the familiar and comfortable semiotic process).

Mental DRMs and cognitive silos thus constitute major threats for the individuals' exercise ofcreativity, by favoring the colonization of their mind by intellectual property. Let's now analyze howthese “cognitive tools of power” over the individuals can weaken or “cut-off” the creative process.

1.1.3. The cutting-off the creative process

The creative process requires, to be optimal, the individual' empowerment via a legal read – writeculture (Lessig, 2008) as well as a collective fluid and neutral “informational flow” according to Paley(2014).

Paley emphasizes that being open to culture is necessary for it to stay alive. This analysis is similar tothe work's lifestyle paradigm we have developed earlier. She thus states that every individual is aninformation portal : information enters through senses, like ears and eyes, and exits throughexpressions like voice, drawing, writing or movements. It is thus fundamental, for culture to stay alive,to be open or permeable. She bases this analysis on the definition of permeance given by Wikipedia,

188

i.e., “the degree to which a material admits a flow of matter or energy : ” We are the material throughwhich information flows. It’s through this flow that culture stays alive and we stay connected to eachother. Ideas flow in, and they flow out, of each of us. Ideas change a little as they go along; this isknown as evolution, progress, or innovation.” The creative flow requires, according to Paley'sparadigm, a disinhibited collective “in” and “out” processes. The “in” process constitutes the phase ofobservation and interpretation of cultural works, and the “out” constitutes its expression on a formal orinformal basis, in a physical or digital form and via its sharing, copying or remixing. The culture'slifestyle will thus be optimized by its collective, open, decentralized and disinhibited “disruption”(BNF, 2014) via remixes and mashups. Assange (2014) emphasizes that information flow is not aneutral phenomenon : it is related to the movement of power through a society. In other words, we willpresume that the more universal168and fluid (via a collective open and decentralized diffusion process)or indirect control, the more equitable the power within the society and the higher the chance ofinnovation.

However, as we analyzed earlier, legal policies are getting more and more aggressive to dissuadepotential creators to exercise their creative freedom toward copyrighted materials. The individuals arethus getting more and more conditioned and leashed in their creativity, whether through internalizationor simple compliance to abusive control over depriving intellectual properties. Mental DRMs andcognitive silos are thus likely to strongly leash/weaken the individuals' permeance to copyrightedworks.

Discrimination in the permeance (“in” and “out” processes) can leash and weaken the observation andinterpretation of artistic works via the focus on law and not on art. According to Paley (2014),“Internal censorship is the enemy of creativity; it halts expression before it can begin. The question,“am I allowed to use this?” indicates the asker has surrendered internal authority to lawyers,legislators, and corporations. Whenever we censor our expression, we close a little more andinformation flows a little less.” Copyright thus “cuts off the creative process according to Seemel,2013) by preventing, via compliance to the permissive culture the expression and sharing, whether asthe same work observed and interpreted or as a new remixed version.

The creative process thus requires to be optimal :

- The empowerment of the individuals involved in the process : Legal, cognitive and technicaldimensions (e.g., via net universality and same potentiality of access and participation);

- The neutrality of the informational flow (via individual and collective permeance) to optimize thecreative process. Requires a disinhibited “in” and “out” processes, with a removal of mental DRMsand cognitive silos;

- The individuals' focus on the observed works' artistic dimension instead of the legal one in order tooptimize their cognitive treatment via a stimulated creative thought.

168 Acording to Zimmermann's paradigm.

189

We will explicitly refer to “neutrality” and “universality” in the informational flow, in order to focusboth on the necessary same potentiality of access and participation in the creative process, and theabsence of discrimination between “integrated”, treated (via favored original connections stimulatingthe creative thought) and expressed ideas. These concepts are thus fundamental for the free flow ofideas, just like the net neutrality is. As Yancey Strickler (2014), chief executive and co-founder ofKickstarter, “Allowing paid priority access and content discrimination would threaten the freeexchange of ideas that takes place online, between people from all around the world, every second ofevery day. That free exchange is key to what makes the Internet such a powerful force.”

Mental DRMs and cognitive silos can induce, as we said, an internalization of both the censorshiptoward “in” and “out” processes, and also of the rigid interpretative rules based on the discriminationof other competitive ones (we will analyze this issue in detail further). They can also induce avoluntary degradation of copyrighted works in order to preserve the copying and sharing processes aspart of the informational flow. Here is a clear example169 of voluntary alteration of the content in orderto avoid legal sanction, read on Youtube :

“Katy Perry - "Dark Horse" (Lyrics On Screen) 720pHD170RNBLyric tt s “i changed the voicecause the copyright”

Here is another example emphasizing the possible interpretation of a degraded copyrighted content,based on legal assumptions :

Denis-Carl Robidoux I can give a reason why I clicked on “dislike” : the really bad resolution ofyour videos which indicates really clearly that you do not own this work's rights.

Based on Paley's informational flow paradigm, we will consider that the “wave” (constituted by theexchanged, integrated and expressed ideas) is carried through a medium, composed by the differentindividuals involved in the process. According to The Physics Classroom, a wave can be described as adisturbance that travels through a medium from one location to another location. The news media ismerely the thing that carries the news from its source to various locations. In a similar manner, a wavemedium is the substance that carries a wave (or disturbance) from one location to another. The wavemedium merely carries or transports the wave from its source to other locations. In other words, themedium is composed of parts that are capable of interacting with each other.171 Interaction thusconstitutes the main source of stimulation for the informational flow. Its optimization requires acollective disinhibition and unrestricted “in” and “out” processes similar to the datalove philosophy(with the “love for the free flow of ideas” collectively shared and enriched without any restriction).These individuals composing the medium thus contribute to spread the expressed ideas and have, atthe individual or collective scale, the power to :

169 We will emphasize that this content has now been removed, without any clear indications. We will thus consider three possible scenari : the content has been censored by the song's rights holders, censored automatically by the “robocopyright"or removed by the uploader without any request from them (i.e., self-censorship).170 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6JNCS2wf_k171 http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/waves/Lesson-1/What-is-a-Wave

190

- Increase the carried wave's momentum : Via the V – A dynamic and its enriching with newexpressions;

- Decrease the carried wave's momentum : Via its impoverishing, e.g., via a leashed virtual pole ofobserved works;

- Turn it into a particle : Via the choice of observation based on a rigid and conflicting interpretationwith other ideas or the “enclosure” of a common good via the creation of a brand new depriving onewith, for example, the use of a depriving license allowing its legal sharing but not modification like theCC BY NC ND. The shift of the good's nature can thus be favored by the impoverishing of its“virtualizing nature”;

- Stop it : Via its retention or privatization by the exercise of an abusive legal control over it preventingother individuals to legally “integrate” it in their creative process and create brand new expressionsfrom it (Paley and Seemel's analysis).

Some “artivists”172defend a new vision of art and intellectual property based on the public'sempowerment in order to stimulate creativity. For example, Gwenn Seemel emphasizes a trueideological conflict between the “art as property” and the “art as connection” paradigms. According toher, art has to get rid of copyright in order to be truly “valued” as it. The authors thus have to stopexercising a total control over their work and give up power over them in order to empower the publicand, by extension, empower their work via the creation of communities around them. This culturalparadigm fits the EFF's one we have already analyzed173 as well as the informational flow paradigm.The connection between individuals through art and its inherent re-appropriation via remixes favoringthe links between them is thus necessary to optimize the medium and, by extension, the “wave'stransportation and diffusion.

Seemel adds that the authors' will to exercise an abusive control over their work reflects a lack of trustand self-confidence in their ability to create truly personal (i.e., easily identifiable) works. Instead, theauthors have to stop being afraid of imitation (which is at the core of human culture since its verybeginning174) and confusion in the individuals' mind, i.e., toward their ability to distinguish their ownpersonality (reflected in their art) from those of other creators. This emphasizes an interesting pointfor our semiotic analysis, for many authors' will, through the use of a depriving legal license, is to beclearly identified as the authors of their work, i.e., be related by the public (object) when observe theirwork (representamen). Remixes can thus threaten this clear identification/semiotic relation (legallydefined as “moral right”), via the blurring between their works and other ones potentially “absorbing”them in the public's mind.

As we said, mental DRMs are likely to induce a monopolization of the attention (i.e., of the cognitiveresources necessary to stimulate the creative thought) by the observed works' legal nature. Theindividual aware of the copyrighted nature of an observed work and of its author's aggressive legal

172 Portmanteau composed of the “artist” and “activist” words.173 “By giving up power over our art, our art has more power”.174 “Everything is a remix” paradigm according to Lessig (2008) and Seemel (2013).

191

policy (based on experience and information/knowledge about it) might thus be more likely to developa clear interpretation about the work's design's model, instead of speculating about its authorship andintended interpretation (e.g., via the speculation about a potential imitation as defined by Doctorow,2013). His clear identification of the work's authorship based on the interpretation of its deprivinglegal license and the usually aggressive legal policy exploited by its author to protect it against“violation” can thus favor a clearer interpretation of the work's design's model than the one developedby another individual who does not possess this knowledge.

The work's copyrighted nature, with its inherent depriving “all rights reserved” terms, can be stated :

- Explicitly : The author adds a specific conventional sign such as the “c” on his work; or

- Implicitly : A work is considered as copyrighted by default unless the author explicitly choosesanother more permissive legal license.

According to Seemel (2013), the copyright placed by an author next to his work means that the publicobserving it needs to ask its author's permission for anything else but look at it. It is thus a clearstatement from the author to his audience saying : “Don't do anything with my work without askingpermission.” The legal license can thus be interpreted as a clear message from the author to hisaudience. This statement can be formalized by the integration of a personal message from the authorplaced next or on his work. David Hockney is a good example of clearly defined intention toward hisaudience. Here is the message that can be found when we enter his website (presented by the author as“the only authorized David Hockney website”) :

Stop. This site and contents are copyright David Hockney and may not be reproduced anywhereat any time in any form. Reproduction from photographic materials of David Hockney imagesnot supplied by David Hockney, Inc., is strictly prohibited.175

Aggressive legal strategies (e.g., via legal bullying practice) can thus be used by authors/rights holdersto protect their work's “distinctiveness” (as interpretation by the public) via the incitement of theindividuals to focus their attention on copyrighted signs when observe their works. These strategiescan thus favor an observation and interpretation as legisign (i.e., semiotic relation based on thirdnesslevel) and the particle-like observation. The “big c”, as Seemel refers to the copyright symbol placedon a copyrighted work to indicate its legal nature to the public, can thus be voluntarily used byauthors/rights holders to leash their public's observation and interpretation processes, by “scaring”them in order to prevent them from exploiting this work for the creation of brand new pieces.However, the “all rights reserved” legal nature can induce possible misinterpretations from the publicpaying attention to it in the observation of copyrighted works.

1.1.4. The possible misinterpretations

Possible misinterpretations toward observed works' design's model reflected in their legal licenses canthus potentially disrupt the semiotic process, via the development of false assumptions toward the

175 http://www.hockneypictures.com/

192

author's intentions (e.g., the development of a prejudiced categorization process inducing adiscriminizing cognitive treatment). Here are several possible misinterpretations likely to disrupt theinterpretation of a closed/depriving work.

- The public observing a copyrighted work can confound the author's will (intentions and expectations)and his work's rights holders (detaining the patrimonial rights over it). As the FSF emphasizes it, theauthor and the rights holder might not be the same : “The term “creator" is used by publishers toelevate authors' moral standing above that of ordinary people in order to justify giving them increasedcopyright power, which the publishers can then exercise in their name. We recommend saying“author” instead. However, in many cases “copyright holder” is what you really mean. These two termsare not equivalent: often the copyright holder is not the author.” The potential negative cognitiverelation to a related specific author (object), with a misinterpreted will toward his work (interpretant)can influence the perception and interpretation of the observed work (interpretamen). The observerinterpreting the strong and aggressive copyright policy applied on a work as standing for a specificauthor might thus misinterpret the author's will (intentions and expectations toward his work and hisaudience. This author might thus have “sold” his patrimonial rights on the work to some third-parties,who are the ones who exercise a legal control over the work. Their intentions might not reflect theauthor's;

- The public can misinterpret the author's will toward the control over his work : For example, thecopyright license can be interpreted as a will from the author to exercise a total control, whereas itsimply reflects his unawareness about the consequences of the chosen rigid depriving terms restrictingthe uses of his work, as well as an unawareness of alternatives best fitting his will. Seemel (2013) thusstates that “Most artists do not actually agree with copyright. They think they do, but they do notbelieve in copyright in its entirety. They also agree with specific terms of the depriving license, whichcan be found in Creative Commons licenses which allow the users to benefit for more freedom overthe work.176Using Creative Commons licenses thus allows the author to tell his audience what he needsfrom them instead of scaring them away with the “big C”, whereas that is not even what he wants.”For example, a librist (fully aware of the copyright true legal nature and its consequences on creativity)can interpret a copyrighted work as a will for its author to freeze the informational flow, i.e., thecreative process and deprive him of any right over it. This interpretation can thus be false, for theauthor actually wanted to share his work and empower his audience but was just simply not aware ofthe existence of legal licenses explicitly granting the freedoms necessary for the public to exercisecreativity over his work;

- The misinterpretation of the observed work's closed/depriving format : Let's consider this samelibrist who observes a work built on a closed/depriving format preventing its reading on any device(i.e., discrimination such as the Flash format which can not be read on completely Free digitalenvironments). He can thus interpret it as a conscious strategic choice of the author to create adiscriminating work, or which requires to be observed to comply to private entities' requests of controlover the individuals via the installation of closed/depriving programs. The true reason can thus be that

176 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EsIN5RK28vg

193

the author was not aware of this possible discrimination as well as the existence of Free alternatives(e.g. HTML5 or WebM). A clear example is the No es una crisis documentary we have analyzedearlier whose authors, however having chosen a copyleft license for their work, were not aware of itsintrinsic discriminating nature induced by its closed/depriving format;

- The misunderstanding of the copyright legal nature by the public : Likely to be exploited by rightsholders to exercise an abusive control over their work. Lessig (2008) emphasizes the fact that contentshave to be creative in order to be legally protected, i.e., controlled : “Facts on their own are not“creative.” As the Supreme Court has said, “The sine qua non of copyright is originality. To qualify forcopyright protection, a work must be original to the author. . . . But facts do not owe their origin to anact of authorship. The distinction is one between creation and discovery.” Thus, only “creativity” doesentitle someone to a copyright, and facts remain a resource that— constitutionally—cannot be subjectto a system of legal control.

The public thus benefits from the “fair use”, which grants them certain freedoms over copyrightedworks, such as the right to quote or parody. The public unaware of their rights toward copyrightedworks can thus easily comply to abusive requests from rights holders exploiting it. As Seemel states,“When the artist says that we may not reproduce his content “anywhere at anytime in any form” he islying. He is also throwing the authority of his fame and his money behind the lie. Under copyright law,we can reproduce his images and words (…), in order to comment on them. This follows from the fairuse limitation on copyright.”

Moreover, some rights holders can exploit the public's unawareness toward the “common” nature ofspecific works (e.g., in the public domain) in order to exercise an illegal (but not sanctioned) controlover them, also known as “copyfraud”. Copyfraud can be used, as we analyzed earlier, by privateentities to illegally exercise legal bullying and censorship.

Finally, Paley emphasizes the fact that even permissive legal licenses can weaken the creative processand the informational flow, by overloading the individuals' cognitive framework and favoringconfusion in their interpretation process focusing on the legal dimension of observed works. They canalso induce possible misinterpretations. For example, the “CC” symbol placed on a work to clarify itslegal license can be misinterpreted on its degree of permissiveness. Thus, an individual observing awork with the “CC” symbol placed on it can interpret it as the author's choice to allow him to freelyremix and share his work, as well as making profit from it (CC BY SA), whereas the author hadchosen a CC BY NC license, forbidding the commercial use of his work. The simple “CC” symbolcan thus induce some vagueness and confusion in the interpretation process as well as the productionof illegal behaviors based on a simple misinterpretation.

Copyright, and more globally intellectual property, can thus strongly weaken or “cut-off” the creativeprocess if rights holders exercise an abusive control over their own “remixes”. As Lessig (2008) andMaurel (2013) emphasize, some corporations like Disney have built their fortune on the “commonpool”, by adapting works in the public domain to create brand new fully copyrighted adaptations.However, these corporations do not give back to the pool where they found their inspirations in order

194

to feed the collective creativity. These practices can induce important damages, via a privatization ofthe commons through their absorption by copyrighted works benefiting for an important visibility andpopularity (i.e., colonizing the individuals' imaginary and “popular subconscious”). Mental DRMs andcognitive silos can play a huge part in the individual's alienation to rigid competitive interpretativerules defined by competitive private entities exploiting the individuals' natural cognitive biases toexercise a control over his interpretative process. A creative semiotic process thus requires for theindividuals to develop an awareness toward these two major issues and remove them in order to“unlock” their creative thought. Facing the major issue constituted by these tools of power, Paley(2014) has decided, in order to earn back sovereignty over her mind, to “hack” copyright via thecreation of pretty inventive means we will analyze later.

2. Branding strategies and means to hack them

2.1. The branded semiotic process

2. 1.1. Definition of a brand

According to Jean-Noel Kapferer, expert in communication and specialist of brands, “A brand is not aproduct : it is the product’s source, its meaning, and its direction, and defines its identity in time andspace.” For Marty Neumeier (author, designer, and business adviser), “A brand is a person’s gutfeeling about a product, service, or company.” Finally, Allen P. Adamson, leading expert inmarketing, states that “A brand is something that lives in your head. It’s a promise that links a productor service to a consumer. Whether words, or images, or emotions, or any combination of the three,brands are mental associations that get stirred up when you think about or hear about a particular caror camera, watch, pair of jeans, bank, beverage, TV network, organization, celebrity, or evencountry.”

Naomi Klein (2000) analyzes in her book No logo the “brand, not product” economic paradigm thatemerged in the 90's and that constitute the core of our current competitive economy. She thusemphasizes that corporations' core value does not reside in their manufactured products or services(whether physical or digital), but in the attractiveness and distinctiveness of their brands as virtualentity perceived and interpreted by their customers. She thus states that “What made early brandingefforts different from more straightforward salesmanship was that the market was now being floodedwith uniform mass-produced products that were virtually indistinguishable from one another.Competitive branding became a necessity of the machine age — within a context of manufacturedsameness; image-based difference had to be manufactured along with the product.” According to PhilKnight (former CEO of Nike), "There is no value in making things any more. The value is added bycareful research, by innovation and by marketing.”

The concept of brand thus fits perfectly the semiotic process, for it is based on the individuals' mentalassociations when observe specific branded representamens. The relation between an observedbranded product sharing generic and standardized intrinsic qualities (representamen) and a distinctive

195

attractive brand (object the individual appreciates and is committed to) constitutes one of the brand'score value. This relation can be favored if the individual possesses crystallized attitudes about it,developed for example via a strong commitment and free compliance to the brand's interpretativerules. Stephen King (WPP Group) emphasizes that“A product is something that is made in a factory, abrand is something that is bought by a customer. A product can be copied by a competitor, a brand isunique. A product can be quickly outdated, a successful brand is timeless”. This analysis highlightsseveral key-points. The first one is the necessity of strong affective and conative attitudinal dimensionsfor the individuals in relation to brands and observed branded products (whose mental association isthe base of the “branded semiotic process”. The second one is the unique nature of a brand, whichmakes it a rivalrous resource, as we will analyze later.

According to Kevin A. Clark (2004), “Brands are a shortcut for people. They are known quantities sopeople don’t have to go through an assessment every time they select something. Successful culturesand societies project the same ethos – you know who we are and what you can expect from us.Cultures organize around pivotal principles of core values, just as enduring brands do. Shared valuesare at the root of why brands work.” A brand thus has to be a clearly defined identity (i.e., easilyrecognizable) with strong values linked to it likely to favor a strong positive affective relation, as wellas a process of identification to it.

We will thus consider brands as “cognitive shortcuts”, for they favor the individuals' quick and easydevelopment of knowledge, expectations (i.e., virtual pole of the objectal relation) and decisions(Beckwith, 2012). They prevent (we will presume strategically) the individual's need to manipulate theobserved branded product in order to develop a familiarity, knowledge and trust toward it, via hisinteraction with it thanks to the development of blindly trusted relations. The virtual pole of theindividual's relation to the observed branded representamen, and more specifically his expectationsand predictions about it, is thus important to consider in our analysis for, as Seth Godin (marketer andpublic speaker) emphasizes, a brand equals the prediction of what to expect multiplied by theemotional power of that expectation.

2.1.2. Branding strategies

Klein (2000) analyzes the branding strategy : “It's helpful to go back briefly and look at where the ideaof branding first began. Though the words are often used interchangeably, branding and advertising isnot the same process. Advertising any given product is only one part of branding's grand plan, as aresponsorship and logo licensing. Think of the brand as the core meaning of the modern corporation,and of the advertisement as one vehicle used to convey that meaning to the world.” In other words,brands are about "meaning" and not product attribute.” Roy H. Williams, in Magical Worlds of theWizard of Ads, states that“Branding is simply attaching something to your name. A brand is the sumtotal of all the mental associations, good and bad, that are triggered by a name.” Klein adds thatbranding is not just a matter of adding value to a product, but is about thirstily soaking up culturalideas and iconography that their brands can reflect by projecting these ideas and images back on theculture as "extensions" of their brands : “This ambitious project makes the logo the central focus of

196

everything it touches - not an add-on or a happy association, but the main attraction. Advertising andsponsorship have always been about using imagery to equate products with positive cultural or socialexperiences.”

Based on this definition we will consider that a brand is an immaterial entity composed of a wide fieldof “extensions” strategically “absorbed” in order to increase its attractiveness and inner meaning, andthat branding strategies are all about shaping, conditioning and controlling the semiotic processtriggered by individuals toward branded representamens.

The logo and the design constitute the brand's visual identity. They are thus inherently based onspecific codes such as colors, typography or shapes, designed to trigger (when observed) specific ideasabsorbed by the brand177. A “branded sign” is thus designed to be interpreted as rigid legisignconventionally related to a clear, certain and meaningful object constituted by the strong and attractivebrand. Their rights holders' goal is to develop strong and attractive semiotic relations between themand the brand, in order to favor the leashed/conditioned observation of branded products with thefocus on them (thirdness level of interpretation) instead of on the product's intrinsic qualities(firstness). Logos and branded designs can evolve through time, for example to adapt to culturalchanges (with new heavy tendencies such as new ecological preoccupations).178The brand is thusrepresented within both the physical and the digital world by its “tools of power” (trademarked logos,patented design....), i.e., legally framed sign-vehicles favoring the observation and interpretation of theobserved representamen as legisign (semiotic process conditioned by the representamen's brandednature) standing for an identity and a property (closed/depriving via trademark and patent aggressivepolicy we will analyze later).

These signs can thus be qualified as the brand's “tools of power”, for they constitute the elementswhich will favor the conditioning of the individuals' interpretation process. Logos and designs are thusthe brands' main weapons for the development of a “branded interpretation” of representamens. Inother words, they are the elements which are designed to leash and condition the interpretation of abranded representamen in accordance to its official interpretative rules based on its design's model.The logo thus has to has to monopolize the individual's attention in his observation process. In otherwords, the individual's cognitive resources have to be mainly mobilized in his relation to it, favoringthe conditioned interpretation of the observed product based on its thirdness “branded” level.

Branding strategies thus incite the individual to not focus on the observed branded representamen'sintrinsic generic and standardized qualities, but on its conventional meaning defined and managed byits rights holders. The individual overlooks the observed representamen's intrinsic qualities (favors itscompliance toward its closed/depriving nature and denied complete observation) to develop aninterpretation based on the thirdness level (domination of the brand with conventional meaning overthe representamen' qualities).

The development of a strong branded relation is based, as we said, on influence and manipulation

177 https://www.helpscout.net/blog/psychology-of-color 178 http://frenchweb.fr/design-comment-les-logos-des-marques-ont-evolue-dans-le-temps-et-vous-influencent-au-quotidien/14859

197

techniques aiming at conditioning and strengthening the individuals' affective and conative attitudinaldimensions about their relation to specific brands. The development of a certain and comfortablecognitive framework can thus favor the crystallization of their attitudes about it as well as theirenclosure within cognitive silos necessary for their brands' rights holders to exercise control over themand protect their brand's value (as we will analyze later). Klein (2000) emphasizes the individuals'commitment to brands and branded products : “So here we are, for better or for worse, havingmeaningful committed relationship with our toothpaste and co-dependencies on our conditioner.” Theeffects of the individuals' manipulation by the brands' rights holders and the brand's official design(with rigid interpretative rules protecting its identity) which will testify of the branding strategies'efficiency (according to Festinger's analysis, 1957):

- Radicalization of attitudes : In order to favor the radicalization in case of cognitive dissonance (e.g.,observation and meaningful interpretation of a compromising/disruptive sign-vehicle within thebranded representamen triggering dichotomous values with the initial ones coming from the brand,such as DRMs);

- Resistance against attacks : In order to favor the radicalization in case of cognitive dissonance (e.g.,observation and meaningful interpretation of a compromising/disruptive sign-vehicle within thebranded representamen triggering dichotomous values with the initial ones coming from the brand,such as DRMs).

- Tendency to action : Via the strengthening of the conative dimension toward the brand and itsbranded products.

A brand can thus generate social influences on the individuals exposed to branded representamens :

- Compliance : Via the public compliance but preservation of private attitudes, especially if theindividual evolves in a group composed of individuals having strongly committed relations to it;

- Identification : Via attractiveness. Klein (2000) thus states that “If brands are indeed intimatelyentangled with our culture and our identities, when they do wrong, their crimes are not dismissed asmerely the misdemeanours of another corporation trying to make a buck. Instead, many of the peoplewho inhabit their branded worlds feel complicit in their wrongs, both guilty and connected. But thisconnection is a volatile one: it is not the old-style loyalty between lifelong employee and corporateboss; rather, this is a connection more akin to the relationship of fan and celebrity: emotionally intensebut shallow enough to turn on a dime. This volatility is the unintended consequence of brandmanagers striving for unprecedented intimacy with the consumer while forging a more casual role withthe workforce.”

- Internalization : Total control by the brand's rights holders and individual's alienation to the brand'sreality, giving its rights holders a total control over his cognitive framework. Religious/dogmaticrelation.

The branding strategy's main goals thus are :

- A strong affective and conative relation to the brand : Favors crystallization of attitudes and the free

198

compliance based on a blind trust;

- The internalization of distinctiveness and of its official interpretative rules (design's model, viacognitive silo) and of deprivation (mental DRM);

- The illusion of choice to manipulate the individuals, toward the branded ecosystem's options, andtoward the diversity of competitive products;

The control of the individual's attention by a brand will concern in our semiotic analysis :

- The individual's attention toward other competitive brands : When the individual thinks about aspecific distinctive brand (with his identity, attitudes and absorbed “extensions”), he does not thinkabout other competitive ones having potentially absorbed the same key-concepts;

- The individual's observation of the representamen as a branded legisign triggering a crystallizedrelation to a powerful, attractive and trusted brand.

The last point is fundamental to preserve the brand's meaning and power of attraction, especially if itsbranded products are deceptive by design. The observation of the deceptive products' composition byan individual is thus likely to compromise the branding strategy, via the introduction of cognitiveuncertainty likely to threaten the product as well as the brand's attractiveness. As Peter Lee (2005),Disney Executive said in an interview with The Economist, “If consumers even know there's a DRM,what it is, and how it works, we've already failed." The individual's strong cognitive relation to a brandand, by extension, its branded products will make us consider the Heider's POX model as part of thistriadic relation individual – brand – branded representamen.

The slave/master branded relation is thus favored if the individual is strongly committed to the brandand has developed a strong dependence to it. The religious relation based on a strong devotion can alsobe used as a mean of control over him by the brand's rights holders, via the favoring of his deceptionvia deceptive by design branded products. It can also favor his alienation to a “leashed branded virtual”necessary to develop what we will call a “semiotic loop”.

We will emphasize, based on Klein's analysis, four strategies likely to be used to develop a brands'power of influence over the individuals :

- Advertising and sponsoring : Aiming at developing positive mental associations between the brandand key concepts/ideas. This strategy involves influence techniques such as evaluative conditioning andpoetic messages in order to favor the individuals' mental conditioning (i.e., with the stimulation of hisaffective and conative attitudinal dimensions) via the penetration of their subconscious;

- Colonization of culture : Aiming at “absorbing” key cultural concepts/ideas by the brand in order todevelop its distinctiveness and attractiveness and take their place as “main attraction” in theindividuals' imaginary;

- Colonization of the public space : Aiming at invading the individuals' daily life to favor thepenetration of their subconsciousness, via their constant exposition to branded and copyrightedsymbols and physical spaces;

199

- Mergers and synergies : Aiming at strengthening the power of the brands' rights holders and favortheir strategies of influence and manipulation toward their customers, by comforting them in anillusion of freedom via choice within branded products, in order to avoid phenomena likely to threatenthe branding strategy such as reactance;

- Censorship and legal bullying : Aiming at protecting the brand's distinctiveness against confusion andgenericide and leash/control the creative process likely to threaten the brand's intellectual property/iesvia the internalization of mental DRMs and cognitive silos.

All these strategies can be used to achieve “brandscendence”, which we will analyze later. Let's nowanalyze them more in detail.

The branding strategy can also aim at developing a certain and familiar virtual pole of the individuals'relation to branded products, via clear expectations toward both their actual “position” and theirevolution through time. Let's thus focus on the interpretation of the branded products' evolution. Thebrand conditioning their interpretation can allow to favor the interpretation of a clear trajectory whosedirection can be easily determined. In other words, the brand can in this case be interpreted as aparticle defining the product's direction as well as its identity through time and space (according toNeumeier's definition we have analyzed). The particle-like interpretation of the branded products'evolution can thus rest upon a clearly observed “trajectory” via a clearly located position(interpretation at a T time) and momentum (via clear trajectory whose observation is optimized by therepresentamen's closed/depriving nature and closed/centralized development process. This clearinterpreted trajectory can favor the individual's anticipation of his appreciated branded products'evolution by their usual or conventional evolution based whether on :

- Secondness : Via usual (however not conventional) releases of new branded products whoseconsumption is necessary to preserve the relation to the brand (in correlation with the programmedobsolescence paradigm); or

- Thirdness : Via conventional releases defining the branded products' evolution.

Here are several examples of clear trajectories for branded products :

- The annual release of Apple's new iPhones with clear numbers indicating their place in their “globalcommercial line” : 3, 4, 5, 6,...;

- The annual releases of both new Pixar movies (generally in summer) and Disney ones (generally forChristmas holidays);

- The annual release of the Fifa games by Electronic Arts, generally at the end of September, with foreach new versions a number indicating its year : 13, 14, 15,...

These clear trajectories composed of regular releases of new branded products belonging to a globalline is thus likely to favor the individuals' strong commitment to the brand they stand for, via theregular production of committing actions (e.g., purchase of a new version) aiming at preserving thestrong relation to the brand and avoid to be marginalized within the brand's community. This clear and

200

strong relation based on familiar and committing behaviors is thus favoring the individual's alienationto the brand via the crystallization of his attitudes toward it and its branded products.

2.1.3. Advertising and sponsorship

Advertising aims at developing strategic mental associations between a brand and its defined meaning,with distinctive identity and core values. The goal thus consists to favor the individuals' mentalassociations between the brand's logo and key-concepts such as cultural events standing for positivevalues like “free music for everyone”. This strategy involves influence techniques such as evaluativeconditioning and poetic messages in order to favor the individuals' mental conditioning (i.e., with thestimulation of their affective and conative attitudinal dimensions) via the penetration of theirsubconsciousness. As we said, advertisement is the vehicle used to convey the brand's meaning to theworld (Klein, 2000). In other words, it aims at developing the sign-vehicle(s) shaping the individuals'semiotic process when observe branded representamens, whether on the levels of secondness (via theusual sponsoring of specific events/individuals favoring the individuals' systematic mental relationsbetween them) or thirdness (via conventional meanings defined and vehicled in the advertisements andpartnerships with specific events/individuals).

Branding strategies are also based on the exploitation by marketers of the individuals' implicitmemory. An experience led by Courbet (2008) emphasized that the unconscious exposition to an adpenetrates the implicit memory, i.e., traces of the past experience memorized by the individualwithout being aware of it, but which will influence his future behaviors and evaluations. Thus, eachtime an individual is confronted to a logo, he memorizes it once again. According to Courbet, “Thisexposition activates neuronal networks of the peripheral vision. We acquire a global knowledge of thelogo : its approximative shape, its color,... whose traces are stored in our implicit memory.” The brainthen, with experience and habit, treats the memorized brand (via its logo) faster. It recognizes it, readsit and analyzes it quickly. This is called the cognitive fluidity. And that's when the brain is going tocommit an interpretative mistake. Treating more rapidly an information like a logo makes it attribute apositive value to it, for the fact to get used to an information makes it more familiar and moreattractive.

According to Tony Haile (2014), CEO of Chartbeat, the creativity of advertising favors the brandrecognition. Savan describes in The Sponsored Life (2004), what she calls the “sponsored mindset”,whose symptom number one is that we become collectively convinced not that corporations arehitching a ride on our cultural and communal activities, but that creativity and congregation would beimpossible without their generosity.” In the introduction of her book, he says : “The sponsored life isborn when commercial culture sells our own experiences back to us. It grows as those experiences arethen reconstituted inside us, mixing the most intimate processes of individual thought withcommercial values, rhythms, and expectations. There is no human emotion or concern — love, lust,war, childhood innocence, social rebellion, spiritual enlightenment, even disgust with advertising —that cannot be reworked into a sales pitch.” This emphasizes the next fundamental point of thebranding strategy : the colonization of culture.

201

2.1.4. The colonization of culture

As Klein (2000) emphasizes, “The effect, if not always the original intent, of advanced branding is tonudge the hosting culture into the background and make the brand the star. It is not to sponsor culturebut to be the culture. And why shouldn't it be? If brands are not products but ideas, attitudes, valuesand experiences, why can't they be culture too?” She adds that the branding process is about pushingthe envelope in sponsorship deals, dreaming up new areas in which to "extend" the brand, as well asperpetually probing the Zeitgeist to ensure that the "essence" selected for one's brand would resonatekarmically with its target market. (…) She thus emphasizes that “this radical shift in corporatephilosophy has sent manufacturers on a cultural feeding frenzy as they seize upon every corner ofunmarketed landscape in search of the oxygen needed to inflate their brands.”.

Culture is a key-concept in the semiotic process and in the exercise of creativity and freedom over it,for it shapes the individuals' interpretation of the world. For example, it can stimulate the individuals'observation of a work via the triggering of a potentially vast and rich actualized semantic field, andfavor his appreciation as original pieces in relation to their perceived cultural influences andreferences. It also feeds the individuals' creative thought and their “reality” (according toWittgenstein's paradigm The limits of my words are the limits of my world). A vast and rich culture isthus essential to fully appreciate observed representamens, via the development of rich and accurateinterpretations and exercise freedom as well as creativity over them. In a nutshell, culture feeds theindividuals' mental representations, by developing their imagination and influencing the way theyperceive/observe the world as well as their virtualization and actualization skills. It is thus necessary todevelop the creative and inventive skills and favor the collective intelligence, via for example collectivereading practices and the exercise of an individual and collective control over observedrepresentamens.

However, culture can be controlled, as we said, by private entities whose copyright policies can cut-offthe creative process. The “common pool” can thus be threatened, via legal strategies aiming atprivatizing the commons. Like a digital program, culture can be used as a “tool of power” against theindividuals (if privatized) and be a source of a really important ideological conflict, whose productionand control (whether closed/centralized or open/decentralized) can lead whether to the individuals'freedom (through empowerment) or to their alienation (through disempowerment) to private entitiescontrolling it. It can also be hacked for ethical purposes or not, for example to open and decentralizepower, i.e., liberate via a collective empowerment. For example, some individuals can transform it intopropaganda and advertising in order to exercise an influence and control over the individuals' mind,whereas other ones can simply “disrupt” it via remixes or mashups in order to enrich the common pooland stimulate the creative process.

The individuals' culture can thus be colonized, absorbed by a brand and privatized by its legal ownerexercising a branding strategy over it in order to make the brand its core definition defining itsidentity/meaning and condition the individuals' representations of it. The main goal is thus to “absorb”strategic key-concepts/ideas to enrich the brand's cultural world. This development of a fully closed,depriving and branded world (as part of the individuals' psychic virtual reality and composed of

202

semantic fields shaped by the brand's “extensions”) is thus necessary to enclose these individuals to adepriving and branded “semiotic world” and optimize their' mental conditioning via an egocentricnavigation within it. The brand can thus be defined by a specific “cultural imaginary” composed of“absorbed” cultural elements strengthening its distinctive identity and attractiveness. The brand'scolonization of culture can be strengthened by strong and aggressive copyright policies toward them inorder to “cut-off” the creative process by developing an entirely shaped and controlled “branded”semiotic one.

Disney is a really good example of strategic privatization of culture in order to develop a powerfulbrand whose meaning and values rest on the colonization of the collective imaginary via the creationof popular branded and copyrighted works based on public domain ones (tales, novels,...). Thiscorporation thus recently tried to “absorb” a famous Mexican tradition, El Día De Los Muertos, inorder to legally protect the commercial exploitation of one of its upcoming movie and its derivativeproducts. It however faced some strong resistances in this process. As Lalo Alcatra, a Mexican-American cartoonist stated,"On the offensiveness scale, it seems awful and crass, as the words 'Dia deLos Muertos' aren't just some brand name but a holiday."179Here is an example of tweets thatflourished online right after Disney's trademark filling :

@aida_lu aida luna

Día de Muertos is a Mexican tradition, it is part of our culture!!! It s NOT a product. ItCANNOT be a trademark! @Disney @DisneyPixar

Disney has thus withdrawn its attempt to trademark this name after a strong online backlash. As oneof their official spokesperson explained, "Disney's trademark filing was intended to protect anypotential title for our film and related activities. It has since been determined that the title of the filmwill change, and therefore we are withdrawing our trademark filing."180

The brand can thus define key-concepts after having absorbed them in its branded cultural world. Thebrand can thus expand within semantic fields such as cultural domains (e.g., music, cinema, literature,sport,...), transforming them into a whole part of a global branded cognitive silo. The brand will, forexample, refer to the idea (i.e., interpretamen) the individual has about culture, for defined by hisstrongly appreciated and committed brand. The branding strategy can also aim at simplifying theindividual's cognitive framework via the creation of “all-in-one” branded products absorbing a widerange of initially distinctive products. This strategy can favor the consideration of several interpretativepossibilities while observing a branded product, which however all stand for the same brand. Theobservation of a “all-in-one” product can thus favor the transformation of an initial “wave-like”observation into a “particle-like” one, with the generation of a simplified interpretamen. For example,the “Xbox One” has initially been designed to “absorb” all the current technological products forentertainment : videogame console, camera, Blu-Ray and music player, web browser, etc. Microsoft's

179 www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/disney-uturns-on-dia-de-los-muertos-trademark-bid-for-day-of-the-dead-movie-after-online-protests-8609303.html180 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/07/disney-trademark-dia-de-los-muertos_n_3231929.html

203

strategy was thus to gather all these different products within one, with a strategic name designed to beinterpreted as one single branded experience : “Xbox” standing for the Xbox brand and “One”standing for the “all-in-one” concept. All the different absorbed products were thus intended to beinterpreted as “parts of a lifestyle package” standing for an attractive brand.

Klein (2000) emphasizes Nike's branding strategy based on the absorption of all the key-elementscomposing and defining the “sport” culture : "Nike is the definitive story of the transcendent ninetiessuperbrand, and more than any other single company, its actions demonstrate how branding seeks toerase all boundaries between the sponsor and the sponsored. This is a shoe company that isdetermined to unseat pro sports, the Olympics and even star athletes, to become the very definition ofsports itself.” The colonization of culture by brands and the individuals' enclosure to closed, depriving,discriminating and “”brand-centered” semiotic environments is thus likely to develop what we will calla “closed semiotic loop”.

2.1.5. The semiotic loop

The brand short-circuits and “encloses” the semiotic process, via the development of a strong affectiveand committed relation (inducing a crystallization of the attitudes) to it in the observation of brandedrepresentamens. The brand's interpretation will be composed of the different key-concepts havingbeen absorbed” (e.g., entertainment, sport, freedom,...) and which have been turned (via their rigidbranded interpretation) as its “extensions”. We will refer to a “semiotic loop”, for the brand's meaning(and value) is defined via key-concepts (e.g., freedom, entertainment,...) having been absorbed by it(i.e., defined by the brand and interpreted by the individuals as “brand extensions”). The observationof a branded representamen is thus likely to trigger a direct affective and meaningful relation to thebrand (in accordance with its design's model), which will then trigger different kinds of “extensions”related to it (as part of the branding process), which themselves will trigger other branded thought-signs mentally related to it. Let's take a clear example : a “branded” individual observing a culturalwork might interpret it according to his own cultural references entirely owned, controlled and“absorbed” by his favorite brand. He might thus develop both an idea of the observed representamen(interpretamen) and an idea about the perceived cultural references having served for its creation(interpretant relating the observed work to the object). This interpretant (as thought-sign) mighttrigger a new one based on its “absorption” by the strongly appreciated brand (second phase of thesemiotic process). Finally, this new one might trigger new branded thought-signs triggering the brandand so on. The semantic field actualized when observe a branded representamen is thus “explored”according to familiar cognitive patterns (shortcuts strategically defined by the brand's rights holders).

We will define this conditioned “looped” semiotic process as closed, for it induces an alienation to afully enclosed (via the internalization of cognitive silos), depriving (with mental DRMs) and familiar(i.e., with repetitive cognitive patterns) semiotic process. The triggered thought-signs are thus alwaysbeing related by the individual to the brand having absorbed them and defining them (i.e., “brand-centered”) and the cognitive process will be shaped by a systematic discrimination (i.e., overlooking)of other “disruptive” unbranded thought-signs. Like the final logical interpretant based on habit, the

204

semiotic loop is based on the individual's familiar and crystallized relation to the brand (via a leashedvirtual pole of the relation to the branded representamen) inducing a permanent overlooking of otherpotentially disruptive signs and thought-signs. For example, the Disney brand can absorb, consideringits core domain of activity based on entertainment, the individuals' representation of the “dream” or“imagination” concepts, leading to an enclosure and alienation to a branded cognitive silo. Accordingto our analysis of the cognitive silos, we will consider that the colonization of the semiotic process bybrands exercises an influence on the two dimensions of the thought-process : sequential andsimultaneous.

Let's first consider the simultaneous dimension. We will qualify this process, based on our previousanalysis, as “leashed and branded wave-like”. A branded individual observing a logo standing for astrong brand can thus consider, in his relation to the brand, simultaneous interpretative possibilitiesbased on the consideration of “absorbed” different cultural domains (i.e., leashed wave-like based on aBoth...and... configuration) and whose interpretation is enclosed within a branded cognitive silo. Forexample, the Disney brand can stand for the cinema, literature, music, videogame, food, television,..

The thinking about the brand triggered by the observation of the logo can thus open up a vast and richbranded semantic field composed of ideas gravitating around the brand. The brand can thus absorb awide number of cultural domains and ideas enriching its interpretation, by triggering a wide range ofinterpretative possibilities all controlled and “owned” (via absorption) by its rights holders. We willthus presume, based on the superbrand concept, that the richer and vaster the branded simultaneousthought-process, the more efficient the individual's mental conditioning by the brand and its rightsholders. A “branded” individual thinking about his favorite brand can thus potentially refer to a widerange of semiotic possibilities likely to be actualized via a location of thought-signs. This brandedsemiotic process can thus favor the global thought including in its core meaning a wide range ofcultural domains nudged in its “background” (Klein, 2000). The “brand as lifestyle” idea can favor thisleashed and branded wave-like semiotic process composed of all the key-concepts structuring anddefining an individual's life : art, sport, friendship,...

Let's then consider the sequential dimension. This dimension is composed of the theoretically infinitetriggering of new thought-signs based on previous ones whose nature depends on specific sign-vehicles(i.e., Peircean semiotic process). This process is based on our previous analysis about the semioticloop, with the individual's thinking about a brand whose meaning is defined by the absorbed brandedthought-signs standing for the brand having absorbed them, (i.e., via the triggering of these ideas inthe semiotic relation to the brand).

2.1.6. The competition between brands

The brands' expansionist and colonial strategy inherently induces a conflict between other competitiveones competing for the absorption of the same concepts in order to develop and forge their ownidentity, meaning and value. For example, Nike directly competes with Adidas and Reebok for the

205

absorption of the sport idea in the individuals' mind, while Apple competes with Microsoft for thecomputing domain. Brands' rights holders are thus engaged in a competition for attention, withinherently limited cognitive resources mobilized and exploited in the interpretation process whoseconditioning/control (e.g., via the individuals' focus on one specific brand overlooking other ones whenthink about a specific key-idea,...) constitutes a core goal for these entities.

This analysis makes us consider another key-concept at the heart of our current capitalist economicsystem : cognitive capitalism. Based on our previous analysis, we will emphasize that cognitivecapitalism generates value through the individuals' conditioned/controlled interpretation of “cognitivegoods”. The transformation of ideas into private goods (via the individuals' internalization of mentalDRMs and cognitive silos) is thus at the core of this economic paradigm. Let's now deepen thisanalysis in order to better understand the main issues raised by the economic competition betweenbrands. Cognitive capitalism will be composed, in our analysis, of two main concepts : economy ofattention and affective capitalism.

The first concept implies a competition between brands' rights holders for catching the individuals'attention and enclosing their interpretation of generic concepts within their own branded cognitivesilo. They thus aim at developing entirely controlled branded particle-like or leashed wave-likeobservations of their branded products, favored by the individuals' crystallization of attitudes andinternalization of “cognitive restrictive features” (i.e., mental DRMs and cognitive silos) in order tofavor their cognitive enclosure within closed semiotic loops.

According to Haile, time is the only element of scarcity online. If I spend five minutes on a specificwebsite, I do not spend it on another competitive one. With scarcity comes the ability to pay higherprices or "premium” accesses. The scarcity of time is also related to quality, because catchingsomeone's attention with bad content is difficult.181Haile adds that two things favor the brandrecognition : the creativity of advertising and the time the individuals have been exposed to it.

This competition for attention and interpretation (FAT, 2012) will target both the individuals'interpretamen (i.e., idea of the observed branded product with a closed/depriving designs,...) andinterpretant (i.e., idea of the brand it is designed to stand for, conditioned by branding strategies) oftheir interpretative process. The FAT Lab (2012) illustrates this cognitive competition for theabsorption of key-concepts by brands : “Each construction toy wants (and indeed, pretends) to be youronly playset. Within this worldview, the other manufacturers’ construction sets are just so manyelephants in the room, competing for your attention on the shelves of Toys-R-Us.” The internalizationof the competitive branded products' discriminating and depriving designs (aiming at protecting theirdistinctiveness and prevent genericide likely to be induced by a cognitive connection/merger) can thus,as we said, help achieve the individual's cognitive enclosure. The internalization of the “law is code”paradigm by the individuals is thus necessary for the brands' rights holders to protect their respectiveidentity and meaning (i.e., value) via the control of the individuals' mind and regulation of theirbehaviors (Maurel, 2011). In other words, it is fundamental to condition their cognitive fluidity anddevelop a familiar semiotic process based on a leashed/conditioned thirdness interpretative level.

181 http://medias.blog.lemonde.fr/2014/06/30/il-faut-passer-du-web-du-clic-au-web-delattention/

206

Let's now focus on the second concept. Karppi, Laukkanen, et. al., (2014) analyze what they call the“affective capitalism”, by stating that “Affect makes us act, exceeding or preceding rationality. Thenotion of affect dovetails with operations of power (Kenny, Muhr and Olaison, 2011). Affectivecapitalism transforms us into assets, goods and services by appealing to our desires, needs and socialrelationships, or by making us act on mere gut-feeling”. This analysis fits perfectly the brand'sdefinition given by Neumeier, placing the affect as core part of the brand's meaning and value as wellas Courbet's analysis about the exploitation of the implicit memory by brands' rights holders. Themanipulation of the individuals' affective relation to the observed branded representamen can thus beexploited by brands' rights holders order to favor their free commitment toward them (i.e., influencetheir conative dimension). A relation to a brand based on a strong affective dimension can favor, as weanalyzed earlier, both the individual's alienation to it (for less solicitation of his cognitive attitudinaldimension in his interpretative process) and the discrimination toward other competitive brands (withfor example an endogroup favoring and exogroup discrimination). This individual is also more likelyto become an “agent of influence” for the brand, e.g., by playing the role of opinion leader toward hisclose social environment.

The brand's visual identity can also be threatened by the use of the same codes by competitors, likelyto induce a confusion in the individuals' mind when confronted to them simultaneously. For example,same codes of color and typography used for the logos (whose observation triggers the same thought-signs). The brands can also compete for the colonization of the imaginary and public space, e.g., viasponsorship. We will thus emphasize that two competitive brands sponsoring the same cultural event islikely to induce confusion in the individuals 'mind observing these two conflicting entities (interpretedaccording to a discriminated treatment) standing for the same values and lifestyles.

Different copyrighted works reflecting the same sources of inspiration, whose rights are hold bycompetitive entities/brands' rights holders, can also be designed to be observed and interpreted asoriginal pieces (via their absorption of the different works having served as source of inspiration fortheir creation according to Seemel's analysis, 2013). Moreover, these entities can also compete fortheir works' commercial name requiring to be protected a trademark framing their works' legalcommercial exploitation. For example, two competitive animation studios having createdsimultaneously copyrighted works based on a famous classic from the public domain might competefor :

- Catching the individuals' attention and interpretation : Develop observations of their work asstanding for their respective brand, with internalization of mental DRMs, i.e., of deprivation toward itas well as the absorption of the old “common” work by the new one and, by extension, the brand itstands for;

- The work's name as trademark for further commercial exploitations (rivalrous resource).

The different rights holders thus compete for the control over the individuals' interpretation processand share a consensus of distinctiveness aiming, for each of them, at protecting their respective“intellectual properties” through branded mental associations, while fighting at the same time for the

207

“absorption” of the same generic key-ideas. In other words, they aim at enclosing individuals into silos(physical/digital and cognitive) and favor the crystallization of their attitudes when observe andinterpret branded products or absorbed key-concepts defining their meaning and identity. Competitivebrands can thus get engaged in an intense conflict to develop and preserve their own identity anddominate other ones in the colonization of the individuals' mind.

We are now going to analyze another key-dimension of the branding strategy. While the number ofbrands in competition should theoretically reflect the degree of choice (i.e., “freedom”) of theindividuals in their consumerist actions, the constant instability and evolution of the capitalist systeminduces a new kind of strategic control by the brands' rights holders : the illusion of choice achievedthrough mergers and synergies.

2.1.7. Mergers and synergies

According to Klein (2000), mergers and synergies between corporations induce a loss of meaningfulchoices. She thus emphasizes that ‘The branded multinationals may talk diversity, but the visible resultof their actions is an army of teen clones marching – in “uniform,” as the marketers say – into theglobal mall. Despite the embrace of polyethnic imagery, market-driven globalization doesn’t wantdiversity; quite the opposite. Its enemies are national habits, local brands and distinctive regionaltastes. Fewer interests control ever more of the landscape.” In other words, the real question nowadaysfor marketers and brands' rights holders is not “Where do you want to go today?”182but “How best canI steer you into the synergized maze of where I want you to go today?”

Mergers and synergies between corporations owning different potentially “competitive” brands is thusa recurrent practice and can be a pretty efficient strategy in order to maintain the individuals in theillusion of a choice toward branded products (with each one standing for a different distinctive brand)and avoid dangerous phenomena likely to disrupt the branding strategies : reactance.

Psychological reactance is an aversive affective reaction in response to regulations or impositions thatimpinge on freedom and autonomy (Brehm, 1966, 1972, Brehm & Brehm, 1981; Wicklund, 1974).Thus, a perceived diminution in freedom ignites an emotional state that elicits behaviors intended torestore this autonomy (Brehm, 1966, 1972, Brehm & Brehm, 1981; Wicklund, 1974). Reactance, forexample, often encourages individuals to espouse an opinion that opposes the belief or attitude theywere encouraged, or even coerced, to adopt. As a consequence, reactance often augments resistance topersuasion (Brehm & Brehm, 1981). Reactance can evoke a series of reactions. First, and perhapsmost strikingly, reactance can provoke behaviors that oppose the rules or courses of action that wereimposed and encouraged (Buller, Borland, & Burgoon, 1998). Specifically, individuals often showboomerang effects, in which they become more inclined to enact the very behavior that was restricted(Brehm, 1966). Alternatively, they might engage in acts that are similar, but different, to the behaviorthat has been restricted, such as smoke more often after drugs are prohibited, called relatedboomerang effects (Quick & Stephenson, 2007; 2008). Finally, reactance provokes adverse attitudestowards the source of any restriction. That is, individuals who prohibit some free behavior are

182 In reference to Microsoft's 2nd global image advertising campaign.

208

regarded unfavorably (Miller, Lane, Deatrick, Young, & Potts, 2007). This phenomenon is prettysimilar to the “ideological blowback” emphasized and depicted by Klein (2007) in her book TheShock Doctrine.

Reactance thus requires to be developed an awareness of the attempts to restrict their freedom andexercise an abusive control over them. It can also constitute a serious threat in the individuals' mentaland behavioral control by brands to protect their intellectual properties and enclose them in their ownbranded “DRMized” cognitive silos. The “assault on choice” thus inherently requires to not beperceptible and hidden under an apparent diversity reflecting an illusionary freedom of choice.Mergers and synergies, as well as the development of an illusionary freedom, is fundamental tooptimize the branding strategies based on a simplification of the individuals' cognitivo-perceptivesystem. A good way to avoid it and optimize the influence and manipulation of the individuals is thusto reach their subconsciousness, in order to shape/condition their perception and interpretation of theirobserved world via the development of a certain, familiar and branded psychic virtual reality favoringtheir overlooking of the depriving/deceptive nature of their generated thoughts/reflections.

We are going to focus on a specific topic constituting, from our point of view, the heart of theindividuals' feeling of freedom in our societies: the press and its sacred “freedom” as core value of oursocial “democratic” systems.

As we said, the agenda setting theory (McCombs & Shaw, 1972), states that media do not tell peoplewhat to think, but what to think about183. They can thus create a cognitive alienation to their ownagenda, preventing the development of reflections and deepening of certain topics (according toSchneidermann's analysis of the achievement of independence toward mainstream media, 2013).

Rainaudi (2013) analyzes the uniformity of the informations within the editorial press : “Freedom ofthe press is supposed to offer different points of view to readers, presented in different texts. Whateverthe color or font. When the same text (exactly the same!) is presented 137 times with only colors andfonts changing, we are no longer in the diversity of the press, we are in market segmentation. It nolonger tries to offer a vision of events but to occupy a niche in the solvent readership or 'advertizable'”This analysis fits perfectly the “brand, not product” economic paradigm emphasized by Klein (2000)we have analyzed earlier. The fundamental freedom of the press, represented by a diversity andindependence of the informational sources has thus been turned into an market based on theproduction of generic and standardized commercial products, whose illusion of originality anddistinctiveness is favored by their respective newspapers' branding strategy. The individuals readingdifferent newspapers having copied the same source article from the AFP might thus develop a totallydifferent interpretation depending on their interpreted relation to a brand (e.g., Le Monde and LeNouvel Obs). They might thus interpret it on a thirdness level and develop a branded semiotic relationentirely conditioned by these respective brands (i.e., relating the read article relating to the brand andits distinctive identity, with the individual's inherent attitudes about them). This interpretation can thusbe favored by a focus on the brands' visual identities, i.e., the article's aesthetic form and a domination

183 We will emphasize that this analysis has been first made by Lippmann (1922) who argues, in Public Opinion (1922) that the mass media are the principal connection between events in the world and the images in the minds of the public.

209

of this element over the important ones such as the one indicating the original source copied in thearticle (e.g., Source : AFP).

Walter Lippman (1922) provided an essential idea to a theory of modern propaganda distinguishedfrom the older models. For him, the American citizen does not forge his opinions in his interpersonalenvironment, i.e., groups of proximity (such as family, neighborhood, labor relations) anymore. Heisolated himself in an urban cocoon which leads to borrow opinions, knowledge, informations to thesedistant and non-interactive sources that are the media. These media perfectly fulfill this function byproviding the citizen with what Lippmman calls a "pseudo-environment". It is through the productionof this pseudo-cognitive environment that the media now influence public opinion and will favor thecitizens' acceptance of the main directions and politics offered to them. Beauvois (2005) defines itas“media democracy” inducing, by their functioning and their influence techniques based on “gloomypropaganda” what he calls a “quiet totalitarianism”.184According to him, only a true pluralism ofopinion in the media can allow the citizens to avoid the biases generated by these processes inducing areduction of the field of possible (perceived and interpreted).

Let's now focus on a clear example of illusion of choice in the media based on mergers and synergiesbetween big media corporations, by analyzing the strong synergy between Hachette and Disney. Thesetwo corporations are used to making corporate deals and partnerships. For example, Hachettepurchased in 2013 the Hyperion book publisher from the Walt Disney company. Here is what anarticle from the AP website states185: “Hachette Book Group, a division of French publishing giantHachette Livre, says it's buying Disney's Hyperion, in a deal that will significantly expand HBG'sbacklist with about 1,000 books and a list of forthcoming titles from authors including actor EthanHawke. Hachette Book Group CEO Michael Pietsch was quoted in a Friday statement as saying thatHyperion, with its strong non-fiction list, is a "perfect complement" to HBC. The statement says thatunder the deal, Disney Publishing Worldwide is to retain Disney-Hyperion branded children andyoung adult titles.”

Hachette and Disney have also co-created a French press society named Disney Hachette Presse(DHP), created on 1st January 1991 and joining Lagardère Active and The Walt Disney CompanyFrance. The DHP official website states that the collaboration between Hachette (Lagardère Active)and Disney dates back to 1934 with the creation of the Journal de Mickey. The company holds 15tracks and is the first publisher within the Youth Press in 2012 with 1.7 million magazines sold eachyear, reaching nearly six million young readers.186

Among the DHP's publications, we can find two interesting titles illustrating our analysis of brandingstrategies :

- Disney junior magazine, presented as “the magazine that reinforces the impact of the TVcampaigns”;

184 http://liberalisme-democraties-debat-public.com/spip.php?article26185 http://bigstory.ap.org/186 http://www.dhpregie.com/qui-sommes-nous

210

- Journal de Mickey Special road safety : Presented as “The most powerful operation of freedistribution of youth magazines in France. Every summer for 10 years, a special family issue isdedicated to road safety and distributed on the Vinci Autoroutes network. 52 pages are based on theJournal de Mickey editorial page, adapted to the holidays, road and safety themes... in a summer andvery entertaining format”.

We will also emphasize that the Lagardère group also owns TV channels such as TF1 or Direct 8 andradio ones with Europe 1 and Virgin Radio, as well as popular websites such as Doctissimo. It isinteresting to notice that Hachette also commercializes scholar manuals with its branch HachetteEducation, like Disney with its educational branch Disney Educational Productions. Disney also sharessome strong connections with another superbrand : Apple. For example, Steve Jobs (former CEO ofApple) payed a large role in the creation of the Pixar studios, later bought” by Disney and wasDisney's biggest shareholder after this “absorption”.187He thus used his influence on the company tofavor the adoption of Apple's iTunes platform by other studios.188

This assault on choice is taking place on several different fronts at once. For Klein (2000), it ishappening :

- Structurally : With mergers, buyouts and corporate synergies;

- Locally : Wth a handful of superbrands using their huge cash reserves to force out small andindependent businesses;

- On the legal front : With entertainment and consumer goods companies using libel and trademarksuits to hound anyone who puts an unwanted spin on a pop-cultural product.

Klein thus states that we live in a double world: carnival on the surface, consolidation underneath,where it counts.

Let's finally focus on a last key-point aiming at strengthening the control of the individuals by thebrands' rights holders via their enclosure within illusionary free closed/depriving and brandedecosystems : the “bundling”. According to Klein (2000), “Microsoft uses the term "bundling" todescribe the expanding package of core goods and services included in its Windows operating system,but bundling is simply the software industry's word for what Virgin calls synergy and Nike calls brandextensions. By bundling the Internet Explorer software within Windows, one company, because of itsnear monopoly in system software, has attempted to buy its way in as the exclusive portal to theInternet. What the Microsoft case so clearly demonstrates is that the moment when all the synergywheels are turning in unison and all is right in the corporate universe is the very moment whenconsumer choice is at its most rigidly controlled and consumer power at its feeblest.”

Bundles can thus be considered as silos aiming at enclosing the individuals within a complete andfamiliar branded environment in order to favor his technical, legal and cognitive alienation whoseillusion of freedom is maintained by the brand's influence over his interpretation of the ecosystem and

187 http://articles.latimes.com/2011/oct/06/business/la-fi-ct-jobs-disney-20111007188 http://appleinsider.com/articles/10/02/04/eccentric_but_effective_steve_jobs_pitches_ipad_to_nyt_execs.html

211

the possibility of several ones owned and managed by synergized entities in order to strengthen theillusion of freedom through diversity within it. The branding strategies can aim at developing, via thecreation and bundled silo and technical ecosystem favoring the individuals' alienation a feeling of fullsatisfaction about their different needs, all satisfied by the ecosystem's possibilities. The developmentof bundled silo and technical ecosystem can thus favor this alienation. Strong slogans can also be usedby the brands to favor this enclosure and favor the prevention of a potential disruption short-circuitingthis strategy of control. For example, an individual can realize the ecosystem he uses lacks animportant desired option. This realization is likely to threaten his enclosure/alienation to the brand'secosystem, via his integration of competitive products fulfilling his initially unsatisfied needs. This newbranded relation is thus likely to disrupt the first one, via the spread of attention toward key-conceptsabsorbed by the two brands (e.g., web browsing and online security for Internet Explorer and Firefox)and the potential contamination of his initial ecosystem, via the introduction of true diversity within it.Here are two clear examples coming from two superbrands' strategy of control based on bundling :

- Microsoft : “One experience for everything in your life”. The Xbox One device well reflects thisstrategy, for it was initially designed to be interpreted by customers as the “all-in-one” multimediadevice, whose trademarked name was specifically chosen to connote this rich unity. Here is anotherinteresting branded slogan used by Microsoft in its TV spot diffused during the Super Bowl 2014 :“Technology has taken us places we've only dreamed, empowering us to make the impossible possible.Celebrate the people using Microsoft technology to break barriers and inspire us all.”;

- Apple : “Everything you need to be entertained” (slogan of their iTunes online platform). We willalso emphasize another one from this brand : “You are more powerful than you think”. This sloganperfectly reflects the brand's rights holders to make the individuals internalize their feeling ofempowerment (and, by extension, their freedom) through the use of Apple devices whereas, as weanalyzed earlier according to Stallman's analysis, these technologies are designed to disempower andalienate them to a closed/depriving and branded ecosystem (with inherent technical, legal andcognitive alienation) via tools of power against them such as DRMs, silos, mental DRMs and cognitivesilos.

Mergers and synergies have thus become really powerful tools of control against the individuals, viathe development of “synergized mazes” enclosing the individuals without them even knowing about it,which is fundamental to avoid any kind of “blowback” against the brands. We are now going toanalyze the ultimate goal of the branding strategies : brandscendence.

2.1.8. Brandscendence

Kevin A. Clark (2006) defines, in Branscendence : The spiritual dimension of the brand, this conceptas as “A kind or make of brand, as indicated by a name, stamp, trademark, or the like that goesbeyond ordinary limits; a brand that surpasses; a brand that exceeds; a brand that is superior orsupreme over time.” Klein emphasizes that “Many brand-name multinationals (…) are in the processof transcending the need to identify with their earthbound products. They dream instead about theirbrands' deep inner meanings — the way they capture the spirit of individuality, athleticism, wilderness

212

or community.” Clark emphasizes the three essential elements of Brandscendence :

- Relevance : A primary idea and character that drives the brand experience;

- Context : Purposeful innovation and adaptive behavior that drives the brand’s evolution through time,space and meaning to specific cultures;

- Mutual Benefit: The brand delivers reciprocal advantage for two or more parties and ultimately leadsto sustainable interdependent relationships.

He adds that “Brands are the sum of the experiences and interactions people have with them – andwhen they first imprint on us. We find these experiences rooted in the five senses: seeing, hearing,feeling, tasting and touching. Of all the ways to experience Brandscendence, visual design is one ofthe strongest ways to perceive it. The design disciplines have some of the most evolved standards toarticulate brand strategy today. A balance of form and function lead to designs that endure over time.”

This analysis emphasizes our previous one about the branding strategy, with the importance of strongideas likely to be absorbed by brands in order to develop their identity and distinctiveness, i.e., theirvalue through time via the penetration of the individuals' subconsciousness. It also highlights theimportance of innovation in the brand's life and its visual identities to adapt to cultural changes andsustain the relevance of its identity and meaning through time. For example, the McDonald's brandingstrategy innovated by operating a subtle transformation to its logo, with the introduction of a newchromatic code to better fit the change of heavy cultural tendencies. The consideration of newtendencies and detection of weak signals to anticipate (i.e., strategic intelligence process) is thusnecessary to develop the brand's power and favor the achievement of brandscendence, as well as thecolonization of culture.

Apple is a good example of brandscendence achieved by a superbrand. The branding strategy has thusoften been based on the use of religious and epic popular references to serve their brandedmessages189. The strong emotional link between the fans composing its community has alsocontributed to make this brand one of the most famous and popular worldwide, with the developmentof religious relations to it based on a blind trust and devotion. Some neurologists led an experience toanalyze the effects of the Apple brand on devoted fans. These scientists had previously studied thebrands of religious individuals confronted to religious images and found that the Apple products aretriggering the same bits of brain as religious imagery triggers in a person of faith. According to them,“This suggests that the big tech brands have harnessed, or exploit, the brain areas that have evolved toprocess religion.” Journalist Alex Riley (2013) illustrates the Apple strategy by talking about hismeeting with the Bishop of Buckingham, who reads the Bible using his Apple iPad. The Bishoppointed out “ How the Apple store have a lot of religious imagery built into it, with its stone floors,abundance of arches, and little altars (on which the products are displayed). And of course, thedocumentary doesn’t fail to give Steve Jobs a mention, calling him 'the Messiah'”.

The Apple store model illustrates a fundamental part of the branding strategy aiming at achieving

189 For example, the presentation of the first Apple Macintosh in 1984 on the music of “Charriotsf Fire” or the the 2011 announement of the iPad with a clear reference to the table of commandments.

213

brandscendence : the colonization of the public space. According to Klein (2000), what makesnineties-style branding different is that it increasingly seeks to take these associations out of therepresentational realm and make them a lived reality. Klein here emphasizes a really importantparadigm shift which constitutes the brand, and more especially the superbrand's ultimate goal : itstransformation from “lifestyle” to “life”.

Celebration is the best example to illustrate this ultimate achievement. Celebration is an entirelyprivatized town owned by Disney. As Dieter Hassenpflug (1998), Professor for Sociology and SocialHistory, states,“With Celebration (near Orlando, Florida), this same corporation has just put the firstprivate city on the market. This city is entirely a product of imagineering. Whoever buys here acquiresnot only a house, but also a lifestyle. There's no room for self-expression. Disney also has control overthe hiring of teachers for the school. Even the streets are spaces of Disney's grace: private spaceswhich pretend to be public.” He also emphasizes that copyright landscapes and cities have been, sincethe Disney corporation invented them, a booming business.”

This town thus clearly emphasizes the new branding strategy deployed by powerful superbrands, whichaim at enclosing the individuals within totally branded, closed and depriving physical places whereeverything reflects the brand. The individuals evolving within these places are thus offered a direct linkwith their favorite brand, with the possibility to physically evolve in their own “universe”. We willhighlight the transposition of the silo model (i.e., closed, depriving and conflicting environments withother systems) from the digital world to the physical one, in order to strengthen the psychic virtualone. The highest degree of brandscendence achieved by this strategy will be constituted by thedisappearance of the brand's visual “tools of power” such as logos induced by the individuals' totalinternalization of the brand's values and attitudes.

As Klein notices, Celebration does not possess any sign of Disney trademarked representamens.Instead, it is a totally Disney-free place, where the brand and all its “extensions” composed of all thecore concepts defining and structuring an individual's life has been "absorbed” by this “all rightsreserved” place. The intrinsically branded values however constitute the core of Celebration's brandingstrategy, induced by the individual's deep internalization of the Disney brand, as lifestyle (i.e.composed of everyday objects “branded” packages). The Celebration official website thus states190:“There’s a reason Celebration is not a town, but a community in every positive sense of the word.While the population is diverse, the residents share a strong community spirit and a desire for afriendship with their neighbors. (…) The community’s foundation is based on five cornerstones: Health, Education, Technology, Sense of Community and Sense of Place.” In a nutshell, Celebrationconstitutes, according to Klein's analysis, a totally closed/depriving and branded life, entirelyconditioned and controlled by a private entity exploiting the branded individuals' illusion of freedomwithin a totally closed/depriving place.

Brandscendence is a really complex process. Achieving it thus requires for the brands' owners todevelop a long-term strategy aiming at sustaining the brand's popularity and attractiveness, whileevolving through innovation in order to adapt to natural cultural changes. The social dimension is also

190 http://www.celebration.fl.us/

214

fundamental, for it favors the emotional contagion within the communities of fans, and strengthens thebranded individuals' affective relation to the brand, i.e., their blind trust and devotion to it. We are nowgoing to analyze the last part of the branding process, with the exploitation of legal strategies todevelop and protect the brand's meaning and value.

2.1.9. Legal strategies to develop and protect the brand's power

2.1.9.1. The identity as rivalrous resource

Identity (at the core of the brand's meaning and value) constitutes a rivalrous resource and is necessaryfor the development and sustainability of a trusted relation between individuals. The brands' rightsholders thus usually exploit legal protections such as trademarks in order to protect their “integrity”against potential violations likely to threaten their distinctive identity.

According to the USPTO, “A trademark is a word, phrase, symbol, and/or design that identifies anddistinguishes the source of the goods of one party from those of others. Service mark is a word,phrase, symbol, and/or design that identifies and distinguishes the source of a service rather thangoods. The term “trademark” is often used to refer to both trademarks and service marks. The UKIntellectual Property Office UK IPO191 definition of brand highlights the importance of legal protectionto ensure the trusted relation to the brand and its products or services : “Brands are thereforereputational assets based on powerfully held beliefs; they drive the understanding of value in a productor company, and, perhaps most importantly, customer loyalty. It can, therefore, be important that as acompany develops and expands it considers how its new products and services fit in with its branding,and how the value that they represent may be protected under intellectual property rights.”

Slim Amamou, cyber-activist and member of the Pirate Party, moves the problematic induced ytrademarks from the property issue to the identity one in an article entitled Identity or property : thePirate Party's false dilemma. According to him, “Having an authority of identity authentication in acommunity is very useful to accelerate the acquisition and maintenance of Trust. And especiallybecause unlike ideas, identities are very competitive resources : there is only one per community perhistory. They therefore need a good governance to resolve the conflict situations. But a goodgovernance does not mean ownership. The ownership is the simplest and probably the oldest methodof governance [...] But most of the identities are communitarian, like the one of the Pirate Party andin this case, ownership regime is not the best form of governance.

Doctorow (2013) emphasizes in Trademarks : the good, the bad and the ugly192two ways to protect theassociation between the mark and its legal holder :

- Develop a product's popularity so that the association becomes systematic. Branding strategy basedon ethics;

- Exercise legal bullying on the public by threatening them of sue if uses the mark for any purpose, in

191 http://www.ipo.gov.uk 192 http://www.framablog.org/index.php/post/2013/05/06/marques-deposees-doctorow-calimaq

215

any context (even when there is no possibility of deception or confusion). Publicize this aggressivestrategy so that individuals internalize the fact that if the mark is used by someone else (apparently notrelated to the mark holder), then it must be related to the mark in any way, considering the too muchhigh risk to use it without the holder's permission. Non ethical strategy based on an abuse of powerover the individual and a denial of their fundamental freedom to exercise control over their languageand expression (free speech) and likely to create a global colonization of the public space (whetherphysical, digital or psychic virtual, at the individual and collective scales) as contributing to a“copyright dictatorship”.

He also defends the idea that brands should not be used as “properties” but as a public's right to not bedeceived. According to him, the core of trademark's right to sue resides in the public's heavingsubconscious, on how the public thinks about something : “If the public sees your mark and makes noassociation with your products and services, then it would not deceive the public to market somethingelse with the same mark. Trademark holders inevitably consider themselves to be trademark owners.They don't enforce their marks to protect the public, they do it to protect their profits (this is bydesign). Trademark starts from the assumption that the public makes an association between a productand a service on the basis of commerce: if I see Gillette on a disposable razor, that's because Gilletteis the company that thought of putting the word "Gillette" on a line of products, and its creativity andcanny marketing have made the association in the public's mind. He adds that “At their worst,(“trademarks are”) terrible; a means for companies to steal the very words out of our mouths throughlegal bullying.”

His analysis highlights a particular tendency among the brands, and especially superbrands' rightsholders : the deployment of aggressive legal strategies we have analyzed earlier likely to cut-off thecreative process via the privatization of language. The privatization of this fundamentally anti-rivalrous resource can be compared to Maurel's analysis about the artificial creation of scarcity withinthe digital world via restrictive features such as DRMs. Trademarked words are thus the “legalproperty” of private entities (which inherently induces scarcity and deprivation for non-owners). Thisabusive power can induce what hackers like Jérémie Zimmermann call the “copyright dictatorship”,for this power can extend to the coercition within the physical and digital world. A clear example isthe 2012 Olympic Games in London. Maurel (2012) analyzes this dangerous tendency in an articleentitled OG 2012 © : cyberpunk nightmare. Here is what he states193 :

One of the lesser known features of cyberpunk universe is indeed the place that take largeprivate corporations in the lives of individuals.

In cyberpunk universe, the most powerful private firms eventually absorb certain prerogativesthat in our world are still the preserve of states, such as law enforcement by the police or thearmy. The cyberpunk corporations control territories and employees who work for themsomehow become the equivalent of "citizens" of these companies, whose rights are related tothe fact of belonging to a powerful company or not.

193 http://owni.fr/2012/07/30/jo-2012-bienvenue-en-dystopie-cyberpunk/

216

For the London Olympics, the IOC has managed to transfer some sovereign rights by theEnglish government, but novelists of the cyberpunk wave did not anticipate that it is throughintellectual property that this transfer of public authority would be operated.

To defend its brands and copyrights, but also be able to guarantee real exclusivities to itsgenerous sponsors like Coca-Cola, McDonalds, Adidas, BP Oil or Samsung, the IOC hasobtained from the English Parliament the vote in 2006 of the Olympics Game Act, which givesexcessive powers. The Olympics Delivery Authority has a fleet of 280 agents to enforce the ruleson trade around the 28 venues for events and LOCOG (London Organising Committee) has itsside of a squad of protection brands, that surveys the streets of London coated with purple capsto ensure respect for the Olympics brand Policy. They have the power to enter the shops, butalso the "private locals" and to seek justice through accelerated exception procedures to enforcefines of up to 31,000 pounds...

Naomi Klein (2013) also ironically denounced the re-use of her logo used for her book No Logo, usedwithout permission by the CIO's staff to explicit the official requirements of the Committee during theperiod of the games :

@NaomiKlein No Logo in #Sochi - Was just sent this mad photo. Kinda wish I hadtrademarked it now... #Olympics pic.twitter.com/uLLgiew5G

Legal bullying and corporate censorship are thus two heavy tendencies among the superbrands world.As we analyzed earlier, too much depriving and aggressive intellectual property policies can seriouslythreaten the individuals' creativity and compromise their exercise of freedom via both censorship andself-censorship, stopping the informational flow and inducing a privatization of anti-rivalrous goodssuch as ideas and language. This phenomenon can favor the individuals' internalization of mentalDRMs and cognitive silos and thus their alienation to private entities exercising a control over theirmind and behaviors. Doctorow illustrates this control by giving the example of the “space marine”word aggressively protected by the Games Workshop company : “MCA Hogarth, an author who haspublished several novels in ebook form, has had her book "Spots the Space Marine" taken down onAmazon in response to a legal threat from Games Workshop. She could conceivably fight thetrademark claim, but that would cost (a lot) of money, which she doesn't have.”194

He also emphasizes the fact that these kinds of legal strategies aiming at protecting a brand's identitycan favor the “absorption” of old words now privatized via a trademark deposited on them. Forexample, LucasArts Ltd (now property of Walt Disney corporation) deposited the “droid™” word astrademark195. Moreover, this absorption can also be operated in the individuals' mind. Thus, he givesthe example of the “space marine” trademaked term, whose rights are hold by Games Workshop,which specializes in the manufacturing of figurines, and who is known for its aggressive use oftrademark law to protect its intellectual properties. However, “space marine” is a very old term, and

194 http://boingboing.net/2013/02/06/games-workshop-trademark-bully.html195 http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2012/03/the-word-droid-is-a-registered-trademark-of-lucasfilm-ltd/

217

has been used in many science-fiction works. He adds that it is also very descriptive, which is a no-noin trademark, and that it is much easier to demonstrate that a mark is uniquely associated with aproduct when there's no obvious reason it would be used in a generic sense for someone else's. Thus,"Waterstones" is a stronger trademark than "The Book Store”. It is thus really dangerous for genericwords or terms to be trademarked, for there is a danger of “branded” mental association made byindividuals about generic representamens instead of opening up several possibilities of other semioticrelations. Trademark laws protecting generic representamens can thus strongly impoverish theindividuals' interpretative (and by extension, creative) process, via the internalization of mental DRMsand cognitive silos conditioning it.

Based on this analysis, we will presume that the individuals' inference based on the internalization ofmental DRMs and cognitive silos alienating an individual to a brand in the observation of genericrepresentamen (interpreted as trademarked related to a specific brand) can based whether on :

- Secondness : For example, with the individuals' experience with a particular known brandingstrategy when observe a representamen interpreted as trademarked, i.e., standing for a brand whoseowners are used to exercising a strong legal bullying to protect its identity (not official rule but basedon personal appreciation or habit/experience with the strategies usually operated by brands' rightsholders to protect their intellectual properties);

- Thirdness : Official rule applied by the brand's rights holders.

This can also be strengthened by legal strategies based on the involvement of the fans in the protectionof the intellectual property. For example, Disney encourages its fans to be a part of this process, byreporting any violation of its intellectual property.196We will finally emphasize that trademark bullyingalso takes a growing importance in the creative process of big corporations in competition with otherones for the protection of their intellectual properties and brand's identity, meaning and value. Forexample, the Samsung Galaxy S III has been entirely designed by lawyers for fear of getting sued byApple, which has trademarked the “rectangular product shape with all four corners uniformlyrounded” as trade dress.197

Let's now analyze another kind of legal strategy : the moderated one.

2.1.9.2. The moderated legal strategy

Moderated legal strategies allow anyone to freely re-use trademarked or copyrighted content, providedthey respect some obligations. In other words, they are based on the “some rights reserved” paradigminstead of the “all rights reserved” one. Brands' rights holders using these kinds of legal strategies canfocus on the protection of their identity (for trademarked content) instead of property.

Blender

196 http://thewaltdisneycompany.com/content/disney-antipiracy197 http://www.androidpolice.com/2012/05/04/the-samsung-galaxy-s-iii-the-first-smartphone-designed-entirely-by-lawyers/

218

The Blender trademark policy is a good example of moderated legal strategy. Here is what theBlender logo usage guidelines states198 :

The Blender logo is a copyrighted property of NaN Holding B.V, and has been licensed in 2002to the Blender Foundation. The logo and the brand name “Blender” are not part of the GNUGPL, and can only be used commercially by the Blender Foundation on products, websites andpublications.

Under the following conditions, third parties may use the Blender logo as well :

The logo can only be used to point to the product Blender. When used with a link on a webpage, it should point to the url blender.org.

You will visualize and promote your own branding more prominent than you use the Blenderlogo. The Blender logo only can be used as a secondary brand, which means it has to be clearfor an average viewer that this is not an official Blender or Blender Foundation website,publication or product.

You can use the Blender logo on promotion products, such as T-shirts or caps or trade showbooths, provided it is a secondary brand as described in point 2.

The logo is used unaltered, without fancy enhancements, in original colors, original typography,and always complete (logo + text blender).

In case you use the logo on products you sell commercially, you always have to contact us with apicture of how it will be used, and ask for explicit permission.

Ton Roosendaal (2009), Chairman of the Blender Foundation, states about the Blender's trademarkpolicy : “Blender’s logo has been used in hundreds of ways. This was — and still is — considered tobe an honest tribute to Blender, and the guidelines are not meant to make these uses “illegal” or“officially disapproved”. This page is only meant to clarify the Blender Foundation guidelines so thatpeople know their minimum rights and where they can use the logo. Modifying the Blender logo isreally part of your own artistic freedom, and the Blender Foundation will never act against suchtributes. Just don’t expect us to “officially approve” of it, that’s all. Talking about the remix of theBlender logo, he emphasizes the problem induced by remixes threatening the brand's recognition :“Some designers thought it would be fun to make the logo in 3D. This makes it hard to recognize. Thelogo should be kept in graphical 2D.”

Disney

The moderated legal strategy can however be strictly strategic, in order to integrate the productions of

198 http://www.blender.org/about/logo/

219

the “branded community” in the marketing strategy. Andrew Leonard (2014) analyzes in an articleentitled How Disney learned to stop worrying and love copyright infringement the company's change ofstrategy toward amateur productions, after the release of its 2013 award-winning movie Frozen, whichturned out to be a huge cultural and financial success. This popularity inherently induced a massiveproduction of fan-made content online, most of it remixing its Oscar-winning song “Let it go”. Thus,according to the Wall Street Journal, some 60,000 fan-made versions of “Let It Go” have beenwatched more than 60 million times, while authorized film clip featuring the song has been viewedover 147 million times.199

Leonard thus emphasizes that Disney made the clearest possible demonstration of its commitment tothe world of online content creation in March when it bought Maker Studios, a prominent productionhouse and network of YouTube channels that regularly channels grassroots creativity into moreprofessionalized output. Disney CEO Bob Iger confirmed the company's change of strategy bystating : “More and more we’re taking advantage of short-form video and distribution for marketingmessages for our moves, our theme parks and our television shows,” he said. “Getting maximumtraction from a distribution perspective takes a lot of expertise and a lot of experience, and they’ve gotthat.”

According to Scott Kramer, CEO of Maker Studios, “Disney is one of the more forward-lookingcompanies in knowing how to deal with digital. (...) What they’ve recognized is that people do wantthe real stuff and people will pay for it. All the other stuff is like extra -advertising.” Despite of itspurely strategic dimension, this change of strategy can be considered as a big leap forward comingfrom a company used to be engaged in its protection of intellectual property (as highlighted byMaurel, 2014).

We will also emphasize a really interesting phenomenon observed within the Disney's community offans. Certain fans thus decided on their own to produce content based on Frozen, aiming at protectingthe copyrighted content's integrity via its relation to the Disney brand and its cultural universe. BrianHull's thus delivered a rendition of the song by impersonating 21 different Disney characters, whichmet a huge success on the Youtube platform. Here is what he states on his video to explain his maingoal200:

With so many covers of Let it Go coming out, people may forget the original Disney magic thatthis song has, so what better way to preserve that magic with other Disney and Pixar characterssinging the song! So enjoy this Disney and Pixar Mashup! Performer is me, Brian Hull and theaudio is recorded and produced by Seth O'Neal http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjbPszSt5Pc

Android

Other companies like Google have decided to embrace the remix culture, via the choice of a strategicpermissive legal license for its logo standing for the Android brand, which itself stands for the Google

199 www.salon.com/2014/05/23/how_disney_learned_to_stop_worrying_and_love_copyright_infringement/200 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjbPszSt5Pc

220

one. Thus, the “bugdroid” trademarked logo standing for the “Android” is released under a CreativeCommons CC BY NC SA license. Former Google designer Irina Blok, who created the Android logoin 2007, thus states : “We decided it would be a collaborative logo that everybody in the world couldcustomize,” she says. “That was pretty daring.” Most companies, of course, would defend theirtrademark from copycats, and million-dollar lawsuits have been filed over the rights to corporateinsignia. This one would remain free.” We can emphasize that the logo's legal license reflects the open-source nature of the Android system, even if it can not be qualified, according to the FSF, as trulyFree.201

The IPKat website, which covers copyright, patent, trademark, info-tech and privacy/confidentialityissues from a mainly UK and European perspective thus states about this “open-source trademark”strategy202 :

“This Kat wonders if, perhaps, the decision to make the logo open-source is not so much adaring act of public engagement, but an ingenious way to build equity in a brand that mightotherwise fail to attain trade mark protection. Google benefits from valuable free marketing byallowing developers, partners and consumers to use the Android logo as a character, dressed infanciful costumes ["fancy dress," for the British readers] or inserted into cleverenvironments. Treating the logo as open-source also supports the attributes that Google wantsconsumers to recognize in the Android brand: innovative, creative, user-friendly”.

The choice of a permissive legal license for the logo can thus be considered as really strategic in theAndroid's branding process, by favoring its users and fans' appropriation of its visual identity throughremixes allowing the brand to get a huge visibility and popularity worldwide thanks to its community,as well as strengthening its core values reflected in this legal permissiveness.

The giving-up of some or all patrimonial rights over a trademarked or copyrighted representamen(i.e., the choice of public's empowerment instead of disempowerment toward the brand) can thus be agood strategic mean to favor the strengthening of the brand's visibility and popularity via theconstitution of active fans which are whole part of the branding process, and the mental association tospecific key-values at the core of the brand's meaning. We are now going to analyze the lack of legalstrategy to protect a brand and its possible consequences on it.

2.1.9.3. The lack of legal strategy

Telecomix

The first example we are going to analyze is the Telecomix “brand”, which stands for really particularcharacteristics and values such as freedom, uncertainty and disorganization . Telecomix often refers to

201 “Android products come with nonfree libraries. These are officially not part of Android, but that since various Android functionalities depend on them, they are part of any real Android installation.” (..) One user discovered that many of the programs in the Android system that came with his phone were modified to send personal data to Motorola. Some manufacturers add a hidden general surveillance package such as Carrier IQ. Source : https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/android-and-users-freedom.en.html202 http://ipkitten.blogspot.fr/2013/10/android-building-brand-around-open.html

221

quantum physics to qualify its nature and functioning, with for example references to the wave-particleduality and the uncertainty principle. Thus, for Okhin (2012), both everyone and no one belongs toTelecomix. This word only actually stands for an interface that can be used by any individual tointeract with other ones, gather collective resources and build things together. He adds that themembers of this “disorganization” perceived the need to “liberate the code of the Telecomix operatingsystem” by massively producing documentation about the informal collective and its “universe”. Thus,they collectively produced online informational and freely-editable sources such as wikis and blogs,and invented a new philosophy based on the “datalove”. The cognitive conflict is encouraged andfavored by the “do-ocratic” nature of the system, which incites the individuals to act without askingpermission. They are thus encouraged to do what they like to do (fun as core part) and create/inventnew things via a disinhibited semiotic process fed by unleashed creative and inventive thoughts.Telecomix systematically releases its productions under the CC0 license, allowing anyone to remixthem without restriction. The different logos designed by the collective are thus all in the publicdomain and anyone is encouraged to copy, modify and share them legally. It also voluntarily cultivatessemantic diversity, with the voluntary introduction of polysemic interpretations concerning its visualidentity. Thus, Okhin emphasizes that the Telecomix logo can be interpreted as standing for at least 47possible interpretations. He also highlights the consequences of this totally permissive legal policy : ithas already been interpreted as standing for an activist collective, a cyberbar or even a press agency.We will thus presume that Telecomix strategically exploits the wave-particle dual interpretation aboutits existence and the unleashed wave-like interpretation for its identity and meaning to strengthen its“chaotic” and “spread out” nature.

Laguiole

Laguiole is a good example of common brand anyone could initially freely use due to its lack of legalprotection. This famous knife from Aveyron, region of Midi-Pyrénées in France. was first designed in1829 by Jean-Pierre Calmels. The knife's design shares all the characteristics of a branded product,with easily recognizable distinctive signs such as its shape and the forged "bee" symbol standing forthe Laguiole “brand”, or more precisely a type of knife from the Laguiole village in France due to itslack of legal trademarked protection.

However, this absence of trademark to protect the exploitation of the Laguiole “common brand” wasexploited by Gilbert Szajner, businessman who registered the village name as a trademark in 1993.His company thus started marketing a wide range of products such as table linen, corkscrews, lightersand even barbecues. The Laguiole village thus realized that many of the trademarked product standingfor the Laguiole brand (now officially deposited, i.e., privatized) were manufactured in China. Theyare thus now engaged in a strong legal battle to earn back the integrity of the Laguiole name,compromised by this globalized production likely to induce a loss of clearly located identity.203 As thecourt refused their request in 2012, the Mayor of the Laguiole village highlights the surreal nature ofthis situation : "If tomorrow, one of our local businesses wants to make Laguiole forks and puts thename Laguiole on them, we will be accused of counterfeiting products made in Asia. You can see the

203 http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/15/french-village-laguiole-trademark-battle

222

paradox … we've been walked all over.”

We can emphasize two major issues faced by the village of Laguiole toward its non-legal ownership oftheir own name :

- The loss of mental association between Laguiole products (with branded signs such as the design andthe “bee” symbol) and the village of Laguiole, where the knife was first designed (i.e., loss ofidentity);

- The risk to lose the customers' trust toward these branded products, for example if the brandedproducts face a loss of global quality for commercial purposes, likely to threaten the Laguiole name'smeaning and value. Thus, the village of Laguiole can face a potential transfer of negative evaluationfrom the branded products to the local “branded but not trademarked” products manufactured in theirregion (i.e., confusion in the customers' mind between the branded trademarked products and the localbranded ones).

A lack of legal strategy to protect a famous brand can thus be really risky, for the brand can beexposed to potential appropriations from private entities likely to exercise an exclusive control over itsuse and threaten the brand's initial identity, meaning and value. It can also, however, be totallystrategic in order to favor the collective appropriation of a “brand as common good.”

We are now going to analyze the possible means to hack the branding and legal strategies based onaggressive protections of intellectual properties in order to earn back and exercise freedom overobserved branded representamens.

3. The hacking of the branding strategy and of the intellectual property

3.1. Hacking the trademarked representamens

3.1.1. Neologisms

A neologism is a newly coined term, word or phrase, that may be in the process of entering commonuse, but has not yet been accepted into mainstream language (Levchenko (2010). According to theOxford English Dictionary, the term neologism is first attested in English in 1772, borrowed fromFrench néologisme (1734). For Barr Ebest (1999), a neologism is a newly coined word or phrase or anew usage of an existing word or phrase. For Bowker and Pearson (2002), “neologisms can also beformed in another way, however, by assigning a new meaning to an existing word”. A neologism mayalso be a new usage of an existing word (Ebest, 1999; Bowker, 2002), sometimes called a semanticextension (Picone, 1996). This definition is pretty interesting for our semiotic hacking philosophy, forthe creation of neologisms can aim at :

- Assigning new meanings to existing trademarked representamens in order to favor the hacking of itslegally protected “mental association” (core part of the branding process we have analyzed). Thispractice fits perfectly the hacking philosophy, via the creation of something new with the breaking of

223

official rules (here standing for the trademarked representamens' meaning).

- Creating new words to qualify branded representamens can also help “dynamite” the brandingstrategy deployed by the brands' rights holders, whose goal is to crystallize the individuals' attentionand interpretation on specific branded representamens and their branded mental association.

Using names of parody to qualify trademarked words/terms can also be a good mean to exercisefreedom over the observed representamen's branding process.

3.1.2. Names of parody

Stallman (2013) emphasizes his taste for hacking through parody the trademarked words standing forclosed/depriving objects, as well as its fundamental importance in order to not be part of theirbranding process while criticizing them on a smart and playful way :

I go out of my way to call nasty things by names that criticize them. I call Apple's user-subjugating computers the "iThings," and Amazon's abusive e-reader the "Swindle." SometimesI refer to Microsoft's operating system as "Losedows". (…) Of course, I do this to vent myfeelings and have fun. But this fun is more than personal; it serves an important purpose.Mocking our enemies recruits the power of humor into our cause. Twisting a name isdisrespectful. If we respected the makers of these products, we would use the names that theychose … and that's exactly the point. These noxious products deserve our contempt, not ourrespect. Every proprietary program subjects its users to some entity's power, but nowadays mostof them go beyond that to spy on users, restrict them and even push them around : the trend isfor products to get nastier. These products deserve to be wiped out. Those with DRM ought tobe illegal.(...)

Companies choose names for products as part of a marketing plan. They choose names theythink people will be likely to repeat, then invest millions of dollars in marketing campaigns tomake people repeat and think about those names -- usually these marketing campaigns areintended to convince people to admire the products based on their superficial attractions andoverlook the harm they do.204 (...)

Every time we call these products by the names the companies use, we contribute to theirmarketing campaigns. Repeating those names is active support for the products; twisting themdenies the products our support. (…)

To use their term is to take their side. If that's not the side you're on, why give it your implicitsupport?”

The development of a more and more pregnant copyright dictatorship has incited many other

204 As we emphasized in our analysis of the branding strategies.

224

individuals to practice this kind of hacking to prevent any potential censorship or sanction frombrands' rights holders. For example, popular American political satirist, writer and comedian StephenColbert from Colbert Nation decided to make fun of the NFL's aggressive trademark policy toward itstrademarked names, by exploring the possibilities of how to clearly refer on his show to theSuperBowl games, without risking a corporate censorship. He chose the term “Superb Owl”, stating :“I believe we can cover this storyline like nobody else, simply by moving one consonant in the title!”205

Another good mean to hack the trademarked products (and by extension, the brand they are designedto stand for) is to “fork” them and create another product carrying a different, however similar, name.This however requires a permissive legal license from the trademarked product allowing this practice.For example, GNUzilla can be considered as a fork of the Mozilla suite, built entirely on the ethicalvalues of the GNU project. IceCat and Replicant are also two good examples we will use to illustratethis practice.

3.1.3. IceCat

IceCat is a good example of the hacking of a popular trademarked product whose nature (Freesoftware) stands for values such as freedom, openness and innovation : Firefox. GNU IceCat, formerlyknown as GNU IceWeasel, is thus a Free software rebranding of the Mozilla Firefox web browserdistributed by the GNU Project. Its official site emphasizes that while the Firefox source code fromthe Mozilla project is Free software, they distribute and recommend non-free software as plug-ins andaddons. GNU IceCat thus includes some privacy protection features, included in a separate addon.Moreover, the Mozilla Corporation owns trademark to the Firefox name and denies the use of thename "Firefox" to unofficial builds that fall outside certain guidelines.206 IceCat, as well as its defaulticons, is available under the MPL/GPL/LGPL tri-license. We will however notice that its logouploaded on Wikipedia is released under a CC0 (all rights waived) license.207

According to the official site208, the name “IceCat” was coined to show its relationship to the MozillaFirefox browser. Thus, Ice isn't Fire and a Cat isn't a Fox, so it is clearly a different package (the teambehind it does not want Mozilla blamed for their mistakes, nor cause confusion with their trademarks),but is equally clearly intimately related. They thus remind that nearly all of the work comes from theMozilla foundation effort, so they want to give credit for it. The IceCat name, as well as its logo, arethus composed of different signs than the Firefox one. This makes it clearly recognizable as distinctproduct and brand without any confusion likely to threaten the Mozilla's intellectual property whileremaining pretty close from a semantic point of view to clearly emphasize a close relationship to it.

3.1.4. Replicant

Replicant is described by its official site as a fully Free Android distribution running on several

205 http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/432521/january-27-2014/superb-owl-xlviii206 http://www.mozilla.org/foundation/trademarks/policy.html207 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_IceCat#mediaviewer/File:Icecat1-300x300.svg208 http://www.gnu.org/software/gnuzilla/

225

devices. The software included in Replicant is Free software that is owned by various copyrightholders and released under various Free software licenses.209

The Replicant's name is based on the neologism created by David Peoples and inserted into HamptonFancher's screenplay for the Ridley Scott's Blade Runner film210. The “Replicant” word thus denotesthe cloning process that is intrinsically tied to the Free software philosophy (with copying to optimizethe program's resistance and resilience via decentralization or forking to develop new paths reflectingdifferent philosophies). Let's consider the self-presentation of the team behind the Replicant project inorder to better understand it and its ideology :

About Android

Most of Android is licensed freely under the Apache License 2.0. The Linux core is mostly FreeSoftware under the GPLv2. However, there are numerous components of the default softwarestack on the devices that are proprietary software. Most notably, nearly any component thattouches the hardware directly is proprietary software.

About us

We are not experts in embedded devices; we are just enthusiastic hackers that are giving a try.”

This presentation thus clearly emphasizes the hacking philosophy reflected in the Replicant project,with amateurs creating new Free things on an experimental basis and a playful cleverness.

Let's now focus on specific kind of hack aiming at disrupting the digital branded products'programmed obsolescence : emulation.

4. Emulation as clear example of “cross-brand interoperability” in order to hackprogrammed obsolescence and preserve a cultural patrimonial

Emulation is a practice aiming at achieving interoperability between conflicting computing systemssuch as videogames, as well as ensuring the videogame culture's sustainability (we will focus in thispart exclusively on the videogame culture). For Ronan Letoqueux (2014), French producer andanimator who specializes in “speed-gaming”, emulation as well as Free technologies are fundamentalto ensure the sustainability of old games running on devices with inherent technical constraints andspecific lifecycles (i.e., programmed to be obsolete), and thus allows to overcome these limitations bycreating Free sustainable tools to preserve the experience with these games. Moreover, emulation,which is a perfectly legal practice as long as the player emulating a game possesses its original copy,allows to short-circuit the editors' commercial strategy consisting to re-commercialize old games onnew devices (as remakes, compilations,...) and exploiting the players' affective relation to them such as

209 http://replicant.us/210 Interview with David Proples in Sacrificial Sheep: The Novel vs. the Film. Enhancement Archive of Blade Runner Ultimate Collector's Edition

226

nostalgia to make them purchase a new copy, whereas they already possessed it on new obsoletedevices.

Let's consider two examples in order to illustrate the fundamental role of emulation in the exercise offreedom over trademarked and copyrighted cultural contents211 :

- First example : The development of an emulator allowing to play both Sony Playstation andNintendo games on a XBox One (designed and commercialized by Microsoft) can strongly disrupt thisdevice's closed/depriving and conflicting design and design's model, for these three brands are engagedin an aggressive competition in the videogame industry. The creation of this emulator will thus“subvert” (i.e., threaten the economic value), not only the Xbox One's design and design's model(intended to be interpreted as standing for the Microsoft brand) but also Sony and Nintendo's, byallowing individuals to meaningfully interpret the branded device as possibly standing for all thedifferent systems built by them. In other words, this creation is likely to allow the individuals tounleash their interpretation process toward it and develop cognitive defenses against the threecorporations' branding strategies based on the internalization of the distinctiveness for their respectivebranded products;

- Second example : The development of an emulator on a console designed to not be retro-compatiblewith previous branded products (i.e., requiring a new purchase in order to play old games from oldconsoles on the device) is likely to disrupt and compromise the business model of the companycommercializing them, based on the financial renewal of its cultural products induced by the lack ofretro-compatibility with its devices.

As we can see, depriving trademark and copyright policies do not prevent hackers to exercise freedomover them, and thus develop resistances against potential abusive control by the rights holders. We arenow going to analyze several hacks of the copyright law aiming at exercising freedom and unleashingthe creative process.

5. The hacking of copyright

We have selected four cases of copyright hack, from its most interoperable to its most “radical” form,each one of them reflecting and emphasizing specific characteristics of the hacking philosophy.

5.1. Creative Commons

The creative Commons constitute a good hack of the copyright law, which is, as we analyzed earlierbased for example on Lessig and Stallman's analysis, not in phase with the digital worlds and itsintrinsic characteristics, as well as the creative and the communicational possibilities offered by theinternet network. Thus, as the Creative Commons foundation states, the idea of universal access ofresearch, education, and culture is made possible by the Internet, but our legal and social systems don’talways allow that idea to be realized. Copyright law was thus, before the creation of this legal license,not in phase with the new read – write cultural paradigm and “reading is copying” technical one.

211 These examples might be considered as illegal, and given for educational purpose only.

227

Seemel (2013) also emphasizes the “hashing” process operated by the creators of the CC licenses.These individuals thus “deconstructed” the copyright law (after having learned its fundamentalprinciples) and created several legal possibilities likely to fit the authors' different wills and needstoward their works and their audience. In other words, they constructed something new based on theold copyright law (according to Müller-Maghun's definition of hacking) while remaining interoperablewith it in order to not create conflict and allow what Lessig (2008) considers as the emergence anddevelopment of a “hybrid economy”. For Seemel212, Creative Commons licenses are thus a good startfor setting creativity free, by creating a fully viable (legally recognized) and sustainable alternative tothis “obsolete” depriving vision that does not match the digital world's “reading is copying” intrinsiccharacteristic. However, this hacking doe not question, according to Seemel (2013) and Paley (2010)the copyright issue, for it sticks to the “intellectual property” paradigm. Moreover, it can induce, as weanalyzed earlier according to Paley's position toward copyright, more confusion in the individuals'mind interpreting a copyrighted or copylefted work, strengthening their ”inner censors”. This cognitivemonopolization by copyright law is thus likely to favor a waste of cognitive resources likely to weakenthe observation and interpretation of cultural works. We can thus emphasize that some “depriving” CClicenses (CC BY NC ND and CC BY NC SA) can be considered as “nonfree” licenses. Nevertheless,CC licenses induced, according to the foundation, an important paradigm shift since their launch in2002 : “The world changed a little. Musicians started thinking less about piracy and more about howthey could benefit from fans sharing their music. And there's something else. People began to demandopen. We started expecting it from our governments, our universities, and our employers. Legally, AllRights Reserved is still the default, but today, it's a choice. Today, people notice when those in powerchoose closed.”

The Creative Commons thus not only favored the transposition of copyright law from the physicalworld to the digital one, but also induced a change of cultural paradigm from enclosure anddeprivation to openness and empowerment. Let's now focus on a hacking of copyright that focusesentirely on the insurance and preservation of the users' freedom : the copyleft.

5.2. Copyleft

The Gnu.org website defines copyleft as a method for making a program (or other work) free, andrequiring all modified and extended versions of the program to be free as well. Thus, “in the GNUproject, our aim is to give all users the freedom to redistribute and change GNU software. Ifmiddlemen could strip off the freedom, we might have many users, but those users would not havefreedom. So instead of putting GNU software in the public domain, we “copyleft” it. Copyleft saysthat anyone who redistributes the software, with or without changes, must pass along the freedom tofurther copy and change it. Copyleft guarantees that every user has freedom.”

This hack of the classic copyright license thus focuses on the preservation of the works' Free nature,while creating a virtuous circle based on the contaminative nature of this license defined by its share-alike term. Thus, while some authors might use copyright to take away the users' freedom (i.e., cut-off

212 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXmooZVK-O8

228

the creative process by preventing any remix), authors embracing the copyleft philosophy usecopyright to guarantee it. This is why, according to the GNU team, they reverse the name “copyright”,transformed into “copyleft”. This hack thus allows to reverse the values of the copyright, by operatinga paradigm shift from collective disempowerment to collective empowerment. Its creators also hackedthe copyright symbol, represented by a c in a circle (also called “big c” by Seemel) by reversing it, thuscreating a new symbol representing a backwards C in a circle. This symbol thus reflects the playfulcleverness of the hacking philosophy, via the “twisting” of an official and widely used and recognizedsymbol of its respective meaning to create brand new ones using the hacked symbol's initialconnotation to favor the individuals' interpretation of the new one. Here, the backwards “C” can thuseasily be interpreted by anyone as standing for the opposite meaning and values of the classiccopyright one, without even being aware of the copyleft's true legal nature.

The GNU team however emphasizes that using a backwards C in a circle instead of a copyrightsymbol is a legal mistake, for copyleft is based legally on copyright. The copylefted work should thushave a copyright notice. In a nutshell, a copyright notice requires either the copyright symbol (a C in acircle) or the word “Copyright”. The team emphasizes that the backwards C in a circle has no speciallegal significance, so it doesn't make a copyright notice. It may be amusing in book covers, posters,and such, but does not have to be used on websites to define the work's legal nature.

5.3. Voluntary public domain

The voluntary choice to give-up the patrimonial rights by anticipation has already been made byauthors, long before the creation of this license. Thus, Henri-Frédéric Amiel encouraged in his 1880poem “Nothing is ours” the creators to renounce to their patrimonial rights. He moreover uses the“common domain”, a pretty interesting expression for it refers to both public domain and commongoods, two fundamental categories for creation and the diffusion of knowledge today (Maurel, 2012).We will also emphasize other authors having adopted this position like Leon Tolstoï, who decided torenounce to his copyright by testament, both for religious reasons and to denounce poverty in Russiaor Jean Giono, who clearly authorized during his life the the publications and translations of his works,without asking for financial compensation.

Folk singer Wooddy Guthrie, in the 1940's, had inscribed on his first discs the following mention,entitled"Copyright Warnings" :

This song is Copyrighted in U.S., under Seal of Copyright # 154085, for a period of 28 years,and anybody caught singin it without our permission, will be mighty good friends of ourn, causewe don’t give a dern. Publish it. Write it. Sing it. Swing to it. Yodel it. We wrote it, that’s all wewanted to do.

We will here emphasize a conflict between Guthrie's will as an author and his works' rights holders(who might not, as we analyzed earlier, be the same). Its producer Ludlow Music thus sued RobbieWilliams in 2001 for the violation of a copyrighted content with a song parodying one of Guthrie's

229

song whose rights are owned by them.213

Finally, Nina Paley decided to adopt public domain for her work Sita Sings the Blues (2010) in order tofavor its diffusion and stop fighting in the Law fields which she does not appreciate (as will emphasizeour final example of copyright hack). She thus qualifies this choice as a form of non-violence : “CC-0is an acknowledgement I’ll never go legal on anyone, no matter how abusive and evil they are. CC-0 isas close as I can come to a public vow of legal nonviolence. The law is an ass I just don’t want toride.”214

Maurel (2012) however emphasizes that this license can be considered as an oxymora, by asking thispertinent question : is it possible to really get out of right via legal means?

He also emphasizes that the voluntary adoption of the public domain by anticipation is not easy toadmit by French law, due to the inalienability of the moral right. Thus, as lawyer Benjamin Jeanexplained on the blog Veni, Vedi, Libri, CC0 license bypasses this difficulty by introducing a dualsystem of rights clearance 215: “Thus, Creative Commons license (CC-0) is in two stages and translatesthe creators' will to abandon all their copyright and associated rights within the limits provided by lawor when such action is impossible, to make a wide nonexclusive license. In this way public domain andfree domain join to become one.” We can thus state that the CC0 license is thus a step forward for therecognition of the voluntary public domain.

However, public domain remains a pretty fragile legal protection for works. Thus, as the GNU websitestates :

The simplest way to make a program free software is to put it in the public domain,uncopyrighted. This allows people to share the program and their improvements, if they are sominded. But it also allows uncooperative people to convert the program into proprietarysoftware. They can make changes, many or few, and distribute the result as a proprietaryproduct. People who receive the program in that modified form do not have the freedom that theoriginal author gave them; the middleman has stripped it away.

Finally, we will emphasize another important risk threatening public domain works (i.e., the “commonpool”) induced by aggressive legal strategies : the privatization and enclosure of public domain worksvia the abusive use of trademark law. Thus, trademark law is more and more considered by rightsholders as a mean to extend their monopoly over it beyond the work's release in the public domain.Some famous popular icons such as Popeye or Sherlock Holmes have thus been trademarked toprevent their collective appropriation by the public.

This tactic thus constitutes a serious threat for the public domain, which is likely to be “dissolved”within the trademark law if gets generalized. The use of Creative Commons license composed of theSA (share-alike) term can thus be a good mean to prevent this major threat for the commons. We will

213 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/1820351.stm214 http://blog.ninapaley.com/2013/01/18/ahimsa-sita-sings-the-blues-now-cc-0-public-domain/215 http://linuxfr.org/news/la-licence-cc-zero-une-licence-en-faveur-du-domaine-public

230

thus quote the example of the Anonymous logo (released as CC BY SA license) whose trademarkattempt by a private entity was considered as illegal due to its legal license.216

Let's now analyze the most “radical” form of copyright hack : the copyheart.

5.4. Copyheart and intellectual disobedience

Paley illustrates her solution to earn back sovereignty over her mind by defining what she calls“intellectual disobedience”. She thus states that although she uses Free licenses and would appreciatemeaningful copyright reform, licenses and laws are not the solution. The solution is, according to her,more and more people ignoring copyright altogether. She thus wants to be one of these people, and nolonger or rejects works based on their copyright status. As she considers that “ideas are not good orbad ideas because of what licenses people slap on them”, she decided to just relate to the ideasthemselves now, not the laws surrounding them. She adds that she tries to express herself the sameway. Paley (2010) has also decided to question copyright with a “subversive” approach. She inventeda“non-legal license” named “copyheart” and represented by the Free (i.e., not trademarked) symbol ♡.The copyheart idea denies the unlimited applicability of law through a sentence which may be part ofthe license statement :

Love is not subject to law. This license statement is not predetermined uniquely.

This new concept is thus intrinsically designed to operate a cognitive conflict and innovation, i.e. achange of paradigm about culture and copying, by “breaking the codes” of intellectual property (re-baptised “intellectual pooperty”) as well as breaking the social and mental ones (social norms and“mental DRMs) via favoring a cognitive conflict and a change of attitude via the trivialization of newsbehaviors. She tried, through this invention, to induce a change of cultural paradigm toward copyingand reading, to favor the collective appropriation and the open and decentralized collective creativeand inventive intelligences toward cultural works in order to “empower” them.. She thus “hashed” theclassic fusion between culture and law in order to develop a new way to apprehend and interpret :

- The act of copying (inherent, as we said, to the digital world) : From theft to love; and

- Art : From property to connection, via the adoption of new behaviors (trivialization of copying andsharing) and explicit association of this act with love (attempt to change the classic negativeconnotation with the association to theft).

Paley's copyheart is purely experimental and “probably not legally binding” for has not yet beenvalidated by any legal statemement. “It’s just a statement of intention. Its effectiveness depends only onhow people use it, not on state enforcement.”

For her, the only means to test it are :

1. Mark your work with the ♡Copyheart message.;

216 http://www.forbes.com/sites/parmyolson/2012/08/02/despite-all-the-fuss-trademarked-anonymous-logo-might-not-be-valid/

231

2. Sue someone for copying it.;

3. See what the judge says.

Paley adds : “We really don't think laws and "imaginary property" have any place in peoples' love orcultural relations. Creating more legally binding licenses and contracts just perpetuates the problem oflaw - a.k.a. state force - intruding where it doesn’t belong. That ♡copyheart isn't a legally bindinglicense is not a bug - it's a feature!”. She thus tried to solve what she considers as a major issue bycreating something new on a purely experimental basis and resting entirely upon the strong will todisobey (i.e., exercise freedom) the classic copyright paradigm based on property in order to empowerthe public and stimulate the creative process.

Maurel (2011) qualifies this “non-license” as Magritian. “The Copyheart is thus a "no-license" (orrather a "This-is-not-a-license") which marks a will, not to convert or overthrow copyright law (freeapproach or copyleft licenses), but to get out of it. According to Maurel, “Although Nina Paley is a fanof free licenses, she also has a very interesting critical perspective on the subject” and concludes bystating that it is perhaps time to move beyond the logic of Copyleft itself to enter the one of the Copy-Out : getting outside the scope of copyright rather than being part of its development.

We can thus assume that Paley clearly hacked Copyright by disobeying its norms and principles andbuilding a new purely experimental paradigm without caring of its legal validity. She thus transgressedthe existing norms to propose a new “subversive” cultural paradigm favorable to collective intelligenceand creativity. Unlike Stallman and Lessig who hacked it “from the inside” (by developing a fullinteroperability with the old model), she decided to “think outside the box” and to deny the legitimacyof copyright law, via the emphasize of a clear and strong statement, at the core of copyheart : "Love isnot subject to law.” We will emphasize that the copyheart “non-license” has been adopted by severalorganizations like Indysci217, collectives or by other artists like Braley Staples or Margo Burns218.

According to Maurel, copyheart might be one of the best answer to abusive copyright laws, forsearching for a legal solution to solve a legal problem might be meaningless. He thus wonders if thebest way to solve it would be to completely get out of law to give creation new rules of a differentnature. This question is the thematic analyzed by Smiers and van Schijndel in their book ImagineThere Is No Copyright… And No Cultural Conglomerate Too (2011) which defends the idea thathumanity would be more creative if intellectual property did not exist. It thus proposes an alternativemodel the authors describe not as a romantic utopia, but as another way to think about the culturaleconomy, entirely rebuilt around the notion of common goods.

6. The hacking of trademarkIn 2013, the French Pirate Party, engaged in the defense of the individuals' civil liberties as well as theliberation of information and knowledge in our digital societies, trademarked its logo at INPI(National Institute of Intellectual Property). This action generated a massive wave of protestation

217 Californian nonprofit scientific research (http://www.indysci.org/)218 For example, this "automatic comic generator” created by Margot Burns : http://comicomatic.com/

232

within the Party, for it was in total contradiction with their own political position 219. Inspired by thispolemic, Amamou proposed to hack the trademark law in order to legally protect the Party's identitywhile remaining in phase with its ideology. Based on this proposition, Maurel (2013) asked thefollowing pertinent question : how to modify the existing trademark law in order to adapt it to moreopen and collectively empowering terms? He thus considered the potential “reversal” of the trademarklogic, by offering large liberties via the controlled sharing of distinctive signs, while only restrictingcertain uses. In other words, he considered the creation of “Open Trademarks” based on the logic ofthe Creative Commons.

The idea to protect an identity instead of a property via trademark law also inspired other members ofthe Pirate Party, who proposed the creation of a chart formalizing the rights offered by the trademarkas well as the inherent restrictions necessary to protect the brand's identity and distinctiveness.

One year later, the Wikimedia Foundation announced on its blog the adoption of a new trademarkpolicy in an article entitled Announcing Wikimedia’s New Community-Centered Trademark Policy.Here is an excerpt220 :

On February 1, 2014, the Wikimedia Foundation’s Board of Trustees unanimously approved anunconventional new trademark policy. The new policy is uniquely permissive, was developed ina massive online collaboration among the Wikimedia community, and contains cutting-edgeinformation design principles to make it user-friendly. Just like the content on the Wikimediasites, the new trademark policy is licensed under a free license, so everyone is free to build uponit when crafting their own trademark policies. In short, it is the perfect fit for Wikimedia’scollaborative projects.

Unlike the legal policies of other companies that are drafted by lawyers in a vacuum (if notsimply copied from other websites), this trademark policy was developed through a seven-monthlong consultation with the Wikimedia community to address its particular needs. This uniqueprocess distinguishes Wikimedia from virtually every other top website. (…) Now, thetrademark policy that governs these marks also reflects the collaborative nature of theWikimedia sites.

The Foundation thus proposes a graduation of uses, from the most open to the most closed, whichrests for a large part on the same system than the Creative Commons licenses (i.e., granting freedomsa-priori, without the necessity to ask for preliminary authorizations, provided the principlesdetermined by the one who grants the ability to do are respected. The Wikimedia Foundation alsoreleased its trademark policy under a Free license, in order to allow anyone re-use it, enrich it or adaptit.221

Maurel (2014) considers that even if we have not produced a “Creative Commons of trademark”, we

219 https://www.partipirate.org/Programme-complet220 https://blog.wikimedia.org/2014/01/19/announcing-wikimedias-new-community-centered-trademark-policy/221 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Trademark/License/

233

are getting closed to it thanks to this kind of initiative. It might however be interesting to give thislicense a higher level of abstraction and to simplify it in order to create a system of shareable brands,aiming at favoring the open collaboration of communities around a project. Open trademarks couldthus be really useful for the actors of the Common goods movement.

We will finally emphasize that citizen initiatives are emerging in order to imagine the future ofintellectual property based on a more permissive/empowering basis. A good example is ShareLex222,created by Anne-Laure Brun-Buisson. Presented as a collaborative construction tool applied to legalissues, it aims, according to Brun-Buisson, at making intellectual property law less expensive andunderstandable by anyone. Sharelex is thus based on collaborative works and welcomes law users tocooperate and :

- Share experiences, practical solutions and template;

- Co-create innovative solutions;

- Connect people who have questions with people who can answer them.

7. Synectiction as mean to disrupt the branding strategies and unleash thecreative thought

We are now going to analyze another fundamental concept focusing on potentiality and uncertainty inthe semiotic process, which we will call synectiction.

Synectiction is inspired by the synectic method emphasized by Gordon (1965). It aims at exercising anunleashed creative freedom (i.e., via disobedience and control) over the semiotic process via thevoluntary production of “problem” (i.e., uncertainty) in order to trigger an intellectual challengeaiming at actualizing new meaningful solutions. It is thus a cognitive process which consists toconsider, during the observation of a representamen, a potential infinity of semiotic relations likely tobe actualized. In other words, it consists to exercise freedom over the semiotic process via theformulation of purely arbitrary semiotic relations (e.g.,initially not meaningfully related on the levelsof firstness, secondness or thirdness). Once the potential semiotic relation is formulated, the arbitrarilyrelated object introduces a problem within the semiotic process, via its inherent constraints ofmeaning. The intellectual challenge will thus be to find connections and correlations in order toachieve the actualization of a meaningful relation. The individual can simply consider these twoelements as they are observed, or to enrich the observed representamen in order to favor its connectionto the related object. This method reflects one of the core interpretative principles of the semiotichacking philosophy which we will summarize as : “interpret any observed representamen as a world ofpossibilities likely to be enriched by a potential infinity of new ones” or “interpret any observedrepresentamen as potentially standing for an infinity of objects”.

While abduction is based on the formulation of a creative hypothesis in order to explain (i.e., producecertainty) the observation of a puzzling fact (Sandri, 2013), synectiction is based on the formulation of

222 http://www.sharelex.org/

234

a creative speculation in order to anticipate the actualization of a “meaningful” semiotic relationinitially based on a purely arbitrary and uncertain semiotic process. It is based on the creative andinventive intelligence processes we have already analyzed (Nussbaum, 2011; Besson & Uhl, 2012) andhas been developed in order to stimulate the individuals' creativity, while allowing them to strengthentheir cognitive defenses in relation to another concept we are about to emphasize : the asymmetriccognitive conflict.

The asymmetric conflict has been defined by Tomes (2004) as “a conflict in which the resources oftwo belligerents differ in essence and in the struggle, interact and attempt to exploit each other'scharacteristic weaknesses. Such struggles often involve strategies and tactics of unconventionalwarfare, the weaker combatants attempting to use strategy to offset deficiencies in quantity or quality.”It will refer to our previous analysis about the representamens' design and design's model reflectingtheir creator(s)/rights holder(s)' expectations toward the individuals' interpretation via mental models,and these individuals' cognitive colonization by those private entities in order to exercise a control overthem. As we analyzed earlier, this mental control is necessary for these rights holder(s) to exploit their“intellectual properties”, whose core value resides on the individuals' mental associations whenobserve them (Doctorow, 2013; Klein, 2000) and on compliance (conscious or unconscious, favored ifinternalization) toward their “rigid” mental expectations (Paley, 2014).

This conflict will thus oppose legally deprived individuals and rights holder(s) toward the observedlegally protected representamen and the mental representations generated by this observation. Theconflicting goals will have in common the exercise of control over the interpretation process, but willbe whether to :

- Leash/condition it (via the internalization of mental DRMs and cognitive silos) for the rights holders;or

- Unleash it (by exercising freedom over it) for the legally deprived individuals.

This fight for the control of thoughts can be exercised by rights holder(s), as we said, via “legalbullying” (Seemel, 2013; Doctorow, 2013) or influence and manipulation techniques integrated intheir intellectual properties (reflected in their design) such as evaluative conditioning, “dark patterns”or branding strategies. These entities thus can attempt, via these techniques, to deceive and“subjugate” the individuals (Stallman, 2012) as well as enclose them within silos (physical/digitaland/or cognitive) designed to be deceptive via a closed/depriving nature requiring “blind trust” and thepresence of malicious features transforming it as a “tool of power”.

Synectiction can constitute an efficient weapon in this cognitive conflict, with the voluntaryintroduction of uncertainty in the semiotic process in order to disrupt the cognitive certainty/comfortlikely to favor the crystallization of attitudes and the freezing of the semiotic process. It can alsostimulate it via the feeding of the creative and inventive thoughts with new problems likely to besolved with V – A dynamics. This practice can thus allow the individuals to disrupt the possiblestrategies operated by the observed representamen's creator(s)/right holder(s) and reflected in itsdesign. The disobedience to its official rules can thus allow the individual to build something new with

235

its principles (Müller-Maghün's definition of hacking). This exercise of “intellectual disobedience”(Paley, 2014) in order to earn or earn back sovereignty over the mind (by decolonizing it from any“restrictive features”) will be coupled, in the synectictive process, with playful cleverness (Stallman,2012) in order to optimize the exercise of freedom over the interpretation process. It can thuscontribute, as we said, to strengthen the individual's cognitive resistance against influence andmanipulation techniques exploited to condition and crystallize his attitudes toward the brandedrepresentamens, but also against the “battle of brands” aiming at imposing their own mentalrepresentations in his mind (FAT, 2012).

The disobedience to the observed representamen's official rules and design's model thus favors theexercise of freedom and unleashes the semiotic process (optimized if the individual has removed hismental DRMs and cognitive silos). Synectiction requires the V – A dynamic in order to virtualize theobserved representamen and actualize a new semiotic relation, with new elements carrying newcharacteristics (firstness), contiguity relation (secondness) or rules/laws (thirdness).This enriching ofthe observed representamen's reality via this psychic movement is thus necessary to favor/optimize thesemiotic hacking process, via the development and emphasize of new connections/correlationsbetween the initially arbitrarily considered relation between the representamen and its object. Asbased on the creative intelligence, synectiction is optimal if the individual is used to dealing withcognitive uncertainty (i.e., reconsider his cognitive patterns based on deduction and certainty/stabilityand comfort) and possesses an open and flexible cognitive framework fed with a strong culture(favoring the discovery of meaningful connections such as lexical and semantic relations,...).

Synectiction will thus inherently require a psychic flexibility, an open-mindedness as well as a richpersonal culture in order to favor the discovery of meaningful connections between two apparentlydifferent elements (as we will try to emphasize with few examples). The hacking philosophy and theexploration of the limits of the observed representamen's possibilities will also be necessary to developa rich and complex interpretamen and optimize the chance of discovering unexpected elements (i.e.,serendipity). It will also favor the complete observation and the understanding of the observedrepresentamen's both official and officious (if deceptive design) rules and principles in order to disobeyand create new ones (permanent reconsideration via the actualization of new ideas likely tochange/modify the representamen). The overlooking or bypassing of its official rules and conventionswill thus be necessary to consider new potentialities likely to be actualized (via V – A dynamic) andoptimize the synectictive process

In a nutshell, we will emphasize that like abduction (Sandri, 2013), synectiction is a creative processallowing to produce new ideas and stimulate the creative and inventive thoughts necessary to unleashthe semiotic process. Like it, it can strongly favor serendipity, by optimizing the serendip attitudenecessary for the unexpected discoveries to be observed, as well as the creative and inventive thoughtsvia the emergence of new questions, problems and informational needs likely to be answered, solvedand satisfied. It favors disobedience to norms/rules/laws and the exploration of new creative andinventive paths outside the official ones. This creative speculation thus allows the individual to avoidthe development of a cognitive rigidity in his observation and interpretation of representamens (via

236

“particle-like” or leashed “wave-like” interpretations matching its design's model). This creativemethod based on the voluntary introduction of uncertainty and the permanent formulation of newquestions, problems and needs in the interpretative process is thus likely to make it impossible for therepresentamen's creator(s)/rights holder(s) to predict the interpretation of their intellectual property.

The two strategic processes feeding synectiction are :

- Creative intelligence (Nussbaum, 2011) : Via the making of unexpected connections between anobserved representamen and an object in order to favor the unexpected discoveries and actualizeoriginal semiotic relations. The more unexpected (serendipity) and initially perceived as divergent(lexical/semantic fields, sign-vehicles,...), the higher the intellectual challenge to connect and mergethem in order to produce a brand new thought-sign (interpretamen) likely to stand for one or several(if designed to be dynamic) objects;

- Inventive intelligence (Besson & Uhl, 2011) : Via the optimization of the cognitive process in orderto favor their actualization (considering the different inherent constraints). The strategic intelligence(Besson & Possin, 2009), as core part of the inventive intelligence, allows to optimize the acquisitionand exploitation of information and knowledge about the observed representamen (i.e. enrich itsinterpretation) and stimulates the virtualization process by providing it with new questions/problemsand an operational efficient way to search (i.e., navigation and exploration process, with integration ofserendipity).

We will emphasize another cognitive method aiming at stimulating the creative thought. This willconsist to observe simultaneously different representamens (with their intrinsic characteristics)standing for different objects and try to connect or “merge” them, via the creation of a brand new oneand the actualization of a new meaningful semiotic relation. The goal will thus be to produce ameaningful semiotic relation via the creation of a new representamen triggering a new certaininterpretamen and interpretant relating it to the new object. For example, the individual can considerboth a bottle and a straw hat, each of them standing for a different object via their inherentcharacteristics and sign-vehicles. The creative challenge will thus be to discover meaningfulconnections or actualize a meaningful merger between these two elements in order to trigger brandnew thought-signs (intrerpretamen and interpretant) relating the new representamen to a new object.The search for interoperability between the two initially observed representamens (which we willanalyze more in detail further in this work) can thus favor this cognitive and behavioral processrequiring the navigation between the virtual and actual poles of the relation to the observedrepresentamens.

Examples of synectiction generating the actualization of a meaningful semiotic relation

1. Observation of a USB key as standing for a boat

Let's observe and interpret a branded USB key (designed to be interpreted as a specific distinctivebrand, with trust and positive cognitive relation) as standing for a boat. The arbitrary formulatedsemiotic relation looks apparently meaningless. However, we notice when we deepen this potential

237

relation that these two objects actually share strong similarities. For example, they both are designedfor transport and mobility. They can both be water-proof. The USB key is designed to transport goods(e.g., private or common digital ones)/data. A boat can also be designed to transport goods (physical,whether private or common), but what about data? On the web (“digital ocean”), the humans can beconsidered as “data”223 (Ertzscheid, 2010). Moreover, the web can also be called “digital ocean”, viathe navigation process and the “hypertextual navigation culture” (Sandri, 2013). Let's thus determinethe connections between the Web and a USB key. A USB key can be used to store a part of the web(e.g., Wikipedia224). It thus can be used as a server to host digital online content, i.e., allow thehypertextual navigation. Finally, a boat is designed to be water-proof. Searchs online makes us realizethat water-proof USB keys exist and are commercialized. The lexical and semantic connectionsbetween the two considered elements can thus be the transport, the navigation and water (with “water-proof” qualities).

2. Observation of a glass as standing for a hammer.

Let's now try to actualize a meaningful semiotic relation between a glass arbitrarily related to ahammer. The main challenge is here to deal with the glass' inherent fragility in order to perform tasksusually performed by a resistant tool designed for it. Planting a nail with a glass (i.e., transpose thehammer's function to this object) is hard to perform, for requires to be really careful in order to notbreak it (for one of its inherent constraints is its fragility against shocks). If the performance is notsuccessful, new states by enriching the glass have to be considered, for example by covering it withDuct Tape (specially designed to be resistant and used on multiple surfaces, i.e., closer to thehammer's inherent characteristics). By doing so, the enriched representamen is thus likely to havemore chances to perform the wanted task and to be observed as a hammer (new qualities making itcloser to it). The virtualization and actualizaton of a new use (made impossible at first because of therepresentamen's inherent constraints), thus induces the perceived need to modify the observedrepresentamen in order to enrich it with new qualities favoring the production of the desired use andthe actualization of a meaningful semiotic relation between the initially arbitrarily relatedrepresentamen and object.

7.1. Cognitive empowerment and disempowerment

The individual's cognitive empowerment is necessary for the synectiction process to be optimal : theacquisition of information and knowledge about the observed representamen thus enriches and makeshis interpretation process more complex. It also allows the individual to exercise a wider freedom overit, with the ability to “hack” the representamen's design more easily, by favoring his awareness of itsdesign's model and the deconstruction of the possible strategies and techniques used to condition hisinterpretative process. Cognitive empowerment is thus fundamental for the optimization of thecreative semiotic process : the more perceived interpretative possibilities, the more the observedrepresentamen's momentum and the individual's freedom (via choice and control) toward his semiotic

223 http://www.cairn.info/resume.php?ID_ARTICLE=HERM_053_0033224 http://lifehacker.com/354005/run-your-personal-wikipedia-from-a-usb-stick

238

process as well as his cognitive resistance against conditioning and crystallization of attitudes towardit. The exercise of freedom over the interpretation process is thus favored via the control over thecognitive system, optimized by the cognitive awareness and the favoring of the cognitive dimension ofthe attitude toward the observed representamen.

Knowledge and intelligences thus have to be developed (optimized if collective, open anddecentralized process) and used as a weapon against the attempt of control exercised by the observedrepresentamen's rights holder(s), by deconstructing their strategies of mind conditioning via thedisobedience of their defined official rules reflected in the representamen's design. A rich and complexinterpretamen can also strengthen the semiotic process, via a higher chance to find some similaritiesand connections between the observed representamen and the arbitrarily related object. In otherwords, cognitive empowerment and the exercise of freedom is likely to favor the disruption of theclassic cognitive patterns and unleash the interpretation as well as the exercise of control over it.

This choice of power via knowledge thus allows the individual to exercise freedom, i.e., control overhis mind and prevents him from being trapped, due to a lack of cognitive awareness and of thestrategic techniques used by the observed representamens' rights holders such as the illusion offreedom (favored by mergers and synergies) conditioned to favor the influence and manipulation andthe crystallization of their mental models and attitudes. As Frasca presumes that “the more differentthe individuals' interpretamen, the more different their interpretant is likely to be”, we will presumethat the richer and complex the idea of the observed representamen (interpretamen), the morefreedom the individual will be able to exercise toward the interpretant and the semiotic process.

Conversely, cognitive disempowerment can favor the weakening of the interpretation process likely togenerate, through habit and similar interpretations at each observation, the freezing of the semioticprocess. The lack of cognitive conflict (necessary for innovation to happen) will be favored by theindividual's possibility of external attribution, the disengaging choice (conscious or not) of observationvia the compliance to the observed representamen's design's model (e.g., via copyright policy andacceptance of its totally depriving/disempowering legal nature). Ignorance, via the choice ofcommodity/security (i.e., cognitive comfort) over freedom, with inherent responsibility is also likely tobe favored by the individual in order to preserve his cognitive stability and comfort. Cognitivedisempowerment is also likely to favor the development of cognitive silos and the internalization ofmental DRMs (based on accepted ignorance and “rigid” legally depriving cognitive schema matchingspecific design's models). The interpretative process is also likely to be restricted/conditioned via anexternalization of the cognitive resources likely to favor dependency on a controlled smart object suchas a closed/depriving and branded smartphone.

Let's now analyze in detail the problem solving process generated by the synectiction.

7.2. The problem solving process

Synectiction, via the voluntary introduction of uncertainty in the semiotic process, generates a“problem” whose solving is, as we said, necessary to actualize a meaningful semiotic relation. This

239

problem solving process requires a stimulated and unleashed virtualization - actualization dynamic andthe disinhibited navigation between the actual and virtual poles of the relation to the observedrepresentamen. Several constraints have to be considered and managed in order to achieve this goal.We are now going to analyze which ones and how to manage them.

7.2.1. The management of constraints

Let's first summarize the different kinds of sign-vehicles. A sign whose sign-vehicle (requires isolationto focus on it in order to produce meaning) relies on :

- Simple abstracted qualities is called qualisign;

- Existential connections with its object is called a sinsign;

- Virtue of the conventions surrounding their use are called legisigns.

The main constraint will be composed of the necessary signification in the new arbitrary semioticrelation in order to make it meaningful. Thus, the discovery or actualization of new sign-vehicles willbe the main challenge to overcome in order to solve this “semiotic problem”. The individual will haveto find connections between the representamen and the object likely to achieve a meaningful semioticrelation. Here are some constraints the individual involved in a synectictive process will have to faceand manage in order to achieve a meaningful semiotic relation :

- Constraints from the object : According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of philosophy225, “the nature ofthe object constrains the nature of the sign in terms of what successful signification requires. Thenature of these constraints fell into three broad classes : qualitative, existential or physical, andconventional and law-like. Further, if the constraints of successful signification require that the signreflect qualitative features of the object, then the sign is an icon. If the constraints of successfulsignification require that the sign utilize some existential or physical connection between it and itsobject, then the sign is an index. And finally, if successful signification of the object requires that thesign utilize some convention, habit, or social rule or law that connects it with its object, then the sign isa symbol.”

- Constraints from the representamen : The constraints will be composed of the representamen'scharacteristics and constraints (technical, legal,...) likely to leash/condition the interpretation process.For example, DRMs are designed to restrict the individual's experience to the observedrepresentamen. A SaaS is designed to prevent the individuals from accessing its source-code viareverse-engineering, in order to prevent its study and modification by the deprived individuals andfavor their leashed/crystallized interpretation according to its design's model. We can also emphasizeconstraints constraints from its intrinsic nature. For example, a classic glass is not designed to resist tostrong shocks. The individual will thus have to enrich its reality in order to favor the problem solvingprocess and get closer to/achieve the desired characteristics. Second example : a classic smartphone isnot designed to be fully water-proof. The individual will thus have to extend it via, for example, a

225 http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/peirce-semiotics/#DivInt

240

specific shell in order to achieve this characteristics.

- Constraints from the interpretamen : The interpretamen places, depending on its nature(rich/complex or poor/simple) more or less constraints toward the interpretant. For example, anindividual observing a closed/depriving smartphone based only on its official design (e.g, interpreted asa tool of freedom) will make the arbitrary relation to handcuffs difficult, for his idea of therepresentamen (i.e., interpretamen) and the new interpretant relating to the object will be perceived aspossessing dichotomous values. This meaningful semiotic relation will thus be favored if the individualenriches his observation of the representamen, i.e., by developing a complete observation taking intoaccount the smartphone's officious design and its core constitution with “digital handcuffs”. Cognitiveconstraints are also linked to the interpretamen, with for example a chosen specific rigid interpretationbased on the overlooking of the dissonant cognitions likely to compromise the cognitive certainty andrelation to the observed representamen. Another constraint comes from the cognitive limits theindividual has to deal with, especially if the observed representamen is complex;

- Constraints from the interpretant : The interpretant, like the interpretamen, places inherentconstraints bound to the individual's cognitive resources and framework. The individual's rich or pooridea of the object can thus whether leash or unleash his creative problem-solving process. Theindividual's commitment toward the observed representamen, especially if based on blind trust, is thuslikely to favor the crystallization of his attitudes and freeze the semiotic process, i.e., generate a finallogical interpretant strongly leashing his creative thought, necessary for the synectictive method to beprocessed;

- Constraints from the social context : Social pressures likely to leash the creative and inventiveprocess and the development of the interpretamen and interpretant. For example, the individual mightnot dare to manipulate/reverse-engineer the representamen to develop a rich and accurateinterpretation. His internalization or identification toward the majority attitudes about the observedrepresentamen is also likely to leash/prevent the formulation of “semiotic creative speculations”.

As we already stated in our analysis of the optimization of the abduction process, the exploration ofthe limits of the observed representamen's possibilities by disobeying its official rules (hackingphilosophy) favors the development of a rich interpretamen and increases freedom over itsinterpretation with a wider choice of sign-vehicles. The bypassing of the observed representamen'srestrictions (e.g, closed/depriving nature, DRMs,...) such as reverse-engineering can thus favor thediscovery and/or actualization of new sign-vehicles the individual was initially not aware of.Intellectual disobedience, as defended by Paley with her “Focus on art, not law” paradigm, can alsounleash this process, via the voluntary overlooking of the conventional sign-vehicles such as brands orlegal terms applying to the observed “intellectual property”. This cognitive practice can also favor theunleashing of the semiotic process, via the exploration of the observed representamen's intrinsicqualities and features, likely to trigger new thought-signs and enrich this process. It can thus allow theindividual to exercise more freedom over it and relate to other unexpected/unintended objects (e.g.,not expected/wanted by its creator(s)/rights holder(s)).The overlooking of the representamen's legalnature in its interpretation can also favor the decolonization of the cognitive system, via the removal of

241

the possible mental DRMs and cognitive silos, strengthened by the individual's compliance to theobserved representamen's interpretative rules. It can thus be slightly more difficult if the individual hasinternalized them, i.e., if these interpretative restrictions have penetrated and shaped his privateattitudes.

This problem solving process based on the search, discovery and actualization of new sign-vehicleswill be optimized if the creative framework is favorable. Let's analyze this concept now.

8. The creative frameworkThe creative framework is a concept defined by Michel Ancel (2006), famous French game-designer.For him, “The big problem with creation is to know what the creative framework we have to deal withis. When working on a new console, we have a weak idea of our mean of expression. We need tomake a research work to determine our abilities. We have to increase our abilities by progressing andtrying.”226

The creative framework will refer in our analysis to these available “means of expression”, i.e., thetechnical, legal, financial and social issues the creators/inventors have to deal with during their creativeand inventive processes. As we analyzed earlier, these four dimensions are fundamental to consider inorder to determine the feasibility of the new defined creation/invention. However, this framework canbe extended and “hacked”, in order to unlock initial problems and favor the reification of theconsidered new idea. A clear example can be given with the Creative Commons licenses, and thestatement Lessig, Abeslon and Eldred (2001) made about the too much constraining legal environmentfor creators. They thus decided to “hack” the classic rules of copyright, by deconstructing it (Seemel,2013) and creating a new set of legal licenses “unlocking” the creators' process by operating aparadigm shift, from “permissive culture” to “Free culture”. The DIY philosophy (as core part of thesemiotic hacking) can favor the development of a favorable creative framework, by stimulating thepersonal initiatives to create a favorable context in order to achieve specific goals.

When asked about his creative process, Ancel states : “It's interesting to work with someone who hasno constraints on purpose. When you are too much focused on the technical side, you find it hard tostay creative. When we work with a creative, he abstracts of this reality. He creates, and you tap intothis creativity. You say, "Oh yeah, he found a form of hair, a kind of hairstyle that adds style to thecharacter, which makes it alive and which is completely feasible from a technical point of view." Andmaybe we would not have had the idea to do it because we had too many problems in mind. It is veryinteresting to let a lot of freedom and try to start from this creation which inspires you and convert itin an environment that has many constraints”. His analysis thus emphasizes the importance of thevirtualization – actualization dynamic and the risk of alienation to reality in the creative process.

The Free movement (with the Free software philosophy initiated by Stallman and the Free cultureinitiated by Lessig) has also largely contributed to develop a favorable creative framework for creatorsand inventors, by fully exploiting new technologies and the Internet network to “fix” all the different

226 http://orient-extreme.net/index.php?menu=mangas_animation&sub=artistes&article=144

242

dimensions of the creative framework :

- Technical : By developing Free programs designed to fully empower their users (via the unrestrictedaccess to the source code and the possibility to modify and share without restriction). Interoperabilityas core principles also optimize the use of the different programs and the creative/inventive processes,by allowing the exploitation of a Free technical ecosystem designed to favor the production process(e.g., open standards and the Blender 3D program interoperable with the Gimp and Synfig 2Dprograms for creating animations mixing 2D and 3D);

- Legal : By developing Free legal licenses/resources empowering the individuals (via the respect oftheir four fundamental freedoms) allowing them to freely study, modify and re-use the observedrepresentamens and constitute a “common pool”, fundamental for providing creators with Freecontents likely to be freely re-used for future creations;

- Social : By favoring an “ethical” creative and inventive processes based on an open and decentralizedcollective intelligence fed by a non-restricted sharing of knowledge and same potentiality of accessand use of the resources (i.e., universal anti-rivalrous common goods) and a collaborative developmentwithin a neutral/universal network;

- Financial : By allowing anyone to use, modify and share the programs without any financialcompensation, for most of Free resources can be used without paying any fee (we will however keepin mind that the Free term refers to free as in free speech and not to free as in free beer). Moreover,the Free philosophy is, as we said, based on viability and sustainability. In other words, the users ofthese programs do not have to renew licenses to keep using them in the future.

Ancel's analysis clearly emphasizes the necessity for a temporary overlooking of the actual constraints(i.e., via the virtualization and the abstract thinking about the observed representamen) in order tounleash the creative and inventive thoughts and favor the emergence of new original creative ideas.This virtualization process will be optimized if the individual has previously “decolonized” his mind(i.e., by removing any cognitive silos and mental DRMs). However, as he states, the creativeframework necessarily has to be considered in the creative and inventive processes, for it determinesthe degree of freedom and feasibility (i.e., of ambition) in them. Its determination and management isthus fundamental to clearly determine the possibilities of creation and their limits (likely to bewidened/bypassed by its “hacking”) and get an accurate view and knowledge about the actualconstraints. The act of creation or invention will thus be a compromise between the individual(s)' will,expectations and the actual constraints. Thus, according to Lévy (2010), “All creative works—books,movies, records, software, and so on—are a compromise between what can be imagined and what ispossible—technologically and legally.”).

The creative framework is thus a fundamental part in the creative and inventive processes, especially ifthese ones are ambitious and/or require an important precision impossible for a human being toachieve. Fab Labs can be a great opportunity for creators to benefit from useful resources in order tooptimize their creative framework (“Do you have a project, but not the tools? Chances are we do”).According to the Fab Lab San Diego, “Give ordinary people the right tools, and they will design and

243

build extraordinary things”. The FAT Lab (for “Free Art and Technology), creators of the FreeUniversal Construction Kit we will analyze further, thus admit that this invention was alreadythought/defined, but that they had to wait for a favorable technical context in order to achieve thisextremely precise and delicate operation : “We dreamed about this possibility years ago, when wewere small, and we knew then, as we know now, that we’d need some adapters to help. The advent oflow-cost 3D printing has made such adapters possible, and with it, a vast new set of combinatorialpossibilities for children’s creative construction toys.” One of the main goal for creators and inventorsshould however be to try to overcome the potential constraints imposed by it, via the creation ofpowerful tools allowing them to have the possibility to overlook the technical and legal issues likely toconstraint, disrupt and prevent the creation and invention processes.

Ancel (2011) and Paley (2012) share the same opinion about the necessity for creators to focusentirely on art and not on the possible issues. Talking about the videogame creation and the UbiartFramework engine (designed to allow videogame creators to focus on art instead of on the technicalside of the creation process, and with only few resources), he states that “videogame has to overcometechnical issues to let creativity speak”. However, some artists emphasize the fact that more technicalpower does not necessarily provide more inspiration, even if it grants the creators more freedom. ForAlberto José Gonzalez, musician who specialized in “chip-tune” music for the videogame industry inthe 90's (i.e., composed directly with the consoles chips, which required to deal with their importanttechnical constraints),“More power induces a wider flexibility and more advanced possibilities, but notnecessarily of inspiration. In most cases, access to multiple channels and more options allows you toconcentrate on the music (and therefore create beautiful melodies), instead of focusing on otherelements".227

9. The search for interoperability as mean to disrupt the branding strategy andunleash the semiotic process

Interoperability is a property referring to the ability of diverse systems and organizations to worktogether (inter-operate). The search for interoperability will constitute an important intellectualchallenge in the problem solving process. This concept will here refer to three possible domains :cognitive, physical and digital. The search for interoperability will necessarily require theunderstanding of the conflicting systems' principles (via reverse-engineering, metacognitivedimension,..) and change/modification (of attitudes/mental models) or modification of the observedrepresentamens.

The search for interoperability can, if coupled to the synectiction process we have analyzed, stimulatethe creative and inventive thoughts and unleash them, via the favored exercise of freedom andexploration of new creative processes. The creative speculation will thus be based on the “potentialuniversal interoperability between representamens” as core philosophy. By considering “any potentialconnection/merger between representamens”, the individual(s) can create new meaningful

227 http://www.jvn.com/dossiers/alberto-jose-gonzalez-musicien-8-16-bits-personne-ne-sinteressait-a-ce-que-je-composais--a1072745

244

representamens likely to enrich the semiotic process. The search for interoperability can thus allow tocreate unexpected new representamens based on an initially arbitrarily considered “meaningless”connection/merger between “conflicting” ones observed simultaneously. This cognitive process isemphasized by Ertzscheid and Gazellot (2010), who state that "Linking informational units can allowto discover unexpected correlations.”

Interoperability inherently requires to “ think outside the box”, created via a consensus (formal orinformal) by the rights holders owning competitive products and brands in order to exercise freedomover the semiotic process. Making “officious” connections, blending or mergers between differentobjects observed as representamens are thus likely to favor the exploration of new creative paths andstimulate the semiotic process by actualizing, if achieved “semiotic interoperability”, a newmeaningful relation. This actualization can stimulate the semiotic process via the trigger of newthought-signs and an enriching of the interpretation process via new initially unexpected opportunities,i.e., increase the individuals' freedom over it. The search for interoperability will necessarily implythe analysis of the “war of design” induced by intellectual property and the “cognitive capitalism”.

10. Cognitive capitalism as value through mental representationsEd Emery describes the characteristics of cognitive capitalism. For him, “The production of wealth isno longer based solely and exclusively on material production but is based increasingly on immaterialelements, in other words on raw materials that are intangible and difficult to measure and quantify,deriving directly from employment of the relational, affective and cerebral faculties of human beings.(…) The role of knowledge becomes fundamental. To the creation of value through materialproduction is added the creation of value through the production of knowledge. Cognitive capitalismmeans that the production of wealth takes place increasingly through knowledge, through the use ofthose faculties of labour that are defined by cognitive activity (cognitive labour), in other wordsprincipally through immaterial cerebral and relational activities.”

We will extend this concept by referring while using this term to the wealth/value residing on theconditioning of the individuals' interpretative process according to specific “mental associations”protecting intellectual properties' distinctiveness, i.e., economic value (Doctorow, 2013). This newparadigm will also be based on the “brand, not product” one we have already analyzed, and will beopposed to another one which we will call “cognitive commonism”.

The “particle-like” interpretation matching the representamen's design's model will thus be the maingoal for the private entities owning rights over intellectual properties in order to achieve a control overthe individuals' interpretative process. The cognitive partitioning (i.e., cognitive silos) and theinternalization of the deprivation from the observed representamen (i.e., “mental DRM”) with othercompetitive products, for example the interpretation of a work not as “art” but as a “part of a brandedlifestyle package” will be the main value of this paradigm. This “consumerist” approach in theinterpretation process will be based on cognitive passiveness, i.e., dependence and disempowermenttoward the observed representamen's rights holder(s) likely to exploit this “free compliance” toexercise control over him.

245

As capitalism is inherently based on competition between rights holders, we will state that cognitivecapitalism is based on cognitive competition for these entities. As we said, private entities cancompete for the penetration and conditioning of the individuals' cognitive system via aggressivebranding strategies based on the colonization and absorption of key-concepts composing the “brandvalues” (necessary for the development of the brand's attractiveness and distinction, i.e., power ofinfluence and economic value). These strategies can be strengthened by aggressive legal bullying toprotect their distinctive nature as mental association (Doctorow, 2013). The conflicting brandedrepresentamens are thus designed, as we said, to be interpreted as distinctive objects standing fordistinctive brands. Cognitive obsolescence will here refer to the individuals' disempowerment andalienation to a private entity controlling the object's lifecycle and development process witheverchanging rules of behavior toward it. As Zimmermann (2014) emphasizes, closed/deprivingprogram's core behavioral patterns (with rules of behaviors,...) can be changed by its creators(requiring a “cognitive renewal” and new cognitive engagement), unlike Free programs which remainunchanged, ensuring a sustainability of the acquired knowledge and experience with them. Theinternalization of mental DRMs and its intended disruption/cutting off of the creative flow (Paley,2014) also constitutes a major source of value, via the decrease of the risk of seeing the intellectualproperty “absorbed” by a brand new work not controlled by the rights holders.

Cognitive capitalism's main wealth thus resides in “cognitive properties”, “cognitive consumerism” andthe individuals' overlooking of other competitive products (as part of the “economy of attention”). Aswe said, these properties in competition with other ones will be protected via influence andmanipulation techniques feeding strong branding and legal strategies, in order to strengthen theindividuals' commitment to their distinctive property/ies, and control them via dark patterns, cognitivedisempowerment, absorbed key-concepts (turned into “brand extensions”) and tools of controldesigned to subjugate them (Stallman, 2012).

The “battle of brands” (Klein, 2000) and the “war of design” (FAT, 2012) we have analyzed earliernecessarily induce, from our point of view, victims. These victims will be the individuals' targeted bythese private entities whose aim is to colonize their mind in order to exercise a control over theirinterpretative process when observing branded representamens designed to be interpreted asdistinctive, unique and conflicting with other competitive ones. The search of interoperability in amodel based on “cognitive capitalism” thus necessarily faces technical, legal and cognitivebarriers/issues (as core part of the creative framework) feeding the “semiotic problem” and theproblem solving process.

11. Cognitive commonism as mean to enrich the semiotic processWe are going, based on the cognitive capitalism concept we have analyzed earlier, to emphasize abrand new one, which we will call cognitive commonism.

We will thus operate a paradigm shift, from competition (with inherent conflict and discrimination)within the cognitive framework to collaboration and contribution. Thus, we will consider these twofundamental concepts as core part of the “in” and “out” processes of the informational flow. As we

246

said, cognitive capitalism is based on the individual's cognitive disempowerment to facilitate thecolonization of their mind and favor the legal protection of distinctive intellectual properties. Theeconomic value can thus, depending on the paradigm (whether cognitive capitalism or commonism)rests upon :

- Cognitive disempowerment : Favors the interpretative conditioning, control and manipulation, i.e.,the crystallization of attitudes and the individuals' commitment based on “free” compliance. Thiscontrol is made possible via the colonization and “privatization” of their mind optimized by cognitivesilos and mental DRMs likely to prevent their expression;

- Cognitive empowerment : Favors the exercise of freedom, i.e., of sovereignty over the mind (Paley,2014) via the disinhibited connection between any kind of ideas (full cognitive interoperabilityfavored by the decolonization of the cognitive system and the search for interoperability via thedisobedience/overlooking of the official rules as core principle of the hacking philosophy).

Cognitive commonism, based on the Free philosophy, is based on the cognitive sustainability(empowerment, via Free legal nature of the observed representamen as well as the generated thoughts)and the open and decentralized collective intelligence process about it. Its core values thus reside on anunleashed open and decentralized interpretation and sharing (as “act of love” as defined by Paley,2010) and remixing (optimized via cognitive diversity), i.e., “creative flow” optimized by itsuniversality with the same potentiality of access (“in”) and of participation in the creative process(“out”). Cognitive commonism will refer to the “cognitive common goods” (i.e., “ideas are free”'slegal paradigm) and will benefit from the Free culture paradigm that emerged with the Internet and thedemocratization of copying technologies allowing the development of a new popular culture based onremix (Lessig, 2008). It will thus favor the free sharing and expression of new ideas enriching the“creative flow” (Paley, 2014). Ideas will be considered, in this paradigm, as “anti-rivalrous commongoods” for the more they are shared, the stronger and resilient they become (like a digital file, it isenriched and multiplied when shared). Its main value will thus be based on an open, decentralized andfree collective intelligence, collaboration and contribution (via V - A dynamic and voluntary enrichingof reality for the benefit of all). The cognitive sovereignty and sustainability, necessary to feed thecollective creative and inventive processes, will also constitute core parts of this concept.

Cognitive commonism means that the individuals are free to exercise control over their ideas onceintegrated in their mind. It thus operates a paradigm shift from cognitive consumerism (characterizedby passivity and disempowerment) via simple “cognitive absorption” to cognitive contribution(characterized by the disinhibited sharing and enriching via actualization of new ideas/expressions,...).The more diverse and enriched the ideas (with a potential infinity of expressions favored by theread - write culture), the more valuable they will become.

We are now going to analyze a creation that perfectly illustrates the semiotic hacking philosophy : theFree Universal Construction Kit.

247

12. The Free Universal Construction Kit and the achievement of interoperabilitybetween conflicting systems

The Free Universal Construction Kit (FUCK) is a co-creation by F.A.T. Lab and Sy-Lab. Theydescribe it as “a matrix of nearly 80 adapter bricks that enable complete interoperability between tenpopular children’s construction toys. By allowing any piece to join to any other, the Kit encouragestotally new forms of intercourse between otherwise closed systems—enabling radically hybridconstructive play, the creation of previously impossible designs, and ultimately, more creativeopportunities for kids. As with other grassroots interoperability remedies, the Free UniversalConstruction Kit implements proprietary protocols in order to provide a public service unmet—orunmeetable—by corporate interests.”

Koefoed Hansen & Løhmann Stephen (2013) describe the FUCK in these terms : "It is primarily anart project using marxist inspired analysis and appropriation techniques of modifying and creating anew, thus showing that things could be different. Still, the Free Universal Construction Kit only gainssignificance, because it is also a project with a practical purpose : this is both art and design, bothaesthetic objects made for contemplative pondering and practical objects made in order to be useful.”The FAT Lab uses the “fair use” as legal defense against potential offensives based on violation of“intellectual properties” (here, concerning the separate competitive and proprietary toys' design).However, fair use only applies to copyright, not patent, trademark or design (O’Rourke, 2000,Bradshaw, et al., 2010). Koefoed Hansen & Løhmann Stephensen (2013) state that “The explicitreference to fair use gives away the artistic nature of the project. (…) Since F.A.T. and Sy-lab mustknow this, their defense fundamentally rests on the assumption that patent holders (hopefully?) willperceive the connector kit as an artistic expression, not as a set of functional objects even if they arealso functional.” They also qualify the FUCK as a “ strange amalgamation of LEGO andFischerTechnik – an object which is simultaneously both and none of those”, allowing to make theconcepts of remix and digital materiality become literally tangible.

We will thus presume, based on this analysis, that the FUCK has been strategically designed to beinterpreted from a legal point of view as a “wave-particle dual representamen”, i.e., with two officialconflicting legal possibilities of interpretation (as art and design) and respective legal issues (copyrightand patent). Its creator thus look to try, from a legal point of view, to hack intellectual property byexploring the limits of its possibilities in order to legally protect their Kit via a Creative Commonslicense (which applies to cultural works). This “wave-particle dual” design, with the object's existenceas a superposition of states (Everett, 1957) likely to be interpreted via a choice of observation(observer effect) can be compared to the Telecomix “chaotic social system”'s design's model (Okhin,2012).

The FUCK has also been designed to combine many different interesting characteristics/qualitiescoming from several competitive construction sets, i.e., designed to not be enriched via theirconnection with other different systems. Thus, its creators state that the Kit “offers a “best of allworlds” approach to play and learning that combines the advantages of each toy system. We selectedconstruction sets for inclusion based on their significant level of market penetration, as well as for the

248

diversity of features they brought to the Kit’s collection. Some of the supported construction systems,for example, offer great mechanical strength, or the ability to build at large scales; others offer themeans to design kinetic movements; and still others permit the creation of a wide range ofcrystallographic geometries and symmetries. Using these classic toys as a foundation, the FreeUniversal Construction Kit offers a “meta-mashup system” ideally provisioned for the creation oftransgressive architecture and chimeric readymades228.” The creators of the Kit have thus achieved,according to Koefoed Hansen & Løhmann Stephensen (2013) a meaningful “cross-brandinteroperability” allowing to enhance the individuals' creative thought, via the combination of manydifferent qualities likely to open up, when meaningfully interpreted, new semiotic possibilities (via theactualization of new semiotic relations).

Mashup is one of the remix culture's clearest examples. O'Brien & Fitzgerald (2006) define mashup as“A visual remix, commonly a video or website which remixes and combines content from a number ofdifferent sources to produce something new and creative.” They add that “Mashups provide internetusers with an innovative and creative way of using and viewing material on the internet. The termmashup is not something which is new or novel, indeed people have been remixing and mashingdifferent things since the beginning of human existence. The term mashup largely derives from thehip-hop music practice of mixing two or more songs together to form something new, morecommonly known as music sampling or in its digital context, digital sampling.” The FUCK, via itsuniversal adapters, thus empowers the individuals by bypassing the different systems' respectiveconstraints/limitations and granting them new opportunities (necessary for the exercise of freedomaccording to Chomski, 1991) via the possibility of creating “subversive” (for based on disobedience toofficial rules defined by the different creators/rights holders of these sets) artistic works. This newpopular cultural work, made possible with the development of a favorable technical context, thusallows the creation of new artistic works where potentially conflicting/competing “intellectualproperties” cohabit and form a new meaningful piece of work possible.

13. Sustainability as core principle of the interoperability and Free philosophyThe FAT Lab, talking about the FUCK creation, states that the kit, by allowing different toy systemsto work together; makes possible new forms of “forward compatibility” extending the value of thesesystems across the life of a child. Thus, with the Kit’s adapters, playsets like Krinkles (often enjoyedby toddlers) can still retain their use-value for older children using Lego and for even older tweensusing Zome.

Marx (1859) analyzes this concept in A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy. For him, “Ause-value has value only in use, and is realized only in the process of consumption. One and the sameuse-value can be used in various ways. But the extent of its possible application is limited by itsexistence as an object with distinct properties”. The creation of new interoperable systems like theFUCK thus allows to extend this use-value by ensuring, thanks to this interoperability, the object's

228 The term “ready-made” was first coined by Duchamp (1915) and is defined in Breton and Eluard's Dictionnaire abrégédu Surréalisme as "an ordinary object elevated to the dignity of a work of art by the mere choice of an artist."

249

sustainability based on a Free technical and legal nature, i.e., the individuals' observation,interpretation and use of the characteristics/features of each system in order to create a complex newone stimulating the interpretative possibilities. The “use value” concept makes us think about one ofthe Free software's principle, that places the collective use as source of enrichment of the program'svalue. Thus, as the Blender Foundation states, “The best way to develop free 3d software is by usingit.”

The Free philosophy is based, as we have analyzed, on the unrestricted production and sharing ofknowledge with the same potentiality of access and participation for anyone and viability (i.e., to betrusted systems likely to be audited by anyone at any time), sustainability and interoperability as coreprinciples. For example, an individual using a Free software will still be able to keep using it evenafter new versions are released. Even if he changes his computer, he will still have the possibilitywhether to make a legal copy, or re-download it on numerous file-sharing online platforms based onP2P or direct download. He will moreover have the possibility to keep communicating with otherindividuals using new versions of the same system, thanks to the full technical interoperabilitybetween them, and update his program at any time.

Open formats play a major role in interoperability and sustainability of objects. The Commonwealthof Massachusetts defines open formats229 as “specifications for data file formats that are based on anunderlying open standard, developed by an open community, affirmed and maintained by a standardsbody and are fully documented and publicly available." According to the Linux Information Project230,the term open format should refer to "any format that is published for anyone to read and study butwhich may or may not be encumbered by patents, copyrights or other restrictions on use"– as opposedto a free format which is not encumbered by any copyrights, patents, trademarks or other restrictions.”For example, the FUCK is released, on its digital version, as the open CAM .stl231 format. Openstandards in Free systems thus give the users freedom over their works, via the ensurance of asustainable relation to it, as ell as a universal access for anyone else. Free nature thus ensures that thesoftware will not be replaced by a brand new conflicting private one requiring, for the individual tokeep using it, to update it and stop using his old version he was familiar with. A Free object, especiallyif digital (for benefits from the digital world characteristics we have analyzed) is thus designed toensure a technical, legal and cognitive sustainability.

As we said, closed and depriving “deceptive by design” systems, based on an officious/ hidden controlover its users, can be strategically programmed to be obsolete in order to favor their renewal and favorthe consumerist “blindly trusted” relation to it. This blind trust can be exploited by the system's' rightsholder(s) to permanently change its legal terms (e.g., rules of confidentiality and of re-use of thepersonal data) binding its users and favor the individuals' overlooking/neglection of these permanentarbitrary changes. This strategy can be achieved via a strong branding strategy and a cognitivedisempowerment from the users. Files purchased within silos (i.e., closed/depriving anddiscriminating systems) are thus “bound” to these “walled gardens” and favor the individuals'

229 http://xml.coverpages.org/ni2007-07-03-a.html230 http://www.linfo.org/free_file_format.html231 http://reprap.org/wiki/File_Formats

250

consumerist approach in order to preserve his relation to the different files. The technical and legalimpossibility to freely migrate his files from one device to another competitive one is favored via theindividual's non-ownership status and restrictive technologies such as DRMs.

VI. Conclusion

“Hacking is an idea of what makes life meaningful”. This definition, given by Richard Stallman, couldnot better reflect the semiotic process initially theorized by Peirce which we tried to enrich with ournew paradigm.

Observing the world as a potential infinity of meaningful connections likely to be actualizedconstitutes, according to us, the best philosophy for creativity to be unleashed and transform the worldaround us, via the focus on efficient communications instead of on conflict and discrimination. Thesearch and achievement of interoperability thus constitutes the key to “end the war of design” andcreate new richer systems whether technical, legal or social. Learning, creating and sharing, both on anindividual and collective, open and decentralized scale are also fundamental practices to ensure thesesystems' fluidity and resilience. The liberty, equality, fraternity core values of the Free softwarephilosophy constitute the basis for an optimal creative and inventive processes. Ethics is alsofundamental to ensure the viability and sustainability of any social system : the creative and inventiveprocesses thus always have to be based on an ethics of mean in order to ensure the trust between theindividuals involved in these processes.

We will also remind that creativity can only bloom with disobedience. Feeding the creative thoughtthus requires to permanently question and reconsider the world we observe. Relativity has to constitutea key-concept integrated in the creative process, for it is fundamental to keep in mind that we are theones, as subjective beings, who create meaning from the signs we observe.

Finally, we will emphasize the importance of the culture of astonishment in order to stimulate thesemiotic process and prevents its freezing, which can induce flaws likely to be exploited in order toexercise a control over the minds. But we we would like to end by highlighting one essential thing : itis fundamental, for life to be truly meaningful, to not only cultivate in our daily life astonishment, butwonder. Appreciating the beauty of the world is thus as important as transforming it with a “playfulcleverness”.

251

Bibliography

Thesis

FRASCA Gonzalo, Videogames of the oppressed : Videogames as a means for critical thinking anddebate, Thesis in Information and Communication Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology , April2001

Books

APPELBAUM Jacob, ASSANGE Julian, Müllher-Maghun Andy, et al., Cypherpunks : Freedom andthe Future of the Internet, OR Books, 2012, 186 p.

AUFDERHEIDE Patricia, JASZI Peter, Reclaiming Fair Use: How to Put Balance Back inCopyright,University of Chicago Press, 2011, 216 p.

BAGGOTT Jim, Beyond Measure: Modern Physics, Philosophy and the Meaning of Quantum Theory,OUP Oxford, 2003, 400 p.

BENKLER Yoshai, The Wealth of the Network : How Social ProductionTransforms Markets and Freedom, Yale University, 2007, 528 p.

BESSON Bernard, POSSIN Jean-Claude, Du Renseignement à l'Intelligence Economique, DUNOD,2001, 335 p.

BESSON Bernard, UHL Renaud, Intelligence Inventive, Lulu, 138 p.

BONNECARRERE Thomas, Comment créer un contexte social favorable à l'intelligence collective etl'innovation?. Atramenta, 2013, 90 p., online : http://www.atramenta.net/books/comment-creer-un-contexte-social/170

BOYLE James, The Public Domain: Enclosing the Commons of the Mind, Yale University Press, 2009,336 p., online : http://thepublicdomain.org/thepublicdomain1.pdf

CATELLIN Sylvie, Sérendipité : du conte au concept, Seuil, 2014, 264 p.

CLARK Kevin, Brandscendence : Three Essential Elements of Enduring Bran, KAPLAN Business,2004, 250 p.

COLEMAN Gabriela, Coding Freedom : The Ethics and aesthetics of Hacking, Princeton University ,2013, 272 p., online : Coleman-Coding-Freedom.pdf

CROUZET Thierry, Clean Hands Save Lives, L’Âge d'Homme, 2014, 90 p., online :https://app.box.com/s/mpzzpm77g7pyxjiwrsdj

252

Annexes

DELEUZE Gilles, Différence et répétition, Presses Universitaires de France, 2000, Paris, 416 p.

ECO Umberto, A theory of semiotics, Indiana University Press, 1976, 368 p.

ECO Umberto Eco, The Role of the Reader : Explorations in the Semiotics of Texts, Indiana UniversityPress, 1979, 284 p.

FALKVINGE Rick, Swarmwise : The Tactical Manual to Changing the World, CreateSpaceIndependent Publishing Platform, 2013, 304 p., online : http://falkvinge.net/files/2013/04/Swarmwise-2013-by-Rick-Falkvinge-v1.1-2013Sep01.pdf

FANN K.T., Peirce's theory of abduction, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2013, 72 p.

FISH Max, Peirce, Semiotic and Pragmatism: Essays by Max H. Fisch, Indiana University Press, 1986,480 p.

GORDON, William, Synectics: The Development of Creative Capacity, Harper and Brothers,Publishers, 1961, 180 p.

JOHNSON-LAIRD Philip, Mental Models: Towards a Cognitive Science of Language, Inference, andConsciousness, Harvard University Press, 1986, 513 p.

KLEIN Naomi, No Logo : Taking Aim at the Brand Bullies, Picador US, 2000, 490 p.

KLEIN Naomi, The Shock Doctrine : The Rise of Disaster Capitalism, Nopf Canada, 2007, 672 p.

LESSIG Lawrence, The future of ideas : The Fate of the Commons in a Connected World, Vintage,2002, 348 p., online : http://www.the-future-of-ideas.com/download

LESSIG Lawrence, Free culture : The Nature and Future of Creativity, Penguin Books, 2005, 368 p.

LESSIG Lawrence, Code: Version 2.0, Basic Books, 2006, 432 p., online :http://codev2.cc/download+remix/Lessig-Codev2.pdf

LESSIG Lawrence, Remix : Making Art and Commerce Thrive in the Hybrid Economy, PenguinBooks, 2009, 352 p. , online : https://archive.org/download/LawrenceLessigRemix/Remix-o.pdf

LESSIG Lawrence, STALLMAN Richard, Free Software, Free Society : Selected Essays of RichardM. Stallman, GNU Press, 2002, 224p., online : https://archive.org/download/FreeSoftwareFreeSociety-SelectedEssaysOfRichardM.Stallman2nd/FreeSoftwareFreeSociety_SelectedEssays2ndEdition-RichardM.Stallman.pdf

LEVY Pierre, Qu'est-ce que le virtuel ?, La Découverte/Poche, 1998, 153 p.

MARCON Christian, MOINET Nicolas, Développez et activez vos réseaux relationnels, Dunod, 2007,205 p.

McLeod Kembrew, Freedom of Expression: Resistance and Repression in the Age of IntellectualProperty, University off Minnesota Press, 2007, 339 p.

MAZZONE Jason, Copyfraud and Other Abuses of Intellectual Property Law Hardcover, Stanford

253

Law Press, 211, 312 p.

OLIVIER Michel, Peirce : La pensée et le réel, HERMANN, 2013, 174 p.

ORWELL George, 1984, Signet Classic, 1950, 336 p.

PINK Daniel, Drive – The Surprising Truth about what motivates us, Canongate Books, 2009,272 p.

SAVAN Leslie, The sponsored life : ads, TV and American culture, Temple University Press, 1994,368 p.

SHERIFF John, Charles Peirce's Guess at the Riddle: Grounds for Human Significance, IndianaUniversity Press, 1994, 158 p.

SHERIFF John, The Fate of Meaning: Charles Peirce, Structuralism, and Literature, PrincetonUniversity Press, 2014, 168 p.

SHIRKY Clay, Here Comes Everybody : The Power of Organizing Without Organizations, Penguinbooks, 2009, 352 p.,

SMIERS Joost and van SCHIJNDEL Marieke, Imagine there is no copyright and no culturalconglomerate too, Theory on Demand no. 4, Institute of Network Cultures, Amsterdam 2009, 80 pp.

TISSERON Philippe, Rêver, virtualiser, fantasmer, Dunod, 2012, 192 p.

Articles

ANASTASIOU Dimitris, GRIVA Eleni, “Awareness of reading strategy use and readingcomprehension among poor and good readers”, Elementary Education Online, 2009, online :http://ilkogretim-online.org.tr

BEAUVOIS Jean-Léon, “La démocratie médiatique : en route pour un totalitarisme tranquille”,Libéralisme – Démocraties, September 2012, online : http://liberalisme-democraties-debat-public.com/spip.php?article126

DANNON Vick, “Wave-Particle Duality: de BroglieWaves and Uncertainty”, Gauge Institute JournalVol. 2 No 4, November 2006, online : http://www.gauge-institute.org%2Fwave-particle%2FdeBroglieP.pdf

DURANDIN Guy, “L'information, La désinformation et la réalité”, Revue d’études comparatives Est-Ouest. Volume 25, 1994, N°1. pp. 169-170.

ECKERSLEY Peter, “How unique is your web browser?”, Proceedings of the Privacy EnhancingTechnologies Symposium (PETS), Springer Lecture Notes in Computer Science, May 2010, online :https://panopticlick.eff.org/browser-uniqueness.pdf

EVERAERT – DESMEDT Nicole, “La sémiotique de Peirce “, in Louis Hébert (dir.), Signo,

254

Rimouski (Québec), online : http://www.signosemio.com/peirce/semiotique.asp.

FOURQUET-COURBET Marie-Pierre, “Un siècle de théories de l'influence : histoire du procès desmédias”, MEI « Médiation et information », nº 10, 1999, online : http://www.mei-info.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2Frevue10%2Filovepdf

GAGNON Tiffany, “The Disinhibition of Reddit Users”, Adele Richardson’s Spring 2013, online :http://www.Fwritingandrhetoric.cah.ucf.edu.Gagnon.pdf

KOEFOED HANSEN Lone, LOMANN STEPHENSEN Jan, “The Free Universal Construction Kit:On Appropriation and Parasites”, Selected Papers of Internet Research, 2013, online :http:// www.academia.edu.The_Free_Universal_Construction_Kit_On_Appropriation_and_Parasites_Lone_Koefoed_Hansen

LAPIDOT-LEFLER Noam, BARAK Azy, “Effects of anonymity, invisibility, and lack of eye-contacton toxic online disinhibition”, Computers in Human Behavior Vol. 28, Issue 2, March 2012, online :http://www.sciencedirect.com

MAUREL Lionel, “Open Trademark : des Creative Commons du droit des marques auraient-ils unsens?”, SCINFOLEX, October 2013, online : http://scinfolex.com/2013/06/13/open-trademark-des-creative-commons-du-droit-des-marques-auraient-ils-un-sens/

SANDRI Eva, “La sérendipité sur Internet : égarement documentaire ou recherche créatrice?” , Cygnenoir, no 1, 2013, online : http://www.revuecygnenoir.org%2Fnumero%2Farticle%2Fla-serendipite-sur-internet

SERVIGNE Pable, “Six obstacles à franchir pour penser les biens communs”, Barricade, 2013,online : http://www.barricade.be/sites/default/files/publications/pdf/2013pablo-penserlesbienscommuns.pdf

STONE Linden, “Revising Attitudes To Physical Reality : Quantum Physics and Visual Art”,International Journal of Arts & Sciences, 2012, online : http://www.academia.edu%2F3558928%2FRevising_Attitudes_to_Physical_Reality_Quantum_Physics_and_Visual_Art

TEZUKA Taro, TANKA Katsumi, “Traveling in digital archive world : sightseeing metaphorframework for enhancing user experiences in digital libraries”, Springer-Verlag Berlin, December2005, pp. 23-32, online : http:/www.dl.kuis.kyoto-u.ac.jp%2F~tezuka%2Fpapers%2Ftezuka_icadl2005_lncs.pdf

TOPALOVIC Peter, "How Can a Person’s Digital Identity be Managed and Protected? An inquiryinto the social, ethical and political implications of digital Identity”, Communications Technology andPublic Policy, December 2007.

WADE Suzanne, REYNOLDS Ralph, “Developing meta-cognitive awareness”, Journal of ReadingVol. 33, No. 1, Wiley, pp. 6-14.

WOLF Marco, McQUITTY Shaun, “Understanding the Do-It-Yourself Consumer: DIY Motivation

255

and Outcomes”, Academy of Marketing Science Review, 2011

Videos

BERGERE Sylvain, GOETZ Julien, MANACH Jean-Marc, Une contre histoire de l'internet, June2013, online : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tztUbIPb5oQ

LESSIG Lawrence, Laws that choke creativity, TEDx 2007, March 2007, online :http://www.ted.com/talks/larry_lessig_says_the_law_is_strangling_creativity

STALLMAN Richard, Free software, Free society, TEDx Geneva : : Freedom (@ digital age), April7 2014, online : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ag1AKIl_2GM

SEEMEL Gwenn, In defense of imitation, TEDx Geneva : Freedom (@ digital age), April 7 2014,online : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCMZ4s2A_k8

MOORE J.T.S., Revolution OS (GNU, Linux, FOSS), 2001 : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k84FMc1GF8M

PALEY Nina, Intellectual disobedience, Conference about civil disobedience at Brooklyn LawSchool’s Incubator & Policy Clinic (BLIP), April 15th 2012, online :http://blog.ninapaley.com/2012/05/12/intellectual-disobedience/

PALEY Nina, Make art, not law, Pecha Kucha talk given in Champaign, IL., December 2013, online :http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ubZZI67MB8g

STALLMAN Richard, Copyright versus Community, lecture at Reykjavik University, November 7th2012, online : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k84FMc1GF8M

STANNARD Russel, The wave particle paradox - Boundaries of the Knowable,, Department ofPhysical Sciences, The Open University, February 25 2010, online :http://www.open.edu/openlearn/science-maths-technology/science/physics-and-astronomy/physics/paradox-wave-particles

Websites

Creative Commons : http://creativecommons.org/

Dark Patterns : http://darkpatterns.org/

Defective by design (FSF) : http://www.defectivebydesign.org/

Electronic Frontier Foundation : https://www.eff.org/

FAB Central (MIT) : http://fab.cba.mit.edu/

256

F.A.T Lab : http://fffff.at/

Free Software Foundation : https://fsf.org/

GNU project : http://www.gnu.org/

Internet Archive : https://archive.org/

Scinfolex : http://scinfolex.com/

Sharelex : http://www.sharelex.org/

Wikimedia Foundation : https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Home

257

258

Annexe 1

Why metadata matters, by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (2013)

259

Annexe 2

Campaign for privacy by the Free Software Foundation (2013)

260

Annexe 3

Berlin protest on September 07 2013. Picture by the German Pirate Party to protest against the NSAsurveillance, with a playful reference to the GNU system. Source :https://twitter.com/Piratenpartei/status/417091857546346497

261

Annexe 4

Informational flow by Nina Paley

262

263

Submission tocopyright law

threatening thecreative process

Intellectualdisobedience(Paley, 2014)

Annexe 5

The battle of copyright, by Christopher Dombres

264

Annexe 6

Lincoln Logs and Lego (picture 1) and K'Nex and Legos (picure 2) connected thanks to theFree Universal Construction Kit

265

Annexe 7

266

Annexe 8

FSF's picture of iBad with branded design and fonts in order to favor the brand recognition and thesubversive message's penetration of the individuals' mind via the solicitation of their cognitive fluidity

267

Annexe 9

“Cryptoïd monkeys” and Telecomix logo standing for, at least, 47 different interpretations (Okhin,2012)

268

Annexe 10

Mimi and Eunice comic strip by Nina Paley : http://mimiandeunice.com/

269