From www@cordova.asap.um.maine.edu Wed Nov 12 11:34:09 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org Received: from cordova.asap.um.maine.edu (cordova.asap.um.maine.edu [130.111.220.245]) by happyhouse.metalab.unc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C76D2007A for ; Wed, 12 Nov 2003 11:34:09 -0500 (EST) Received: by cordova.asap.um.maine.edu (Postfix, from userid 70) id 6F89491468; Wed, 12 Nov 2003 11:34:09 -0500 (EST) To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org From: Joline_Blais@umit.maine.edu In-Reply-To: Message-Id: <20031112163409.6F89491468@cordova.asap.um.maine.edu> Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 11:34:09 -0500 (EST) X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 11:48:17 -0500 Subject: [cc-eyebeam] Welcome to Distributed Creativity X-BeenThere: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.2 Precedence: list Reply-To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org List-Id: Creative Commons-Eyebeam Forum 2003 November 12-19 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 16:34:09 -0000 Welcome to Distributed Creativity, a critical online forum co-organized by Still Water at UMaine and Eyebeam. What do we mean by Distributed Creativity? In a word, creative practices and communities that challenge the single-artist, art-object paradigm. This is already happening all around us. Artists are organizing impromptu street actions by mobile phone, musicians are repurposing peer-to-peer applications for artistic ends, and programmers are distributing electronic toolkits to help artists leap from code to creation. Our task is to reflect on new paradigms for art making that take advantage of mobile and distributed technologies such as WiFi, Weblogs, Wikis, rich Internet applications, voice over IP and social software. With the support of our forum co-hosts Creative Commons, DATA, Fibreculture and Rhizome, we will be discussing the dynamics of this new kind of work that is both creative and distributed. Each week, we’ll examine creative and distributed work that relies on legal, technical, ethical, authorial, or commercial innovations. We’ll ask how these innovations support “distributed creativity” and what they mean to our increasingly outmoded definitions of what constitutes art. And we’ll ask what implications these new ways of working have not only within, but also outside, the art worlds—both traditional and digital. This week, November 12-19, the topic is: Copyleft, Right & Center: Innovations in Law w/ Creative Commons. You can find more information about this, and later weeks at: Distributed Creativity Wiki I’d like to welcome our moderators for this week—Lawrence Lessig, Glenn Otis Brown, Neeru Paharia —, who will have some questions of their own, but in the meantime, I'd like to get the conversation going with this opening: In a media landscape increasingly dominated by corporate monopolies, some netizens have abandoned hope that the legal system will support the commons of ideas and culture that gave rise to the early Internet. Instead they propose a distributed approach to legal innovation: open licenses, tools for community activism, and consciousness-raising exhibitions. Will these innovations suffice to ensure a creative commons for current and emerging culture? Joline Blais Asst Prof New Media, UMaine Co-Director, Still Water for network art and culture newmedia.umaine.edu/stillwater From riolo@voicenet.com Wed Nov 12 13:13:27 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org Received: from mailfilter1.voicenet.com (mailfilter1.voicenet.com [207.103.0.42]) by happyhouse.metalab.unc.edu (Postfix) with SMTP id 155B72001B for ; Wed, 12 Nov 2003 13:13:27 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 10316 invoked from network); 12 Nov 2003 18:13:26 -0000 Received: from unix01.voicenet.com (209.71.48.250) by mailfilter1.voicenet.com with SMTP; 12 Nov 2003 18:13:26 -0000 Received: (qmail 17756 invoked by uid 4342); 12 Nov 2003 18:13:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost) (129.139.40.29) by unix01.voicenet.com with SMTP; 12 Nov 2003 18:13:19 -0000 Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 13:13:18 -0500 (EST) From: Joseph Pietro Riolo To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org Subject: Re: [cc-eyebeam] Welcome to Distributed Creativity In-Reply-To: <20031112163409.6F89491468@cordova.asap.um.maine.edu> Message-ID: References: <20031112163409.6F89491468@cordova.asap.um.maine.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: X-BeenThere: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.2 Precedence: list Reply-To: Creative Commons-Eyebeam Forum 2003 November 12-19 List-Id: Creative Commons-Eyebeam Forum 2003 November 12-19 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 18:13:27 -0000 On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 Joline Blais wrote: > > Welcome to Distributed Creativity, a critical=20 > online forum co-organized by Still Water at=20 > UMaine and Eyebeam. Thanks for the welcome. :-) > ... but in the meantime, I'd like to > get the conversation going with this opening: > > In a media landscape increasingly dominated > by corporate monopolies, > some netizens have abandoned hope that the > legal system will support > the commons of ideas and culture that gave > rise to the early Internet. > > Instead they propose a distributed approach > to legal innovation: open > licenses, tools for community activism, and > consciousness-raising exhibitions. > > Will these innovations suffice to ensure a > creative commons for current and emerging > culture? The answer is definitely no. One reason is the innovations are still subject to the same legal system that make the corporate monoplies possible. It is like trying to follow devil's rules to be a good person. As an example, the open licenses do not change the legal system at all. They just maintain the status quo. If the copyright term is extended, the term of open licenses is extended as well. The fundamental ideas behind the legal system need to be changed. Although the innovations you mentioned are not sufficient, they could be a catalyst for the change in the legal system. Whether this will be possible remains to be seen. (The culture you mentioned has not made a dent in our society yet.) Joseph Pietro Riolo Public domain notice: I put all of my expressions in this post in the public domain. From neeru@creativecommons.org Wed Nov 12 13:38:42 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org Received: from out2.smtp.messagingengine.com (out2.smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.26]) by happyhouse.metalab.unc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E25420091 for ; Wed, 12 Nov 2003 13:38:42 -0500 (EST) X-Sasl-enc: anJCD79mgBUFw4YqAITR2A 1068662201 Received: from [172.16.1.34] (adsl-63-202-81-74.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net [63.202.81.74]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A7313FD8EC for ; Wed, 12 Nov 2003 13:36:41 -0500 (EST) User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/10.0.0.1309 Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 10:43:27 -0800 Subject: Re: [cc-eyebeam] Welcome to Distributed Creativity From: Neeru Paharia To: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20031112163409.6F89491468@cordova.asap.um.maine.edu> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="B_3151478608_10935995" X-BeenThere: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.2 Precedence: list Reply-To: Creative Commons-Eyebeam Forum 2003 November 12-19 List-Id: Creative Commons-Eyebeam Forum 2003 November 12-19 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 18:38:42 -0000 > This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. --B_3151478608_10935995 Content-type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable > Will these innovations suffice to ensure a > creative commons for current and emerging > culture?=20 We sure hope so! On behalf of Creative Commons, welcome to the list. We hope this week=B9s discussion will expose ideas and issues that we can act on in the future. =20 If you don't know much about Creative Commons, please check out http://creativecommons.org/learn, where you can access a 5-minute Flash, an= d a few web comics that discuss our mission and model. The current state of copyright provides challenges to innovation for the following reasons: *Works are naturally copyrighted by default. The moment you draw a picture= , or write a melody, it=B9s protected whether you want it or not. *Copyright is actually a bundle of rights that you may not all want (display, distribute, copy, perform, make derivates, commercial gain, etc.) *There is no easy way to give up some, or all of these rights. Even the US Copyright Office can=B9t help you. *Current online display, and distribution of content often leaves the terms-of-use vague. If I put my original song on my website for the world to download, would anyone really know without-a-doubt how they could use it= ? Could they pass it to their friends, make copies, or sync it to a movie? It=B9s unclear. Creative Commons aims to solve these problems. Our licenses allow licensors to give away specific rights, and our 3-layered model of human-readable, lawyer-readable, and machine-readable, clarifies the terms-of-use so that regular people, lawyers, and computers can understand how a work can be used.=20 Our broader goal is to enable others to keep ideas free =8B it=B9s based on the idea that new ideas and innovations are built from old ones. What would th= e world of music be like if someone copyrighted the 12-bar blues? We hope tha= t our license tools will enable the world to build a huge pool of content the= y can draw from in return. We also hope our tools will facilitate collaboration amongst people who don=B9t necessarily even know each other. We are not writing legislation, or changing the law. We are using contract law to build a reasonable layer of copyright. As more and more people adop= t Creative Commons, or other open licenses, we hope it will send a strong message to our governing bodies that the public wants an alternative, a world where we can say =B3some rights reserved=B2 as opposed to =B3all rights reserved.=B2 So I=B9d like to bring it back to Joline=B9s original questions: =B3Will these innovations suffice to ensure a creative commons for current and emerging culture?=B2 I=B9m throwing it back to the list. Does our model work? How can it be improved? What are the challenges for adoption? What are some other innovative ways we can promote sharing and re-use on the Internet? How can we communicate our message more clearly? Who needs to hear it? Looking forward to your ideas. Neeru --=20 Neeru Paharia Assistant Director creativecommons.org 650.724.3717 On 11/12/03 8:34 AM, "Joline_Blais@umit.maine.edu" wrote: >=20 > Welcome to Distributed Creativity, a critical > online forum co-organized by Still Water at > UMaine and Eyebeam. >=20 > What do we mean by Distributed Creativity? In > a word, creative practices and communities > that challenge the single-artist, art-object > paradigm. This is already happening all > around us. Artists are organizing impromptu > street actions by mobile phone, musicians are > repurposing peer-to-peer applications for > artistic ends, and programmers are > distributing electronic toolkits to help > artists leap from code to creation. >=20 > Our task is to reflect on new paradigms > for art making that take advantage of mobile > and distributed technologies such as WiFi, > Weblogs, Wikis, rich Internet applications, > voice over IP and social software. With the > support of our forum co-hosts Creative > Commons, DATA, Fibreculture and Rhizome, we > will be discussing the dynamics of this new > kind of work that is both creative and > distributed. >=20 > Each week, we=92ll examine creative and > distributed work that relies on legal, > technical, ethical, authorial, or commercial > innovations. We=92ll ask how these innovations > support =93distributed creativity=94 and what > they mean to our increasingly outmoded > definitions of what constitutes art. And > we=92ll ask what implications these new ways of > working have not only within, but also > outside, the art worlds=97both traditional and > digital. >=20 >=20 > This week, November 12-19, the topic is: >=20 > Copyleft, Right & Center: Innovations in > Law >=20 > w/ Creative Commons. >=20 > You can find more information about this, and > later weeks at: Distributed > Creativity Wiki >=20 > I=92d like to welcome our moderators for this > week=97Lawrence Lessig, Glenn Otis Brown, Neeru > Paharia =97, who will have some questions of > their own, but in the meantime, I'd like to > get the conversation going with this opening: >=20 > In a media landscape increasingly dominated > by corporate monopolies, > some netizens have abandoned hope that the > legal system will support > the commons of ideas and culture that gave > rise to the early Internet. >=20 > Instead they propose a distributed approach > to legal innovation: open > licenses, tools for community activism, and > consciousness-raising exhibitions. >=20 > Will these innovations suffice to ensure a > creative commons for current and emerging > culture?=20 >=20 > Joline Blais > Asst Prof New Media, UMaine > Co-Director, Still Water for network art and > culture > newmedia.umaine.edu/stillwater > _______________________________________________ > cc-eyebeam mailing list > cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-eyebeam >=20 > This discussion runs 2003 November 12-19. Submissions are licensed > under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike > license . >=20 --B_3151478608_10935995 Content-type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Re: [cc-eyebeam] Welcome to Distributed Creativity > Will these innovations suff= ice to ensure a
> creative commons for current and emerging
> culture?

We sure hope so!  On behalf of Creative Commons, welcome to the list. = We hope this week’s discussion will expose ideas and issues that we ca= n act on in the future.  

If you don't know much about Creative Commons, please check out http://crea= tivecommons.org/learn, where you can access a 5-minute Flash, and a few web = comics that discuss our mission and model.

The current state of copyright provides challenges to innovation for the fo= llowing reasons:

*Works are naturally copyrighted by default.  The moment you draw a pi= cture, or write a melody, it’s protected whether you want it or not. *Copyright is actually a bundle of rights that you may not all want (displa= y, distribute, copy, perform, make derivates, commercial gain, etc.)  <= BR> *There is no easy way to give up some, or all of these rights.  Even t= he US Copyright Office can’t help you.
*Current online display, and distribution of content often leaves the terms= -of-use vague.  If I put my original song on my website for the world t= o download, would anyone really know without-a-doubt how they could use it? = Could they pass it to their friends, make copies, or sync it to a movie? It&= #8217;s unclear.

Creative Commons aims to solve these problems. Our licenses allow licensors= to give away specific rights, and our 3-layered model of human-readable, la= wyer-readable, and machine-readable, clarifies the terms-of-use so that regu= lar people, lawyers, and computers can understand how a work can be used.
Our broader goal is to enable others to keep ideas free — it’s = based on the idea that new ideas and innovations are built from old ones. &n= bsp;What would the world of music be like if someone copyrighted the 12-bar = blues? We hope that our license tools will enable the world to build a huge = pool of content they can draw from in return.    We also hope= our tools will facilitate collaboration amongst people who don’t nece= ssarily even know each other.  

We are not writing legislation, or changing the law.  We are using con= tract law to build a reasonable layer of copyright.  As more and more p= eople adopt Creative Commons, or other open licenses, we hope it will send a= strong message to our governing bodies that the public wants an alternative= , a world where we can say “some rights reserved” as opposed to = “all rights reserved.”

So I’d like to bring it back to Joline’s original questions: &#= 8220;Will these innovations suffice to ensure a creati= ve commons for current and emerging culture?”

I’m throwing it back to the list.  Does our model work? How can = it be improved? What are the challenges for adoption?  What are some ot= her innovative ways we can promote sharing and re-use on the Internet? How c= an we communicate our message more clearly?  Who needs to hear it?

Looking forward to your ideas.

Neeru


--
Neeru Paharia
Assistant Director
creativecommons.org
650.724.3717



On 11/12/03 8:34 AM, "Joline_Blais@umit.maine.edu" <Joline_Bla= is@umit.maine.edu> wrote:

>
> Welcome to Distributed Creativity, a critical
> online forum co-organized by Still Water at
> UMaine and Eyebeam.
>
> What do we mean by Distributed Creativity? In
> a word, creative practices and communities
> that challenge the single-artist, art-object
> paradigm. This is already happening all
> around us. Artists are organizing impromptu
> street actions by mobile phone, musicians are
> repurposing peer-to-peer applications for
> artistic ends, and programmers are
> distributing electronic toolkits to help
> artists leap from code to creation.
>
> Our task is to reflect on new paradigms
> for art making that take advantage of mobile
> and distributed technologies such as WiFi,
> Weblogs, Wikis, rich Internet applications,
> voice over IP and social software. With the
> support of our forum co-hosts Creative
> Commons, DATA, Fibreculture and Rhizome, we
> will be discussing the dynamics of this new
> kind of work that is both creative and
> distributed.
>
> Each week, we?ll examine creative and
> distributed work that relies on legal,
> technical, ethical, authorial, or commercial
> innovations. We?ll ask how these innovations
> support ?distributed creativity? and what
> they mean to our increasingly outmoded
> definitions of what constitutes art. And
> we?ll ask what implications these new ways of
> working have not only within, but also
> outside, the art worlds?both traditional and
> digital.
>
>
> This week, November 12-19, the topic is:
>
> <b>Copyleft, Right & Center: Innovations in
> Law</b>
>
> w/ Creative Commons.
>
> You can find more information about this, and
> later weeks at: <!-- @@a href=3D"http://
> cordova.asap.um.maine.edu/~blaisj/phpwiki/
> index.php/
> Distributed%20Creativity%20Wik"-->Distributed
> Creativity Wiki<!-- @@/a-->
>
> I?d like to welcome our moderators for this
> week?Lawrence Lessig, Glenn Otis Brown, Neeru
> Paharia ?, who will have some questions of
> their own, but in the meantime, I'd like to
> get the conversation going with this opening:
>
> In a media landscape increasingly dominated
> by corporate monopolies,
> some netizens have abandoned hope that the
> legal system will support
> the commons of ideas and culture that gave
> rise to the early Internet.
>
> Instead they propose a distributed approach
> to legal innovation: open
> licenses, tools for community activism, and
> consciousness-raising exhibitions.
>
> Will these innovations suffice to ensure a
> creative commons for current and emerging
> culture?
>
> Joline Blais
> Asst Prof New Media, UMaine
> Co-Director, Still Water for network art and
> culture
> <!-- @@a href=3D"newmedia.umaine.edu/
> stillwater"-->newmedia.umaine.edu/stillwater<!-- @@/
> a-->
> _______________________________________________
> cc-eyebeam mailing list
> cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-eyebeam
>
> This discussion runs 2003 November 12-19.  Submissions are licens= ed
> under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike
> license <http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/1.0/>.
>
--B_3151478608_10935995-- From beads@newcastlegardens.com Wed Nov 12 15:21:43 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org Received: from ns2.sterlingmi.com (ns2.sterlingmi.com [68.72.235.4]) by happyhouse.metalab.unc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96E3A2001D for ; Wed, 12 Nov 2003 15:21:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from ns2.sterlingmi.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by ns2.sterlingmi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2FF7357F3C; Wed, 12 Nov 2003 15:16:30 -0500 (EST) From: "rejiquar" To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 15:16:30 -0500 Message-Id: <20031112201420.M78316@newcastlegardens.com> X-Mailer: Open WebMail 2.10 20030927 X-OriginatingIP: 66.93.1.93 (sylvus) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Subject: [cc-eyebeam] Tradeoff between flexibility & compatibility X-BeenThere: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.2 Precedence: list Reply-To: Neeru Paharia , Creative Commons-Eyebeam Forum 2003 November 12-19 List-Id: Creative Commons-Eyebeam Forum 2003 November 12-19 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 20:21:44 -0000 Dear Mr. Paharia (and other members of this list): I don't know enough to answer your larger questions, but I've spent a fair portion of time cruising through the Creative Commons site, and some specific difficulties that occurred to me. On the theory that larger concepts are derived from specific problems perhaps you (all) could address these: In my view the SA (share-alike) analog in the GPL is a major part of its value. I've been wanting to GPL most of my website for a while now, and never got around to it; now a Creative Commons license seems a more-suited choice since I am an artist, not a programmer. The operative word is a, rather than the. The difficulty in choosing licenses is the differing idealogical goals of derivative use. I have no objections to people incorporating my work into theirs and selling it; but if they feel really strongly their own work shouldn't be sold, I don't have a problem with that, either. I do have a problem with the non-commercial types reserving the right to sell my incorporated work while forcing any of their derivers downstream only to offer it for free, as this strikes me as undermining the goal of the SA clause. These problems have been touched upon in the Creative Commons archives, in which one person stated flatly s/he did not want his/her work to be used by someone with differing philosophical goals! Good grief, we all have differing philosophies, on some level, surely? So far as I can tell (big assumption, there, I realize) there is no easy way to choose a license that allows me to allow either commercial or non-commercial use downstream. GPL gets around this, so far as I can tell, by not allowing restrictions on commerce. This leads to what could be a potentially bigger problem, touched on in the archives---what is called (I think?) the problem of non-interleaving (or incompatible) licenses. The issue of compatibility strikes me as such an important one I would give up the non-commerical SA requirement mentioned above rather than sacrifice the compatibility with other people's choices. It seems to me that Creative Commons' tradeoffs between compatibility between licenses and flexibility (for the licensor) is still in flux. Where is it, and why does this position best further the goals of a shared `Creative Commons'? As I said, I haven't really figured out how these issues are to be handled. I've really only been reading on this stuff for several days, and I think very slowly. What do others think? Thank you for your kind attention. Very truly yours, Sylvus Tarn (Rejiquar) -- Open WebMail Project (http://openwebmail.org) From www@cordova.asap.um.maine.edu Wed Nov 12 17:18:58 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org Received: from cordova.asap.um.maine.edu (cordova.asap.um.maine.edu [130.111.220.245]) by happyhouse.metalab.unc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88857200A2 for ; Wed, 12 Nov 2003 17:18:57 -0500 (EST) Received: by cordova.asap.um.maine.edu (Postfix, from userid 70) id D420E916B5; Wed, 12 Nov 2003 17:18:56 -0500 (EST) To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org Subject: new licenses -- Re: [cc-eyebeam] Welcome to Distributed Creativity From: cz@zanni.org In-Reply-To: Message-Id: <20031112221856.D420E916B5@cordova.asap.um.maine.edu> Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 17:18:56 -0500 (EST) X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 17:36:24 -0500 X-BeenThere: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.2 Precedence: list Reply-To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org List-Id: Creative Commons-Eyebeam Forum 2003 November 12-19 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 22:18:58 -0000 (Hello all...) Hi Neeru, how are you.. I have two questions for you: >>>>>*Works are naturally copyrighted by default. The moment you draw a picture or write a melody, it's protected whether you want it or not. In which sense? Do I need to write "this piece is under this xyz license" to allow copies and so on? What I think is that these new kind of licenses can be easier applied to products sold in a more traditional context (music, texts) than to art-objects sold in a parallel market such as artmarket is... How do you think to apply these licenses to a painting? Or to a NetArt piece, which in my mind has no big differences in poetics and authorship terms. In truth I find CreativeCommons set of licenses very interesting ("Choose License" tool is very helpful) but not so well applicable to an art piece... but of course.. I'm here to learn and to know more about this subject. thanks a lot, best, cz From www@cordova.asap.um.maine.edu Wed Nov 12 17:29:23 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org Received: from cordova.asap.um.maine.edu (cordova.asap.um.maine.edu [130.111.220.245]) by happyhouse.metalab.unc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 229722001D for ; Wed, 12 Nov 2003 17:29:23 -0500 (EST) Received: by cordova.asap.um.maine.edu (Postfix, from userid 70) id D301B916C4; Wed, 12 Nov 2003 17:29:22 -0500 (EST) To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org From: tompoe@amihost.com In-Reply-To: Message-Id: <20031112222922.D301B916C4@cordova.asap.um.maine.edu> Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 17:29:22 -0500 (EST) X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 17:36:24 -0500 Subject: [cc-eyebeam] Re: Welcome to Distributed Creativity X-BeenThere: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.2 Precedence: list Reply-To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org List-Id: Creative Commons-Eyebeam Forum 2003 November 12-19 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 22:29:23 -0000 " . . .they propose a distributed approach to legal innovation: open licenses, tools for community activism, and consciousness-raising exhibitions. Will these innovations suffice to ensure a creative commons for current and emerging culture? " I'd like to raise two comments/ideas to consider: First, I think there might be one more option in your list, that of "interactive consciousness-raising exhibitions". The computer, for many, represents empowerment of the individual, in the same way the Gutenburg Press represented empowerment of the People. With that in mind, the Internet offers an interactive means for the world community to communicate. Corporate interests view this form of communication as an intriguing distribution channel for their products. If, as they would have their way, the communications capabilities of the Internet could be closed, the opportunity to shift empowerment of the individual to a few would enable a major streamlining of yet another distribution channel for them (whoever they are that view themselves as content providers). It will be through interactive consciousness-raising exhibitions that we should see current and emerging culture prevail. Second, the Creative Commons Project offers a means for identifying those works that favor the empowerment of the individual. By that, I mean, our present copyright law does not meet the needs of those who utilize the Internet for offering and receiving information about their products or creative works. However, the "tagging" of works licensed under the Creative Commons Project provides the legal foundation for what seems like an alternative system for operating in the Digital Age. There is no question, that once the corporate interests recognize the power of the Creative Commons Project, that we'll see a movement towards acceptance of this approach. After all, licensing through the Creative Commons provides the license holder with ownership rights into perpetuity. The drawback is, the world community will be able to easily identify those who would abuse such a system, and choose not to participate in purchasing or supporting such entities. This is a form of interactive consciousness-raising exhibition as I understand the phrase. Another form is found in our model for assisting communities to build and operate community-based recording studios. From musicians, to artists, to authors, to small businesses, to nonprofit organizations, the tools (multi-media computers) empower communities to participate in fund-raising, marketing, and audience-building at no cost to the users. Yet one more example, on another level, is to be seen with SONG STORM, a playlist contest site. Here, visitors can access music through song lists, or playlists, internet stations that play those songs, and the artists that create those songs. The Fan Clubs section provides a means to participate in Digital Age fashion, replacing the licensing agencies that now perform the function of enforcement of artist rights. These clubs are actually self-policing tools for individuals in the arts. Such models will ensure a creative commons for current and emerging culture around the world. From glenn@creativecommons.org Wed Nov 12 20:09:55 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org Received: from out2.smtp.messagingengine.com (out2.smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.26]) by happyhouse.metalab.unc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id E042920042 for ; Wed, 12 Nov 2003 20:09:54 -0500 (EST) X-Sasl-enc: UIh855jtu7OQOAClheWAgg 1068685792 Received: from [171.64.215.77] (DNab40d74d.Stanford.EDU [171.64.215.77]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E6441400E1B for ; Wed, 12 Nov 2003 20:09:51 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v606) To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org Message-Id: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-2-155424017 From: Glenn Otis Brown Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 17:08:57 +0000 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.606) Subject: [cc-eyebeam] more from Creative Commons X-BeenThere: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.2 Precedence: list Reply-To: Creative Commons-Eyebeam Forum 2003 November 12-19 List-Id: Creative Commons-Eyebeam Forum 2003 November 12-19 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 01:09:55 -0000 --Apple-Mail-2-155424017 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed This is my first post to the list, so I want to echo Neeru's thanks to Eyebeam and the StillWater program at U. of Maine for having Creative Commons involved. (Nice press, by the way, on Eyebeam in the New York Times recently: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/09/arts/design/09BARD.html). Here are a couple of responses to some of the specific points raised so far (we're just getting into it, and already it's interesting.) (1) Rejiquar wrote: ----- I do have a problem with the non-commercial types reserving the right to sell my incorporated work while forcing any of their derivers downstream only to offer it for free, as this strikes me as undermining the goal of the SA clause. . . . So far as I can tell (big assumption, there, I realize) there is no easy way to choose a license that allows me to allow either commercial or non-commercial use downstream. GPL gets around this, so far as I can tell, by not allowing restrictions on commerce. ---- If you chose a share alike license that did not prohibit commercial use, then anyone could make any use of derived works provided they relicensed them under the same terms. The BY-SA and plain-old SA licenses are philosophically and practically the same as the GPL. That said, we're about to offer a license that gives the licensor more flexibility in choosing what sorts of uses can be done commercially, and which not. Right now the noncommercial provision acts in a blanket fashion: if you prohibit commercial uses of derived works, you also prohibit commercial uses of verbatim copies (or, vice versa). This winter we're offering two new licenses, the Sampling Licenses, that let an author invite people to commercialize tranformative derivatives but not to make commercial use of verbatim copies. The idea is to reward transformation, re-creativity. We got the idea from Negativland, Vicki Bennett (Peoplelikeus.org), and Brazilian minister of culture and legendary musician Gilberto Gil. You can read more about the sampling licenses here: . Does this address your question? (2) Joline Blaise wrote: --- In a media landscape increasingly dominated by corporate monopolies, some netizens have abandoned hope that the legal system will support the commons of ideas and culture that gave rise to the early Internet. Instead they propose a distributed approach to legal innovation: open licenses, tools for community activism, and consciousness-raising exhibitions. Will these innovations suffice to ensure a creative commons for current and emerging culture? --- Like Neeru said, this is definitely our ambition, but I think we're realistic that our effort alone -- and just as important, our *kind* of effort alone -- won't be enough to protect the commons. It's one tool among many others: there are great groups like the EFF and Publicknowledge.org taking the good fight into the courtrooms and halls of policy out there; there are journalists' and consumer-rights groups fighting for independence in media; and, just as important, there are savvy and gutsy entrepreneurs fighting to establish new, viable business models that will allocate our cultural resources more efficiently while breaking up the stagnant old order at the same time. The Creative Commons approach, like the free software and open-source approaches, is different: It's not about changing the law (directly anyway). It's about changing attitudes about copyright, about educating people how it works, about injecting a much-needed dose of sobriety and balance into the debate. And more important, it's about meeting various kinds of unmet demand out there: (a) to offer a very easy way for people who aren't obsessed with "all rights reserved" to say so, (b) to cut out unnecessary middlemen and legal doubt, and ultimately, (c) to build a huge body of culture that is free to drawn upon. People crave this kind of stuff, and we hope we've begun to provide it. That's our role in this whole topsy-turvy world of media change; it's a necessary effort, but by no means sufficient, standing alone, to cure all our ills in this area. Thanks again for having us participate in the forum. Looking forward to more comments . . . Glenn --Apple-Mail-2-155424017 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/enriched; charset=US-ASCII This is my first post to the list, so I want to echo Neeru's thanks to Eyebeam and the StillWater program at U. of Maine for having Creative Commons involved. (Nice press, by the way, on Eyebeam in the New York Times recently: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/09/arts/design/09BARD.html). Here are a couple of responses to some of the specific points raised so far (we're just getting into it, and already it's interesting.) (1) Rejiquar wrote: ----- CourierI do have a problem with the non-commercial types reserving the right to sell my incorporated work while forcing any of their derivers downstream only to offer it for free, as this strikes me as undermining the goal of the SA clause. . . . So far as I can tell (big assumption, there, I realize) there is no easy way to choose a license that allows me to allow either commercial or non-commercial use downstream. GPL gets around this, so far as I can tell, by not allowing restrictions on commerce. ---- If you chose a share alike license that did not prohibit commercial use, then anyone could make any use of derived works provided they relicensed them under the same terms. The BY-SA and plain-old SA licenses are philosophically and practically the same as the GPL. That said, we're about to offer a license that gives the licensor more flexibility in choosing what sorts of uses can be done commercially, and which not. Right now the noncommercial provision acts in a blanket fashion: if you prohibit commercial uses of derived works, you also prohibit commercial uses of verbatim copies (or, vice versa). This winter we're offering two new licenses, the Sampling Licenses, that let an author invite people to commercialize tranformative derivatives but not to make commercial use of verbatim copies. The idea is to reward transformation, re-creativity. We got the idea from Negativland, Vicki Bennett (Peoplelikeus.org), and Brazilian minister of culture and legendary musician Gilberto Gil. You can read more about the sampling licenses here: <. Does this address your question? (2) Joline Blaise wrote: --- CourierIn a media landscape increasingly dominated by corporate monopolies, some netizens have abandoned hope that the legal system will support the commons of ideas and culture that gave rise to the early Internet. Instead they propose a distributed approach to legal innovation: open licenses, tools for community activism, and consciousness-raising exhibitions. Will these innovations suffice to ensure a creative commons for current and emerging culture? --- Like Neeru said, this is definitely our ambition, but I think we're realistic that our effort alone -- and just as important, our *kind* of effort alone -- won't be enough to protect the commons. It's one tool among many others: there are great groups like the EFF and Publicknowledge.org taking the good fight into the courtrooms and halls of policy out there; there are journalists' and consumer-rights groups fighting for independence in media; and, just as important, there are savvy and gutsy entrepreneurs fighting to establish new, viable business models that will allocate our cultural resources more efficiently while breaking up the stagnant old order at the same time. The Creative Commons approach, like the free software and open-source approaches, is different: It's not about changing the law (directly anyway). It's about changing attitudes about copyright, about educating people how it works, about injecting a much-needed dose of sobriety and balance into the debate. And more important, it's about meeting various kinds of unmet demand out there: (a) to offer a very easy way for people who aren't obsessed with "all rights reserved" to say so, (b) to cut out unnecessary middlemen and legal doubt, and ultimately, (c) to build a huge body of culture that is free to drawn upon. People crave this kind of stuff, and we hope we've begun to provide it. That's our role in this whole topsy-turvy world of media change; it's a necessary effort, but by no means sufficient, standing alone, to cure all our ills in this area. Thanks again for having us participate in the forum. Looking forward to more comments . . . Glenn --Apple-Mail-2-155424017-- From heather@gn.apc.org Wed Nov 12 23:40:57 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org Received: from mail.gn.apc.org (greennet1.poptel.org.uk [213.55.2.205]) by happyhouse.metalab.unc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04D4C2001C for ; Wed, 12 Nov 2003 23:40:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (unknown [192.168.0.2]) by mail.gn.apc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D718E14B653 for ; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 04:40:46 +0000 (GMT) Received: from guest.gn.apc.org (unknown [207.88.38.30]) by mail.gn.apc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C75D314B5EA for ; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 04:40:42 +0000 (GMT) Message-Id: <6.0.0.22.0.20031112153753.0201df00@pop.gn.apc.org> X-Sender: heather@pop.gn.apc.org X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.0.0.22 Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 20:40:40 -0800 To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org From: Heather Ford Subject: Re: [cc-eyebeam] Re: Welcome to Distributed Creativity In-Reply-To: <20031112222922.D301B916C4@cordova.asap.um.maine.edu> References: <20031112222922.D301B916C4@cordova.asap.um.maine.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at gn.apc.org X-BeenThere: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.2 Precedence: list Reply-To: Creative Commons-Eyebeam Forum 2003 November 12-19 List-Id: Creative Commons-Eyebeam Forum 2003 November 12-19 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 04:40:57 -0000 Hi all, I'd like to bring another perspective from the developing world. I'm a South African and have been doing Internet development work for non-profits in South Africa for the past 4 years. I'm currently at Stanford University working on community weblogging models for use in telecentres and community access points in developing countries. I'd like to start by saying that I'm a big fan of Creative Commons because I think that, aside from offering a very practical alternative to the default copyright rules that govern content, cc catalyses people to question the default copyright model and its impact on development. There are, however, very significant issues that need to be addressed if we want to make Creative Commons relevant to the developing world. South Africa is a developing country where we import a lot more culture (and 'intellectual property') than we export. There are a lot of reasons for this, which I won't go into, but the main effect of this is that we are becoming incredibly immersed in American culture and are fast losing knowledge of our roots. Creative Commons licenses offer a wonderful way for developing countries to gain access to content and also for individuals within these countries to stimulate local cultural development. As Glenn says, this is just *one* way for us to advance ideas about how we think intellectual property rights should work - but the good thing is that it can engage more people in a debate that is usually confined to the meeting halls of politicians and lawyers, and those much bigger monsters like the WTO and TRIPS that have such a huge impact on our innovation and development. What I'd really like to see is that developing countries use Creative Commons licenses - and distributed creativity models - to become actively engaged in the culture-making process. If people use the licenses to adapt content to local contexts (and I think that this feature is essential to the success of cc in the developing world) then it can become very useful to the culture industry in South Africa. For example, a musician writes a song and releases it under a share alike license. A South African picks up the song and puts a marabi rhythm to it and then distributes the song. This is much better, I think, than just making it cheaper for South Africans to buy music - because what we don't want is for it to become easier to become more reliant on the US for giving us our culture. Another feature that would be great for the developing world is a license that allows translation into a local language. In fact, I think of translation not only in terms of language, but in terms of local context. All the content in the world can be free, but if its not locally relevant, then its not really useful. This is especially true for educational content. I look forward to the discussions (and arguments) that I hope will follow. Heather Ford. From www@cordova.asap.um.maine.edu Thu Nov 13 08:54:11 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org Received: from cordova.asap.um.maine.edu (cordova.asap.um.maine.edu [130.111.220.245]) by happyhouse.metalab.unc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10E2C20080 for ; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 08:54:11 -0500 (EST) Received: by cordova.asap.um.maine.edu (Postfix, from userid 70) id A83D491828; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 08:54:10 -0500 (EST) To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org From: dmytrik@trick.ca In-Reply-To: Message-Id: <20031113135410.A83D491828@cordova.asap.um.maine.edu> Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 08:54:10 -0500 (EST) X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 10:47:57 -0500 Subject: [cc-eyebeam] Intellectual Property Is Fraud X-BeenThere: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.2 Precedence: list Reply-To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org List-Id: Creative Commons-Eyebeam Forum 2003 November 12-19 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 13:54:11 -0000 Incidentalist Manifestos Incidentalism is not a style of art, but rather an attitude towards the practice of art. Incidentalists are artists of any style, practice or medium who apply incidentalism in their work. Articulating The New The artist is a worker of boundries. To articulate is to express by manipulating boundries, boundries in sounds and shapes, boundaries in beliefs and behaviour. Whether for a page, canvas, stage or a moment of pregnant silence, it is the task of the artist to express that which has never been. It is through this articulation, this boundary work, that new ideas, new knowledge and new techniques first emerge. WHEREAS, it is the artist who is the bringer of the new, SO THEREFORE incidentalism is a strategy for provoking new expressions. Beyond Preconception The new cannot be achieved with skill or knowledge, both of which are rooted in the past, and are artifacts of the old. You cannot find the new by way of that which you have already conceived. If the outcome of an incident can be imagined, any enlightenment has already been perceived in the imagining; only the un-planned can reveal the un-preconcieved. Incidentalism seeks to introduce uncontrollable or unpredictable factors into the incident of art. WHEREAS incidentalism strives to express the new, SO THEREFORE it is not our purpose to use art as a tool to demonstrate our own skill or knowledge, but rather to use art as an apparatus to incite expressions that are beyond our own preconceptions. Art and Residue Art is not an object, art happens. Art happens when the actions of artists bring expressions into a state where they can be perceived. All objects that result from an incident are merely the residue of the incident, not the art itself. WHEREAS residue incites further incidents which produce more residue, SO THEREFORE an incident never truly ends; in fact all incidents change the world. On Originality All words, colours, shapes, movements, sounds and all other forms of expressions belong to all that have perceived them or wish to express them. All expressions are extensions of previous perceptions. Even if an expression is intentinally duplicated, it will always be affected and changed by the new incident of expression. Even if an expression is purposefully unique, the artifacts of the incident and previous perceptions will always be present. While no expression can ever be exactly repeated, neither can any expression be completely new. WHEREAS, all expressions are both original and derivative, SO THEREFORE any attempt to claim ideas, knowledge or techniques as property is fraud. Freedom of Resonance Ideas, knowledge and techniques are the fuel of progress. Limits on expression are enforced by vested interests in order to retain power. The new is a threat to the power of the status quo. Since the freedom of expressions to resonate is of critical importance, incidentalism will strive to reclaim any expression stolen from the public wealth, and give resonance to expressions suppressed by censors or otherwise excluded from public dialogue. WHEREAS, expressions belong to all, SO THEREFORE all things that restrict expression are tools of oppression. Terms Incident: The moment when art happens. Incidentalist: An artist who practices incidentalism. Coincidentalists: Anybody present or involved with an incident, including the other incidentalists. Coincidentalists are not necessarily Incidentalists or share the Incidentalists motives or beliefs. Incidentalist art has no audience, only coincidentalists. Accidentalist: An accidentalist, also called a Rubist, is one who incites incidents with powerful and insightful resonance without any intention at all to do such. The work of the Accidentalist has the greatest potency because it is entirely unpreconcieved and therefore limitless in its potential to incite new and enlightening expressions. Conventionist: Conventionists admire convention and feel important because of their relationship with, or knowledge of conventions, and usually these conventions are widely propagated by vested interests. They like conventional ideas and convention-like activities where people gather, frequently in a convention center, to worship conventions. They concern themselves with inane categorizations and judge value based on the fraud of authenticity. To a conventionist a thing has more value because it more closely replicates or mimics another thing, or is more similar to an idea or type that is well-defined, and is supposedly more authentic or genuine. They admire the well-planned and do not want the unpreconcieved to affect them. Doctrines Incidentalist Inferiority Doctrine: One cannot try to be an Accidentalist -- one either is or isn't one, and even that is not a state of being but rather a role in a particular incident. The Incidentalists accept that their work will always be secondary to the work of the Accidentalist. The Incidentalists accept that they must be merely artists; the Incidentalists admires and tries to learn from the Rubist, but does not try to be or become a Rubist, as that would be futile and the results predictable. Failure Is Success Doctrine: An incidentalist does not rejoice when a test is passed with ease, but rather is disappointed because clearly the test has been too easy. If a goal is accomplished too readily, then the goal is deemed to have been set too low. If a plan goes off without a hitch, then the plan has lacked ambition. The Incidentalists are always reaching beyond their grasp, as nothing within their grasp will incite the new. Any plan of action with an easily predictable outcome is not worth doing. Manifesto as Conventionism Doctrine: By virtue of defining conventions, these Manifestos themselves contain the seeds of conventionism; they are at best a point of departure for the practicing incidentalist and not of great value. These Manifestos are intended for those who are curious about incidentalism, be they admiring conventionists or emerging incidentalists. These Manifestos are not in any way complete, conclusive or binding and are subject to change without notice. From www@cordova.asap.um.maine.edu Thu Nov 13 10:05:30 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org Received: from cordova.asap.um.maine.edu (cordova.asap.um.maine.edu [130.111.220.245]) by happyhouse.metalab.unc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD49520005 for ; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 10:05:30 -0500 (EST) Received: by cordova.asap.um.maine.edu (Postfix, from userid 70) id 8C04E9186E; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 10:05:30 -0500 (EST) To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org From: john@dx.org In-Reply-To: <6.0.0.22.0.20031112153753.0201df00@pop.gn.apc.org> Message-Id: <20031113150530.8C04E9186E@cordova.asap.um.maine.edu> Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 10:05:30 -0500 (EST) X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 10:47:57 -0500 Subject: [cc-eyebeam] copyright and the developing world X-BeenThere: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.2 Precedence: list Reply-To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org List-Id: Creative Commons-Eyebeam Forum 2003 November 12-19 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 15:05:31 -0000 Hi, I think you make some excellent points Heather. Because whereas most of the discourse about IP has focused on the 'danger' of copyright infringement to content creators, there has been almost no acknowledgement that the global dynamics of cultural consumption are profoundly weighted in favour of that same group of 'threatened' IP-owners, consisting largely of a handful of trans-national corporate content brokers that dominate the international market for copyrighted content. In other words, the hegemony of cultural copyright law is just one of many tools with which to maintain an inequitable economic pyramid that keeps people like Black South Africans (among billions of others) at the bottom of the pile. So while I think Creative Commons is doing terrific and very useful work, I am personally interested in understanding how practical economic models of cultural exchange aligned with digital values and tools can be implemented in developing nations to facilitate the flattening of that pyramid. Clearly this is a long-term proposition but I am curious if anyone can offer examples of first steps that are currently being taken to link the kind of viable micro-economy enabled by the Creative Commons licenses to macro-economic systems in developing nations. I hope this isn't too off-topic. best wishes, John Sobol www.johnsobol.com From www@cordova.asap.um.maine.edu Thu Nov 13 10:46:52 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org Received: from cordova.asap.um.maine.edu (cordova.asap.um.maine.edu [130.111.220.245]) by happyhouse.metalab.unc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id B98A82001F for ; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 10:46:52 -0500 (EST) Received: by cordova.asap.um.maine.edu (Postfix, from userid 70) id 96EE891896; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 10:46:52 -0500 (EST) To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org From: shulea@earthlink.net In-Reply-To: Message-Id: <20031113154652.96EE891896@cordova.asap.um.maine.edu> Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 10:46:52 -0500 (EST) X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 10:47:57 -0500 Subject: [cc-eyebeam] Re: Welcome to Distributed Creativity X-BeenThere: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.2 Precedence: list Reply-To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org List-Id: Creative Commons-Eyebeam Forum 2003 November 12-19 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 15:46:53 -0000 i am excited about this forum being held. recently i join a conference in DC on copyright and networked computer, the stakeholder's congress, which comes from a very different approach to this issue. http://dc-mrg.english.ucsb.edu/conference/cncsc/ here i would also like to bring up a project- Kingdom of Piracy, which first commissioned by Taiwan's ACER DIGITAL ART CENTER in 2001, has now taken up a floating, stateless status. Kingdom of Piracy <KOP> is an online floating work space to explore the free sharing of digital content - often condemned as piracy - as the net's ultimate art form. <KOP> was launched at Ars Electronica 2002 and keeps re-inventing itself in different arenas and on different platforms. <KOP> is co-curated by Shu Lea Cheang, Armin Medosch and Yukiko Shikata. http://kop.fact.co.uk http://residence.aec.at/kop KOP drops its anchor at Liverpool's FACT this past February with an exhibition focused on SHARED NETWORK application. KOP will be making its first entry exhibition in the Unites States, GAME COMMONS, at Yerba Buena Arts' GAME SCENE exhibition next january. we hope to call attention to consider the distributed creativity issue from a geo- political-culture point of view. best shu lea From www@cordova.asap.um.maine.edu Thu Nov 13 11:14:20 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org Received: from cordova.asap.um.maine.edu (cordova.asap.um.maine.edu [130.111.220.245]) by happyhouse.metalab.unc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B62720014 for ; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 11:14:20 -0500 (EST) Received: by cordova.asap.um.maine.edu (Postfix, from userid 70) id 2A016918B0; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 11:14:20 -0500 (EST) To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org From: garvinpr@fastmail.fm In-Reply-To: Message-Id: <20031113161420.2A016918B0@cordova.asap.um.maine.edu> Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 11:14:20 -0500 (EST) X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 12:15:26 -0500 Subject: [cc-eyebeam] Fair Use and the Copyright X-BeenThere: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.2 Precedence: list Reply-To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org List-Id: Creative Commons-Eyebeam Forum 2003 November 12-19 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 16:14:20 -0000

Hello everyone,

It is nice to be a part of this discussion. And thanks to Creative Commons for addressing a very relevant issue: the space between hard copyright and unfettered use.

I would like to bring into this discussion the "Fair Use" clause of the Copyright Act of 1976. Just so everyone is on the same page, here the relevant text:

Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified in that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include -- 1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; 2. the nature of the copyrighted work; 3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and 4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

I think that the Fair Use clause allows individuals with non-commercial intents to use copyrighted material. If they have commercial intent, then the Fair Use clause would be less likely to apply. Most people that are playing around in their studio, or at art fairs, or teaching courses can feel comfortable using copyrighted material. It's when profiting off of someone else's work that licenses like Creative Commons' become relevant. Thoughts?

From www@cordova.asap.um.maine.edu Thu Nov 13 12:20:58 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org Received: from cordova.asap.um.maine.edu (cordova.asap.um.maine.edu [130.111.220.245]) by happyhouse.metalab.unc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04DCF20012 for ; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 12:20:57 -0500 (EST) Received: by cordova.asap.um.maine.edu (Postfix, from userid 70) id 7D461918CA; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 12:20:57 -0500 (EST) To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org From: sloyment@gmx.net In-Reply-To: <20031113161420.2A016918B0@cordova.asap.um.maine.edu> Message-Id: <20031113172057.7D461918CA@cordova.asap.um.maine.edu> Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 12:20:57 -0500 (EST) X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 12:25:34 -0500 Subject: [cc-eyebeam] Re: Fair Use and the Copyright X-BeenThere: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.2 Precedence: list Reply-To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org List-Id: Creative Commons-Eyebeam Forum 2003 November 12-19 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 17:20:58 -0000 Hi, Fair Use does not allow you to copy and distribute whole works. From www@cordova.asap.um.maine.edu Thu Nov 13 19:14:45 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org Received: from cordova.asap.um.maine.edu (cordova.asap.um.maine.edu [130.111.220.245]) by happyhouse.metalab.unc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A76D20026 for ; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 19:14:45 -0500 (EST) Received: by cordova.asap.um.maine.edu (Postfix, from userid 70) id EA103919D9; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 19:14:44 -0500 (EST) To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org Subject: Re: [cc-eyebeam] more from Creative Commons From: donatomancini@yahoo.com In-Reply-To: Message-Id: <20031114001444.EA103919D9@cordova.asap.um.maine.edu> Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 19:14:44 -0500 (EST) X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 19:16:00 -0500 X-BeenThere: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.2 Precedence: list Reply-To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org List-Id: Creative Commons-Eyebeam Forum 2003 November 12-19 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 00:14:45 -0000 Hi, I've really only been invited as a guest for Digital Karma (with colleagues Jeremy Turner and Flick Harrison), but this discussion brings to mind some issues that have been important to me, so I want to lend a few thoughts. Curator Christina Ritchie made a good point. In an interview with sculptor James Carl she said she’s interested in work that “…positions itself as a service rather than a thing, with the aim, in general, of identifying an aesthetic dimension of ‘normal’ experience.” Moving in the direction of such an art is necessarily to move away from a type of work that is either ownable or copyrightable, as the work, like curation, becomes merely a vessel, a vehicle for the transference of ideas. Artist as middleman. Or to state it differently, I think what Ritchie is imagining is an art that situates itself as say the plumbing (the piping) rather than the content (the water). But in the realm of ideas, the “plumbing” is often going to be some kind of ineffable, immaterial activity that it can be not only difficult to hold on to (own), but even to locate at all. So, to change the metaphor again – I’m still searching for the right one – perhaps this art can/does relate to a condition like Time, in that Time shuttles all our activities, experiences, lives etc, but which in itself can barely be proven to exist, except by analogy to its effects. Do we know of very much work that achieves this? Donato From sal@opsound.org Thu Nov 13 19:22:47 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org Received: from falcon.mail.pas.earthlink.net (falcon.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.74]) by happyhouse.metalab.unc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED93F20094 for ; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 19:22:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from user-10ib275.biz.mindspring.com ([65.37.136.229] helo=[192.168.1.103]) by falcon.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 1AKRja-0005JW-00 for cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 16:22:46 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v606) In-Reply-To: <20031113161420.2A016918B0@cordova.asap.um.maine.edu> References: <20031113161420.2A016918B0@cordova.asap.um.maine.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Sal Randolph Subject: Re: [cc-eyebeam] Fair Use and the Copyright Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 19:22:41 -0500 To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.606) X-BeenThere: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.2 Precedence: list Reply-To: Creative Commons-Eyebeam Forum 2003 November 12-19 List-Id: Creative Commons-Eyebeam Forum 2003 November 12-19 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 00:22:47 -0000 On Nov 13, 2003, at 11:14 AM, garvinpr@fastmail.fm wrote: > I think that the Fair Use clause allows individuals with > non-commercial intents to use copyrighted material. If they have > commercial intent, then the Fair Use clause would be less likely to > apply. > Most people that are playing around in their studio, or at art fairs, > or > teaching courses can feel comfortable using copyrighted material. > It's when > profiting off of someone else's work that licenses like Creative > Commons' become > relevant. Thoughts? I'm not sure that artists in their studios or writers wanting to quote a poem or a song feel all that comfortable. Certainly musicians feel uncomfortable. It's very hard to know, when you're fooling around in your studio with bits of things from here and there what, exactly, will be the fate of what you're producing. I'm in a band, and during rehearsals, and in our live performances, we do very altered and deconstructed cover songs. It's always a question which ones are altered enough to be unrecognizable, which ones we can or should put on our (cc licensed) website. At this point our work is very noncommercial indeed, but what if that's not always the case? Or to take another kind of situation, some of the artists in the Illegal Art show ( http://www.illegal-art.org/ ), among them Tom Forsythe who photographs Barbie dolls (dolls which, of course, he owns) and Diana Thorneycroft who draws stuffed dolls of famous cartoon characters have been sued or had their work suppressed by galleries. It's not always because of the commercial intent of the work, but sometime simply because it depicts valuable products in unauthorized ways. Canadian law, for instance, doesn't allow parody as a legitimate form of free use. Here's what the Illegal Art website says about artist Keiron Dwyer: > "In 2000, a year after Kieron Dwyer made comic books, t-shirts, and > stickers with his version of the Starbucks logo, the company sued him, > obtaining an injunction that prevented Dwyer from using the parody > until the case was scheduled to go to court over a year later. When > the case was finally settled, Dwyer was allowed to continue displaying > his logo but only in extremely limited circumstances. No more comic > books, t-shirts, or stickers: he may post the image on the web but not > on his own website -- nor may he link from his website to any other > sites that show the parody. In short, Dwyer is permitted to use the > logo as long as Starbucks can be confident that no one will see it. " > http://www.illegal-art.org/print/index.html#consumer When something becomes a ubiquitous part of your landscape, in this case your media landscape, it also becomes part of your imagination. Images, symbols, characters, snippets of song, cartoons, commercials, movie stars, games. These are the elements we combine and recombine as we think about the world around us. -- these are the bits of culture we think *with*. Artists/writers/musicians are permitted to think aloud in terms of Snow White, say, but not in terms of Mickey Mouse. It is as if our collective conversation is missing key vocabulary words. (we can talk *about* Mickey of course, but we can't talk *using* Mickey). And, as the copyright terms extend and extend, the situation is growing worse. So I do think that the problem we've created for ourselves is much deeper than just regulating the ways people can profit from each others' work. There is a chilling effect on our collective consciousness which we should be very concerned about. From www@cordova.asap.um.maine.edu Thu Nov 13 22:11:34 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org Received: from cordova.asap.um.maine.edu (cordova.asap.um.maine.edu [130.111.220.245]) by happyhouse.metalab.unc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5FE520026 for ; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 22:11:33 -0500 (EST) Received: by cordova.asap.um.maine.edu (Postfix, from userid 70) id 9D0DB91A32; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 22:11:33 -0500 (EST) To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org From: blogdiva@culturekitchen.com In-Reply-To: Message-Id: <20031114031133.9D0DB91A32@cordova.asap.um.maine.edu> Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 22:11:33 -0500 (EST) X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 22:46:36 -0500 Subject: [cc-eyebeam] Hola Amigos X-BeenThere: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.2 Precedence: list Reply-To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org List-Id: Creative Commons-Eyebeam Forum 2003 November 12-19 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 03:11:34 -0000 Liza Sabater reporting here. As I delve deeper into the entrails of the blogosphere I come with more questions than answers on the subject of distributed creativity. For one, I am fascinated with the fact that eventhough the net art and blogging communities seem to share the same values, in their technological practices they seem to be eons apart. I am thinking of how net Artists in general are still creating online communities, salons and studios à la 1996. Net Art websites mostly function as closed systems with no syndication, no trackback and decontextualized comments (usually through forums or mailing lists that are separate from the site's content). On the other hand, the blogging community with its myriad of content management programs, their focus on standards and emphasis on syndication seem to be realizing the creative revolution of the rhizome. They are doing so by creating community, context and nodality through syndication, trackbacks and the mini-forums that post comments offer. So I am actually quite excited at the prospect of having these two groups come together in conversation and see how they can (to echo one of Joline's favorite words) cross-pollinate. I am particularly interested in seeing how this could happen with regards to discussions around each culture's technological practices. Cheers! From www@cordova.asap.um.maine.edu Thu Nov 13 23:06:13 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org Received: from cordova.asap.um.maine.edu (cordova.asap.um.maine.edu [130.111.220.245]) by happyhouse.metalab.unc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C54420023 for ; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 23:06:13 -0500 (EST) Received: by cordova.asap.um.maine.edu (Postfix, from userid 70) id 40A9991A6B; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 23:06:13 -0500 (EST) To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org From: blogdiva@culturekitchen.com In-Reply-To: <20031112163409.6F89491468@cordova.asap.um.maine.edu> Message-Id: <20031114040613.40A9991A6B@cordova.asap.um.maine.edu> Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 23:06:13 -0500 (EST) Subject: [cc-eyebeam] Re: Welcome to Distributed Creativity X-BeenThere: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.2 Precedence: list Reply-To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org List-Id: Creative Commons-Eyebeam Forum 2003 November 12-19 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 04:06:14 -0000 Joline Blais wrote: > Will these innovations suffice to ensure a creative commons for current and emerging culture? It is a start but it assumes that artists are the only ones producing culture. Most people publishing blogs have open licenses with Creative Commons because software like MovableType have the license making process embedded in the system. Not just for convenienence but because it was a deliberate move from the part of the software company that creates it. Then there is the phenomenon of instant syndication of blogs through RSS /RDF/ XML feeds that is also a feature of many blogging systems. Granted, as I was discussing just now with Mark Napier, that a net art site like http://potatoland.org/ should not be a blog but the fact that it is not availed of the technologies available that make blogs the open and social nodes that they are, almost by default it makes the site a closed system. So socially the site is closed eventhough aesthetically most if not all of Mark Napier's works is about distributed creativity. This is what I mean by the different social & cultural practices on the web that net artists can have vis-a-vis bloggers. Best, Liza Sabater http://culturekitchen.com/ http://radiofreeblogistan.com/ From beads@newcastlegardens.com Thu Nov 13 23:09:24 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org Received: from ns2.sterlingmi.com (ns2.sterlingmi.com [68.72.235.4]) by happyhouse.metalab.unc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0AAAB20023 for ; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 23:09:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from ns2.sterlingmi.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by ns2.sterlingmi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28D6557F3C; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 23:04:09 -0500 (EST) From: "rejiquar" To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 23:04:09 -0500 Message-Id: <20031114035055.M51448@newcastlegardens.com> X-Mailer: Open WebMail 2.10 20030927 X-OriginatingIP: 66.93.1.93 (sylvus) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Subject: [cc-eyebeam] some reactions to prior posts fwiw, folks... X-BeenThere: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.2 Precedence: list Reply-To: Creative Commons-Eyebeam Forum 2003 November 12-19 List-Id: Creative Commons-Eyebeam Forum 2003 November 12-19 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 04:09:24 -0000 Dear Mr. Brown (and other Members): Greetings. Thank you for your answer to my question. As I explain below, no, you don't quite answer the one I asked (how to let people who simply can't *stand* the thought of *their* work being used commercially incorporate my SA/commerce allowed stuff, which, of course would require them to license their work to be sold if someone downstream wished to do so). But in fact, I find your answer more useful: splitting the use between original and derived works strikes me as *very* attractive: for years I've preached to my friends and fellow artists (who screamed endlessly about `stealing' work)---copy my work all you like---but show it to me, because if you keep doing it, you will eventually come up with something new---that I can `steal' from you. And then the process starts again. This is why artists like working in co-operatives. ---Btw, is there any way to easily go down a list of the all the licenses offered, without taking the test? I'm not good at navigating sites, and can't find it. At any rate, it appears I want a commerical share-alike license. If I go that route, someone who doesn't want her work distributed commercially is out of luck, if she wants to use mine. I will have to consider whether it's more important to impose my feelings about commerce or to be more accommodating. That's okay. M. John, responding to Ms. Ford: >I am personally interested in understanding how practical economic >models of cultural exchange aligned with digital values and tools can >be implemented in developing nations... I can think of several cases of developing nations exporting their craft, and, thus, creating a cultural exchange. One was a catalog of clothing made by Indians, using traditional dye-stamping and embroidery. It was organized by an American with the very objectives you state, and unfortunately I don't recall precisely the name of the company. A second is the success of Teotitlan Mexican (Indian) rug weavers, who according to the current issue of _Smithsonian Magazine_ are world famous (and considerably more prosperous than their neighbors) for their rugs. The article mentions generally that the weavers are expert at promoting their work, and specifically that one has a website. A third is the Hope Bracelet, http://www.cindybeads.com/projectmercy.htm (a part of Project Mercy) in which American bead designers have collected beads, taken them to Africa, taught the Yetebons to string (they already know how to design; Africans are among the most inventive beadworkers in the world), returned them to the US, where they are sold, with the proceeds going for Project Mercy's food and education efforts. This latter project has the greatest component of charity in it, but it also is relying heavily upon the web and email to promote it. That, to me, points out the first difficulty for exporting many wonderful `developing' nations' craft traditions, which are rapidly being lost, in general, and Creative Commons' message of `some rights reserved' in particular: simply getting the messages (or meme, to use the trendy form) out there amongst all the cacophony. Until and unless enough people see the wonderful craft these people have (in part, of course because *their* creative commons is a much greater percentage of their cultural background) and are exposed to the fact that we're rapidly losing ours, nothing else really matters---we need that critical mass. Which brings me to that favorite (not) topic of working artists: marketing. Creative Commons, in effect, needs to market its message, not traditionally a strong suit or favorite activity of modern artists. Until that happens, all the effectiveness of its licenses, or methods for empowering the third world, are so much trees falling in an empty forest if the industrialized nations' artists are unaware of the former or the developing nations' artists are unaware of the latter. And, the poorer the environment (as I learned firsthand, when attempting to teach drawing to inner-city Detroit children) the more constricted the pipeline, the harder it is to inform people of their options. Which brings me to another issue: I would agree with M. Randolph about artists being uncomfortable quoting others. I, personally, won't do it. Under any circumstances. Why? Because I have no idea whether *someday* I might want to sell or otherwise market the work. It seems to me that a lot of people do not mind having their works copied, but only for non-commercial use. This, in my view, is a mistake. Had the Open Source people required this, various corps would not now be banding together to create large applications that even the OS community feels is very nearly beyond their resources, at least in a timely manner. Part of the problem is that, until a given artist actually goes out there and makes a concerted effort to market her work, s/he has no real idea of how much that adds to its cost: most artists like to make art. *Selling* it, on the other hand, is a pain, and even highly successful artists to devote a lot of time to marketing; to judge by polls published in _The Crafts Reports_ spend at 2 days running the business to every three creating---and they're the lucky ones! So when someone else sells (or publicizes) your work, they've probably doubled the time put into it. Frankly, I'd rather see someone else figure out which of the many projects I've done over the years has marketability; and if they make lots of money, well, then I'll know that's the product to move (I can put bonus material in mine. Or state that mine is from the artist direct. Or whatever. The point is, the person has performed a service for me, who hates marketing, in identifying what sells. Of course, maybe they're making a mint off something I now *hate* doing. Well, then they've pointed up a choice---do I make stuff I like, or stuff that sells? But at any rate, there is a value-added, just as the `Creative Commons' is an important balancing element against individual copyright. I think this value-added is lost on people who've never tried to sell their work, and reduces the likelihood of their work being incorporated; of becoming part of the commons. Certainly those developing nations folk don't have the spare resources to give their stuff away, though for what they currently get paid it very nearly seems that way.) Which brings me to some of the, um, more idealistic threads taking place---from M. Dmytrick: >Art is not an object, art happens. Art happens when the actions of >artists bring expressions into a state where they can be >perceived. All objects that result from an incident are merely the >residue of the incident, not the art itself. Some of my problems have to do with semantics. Why must we call what happens to the viewer/auditor (the art consumer---and I mean that in a literal sense: you take that sensation into yourself) `art' and the object or performance that inspires the sensation something else? That might just barely make sense in a performance context, such as dance or theatre; it doesn't for most visual arts. For centuries, we've been calling the stuff that incites the emotion---that serves as a conduit between the artist's head and her viewer's---art. I don't disagree that the viewer is an important---even coequal---participant in the experience. I'm not even disagreeing that the object is an imperfect rendition of the artist's concept (since it's very well documented by any artist who's ever claimed the term that that's almost always the case.) But the viewer is not all, any more than the artist is all. They're a team. If we need a word for the consumer's contribution, well and good. Let's find one. But let's *not* change currently accepted usage. There are plenty of other problems on the plate---like getting the message out at all. Art is the expression of the original creator, not the multitude of folk we hope will appreciate and enjoy the work. I suppose in *theory* we can have virtual art, but at the present time I can't think of any convincing examples that didn't involve my senses in some way. >From M. Mancini (sorry, don't know what to change your M$ special characters into--and pasting this post into the web based mailer appears to made them even weirder): >In an interview with sculptor James Carl she said she’s interested in >work that “…positions itself as a service rather than a thing, with >the aim, in general, of identifying an aesthetic dimension of >‘normal’ >experience.” Moving in the direction of such an art is >necessarily to move away from a type of work that is either ownable >or copyrightable, as the work, like curation, becomes merely a >vessel, a vehicle for the transference of ideas. Artist as middleman. Huh? That's what are *is*. Cave paintings to quilts to Jazz is a transference of ideas. And, sorry, all those things being made now are copyrightable. The only reason art is not a greater part of ``normal experience'' ---in this country anyway---is because we have so little regard for it. That it should be as much part of our culture as travel by automobile will get no argument from me. That incorporating into everyday experience will not involve copyright, otoh, baffles me. How? Ms. Sabater says: >I am thinking of how net Artists in general are still creating online >communities, salons and studios à la 1996. (She goes on to compare them to the sophistication of the blogosphere---something I discovered three days ago, reading up on copyright history. And I've had a website since 1996, or so. Talk about embarressing!) Speaking as a working artist, we're rather clueless about computers as a class. Actually, there's no `rather' about it. Every time I read an article in _The Crafts Report_ about digital technology, I cringe. And I'm a clueless user! ---I probably would barely know to use email (let alone linux!) were it not for the fact that I'm married to a geek. Just as a personal example, I very nearly lost this letter trying to post it into the webmail browser, and I don't know how to fix the word wrap in this program. Duh. Hurray for xemacs' autosave function. Perhaps part of the problem is that whole-head intuitive (left-brained) thinking doesn't go along so well with the analytical approaches required to solve the inevitable problems of using these powerful, but complicated, tools. sylvus tarn (rejiquar) -- Open WebMail Project (http://openwebmail.org) From neeru@creativecommons.org Thu Nov 13 23:50:28 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org Received: from out2.smtp.messagingengine.com (out2.smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.26]) by happyhouse.metalab.unc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 234AD200B2 for ; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 23:50:25 -0500 (EST) X-Sasl-enc: 3ypVO3eFqlAoHuZorGzhTg 1068785367 Received: from [172.16.1.34] (adsl-63-202-81-74.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net [63.202.81.74]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 19EDC405B86 for ; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 23:49:27 -0500 (EST) User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/10.0.0.1309 Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 20:56:18 -0800 From: Neeru Paharia To: Message-ID: Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Subject: [cc-eyebeam] Responses to Carlo and Liza X-BeenThere: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.2 Precedence: list Reply-To: Creative Commons-Eyebeam Forum 2003 November 12-19 List-Id: Creative Commons-Eyebeam Forum 2003 November 12-19 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 04:50:28 -0000 First a response to Carlo: In which sense? Do I need to write "this piece is under this xyz license" t= o allow copies and so on? What I think is that these new kind of licenses can be easier applied to products sold in a more traditional context (music, texts) than to art-objects sold in a parallel market such as artmarket is... How do you think to apply these licenses to a painting? Or to a NetArt piece, which in my mind has no big differences in poetics and authorship terms.=20 In truth I find CreativeCommons set of licenses very interesting ("Choose License" tool is very helpful) but not so well applicable to an art piece..= . but of course.. I'm here to learn and to know more about this subject. carlo zanni Carlo,=20 According to US law, if you do nothing, your work is protected under a full copyright. You do not have to register, or put a little =A9 on your work. However, most people who want their work to be distributed under different conditions, either more restrictive or liberal than a full copyright includ= e some kind of a contract. This could be from a click-wrap contract you get when you buy a new software application (and usually never read it) that will probably impose terms that are more restrictive than copyright, to a Creative Commons license, that gives certain rights away. Our licenses have been designed for most copyrightable content, including paintings. In the same way that a band would want their song shared online= , I could see the same motives for a visual net artist. Our licenses can wor= k in physical space, but possibly aren't as valuable, because physical space has greater distribution challenges as opposed to the Internet. Response to Liza: Liza, you mentioned Movable Type and how adoption of CC has been good because our licenses are embedded in Movable Type. We've noticed this and are hoping to take this model to other authoring applications. For example= , we're currently working with Adobe to write a plug-in for their Creative Authoring Suite so that CC license info will be embedded into Photoshop, Illustrator and PDF files. We're also hoping application in the music space will catch on -- most coveted are the music authoring applications (Reason, Fruityloops, Protools, etc.), and website portals where lots of free mp3s are distributed like IUMA or Soundclick. In the case of these portals, they are already distributing many MP3s that are legal to share, but the terms-of-use are vague. If you have ideas for how we can contact or approach these groups let me know. Liza, you also mentioned that NetArt is often based on a closed systems. I don't know much about the landscape of NetArt, but one of our main goals is to promote collaboration between people. Hopefully our licenses will greas= e the wheels by making content clearly marked for re-use, and findable under open licensing terms. Recently we began working with some students at MIT to build an application called "Mixter", kind of like Friendster, but for musicians, so bands could see who remixed their music, and also have a list of bands they remixed. This application is meant to help musicians find each other, build off each other, and understand how things have been built in a collaborative process. Jon Ippolito also has "the Pool," another online collaborative project which I think will be featured in the forum at a later point. Thanks so much. Regards, Neeru From www@cordova.asap.um.maine.edu Fri Nov 14 09:37:17 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org Received: from cordova.asap.um.maine.edu (cordova.asap.um.maine.edu [130.111.220.245]) by happyhouse.metalab.unc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4DA9220043 for ; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 09:37:17 -0500 (EST) Received: by cordova.asap.um.maine.edu (Postfix, from userid 70) id 1E1CF91B43; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 09:37:17 -0500 (EST) To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org From: cz@zanni.org In-Reply-To: <20031114040613.40A9991A6B@cordova.asap.um.maine.edu> Message-Id: <20031114143717.1E1CF91B43@cordova.asap.um.maine.edu> Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 09:37:17 -0500 (EST) Subject: [cc-eyebeam] Re: Welcome to Distributed Creativity X-BeenThere: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.2 Precedence: list Reply-To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org List-Id: Creative Commons-Eyebeam Forum 2003 November 12-19 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 14:37:17 -0000 Hi Liza, >>>>So socially the site is closed eventhough aesthetically most if not all of Mark Napier's works is about distributed creativity. it's true.. but does it mean potatoland could need some interactive tool (blog style) to become more open ..(to what?) Think a point is if Potatoland.org or other net art sites have to be seen as "info site" or netart works. In my opinion http://potatoland.org/ or http://www.zanni.org/ that both contain a list of links to netart works and other info, could benefit from a better inclusion in the social web. I see XML and syndication as a priority. And, of course, for some content we could apply some CC licenses. But as I already wrote in my previous post, I don't think we can apply any license to a work of art.. such as "net.flag" ... for example.. yours truly, cz From riolo@voicenet.com Fri Nov 14 09:50:33 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org Received: from mailfilter1.voicenet.com (mailfilter1.voicenet.com [207.103.0.42]) by happyhouse.metalab.unc.edu (Postfix) with SMTP id E024D20025 for ; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 09:50:32 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 2719 invoked from network); 14 Nov 2003 14:50:30 -0000 Received: from unix01.voicenet.com (209.71.48.250) by mailfilter1.voicenet.com with SMTP; 14 Nov 2003 14:50:30 -0000 Received: (qmail 4530 invoked by uid 4342); 14 Nov 2003 14:50:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost) (129.139.40.29) by unix01.voicenet.com with SMTP; 14 Nov 2003 14:50:19 -0000 Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 09:50:19 -0500 (EST) From: Joseph Pietro Riolo To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org Subject: Re: [cc-eyebeam] more from Creative Commons In-Reply-To: <20031114001444.EA103919D9@cordova.asap.um.maine.edu> Message-ID: References: <20031114001444.EA103919D9@cordova.asap.um.maine.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: X-BeenThere: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.2 Precedence: list Reply-To: Creative Commons-Eyebeam Forum 2003 November 12-19 List-Id: Creative Commons-Eyebeam Forum 2003 November 12-19 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 14:50:33 -0000 On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 Donato : > > Moving in the direction of such an art is necessarily to move away from > a type of work that is either ownable or copyrightable, as the work, like > curation, becomes merely a vessel, a vehicle for the transference of ideas. > Artist as middleman. This will require a change in concept of authorship. When you demolish the concept of ownership (and consequently, copyrightability), you also inevitably demolish the concept of authorship. This will not sit well with almost all authors and artists. Basically, what you are saying is that there is no such thing or service called "author" or "artist". All we have is a contributor (or adder), collaborator, carrier, messenger, adaptor, manipulator, and so on but nothing like author, artist, or originator. > Or to state it differently, I think what Ritchie is imagining is > an art that situates itself as say the plumbing (the piping) > rather than the content (the water). But in the realm of ideas, > the "plumbing" is often going to be some kind of ineffable, > immaterial activity that it can be not only difficult to hold > on to (own), but even to locate at all. So, to change the > metaphor again - I'm still searching for the right one - > perhaps this art can/does relate to a condition like Time, > in that Time shuttles all our activities, experiences, lives > etc, but which in itself can barely be proven to exist, except > by analogy to its effects. I think that the best word to describe this is "semiosis". Generally, it means the communicative process where the signs (by "sign", I mean almost anything like an image, a word, a body language, a sound, etc.) are continuous, from one sign to next sign. However, you need both pipe and water (medium and content such as paper and words or stone and images) to do the job of semiosis. > Do we know of very much work that achieves this? It is happening all the times. We see the works every day. But, our legal system (at least in the U.S.) do not formally recognize them, except for the works involving or based on the public domain works (look at all the activities based on Biblical stories or Shakespeare's works). Joseph Pietro Riolo Public domain notice: I put all of my expressions in this post in the public domain. From www@cordova.asap.um.maine.edu Fri Nov 14 10:18:18 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org Received: from cordova.asap.um.maine.edu (cordova.asap.um.maine.edu [130.111.220.245]) by happyhouse.metalab.unc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id E2BC920012 for ; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 10:18:17 -0500 (EST) Received: by cordova.asap.um.maine.edu (Postfix, from userid 70) id A790F91B77; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 10:18:17 -0500 (EST) To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org Subject: Re: [cc-eyebeam] more from Creative Commons From: cz@zanni.org In-Reply-To: Message-Id: <20031114151817.A790F91B77@cordova.asap.um.maine.edu> Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 10:18:17 -0500 (EST) X-BeenThere: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.2 Precedence: list Reply-To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org List-Id: Creative Commons-Eyebeam Forum 2003 November 12-19 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 15:18:18 -0000 >>>>When you demolish the concept of ownership (and consequently, copyrightability), you also inevitably demolish the concept of authorship. This will not sit well with almost all authors and artists. AltarBoy, my sculpture-server, is my attempt to merge Property and Sharing, preserving the concept of authorship, that is still a keyrole issue also in networked works. Here is a link, http://www.zanni.org if you want to take a look. I'll write more about it in week2. very best, cz From www@cordova.asap.um.maine.edu Fri Nov 14 09:34:38 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org Received: from cordova.asap.um.maine.edu (cordova.asap.um.maine.edu [130.111.220.245]) by happyhouse.metalab.unc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCB3220043 for ; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 09:34:37 -0500 (EST) Received: by cordova.asap.um.maine.edu (Postfix, from userid 70) id 82D4191B40; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 09:34:37 -0500 (EST) To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org From: marek_walczak@yahoo.com In-Reply-To: <20031114031133.9D0DB91A32@cordova.asap.um.maine.edu> Message-Id: <20031114143437.82D4191B40@cordova.asap.um.maine.edu> Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 09:34:37 -0500 (EST) X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 10:54:37 -0500 Subject: [cc-eyebeam] Re: Hola Amigos X-BeenThere: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.2 Precedence: list Reply-To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org List-Id: Creative Commons-Eyebeam Forum 2003 November 12-19 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 14:34:38 -0000 Very fond of a different view of cultural product, one where artists create artifacts to be used in yearly rituals, at the end of which the pieces would be discarded and allowed to rot in the forest. I agree that the practise of netart should disappear. Of course Wonderwalker is a failure when compared to a blog - it has none of the hooks, it just creates a map of icons of people's favorites. Today I noticed that the Google toolbar now links directly to blogs.. Of course we were paid $3000 for the commission, which perhaps is slightly less than the creators of Movable Type and Google? I suspect that's 99% of the problem. In Turns we invited people to comment on the works of others, and put in links to subjects mentioned, or at least intended to. Too many ways to be creative, too little time! In Timemaker (still bust after a year, to be fixed shortly) we didn't have a global map like in Apartment (the city of people's apartments). That seemed too top-down. Instead you create a picture of time, then email your link to others, they can then see your effort and create their map near to yours, if they want. That way its a dispersed network of relationships based on email. Next year we will see if that works! Blogs of course are about news/gossip. Now I'm mostly interested in linking networks with physical space, the technology is just getting ready for that. Haven't yet seen a blog tied to a physical interactive artwork, o no, another way to be creative! Realistically though, netart is just a seasonal condition to be discarded in the forest of technological change. (gosh) From www@cordova.asap.um.maine.edu Fri Nov 14 10:08:36 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org Received: from cordova.asap.um.maine.edu (cordova.asap.um.maine.edu [130.111.220.245]) by happyhouse.metalab.unc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F51420025 for ; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 10:08:36 -0500 (EST) Received: by cordova.asap.um.maine.edu (Postfix, from userid 70) id D06B491B69; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 10:08:35 -0500 (EST) To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org From: jerturner536@yahoo.ca In-Reply-To: Message-Id: <20031114150835.D06B491B69@cordova.asap.um.maine.edu> Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 10:08:35 -0500 (EST) X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 10:54:37 -0500 Subject: [cc-eyebeam] Hello Forum X-BeenThere: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.2 Precedence: list Reply-To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org List-Id: Creative Commons-Eyebeam Forum 2003 November 12-19 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 15:08:36 -0000 Hello there, I just got my invite and now I am inside the forum. As I am swamped with work, I will focus my energies for the Digital Karma discussion. I am looking forward to participating more actively at that time. Cheers, Jeremy From www@cordova.asap.um.maine.edu Fri Nov 14 11:00:05 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org Received: from cordova.asap.um.maine.edu (cordova.asap.um.maine.edu [130.111.220.245]) by happyhouse.metalab.unc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF71420022 for ; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 11:00:04 -0500 (EST) Received: by cordova.asap.um.maine.edu (Postfix, from userid 70) id 6CD7791B92; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 11:00:02 -0500 (EST) To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org From: blogdiva@culturekitchen.com In-Reply-To: <20031114143437.82D4191B40@cordova.asap.um.maine.edu> Message-Id: <20031114160002.6CD7791B92@cordova.asap.um.maine.edu> Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 11:00:02 -0500 (EST) Subject: [cc-eyebeam] Re: Hola Amigos X-BeenThere: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.2 Precedence: list Reply-To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org List-Id: Creative Commons-Eyebeam Forum 2003 November 12-19 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 16:00:05 -0000 hi marek, >I agree that the practise of netart should disappear. Ahh ... hmmm ... never said that and never intended to imply that. No, it is not the practice of the art that I find confounding. It is the creation of individual artists and art-community sites that need to change because they are outdated. If you want to be rhizomatic, nodal, open, mimetic, democratic, copyleft, whatever, use the technology to make it so. It's as simple as learning why CSS matters vis-a-vis Flash. Why syndication should not be taken lightly and hence, why a Creative Commons license makes even more sense within that context. >Blogs of course are about news/gossip. This statement is proof of the bad rap blogs have within the art community and why, no matter what good intentions a net artist has about distributing creativity it does not mean a thing if, again, you do not use the technology that is our there to make it so. In other words, "distributed creativity" as a theme is a nice. As a practice it becomes powerful. It will not just take rethinking what creativity is or what the social significance of net art is. Really, it is something as simple as what is a website, what are you using it for and, if you dig deeper, what is the political and social significance of the way you build it. It's not just the content that matters. The website is what matters here because it is the medium, not the web. But Apartment and Shredder be damned, we already knew that. Best, Liza From neeru@creativecommons.org Fri Nov 14 21:27:06 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org Received: from smtp1.Stanford.EDU (smtp1.Stanford.EDU [171.67.16.120]) by happyhouse.metalab.unc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D83120025 for ; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 21:27:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from [171.64.215.94] (DNab40d75e.Stanford.EDU [171.64.215.94]) by smtp1.Stanford.EDU (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id hAF2R5Jw031748 for ; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 18:27:05 -0800 User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/10.0.0.1309 Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 18:33:55 -0800 From: Neeru Paharia To: Creative Commons-Eyebeam Forum 2003 November 12-19 Message-ID: Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Subject: [cc-eyebeam] Quote from MLK Jr. X-BeenThere: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.2 Precedence: list Reply-To: Creative Commons-Eyebeam Forum 2003 November 12-19 List-Id: Creative Commons-Eyebeam Forum 2003 November 12-19 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2003 02:27:07 -0000 Somewhat of a different topic, but I saw this quote yesterday while wandering through the Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial (btw, one of the greatest places in SF). It's etched in stone underneath a waterfall and very powerful. I thought it would be interesting fodder for this list in the context of intellectual property, art, and cultural values. Especially in the context of the RIAA demanding millions of dollars from twelve year old kids for consuming art without paying for the "property." "We must rapidly begin to shift from a thing-oriented society to a person-oriented society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, materialism and militarism are incapable of being conquered." Martin Luther King Jr. Neeru (Not to mention the war in Iraq) From www@cordova.asap.um.maine.edu Fri Nov 14 23:47:56 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org Received: from cordova.asap.um.maine.edu (cordova.asap.um.maine.edu [130.111.220.245]) by happyhouse.metalab.unc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7DAF2001A for ; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 23:47:56 -0500 (EST) Received: by cordova.asap.um.maine.edu (Postfix, from userid 70) id A84EA91E16; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 23:47:56 -0500 (EST) To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org Subject: Re: [cc-eyebeam] Quote from MLK Jr. From: Joline_Blais@umit.maine.edu In-Reply-To: Message-Id: <20031115044756.A84EA91E16@cordova.asap.um.maine.edu> Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 23:47:56 -0500 (EST) X-BeenThere: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.2 Precedence: list Reply-To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org List-Id: Creative Commons-Eyebeam Forum 2003 November 12-19 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2003 04:47:57 -0000 "We must rapidly begin to shift from a thing- oriented society to a person-oriented society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, materialism and militarism are incapable of being conquered." Martin Luther King Jr. Thanks, Neeru, for the MLK quote. This is a reminder of a common misperception in the field of new media, especially among academics and theorists: that new media is about information, "bits not atoms", "the medium is the message" "information revolution" "data transfer". What is most revolutionary about these technologies is their ability to: 1)organize people into communities that work, in the sense of taking action (rtmark projects, Gallery of CSS descramblers, Phillipine text-messagers forcing President Estrada to step down). 2)developing models of real reciprocity rather than simulated "interactivity". Playing Vice City 20 hrs/week vs attempting to engage in real political interaction, as proposed in Natalie Bookchin's Agora. Most overlooked is the power that ordinary citizens might have if they were able to organize around issues of interest to them. When wikis, blogs, e-mail, text messaging, and cell phones are used by groups of people with a single focus, we change a passive consumer-driven society into an active participant-engaged society. This will not happen automatically: it is not a given in the technology. Just as creating a common space for creativity will require an assault on the current legal system that protects corporate profitmaking more than artist enterprise, so will the potential powers of ordinary citizen only be realized if we can tell the differnce between "interactivity" and "real reciprocity". The shift needs to happen not only from thing-oriented to people-oriented, but from tech-oriented or information-oriented to people-oriented. Addressing copyright issues is one way to begin this shift. When ordinary citizens regain control of a cultural commons, they will have more power to shape their desires, dreams, aspirations, as well as addressing their failures and shortcomings. /joline From www@cordova.asap.um.maine.edu Fri Nov 14 23:48:34 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org Received: from cordova.asap.um.maine.edu (cordova.asap.um.maine.edu [130.111.220.245]) by happyhouse.metalab.unc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id B86772001A for ; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 23:48:31 -0500 (EST) Received: by cordova.asap.um.maine.edu (Postfix, from userid 70) id D5B2991E1F; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 23:48:29 -0500 (EST) To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org Subject: Re: [cc-eyebeam] Re: Welcome to Distributed Creativity From: Joline_Blais@umit.maine.edu In-Reply-To: <6.0.0.22.0.20031112153753.0201df00@pop.gn.apc.org> Message-Id: <20031115044829.D5B2991E1F@cordova.asap.um.maine.edu> Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 23:48:29 -0500 (EST) X-BeenThere: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.2 Precedence: list Reply-To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org List-Id: Creative Commons-Eyebeam Forum 2003 November 12-19 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2003 04:48:35 -0000 Hi Heather Thanks for widening the perspective of this discussion. > What I'd really like to see is that developing countries use Creative > Commons licenses - and distributed creativity models - to become actively > engaged in the culture-making process. If people use the licenses to adapt > content to local contexts (and I think that this feature is essential to > the success of cc in the developing world) then it can become very useful > to the culture industry in South Africa. While it may be interesting "to adapt content to local contexts" , an even more interesting model would be to stimulate production of local content not only with legal licenses, but with architecture or environments or software that will promote communities of artists coming together to share ideas, materials, and support. There are a few models that do this: Opus Commons (run by Sarai based in India), runme.org (software art), and The Pool (an architecture for distributed creativity launching 12/3 here, as a featured project). Augusto Boal's experiments in performance to generate a revolutionary community-based art, also provides some models for imagining a culture tied to real and local politics ("Theater for the Oppressed") It would be interesting to imagine what kinds of different architectures and support structures would works across a variety of differnt cultural and political contexts. What would be needed in South Africa? What tools are currently available to trigger these kinds of "creative communities"? From chris@mretc.net Fri Nov 14 23:49:54 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org Received: from server1.yellowdns.com (unknown [207.44.136.133]) by happyhouse.metalab.unc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB4E12001A for ; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 23:49:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from dialup-86-171.colorado.edu ([128.138.86.171] helo=localhost) by server1.yellowdns.com with asmtp (TLSv1:DES-CBC3-SHA:168) (Exim 4.24) id 1AKsNY-0006gp-Pn for cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 22:49:49 -0600 Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 21:49:43 -0700 Subject: Re: [cc-eyebeam] Quote from MLK Jr. Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v482) From: Chris Burkhardt To: Creative Commons-Eyebeam Forum 2003 November 12-19 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: Message-Id: <2152E0F7-1727-11D8-A4F6-000393845CDA@mretc.net> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.482) X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - server1.yellowdns.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - lists.ibiblio.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - mretc.net X-BeenThere: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.2 Precedence: list Reply-To: Creative Commons-Eyebeam Forum 2003 November 12-19 List-Id: Creative Commons-Eyebeam Forum 2003 November 12-19 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2003 04:49:55 -0000 > Especially in the context of the RIAA demanding millions of dollars > from twelve year old kids for consuming art without paying for the > "property." I don't think "consume" is the best term, especially if you are trying to argue in favor of free(er) digital copyrights. listen != consume just like copy != steal But I see your point, and I whole-heartedly agree with that quote by Martin Luther King Jr.. People are more important than money or fame or power every day of the week. Any laws, or lack of laws, which promote that idea are OK with me. - Chris Burkhardt From neeru@creativecommons.org Sat Nov 15 02:42:50 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org Received: from out2.smtp.messagingengine.com (out2.smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.26]) by happyhouse.metalab.unc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4237C2001A for ; Sat, 15 Nov 2003 02:42:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from server1.messagingengine.com (server1.internal [10.202.2.132]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 253ED40E4A8 for ; Sat, 15 Nov 2003 02:41:29 -0500 (EST) Received: by server1.messagingengine.com (Postfix, from userid 99) id EBAE83D657; Sat, 15 Nov 2003 02:41:28 -0500 (EST) Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME::Lite 1.2 (F2.71; T1.001; A1.51; B2.12; Q2.03) From: "Neeru Paharia" To: "Creative Commons-Eyebeam Forum 2003 November 12-19" , "Creative Commons-Eyebeam Forum 2003 November 12-19" Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 23:41:28 -0800 X-Sasl-Enc: wwu1/+I0iiPUWSQQuR5DuQ 1068882088 Subject: Re: [cc-eyebeam] Quote from MLK Jr. References: <2152E0F7-1727-11D8-A4F6-000393845CDA@mretc.net> In-Reply-To: <2152E0F7-1727-11D8-A4F6-000393845CDA@mretc.net> Message-Id: <20031115074128.EBAE83D657@server1.messagingengine.com> X-BeenThere: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.2 Precedence: list Reply-To: Creative Commons-Eyebeam Forum 2003 November 12-19 List-Id: Creative Commons-Eyebeam Forum 2003 November 12-19 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2003 07:42:50 -0000 I see what you mean. Maybe "experiencing" art would be more appropriate. On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 21:49:43 -0700, "Chris Burkhardt" said: > > Especially in the context of the RIAA demanding millions of dollars > > from twelve year old kids for consuming art without paying for the > > "property." > > I don't think "consume" is the best term, especially if you are trying > to argue in favor of free(er) digital copyrights. > listen != consume just like copy != steal > > But I see your point, and I whole-heartedly agree with that quote by > Martin Luther King Jr.. People are more important than money or fame or > power every day of the week. Any laws, or lack of laws, which promote > that idea are OK with me. > > - Chris Burkhardt > > _______________________________________________ > cc-eyebeam mailing list > cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-eyebeam > > This discussion runs 2003 November 12-19. Submissions are licensed > under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike > license . -- Neeru Paharia neerupaharia@fastmail.fm From www@cordova.asap.um.maine.edu Fri Nov 14 23:47:26 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org Received: from cordova.asap.um.maine.edu (cordova.asap.um.maine.edu [130.111.220.245]) by happyhouse.metalab.unc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 791462001A for ; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 23:47:26 -0500 (EST) Received: by cordova.asap.um.maine.edu (Postfix, from userid 70) id 2B10791E0D; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 23:47:26 -0500 (EST) To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org Subject: Re: [cc-eyebeam] Welcome to Distributed Creativity From: jippolito@guggenheim.org In-Reply-To: Message-Id: <20031115044726.2B10791E0D@cordova.asap.um.maine.edu> Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 23:47:26 -0500 (EST) X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sat, 15 Nov 2003 02:47:58 -0500 X-BeenThere: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.2 Precedence: list Reply-To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org List-Id: Creative Commons-Eyebeam Forum 2003 November 12-19 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2003 04:47:26 -0000 Thanks for this provocative post, Joseph. Joseph Pietro Riolo wrote: > As an example, the open licenses do not change > the legal system at all. I agree with this. They just maintain > the status quo. I don't agree with this. In some ways it may be more important to change the practices of creative people than to change the juridical decisions of a few guys with robes sitting in courtrooms. > The fundamental ideas behind the legal system > need to be changed. Although the innovations > you mentioned are not sufficient, they could > be a catalyst for the change in the legal system. I think you're right about this. In the long term, open licenses are just not beefy enough to hold back the growing tide of summons from record industry lawyers and copyright-sniffing computer chips. I think we need a Digital Sanctuary--but more about that later. > (The culture you mentioned has not made a dent > in our society yet.) Are you sure about that? The world of software development has undergone a dramatic change as a consequence of the adoption and refinement of open licenses. What programmers learned in this process can be summed up in the contrasting license terms that appear at the bottom of your message: > Joseph Pietro Riolo > Public domain notice: I put all of my expressions in this > post in the public domain. > _______________________________________________ <...> >Submissions are licensed > under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike > license Putting your expressions in the public domain does not prevent a corporation from repackaging them in a trademarked floorwax jingle or catchphrase used in SUV commercials. A Creative Commons NonCommercial-ShareAlike license, however, exploits the open code technique of copyleft, granting reuse rights only to those who share your commitment to open culture. Cheers, jon From www@cordova.asap.um.maine.edu Fri Nov 14 23:47:39 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org Received: from cordova.asap.um.maine.edu (cordova.asap.um.maine.edu [130.111.220.245]) by happyhouse.metalab.unc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC3602001A for ; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 23:47:38 -0500 (EST) Received: by cordova.asap.um.maine.edu (Postfix, from userid 70) id CA4A691E13; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 23:47:38 -0500 (EST) To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org Subject: Re: [cc-eyebeam] some reactions to prior posts fwiw, folks... From: jippolito@guggenheim.org In-Reply-To: <20031114035055.M51448@newcastlegardens.com> Message-Id: <20031115044738.CA4A691E13@cordova.asap.um.maine.edu> Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 23:47:38 -0500 (EST) X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sat, 15 Nov 2003 02:47:58 -0500 X-BeenThere: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.2 Precedence: list Reply-To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org List-Id: Creative Commons-Eyebeam Forum 2003 November 12-19 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2003 04:47:39 -0000 > (how to let people who simply can't > *stand* the thought of *their* work being used commercially > incorporate my SA/commerce allowed stuff, which, of course would > require them to license their work to be sold if someone > downstream wished to do so). Correct me if I'm wrong, but there is currently no Creative Commons license that forces makers of derivative works to sell them. If you choose Attribution-Noncommercial-ShareAlike, then others can't sell derivatives. But if you choose Attribution-ShareAlike--without selecting the "Noncommercial" option--you place no restrictions on whether subsequent derivatives can be sold or given away. Cheers, jon From www@cordova.asap.um.maine.edu Fri Nov 14 23:48:52 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org Received: from cordova.asap.um.maine.edu (cordova.asap.um.maine.edu [130.111.220.245]) by happyhouse.metalab.unc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9521200B2 for ; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 23:48:50 -0500 (EST) Received: by cordova.asap.um.maine.edu (Postfix, from userid 70) id 03F7791E22; Fri, 14 Nov 2003 23:48:50 -0500 (EST) To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org From: jippolito@guggenheim.org In-Reply-To: <20031114160002.6CD7791B92@cordova.asap.um.maine.edu> Message-Id: <20031115044850.03F7791E22@cordova.asap.um.maine.edu> Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 23:48:50 -0500 (EST) X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sat, 15 Nov 2003 02:47:58 -0500 Subject: [cc-eyebeam] Re: Hola Amigos X-BeenThere: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.2 Precedence: list Reply-To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org List-Id: Creative Commons-Eyebeam Forum 2003 November 12-19 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2003 04:48:53 -0000 >no matter what good intentions a net artist has about distributing creativity it does not mean a thing if, again, you do not use the technology that is our there to make it so. Liza, I'm curious about this challenge you're posing to net artists to become more rhizomatic, open, and "bloglike". >The website is what matters here because it is the medium, not the web. Can you elaborate on this statement? It's the opposite of what I would have expected of your position. Cheers, jon From www@cordova.asap.um.maine.edu Sat Nov 15 00:51:07 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org Received: from cordova.asap.um.maine.edu (cordova.asap.um.maine.edu [130.111.220.245]) by happyhouse.metalab.unc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7307E2001A for ; Sat, 15 Nov 2003 00:51:07 -0500 (EST) Received: by cordova.asap.um.maine.edu (Postfix, from userid 70) id 30A4991E5A; Sat, 15 Nov 2003 00:51:07 -0500 (EST) To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org Subject: Re: [cc-eyebeam] Re: Welcome to Distributed Creativity From: tleeser@calarts.edu In-Reply-To: <20031115044829.D5B2991E1F@cordova.asap.um.maine.edu> Message-Id: <20031115055107.30A4991E5A@cordova.asap.um.maine.edu> Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2003 00:51:07 -0500 (EST) X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sat, 15 Nov 2003 02:47:58 -0500 X-BeenThere: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.2 Precedence: list Reply-To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org List-Id: Creative Commons-Eyebeam Forum 2003 November 12-19 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2003 05:51:07 -0000 After reading the posts from this week regarding Distributed Creativity and Copyright, I lean towards reflecting on the multiple definitions of the word "license." The one definition that I find a bit off topic (I apologize) but still extremely relevant is: "license: deviation from fact, form, or rule by an artist or writer for the sake of the effect gained" As an artist, the "deviating aspect" of digital technology is not the construction of an alternative set of boundaries and restrictions to "corporate" control- based on a notion of a licensed "commons," it's the technical and social freedom to disassociate the creative process from any economic incentive and gain. The aim of many new media artists is to promote an oppositional stance towards the dominant narrative of mainstream corporate media. The effect gained is the ability to promote an alternative vision in response and opposition to the rights and liablilites of traditional commercial structures of expression. The "reformatting" of the economics from the corporate to a "commons" only shifts the means of control from a priviliged few to the demands of the majority. The truly radical act is to use new technology to subvert the notion of control itself, and allow "IP" to be a truly shared, free and mutable source. From riolo@voicenet.com Sat Nov 15 08:53:08 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org Received: from mail12.voicenet.com (mail12.voicenet.com [207.103.0.6]) by happyhouse.metalab.unc.edu (Postfix) with SMTP id 169C2200A9 for ; Sat, 15 Nov 2003 08:53:08 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 26454 invoked from network); 15 Nov 2003 13:53:02 -0000 Received: from unix01.voicenet.com (209.71.48.250) by mail12.voicenet.com with SMTP; 15 Nov 2003 13:53:02 -0000 Received: (qmail 28308 invoked by uid 4342); 15 Nov 2003 13:52:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost) (207.103.157.114) by unix01.voicenet.com with SMTP; 15 Nov 2003 13:52:58 -0000 Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2003 08:52:58 -0500 (EST) From: Joseph Pietro Riolo To: Creative Commons-Eyebeam Forum 2003 November 12-19 Subject: Re: [cc-eyebeam] Quote from MLK Jr. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: X-BeenThere: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.2 Precedence: list Reply-To: Creative Commons-Eyebeam Forum 2003 November 12-19 List-Id: Creative Commons-Eyebeam Forum 2003 November 12-19 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2003 13:53:08 -0000 On Fri, 14 Nov 2003, Neeru Paharia wrote: > > Somewhat of a different topic, but I saw this quote yesterday while > wandering through the Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial (btw, one of the > greatest places in SF). It's etched in stone underneath a waterfall and > very powerful. I thought it would be interesting fodder for this list in the > context of intellectual property, art, and cultural values. Especially in > the context of the RIAA demanding millions of dollars from twelve year old > kids for consuming art without paying for the "property." > > > "We must rapidly begin to shift from a thing-oriented society to a > person-oriented society. When machines and computers, profit motives and > property rights are considered more important than people, the giant > triplets of racism, materialism and militarism are incapable of being > conquered." Martin Luther King Jr. I am not going into the political implications of the quotation but we seem to forget that rights, which include property rights, are a necessity for a democratic society to flourish. The rights belong to people, not to the government, king, or queen. In fact, the society in the U.S. is very individualistic. Certainly, this is not what MLK, Jr. meant. We have to put the quotation in a proper context. Recall that MLK, Jr. was a pastor. He was preaching against the seven deadly sins. It is the misuse of the property rights that he objected to. Here is food for your thought: Is it wrong for authors and artists to exercise property rights in their writings and art? How is this different from RIAA? Is it possible for authors and artists to misuse their property rights? Do the authors and artists consider their property rights more important than users? How does this reconcile with the above quotation? Joseph Pietro Riolo Public domain notice: I put all of my expressions in this post in the public domain. From riolo@voicenet.com Sat Nov 15 09:26:39 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org Received: from mail12.voicenet.com (mail12.voicenet.com [207.103.0.6]) by happyhouse.metalab.unc.edu (Postfix) with SMTP id E12A020014 for ; Sat, 15 Nov 2003 09:26:38 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 23859 invoked from network); 15 Nov 2003 14:26:34 -0000 Received: from unix01.voicenet.com (209.71.48.250) by mail12.voicenet.com with SMTP; 15 Nov 2003 14:26:34 -0000 Received: (qmail 2859 invoked by uid 4342); 15 Nov 2003 14:26:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost) (207.103.157.114) by unix01.voicenet.com with SMTP; 15 Nov 2003 14:26:31 -0000 Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2003 09:26:30 -0500 (EST) From: Joseph Pietro Riolo To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org Subject: Re: [cc-eyebeam] Quote from MLK Jr. In-Reply-To: <20031115044756.A84EA91E16@cordova.asap.um.maine.edu> Message-ID: References: <20031115044756.A84EA91E16@cordova.asap.um.maine.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: X-BeenThere: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.2 Precedence: list Reply-To: Creative Commons-Eyebeam Forum 2003 November 12-19 List-Id: Creative Commons-Eyebeam Forum 2003 November 12-19 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2003 14:26:39 -0000 On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 Joline_Blais@umit.maine.edu wrote: > > What is most revolutionary about these > technologies is their ability to: As Neil Postman said in his book, _Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology_, each technology comes with its own limitations and problems. As an example: > 1)organize people into communities that work, > in the sense of taking action (rtmark > projects, Gallery of CSS descramblers, > Phillipine text-messagers forcing > President Estrada to step down). Although the technology allow people to form an organization, the same technology eliminates the need for people to meet face-to-face. Is this a good illustration of person-oriented society? > Most overlooked is the power that ordinary > citizens might have if they were able to > organize around issues of interest to them. > When wikis, blogs, e-mail, text messaging, > and cell phones are used by groups of people > with a single focus, we change a passive > consumer-driven society into an active > participant-engaged society. That is great but this also means that a majority can override the wishes of minority. Technology can be both exciting and scary, depending on how you use it. > This will not happen automatically: it is not > a given in the technology. Just as creating a > common space for creativity will require an > assault on the current legal system that > protects corporate profitmaking more than > artist enterprise, so will the potential > powers of ordinary citizen only be realized > if we can tell the differnce between > "interactivity" and "real reciprocity". Recall that the same legal system also protect artist enterprise. It is the artists' choice on what they want to do with their creative works. If they want to work for a corporation, that is their business. If they want to transfer their copyrights to a corporation, that is their business. If they want to be free-lance or set up their own business, that is their business. If they don't want to share their works with others, that is their choice. > Addressing copyright issues is one way to > begin this shift. When ordinary citizens > regain control of a cultural commons, they > will have more power to shape their desires, > dreams, aspirations, as well as addressing > their failures and shortcomings. When you say "ordinary citizens", are you talking about artists or users? Joseph Pietro Riolo Public domain notice: I put all of my expressions in this post in the public domain. From riolo@voicenet.com Sat Nov 15 10:11:38 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org Received: from mail12.voicenet.com (mail12.voicenet.com [207.103.0.6]) by happyhouse.metalab.unc.edu (Postfix) with SMTP id C3C5C20022 for ; Sat, 15 Nov 2003 10:11:37 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 7722 invoked from network); 15 Nov 2003 15:11:32 -0000 Received: from unix01.voicenet.com (209.71.48.250) by mail12.voicenet.com with SMTP; 15 Nov 2003 15:11:32 -0000 Received: (qmail 9611 invoked by uid 4342); 15 Nov 2003 15:11:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost) (207.103.157.62) by unix01.voicenet.com with SMTP; 15 Nov 2003 15:11:30 -0000 Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2003 10:11:30 -0500 (EST) From: Joseph Pietro Riolo To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org Subject: Re: [cc-eyebeam] Welcome to Distributed Creativity In-Reply-To: <20031115044726.2B10791E0D@cordova.asap.um.maine.edu> Message-ID: References: <20031115044726.2B10791E0D@cordova.asap.um.maine.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: X-BeenThere: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.2 Precedence: list Reply-To: Creative Commons-Eyebeam Forum 2003 November 12-19 List-Id: Creative Commons-Eyebeam Forum 2003 November 12-19 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2003 15:11:38 -0000 On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 jippolito@guggenheim.org wrote: > > > They just maintain > > the status quo. > > I don't agree with this. In some ways it may be more important to change > the practices of creative people than to change the juridical decisions > of a few guys with robes sitting in courtrooms. The same legal system allows people to set up the open licenses. The open licenses have no effect on the status quo in the legal system. Moreover, the open licenses strongly depend on the legal system for their existence. Without the legal system, the open licenses will be unenforceable. That is different from the activities that people do. Although tax law allows people to deduct donations on tax form, some people choose not to do that. Their choice has no affect on the tax law. In order to change the current legal system, people have to get involved in political activities. It is possible that the open licenses have helped people become more educated about the copyright issues but it is only their choice, not open licenses, that will have true effect on the legal system. > Are you sure about that? The world of software development has > undergone a dramatic change as a consequence of the adoption and > refinement of open licenses. What programmers learned in this process > can be summed up in the contrasting license terms that appear at the > bottom of your message: The effect of the open culture as seen in the software environment has not spilled over to other parts of the society. It will take time for this to occur, if it ever occurs. > Putting your expressions in the public domain does not prevent a > corporation from repackaging them in a trademarked floorwax jingle or > catchphrase used in SUV commercials. ... I am well aware of the possible misuses of my public domain expressions. I am not going to sweat over these remote possibilities. Also, I am not any different from people who decided not to copyright (that is a verb in active voice) their expressions before March 1, 1989. > .... A Creative Commons > NonCommercial-ShareAlike license, however, exploits the open code > technique of copyleft, granting reuse rights only to those who share > your commitment to open culture. So do the public domain works. Joseph Pietro Riolo Public domain notice: I put all of my expressions in this post in the public domain. From chris@mretc.net Sat Nov 15 10:40:25 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org Received: from server1.yellowdns.com (unknown [207.44.136.133]) by happyhouse.metalab.unc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 84BFA20022 for ; Sat, 15 Nov 2003 10:40:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from dialup-85-76.colorado.edu ([128.138.85.76] helo=localhost) by server1.yellowdns.com with asmtp (TLSv1:DES-CBC3-SHA:168) (Exim 4.24) id 1AL2X9-00087I-Qx for cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org; Sat, 15 Nov 2003 09:40:24 -0600 Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2003 08:40:20 -0700 Subject: Re: [cc-eyebeam] Welcome to Distributed Creativity Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v482) From: Chris Burkhardt To: Creative Commons-Eyebeam Forum 2003 November 12-19 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: Message-Id: <04D31F77-1782-11D8-A4F6-000393845CDA@mretc.net> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.482) X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - server1.yellowdns.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - lists.ibiblio.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - mretc.net X-BeenThere: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.2 Precedence: list Reply-To: Creative Commons-Eyebeam Forum 2003 November 12-19 List-Id: Creative Commons-Eyebeam Forum 2003 November 12-19 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2003 15:40:25 -0000 >> .... A Creative Commons >> NonCommercial-ShareAlike license, however, exploits the open code >> technique of copyleft, granting reuse rights only to those who share >> your commitment to open culture. > > So do the public domain works. Really? If I make a derivative of a public domain work, I can reserve all copyrights of that work. With a "copyleft" work, however, I must allow people to make derivatives of my derivative. That is the whole reason to use the GNU GPL or a Creative Commons ShareAlike license instead of just placing everything in the public domain; they ensure that works stay open. - Chris Burkhardt From riolo@voicenet.com Sat Nov 15 10:47:20 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org Received: from mail12.voicenet.com (mail12.voicenet.com [207.103.0.6]) by happyhouse.metalab.unc.edu (Postfix) with SMTP id 7CEE82001A for ; Sat, 15 Nov 2003 10:47:20 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 12090 invoked from network); 15 Nov 2003 15:47:15 -0000 Received: from unix01.voicenet.com (209.71.48.250) by mail12.voicenet.com with SMTP; 15 Nov 2003 15:47:15 -0000 Received: (qmail 14695 invoked by uid 4342); 15 Nov 2003 15:47:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost) (207.103.157.62) by unix01.voicenet.com with SMTP; 15 Nov 2003 15:47:12 -0000 Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2003 10:47:12 -0500 (EST) From: Joseph Pietro Riolo To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org Subject: Re: [cc-eyebeam] more from Creative Commons In-Reply-To: <20031114151817.A790F91B77@cordova.asap.um.maine.edu> Message-ID: References: <20031114151817.A790F91B77@cordova.asap.um.maine.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: X-BeenThere: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.2 Precedence: list Reply-To: Creative Commons-Eyebeam Forum 2003 November 12-19 List-Id: Creative Commons-Eyebeam Forum 2003 November 12-19 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2003 15:47:21 -0000 On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 cz@zanni.org wrote: > > AltarBoy, my sculpture-server, is my attempt to merge Property and Sharing, > preserving the concept of authorship, that is still a keyrole issue also > in networked works. > Here is a link, > http://www.zanni.org if you want to take a look. I'll write more > about it in week2. I checked it and I found your concept of networked art very, very, very fascinating!!! As long as you see art as property regardless of whether you share it with others, it is easy to maintain authorship. I was entertaining the concept of art as a process as explained by the original poster. In the U.S., ideas as well as the public domain works cannot be owned by individuals and entities and therefore, they are not property. That is a big difference between them and art that has property status. Without doubt, the former makes its creativity very easy to distribute - there is no need to read terms and conditions in licenses. Then, I suggest that it will be very difficult for artists to adopt the concept of art as a process (instead of property) because it will change the meaning of authorship. Joseph Pietro Riolo Public domain notice: I put all of my expressions in this post in the public domain. From riolo@voicenet.com Sat Nov 15 11:09:54 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org Received: from mail25.voicenet.com (mail25.voicenet.com [207.103.0.58]) by happyhouse.metalab.unc.edu (Postfix) with SMTP id 5C94320036 for ; Sat, 15 Nov 2003 11:09:54 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 16227 invoked from network); 15 Nov 2003 16:10:48 -0000 Received: from unix01.voicenet.com (209.71.48.250) by mail25.voicenet.com with SMTP; 15 Nov 2003 16:10:48 -0000 Received: (qmail 20560 invoked by uid 4342); 15 Nov 2003 16:09:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost) (207.103.157.62) by unix01.voicenet.com with SMTP; 15 Nov 2003 16:09:46 -0000 Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2003 11:09:46 -0500 (EST) From: Joseph Pietro Riolo To: Creative Commons-Eyebeam Forum 2003 November 12-19 Subject: Re: [cc-eyebeam] Welcome to Distributed Creativity In-Reply-To: <04D31F77-1782-11D8-A4F6-000393845CDA@mretc.net> Message-ID: References: <04D31F77-1782-11D8-A4F6-000393845CDA@mretc.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: X-BeenThere: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.2 Precedence: list Reply-To: Creative Commons-Eyebeam Forum 2003 November 12-19 List-Id: Creative Commons-Eyebeam Forum 2003 November 12-19 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2003 16:09:54 -0000 On Sat, 15 Nov 2003, Chris Burkhardt wrote: > > > So do the public domain works. > > Really? If I make a derivative of a public domain work, I can reserve > all copyrights of that work. With a "copyleft" work, however, I must > allow people to make derivatives of my derivative. That is the whole > reason to use the GNU GPL or a Creative Commons ShareAlike license > instead of just placing everything in the public domain; they ensure > that works stay open. You are all correct on this. I was terse because I thought that it was a bit off-topic. With a derivative of a public domain work, you have two choices: 1) Maintain your copyright in the new expressions in the derivative and decide whatever you want to do with it, even put the new expressions under GNU GPL. 2) Dedicate the new expressions in the derivative to the public domain. If you don't decline GNU GPL as per paragraph #5, you are not allowed to do second choice above. Your first choice is restricted to activities as allowed in the license. In a way, public domain is compatible to GNU GPL but not the other way. The public domain helps the commons to grow but does not guarantee that any offspring of the public domain will be always public domain - that is up to the copyright law and people's choice. Joseph Pietro Riolo Public domain notice: I put all of my expressions in this post in the public domain. From www@cordova.asap.um.maine.edu Sat Nov 15 12:40:37 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org Received: from cordova.asap.um.maine.edu (cordova.asap.um.maine.edu [130.111.220.245]) by happyhouse.metalab.unc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 606D820005 for ; Sat, 15 Nov 2003 12:40:37 -0500 (EST) Received: by cordova.asap.um.maine.edu (Postfix, from userid 70) id 30D5391FBA; Sat, 15 Nov 2003 12:40:37 -0500 (EST) To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org From: Joline_Blais@umit.maine.edu In-Reply-To: Message-Id: <20031115174037.30D5391FBA@cordova.asap.um.maine.edu> Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2003 12:40:37 -0500 (EST) Subject: [cc-eyebeam] OpenLaw, Chilling Effects, Creative Commons X-BeenThere: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.2 Precedence: list Reply-To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org List-Id: Creative Commons-Eyebeam Forum 2003 November 12-19 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2003 17:40:37 -0000 “Jefferson said that once a generation we must have another Constitutional Convention and revise all that isn’t working. Like taking a car in to get the carburetor checked. He said you cannot expect a man to wear a boy’s jacket. It must be revised, because the Earth belongs to the living. He was the first that I know who ever said that. And to each generation is the right to change every law they wish. Or even the form of government. You know, bring in the Dalai Lama if you want! Jefferson didn’t care. Jefferson was the only pure democrat among the founders, and he thought the only way his idea of democracy could be achieved would be to give the people a chance to change the laws.” -from Marc Cooper’s interview of Gore Vidal (reprinted in Common dreams: http://www.commondreams.org/views03/1113- 07.htm) A number of people have been asking about interventions that might actually achieve a change in the law. I'd like to mention a few projects that address this issue and invite Wendy Seltzer, a driving force behind them to reflect on this “constitutional crisis”. http://openlaw.org http://chillingeffects.org, http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html As some of you know, Wendy Seltzer is an open-source programmer. She is also an intellectual property lawyer. Very few people match both those demographics, and perhaps for this very reason Seltzer also fits a third demographic: activist. So we are very happy to have her ear on this forum. Hi Wendy! Seltzer cut her anti-establishment teeth while studying with cyberlaw guru Lawrence Lessig at Harvard's Berkman Center for Internet and Society. She and other Berkman affiliates have been at work on a constellation of collaborative efforts to "open source" the legal process to make it more accountable to the lay public. The combined projects represent a strategic response to Lessig's warning, articulated in _Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace_, that the enclosure of cyberspace may happen *de jure*--from votes on the senate floor--but *de facto*--from technological "back doors" in network protocols that can be covertly manipulated by industry. In the tradition of Antoni Muntades' File Room, Seltzer's OpenLaw Web site tries to breathe the fresh spirit of democratic innovation from the world of "do it yourself" computer programming into the musty world of hidebound lawyers and cloistered judges. The Openlaw Web site offers visitors a rare opportunity to flesh out legal arguments with their own twists or examples. Openlaw doesn't just archive its amicus curii ("friend of the court") briefs; it sends them to the Supreme Court, either as a request to review a case (as in its petition for certiorari in the Eldred v. Ashcroft copyright extension fight), or as expert testimony (as in its amicus curii brief for Universal v. Ramirdez, a case that challenged the legality of posting the DeCSS code in the Gallery of CSS Descramblers mentioned earlier). The job of Openlaw's administrators is to turn public opinion into executable culture--in this case, executable by the U.S. legal system. The second star in the Openlaw constellation is the Chilling Effects Web site. For an artist like Mark Napier, whose images of distorted Barbies earned the ire of Mattel's attorneys, this repository and analysis of actual cease-and-desist letters helps sort out the genuine legal threats from the handwaving of corporate lawyers. A thermometer on the Web site gauges the current political climate for the free circulation of ideas; it serves the same purpose for intellectual property as the infamous clock on the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists did for the threat of nuclear war. And of course, the third component, the Creative Commons Web site, offers an assortment of licenses artists can use to permit more open access to their work than conventional copyright allows. As mentioned by earlier participants, the goal of the Creative Commons is to enable a repository of artworks made available for fair use derivatives. Like Chilling Effects, Creative Commons is aimed more at changing attitudes than laws. While we are now trying to exert pressure to get our culture back, I hope that this is only a first wave of activism that will help us get not just our culture, but our land, our health, our country back. I hope what we are seeing is a real constitutional crisis of the kind Jefferson hoped would happen, rather than the kind of world Ben Franklin feared: the erosion of the Bill of Rights produced by the First, and now the second (pending) Patriot Act. If this nation is to continue as a democracy, and Jefferson’s vision is plausible, then there ought to be ways for us to amend the laws promulgated by the dead to ensure a future for the living. Wendy’s work is a beginning. But there is still a long way to go. Where do we go from here? And how? Is this three-prong approach having an effect in changing public attitudes? And can these attitudes become powerful enough to change the laws? From www@cordova.asap.um.maine.edu Sat Nov 15 12:38:47 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org Received: from cordova.asap.um.maine.edu (cordova.asap.um.maine.edu [130.111.220.245]) by happyhouse.metalab.unc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id DEC0720005 for ; Sat, 15 Nov 2003 12:38:46 -0500 (EST) Received: by cordova.asap.um.maine.edu (Postfix, from userid 70) id 8ABF091FB7; Sat, 15 Nov 2003 12:38:36 -0500 (EST) To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org From: jonah@eyebeam.org In-Reply-To: Message-Id: <20031115173836.8ABF091FB7@cordova.asap.um.maine.edu> Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2003 12:38:36 -0500 (EST) X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sat, 15 Nov 2003 13:59:39 -0500 Subject: [cc-eyebeam] If only artists had a choice X-BeenThere: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.2 Precedence: list Reply-To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org List-Id: Creative Commons-Eyebeam Forum 2003 November 12-19 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2003 17:38:47 -0000 To be a successful creative producer, you need lots of help from other people. Writers need supportive literary agents and publishers, artists need gallerists and enthusiastic collectors, and filmmakers need producers, publicists, and distributors. In each of these cases, the creative producers do not have much leverage to negotiate novel intellectual property arrangements and are usually just grateful that someone is promoting their work. Meanwhile, the agencies, studios, and galleries, have their own templated intellectual property agreements that need to be signed, and they bear little resemblance to Creative Commons licenses. This system of production is one of the major obstacles for Creative Commons. From www@cordova.asap.um.maine.edu Sun Nov 16 11:57:53 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org Received: from cordova.asap.um.maine.edu (cordova.asap.um.maine.edu [130.111.220.245]) by happyhouse.metalab.unc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A23020015 for ; Sun, 16 Nov 2003 11:57:53 -0500 (EST) Received: by cordova.asap.um.maine.edu (Postfix, from userid 70) id 656CB921A5; Sun, 16 Nov 2003 11:57:53 -0500 (EST) To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org Subject: Re: [cc-eyebeam] Responses to Carlo and Liza From: cz@zanni.org In-Reply-To: Message-Id: <20031116165753.656CB921A5@cordova.asap.um.maine.edu> Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2003 11:57:53 -0500 (EST) X-BeenThere: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.2 Precedence: list Reply-To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org List-Id: Creative Commons-Eyebeam Forum 2003 November 12-19 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2003 16:57:53 -0000 >>>Our licenses have been designed for most copyrightable content, including paintings. In the same way that a band would want their song shared online, I could see the same motives for a visual net artist. Hi, I understand but I see artworld as a parallel world where this kind of rules don't work. The only "copyright/copyleft" art can have, in my opinion, is authorship, that is a long process, and not only a signature. I mean, I don't want to stop people from copying my paintings or copying my net things because there is no reason why they should do it. In artworld there isn't an attitude to upgrade things as usually there is in software or music (with remix). Think about photoshop 1,2, 3, 4, 5.. I could be interested in stealing or sharing their code and upgrading it... But there is no reason to steal a netart work to upgrade it. I don't think people can appreciate my work, my figure as an artist if I steal netFlag scripts... doing a new faster version of them... or a version with more patterns and so on.. who cares about it? I still don't think copyright or copyleft are applicable to art pieces... and the only license art can have is its presence in a personal research field... people usually call it poetics. From www@cordova.asap.um.maine.edu Sun Nov 16 12:32:29 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org Received: from cordova.asap.um.maine.edu (cordova.asap.um.maine.edu [130.111.220.245]) by happyhouse.metalab.unc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id C98E520012 for ; Sun, 16 Nov 2003 12:32:28 -0500 (EST) Received: by cordova.asap.um.maine.edu (Postfix, from userid 70) id 81109921C6; Sun, 16 Nov 2003 12:32:23 -0500 (EST) To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org From: blogdiva@culturekitchen.com In-Reply-To: Message-Id: <20031116173223.81109921C6@cordova.asap.um.maine.edu> Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2003 12:32:23 -0500 (EST) Subject: [cc-eyebeam] NetArt and Copyright: A response to Zanni X-BeenThere: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.2 Precedence: list Reply-To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org List-Id: Creative Commons-Eyebeam Forum 2003 November 12-19 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2003 17:32:29 -0000 Carlo wrote: In truth I find CreativeCommons set of licenses very interesting ("Choose License" tool is very helpful) but not so well applicable to an art piece... but of course.. I'm here to learn and to know more about this subject. Anybody that goes to potatoland will get how Napier understand data. Data on the web is nothing unless you have something to interpret it. It is just electrical currents that you can unravel in the way the W3C has agreed a browser should, the way Microsoft insists it should work or however you can get away coding it yourself (as in The Shredder). In effect, anything digital is really up for grabs --whether you put it on the web, on a cd or dvd. It does not matter. There is always some hacker with a new trick that can be at the ready to snif and swipe either your content or your code. Napier went on to work on potatoland right after the Mattel/Distorted Barbie incident. This experience left him keenly aware that on the net anything goes. So you see how a lot of his work is almost impossible to copyright ---if what we are talking here is content. Why every instance of a piece like Riot, for example, is unique and irreproducible. That means that anybody that goes to pototaland right now can walk away with a one-of-a-kind Mark Napier. They can shred a website or make a riot with a couple of them, take screenshots, blow them up or make nice archival prints with them, frame them and VOILA! a one-of-a-kind work of art by Mark Napier. Now notice I said one-of-a-kind but not authentic. I'll get to that in a minute. As I said, Napier was very aware of this. This was part of the design of the work and we decided to keep any mention of copyright off the website because at the time the site was created there was no CC-licensing. We have discussed this licensing issue many times and he is still out on the matter because there is another issue at hand, the issue of what I am going to call at the moment "collaborative interactivity" because for 7 years now we've been searching for the right term and still have not found it. In collaborative interactivity the user is an intrinsic part of the artwork. The artwork does not exist unless someone uses the software or interacts with the interface. Napier's pieces are inspired partly from gaming and from all those years of creating software programs for the banking industry. As a commercial coder he has a knack for usability. But his work is also informed by my background in post-structuralist theory. When working the QA of his pieces and the issues of usability, I have always used Maurice Blanchot as an inspiration and I am going to paraphrase one of his ideas on writing: A book that has never been read is a book that has yet to be written. This idea of creativity has been fundamental in the development of the interfaces for Napier's work. In most of Napier's earlier work the user becomes the single most important aspect of the artwork. Without users there would be no c-Bots and in that sense Carlo is correct to say that it becomes inconceivable to think that one could create a fair copyright license for a piece like that. I mean, it is not Mark Napier who created the end results, it was the user. It would seem fair to say that in a piece like net.flag, each user that wanted to print the screen and print their flag and/or flags would just go ahead and do it. At the moment that piece, even though it is part of the Guggenheim and by virtue of the contract signed copyrighted by them, they cannot really stop anybody from creating their own printed gallery of net.flags. A lot of people have viewed this 'anything goes' attitude about net art as the main problem with its viability as a commodity. If is it digital it will be easily reproducible. Well, yes but we can see especially with the music industry that the more companies try to close down a digital product (think of the music and movie industries) the more hackers out there will find a way to crack the code. So what would make it viable? Authenticity. If a digital piece has been authenticated by the artist, that would make it more valuable than anything considered one-of-a-kind. When working out the details of how The Waiting Room was going to be sold, several ideas were tossed around from watermarks to encryption to password keys. Napier settled for the idea of a "deed". If the owners of the piece want to make multiple copies of the work, that's up to them. What is of value to them is the fact that their CD and/or components have been authenticated with a deed of their share of the work (whichever numbers they bought out of the 50 in the edition). This may seem lamely untechnological but think about it if it where applied to the music industry. Once upon a time LPs were collected for their covers, particularly if they were part of a special edition. Many music enthusiasts saw the advent of tapes and then CDs as the death of the fantastic pop-art easily available on LPs. What difference is there between an LP a cassette tape or a cd? The CD is easy to reproduce point by point in quality and even easier to distribute (thanks to MP3s and the web) whereas it was not so with LPs or cassettes. Does this mean people never used to make copies of LPs or cassettes? Of course not and we know that and the record industry knows that. They've always known that songs are easily reproducible --if not we would not have muzak. But the industry is caught up on volume because quantity and not quality is not what they are after. Still the model is bound for extinction. In a world where almost anything is reproducible you've got to work with that and say, how am I going to make this worth people's while? Good art, good music, good movies? Yes, perhaps, maybe. Still, if you can authenticate the work, if you can make it extra special because you are giving the buyer something that only they have access to, that is where the market will go. It's all about scarcity. So you turn buyers into collectors making their version of an album, a movie or an artwork unique. Then the reproducibility of a digital work of art, song or software are not going to be an issue anymore. Authenticity is what would make it valuable. This is not new to the market --it has always been the case with art and antiques. What will be interesting to see is how this is how this is going to be extended to the market -- given that it is already being tested with DVD movies. There's a whole "extras" documentary industry cropping around them. So to summarize, when it comes to art displayed on the web, open licenses may be helpful in explaining what people might want to do with what they see and/or create with the works (like copying and displaying at home). When it comes to selling art though, the issue is not so much whether the work is reproducible or not but whether it can be authenticated. That to me is what makes these days any digital work worth buying and collecting, whether it is a DVD, MP3, Perl Script or Java Applet. Best, Liza From www@cordova.asap.um.maine.edu Sun Nov 16 12:34:29 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org Received: from cordova.asap.um.maine.edu (cordova.asap.um.maine.edu [130.111.220.245]) by happyhouse.metalab.unc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3FEE82001B for ; Sun, 16 Nov 2003 12:34:29 -0500 (EST) Received: by cordova.asap.um.maine.edu (Postfix, from userid 70) id 11952921C8; Sun, 16 Nov 2003 12:34:29 -0500 (EST) To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org From: cz@zanni.org In-Reply-To: <20031116173223.81109921C6@cordova.asap.um.maine.edu> Message-Id: <20031116173429.11952921C8@cordova.asap.um.maine.edu> Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2003 12:34:29 -0500 (EST) Subject: [cc-eyebeam] Re: NetArt and Copyright: A response to Zanni X-BeenThere: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.2 Precedence: list Reply-To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org List-Id: Creative Commons-Eyebeam Forum 2003 November 12-19 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2003 17:34:29 -0000 >>>In effect, anything digital is really up for grabs --whether you put it on the web, on a cd or dvd. It does not matter. There is always some hacker with a new trick that can be at the ready to snif and swipe either your content or your code. It's true but it's not a problem.. let them copy you Art is not a Louis Vuitton Murakami Bag.. ;) And you know...people always made also fake "paper money" and fake Fontana and Wharol works... >>> and VOILA! a one-of-a-kind work of art by Mark Napier. Now notice I said one-of-a-kind but not authentic. That's the point >>> In collaborative interactivity the user is an intrinsic part of the artwork. The artwork does not exist unless someone uses the software or interacts with the interface. It's true but it could be also a limitation.. I mean.. i think about netart also as "designing the pipe" (i'm quoting a previous post by Donato Mancini), designing the network... then if people don't come in through it.. it's another story... it's more about PR - marketing... But i understand that they probably are 2 faces of the same coin ... >>> I mean, it is not Mark Napier who created the end results, it was the user. Yes and " it was the user who created the end results" is the basis of netart... but we have not to forget (in my mind the most important thing) that Napier designed the set of rules.. designed the network.. which i think it's a keyrole issue in doing netart. >>> Authenticity is what would make it valuable. Absolutely and that's the reson why i think we cannot "copy and paste" CC licenses in artworld.. because this "Authenticity is what would make it valuable" for many reasons is only a paradigm in art and a nonsense in music-video business. yours truly, carlo From www@cordova.asap.um.maine.edu Sun Nov 16 12:35:10 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org Received: from cordova.asap.um.maine.edu (cordova.asap.um.maine.edu [130.111.220.245]) by happyhouse.metalab.unc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id A623D2001B for ; Sun, 16 Nov 2003 12:35:10 -0500 (EST) Received: by cordova.asap.um.maine.edu (Postfix, from userid 70) id 814C1921CE; Sun, 16 Nov 2003 12:35:10 -0500 (EST) To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org From: jippolito@guggenheim.org In-Reply-To: Message-Id: <20031116173510.814C1921CE@cordova.asap.um.maine.edu> Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2003 12:35:10 -0500 (EST) Subject: [cc-eyebeam] why art shouldn't be property X-BeenThere: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.2 Precedence: list Reply-To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org List-Id: Creative Commons-Eyebeam Forum 2003 November 12-19 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2003 17:35:11 -0000 Joseph Pietro Riolo wrote: > Is it wrong for authors and artists > to exercise property rights in their writings and art? Making art into property helps plenty of collectors and middlemen–even a few artists. The problem is, it cripples artists more than it helps them, by covertly impeding their power to create, to get paid, even to give. Others on this list have commented on the hurdles intellectual property presents to the creator, as well as the difficulty of squeezing fair compensation out of a gallery or recording contract. What is less well known is that granting art the status of property even impedes artists' ability to give. Of course, artists *are* constantly giving, in the sense of working without pay--yet property law makes sure that artists aren't the ones empowered by giving art. There are two ways in which the concept of art as property hampers artists' ability to give. Firstly, those artists who make art to give away won't show a profit on their income tax return, which in the US will lead the Internal Revenue Service to reject as a "hobby" any attempt to write off expenses such as studio rent. Even if an artist shows a profit, she can only write off the cost of materials for any charitable donations. This is in contrast to the benefits available to the *collector*, who can write off the market value of donations. (Mr. Rauschenberg can claim a $100 deduction on paint and canvas for his white paintings, but Mr. Rockefeller can claim a $1,000,000 market value deduction when he donates them to the Menil Collection.) Secondly, making art property has implications beyond the lifetime of the artist. If you think artists don't get an even break giving away art while they're alive, just wait until they're dead. My father, a second-generation abstract painter, was well known in the 1950s, but his market shrank when he moved away from New York City in subsequent decades. Nevertheless he continued to paint prolifically and had hundreds of unsold works in his studio when he recently died. As heirs, my brother and I were faced with the dire prospect that the IRS could take his asking price for a painting, multiply by the number of paintings in his inventory, and then levy taxes on this farcical multimillion-dollar figure. Whether an artist sells work or makes work to give it away, the implications are the same. Art is property; and you can't give property away to avoid inheritance tax; you can't even throw it away. Attorney John Silberman once asked the IRS how it would judge a body of works made purely for art's sake, with little commercial potential. The response was, "If you do not want to pay taxes on them, destroy them before you die." [Rothschild-Sharpe Foundations, A Visual Artist's Guide to Estate Planning] This is exactly what artists should do: destroy their artistic property before they die. But how can artists destroy artistic property without destroying art? The answer, I think, is open licenses. By extending the noncommercial, sharealike, and open source requirements attached to such licenses we can envision a future in which an artist's legacy benefits people instead of benefiting institutions. Firstly, such open-licensed artworks would have no clear sales value, and hence not be taxable as income. Secondly, after an artist’s death, there would be benefits for inheritors of the estate. The primary job of the executor of an artist's estate should be to give the inheritance away in the manner most consistent with the artist's intent. The use of open licensing would get around the issues imposed by tax authorities that result from the model of art as property. It would be important to prevent a tax court from going after a beneficiary with the argument that the open license was only a default, and the beneficiary could still negotiate a higher price through a private transaction. Fortunately, the fact that the works were available for free should undercut such an argument. I'd be curious to hear from the lawyers whether more exclusive terms might be required to free the work from putative tax valuation. Within the wider arts context, there would be implications for collecting institutions or individuals. For museums to acquire open-licensed art might require them to transform from collecting institutions to circulating institutions. This change would be just as dramatic for paintings as for online art, for museums commonly exhibit less than ten percent of the works in their collection; the rest gather dust in basements and warehouses. Art is cultural heritage, not an investment to be squirreled away in a vault as a form of commodity speculation. To acquire a sharealike work, museums might have to drastically reshape their acquisitions policies to ensure the works in their collection spent the maximum possible time on public view--if not on their own walls, then on loan to other institutions. Cheers, jon From www@cordova.asap.um.maine.edu Sun Nov 16 12:35:18 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org Received: from cordova.asap.um.maine.edu (cordova.asap.um.maine.edu [130.111.220.245]) by happyhouse.metalab.unc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id B157A200AF for ; Sun, 16 Nov 2003 12:35:16 -0500 (EST) Received: by cordova.asap.um.maine.edu (Postfix, from userid 70) id 4B266921D1; Sun, 16 Nov 2003 12:35:15 -0500 (EST) To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org Subject: Re: [cc-eyebeam] Quote from MLK Jr. From: jippolito@guggenheim.org In-Reply-To: Message-Id: <20031116173515.4B266921D1@cordova.asap.um.maine.edu> Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2003 12:35:15 -0500 (EST) X-BeenThere: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.2 Precedence: list Reply-To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org List-Id: Creative Commons-Eyebeam Forum 2003 November 12-19 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2003 17:35:18 -0000 Joseph Pietro Riolo wrote: > Is it possible for authors and artists to > misuse their property rights? Often such rights benefit a token few while hurting the ecology for art as a whole. The recent harmonization of artist’s resale rights, or droit de suite, in Europe uses a sliding scale that specifies an inalienable and non-transferable royalty paid by the seller to the artist in the event of a sale. Some critics of droit de suite argue that it will dramatically increase auction prices in countries (such as the UK) that adopt it, shifting the art market away from them. Others argue that even if every country adopted these rights, it would only guarantee that the rich artists got richer. Cheers, jon From www@cordova.asap.um.maine.edu Sun Nov 16 11:57:35 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org Received: from cordova.asap.um.maine.edu (cordova.asap.um.maine.edu [130.111.220.245]) by happyhouse.metalab.unc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53DE720015 for ; Sun, 16 Nov 2003 11:57:35 -0500 (EST) Received: by cordova.asap.um.maine.edu (Postfix, from userid 70) id 07B7B9219F; Sun, 16 Nov 2003 11:57:35 -0500 (EST) To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org From: Nicholas@commonrights.com In-Reply-To: <20031112163409.6F89491468@cordova.asap.um.maine.edu> Message-Id: <20031116165735.07B7B9219F@cordova.asap.um.maine.edu> Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2003 11:57:35 -0500 (EST) X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sun, 16 Nov 2003 15:03:36 -0500 Subject: [cc-eyebeam] Re: Welcome to Distributed Creativity X-BeenThere: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.2 Precedence: list Reply-To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org List-Id: Creative Commons-Eyebeam Forum 2003 November 12-19 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2003 16:57:35 -0000 I applaud the efforts of the Creative Commons and Distributed Creativity and I too worry that the legal system will fail to support the ‘commons of ideas’. If someone wishes to share his or her work with society as a whole a CC licence is ideal and is wonderful for consciousness raising. Will open licences suffice to ensure a creative commons? I am not so sure. The essence of individual creativity is feedback - artists working together, the instant response of a street audience. A second important layer of support for the artist is where consumers can purchase works to reward the artist they like. Another type of feedback. Can the Creative Commons and open licences support this type of feedback? From www@cordova.asap.um.maine.edu Sun Nov 16 14:02:45 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org Received: from cordova.asap.um.maine.edu (cordova.asap.um.maine.edu [130.111.220.245]) by happyhouse.metalab.unc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC5E4200E6 for ; Sun, 16 Nov 2003 14:02:42 -0500 (EST) Received: by cordova.asap.um.maine.edu (Postfix, from userid 70) id 480519221C; Sun, 16 Nov 2003 14:02:42 -0500 (EST) To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org From: wendy@seltzer.com In-Reply-To: <20031115174037.30D5391FBA@cordova.asap.um.maine.edu> Message-Id: <20031116190242.480519221C@cordova.asap.um.maine.edu> Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2003 14:02:42 -0500 (EST) X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sun, 16 Nov 2003 15:03:57 -0500 Subject: [cc-eyebeam] Re: OpenLaw, Chilling Effects, Creative Commons X-BeenThere: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.2 Precedence: list Reply-To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org List-Id: Creative Commons-Eyebeam Forum 2003 November 12-19 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2003 19:02:45 -0000 Thanks for the introduction, Joline! One of the things I find most exciting about the Internet is that the sense of Jeffersonian revolution is very much alive online. If you don't like what someone's saying, go to a bulletin board, website, or weblog and say something else; criticize their arguments and respond with your own. If you don't like the software available, patch it (if it's open source) or write your own. Of course there are some who don't like all that speech, and many of them try to use intellectual property law to silence it. Since we started Chilling Effects, we've seen numerous abuses of trademark or copyright to pull down critics and parodists. Particularly bad are uses of the DMCA takedown provision -- demands to ISPs to remove their users' content. That's why EFF recently filed suit against Diebold, one of the worst abusers of DMCA takedown, on behalf of Online Policy Group and two Swarthmore students. Diebold didn't want people talking about the insecurity of its electronic voting machines with the best evidence available -- internal emails among Diebold employees noting security flaws and efforts to hide them -- so it sent demands to the ISPs to disable their users' hosting or linking. Because we feel that copyright should not be misused to stifle key political debate, we've asked the court to stop Diebold from sending these threats. We all deserve the right to talk about how democratic elections work. From www@cordova.asap.um.maine.edu Sun Nov 16 19:18:03 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org Received: from cordova.asap.um.maine.edu (cordova.asap.um.maine.edu [130.111.220.245]) by happyhouse.metalab.unc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 603AF2003E for ; Sun, 16 Nov 2003 19:18:03 -0500 (EST) Received: by cordova.asap.um.maine.edu (Postfix, from userid 70) id 16BEB9229B; Sun, 16 Nov 2003 19:18:03 -0500 (EST) To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org From: jippolito@guggenheim.org In-Reply-To: <20031116190242.480519221C@cordova.asap.um.maine.edu> Message-Id: <20031117001803.16BEB9229B@cordova.asap.um.maine.edu> Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2003 19:18:03 -0500 (EST) Subject: [cc-eyebeam] Re: OpenLaw, Chilling Effects, Creative Commons X-BeenThere: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.2 Precedence: list Reply-To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org List-Id: Creative Commons-Eyebeam Forum 2003 November 12-19 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2003 00:18:03 -0000 Wendy Seltzer wrote: > That's why EFF recently filed suit against Diebold, one of the worst abusers of DMCA takedown, on behalf of Online Policy Group and two Swarthmore students. Wendy, the distributed approach behind your legal innovations is fascinating, but I presume you and your colleagues didn't exactly learn it in law schools and law firms. The Swarthmore case offers a parallel case: the students went out on a limb to publicize the embarrassing documents, but the university caved to pressure from Diebold and removed the documents from its network. As Swarthmore sophomore Nelson Pavlosky put it, "We feel like they wimped out." (http://truthout.org/docs_03/110403E.shtml) I have a hunch the chutzpah of students like Pavlosky isn't just naivete. Conditioned by Napster and other file-sharing programs created by and for 20-year-olds, this generation thinks in a distributed way. If so, what will happen to their natural inclination once it collides head-on with the hierarchic culture they will inherit? jon From glenn@creativecommons.org Mon Nov 17 02:39:28 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org Received: from out2.smtp.messagingengine.com (out2.smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.26]) by happyhouse.metalab.unc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id CABB420027 for ; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 02:39:28 -0500 (EST) X-Sasl-enc: dQ8sQtYGO9fc3S0HUJrqpw 1069054768 Received: from [192.168.2.5] (24-205-60-64.gln-eres.charterpipeline.net [24.205.60.64]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF0BA4211DF for ; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 02:39:27 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v606) In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Glenn Otis Brown Subject: Re: [cc-eyebeam] Quote from MLK Jr. Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2003 23:37:06 +0000 To: Creative Commons-Eyebeam Forum 2003 November 12-19 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.606) X-BeenThere: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.2 Precedence: list Reply-To: Creative Commons-Eyebeam Forum 2003 November 12-19 List-Id: Creative Commons-Eyebeam Forum 2003 November 12-19 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2003 07:39:29 -0000 > I tend to agree with your point here, Joseph. My own view is that property rights and human rights aren't necessarily rivalrous rights. Personal property and the right to protect it is critical to being a citizen, I think; it allows for personal autonomy. I'm a big fan of the fact that the government, or my boss, or my creditors, can't come take my property without due process. And remember, it's property that makes the GPL (and our share alike licenses) magic: the copyleft requirement protects free software from being coopted into closed code. Only a strong property right can provide this anti-exploitation protection. Here is food for your thought: Is it wrong for authors and artists > to exercise property rights in their writings and art? How is this > different from RIAA? Is it possible for authors and artists to > misuse their property rights? Do the authors and artists consider > their property rights more important than users? How does this > reconcile with the above quotation? > I think these questions are getting to the point. We seem to be most uncomfortable with notions of property the farther they are removed from the personal. This is why the RIAA's pleadings that it is representing artists' interests comes across as insincere; how much do these artists' contracts actually let them control their own creations? There's one thing that we don't talk much about on the Creative Commons website -- simply because it's beyond our scope -- but that's pretty relevant to this point: the increasing trend of distribution of intellectual property away from people and to organizations and companies. The work for hire doctrine, absurdly lopsided recording contracts, trade secret law -- all of these things weaken personal property rights (and therefore personal autonomy and expression) in the name of big-picture (and big firm) efficiency. Beware: when you start calling for the weakening of personal property rights in the context of copyright, you can bet that organizations and companies will use that as a pretext to strengthen their own. > > Joseph Pietro Riolo > > > Public domain notice: I put all of my expressions in this > post in the public domain. > > _______________________________________________ > cc-eyebeam mailing list > cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-eyebeam > > This discussion runs 2003 November 12-19. Submissions are licensed > under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike > license . From glenn@creativecommons.org Mon Nov 17 02:50:14 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org Received: from out2.smtp.messagingengine.com (out2.smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.26]) by happyhouse.metalab.unc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2722F20081 for ; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 02:50:14 -0500 (EST) X-Sasl-enc: j9Br6rDG0T3SojekHhGJiw 1069055413 Received: from [192.168.2.5] (24-205-60-64.gln-eres.charterpipeline.net [24.205.60.64]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A00C41CB85 for ; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 02:50:13 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v606) In-Reply-To: <20031117001803.16BEB9229B@cordova.asap.um.maine.edu> References: <20031117001803.16BEB9229B@cordova.asap.um.maine.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: <7F5450D4-188F-11D8-98F2-000393864E40@creativecommons.org> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Glenn Otis Brown Subject: Re: [cc-eyebeam] Re: OpenLaw, Chilling Effects, Creative Commons Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2003 23:49:20 +0000 To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.606) X-BeenThere: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.2 Precedence: list Reply-To: Creative Commons-Eyebeam Forum 2003 November 12-19 List-Id: Creative Commons-Eyebeam Forum 2003 November 12-19 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2003 07:50:14 -0000 > the distributed approach behind your legal innovations is fascinating, > but I presume you and your colleagues didn't exactly learn it in law > schools and law firms. Along these lines -- of open-source influencing law and beyond -- here's a great article from Wired this month: http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.11/opensource.html In "Open Source Everywhere," author Thomas Goetz advises us to "get ready for the era when collaboration replaces the corporation." Thought-provoking stuff. What limits do you think the model has? Will far-flung digital collaboration work for all sorts of production needs, or only a narrow band of them? For those who want to dig a little deeper on this topic, or who want to think about the economics behind it, I strongly recommend Yochai Benkler's "Coase's Penguin, or Linux and the Nature of the Firm" -- . --Glenn > The Swarthmore case offers a parallel case: the students went out on a > limb to publicize the embarrassing documents, but the university caved > to pressure from Diebold and removed the documents from its network. > As Swarthmore sophomore Nelson Pavlosky put it, "We feel like they > wimped out." ( target="_blank">http://truthout.org/docs_03/110403E.shtml) > > I have a hunch the chutzpah of students like Pavlosky isn't just > naivete. Conditioned by Napster and other file-sharing programs > created by and for 20-year-olds, this generation thinks in a > distributed way. If so, what will happen to their natural inclination > once it collides head-on with the hierarchic culture they will > inherit? > > jon > _______________________________________________ > cc-eyebeam mailing list > cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-eyebeam > > This discussion runs 2003 November 12-19. Submissions are licensed > under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike > license . From www@cordova.asap.um.maine.edu Mon Nov 17 11:11:32 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org Received: from cordova.asap.um.maine.edu (cordova.asap.um.maine.edu [130.111.220.245]) by happyhouse.metalab.unc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id B0BF62001B for ; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 11:11:32 -0500 (EST) Received: by cordova.asap.um.maine.edu (Postfix, from userid 70) id 6830F923C0; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 11:11:32 -0500 (EST) To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org From: john@dx.org In-Reply-To: Message-Id: <20031117161132.6830F923C0@cordova.asap.um.maine.edu> Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2003 11:11:32 -0500 (EST) X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 17 Nov 2003 11:16:13 -0500 Subject: [cc-eyebeam] Re: copyright and the developing world X-BeenThere: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.2 Precedence: list Reply-To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org List-Id: Creative Commons-Eyebeam Forum 2003 November 12-19 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2003 16:11:33 -0000 Thanks for this anecdote, Tom. That sounds like a very cool initiative. But the question that arises is: in the long run, how will it help an artist in South Africa to release a commercial musical recording if the market for this kind of product is being terminally eroded by file-sharing? You suggest that: > So, we now have the makings of an economic model for providing every individual throughout the world with the opportunity to compete on equal footing with the largest media content providers across the music, arts, and book publishing "industries". > But the reality is that those industries are suffering serious destabilization – that will only get much worse – as people take advantage of the internet to share 'content' without paying for it. But they remain giants whose interests are directly opposed to that of your South African friend. If he is one day able to play with the Vivendis and Bertelsmanns of the world on a level playing field it will only be because the industries that those giants dominate will have themselves been levelled. The need is for a new model that isn't based on importing literate capitalism online but that capitalizes on the inherent strengths of the internet to build economically sustainable communities of interest by valuing what is shared online differently. I believe we need models that reward process rather than product, that enable masters of collaborative process living in developing (predominantly oral) nations to leverage their unique community-building skills online rather than adapting their creative energies to a system designed to exploit them. To my mind the collaborative connection you facilitated between the South African singer and Open Studios is of far more value and significance than the product of that collaboration. The trick is to find ways to sell participation in that facilitative context. It's something that I was working on in different ways in a business I founded a few years ago called Globalhood (www.globalhood.net). But that was just a start. There is a tremendous amount of work to do to implement these models once they have been designed. I'm trying to find out if and where this is happening today. Regards, and please send a link to Olu Victo-Omole's music... John Sobol From heather@gn.apc.org Mon Nov 17 12:33:55 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org Received: from mail.gn.apc.org (greennet1.poptel.org.uk [213.55.2.205]) by happyhouse.metalab.unc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F77E20016 for ; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 12:33:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (unknown [192.168.0.2]) by mail.gn.apc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A8D314B734 for ; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 17:33:50 +0000 (GMT) Received: from guest.gn.apc.org (ip61.oak-creek.sfo.interquest.net [66.199.82.61]) by mail.gn.apc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8AFC14B732 for ; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 17:33:44 +0000 (GMT) Message-Id: <6.0.0.22.0.20031117090940.01eb4410@pop.gn.apc.org> X-Sender: heather@pop.gn.apc.org X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.0.0.22 Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2003 09:33:45 -0800 To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org From: Heather Ford Subject: Re: [cc-eyebeam] Re: copyright and the developing world In-Reply-To: <20031117161132.6830F923C0@cordova.asap.um.maine.edu> References: <20031117161132.6830F923C0@cordova.asap.um.maine.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at gn.apc.org X-BeenThere: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.2 Precedence: list Reply-To: Creative Commons-Eyebeam Forum 2003 November 12-19 List-Id: Creative Commons-Eyebeam Forum 2003 November 12-19 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2003 17:33:56 -0000 I couldn't agree with you more, Jon - that's why I really like the creative= =20 commons view of a 'spectrum of rights' that create a number of different=20 models for generating economic and social value. I've been thinking about=20 this a lot in the context of South Africa. We have some great musicians=20 here, hopelessly competing with the massive international recording=20 industry both internally and outside of the country. Very, very few=20 musicians release songs as mp3s because they believe that its hard enough=20 trying to make a living without giving their music away. What I'd like to=20 see is a campaign educating musicians about the value, for example, of=20 giving away some of their music so that people like what they hear and want= =20 to buy more. I'm hoping that in the future more South African musicians and= =20 small recording companies begin leveraging the power of the Internet to=20 build their own site, give away some songs and sell the CD independently so= =20 that they can get maximum reward for their efforts. The market needs to be= =20 alive and well when this happens. Interestingly, in South Africa, we have a local content quota for=20 broadcasting that has really boosted the television broadcasting sector but= =20 still has a long way to go for music. There is a group called the South=20 African Music Content Coalition=20 (http://www.robinauld.co.za/samqc/default.asp) that is attempting to double= =20 the current quota of 25% to 50% so that we can try and reverse the trend=20 that sees collection agency SAMRO sending hundreds of millions out of the=20 country every year in SA airplay royalties. According to the site, 'the=20 foreign owned labels that spoonfeed our broadcast industry earned 452=20 million for their overseas head offices in 2001 .=20 (www.risa.org.za). This is akin to giving the=20 Russian and Spanish fishing fleets free access to SA waters.' At least the quotas can (mostly) be regulated in the broadcasting sector -= =20 but when the Internet becomes more popular in South Africa as a means of=20 getting access to content and the floodgates open, then it will be more=20 difficult to stimulate the local industry - unless we have already=20 established new models for generating value from local content. Globalhood looks really great. I'm going to be running workshops in South=20 Africa in december and january with local community telecentres that look=20 at new models for generating community-oriented content - mainly through=20 community blogging. I really think that what is needed is more education=20 and collaboration among local people to find unique ways of generating=20 value in the system. A big problem is that we have so little knowledge of=20 Intellectual Property Rights and have been lulled into thinking that the=20 current system where we in South Africa are surrounded by American content= =20 and very little local content, is a system that we cannot change. Education and community collaboration is the key to finding our own ways of= =20 making the system work for us rather than against us. Heather. :11 AM 11/17/2003, you wrote: >Thanks for this anecdote, Tom. That sounds like a >very cool initiative. But the question that >arises is: in the long run, how will it help an >artist in South Africa to release a commercial >musical recording if the market for this kind of >product is being terminally eroded by >file-sharing? > >You suggest that: >> So, we now have the makings of an economic >model for providing every individual throughout >the world with the opportunity to compete on >equal footing with the largest media content >providers across the music, arts, and book >publishing "industries". >> > >But the reality is that those industries are >suffering serious destabilization =AD that will >only get much worse =AD as people take advantage of >the internet to share 'content' without paying >for it. But they remain giants whose interests >are directly opposed to that of your South >African friend. If he is one day able to play >with the Vivendis and Bertelsmanns of the world >on a level playing field it will only be because >the industries that those giants dominate will >have themselves been levelled. > >The need is for a new model that isn't based on >importing literate capitalism online but that >capitalizes on the inherent strengths of the >internet to build economically sustainable >communities of interest by valuing what is shared >online differently. > >I believe we need models that reward process >rather than product, that enable masters of >collaborative process living in developing >(predominantly oral) nations to leverage their >unique community-building skills online rather >than adapting their creative energies to a system >designed to exploit them. > >To my mind the collaborative connection you >facilitated between the South African singer and >Open Studios is of far more value and >significance than the product of that >collaboration. The trick is to find ways to sell >participation in that facilitative context. It's >something that I was working on in different ways >in a business I founded a few years ago called >Globalhood (www.globalhood.net). But that was >just a start. There is a tremendous amount of >work to do to implement these models once they >have been designed. I'm trying to find out if and >where this is happening today. > >Regards, and please send a link to Olu >Victo-Omole's music... >John Sobol >_______________________________________________ >cc-eyebeam mailing list >cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org >http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-eyebeam > >This discussion runs 2003 November 12-19. Submissions are licensed >under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike >license . Heather Ford ************************************************ http://ubuntu.typepad.com/hblog/ Reuters Stanford Digital Visions Program http://reuters.stanford.edu Cordura Hall, 220 Panama Street Stanford, CA 94305-4115, USA Cell: 650 380 4227 From www@cordova.asap.um.maine.edu Mon Nov 17 13:47:54 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org Received: from cordova.asap.um.maine.edu (cordova.asap.um.maine.edu [130.111.220.245]) by happyhouse.metalab.unc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 372C92002E for ; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 13:47:54 -0500 (EST) Received: by cordova.asap.um.maine.edu (Postfix, from userid 70) id 051BF9241E; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 13:47:53 -0500 (EST) To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org From: marek_walczak@yahoo.com In-Reply-To: <20031114160002.6CD7791B92@cordova.asap.um.maine.edu> Message-Id: <20031117184753.051BF9241E@cordova.asap.um.maine.edu> Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2003 13:47:53 -0500 (EST) Subject: [cc-eyebeam] Re: Hola Amigos X-BeenThere: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.2 Precedence: list Reply-To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org List-Id: Creative Commons-Eyebeam Forum 2003 November 12-19 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2003 18:47:54 -0000 > >I agree that the practise of netart should > disappear. > > Ahh ... hmmm ... never said that and never > intended to imply that. My point was merely that the structure of Blogs, with the collective effort and money/time spent in its pursuit has massively expanded its base, whereas nearly none of that appears in netart, which pretty much means its only option is to disappear. Netart perhaps does have a life similar to that of museums. In some past lives, painters would show in a major museum, for free, then get picked up by galleries, at which point they might earn some money. Museums do not generally pay for netart, or at least not much, because of this standard model? Creating netart is an alternative to this process, if you get paid nothing/not much, why not try to go beyond a museum's usefulness. In such a model, Blogs would be a highly useful type to emulate. So again I agree with you, netart should disappear and become a subset of blogs. > >Blogs of course are about news/gossip. > >This statement is proof of the bad rap blogs > have within the art community Ofcourse you know better, just personal experience. O and Blogs also contain a lot of opinions. > But Apartment and Shredder be damned, Don't worry, within five years or so they will simply be part of the ether. From www@cordova.asap.um.maine.edu Mon Nov 17 13:48:38 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org Received: from cordova.asap.um.maine.edu (cordova.asap.um.maine.edu [130.111.220.245]) by happyhouse.metalab.unc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71E4E2002E for ; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 13:48:38 -0500 (EST) Received: by cordova.asap.um.maine.edu (Postfix, from userid 70) id 4D81E92424; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 13:48:38 -0500 (EST) To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org From: marek_walczak@yahoo.com In-Reply-To: <20031116173510.814C1921CE@cordova.asap.um.maine.edu> Message-Id: <20031117184838.4D81E92424@cordova.asap.um.maine.edu> Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2003 13:48:38 -0500 (EST) Subject: [cc-eyebeam] Re: why art shouldn't be property X-BeenThere: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.2 Precedence: list Reply-To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org List-Id: Creative Commons-Eyebeam Forum 2003 November 12-19 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2003 18:48:38 -0000 > The answer, I think, is open licenses. By extending the noncommercial, sharealike, and open source requirements attached to such licenses we can envision a future in which an artist's legacy benefits people instead of benefiting institutions. I'm totally lost. It seems like you've outlined one paradigm where artists earn very little to another one where they earn nothing at all! In such a context, can you explain where the money would come from? Thanks. From www@cordova.asap.um.maine.edu Mon Nov 17 13:47:34 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org Received: from cordova.asap.um.maine.edu (cordova.asap.um.maine.edu [130.111.220.245]) by happyhouse.metalab.unc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id D430920017 for ; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 13:47:33 -0500 (EST) Received: by cordova.asap.um.maine.edu (Postfix, from userid 70) id 5248D92418; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 13:47:33 -0500 (EST) To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org Subject: Re: [cc-eyebeam] more from Creative Commons From: whatever@whatever.info In-Reply-To: Message-Id: <20031117184733.5248D92418@cordova.asap.um.maine.edu> Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2003 13:47:33 -0500 (EST) X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 17 Nov 2003 18:14:17 -0500 X-BeenThere: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.2 Precedence: list Reply-To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org List-Id: Creative Commons-Eyebeam Forum 2003 November 12-19 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2003 18:47:34 -0000 Glenn Otis Brown <glenn@creativecommons.org> wrote: > This is my first post to the list, so I want to echo Neeru's thanks to > Eyebeam and the StillWater program at U. of Maine for having Creative > Commons involved. > > (Nice press, by the way, on Eyebeam in the New York Times recently: > http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/09/arts/design/ 09BARD.html). > > Here are a couple of responses to some of the specific points raised so > far (we're just getting into it, and already it's interesting.) > > (1) Rejiquar wrote: > > ----- > > I do have a problem with the non-commercial types reserving the right > to sell my incorporated work while forcing any of their derivers > downstream only to offer it for free, as this strikes me as undermining > the goal of the SA clause. . . . > So far as I can tell (big assumption, there, I realize) there is no > easy way to choose a license that allows me to allow either commercial > or non-commercial use downstream. GPL gets around this, so far as I > can tell, by not allowing restrictions on commerce. > > ---- > > If you chose a share alike license that did not prohibit commercial > use, then anyone could make any use of derived works provided they > relicensed them under the same terms. The BY-SA and plain-old SA > licenses are philosophically and practically the same as the GPL. > > That said, we're about to offer a license that gives the licensor more > flexibility in choosing what sorts of uses can be done commercially, > and which not. Right now the noncommercial provision acts in a blanket > fashion: if you prohibit commercial uses of derived works, you also > prohibit commercial uses of verbatim copies (or, vice versa). > > This winter we're offering two new licenses, the Sampling Licenses, > that let an author invite people to commercialize tranformative > derivatives but not to make commercial use of verbatim copies. The idea > is to reward transformation, re-creativity. We got the idea from > Negativland, Vicki Bennett (Peoplelikeus.org), and Brazilian minister > of culture and legendary musician Gilberto Gil. You can read more about > the sampling licenses here: > <http://creativecommons.org/projects/sampling>. > > Does this address your question? > > (2) > > Joline Blaise wrote: > > --- > > In a media landscape increasingly dominated > by corporate monopolies, > some netizens have abandoned hope that the > legal system will support > the commons of ideas and culture that gave > rise to the early Internet. > > Instead they propose a distributed approach > to legal innovation: open > licenses, tools for community activism, and > consciousness-raising exhibitions. > > Will these innovations suffice to ensure a > creative commons for current and emerging > culture? > > --- > > Like Neeru said, this is definitely our ambition, but I think we're > realistic that our effort alone -- and just as important, our *kind* of > effort alone -- won't be enough to protect the commons. It's one tool > among many others: there are great groups like the EFF and > Publicknowledge.org taking the good fight into the courtrooms and halls > of policy out there; there are journalists' and consumer-rights groups > fighting for independence in media; and, just as important, there are > savvy and gutsy entrepreneurs fighting to establish new, viable > business models that will allocate our cultural resources more > efficiently while breaking up the stagnant old order at the same time. > > The Creative Commons approach, like the free software and open-source > approaches, is different: It's not about changing the law (directly > anyway). It's about changing attitudes about copyright, about educating > people how it works, about injecting a much- needed dose of sobriety and > balance into the debate. > > And more important, it's about meeting various kinds of unmet demand > out there: (a) to offer a very easy way for people who aren't obsessed > with "all rights reserved" to say so, (b) to cut out unnecessary > middlemen and legal doubt, and ultimately, (c) to build a huge body of > culture that is free to drawn upon. People crave this kind of stuff, > and we hope we've begun to provide it. That's our role in this whole > topsy-turvy world of media change; it's a necessary effort, but by no > means sufficient, standing alone, to cure all our ills in this area. > > Thanks again for having us participate in the forum. Looking forward to > more comments . . . > > > Glenn > > > _______________________________________________ > cc-eyebeam mailing list > cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc- eyebeam > > This discussion runs 2003 November 12-19. Submissions are licensed > under the Creative Commons Attribution- NonCommercial-ShareAlike > license <http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by-nc-sa/1.0/>. > --===============27607845934397401==-- From www@cordova.asap.um.maine.edu Mon Nov 17 17:49:13 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org Received: from cordova.asap.um.maine.edu (cordova.asap.um.maine.edu [130.111.220.245]) by happyhouse.metalab.unc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 11FFA20005 for ; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 17:49:12 -0500 (EST) Received: by cordova.asap.um.maine.edu (Postfix, from userid 70) id 6FD07924C7; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 17:49:12 -0500 (EST) To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org From: crai.bellamy@milkbar.com.au In-Reply-To: <20031112163409.6F89491468@cordova.asap.um.maine.edu> Message-Id: <20031117224912.6FD07924C7@cordova.asap.um.maine.edu> Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2003 17:49:12 -0500 (EST) X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 17 Nov 2003 18:14:17 -0500 Subject: [cc-eyebeam] Re: Distributed Creativity X-BeenThere: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.2 Precedence: list Reply-To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org List-Id: Creative Commons-Eyebeam Forum 2003 November 12-19 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2003 22:49:13 -0000 Well, yes they are a good start. But there is a big difference between wanting something and then making it happen. I would like to see some Lawyers contribute to this forum. And this is just a bullitin board, this is all that it is. From riolo@voicenet.com Mon Nov 17 20:10:41 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org Received: from mail11.voicenet.com (mail11.voicenet.com [207.103.0.37]) by happyhouse.metalab.unc.edu (Postfix) with SMTP id 0184720019 for ; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 20:10:40 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 7795 invoked from network); 18 Nov 2003 01:10:40 -0000 Received: from unix01.voicenet.com (209.71.48.250) by mail11.voicenet.com with SMTP; 18 Nov 2003 01:10:40 -0000 Received: (qmail 5246 invoked by uid 4342); 18 Nov 2003 01:10:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost) (207.103.157.68) by unix01.voicenet.com with SMTP; 18 Nov 2003 01:10:31 -0000 Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2003 20:10:31 -0500 (EST) From: Joseph Pietro Riolo To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org Subject: Re: [cc-eyebeam] OpenLaw, Chilling Effects, Creative Commons In-Reply-To: <20031115174037.30D5391FBA@cordova.asap.um.maine.edu> Message-ID: References: <20031115174037.30D5391FBA@cordova.asap.um.maine.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: X-BeenThere: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.2 Precedence: list Reply-To: Creative Commons-Eyebeam Forum 2003 November 12-19 List-Id: Creative Commons-Eyebeam Forum 2003 November 12-19 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 01:10:41 -0000 On Sat, 15 Nov 2003 Joline_Blais@umit.maine.edu wrote: > > While we are now trying to exert pressure to > get our culture back, I hope that this is > only a first wave of activism that will help > us get not just our culture, but our land, > our health, our country back. I hope what we > are seeing is a real constitutional crisis of > the kind Jefferson hoped would happen, rather > than the kind of world Ben Franklin feared: > the erosion of the Bill of Rights produced by > the First, and now the second (pending) > Patriot Act. I may be flamed for asking this question but it must be asked. Is there really a constitutional crisis? If so, what is it? (I am well aware of various problems with intellectual property rights but they don't reach the point of crisis.) Joseph Pietro Riolo Public domain notice: I put all of my expressions in this post in the public domain. From www@cordova.asap.um.maine.edu Mon Nov 17 20:39:47 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org Received: from cordova.asap.um.maine.edu (cordova.asap.um.maine.edu [130.111.220.245]) by happyhouse.metalab.unc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id C94CF2001E for ; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 20:39:47 -0500 (EST) Received: by cordova.asap.um.maine.edu (Postfix, from userid 70) id 844959256F; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 20:39:47 -0500 (EST) To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org Subject: Re: [cc-eyebeam] Re: OpenLaw, Chilling Effects, Creative Commons From: marek_walczak@yahoo.com In-Reply-To: <7F5450D4-188F-11D8-98F2-000393864E40@creativecommons.org> Message-Id: <20031118013947.844959256F@cordova.asap.um.maine.edu> Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2003 20:39:47 -0500 (EST) X-BeenThere: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.2 Precedence: list Reply-To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org List-Id: Creative Commons-Eyebeam Forum 2003 November 12-19 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 01:39:48 -0000 > Along these lines -- of open-source influencing law and beyond -- > here's a great article from Wired this month: > > http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.11/opensource.html I have heard much theoretical discussion about opensource and artmaking. In big structures, like operating systems and the Genome, opensource has created astonishing results. Also useful are 'widgets', small bits of code/scripting. I've asked quite a few artist/programmers if they make their stuff opensource, and except for specific projects like Christian Paul's show, the answer is mostly negative. Problem is, there is very little money in artworks online or elsewhere, and opensource is massively time-consuming, you have to make sure your code is written to be understood, and you have to document like crazy. Last year at Electrohype the theme was coding as art. J.Simon Jr gave his talk on code - about the power to create something personal, and Boredomresearch gave their talk on getting kids to do codegames. This was being documented with a micro-camcorder. At one point the person opened the thing to insert a new tape and when you peeked inside you saw an alien landscape. About, what? 40 years ago anyone with some technical knowledge could repair a camcorder/player. 5 years ago I know someone at Bell Labs who took apart 9 camcorders, then reassembled them, only one of them worked. A highly skilled individual. My point is that software is at the stage that videocameras were 40 years ago. Its possible for many people to write code by hand now. This will be impossible within about 5-10 years. One of the previous posts mentioned that almost anyone with a computer and a camcorder could create a movie that would compete directly with established cultural systems. These objects are the product of massive corporate identities. I would argue that the future of software tools will be in similar hands (programming standards would be mutually agreed, but the tools you use to create software will cost millions to produce, like camcorders - Java authoring tools are not cheap to make). Considering the explosion of video art, I would argue that the whole opensource theoretical debate regarding artmaking is entirely misplaced. From www@cordova.asap.um.maine.edu Mon Nov 17 21:33:56 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org Received: from cordova.asap.um.maine.edu (cordova.asap.um.maine.edu [130.111.220.245]) by happyhouse.metalab.unc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF83B2001B for ; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 21:33:56 -0500 (EST) Received: by cordova.asap.um.maine.edu (Postfix, from userid 70) id 7902E925B7; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 21:33:56 -0500 (EST) To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org From: Joline_Blais@umit.maine.edu In-Reply-To: Message-Id: <20031118023356.7902E925B7@cordova.asap.um.maine.edu> Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2003 21:33:56 -0500 (EST) Subject: [cc-eyebeam] Send back your MP3s?? X-BeenThere: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.2 Precedence: list Reply-To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org List-Id: Creative Commons-Eyebeam Forum 2003 November 12-19 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 02:33:57 -0000 http://www.sendthemback.org/ "This page was created by Parents and Their Kids against Stealing™,group dedicated to helping kids feel better about themselves through File Sharing Abstinence. We are committed to spreading the word that stealing is not OK." This quote is taken from a site that gives instructions for kids to "burn" their stolen MP3s and send them back NOT TO THE ARTISTS, but to RIAA. Posted by UMaine New Media Student Alexandra Roberts. "Stepping into the spotlight to admit your guilt is probably not a sensible course for most people sharing music files online, especially since the RIAA doesn't control many potential sources of lawsuits," EFF Staff Attorney Wendy Seltzer said in the statement." --from pcworld: "Users Warned About Anti- Piracy Campaign" Any further development of this Wendy? Or advice for students? From www@cordova.asap.um.maine.edu Mon Nov 17 23:16:55 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org Received: from cordova.asap.um.maine.edu (cordova.asap.um.maine.edu [130.111.220.245]) by happyhouse.metalab.unc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5663920025 for ; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 23:16:55 -0500 (EST) Received: by cordova.asap.um.maine.edu (Postfix, from userid 70) id 2371492608; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 23:16:55 -0500 (EST) To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org From: Joline_Blais@umit.maine.edu In-Reply-To: Message-Id: <20031118041655.2371492608@cordova.asap.um.maine.edu> Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2003 23:16:55 -0500 (EST) Subject: [cc-eyebeam] A Commons in not a Market X-BeenThere: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.2 Precedence: list Reply-To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org List-Id: Creative Commons-Eyebeam Forum 2003 November 12-19 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 04:16:55 -0000 A Commons is not a Market. While artists need to make a living, creating commodities for the market may not be the best way to a)produce good art, or b)help artists earn a living. Making art subject to the logics of profit making and marketing and large scale competition may actually discourage varied, dispersed and locally- responsive and responsible culture production. During the last week of the symposium, we’ll be discussing some ways to address the question of art as market, or art as challenge to the market, or marketing art. But this week I’d like to address the possibility of a creative commons. Commons as opposed to “private property” or “intellectual property”. Commons as an alternative to “property”. A space that is supported and owned and nurtured by the community for the community. Not a place to make money or compete or sell a label, but rather a space of cultural exchange that lies outside the market. There has been a good deal of work done to prime the pump for such a possibility, including the excellent work done by Creative Commons, EFF, Chilling Effects, Open Law, and similar projects. But I’m not sure if their notion of a commons is the same as mine. But if we really want to support the emergence of common spaces for creative work, we are going to need a new model(or learn some lessons from the historical model). I don’t have such a model, but here are some approaches, from least appealing to most appealing: 1-Pay artists to work (this work can be defined differently by each community), not to make objects. a)While an imperfect model, academia does offer an alternative. Academics are technically not paid by the number of articles they write (though tenure does depend on production more and more to the detriment of teaching and community service), but they are paid to do “academic research” and they need to produce a certain amount of quality work in order to retain their positions. Academics are paid by their communities—whether state-based, or private(a more elite community, often more dispersed). b)Europeans use this model too. JODI do not get paid by the number of art works they produce. They receive a grant from the Dutch government to “be artists”. 2-Restructure the work week, so more people will have time to make art. a)Part-time work: many people would(and do) work part time (with a pay cut) in order to have time to engage in creative work. In the pasts we’ve had chemist-composers and pediatrician-poets (Borodin, Ives, Wallace Stevens, William Carlos Williams). b)Interruptible work schedule: sabbaticals for culture production might be implemented in many fields. Since “creativity” is now the corporate buzz word, there might even be a good argument for producing more creative workers simply by letting them take time off without penalty to job advancement. 3-Community supported art: premise: the possibility of making art might be considered a human right that all should have access to; how does a community support this kind of activity? a) reward artists for work produced, but not on a commodity model. Young artists just entering the field could apply for 1/4 –time support until they build a repertoire and thus move up to 1/2 time support, and so on to full time support. The support would be based not solely on output, but on value to the community. An artist who inspires others to work and teaches young apprentices might be given full support though her work level might drop a bit while “teaching”. This system can support a rather large number of part-time positions in addition to some dedicated fulltime positions. If we just take the funds that any given community now spends on advertising, there might be enough funds to create an initial phase of community- supported culture production. b) cut down middleman waste—take all the funds currently being wasted on middlemen of various types (publishing houses, recording and film industries), and pump that money back into the communities. Instead of paying $10 for the latest Hollywood film, give that $10 to your local film coop and support their work. c) Give tax breaks to community culture production and tax broadcast culture production; tax religious organizations & give tax breaks to culture production that is live (including spiritual work, if the community decides); ie support living culture, not dead culture. d) Change our education system from one in which children are consumers of culture to one in which they can become, progressively, producers of culture What kinds of models can we imagine for supporting cultural production in our communities? And what role do we want that art to play in our lives? Each community may need to decide that for themselves, but giving communities the ability and tools and support to do this may be a first step. From www@cordova.asap.um.maine.edu Mon Nov 17 23:17:19 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org Received: from cordova.asap.um.maine.edu (cordova.asap.um.maine.edu [130.111.220.245]) by happyhouse.metalab.unc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A95120025 for ; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 23:17:19 -0500 (EST) Received: by cordova.asap.um.maine.edu (Postfix, from userid 70) id D4B8C92610; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 23:17:18 -0500 (EST) To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org From: jippolito@guggenheim.org In-Reply-To: Message-Id: <20031118041718.D4B8C92610@cordova.asap.um.maine.edu> Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2003 23:17:18 -0500 (EST) Subject: [cc-eyebeam] legal implications of multiplayer games X-BeenThere: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.2 Precedence: list Reply-To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org List-Id: Creative Commons-Eyebeam Forum 2003 November 12-19 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 04:17:19 -0000 To broach a new topic, there have been several articles and a conference recently devoted to the emerging concepts of law and self as applied to computer gaming. "Sheriffs of Norrath" (http://blogger.iftf.org/Future/000160.html) is a provocative essay on how legal concepts may become increasingly relevant in a massive multiplayer game such as Everquest, whose virtual economy rivals that of many real-world nations. There are a number of situations in which this sort of "virtual law" might affect players of such games. One is in which a player feels wronged within the game--"Hey, this is my dungeon!"--and looks first to the local authorities within the game, and then to the game developers, for help. Obviously game developers want to build a world that polices itself, but that tends to lead to overly restrictive gameplay, which undercuts the distributed power a gaming community wields in shaping those environments. Another outstanding legal question is who owns virtual property created by the players. You may have sold your Everquest chainmail for $300 on eBay, but Sony claims to own everything produced on Everquest. Legally game owners can enforce any ownerships they want, but this strikes many avid gamers a bit like Windsor-Newton claiming to own every watercolor painted with one of their brushes. Finally, the author of the essay muses about whether at some date in the future online characters--especially those with sophisticated artificial intelligence--might warrant their own rights. Such avatars have shown a certain amount of persistence beyond their original owners--as in cases where an avatar is sold online to be taken up by another player. I'm not a gamer, but it seems to me that the legal issues emerging in these massive virtual communities may bear on the broader issue of whether individuals or corporations will wield more control over data created in communal contexts. Cheers, jon From heather@gn.apc.org Tue Nov 18 00:56:25 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org Received: from mail.gn.apc.org (greennet1.poptel.org.uk [213.55.2.205]) by happyhouse.metalab.unc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 696E72001B for ; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 00:56:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (unknown [192.168.0.2]) by mail.gn.apc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 920BF14B769 for ; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 05:56:20 +0000 (GMT) Received: from guest.gn.apc.org (ip61.oak-creek.sfo.interquest.net [66.199.82.61]) by mail.gn.apc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 557A214B662 for ; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 05:56:15 +0000 (GMT) Message-Id: <6.0.0.22.0.20031117212206.01ed6d28@pop.gn.apc.org> X-Sender: heather@pop.gn.apc.org X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.0.0.22 Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2003 21:56:06 -0800 To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org From: Heather Ford Subject: Re: [cc-eyebeam] A Commons in not a Market In-Reply-To: <20031118041655.2371492608@cordova.asap.um.maine.edu> References: <20031118041655.2371492608@cordova.asap.um.maine.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at gn.apc.org X-BeenThere: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.2 Precedence: list Reply-To: Creative Commons-Eyebeam Forum 2003 November 12-19 List-Id: Creative Commons-Eyebeam Forum 2003 November 12-19 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 05:56:26 -0000 Thanks so much for this, Joline - it is really useful to get some ideas for= =20 new models - really good models at that. I'm so glad you've brought up the point that a commons is not useful if it= =20 is a market - I think it really expresses the kinds of ideas that I have=20 been having for the social entrepreneurship fellowship that I am doing this= =20 year. When you have to find a great 'product' that is 'sustainable', often= =20 the very goal that you were pursuing is forgotten. When you are trying to=20 get out a finished 'product' that you will unselfishly 'donate' to the=20 world, you often forget that life is really only made meaningful through=20 the processes, the journeys that we go through in communicating and sharing= =20 our ideas with others in order to solve problems - this is really what art= =20 is all about. It also brings me to the fact that new technology should be seen as a way=20 for us to play - to have fun, to experience freedom, to meet people and=20 make meaningful connections - without the shadow of having to allocate play= =20 time to something of value on your time sheet. Creativity can only really=20 happen in play time - and I don't mean computer games - I mean that it=20 should be a way for us to experience the world around us in a different way= =20 - to make connections with people - to play with others in a context of=20 freedom and creativity. At this point I'm probably sounding more like a San Franciscan hippie than= =20 a technologist, but technology has allowed me this space and so I shall use= =20 it ;) In the so-called 'developing world' we are under such incredible=20 pressure to make sure that technology lives up to its 'promise' and 'saves= =20 us' all from the 'poverty and degradation' that we seem to be heading=20 towards (if we are not there already). What we should be doing is finding=20 ways to use technology to play with one another - art is an excellent way=20 of doing this within a community. And I agree that by forcing artists to create commodities for the market,=20 we won't be able to create varied and locally-responsive culture. In South= =20 Africa, we have a lot of artists trying desperately to sound like another=20 counting crows or u2 - they even use an American accent when they sing!! If= =20 we were better at supporting our artists they would feel freer to be able=20 to pursue the kind of art that they wanted to - purely by not being afraid= =20 that the audience might be too small to make any money. Instead, they bank= =20 on an audience that they know has supported particular types of music and=20 they go with that. The sad reality is that government spending on the arts around the world is= =20 decreasing and we're heading towards a society where the value of art is=20 viewed in an extremely simplified format i.e. value of 1 product =3D $x per= 1=20 person x no. of people, rather than art =3D creative value x x numbers in=20 community i.e. community pays, rather than person pays. I hope that makes sense. Heather. At 08:16 PM 11/17/2003, you wrote: >A Commons is not a Market. > >While artists need to make a living, creating >commodities for the market may not be the >best way to a)produce good art, or b)help >artists earn a living. Making art subject to >the logics of profit making and marketing and >large scale competition may actually >discourage varied, dispersed and locally- >responsive and responsible culture >production. > >During the last week of the symposium, we=92ll >be discussing some ways to address the >question of art as market, or art as >challenge to the market, or marketing art. >But this week I=92d like to address the >possibility of a creative commons. Commons as >opposed to =93private property=94 or >=93intellectual property=94. Commons as an >alternative to =93property=94. A space that is >supported and owned and nurtured by the >community for the community. Not a place to >make money or compete or sell a label, but >rather a space of cultural exchange that lies >outside the market. There has been a good >deal of work done to prime the pump for such >a possibility, including the excellent work >done by Creative Commons, EFF, Chilling >Effects, Open Law, and similar projects. But >I=92m not sure if their notion of a commons is >the same as mine. > >But if we really want to support the >emergence of common spaces for creative work, >we are going to need a new model(or learn >some lessons from the historical model). I >don=92t have such a model, but here are some >approaches, from least appealing to most >appealing: > >1-Pay artists to work (this work can be >defined differently by each community), not >to make objects. >a)While an imperfect model, academia does >offer an alternative. Academics are >technically not paid by the number of >articles they write (though tenure does >depend on production more and more to the >detriment of teaching and community service), >but they are paid to do =93academic research=94 >and they need to produce a certain amount of >quality work in order to retain their >positions. Academics are paid by their >communities=97whether state-based, or private(a >more elite community, often more dispersed). >b)Europeans use this model too. JODI do not >get paid by the number of art works they >produce. They receive a grant from the Dutch >government to =93be artists=94. > >2-Restructure the work week, so more people >will have time to make art. >a)Part-time work: many people would(and do) >work part time (with a pay cut) in order to >have time to engage in creative work. In the >pasts we=92ve had chemist-composers and >pediatrician-poets (Borodin, Ives, Wallace >Stevens, William Carlos Williams). >b)Interruptible work schedule: sabbaticals >for culture production might be implemented >in many fields. Since =93creativity=94 is now the >corporate buzz word, there might even be a >good argument for producing more creative >workers simply by letting them take time off >without penalty to job advancement. > >3-Community supported art: >premise: the possibility of making art might >be considered a human right that all should >have access to; how does a community support >this kind of activity? >a) reward artists for work produced, but not >on a commodity model. Young artists just >entering the field could apply for 1/4 =ADtime >support until they build a repertoire and >thus move up to 1/2 time support, and so on >to full time support. The support would be >based not solely on output, but on value to >the community. An artist who inspires others >to work and teaches young apprentices might >be given full support though her work level >might drop a bit while =93teaching=94. This >system can support a rather large number of >part-time positions in addition to some >dedicated fulltime positions. If we just take >the funds that any given community now spends >on advertising, there might be enough funds >to create an initial phase of community- >supported culture production. >b) cut down middleman waste=97take all the >funds currently being wasted on middlemen of >various types (publishing houses, recording >and film industries), and pump that money >back into the communities. Instead of paying >$10 for the latest Hollywood film, give that >$10 to your local film coop and support their >work. >c) Give tax breaks to community culture >production and tax broadcast culture >production; tax religious organizations & >give tax breaks to culture production that is >live (including spiritual work, if the >community decides); ie support living >culture, not dead culture. >d) Change our education system from one in >which children are consumers of culture to >one in which they can become, progressively, >producers of culture > >What kinds of models can we imagine for >supporting cultural production in our >communities? And what role do we want that >art to play in our lives? Each community may >need to decide that for themselves, but >giving communities the ability and tools and >support to do this may be a first step. >_______________________________________________ >cc-eyebeam mailing list >cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org >http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-eyebeam > >This discussion runs 2003 November 12-19. Submissions are licensed >under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike >license . Heather Ford ************************************************ http://ubuntu.typepad.com/hblog/ Reuters Stanford Digital Visions Program http://reuters.stanford.edu Cordura Hall, 220 Panama Street Stanford, CA 94305-4115, USA Cell: 650 380 4227 From riolo@voicenet.com Tue Nov 18 05:15:51 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org Received: from mail21.voicenet.com (mail21.voicenet.com [207.103.0.19]) by happyhouse.metalab.unc.edu (Postfix) with SMTP id E55D520025 for ; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 05:15:42 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 15240 invoked from network); 18 Nov 2003 10:15:37 -0000 Received: from unix01.voicenet.com (209.71.48.250) by mail21.voicenet.com with SMTP; 18 Nov 2003 10:15:37 -0000 Received: (qmail 2586 invoked by uid 4342); 18 Nov 2003 10:15:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost) (207.103.157.35) by unix01.voicenet.com with SMTP; 18 Nov 2003 10:15:30 -0000 Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 05:15:30 -0500 (EST) From: Joseph Pietro Riolo To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org Subject: Re: [cc-eyebeam] Send back your MP3s?? In-Reply-To: <20031118023356.7902E925B7@cordova.asap.um.maine.edu> Message-ID: References: <20031118023356.7902E925B7@cordova.asap.um.maine.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=X-UNKNOWN Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: X-BeenThere: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.2 Precedence: list Reply-To: Creative Commons-Eyebeam Forum 2003 November 12-19 List-Id: Creative Commons-Eyebeam Forum 2003 November 12-19 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 10:15:51 -0000 On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 Joline_Blais@umit.maine.edu wrote: > > http://www.se= ndthemback.org/ > > "This page was created by Parents and Their > Kids against Stealing=99,group dedicated to > helping kids feel better about themselves > through File Sharing Abstinence. We are > committed to spreading the word that stealing > is not OK." Man, this is one of the most idiotic advices I ever see. (Those people need to be educated that there is no law against using their concept of sending back MP3's without their permission or paying them a penny.) > .... Or > advice for students? It is simple: Stop doing illegal activities, destroy any evidence that point to illegal activities, and don't tell anyone what you did. Joseph Pietro Riolo Public domain notice: I put all of my expressions in this post in the public domain. From www@cordova.asap.um.maine.edu Tue Nov 18 09:22:45 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org Received: from cordova.asap.um.maine.edu (cordova.asap.um.maine.edu [130.111.220.245]) by happyhouse.metalab.unc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 234C320025 for ; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 09:22:45 -0500 (EST) Received: by cordova.asap.um.maine.edu (Postfix, from userid 70) id 010E39274F; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 09:22:44 -0500 (EST) To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org From: jippolito@guggenheim.org In-Reply-To: <20031117184838.4D81E92424@cordova.asap.um.maine.edu> Message-Id: <20031118142244.010E39274F@cordova.asap.um.maine.edu> Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 09:22:44 -0500 (EST) Subject: [cc-eyebeam] Re: why art shouldn't be property X-BeenThere: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.2 Precedence: list Reply-To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org List-Id: Creative Commons-Eyebeam Forum 2003 November 12-19 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 14:22:45 -0000 I was going to save the $ discussion for the segment on "Mod the Market." But since you invited me to rant some more... Why would artists choose open, noncommercial licenses? How would they pay the studio rent and their bills? The same way their parents' and grandparents' generations did, the same way the overwhelming majority of them do now: a day job. Day jobs suck, but they help reinforce the line between the choices artists make for commercial reasons and the choices they make for their art. Ironically, Internet artists often complain about having to hold down a day job, despite the fact that they're the artists whose skills put them in the best stead for landing lucrative part-time jobs. In principle, there is nothing wrong with wanting to make a living as an artist. What's wrong is the perception that our society's art market will ever make that possible for more than a token few. The folks this market benefits most are the middlemen: auctioneers, dealers, critics, art school faculty. The meager salary I reap as a curator is premised on a plentiful supply of art to choose from, good and bad. If there are only three artists in town--no matter how good they are--you don't need museums and magazines to point them out to you. The plentiful supply of art in our culture is the product of the unrecompensed labor of countless artists working away in their studios. For no great art was ever made in isolation; indeed, good art plays off the expectations developed by bad artists. There is no way for a market-driven art world based on finding and immortalizing superstars to survive without a rich culture of art to draw from. Yet to say the art market helps the starving artist is tantamount to saying the lottery helps the poor: it profits a tiny percentage, and distracts the rest from their impoverished social position with dreams of sudden affluence. There are other possible ways for artists to make a buck that don't depend on an exchange economy--grants, the street performer protocol, service contracts for maintaining collected art. But even without such support structures, if all art were free it wouldn't change a thing for most practicing artists. Cheers, jon From www@cordova.asap.um.maine.edu Tue Nov 18 09:23:12 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org Received: from cordova.asap.um.maine.edu (cordova.asap.um.maine.edu [130.111.220.245]) by happyhouse.metalab.unc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7338F20025 for ; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 09:23:12 -0500 (EST) Received: by cordova.asap.um.maine.edu (Postfix, from userid 70) id 4DC6492758; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 09:23:12 -0500 (EST) To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org Subject: Re: [cc-eyebeam] more from Creative Commons From: jippolito@guggenheim.org In-Reply-To: Message-Id: <20031118142312.4DC6492758@cordova.asap.um.maine.edu> Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 09:23:12 -0500 (EST) X-BeenThere: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.2 Precedence: list Reply-To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org List-Id: Creative Commons-Eyebeam Forum 2003 November 12-19 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 14:23:12 -0000 > This winter we're offering two new...Sampling Licenses Glenn, I'm interested in where you see the tradeoff in license options versus license complexity. I think it was shrewd to begin with a basic set of four options when your licenses were new to the creative public--and maybe that's still the face you should show artists who are new to the commons concept. Nevertheless, there are important communities who will need more specialized open licenses. Artist-made software is an increasingly important proportion of contemporary art, from Internet art to interactive installations; yet the current CC licenses explicitly don't apply to software, on the assumption (I've been told) that the GPL (http://www.fsf.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html) should suffice. Of course the GPL works great for applications, but not necessarily for art--leaving digital artists in a kind of legal no-man's-land when it comes to open licenses. We tried to adopt the CC license model for The Pool--an environment for fostering collaborative digital art to be featured in week 4--but in the end we chose to extend the CC schema by adding three new options: 1) The "Recombinant" option is analogous to the "Open source" requirement of the GPL, which has no equivalent in current CC licenses. Recombinacy applies to more than lines of code, however; it requires all source file/s to remain accessible to the public. For example, a song created with a music editor like Fruityloops must be released in both its final (mp3) and source (.flp) formats; similarly a Flash movie must be accompanied by a .fla and a jpeg by a .psd. This license option bears some resemblance to the Design Science License (http://dsl.org/copyleft/dsl.txt). The second and third are variations of CC's "No derivatives" license, obliquely related to the sampling licenses you referred to above: 2) "No Combinations" means that the artifact cannot be incorporated into or combined with other artifacts in the same or other media. For example, a song with this restriction cannot be used as the soundtrack to a video. 3) "No Transformations" means that the artifact cannot be distorted or re-edited in its original medium. If the creator hasn't also selected 'no combinations,' the song may nevertheless be combined with other artifacts as long as it can still be extricated in its original form. For example, a song under these conditions may be reused as the soundtrack of a video, but not as a background track whose tempo, pitch, or instrumentation are modified. So far these license options seem to work for our community--but we are sensitive to the danger of flooding the Internet with a Babel of competing license schemes. Do you recommend that communities with diverse needs petition CC to add new options? Or would it be better to use techniques like RDF to create semantic crosswalks between divergent schemes, so that intelligent search engines could interpret across them? Any legal or technical pointers would be really appreciated--we're all new at this "business" :) jon From www@cordova.asap.um.maine.edu Tue Nov 18 09:23:46 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org Received: from cordova.asap.um.maine.edu (cordova.asap.um.maine.edu [130.111.220.245]) by happyhouse.metalab.unc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 65D3320025 for ; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 09:23:46 -0500 (EST) Received: by cordova.asap.um.maine.edu (Postfix, from userid 70) id 40F389275B; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 09:23:46 -0500 (EST) To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org From: blogdiva@culturekitchen.com In-Reply-To: <20031115044850.03F7791E22@cordova.asap.um.maine.edu> Message-Id: <20031118142346.40F389275B@cordova.asap.um.maine.edu> Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 09:23:46 -0500 (EST) Subject: [cc-eyebeam] Re: Hola Amigos X-BeenThere: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.2 Precedence: list Reply-To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org List-Id: Creative Commons-Eyebeam Forum 2003 November 12-19 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 14:23:46 -0000 Hi Jon, I've been thinking about the rhizome and net art these days because I've been thinking a lot about Rhizome.org. It's that time of year when they need to raise money and it's that time of year when people start moaning, complaining and questioning why should anyone "pay up" (as opposed to contribute) to this organization that is just a list. This issue never seems to come up with The Thing and I've never been aware of it surfacing on NetTime. What's different about these organizations is that, Nettime and The Thing have always worked as cloisters, even clicks. Rhizome on the other hand was THE portal for the net art and eventually new media and digital art communities as well. They did not seem to set any restrictions on who or what you needed to be in order to join in. On the contrary, they seemed to expand the definition of net art and to basically drag out the debates about what it really is. So the promise of Rhizome was that it was the more socially "open" organization of the three. Even if the core of these organizations' social interaction happened only through email, Rhizome was always viewed as the more open of the three. Of course, it is not. Now people will jump at me and say, "Of course not, you've got to pay $5 to join". Nope. That's not the reason why it is not open. I'm not talking here as a creative nor as an academic. I'm talking here as a promoter of net art. I'm a realist, organizations need money and I don't have a problem with the fee. On the contrary, I had suggested charging a fee for Rhizome once on an Upgrade meeting (and a larger amount actually) and my idea was vehemently rejected. I've been thinking about Rhizome because it seems almost incredible to me that the technologies that turn personal publishing into social tools could have passed by an organization such as Rhizome. What if all Rhizome's content was a feed of the syndicated posts of net/new media arts critics and curators? What if the Artbase were contextualized via comments and trackbacks? What if the debates, flammings and sometimes thoughtful discussions that happen on Rhizome_Raw were syndicated? What if we could view which works on the Artbase where the most visited, what categories of comments where the most discussed --even, oh even if you were to charge then for the privilege of being on the list of recently updated NetArt sites so that it would get there up there and center? What if then all of a sudden a NetNewsWire added ART as a category of the headline feeds that you could read online? What if then you start parsing out sites as JAVA or OPEN GL or PERL/CGI or FLASH, opening up this little world of art coding geeks to commercial coding geeks --who happen to be as creative as their starving artists counterparts? What if then artists started commenting directly about other artists art even if they looked like muteblog? What if you could email your post about a fellow artists site or a question and have that appear not just on Rhizome_Raw but on your site and on the site of your commented artist? What if Raw were syndicated? Rhizome has not fulfilled its potential of being rhizomatic and, in effect, of becoming one of the largest nodes of distributed creativity on the net because technologically, it is closed. That's what I mean about creating sites like it was 1996. And believe me the irony of my saying this is not lost knowing how potatoland is structured. In defense of the site, I have to say that a site as a work of art is one thing and many of the early net art sites were the artworks themselves. Times have changed though and the technology is available for people to turn their sites from static portfolios to real online studios where they could not just update visitors on their projects, post any "discoveries" they make a long the way of a project, announce shows, events or accolades but most importantly, open the field for feedback whether through comments left onsite, longer articles linked through incoming trackbacks/ site pings or more importantly, syndication. What kind of social context and social network would come about in the netart community if artists started exploiting the potential nodality of these technologies? What kind of associations OUTSIDE net art would emerge? Napier has already reminded me many times, he is an artist not a web designer. That's fair. Still, even though many would think he's got his spot in the art ether, we both agree that if net art has not in any way become ubiquitous on the web itself, how it will ever be in the analog world? Netart is just really non-existent to many. So as a promoter, producer, writer, and basically parser of net art, I believe that the only way this can happen is by creating sites that are parsable. Change does not come easy. I've been negotiating the "modernization" of the site for a few months now and, given our schedules, it's going to take between 3 to 6 months to complete. It's a big effing deal to create standard compliant sites that are opened to potential social networks with technology that is already being abused by spammers. There is another kind of change though and that is in the artist's relationship towards their site. Napier has also pointed out many times he makes art, not content. Still, he knows better than me that anything on a site is content and more importantly, that what you put there is fair play. Any art is really fair play but on the web, the digital is truly plastic and anything can be done with it. Many artists feel that closing the sites, either by hiding the code to their works or, my favorite, turning the whole site into one massive Flash plug-in is a great means of safeguarding their intellectual property. This to me is the most absurd. Creatives, not just artists have always been thieves. What happens though when you do not have a community of artists on the net but more of an archipelago of artists? Unintentional copies? Carlo, if you read this, please relate what happened with you and some other artist's contribution to Rhizome's Artbase. Carlo's situation (and a similar occurrence at The Thing) just made me think of how link repositories are just there, sitting on some server. There is no context to them and needless to say, no documentation directly linked to them. One of the most powerful aspects of blogs is that attribution is easier to trace than through emails or even bulletin boards, especially if there is a mess of trackbacks commenting your entry. Google knows all, especially if it is a link with a context (hence "blog spam", the new scourge of the net). On a links directory there is no context and, really, no life after the link is added. It's just there and it could go dead or be turned into a sex site and no one would ever notice. They are more of a taxonomical phenomenon, breathing no life into the websphere. Carlo's situation also made it painfully apparent that, as far as copyright law is concerned, unless it is easy to determine attribution and dating of content, as an artist you have no recourse for action. And even if you did have everything in hand, what good is it if you have no money --because copyright or copyleft, if you have no money to defend yourself, you have no leverage. Period. So at least in the land of the free and broke, traceable attribution is the next best thing. Linus Torvals is not successful because he made Linux. He is successful because everybody knows he made Linux. It's the "If a tree falls..." effect. Some people call it street creed, geek creed, the web of trust. In Carlo's situation, if that artbase entry were 'alive', maybe this kind of coincidence would have been averted. It's a big maybe. I mean, I found http://sytes.org the other day and remarked how it harked back to some of the earlier browser art. I pinged the guy and just the other day got a response, thanking me for the heads up but wondering how in the world he had never heard of potatoland or, for that matter, net art. Still, google potatoland and the site has street creed. For a new or up and coming artist the situation is very different --and maybe more difficult. The best way that I can see for an artist to become visible on the web these days is by creating the space for context and attribution on their sites. By creating websites that are the social fabric of the web, instead of forgotten links in a directory. By creating sites that not only take advantage of the publishing and social software that is out there but that are not beholden to proprietary technologies for their functioning and even more radically, not beholden to the browser. That's the challenge. Best, Liza From www@cordova.asap.um.maine.edu Tue Nov 18 09:24:16 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org Received: from cordova.asap.um.maine.edu (cordova.asap.um.maine.edu [130.111.220.245]) by happyhouse.metalab.unc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4DAF520025 for ; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 09:24:16 -0500 (EST) Received: by cordova.asap.um.maine.edu (Postfix, from userid 70) id 12DE892761; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 09:24:16 -0500 (EST) To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org Subject: Re: [cc-eyebeam] Re: OpenLaw, Chilling Effects, Creative Commons From: blogdiva@culturekitchen.com In-Reply-To: <20031118013947.844959256F@cordova.asap.um.maine.edu> Message-Id: <20031118142416.12DE892761@cordova.asap.um.maine.edu> Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 09:24:16 -0500 (EST) X-BeenThere: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.2 Precedence: list Reply-To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org List-Id: Creative Commons-Eyebeam Forum 2003 November 12-19 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 14:24:16 -0000 Hi all, Marek said: Problem is, there is very little money in artworks online or elsewhere, and opensource is massively time-consuming, you have to make sure your code is written to be understood, and you have to document like crazy. Painfully true. I am speaking now as a wife of a Java coder. Napier cannot participate in these forums because he is working on art for an upcoming show at Bitforms (December 12th is the opening) but Daniel Howe will be participating sometime somewhere in here and I hope he talks more in detail about their project,The Open Java Project For years now Mark has been talking about open-sourcing his work but was terribly dissatisfied with the mess of Java code that is really up for grabs on the web. The mess being that no two applets out there can really talk to each other so a coder ends up with more of a blue print than an actual resource. For years Napier has also been trying to recruit net art coders to work on creating an open source group. We even had a go for a "CodeBase" at Rhizome. The problem is: (1) As Marek pointed out, many art coders are protective or the work (or as I like to say just plain old stingy). (2) What's the point of open source if there is no structure for coding, no protocol for development, management, commenting and attribution of the work? So for the past year Napier & Howe have been working on creating a system for coding applets (and pardon my over-simplication) like Lego blocks. This with the intent of not only making it easier to develop code that is reusable but also for making it easier for others to code in Java as well. It's all very fascinating and effing time consuming. Again, speaking here as a wife of a Java coder (and so god help me). People have no idea the amount of time and effort that goes into creating software art. Outside of not doing it, the other alternative is making it a social event. Linux is not just open-source software. It's a social event and you see that phenomenon replicated in not just the widgets world that Marek talks about but in the gaming world as well. Look at the free market of objects for Everquest, UltimaOnline, The Sims. Some outfits charge for the objects,others just do it for the fame of it (icons and fonts come to mind as well). And people churn these out like there is no tomorrow with nary a thought that they'll get money for it. But there is the fame and the recognition and that is a huge factor in the open-source movement. What makes the gaming, Linux and widgets "markets" successful? They already have a structure and protocol to follow. Hopefully Daniel and Mark will create this for Java. Why Java? I'll defer the technical stuff to Daniel Howe. Main reason for us is that it is not proprietary. And it is powerful. So much so that much to my chagrin Macromedia is coming out with a program that will create XML apps using J2EE. Java in the hands of Macromedia? Think the mess of web standards at the hands of Microsoft and it's enough to send chills down anybody's spine. Even the wife of a Java coder. Best, Liza From www@cordova.asap.um.maine.edu Tue Nov 18 09:32:51 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org Received: from cordova.asap.um.maine.edu (cordova.asap.um.maine.edu [130.111.220.245]) by happyhouse.metalab.unc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id B1DFD2001D for ; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 09:32:51 -0500 (EST) Received: by cordova.asap.um.maine.edu (Postfix, from userid 70) id 71F959277E; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 09:32:51 -0500 (EST) To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org Subject: Re: [cc-eyebeam] Re: OpenLaw, Chilling Effects, Creative Commons From: cz@zanni.org In-Reply-To: <20031118013947.844959256F@cordova.asap.um.maine.edu> Message-Id: <20031118143251.71F959277E@cordova.asap.um.maine.edu> Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 09:32:51 -0500 (EST) X-BeenThere: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.2 Precedence: list Reply-To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org List-Id: Creative Commons-Eyebeam Forum 2003 November 12-19 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 14:32:52 -0000 >>My point is that software is at the stage that videocameras were 40 years ago. Its possible for many people to write code by hand now. This will be impossible within about 5-10 years. very interesting point of view. thanks. cz From www@cordova.asap.um.maine.edu Tue Nov 18 11:00:03 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org Received: from cordova.asap.um.maine.edu (cordova.asap.um.maine.edu [130.111.220.245]) by happyhouse.metalab.unc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 996F4200DF for ; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 11:00:02 -0500 (EST) Received: by cordova.asap.um.maine.edu (Postfix, from userid 70) id 80A83927DA; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 11:00:01 -0500 (EST) To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org From: cz@zanni.org In-Reply-To: <20031118142346.40F389275B@cordova.asap.um.maine.edu> Message-Id: <20031118160001.80A83927DA@cordova.asap.um.maine.edu> Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 11:00:01 -0500 (EST) Subject: [cc-eyebeam] Re: Hola Amigos X-BeenThere: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.2 Precedence: list Reply-To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org List-Id: Creative Commons-Eyebeam Forum 2003 November 12-19 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 16:00:03 -0000 >>>Carlo, if you read this, please relate what happened with you and some other artist's contribution to Rhizome's Artbase here I am... on June 28th Rhizome accepted in its Artbase a work which is very similar (it's quite the same thing) to a work I did in 2001 as response to the 9-11 tragedy. I remember I shared that instant piece with the list, inviting people for a 3 minutes blank page. (at that time my home page was hosting the piece itself) In brief: the work was a blank page with two rectangular not-loaded-images in it. If some of you know a little bit of my practice, know that not-loaded-images are an important part of my process. I also painted a lot of them... It's not a "logo" but it's like a signature for me since 2000 ... anyway I've never thought about they had copied me. The only thing I didn't like was that the Rhizome Artbase accepted that piece... giving it a "status" ...you know.. such as an historical classification. We shared a lot of emails, with Rachel, Alena and Rhizome users. They explained me that to be included in the Artbase you have to send a submission and above all the artbase hasn't an historical function. So it means that if Mark Napier, John Klima or others don't send a submission to the Artbase, their work will not be included (Mark has only a piece: Pulse). And also this means that if someone else "copies and pastes" their works, submitting them to the artbase, the Artbase will probably indicise them, because it seems it has neither an historicization function nor a curatorial one. Sincerely I don't find the Artbase very interesting with such premises... but I understand that it could be very helpful for the biggest part of the community. So I don't submit my works to it; whereas I like very much the fresh texts area. Answering Liza: >>>>we both agree that if net art has not in any way become ubiquitous on the web itself, how it will ever be in the analog world? But it seems netart is everywhere on the web... even if it isn't netart but an animated gif (I love animated gifs) And I see the "one-way attitude" (net presence, net community, net fame) as a limitation... with no challenge anymore. Personally, what I'm doing now, (but also Napier seems following this way.. see bitforms) is to bring netart to the analog side.. where (and I answer to your following paragraph) there is money (or more money... still speaking about artworld..). And it's hard because you at least encounter tech problems (I mean you are living 2003 while artfairs, galleries and dealers are living in 1960) >>>> And even if you did have everything in hand, what good is it if you have no money --because copyright or copyleft, if you have no money to defend yourself, you have no leverage. Absolutely true... but I think artists have some aspects you don't have in other fields..and they should use them to defend their work. I mean: poetics and artistic path... which in netart world usually aren't considered. In facts it is sufficient to do a piece to become a netartist and so on... (nobody in the analog artworld will tell you that you are an artist if you paint one canvas) I think "body of work", poetics, and aesthetics are really important also in netart. very best, cz From www@cordova.asap.um.maine.edu Tue Nov 18 13:36:20 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org Received: from cordova.asap.um.maine.edu (cordova.asap.um.maine.edu [130.111.220.245]) by happyhouse.metalab.unc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCC0020038 for ; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 13:36:19 -0500 (EST) Received: by cordova.asap.um.maine.edu (Postfix, from userid 70) id 717E19AAE7; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 13:36:19 -0500 (EST) To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org From: jippolito@guggenheim.org In-Reply-To: Message-Id: <20031118183619.717E19AAE7@cordova.asap.um.maine.edu> Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 13:36:19 -0500 (EST) Subject: [cc-eyebeam] validating cc licenses? (question for neeru/glenn/wendy) X-BeenThere: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.2 Precedence: list Reply-To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org List-Id: Creative Commons-Eyebeam Forum 2003 November 12-19 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 18:36:20 -0000 In the face of legislation proposing to mandate copyright-sniffing DRM chips, I often wonder whether open licenses will be sufficient to protect innovative approaches to recording, playing, cataloging, and distributing art. It won't do artists any good to copyleft their movies if personal computers can only play videos produced by Hollywood studios. To fend off such draconian propositions, Neeru tells me that Creative Commons is investigating ways to demonstrate that file-sharing and its ilk have legitimate uses. I think this is a great idea, but I'm concerned that the mutability of digital media may create a liability for voluntary licenses that is hard to overcome. Suppose digital artist Geoff Kuhntz scans a copyrighted postcard of seven puppies on a cushion, then uses Photoshop to replace all but one with a flowery background. Suppose Kuhntz then posts his image with a CC license. He's free to do that--at least in America--because his "transformative use" of the original image qualifies for fair use protection against a copyright suit. Suppose then that another artist downloads it, agreeing to abide by the terms of the license. She decides it would look better if there were seven puppies instead of one, so she clones them--and wham, gets hit with a copyright infringement suit by the original artist. You can imagine the same scenario taking place in other media--for example, if an excerpted Philip Glass riff were re-sampled into a minimalist composition that rivaled the original, or if a work of online art that depended on random combinations of image and text from other pages accidentally re-created something dangerously close to one of its victims' Web pages. For digital culture, fair use is a porous category, which makes open licenses no guarantee you won't be sued. I would love to know whether Neeru, Glenn, or Wendy have any thoughts on this thorny issue--thanks! jon From www@cordova.asap.um.maine.edu Mon Nov 17 23:17:42 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org Received: from cordova.asap.um.maine.edu (cordova.asap.um.maine.edu [130.111.220.245]) by happyhouse.metalab.unc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id B141120025 for ; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 23:17:42 -0500 (EST) Received: by cordova.asap.um.maine.edu (Postfix, from userid 70) id 8B6C29261E; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 23:17:42 -0500 (EST) To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org From: lyndsy.shuman@umit.maine.edu In-Reply-To: Message-Id: <20031118041742.8B6C29261E@cordova.asap.um.maine.edu> Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2003 23:17:42 -0500 (EST) X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 14:01:01 -0500 Subject: [cc-eyebeam] Re: Send back your MP3s?? X-BeenThere: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.2 Precedence: list Reply-To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org List-Id: Creative Commons-Eyebeam Forum 2003 November 12-19 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 04:17:43 -0000 Definitely a nice ploy for those gullible people. All the same, I highly doubt the niceties of their argument would fly for most any MP3 downloader. My first reaction when I read it: a scoff followed by a click on the close window button. From www@cordova.asap.um.maine.edu Mon Nov 17 23:18:13 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org Received: from cordova.asap.um.maine.edu (cordova.asap.um.maine.edu [130.111.220.245]) by happyhouse.metalab.unc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16C9B20029 for ; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 23:18:13 -0500 (EST) Received: by cordova.asap.um.maine.edu (Postfix, from userid 70) id E8BC592625; Mon, 17 Nov 2003 23:18:12 -0500 (EST) To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org Subject: Re: [cc-eyebeam] Re: Welcome to Distributed Creativity From: max@rtmark.com In-Reply-To: <20031115055107.30A4991E5A@cordova.asap.um.maine.edu> Message-Id: <20031118041812.E8BC592625@cordova.asap.um.maine.edu> Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2003 23:18:12 -0500 (EST) X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 14:01:42 -0500 X-BeenThere: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.2 Precedence: list Reply-To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org List-Id: Creative Commons-Eyebeam Forum 2003 November 12-19 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 04:18:13 -0000 To tom, I am of course in agreement with much he has to say. The many of the problems that I have with contemporary culture have to do with the abuse fo corporate power and the notion of the commons; I am sure that people are quite aware that Internet ISP's ave Acceptable Use Polcies, often which are quite loose. Again, there's also the fact that you cannot protest in a shopping mall, as this is private property, and as American government continues to privatize, there may eventually no longer ne a 'commons', as it coudl be a scene from Demolition man. I'm glad that this form is hapening, and I look forward to a stimulating conversation. From www@cordova.asap.um.maine.edu Tue Nov 18 09:21:53 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org Received: from cordova.asap.um.maine.edu (cordova.asap.um.maine.edu [130.111.220.245]) by happyhouse.metalab.unc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 234E120025 for ; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 09:21:52 -0500 (EST) Received: by cordova.asap.um.maine.edu (Postfix, from userid 70) id 8E7E79274A; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 09:21:52 -0500 (EST) To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org From: wahwho@yahoo.com In-Reply-To: Message-Id: <20031118142152.8E7E79274A@cordova.asap.um.maine.edu> Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 09:21:52 -0500 (EST) X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 14:01:56 -0500 Subject: [cc-eyebeam] Opening Closed Source X-BeenThere: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.2 Precedence: list Reply-To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org List-Id: Creative Commons-Eyebeam Forum 2003 November 12-19 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 14:21:53 -0000 Hi all, (One of) my gaming obsessions, back when I did more than I do now, was the Civilization line of games. Through a series of odd legal circumstances, the original Civ line from Sid Meier (Civilization, SM's Civilization II, SM's Alpha Centuari, SM's Civilization III + add ons) gave rise to another line of similar games produced by another company. The first one was under the Civilization title (Civilization: Call to Power) and then the lawyers showed up, nixed the Civilization part, and the sequel was called Call to Power II. (I'm telling you this because you find many references to the two series which are confusing, particularly if you follow any of the links below.) Anyways, CtPII was released a while ago, and although many people liked it, it was poorly balanced, buggy, and many others (like me) thought it was horrible. In fact, it sold so badly that Activision cut support for it almost immediately. The Civ community patched what we were able to with it, but it still had some fundamental programming flaws that couldn't be fixed. Well, eventually, after enough complaints and a few pointed remarks about how the line was certainly never going to bring any money to Activision ever again, Activision was convinced to completely open-source the game. The source was released recently...the community is working with it now, running into minor compilation problems related to a commercial code library that Activision could not release with the code, but otherwise coping well. It only took about a week to get an initial work-around for the commercial code, and a permanent solution is on the way. You can see the entire effort to get the code r eleased in the old threads in the CtPII forum, and the work being done now in the CtPII Source Code forum. This is the first time I've seen a company release a codebase simply because the fans rejected the commercial product. Other high-profile games (CtPII was high profile when it was released) have been opened either at the end of the product life or in such a way that purchase of the original game was still required, although even then the company usually retains a bunch of rights when it happens. It's an interesting result of mass community appeal to a company. The Civ community has a history of this sort of thing, though, far more so than any other game or software community I've ever seen. Before CivIII was even in development, we were sending docs to the developers with suggestions for the next game...it culminated with a several hundred page document that was created on the Apolyton web forums and sent to the developers during initial coding and design. It was a pain to build (I know, I was one of the editors) but it really influenced the design of the game. A lot of the game features you could see were lifted directly out of our document. Something similar happened, although to a lesser extent, with Alpha Centuari before CivIII. This is the first time we've had actual code to play with, though....it'll be interesting. As users become more sophisticated, I almost wonder if this sort of effort can become a quality control mechanism in an industry which has historically used bad software as an incentive to buying newer, but still bad, software. A problem with opening closed source software like this has been highlighted by CtPII, though, by the issue of the commercial sound library. It is almost the reverse of some of the earlier comments about SA and Non-Commercial license options: how do you deal with closed source upstream if you want to open your own source? In this case, it seems that it will be a fairly simple workaround, but that will not always be the case. The problem is only going to get worse as programming increasingly becomes about gluing together other people's code modules for your own purposes. How do you deal with the one person in the stream whom you need, but doesn't want to play by the same rules? Some (Read: SCO) will even want to change the rules retroactively. *Interesting note: The release of the code was delayed because the developers were asked by Activision to remove all comments from the code. Apparently, there were comments that the legal department was worried would get them sued for defamation, libel, etc.........the removal of these comments (in fact, all comments in the code) has caused obvious problems and the first goal the community set was to recomment the code. - John Links: http://www.apolyton.net - Apolyton home. http://www.apolyton.net/forums/ - The forums. http://www.apolyton.net/ctp2/ - Call to Power II home. http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=100290 - FAQ http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=100265 - Initial source problems... From chris@mretc.net Tue Nov 18 14:13:26 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org Received: from server1.yellowdns.com (unknown [207.44.136.133]) by happyhouse.metalab.unc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C1452006C for ; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 14:13:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from dialup-85-147.colorado.edu ([128.138.85.147] helo=localhost) by server1.yellowdns.com with asmtp (TLSv1:DES-CBC3-SHA:168) (Exim 4.24) id 1AMBHy-0001Wq-JA for cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 13:13:27 -0600 Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 12:13:13 -0700 Subject: Re: [cc-eyebeam] Re: Send back your MP3s?? Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v482) From: Chris Burkhardt To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: <20031118041742.8B6C29261E@cordova.asap.um.maine.edu> Message-Id: <416951F1-19FB-11D8-BBDB-000393845CDA@mretc.net> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.482) X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - server1.yellowdns.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - lists.ibiblio.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - mretc.net X-BeenThere: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.2 Precedence: list Reply-To: Creative Commons-Eyebeam Forum 2003 November 12-19 List-Id: Creative Commons-Eyebeam Forum 2003 November 12-19 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 19:13:27 -0000 haha I saw that story about sending back infringing mp3s to the RIAA on Slashdot and my initial thought was that it was a jesting idea of a way to "legitimately" DoS the RIAA's mail servers. I didn't realize that it was an actual recommendation for people. - Chris Burkhardt From www@cordova.asap.um.maine.edu Tue Nov 18 16:04:40 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org Received: from cordova.asap.um.maine.edu (cordova.asap.um.maine.edu [130.111.220.245]) by happyhouse.metalab.unc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37CB82001F for ; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 16:04:40 -0500 (EST) Received: by cordova.asap.um.maine.edu (Postfix, from userid 70) id EBE3A9ABB7; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 16:04:39 -0500 (EST) To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org From: neeru@creativecommons.org In-Reply-To: <20031118041718.D4B8C92610@cordova.asap.um.maine.edu> Message-Id: <20031118210439.EBE3A9ABB7@cordova.asap.um.maine.edu> Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 16:04:39 -0500 (EST) Subject: [cc-eyebeam] Re: legal implications of multiplayer games X-BeenThere: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.2 Precedence: list Reply-To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org List-Id: Creative Commons-Eyebeam Forum 2003 November 12-19 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 21:04:40 -0000 http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/3907 Check this out, Second Life is turning over the IP rights to their users. Also, Julian Dibbell wrote a lot about this: My Tiny Life: Crime and Passion in a Virtual World .Henry Holt, 1999. I haven't read this, but Julian told us a great story: Apparently US based folks have hired people in in Mexico to play these games all day to collect and create as many game assets as possible. The US folks would then sell the assets on Ebay. A virtual sweatshop.   From neeru@creativecommons.org Tue Nov 18 18:37:20 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org Received: from smtp1.Stanford.EDU (smtp1.Stanford.EDU [171.67.16.120]) by happyhouse.metalab.unc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 413AC20024 for ; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 18:37:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from [171.64.215.141] (DNab40d78d.Stanford.EDU [171.64.215.141]) by smtp1.Stanford.EDU (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id hAINbIJw003862 for ; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 15:37:19 -0800 User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/10.0.0.1309 Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 15:44:16 -0800 Subject: Re: [cc-eyebeam] Re: Welcome to Distributed Creativity From: Neeru Paharia To: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20031116165735.07B7B9219F@cordova.asap.um.maine.edu> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable X-BeenThere: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.2 Precedence: list Reply-To: Creative Commons-Eyebeam Forum 2003 November 12-19 List-Id: Creative Commons-Eyebeam Forum 2003 November 12-19 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 23:37:20 -0000 I believe there are lots of websites/organizations/tools that enable artist= s to integrate a "tip-jar" into their site, a digital way of collecting donations for offering their works. We link to one such appliation, Bitpass, as the final step of our licensing process. Bitpass makes it easy to accept micropayments as donations. Getting more people to acknowledge and participate in this system is key. Neeru On 11/16/03 8:57 AM, "Nicholas@commonrights.com" wrote: >=20 > I applaud the efforts of the Creative Commons and Distributed Creativity = and I > too worry that the legal system will fail to support the =91commons of idea= s=92. > If someone wishes to share his or her work with society as a whole a CC > licence is ideal and is wonderful for consciousness raising. >=20 > Will open licences suffice to ensure a creative commons? I am not so sure= . >=20 > The essence of individual creativity is feedback - artists working togeth= er, > the instant response of a street audience. A second important layer of su= pport > for the artist is where consumers can purchase works to reward the artist= they > like. Another type of feedback. >=20 > Can the Creative Commons and open licences support this type of feedback? > _______________________________________________ > cc-eyebeam mailing list > cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-eyebeam >=20 > This discussion runs 2003 November 12-19. Submissions are licensed > under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike > license . >=20 From neeru@creativecommons.org Tue Nov 18 18:42:27 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org Received: from smtp1.Stanford.EDU (smtp1.Stanford.EDU [171.67.16.120]) by happyhouse.metalab.unc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id E722A20044 for ; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 18:42:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from [171.64.215.141] (DNab40d78d.Stanford.EDU [171.64.215.141]) by smtp1.Stanford.EDU (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id hAINgPJw005268 for ; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 15:42:25 -0800 User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/10.0.0.1309 Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 15:49:23 -0800 Subject: Re: [cc-eyebeam] Responses to Carlo and Liza From: Neeru Paharia To: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20031116165753.656CB921A5@cordova.asap.um.maine.edu> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.2 Precedence: list Reply-To: Creative Commons-Eyebeam Forum 2003 November 12-19 List-Id: Creative Commons-Eyebeam Forum 2003 November 12-19 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 23:42:27 -0000 I don't think that remixes are necessarily upgrades, rather they're more like a lateral derivative. Which is why I think remixes can apply to all kinds of art, think of collage. And think of some basic components of drawing. How come we all can recognize a painting of a face if everyone paints it differently? Because it's made of standard source components that everyone recognizes. Like a circle represents a head, and two dots represent eyes, it's its own language. Neeru On 11/16/03 8:57 AM, "cz@zanni.org" wrote: > > >>>Our licenses have been designed for most copyrightable content, > including paintings. In the same way that a band would want their song shared > online, I could see the same motives for a visual net artist. > > > > Hi, > I understand but I see artworld as a parallel world where this kind of rules > don't work. > The only "copyright/copyleft" art can have, in my opinion, is authorship, that > is a long process, and not only a signature. > I mean, I don't want to stop people from copying my paintings or copying my > net things because there is no reason why they should do it. > In artworld there isn't an attitude to upgrade things as usually there is in > software or music (with remix). Think about photoshop 1,2, 3, 4, 5.. > I could be interested in stealing or sharing their code and upgrading it... > But there is no reason to steal a netart work to upgrade it. I don't think > people can appreciate my work, my figure as an artist if I steal netFlag > scripts... > doing a new faster version of them... or a version with more patterns and so > on.. who cares about it? > I still don't think copyright or copyleft are applicable to art pieces... and > the only license art can have is its presence in a personal research field... > people usually call it poetics. > _______________________________________________ > cc-eyebeam mailing list > cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-eyebeam > > This discussion runs 2003 November 12-19. Submissions are licensed > under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike > license . > From sal@opsound.org Tue Nov 18 20:16:14 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org Received: from flamingo.mail.pas.earthlink.net (flamingo.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.232]) by happyhouse.metalab.unc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47ACE20019 for ; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 20:16:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from h-67-101-24-43.nycmny83.dynamic.covad.net ([67.101.24.43] helo=[10.0.1.4]) by flamingo.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 1AMGwz-0002aD-00 for cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 17:16:09 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v606) Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252; format=flowed To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org From: Sal Randolph Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 20:16:05 -0500 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.606) Subject: [cc-eyebeam] In Praise of the Unprofitable X-BeenThere: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.2 Precedence: list Reply-To: Creative Commons-Eyebeam Forum 2003 November 12-19 List-Id: Creative Commons-Eyebeam Forum 2003 November 12-19 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2003 01:16:14 -0000 jippolito@guggenheim.org wrote: > In principle, there is nothing wrong with wanting to make a living as=20= > an artist. What's wrong is the perception that our society's art=20 > market will ever make that possible for more than a token few. I'm with Jon on this. My worry is that all of this talk about how=20 artists are going to survive in the market economy is actually harmful,=20= because it perpetuates the idea that if artists adapt better to to the=20= current system, then all will be well. When I talk about art as a gift economy one of the questions I am asked=20= most frequently is, =93how are artists supposed to live?=94 But this=20 question tends to mask the fact that (as Jon pointed out) for most of=20 the people who produce it, art is a decidedly unprofitable activity. A moment in praise of the unprofitable. Let=92s start with the basics: love is unprofitable, and sex, children=20= are unprofitable, sleep is unprofitable, and dreaming, eating, making=20 meals for friends, giving parties, lying on the beach, swimming ,=20 hiking, reading, looking out the window. We could go on like this but=20= even at the very beginning of such a catalog we can see that most of=20 what we love and value we engage in for reasons other than productivity=20= and profitability. The question isn=92t so much how does the artist make a living, as how=20= does the daydreamer make a living, or the chess player, or the mother=20 -- how does anyone make a living? What is increasingly puzzling to me is how firmly the idea of art as=20 production, as economic production, has taken hold in our minds. The=20 problem is that somehow art and artists can only be taken seriously in=20= the context of the market. As art moves away from rare, collectible objects made by single authors=20= it becomes more urgent to find a different way of being an artist. > donatomancini@yahoo.com wrote: > > Moving in the direction of such an art is necessarily to move away=20 > from a type of work that is either ownable or copyrightable, as the=20 > work, like curation, becomes merely a vessel, a vehicle for the=20 > transference of ideas. Artist as middleman. Or to state it=20 > differently, I think what Ritchie is imagining is an art that situates=20= > itself as say the plumbing (the piping) rather than the content (the=20= > water). But in the realm of ideas, the =93plumbing=94 is often going = to be=20 > some kind of ineffable, immaterial activity that it can be not only=20 > difficult to hold on to (own), but even to locate at all. > > Do we know of very much work that achieves this? I think there are many interesting experiments going on now in these=20 areas - certainly among some net artists, and also artists pursuing=20 what critic Nicholas Bourriaud referred to as "Relational Artist." =20 There are threads of these ideas going back to Fluxus, the=20 Situationists, and Allan Karpow's Happenings in the 60s (or even=20 farther, back to Dada, the Futurists, and the Surrealists). As Donato Manicini noted, newer non-object art forms, especially those=20= without clear, singular authorship - the participatory, the=20 collaborative or communal -- are more difficult to "own". The social=20 architecture projects I've been working on (like Opsound, coming up in=20= week 4, http://www.opsound.org ) are more structure than content=20 (something like this idea of plumbing which Donato Mancini mentioned). =20= It's not clear to me that any important aspect of the opsound project=20 is copyrightable at all (although the content of participants is=20 licensed under creative commons licenses). Dmytrik says: > Art is not an object, art happens. Art happens when the actions of=20 > artists bring expressions into a state where they can be perceived.=20 > All objects that result from an incident are merely the residue of the=20= > incident, not the art itself. I find I'm quite in sympathy with this, despite reliquar's interesting=20= cautionary note about semantics. As the Situationists liked to say, "the new type of beauty can only be=20= a beauty of situations." From neeru@creativecommons.org Tue Nov 18 20:20:06 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org Received: from smtp1.Stanford.EDU (smtp1.Stanford.EDU [171.67.16.120]) by happyhouse.metalab.unc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4CB620019 for ; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 20:20:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from [171.64.215.141] (DNab40d78d.Stanford.EDU [171.64.215.141]) by smtp1.Stanford.EDU (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id hAJ1K4Jw031043 for ; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 17:20:04 -0800 User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/10.0.0.1309 Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 17:26:59 -0800 Subject: Re: [cc-eyebeam] validating cc licenses? (question for neeru/glenn/wendy) From: Neeru Paharia To: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20031118183619.717E19AAE7@cordova.asap.um.maine.edu> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.2 Precedence: list Reply-To: Creative Commons-Eyebeam Forum 2003 November 12-19 List-Id: Creative Commons-Eyebeam Forum 2003 November 12-19 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2003 01:20:06 -0000 I'm not lawyer but the first scenario you outline doesn't seem like fair-use -- it seems like a derivative work, unless there's some kind of parody involved. I'm sure the legal experts would have a more expansive opinion. Neeru On 11/18/03 10:36 AM, "jippolito@guggenheim.org" wrote: > > In the face of legislation proposing to mandate copyright-sniffing DRM chips, > I often wonder whether open licenses will be sufficient to protect innovative > approaches to recording, playing, cataloging, and distributing art. It won't > do artists any good to copyleft their movies if personal computers can only > play videos produced by Hollywood studios. > > To fend off such draconian propositions, Neeru tells me that Creative Commons > is investigating ways to demonstrate that file-sharing and its ilk have > legitimate uses. I think this is a great idea, but I'm concerned that the > mutability of digital media may create a liability for voluntary licenses that > is hard to overcome. > > Suppose digital artist Geoff Kuhntz scans a copyrighted postcard of seven > puppies on a cushion, then uses Photoshop to replace all but one with a > flowery background. Suppose Kuhntz then posts his image with a CC license. > He's free to do that--at least in America--because his "transformative use" of > the original image qualifies for fair use protection against a copyright suit. > > Suppose then that another artist downloads it, agreeing to abide by the terms > of the license. She decides it would look better if there were seven puppies > instead of one, so she clones them--and wham, gets hit with a copyright > infringement suit by the original artist. > > You can imagine the same scenario taking place in other media--for example, if > an excerpted Philip Glass riff were re-sampled into a minimalist composition > that rivaled the original, or if a work of online art that depended on random > combinations of image and text from other pages accidentally re-created > something dangerously close to one of its victims' Web pages. For digital > culture, fair use is a porous category, which makes open licenses no guarantee > you won't be sued. > > I would love to know whether Neeru, Glenn, or Wendy have any thoughts on this > thorny issue--thanks! > > jon > _______________________________________________ > cc-eyebeam mailing list > cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-eyebeam > > This discussion runs 2003 November 12-19. Submissions are licensed > under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike > license . > From neeru@creativecommons.org Tue Nov 18 22:09:02 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org Received: from smtp1.Stanford.EDU (smtp1.Stanford.EDU [171.67.16.120]) by happyhouse.metalab.unc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E16920024 for ; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 22:08:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from [171.64.215.141] (DNab40d78d.Stanford.EDU [171.64.215.141]) by smtp1.Stanford.EDU (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id hAJ38rJw016907 for ; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 19:08:53 -0800 User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/10.0.0.1309 Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 19:15:48 -0800 From: Neeru Paharia To: Creative Commons-Eyebeam Forum 2003 November 12-19 Message-ID: Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Subject: [cc-eyebeam] Manufacturing demand and restricting supply makes art expensive X-BeenThere: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.2 Precedence: list Reply-To: Creative Commons-Eyebeam Forum 2003 November 12-19 List-Id: Creative Commons-Eyebeam Forum 2003 November 12-19 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2003 03:09:02 -0000 Reflecting on many comments about the marketing and economic value of art. Without the marketing, branding, and distribution, Madonna would not have as much value as she does now, because most of the demand for Madonna has been manufactured by the marketing/distribution infrastructure. Imagine a world where Madonna wasn't signed by any big label, but still was able to produce music -- what would her sales be like then? Probably only a small fraction of what she sells now. Her stuff is sometimes good, but so is a lot of other music. So in an economic system where goods are bought and sold, are you really buying Madonna/art, or are you buying the marketing and distribution of Madonna? That's where all the expenses are going anyway. And could much of the marketing simply be associating ideas with Madonna, (ideas like power, sex, and transformation) which in that case, you're actually buying the idea of Madonna, like a branded product, like an Gucci bag? I think at least partially, the value of Madonna goes beyond Madonna -- you're actually buying the value-add that the industry provides, including the ideas they associate with her, packaging, and access to her music. So if the marketing firms/labels are creating all the value, or demand for the good (Madonna), then of-course they will be the most interested in asserting IP rights in the value they created. It's really not about the music, it's about manufacturing demand by selling ideas, and the access to the product. Firms also used to be able to restrict supply of these products (while they were simultaneously manufacturing demand), a key component in creating value. But now with digital distribution, they can no longer restrict supply easily. This really has nothing to do with the artist or art, it's all about the Firm creating demand and restricting supply, it's about creating value and extracting value, it's business. If an artist was compensated fairly (somewhere between nothing, and millions of dollars) how many artists would choose to restrict supply of their artwork? I don't know what most artists think, but I would never personally want to restrict supply of my own work and think lots of people would feel the same. In physical space, the creation of a painting was in itself a legitimate restriction to supply (because it's one-of-a-kind) but in digital space, what is it? DRM? That's artificial. So the outstanding question is how to compensate artists fairly if supply is unrestricted -- Joline, Sal, Jon, and others had great thoughts on this. I know we talk about how important IP rights are for artist because we don't want them (myself included) to be taken advantage of, but does a system where most artist make nothing, and the few who make money, make tons of money because they are being packaged and marketed in the right way -- even though their art is probably not much different from any one else's -- a system that makes sense? The few artists who do make money are often just a component of a huge marketed product, their music just a piece of the larger picture where most of the value is created by manufacturing demand through clever marketing, branding,, and distribution. And this is really where the IP rights are being asserted. It seems like artists worry most about corporate exploitation -- who else really has the power to take advantage of them? This point rang true as we recently hashed out the Sampling license on our website -- the artists who developed the sampling license wanted to allow the world to sample their work commercially, EXCEPT for advertising firms. Funny how the biggest supporters of strong IP are the corporations. On a slightly different note, I value art because it's something that moves the human spirit -- it's a world where I can experience ideas, feelings, and thought. It's interesting how marketing capitalizes off this by associating ideas (like Nike's "Just Do it"=triumph and self-determination, Madonna=power, sex, money, Diamond=eternal love) with products, so our desire to experience feeling/ideas, something that art has been a vehicle to convey, is now placed on our desire to purchase product, rather than seek out the experience of art. Or some would say marketing is art. All this to say, I agree with Joline, art should be publicly funded and access to art should be universal. I really like the solutions she presented. Creative Commons is thinking about trying to do something like this, at least in a minor way, by collection donations from the public and then grant all the money back to artists to create CC licensed works. We're still working out the details but we also thought it would be great to focus our funds on music and encourage legal sharing of content, to prove substantial non-infringing use of the file-sharing networks. I've also been talking to a MP34U, a group that's trying to "manufacture demand" for MP3s that are legal to share led by the founder of Bezerkely Records. There are thousands of legal MP3s put up by self publishing artists -- look at mp3.com. But there's no one to curate, no one to find the good stuff for you. Their solution is to have ~50 people constantly scouring the web for good legal mp3s, which they'll put on their personal play-lists so you can find people with similar tastes to yours. Maybe they can help encourage people to file-share legal MP3s, since right now, demand is clearly on the side of the illegal MP3s. And maybe some of these ideas about people-centered vs. thing-centered, as MLK discussed, comes back to defining art as an inherent right. Which would mean supporting people to create art, as most cultures have enabled and valued for thousands of years. I hope some of this makes sense. From neeru@creativecommons.org Wed Nov 19 00:57:39 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org Received: from out2.smtp.messagingengine.com (out2.smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.26]) by happyhouse.metalab.unc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 049232002B for ; Wed, 19 Nov 2003 00:57:39 -0500 (EST) X-Sasl-enc: hPQ/ChbesSXH2MEtUis0tw 1069221458 Received: from [172.16.1.34] (adsl-63-202-81-74.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net [63.202.81.74]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8438E432CC0 for ; Wed, 19 Nov 2003 00:57:38 -0500 (EST) User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/10.0.0.1309 Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 22:04:32 -0800 From: Neeru Paharia To: Creative Commons-Eyebeam Forum 2003 November 12-19 Message-ID: Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Subject: [cc-eyebeam] Discussion wrap up X-BeenThere: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.2 Precedence: list Reply-To: Creative Commons-Eyebeam Forum 2003 November 12-19 List-Id: Creative Commons-Eyebeam Forum 2003 November 12-19 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2003 05:57:39 -0000 Hello Folks, On behalf of Creative Commons I want to thank you for participating in the "Copyleft, Right and Center: Innovations in Law" forum. I hope we have time for some wrap-up comments from folks but I'm not sure how this list works in coordination with the website (I will send this, and my previous message to the list and also post on the website just in case). In any event, I do hope to hear some concluding remarks from folks tomorrow. Please also be aware that tomorrow the "Mobile Creativity: Innovations in Technology" forum begins. You can get more information at http://www.eyebeam.org/distributedcreativity/ I'd also like give a great thanks to Eyebeam and the University of Maine for giving us the opportunity to host this discussion. We hope the ideas from this forum can lead to real-world action. Much Thanks, Neeru -- Neeru Paharia Assistant Director creativecommons.org 650.724.3717 From jollirm@unisa.ac.za Wed Nov 19 05:52:02 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org Received: from pc-2240890.unisa.ac.za (unknown [163.200.216.143]) by happyhouse.metalab.unc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2ADE32002B for ; Wed, 19 Nov 2003 05:52:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from gkeeper ([163.200.216.140]) by pc-2240890.unisa.ac.za with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713); Wed, 19 Nov 2003 12:52:04 +0200 Received: from [163.200.216.138]:18468 with SMTP; Wed, 19 Nov 2003 10:51:57 -0000 Received: from Unisa-MTA by alpha.unisa.ac.za with Novell_GroupWise; Wed, 19 Nov 2003 12:51:49 +0200 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 6.0.2 Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2003 12:51:44 +0200 From: "R M Jolliffe" To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Nov 2003 10:52:04.0972 (UTC) FILETIME=[2B7BB2C0:01C3AE8B] Subject: [cc-eyebeam] Art, property and water X-BeenThere: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.2 Precedence: list Reply-To: Creative Commons-Eyebeam Forum 2003 November 12-19 List-Id: Creative Commons-Eyebeam Forum 2003 November 12-19 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2003 10:52:02 -0000 Hi My name is Bob and I've been following this list with great interest and = fascination, also from South Africa (hi Heather). I am not what you might = call an artist but I do write software as a creative rather than an = industrial activity. The issue of art as property (or not) caught my eye. Unfortunately the = American view of property seems to be bound to the tradition of the likes = of John Locke - its all about the inalienable right of individuals to own = (and exchange) stuff. And to bear arms in order to defend that right. Fortunately there are alternative views and traditions. The marxist = perspective of property, for example, gives us a useful way to understand = commons (and other) property. Property is not the thing. Property is the = social relations around the thing. In this sense it is more interesting = to talk of property rights than property - it is less confusing and = infinitely more flexible. =20 A good example close to our hearts in much of the "developing world" is = water rights. These rights are not simply about ownership. Water can be = private, public or commons managed. Communities and individuals can have = access rights, allocation rights, control rights etc. The various = mixtures of property rights are multi-dimensional and a reflection of the = social relations which exist between the parties.=20 For me it seems that the Creative Commons licences are attempting to = create a similar flexible framework of property rights around creative = works. Being creative about the ways in which we mix and match property = rights means being creative in reflecting (and shaping) the way we relate = to one another. The substantive "piece" of art, the creation, is the = medium around which these relationships are built, enjoyed, challenged = etc. =20 In Africa traditionally these relationships are valued very highly. = Certainly as highly as the Western world has valued the right to private = property. The Zulu word, Ubuntu, for example, captures the essence of a = world view profoundly based on community. The South African Governmental = White Paper on Welfare officially recognises Ubuntu as: "Each individual's= humanity is ideally expressed through his or her relationship with others = and theirs in turn through a recognition of the individual's humanity. = Ubuntu means that people are people through other people."=20 Somewhere in here is a clue to why we create. With or without the market. Bob --------------------------------------------------------------------------- This message (and attachments) is subject to restrictions and a disclaimer. Please refer to http://www.unisa.ac.za/disclaimer for full details. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- <<<>>> <<<< gwavasig >>>> ########################################### This message has been scanned by F-Secure Anti-Virus for Internet Mail. For more information, connect to http://www.F-Secure.com/ Outbound Mail scanned successfully From riolo@voicenet.com Wed Nov 19 15:24:08 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org Received: from mail21.voicenet.com (mail21.voicenet.com [207.103.0.19]) by happyhouse.metalab.unc.edu (Postfix) with SMTP id CF70020086 for ; Wed, 19 Nov 2003 15:24:07 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 4861 invoked from network); 19 Nov 2003 20:24:03 -0000 Received: from unix01.voicenet.com (209.71.48.250) by mail21.voicenet.com with SMTP; 19 Nov 2003 20:24:03 -0000 Received: (qmail 13090 invoked by uid 4342); 19 Nov 2003 20:23:56 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost) (129.139.40.125) by unix01.voicenet.com with SMTP; 19 Nov 2003 20:23:56 -0000 Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2003 15:23:56 -0500 (EST) From: Joseph Pietro Riolo To: Creative Commons-Eyebeam Forum 2003 November 12-19 Subject: Re: [cc-eyebeam] In Praise of the Unprofitable In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=X-UNKNOWN Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE X-BeenThere: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.2 Precedence: list Reply-To: Creative Commons-Eyebeam Forum 2003 November 12-19 List-Id: Creative Commons-Eyebeam Forum 2003 November 12-19 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2003 20:24:08 -0000 On Tue, 18 Nov 2003, Sal Randolph wrote: > > jippolito@guggenheim.org wrote: > > > In principle, there is nothing wrong with wanting to make a living as > > an artist. What's wrong is the perception that our society's art > > market will ever make that possible for more than a token few. > > I'm with Jon on this. My worry is that all of this talk about how > artists are going to survive in the market economy is actually harmful, > because it perpetuates the idea that if artists adapt better to to the > current system, then all will be well. > > When I talk about art as a gift economy one of the questions I am asked > most frequently is, =93how are artists supposed to live?=94 But this > question tends to mask the fact that (as Jon pointed out) for most of > the people who produce it, art is a decidedly unprofitable activity. > > A moment in praise of the unprofitable. > > Let=92s start with the basics: love is unprofitable, and sex, children > are unprofitable, sleep is unprofitable, and dreaming, eating, making > meals for friends, giving parties, lying on the beach, swimming , > hiking, reading, looking out the window. We could go on like this but > even at the very beginning of such a catalog we can see that most of > what we love and value we engage in for reasons other than productivity > and profitability. > > The question isn=92t so much how does the artist make a living, as how > does the daydreamer make a living, or the chess player, or the mother > -- how does anyone make a living? > > What is increasingly puzzling to me is how firmly the idea of art as > production, as economic production, has taken hold in our minds. The > problem is that somehow art and artists can only be taken seriously in > the context of the market. > > As art moves away from rare, collectible objects made by single authors > it becomes more urgent to find a different way of being an artist. > > > donatomancini@yahoo.com wrote: > > > > Moving in the direction of such an art is necessarily to move away > > from a type of work that is either ownable or copyrightable, as the > > work, like curation, becomes merely a vessel, a vehicle for the > > transference of ideas. Artist as middleman. Or to state it > > differently, I think what Ritchie is imagining is an art that situates > > itself as say the plumbing (the piping) rather than the content (the > > water). But in the realm of ideas, the =93plumbing=94 is often going to= be > > some kind of ineffable, immaterial activity that it can be not only > > difficult to hold on to (own), but even to locate at all. > > > > Do we know of very much work that achieves this? > > > I think there are many interesting experiments going on now in these > areas - certainly among some net artists, and also artists pursuing > what critic Nicholas Bourriaud referred to as "Relational Artist." > There are threads of these ideas going back to Fluxus, the > Situationists, and Allan Karpow's Happenings in the 60s (or even > farther, back to Dada, the Futurists, and the Surrealists). > > As Donato Manicini noted, newer non-object art forms, especially those > without clear, singular authorship - the participatory, the > collaborative or communal -- are more difficult to "own". The social > architecture projects I've been working on (like Opsound, coming up in > week 4, http://www.opsound.org ) are more structure than content > (something like this idea of plumbing which Donato Mancini mentioned). > It's not clear to me that any important aspect of the opsound project > is copyrightable at all (although the content of participants is > licensed under creative commons licenses). > > Dmytrik says: > > > Art is not an object, art happens. Art happens when the actions of > > artists bring expressions into a state where they can be perceived. > > All objects that result from an incident are merely the residue of the > > incident, not the art itself. > > I find I'm quite in sympathy with this, despite reliquar's interesting > cautionary note about semantics. > > As the Situationists liked to say, "the new type of beauty can only be > a beauty of situations." > > > > > _______________________________________________ > cc-eyebeam mailing list > cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-eyebeam > > This discussion runs 2003 November 12-19. Submissions are licensed > under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike > license . > From riolo@voicenet.com Wed Nov 19 18:42:38 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org Received: from mail15.voicenet.com (mail15.voicenet.com [207.103.0.18]) by happyhouse.metalab.unc.edu (Postfix) with SMTP id 85998200B5 for ; Wed, 19 Nov 2003 18:42:38 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 22497 invoked from network); 19 Nov 2003 23:42:29 -0000 Received: from unix01.voicenet.com (209.71.48.250) by mail15.voicenet.com with SMTP; 19 Nov 2003 23:42:29 -0000 Received: (qmail 26178 invoked by uid 4342); 19 Nov 2003 23:42:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost) (207.103.157.52) by unix01.voicenet.com with SMTP; 19 Nov 2003 23:42:22 -0000 Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2003 18:42:22 -0500 (EST) From: Joseph Pietro Riolo To: Creative Commons-Eyebeam Forum 2003 November 12-19 Subject: Re: [cc-eyebeam] In Praise of the Unprofitable In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: X-BeenThere: cc-eyebeam@lists.ibiblio.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.2 Precedence: list Reply-To: Creative Commons-Eyebeam Forum 2003 November 12-19 List-Id: Creative Commons-Eyebeam Forum 2003 November 12-19 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2003 23:42:39 -0000 Apology to everyone. I planned not to send my previous post that included Sal Randolph's post to this forum but I hit the wrong key that sent the whole post without any additional input from me to the whole forum. (Sounds familiar? :-) I deserve egg on my face. Joseph Pietro Riolo