headers
Florian Cramer | 1 Aug 2005 02:15
Picon
Picon
Favicon

Re: Benjamin Mako Hill on Creative Commons

Am Samstag, 30. Juli 2005 um 21:42:03 Uhr (+0200) schrieb august:

> Freedom needs standards?  Even freedom isn't free anymore?

That for sure is the quasi-Goedelian paradox of freedom, it can't
describe itself with its own means. If you don't pin down or define
[i.e. "limit"] freedom, than the term has no meaning anymore. If the
concept of freedom were radically and ontologically free in the sense
you suggest, then it would include for example fascism as one of its
options.

> Why is that when I hear advocates arguing the efficient definition of
> "freedom" as it pertains to software distribution, I think of George
> Bush, the wars on "terror", and NAFTA?

Because the left and right have undergone strange mutations in the past
few years. Today, the political right speaks of freedom, using an
originally left-wing concept from the French revolution ("liberté,
égalité, fraternité"), while the political left has turned into
believers in the law and the state, preferring a legalistic term like
"rights" to anarchic "freedom".

> Ok, we understand already that the GPL licence makes restrictions on
> what one can or cannot do with a piece of software code.  

The reverse is true. It grants additional freedoms/liberal uses that
exceed the standard "fair use" rights granted by copyright law. Neither
the GPL, nor any other free software/open source/open content license
impose any additional restrictions to default copyright.  Of course,
with its prohibition against deriving non-free works from free works,
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Felix Stalder | 1 Aug 2005 13:04

Re: Benjamin Mako Hill on Creative Commons

> > The CC licenses, however, try to provide some protections for the
> > producers of content by providing non-commercial clauses.
>
> Which is a bogus advantage. We had this discussion in Nettime before,
> and the common sense was that the concept of "commerce" implied in those
> clauses is neither defined nor clear at all. If our exchange would be
> printed in a Nettime book, and the book was for sale even if it made no
> profit or even losses for the publishers, it would be still a
> "commercial" distribution and hence not allow the inclusion of material
> licensed with this clause. This would even be the case if it were
> published on a CD-ROM sold for 50 cents, or in exchange for a blank CD
> medium.

The non-commercial clause is, indeed, deeply problematic. It is virtually
impossible to define what commercial means. It is not a legal concept to my
knowledge. Is everything that is sold a commercial transaction. Or only things
that are sold with the intention of profit? Then again, how would one define
intention? Or is it the success that makes a venture commercial?  Assuming the
nettime reader, as it was printed and distributed, did not constitute a commercial
venture. But what if it had been a runaway success, with four reprints? That would
have made it profitable, for sure. Where would one draw the line? After the first
re-print? or the second?

In the end, the non-commercial clause restricts the creative commons to
consumption, hobbyism, and, how convenient for its academic sponsors, to teaching. 

While I see the point of, say, musicians not wanting to have their works misused
in advertisement, the share-alike clause of the GPL would already have prevented
this from ever happening. There is no way in hell that any brand would allow its
ads to be released under the GPL. You cannot put a trademark under the GPL.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Benj. Mako Hill | 1 Aug 2005 20:11
Gravatar

Re: Benjamin Mako Hill on Creative Commons

Please CC me on replies as I am not on this list.

<quote who="august" date="Sat, 30 Jul 2005 21:42:03 +0200 (CEST)">
> Say what?  Free to be free to freely think about freedom? Huh?

I didn't say this and I am fully aware of the overloaded nature of the word
freedom. I *am* arguing for a set of defined goals to form the core of a social
movement. As an activist, I believe that social movements trying to bring about
real defined change and with a vision of a world where things are changed are
effective. This is the case with the Free Software movement and every other
successful freedom movement I can think of and I believe it is lacking in CC.

I use the term freedom because it it is used in the Free Software movement to
which I am drawing parallels and seems justified in this regard. You may think
that "goals" or "standards" or "rights" are better terms. That is OK with me. My
issue is not with the terms here but with getting people inspired to work toward a
clear vision of a better world. I think that vision is lacking.

> Why is it that FLOSS advocates are still instistant about what is
> "freedom"?  Why is that when I hear advocates arguing the efficient
> definition of "freedom" as it pertains to software distribution, I
> think of George Bush, the wars on "terror", and NAFTA?
>
> Ok, we understand already that the GPL licence makes restrictions on
> what one can or cannot do with a piece of software code.  But, what
> is the motive behind insisting that this is a construct of
> "freedom"?

It seems that you are hinting at the classic BSD vs GPL style argument of "freedom
to do anything you want including take away people's freedom" and the more
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Jose-Carlos Mariategui | 4 Aug 2005 00:49
Picon
Favicon

VAE9 // (PERU)

(spanish follows below)

VAE9 //
International Festival of Video and Electronic Art 2005

Cities: Arequipa / Cuzco / Lima / Puerto Maldonado / Trujillo | PERU

http://www.festivalvae.com/

Omnívoros is first of many exhibitions that will be presented in the cities
of Arequipa, Cuzco, Lima, Puerto Maldonado and Trujillo as part of the 9th
edition of the International Festival of Video and Electronic Art 2005
(VAE9). 'Home' of Olaf Breuning (Switzerland) will be presented al the Ojo
Ajeno Gallery; Art and Politics Series will present the installation
'Alternative Economics/Alternative Societies' of Oliver Ressler (Austria)
and 'Dolores from 10 to 10' of Coco Fusco (U.S.A.) at the Sala Luis Quesada
Garland ; the video installation 'Incessamment' and the interactive project
'Circulez y'a rien a voir' of Cecile Babiole (France) in gallery ARTCO;
'Strike' of Eder Santos (Brazil) will be shown at the new Gallery of the
Ricardo Palma University ; and the exhibition series Art and Robotics with
the works 'Silverfish Extream' of Constanza Silva (Canada), 'Prehysterical
machine' of Bill Vorn (Canada) and 'Stereo reality' of Jose Carlos Martinat
(Peru) and Enrique Mayorga (Peru), will be presented in the ICPNA of Lima.

Video selections from Argentina, Canada, Chile, Mexico, Iran, Finland, Cuba
and the United States, will be presented in addition to a selection of
Peruvian videos that participated in the Second National Video and
Electronic Art Prize 2004. Also, they will be to the winning videos in 2nd
Biennial of Video Art of the I.A.D.B..
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Dirk Vekemans | 1 Aug 2005 13:18

RE: My Sixty-Five Failures

Very recognisable. However:

"...when you choose to write or author a work, you're being read because you
fail to write it, how splendidly you fail, that is. Failing to write the
Divine Comedy, like Dante did, now that's something..."

That's something i wrote, (failing) on the NkdeE blog
(http://nkdee.blogspot.com/2005/03/on-hacking-vaihinger-programming.html)
some time ago. 

I think you're doing a splendid job and are an inspiration to all of us,
perhaps lacking in the artistic courage you show constantly.

greetings,
dv  <at>  Neue Kathedrale des erotischen Elends
http://www.vilt.net/nkdee

-----Original Message-----
From: nettime-l-request@...
[mailto:nettime-l-request@...] On Behalf Of Alan Sondheim
Sent: zondag 31 juli 2005 16:07
To: nettime-l@...
Subject: <nettime> My Sixty-Five Failures 

My Sixty-Five Failures
 <...>
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Alan Sondheim | 3 Aug 2005 20:21
Picon
Favicon

Anthracite Casualties

Anthracite Casualties

The estimates of the number of men and boys dying in the anthracite
minefields of Pennsylvania from the mid 1800s through the first few
decades of the 20th century seem to vary a great deal. The particular
volume illustrated below lists 1622 deaths for the three years 1910-1912.
The fields covered a very small area, including Scranton and Wilkes-Barre,
my home town. I believe the total deaths during this period reached
50,000.

The 11 images are from an illustrated booklet, used to teach miners safety
measures, as well as limited English. Most of the miners were from Eastern
Europe. The images are from the Report of the Department of Mines in
Pennsylvania.

http://www.asondheim.org/nine mine jpgs

_
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
august | 4 Aug 2005 07:59
Picon
Favicon
Gravatar

Re: Benjamin Mako Hill on Creative Commons

here is my argument in a nutshell:

a.) you are using the rhetoric of freedom for the sake of persuasion.  I
find this rhetoric to be incredibly hollow and needless.

b.)  you think the CC is not "free" enough, and therefore detrimental to
your cause, becuase it doesn't emit the same attitude or, as you say,
ethic of freedom.  I'm not crazy about them, but I think the CC lics
offer some needed options.

c.)  I don't think the right to distribute something at will is a
necessary prerequisite of "freedom"?  Let's say I make something, a song
or a piece of software.  I grant you the permission to use it or play it,
to sample it or modify it.  Let's say I even give you the right to copy it
for a friend.  Why should I give you complete rights to copy it verbatim
and distribute it for money?  Or, the better question in your case is, why
would that be less "free"?  (please don't answer, "because that is what
Stallman says, and those are the definitions of free software". also,
please don't answer "because information wants to be free")

d.) the free software definition only addresses the use and distribution
of software.  it doesn't take the fact of production into account,
demanding that a producer give up all his/her rights. the CC license, on
the other hand, offers a real choice to a producer of something.  Why
should someone who has spent their creative energy immediatly release ALL
control over their outcomes, especially in a world of totalitarian
capitalism where the scales are tipped in the favor of obvious parties?

e.) just because there has been some consensus here on nettime, doesn't
mean that non-commercial clauses would be immpossible.  the CC licenses
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
wayne clements | 5 Aug 2005 00:37

99 trillion errors: a short reply to Florian Cramer


Forian Cramer has published a fascinating pamphlet (WORDS MADE FLESH. Code,
Culture, Imagination, Florian Cramer, 2005).

However, small eruptions of disorder create the basis of the errata for Cramer’s
text. 

To take the mathematically most monstrous: as Cramer knows, a small source code
may have an astronomical product (p 54), so a couple of zeros add up to an
unimaginable total of mistakes. Speaking of Queneau Cramer says:

"In 1961, he extended this concept into a computational poem, the 100,000 Billion
Poems, a combinatory sonnet in ten variations.[47] It was printed in a book whose
lines were individually sliced so that each line of poem could be turned like a
page and picked from ten alternatives. From ten alternatives for the twelve sonnet
lines, 10 [to the twelfth] possible poem combinations result."

Having reduced the sonnet by a mere two lines (who is to say the form might not
benefit for it? More aesthetically pleasing?) Cramer is quite a bit out (100
trillion minus 1 trillion = 99 American trillion). Perhaps Cramer is testing us.

Wayne Clements 

www.in-vacua.com
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Ricardo Dominguez | 5 Aug 2005 16:23

A Short Interview with artist Shannon Spanhake about the DoEAT group.


[header reformatted  <at>  nettime]

Q: So, let's start with the basics of Who, What, When, Where and How. How did The
Department of Ecological Authoring Tactics, Inc. (DoEAT) group start?

A: It began with some food projects I had started, thus the acronym, but it grew
out of wanting to relieve myself from the institutional burden of being solely
responsible for my thoughts and actions and to offer others this same shelter. It
is not total anarchy, it is actually quite organized, it is simply adopting a
methodology that many artistic, governmental, and corporate entities use to
decentralize authorship.

Q: Who are the members at this time?

A: Rather than thinking of DoEAT as a group of individuals, I think it is more
interesting to consider DoEAT as 'space' to be inhabited, not a physical space,
but a conceptual plane that intersects with other planes (both physical and
conceptual) in different ways to create alternate spatial ecologies and conceptual
geographies. I am more interested in the idea of a template that is fixed around
an ideology and a process rather then a group of people collaborating, where the
realizations and articulations embodied by this template are variable. In much the
same way that Rtmark, Al Qaeda, or even the Zapatistas statements regarding the
name "Marcos" and his claims that the name doesn't inhabit the individual but
rather, many individuals can inhabit the name. Our names aren't a secret or
anything, currently at this very moment there is Shannon Spanhake, Camilo
Ontiveros, Roberto Freddi, Jason Moore and Steve Rioux, but this could change in
ten minutes or in two weeks, I like to think of DoEAT as an open-source twiki
notice the "t", because its not about anonymity, its about collaboration.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Heiko Recktenwald | 5 Aug 2005 13:46
Picon

Re: Benjamin Mako Hill on Creative Commons

Hi, nice questions.

On Sat, 30 Jul 2005, august wrote:

> Say what?  Free to be free to freely think about freedom? Huh?
>
> > Towards a Standard of Freedom: Creative Commons and the Free
> > Software Movement
>
> Freedom needs standards?  Even freedom isn't free anymore?
>
> Why is it that FLOSS advocates are still instistant about what is
> "freedom"?  Why is that when I hear advocates arguing the efficient
> definition of "freedom" as it pertains to software distribution, I
> think of George Bush, the wars on "terror", and NAFTA?

The author of the cathedral and the bazar and fetchmail after 9/11....

H.
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |

Gmane