Nettime mailing list archives

Re: <nettime> THOUGHT THIEVE$ info [4x]
nettime's honest thief on Sat, 13 Aug 2005 19:15:17 +0200 (CEST)

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: <nettime> THOUGHT THIEVE$ info [4x]

Table of Contents:

   Re: <nettime> THOUGHT THIEVE$ info [en/es/de/it]                                
     Seth Johnson <seth.johnson {AT} RealMeasures.dyndns.org>                             

   Re: <nettime> THOUGHT THIEVE$ info [en/es/de/it]                                
     pyramid sur la carte <sur_la_carte {AT} yahoo.com>                                   

   Re: <nettime> THOUGHT THIEVE$ info [en/es/de/it]                                
     Heiko Recktenwald <uzs106 {AT} uni-bonn.de>                                          

   Re: <nettime> THOUGHT THIEVE$ info [en/es/de/it]                                
     pyramid sur la carte <sur_la_carte {AT} yahoo.com>                                   


Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2005 09:41:38 -0400
From: Seth Johnson <seth.johnson {AT} RealMeasures.dyndns.org>
Subject: Re: <nettime> THOUGHT THIEVE$ info [en/es/de/it]

Heiko Recktenwald wrote:
> But the details.....why, for example, this WIPO bashing?

Well, for one thing, WIPO is a lot of unelected representatives
trying to establish rules for the use of *published information,*
regardless of individual liberties, reality, rationality, or
national autonomy.  They serve abusers of exclusive rights policy
only.  WIPO is utterly uncognizant of the fact that exclusive
rights policies like copyright, patents and trademark are
statutory rights in the United States, entirely up to Congress to
grant or deny, and they're supposed to serve a certain purpose
that they are not serving.

You want the real story of WIPO?  How about checking this out. 
Read about the Development Agenda.  A good documentary that would
deliver on all the goals of this THOUGHT THIEVE$ project, could
be made of this, should have been made by attending and filming
these proceedings:

> http://www.eff.org/IP/WIPO/dev_agenda/
> http://www.fsfe.org/Members/gerloff/blog/world_to_suffer_at_hands_of_obstinate_us_delegates
> http://lists.essential.org/pipermail/a2k/2005-July/000535.html
> http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/003838.php
> http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/index.php?p=83

WIPO is responsible for encouraging the use of the ridiculous
term "intellectual property."

> I recomment to really READ the WIPO treaties and to compare them with
> the *US* DMCA.  What is really bad is all in DMCA only. No fair use etc.
> The idea of DRM comes from the WIPO treaties, yepp, but how it is
> implemented matters! And DRM may also have some good sides, btw, like it
> or not, not all cases are the same.

DRM is theft.



RIAA is the RISK!  Our NET is P2P!

DRM is Theft!  We are the Stakeholders!

New Yorkers for Fair Use

[CC] Counter-copyright: http://realmeasures.dyndns.org/cc

I reserve no rights restricting copying, modification or
distribution of this incidentally recorded communication. 
Original authorship should be attributed reasonably, but only so
far as such an expectation might hold for usual practice in
ordinary social discourse to which one holds no claim of
exclusive rights.


Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2005 07:45:45 -0700 (PDT)
From: pyramid sur la carte <sur_la_carte {AT} yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: <nettime> THOUGHT THIEVE$ info [en/es/de/it]

Saludos, Heiko.

Appreciated your rant (seriously). But get with the
program. Aesthetics are so ... so 18th century. Today
beautiful is ugly, UGLY is beautiful, clean is dirty,
dirty is clean, different is the same, the same is
different, and so on and so forth. Hell, today is
always another day. And, stop aestheticising politics,




Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2005 17:58:21 +0200
From: Heiko Recktenwald <uzs106 {AT} uni-bonn.de>
Subject: Re: <nettime> THOUGHT THIEVE$ info [en/es/de/it]

It is less about "aestheticising politics" than you may think.

Yesterday, I came over a website devoted to the hack.it
event/exhibition in Bethanien (Kreuzberg, Berlin) and they all
had their powerbooks. So uniform, and it was the most
sympa part of the scene. What is good in using a Mac? You
can use all the software your Mac friends have (and chances
are good that it is good stuff). But this is the same thing seen
from another side. Macs can do a lot of things, but some
things are not possible, for example, to come back, video playlists.
Quicktime hides video in MPEG Audio Playlists (bla.m3u), Microsofts
WMP does not do this, it comes without such artificial restrictions.
And by using Macs and Mac software, we help some sort of
"Cupertinofashism" rule the world (cum grano salis, blablabla).

So it is more about hiding politics, code is law, under some
nice surface, for example the Apple Music Store with its
closed shop model, no access for other vendors.

You can say it is ok, why shouldnt vendors be free to
built such monopolies?

Hmmm, not so important here, at least we shouldnt
be to dependent on it, we shouldnt be uncritical
Apple consumers, and, most important, we
shouldnt confuse people with a nice open source surface.

Apples Quicktime is NOT open source.

What the NYT is doing, "QT movies" displayed by
Real Player, is much more creativity.


pyramid sur la carte wrote:

>Saludos, Heiko.



Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2005 15:52:41 -0700 (PDT)
From: pyramid sur la carte <sur_la_carte {AT} yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: <nettime> THOUGHT THIEVE$ info [en/es/de/it]


I understand where you are coming from. I do. But you
need to take a chill pill here. No one, no one with
any sense denies the utility and necessity, the
inevitability of open source. But when you go on about
"Cupertinofashism" it really sounds like the latest
whine from a newly minted acolyte of the high church.
It comes to mind to point out that this isn't another
religious war. But the laughter that this term you've
smithed provides is great -- since in English
"fashism" looks a lot more like "fashion" than what I
assume you intend: fascism. But I don't mean to
criticize this term. Only to point it out so that you
too can laugh along.

Now, when you start in on "closed shop" models, then
we know that you are serious. Except that your
distinctions are ... well, they are ludicrous. This
business about hiding data within formats and so forth
smacks of a na?vet? regarding the meaning of terms
that should be formally part of this discussion, such
as "protocol" and "code," and not to forget, "law." I
am all for the open source model. But it is one model
in an evolving media ecology, and I don't for a minute
doubt that there is a bit of the spirit of totality
when I read someone dictating that all production
should adhere to one model and one model only. 

So Apple Quicktime is not open source. You point that
out as if you are Martin Luther dictating a new path
for salvation. Except this isn't news. Maybe you are
trying to bring us into the harsh light of media
politics. Well, then the light isn't harsh enough. 

Now I definitely know that you are grasping when you
cite to me the New York Times as the paragon of
creativity. As far as I am concerned they are only
creative in finding ways to defend their neo-con
stenographer, Judy Miller. And that's where it ends.



#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
#  <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
#  more info: majordomo {AT} bbs.thing.net and "info nettime-l" in the msg body
#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} bbs.thing.net