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@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> Re: <nettime> THOUGHT THIEVE$ info [en/es/de/it] pyramid sur la carte <sur_la_carte@yahoo.com> Re: <nettime> THOUGHT THIEVE$ info [en/es/de/it] Heiko Recktenwald <uzs106@uni-bonn.de> Re: <nettime> THOUGHT THIEVE$ info [en/es/de/it] pyramid sur la carte <sur_la_carte@yahoo.com> ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2005 09:41:38 -0400 From: Seth Johnson <seth.johnson@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. Seth --- RIAA is the RISK! Our NET is P2P! http://www.nyfairuse.org/action/ftc DRM is Theft! We are the Stakeholders! New Yorkers for Fair Use http://www.nyfairuse.org [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@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, already! besitos, Pyramide. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2005 17:58:21 +0200 From: Heiko Recktenwald <uzs106@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. H. 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@yahoo.com> Subject: Re: <nettime> THOUGHT THIEVE$ info [en/es/de/it] Heiko, 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. Bonsoir, Pyramide. # 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@bbs.thing.net and "info nettime-l" in the msg body # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@bbs.thing.net