Nettime mailing list archives

Re: <nettime> THOUGHT THIEVE$ info [2x]
nettime's dishonest thief on Mon, 15 Aug 2005 09:41:27 +0200 (CEST)

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

Re: <nettime> THOUGHT THIEVE$ info [2x]

Table of Contents:

   Re: <nettime> THOUGHT THIEVE$ info [4x]                                         
     Heiko Recktenwald <uzs106 {AT} uni-bonn.de>                                          

   Re: <nettime> THOUGHT THIEVE$ info [4x]                                         
     eyescratch {AT} gmail.com                                                            


Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2005 20:59:45 +0200
From: Heiko Recktenwald <uzs106 {AT} uni-bonn.de>
Subject: Re: <nettime> THOUGHT THIEVE$ info [4x]


nettime's honest thief wrote:

First of all, yepp, "honest thieves", thats what we should be. This legalese,
including what the Lessig invents, "creativ commons" etc, is *extremly* boring. It
doesnt contribute to anything exept boring "legal" art. This shouldnt be a
category in art at all, it doesnt make a work of art more beautifull etc. It
doesnt affect artistic practice in the net.  It may play a role when it comes to
selling art and then, as much as I like to "steal", I have NO problem to defend
copyright. Why should one artist be allowed to "steal" from another artist? Are
some artists better than others?

Most of the problem cases in between are covered by "fair use" in most countries
of the world. And, please notice: WIPO recognises this even in the case of DRM.
See for example, people dont read, but here it comes:

*Article 16
Limitations and Exceptions*

<#P126_16257> <#TopOfPage> <#P138_20568>

(1) Contracting Parties may, in their national legislation, provide for the same
kinds of limitations or exceptions with regard to the protection of performers and
producers of phonograms as they provide for, in their national legislation, in
connection with the protection of copyright in literary and artistic works.

(2) Contracting Parties shall confine any limitations of or exceptions to rights
provided for in this Treaty to certain special cases which do not conflict with a
normal exploitation of the performance or phonogram and do not unreasonably
prejudice the legitimate interests of the performer or of the producer of the

URL: http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/wppt/trtdocs_wo034.html#P133_18440

WIPO or not, states are free to keep it in their copyright laws! Even in the case
of DRM, which this treaty is about. But (AFAIK) *no* state has done it so far, the
first who did so were the US in their DMCA, and we all know what THIS means,
Corley etc, DeCSS. We can not blame WIPO for this, that the states havent used
their freedom. Even Brussels gave the EU member states this freedom and it is
typical for the german social democratic governement, the lawmakers in parliament,
that they didnt. (Well, they did also something good, there is no "pretrial
discovery" at the ISPs to get the identity of P2P users, as common in les US)

And now to Seths comments:

>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

True? The UN is full of unelected people, who do decide even more important

>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.

How can you say this? It is absolutely trivial, there is no "natural 
copyright", so what?

>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:


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

This is not so important. The kid must have some name. It doesnt mean what you
think it does. Again: there is no "natural copyright" as you can say "yours and
mine" and "theft" when it comes to things, like "my bicycle", "your bicycle" etc,
the history of copyright is well known.

My personal problem with copyright are developping countries, Syria etc, where
most people are so poor, that they cannot afford regular stuff, people just copy
things, or see how it started in China.

IMHO this is ok.

But not all countries are the same.

And, again, not all cases are the same. There are. for example, extremly expensiv
special databases, expensiv to feed, I was thinking of those cases. You can expand
it to online cinema etc, again, I have no problem with DRM in such cases.



Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2005 16:33:24 -0400
From: eyescratch {AT} gmail.com
Subject: Re: <nettime> THOUGHT THIEVE$ info [4x]

On Aug 13, 2005, at 12:51 PM, nettime's honest thief wrote:

> Heiko Recktenwald <uzs106 {AT} uni-bonn.de> wrote:
> Apples Quicktime is NOT open source.
> What the NYT is doing, "QT movies" displayed by
> Real Player, is much more creativity.
> H.

>From the concrete bunker of the bonn informatik institute: mp3 wrapped in m3u.
Kinda like GDAM wrapped in OpenOSX. Doctor(ed) who the fink? NYT is using
realplayer wrapper so the saveas option remains gray - stream vs. caste.

Quick lesson from the bonn 101 course: programming is zen. dream or mask?

      http://share.dj/video/share_mobile.ogg - (VLC to stream)

                 - Come play in our 'sandbox'[tm]

> pyramid sur la carte wrote:
> 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.

WOW - can't wait to check the adzensense on this!?
http://www.mail-archive.com/nettime-l {AT} bbs.thing.net/msg02939.html

- --: Plug status GROUND or just b.low - hTTp://eyescraTch.Tk :--

#  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