ova.kill on 3 Aug 2000 14:34:53 -0000

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

[Nettime-bold] my mail iz stalled

this is the last mail i've recieved 4m the nettime bold list, and can't get
3 the website...

is it gettin thru?

At 11:34 AM 29/07/00 MDT, you wrote:
>spread my hopes thin
>>Craig Brozefsky <craig@red-bean.com> wrote:
>>"jen Hui Bon Hoa" <epistrophy@yifan.net> writes:
>spare my scars again
>> My question: Is the formula really ‘patent or be patented’?
>> Could your work really be copyrighted by someone else? Perhaps this
>> is why ted byfield copyrights his texts (is that right, ted?). This
>> is why I would consider copyrighting my own production.
>this is why we should/would consider consuming ourselves again, all my
>publications are savory
>stitch up my smiles again
>close down my sales again
>we are rising so
>we are alarming
>on screen 
>we see
>the terrorific pleasures of our own consumption
>kno(c)ontroling the konversations
>all channels open
>laid down bare wires and life lines
>calling out reaching empires of [kno]
>your enemies
>(is that alright?)
>With copyrights, any work you produce is automagically copyrighted.
>You need not apply, register, or do anything, not even write
>"Copyrighted by Craig Brozefsky" on it.  If you don't want it
>copyrighted you must explicitely put it into the public domain, or die
>and then wait 70 years.  Obviously the latter solution is not going to
>be practical for a prolific artist seeking to avoid the taint of the
>IP regime.
>With any work you produce is already consumed.
>> Even if I leave my work uncopyrighted and I manage to escape this
>> sort of wholesale appropriation (well, there would be no commercial
>> incentive to take away the rights to my work: I have seen nothing to
>> show that it is particularly lucrative, ahem), I still want to be
>> able to monitor how my work is used. I do not want it to be
>...we still want to believe...to be...the nineteenth cent. artists we lost
>when they abandoned us to the flux of recent histories...kept alive and kept
>> appropriated by and for causes to which I am personally in
>> ideological opposition.
>all the bodyminds gathered here agree to be in limited opposition to the
>undersigned idealouge
>In the U.S. at least the copyright regime recognizes no such
>priveledge for the artist. 
>(other priveledges go unsaid)
>You're granted a monopoly on the
>reproduction of your work soley because it gives you an economic
>incentive to release it to the public and advance the sciences and the
>arts.  No magical connection between author and work is recognized.
>I don't think you intended this desire of yours to be codified in law
>> All this does not answer at all definitively the question of how to 
>> avoid one’s art from appropriation by the dominant order. It is a 
>> question that perennially bugs me when I come to theorise or distribute 
>> my own artistic production.  Any ideas?
>C:the recent histories of the liberal left's technology of words now
>incorporated//C:Andrew Ross's "New Age Technoculture"//C:Brian Springer's
>"Spin"//C:Chris Wilcha's "The Target Shoots First"//C:outmoded distinctions
>between various camps in your fantasies of (c)ontrol//C: we are dissolved//
>"Whatever you do, don't let fear of being consumed in the future
>stop you from producing your needs and desires today..."
>*data source:stardotpower
>Get free email and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1
>Nettime-bold mailing list
data]h![bleede-inge un.till it hertz              

Nettime-bold mailing list