[Reader-list] re: reader, boell, lab, adorno, jail, textz.com

[fmadre at free.fr]

Selon Britta Ohm <ohm at zedat.fu-berlin.de>:
> it in inverted commas -, I picked up a term Andreas used in his mail: "so
> long as the digital avantgarde has to play the 'I'm only an artist' card,
> rather than offering a tenable political economy of copy culture, i doubt
> whether those property regimes will go away so soon."

As I totally agree with that sentence I would nonetheless beg that we do not 
wait until we can offer "a tenable political economy of copy culture" to try 
out practical stuff even if the ideological background for it is not totally 
ready. I do believe that the http://greytuesday.org initiative makes us 
progress much more rapidly towards a comprehension of the issues at hand that 
all the mumbo-jumbo academic dissertations that have been flying around the 
world. I need to say here that, on the otehr hand, found Lawrence Liang's post 
fo today very enlightening too.

 The flip side is that
> the one who is losing property rights can actually be identical with the one
> 'playing around' with them - 

I find it interesting to point out that the ones who are losing property rights 
are usually the <big DEFANGED_quoting DEFANGED_marks> authors </big DEFANGED_quoting DEFANGED_marks>, in the 
instance of the beatles white album, it is remarkable that a company called EMI 
claims those rights rather that Paul, Ringo and the other dead guys

also, I would like to question the notion of "copy culture" completely in this 
simple way: what "author" can claim that he has not used elements of other 
works in his own, knowingly or by direct influence ? 


what is a "work" anyway and who is producuing it ?
there was a big issue here in france about a documentary "etre ou avoir" which 
was about the practice of a school teacher (it was really a brilliant example 
of teaching to little kids, you have to see this movie) and the film had a huge 
success eventually. the teacher the claimed that he was due some money because 
no proper "actor" contract was set between him and the production and later on 
he (his lawyers) even went on to say that his teaching was "an original work" 
and that the film was some kind of unpaid use of that work, a form of copy
...

what I mean, is that I truly see no ground for stating that the above message I 
just wrote is my intellectual property and I see no ground for the beatles (let 
alone EM fucking I) to claim that the white album is their intellectual 
property, same for adorno, sebastian, andreas and you name it

best,
f.
http://pleine-peau.com