There are very few guarantees in life however when people pull together as a community and set out to achieve common goals they can indeed change the world. Music can often be part of the catalyst for change with anthems developing a sense of belonging and helping to reiterate messages of solidarity, and narratives telling stories and educating people about events that have taken place. But the reception and use of these messages are dependent on exposure to them.
Music concerts are one forum in which music and community combine to create an environment and atmosphere where shared identity and purpose become paramount. The most famous of these was Woodstock held in the United States in 1969. This year has seen ongoing celebrations commemorating this festival. Forty years later it seems timely to ask what the ripple effect has been with some suggesting that little in the world has in fact changed for the better.
As a general observation it seems that society has long forgotten the messages of 1969. Artists and music that speak out about injustice, war, poverty, sexism and many other forms of political speech have drifted away from the forefront of our culture into the underground with the majority of the populous having little opportunity to access them. So was that sense of community merely a moment in time in which people felt the need to pull together?
The answer is No. In pockets of the world there remain people dedicated to the causes that were important at that time. While I have not had the pleasure of spending a lot of time in San Francisco, my understanding is that this is one place in which the values of Woodstock remain. I am very fortunate to reside in the Northern Rives region of NSW, Australia, where a similar perspective is taken
One local town, Nimbin, is in fact a sister city to Woodstock. Here, as in many other parts of the region, you will commonly find VW Combies (or the modern equivalent, the Subaru) with bumper stickers such as: “Think Globally, Act Locally”, “Practice Random Acts of Kindness and Senseless Beauty” and “Magic Happens”.
I was reading in my local community newspaper (The Northern Rivers Echo) yesterday that a photo documentary on the alternative culture of the Northern Rivers, commonly referred to as the Rainbow Region, is being sent to the United States as part of the celebrations for the 40th anniversary of Woodstock. This cultural exchange is taking place to help illustrate the ripple effect of the festival in other parts of the world.
Complete with rainbow flags, colourful clothes and long hair, there is a spirit here that never dies. The community care for the environment, are passionate about art, speak out against injustice, look out for each other and mobilise at a moments notice when there is action to be taken. There are many vegans, vegetarians and a diverse range of religions and cultural practices. Some people live in Multiple Occupancies (Communes) where the sense of community is even stronger. Many of the services offered here are done by community groups who seek out opportunities for grants to provide them for the towns.
There is art everywhere with the local markets teeming with hand made creations and a sea of local musicians that often busk to support themselves. My local market, The Channon Market, is one such example - when you go in the gates, if you are lucky you will be given a free buskers token to place in the case of your favourite performer who can then exchange that for money from the market committee. If you haven’t eaten Jan’s Lemon Myrtle ice cream (not turtle), then you haven’t lived.*
There are number of small villages scattered around. My town has 400 beautiful people. I once thought to myself that the people that live here do so because they don’t fit in anywhere else. Here it is a collection of ‘others’ in the most magnificent sense. We are unique individuals where non conformity with the mainstream takes pride of place.
There are rolling green hills, sub tropical rainforest (albeit not as much old growth as we would have liked to keep), waterfalls, and pristine beaches. I have two waterfalls near my house – Whian Whian falls where we like to swim in summer (tragedy of the commons when the tourist bus visits though) and Protestors Falls, the site of a massive environmental protest. There are rock formations that tell the ancient history of the Bunjalung people, the local indigenous community, with Nimbin Rocks and Mount Warning (the names given by white settlers) just two examples of the land that they hold in their hearts. A postcard tells a million stories.
I climbed Mount Warning once. It is the highest most easterly point in Australia – the very first place in the country to see sunrise. From there you can see all around with breath taking views of the coastline (including Byron Bay, one of the most famous beaches where you can watch whales at the lighthouse but only at the right time of the year) and the hills that stretch almost all the way to the horizon. I was pretty unfit at the time and I struggled to get up to the top – the last part consists of a chain where you must pull yourself up with all your strength. Ironically enough though walking down, whilst significantly easier, still had some impact with sore knees and wobbly legs (combining with my natural lack of coordination) making the journey difficult at times.
In recent years I have thought a lot about leaving. It has proven to be one of the most difficult decisions I have never been allowed to make. While I don’t consider myself to be of the status of ‘community icon’ (we have a lot of those) it takes at least ten years to be considered a ‘local’ (I grew up in Melbourne and sea changers don’t count for a long time) – if I leave I may never get back in.
But it has been achingly obvious to me for some time that while I share many things with the magnificent people that live here, there are some things that are very important to me that I cannot share. Some of the freest thinkers, some of the smartest most connected people live here but for the things that I think about there are largely only analogies and there are little opportunities for conversations on a detailed or conceptual level. For a person that speaks in symbolism, living literally at a dead end proves to be a visionary challenge. The knowledge here is on wheels. Not motorcycles as such but the local library is in a ‘bus’ that travels around to the local public schools and towns. Although I have a network here, academics in my field don’t seem to stay long. The isolation is physical as well as mental.
In the past I have referred to Lismore, the largest town in the area, as a gold fish bowl – it is in the bottom of a volcanic crater. It is safe and secure but at times very limiting. Once I sent someone a groovy card with a picture of a goldfish with snorkel and goggles on it and its head stuck out of the bowl. A family friend showed it to me when I was in Los Angeles (on my way to Northern California) and I said: “ohhh.... that’s me.” (I wrote on the left of it). I was out of the bowl for that briefest moment in time and it reflects the way I like to think.
I actually love living here just as much as I get frustrated by it. It is the tyranny of the tangible.
A common phrase around here, part of the eco tourism scene, is leave nothing but foot prints and take nothing but pictures. Making the great leap forward for me however would mean taking everything this region has given me and propagating it for the future. Perhaps life is not too short to do somethings twice and if I go it will be with the will to return for my restful years when relaxing is much more of a priority.
As we here in the Northern Rivers reflect on the ripple effect of Woodstock we can only think of how to make it happen again in the size of a Tsunami for if the world were more like the people and the environment around here it would be a much better place. I hope to be at the Centre of Everything to make sure that happens. But the weather remains to be seen.
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Friday, September 25, 2009
IASPM ANZ
The Australia/New Zealand branch of the International Association for the Study of Popular Music is holding its annual conference in November in Auckland. The title this year is WHAT'S IT WORTH? with the theme of ‘Value’ and Popular Music. It will be held from 27-29 November 2009 in the Fale Pasifika Complex, Faculty of Arts at the University of Auckland, New Zealand. The organisers state:
The theme of this year's conference seeks to generate discussion and debate around the ‘value’ we ascribe to popular music(s). ‘Value’ relates to music as commodity and economic project, but social, cultural and aesthetic perspectives profoundly inform any measures or contentions of ‘value’. This theme is particularly timely given recent technological developments that are radically re-shaping the ways in which music is produced, distributed and consumed.
I will be attending and would recommend anyone else interested in this field to go as well. Papers will cover a whole range of topics including new technologies, copyright law, music in every day life including communities, subculture and politics as well as artistic and aesthetic value, authenticity, performance and many other areas.
You can find out more information about the conference here and here.
The theme of this year's conference seeks to generate discussion and debate around the ‘value’ we ascribe to popular music(s). ‘Value’ relates to music as commodity and economic project, but social, cultural and aesthetic perspectives profoundly inform any measures or contentions of ‘value’. This theme is particularly timely given recent technological developments that are radically re-shaping the ways in which music is produced, distributed and consumed.
I will be attending and would recommend anyone else interested in this field to go as well. Papers will cover a whole range of topics including new technologies, copyright law, music in every day life including communities, subculture and politics as well as artistic and aesthetic value, authenticity, performance and many other areas.
You can find out more information about the conference here and here.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
The Chinese Ministry of Cultural Censorship.
I was reading with despondency today an article by Digital Music News which states that the Chinese government is going to require that all music hosted off shore but accessible from within China be approved by the Chinese Ministry of Culture before beign digitally distributed.
According to MacWorld (quoting the Wall Street Journal): "Online music providers will have to submit to the Ministry of Culture the lyrics of each foreign song, translated into Chinese, along with evidence proving they have permission from the copyright owners to sell and distribute the songs..."
This does not reconcile well with USA calls for strong piracy controls from within the country and indeed smells a lot like using piracy as an opportunity to further control the messages conveyed to the people.
Whilst one cannot second guess what criteria will be applied in determining the suitability of songs, it may be questioned that such a scheme could be used to prevent the reception of songs with overt political characteristics. Other songs may nonetheless be used in a political way but songs with clear political sentiments may be directly at risk.
In August last year, the Art of Peace Foundation released an album titled Songs of Tibet with its release coinciding with the Beijing Olympic Games. The Chinese government responded by blocking access to iTunes for a short period of time.
Similarly, it was reported in March 2008 that following a Bjork concert in which she made a direct link between her song ‘Declare Independence’ and the struggle for freedom in Tibet, Chinese officials suggested that in the future all foreign artists would be screened prior to gaining entry to the country.
This essentially opens the door to the further regulation of free speech in China. Freedom of speech and freedom of expression, whilst not exactly the same, are arguably so closely related as to come within the ambit of the same fundamental human right. Expression concerns not that which is simply spoken but that which is expressed in other ways – in this case music – but in other examples recognised by western legal systems, expression has been seen to encompass a wide range of communicative activities including those taking a physical form.
In Levy v Victoria [1997] HCA 31 Brennan CJ stated (at page 5):
Speech is the chief vehicle by which ideas about government and political are communicated. Hence it is natural to regard the freedom of communication about government and political implied in the constitution as a freedom of speech. But actions as well as words can communicate ideas. In the United States where “freedom of speech” is protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution, non-verbal activity which expresses ideas may be protected as a form of speech. Thus a “protest by silent and reproachful presence” or by a burning of the flag of the United States have been held to be protected by the First Amendment....
The freedom of discussion implied in the Constitution of the Commonwealth, unlike the subject of protection under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, does not require consideration of the connotation of “speech” or of the conduct which might be thought to constitute a form of speech. The implication denies legislative or executive power to restrict the freedom of communication about the government or politics of the Commonwealth, whatever be the form of communication, unless the restriction is imposed to fulfil a legitimate purpose and the restriction is appropriate and adapted to the fulfilment of that purpose. In principle, therefore, non-verbal conduct which is capable of communicating an idea about the government or politics of the Commonwealth and which is intended to do so may be immune from legislative or executive restriction so far as that immunity is needed to preserve the system of representative and responsible government that the Constitution prescribes.
Music with overt political characteristics is clearly a form of speech or expression that comes within the globally recognised standard of human rights and yet in this case the Chinese government appear to be restricting the opportunities for its reception by attempting to control what comes into the country. Music of this nature has the ability to empower, educate and mobilise citizens often to address injustices and to create awareness of the potential for, and prevent, future disasters. However, here the Chinese government is seeking to restrict access to music, under the guise of piracy prevention, for its own political purposes which include restricting the access of its citizens to information about current events.
As I wrote in the paper I presented to the International Association for the Study of Popular Music in Liverpool earlier this year, ‘moral progress is a part of social progress and refers to changing attitudes to concepts such as freedom, equality, justice and truth. Social and moral progress depend heavily on knowledge and are affected (and effected) by the production and reception of information.’ (Bierstedt, 282). If China censors music by limiting the messages that citizens can receive, there will inevitably be a restriction to social progress and perhaps even retrogression.
Further Reading
Digital Music News, Instead of Anti-Piracy, China Offers Music Censorship... (9 September 2009) <http://digitalmusicnews.com/stories/090809china> at 10 September 2009
MacWorldUK, China tightens rules for online music providers (7 September 2009) <http://www.macworld.co.uk/digitallifestyle/news/index.cfm?newsid=27099> at 10 September 2009
The Register, iTunes, and Sting, banned from China (22 August 2008) <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/08/22/itunes_blocked_china_tibet/> at 28 August 2008
The Register, China pardons iTunes (but not Sting) (26 August 2008) <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/08/26/china_pardons_itunes/> at 28 August 2008
TechDirt, China Realizes It Doesn't Need To Block All Of iTunes (26 August 2008) <http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080825/2219562089.shtml> at 28 August 2008
Digital Music News, iTunes Reinstated In China... Tibet Album Now Included (27 August 2008) <http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/082608ituneschina> at 28 August 2008
TechDirt, China Blocks iTunes After Olympic Athletes Download Pro-Tibetan Music (21 August 2008) <http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080821/0312442052.shtml> at 25 August 2008
guardian.co.uk, China blocks iTunes music store (21 August 2008) <http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2008/aug/21/china.blocks.itunes> at 25 August 2008
Digital Music News, Will the Ban Boost Sales? Tibet Album Pushes Past 10,000 (22 August 2008) <http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/082108tibet> at 25 August 2008
Digital Music News, Great Firewall Growls: China Blocks iTunes Access (21 August 2008) <http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/082008itunes> at 22 August 2008
The Age, iTunes blocked in China after protest stunt (21 August 2008) <http://www.theage.com.au/news/technology/itunes-blocked-in-china-after-protest-stunt/2008/08/20/1219262358153.html> at 22 August 2008
OpenContentAustralia, Bjork in China (11 March 2008) http://ocarr.blogspot.com/2008/03/bjork-in-china.html> at 10 September 2009
Bierstedt, Robert. 1974. Power and Progress McGraw Hill, New York
According to MacWorld (quoting the Wall Street Journal): "Online music providers will have to submit to the Ministry of Culture the lyrics of each foreign song, translated into Chinese, along with evidence proving they have permission from the copyright owners to sell and distribute the songs..."
This does not reconcile well with USA calls for strong piracy controls from within the country and indeed smells a lot like using piracy as an opportunity to further control the messages conveyed to the people.
Whilst one cannot second guess what criteria will be applied in determining the suitability of songs, it may be questioned that such a scheme could be used to prevent the reception of songs with overt political characteristics. Other songs may nonetheless be used in a political way but songs with clear political sentiments may be directly at risk.
In August last year, the Art of Peace Foundation released an album titled Songs of Tibet with its release coinciding with the Beijing Olympic Games. The Chinese government responded by blocking access to iTunes for a short period of time.
Similarly, it was reported in March 2008 that following a Bjork concert in which she made a direct link between her song ‘Declare Independence’ and the struggle for freedom in Tibet, Chinese officials suggested that in the future all foreign artists would be screened prior to gaining entry to the country.
This essentially opens the door to the further regulation of free speech in China. Freedom of speech and freedom of expression, whilst not exactly the same, are arguably so closely related as to come within the ambit of the same fundamental human right. Expression concerns not that which is simply spoken but that which is expressed in other ways – in this case music – but in other examples recognised by western legal systems, expression has been seen to encompass a wide range of communicative activities including those taking a physical form.
In Levy v Victoria [1997] HCA 31 Brennan CJ stated (at page 5):
Speech is the chief vehicle by which ideas about government and political are communicated. Hence it is natural to regard the freedom of communication about government and political implied in the constitution as a freedom of speech. But actions as well as words can communicate ideas. In the United States where “freedom of speech” is protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution, non-verbal activity which expresses ideas may be protected as a form of speech. Thus a “protest by silent and reproachful presence” or by a burning of the flag of the United States have been held to be protected by the First Amendment....
The freedom of discussion implied in the Constitution of the Commonwealth, unlike the subject of protection under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, does not require consideration of the connotation of “speech” or of the conduct which might be thought to constitute a form of speech. The implication denies legislative or executive power to restrict the freedom of communication about the government or politics of the Commonwealth, whatever be the form of communication, unless the restriction is imposed to fulfil a legitimate purpose and the restriction is appropriate and adapted to the fulfilment of that purpose. In principle, therefore, non-verbal conduct which is capable of communicating an idea about the government or politics of the Commonwealth and which is intended to do so may be immune from legislative or executive restriction so far as that immunity is needed to preserve the system of representative and responsible government that the Constitution prescribes.
Music with overt political characteristics is clearly a form of speech or expression that comes within the globally recognised standard of human rights and yet in this case the Chinese government appear to be restricting the opportunities for its reception by attempting to control what comes into the country. Music of this nature has the ability to empower, educate and mobilise citizens often to address injustices and to create awareness of the potential for, and prevent, future disasters. However, here the Chinese government is seeking to restrict access to music, under the guise of piracy prevention, for its own political purposes which include restricting the access of its citizens to information about current events.
As I wrote in the paper I presented to the International Association for the Study of Popular Music in Liverpool earlier this year, ‘moral progress is a part of social progress and refers to changing attitudes to concepts such as freedom, equality, justice and truth. Social and moral progress depend heavily on knowledge and are affected (and effected) by the production and reception of information.’ (Bierstedt, 282). If China censors music by limiting the messages that citizens can receive, there will inevitably be a restriction to social progress and perhaps even retrogression.
Further Reading
Digital Music News, Instead of Anti-Piracy, China Offers Music Censorship... (9 September 2009) <http://digitalmusicnews.com/stories/090809china> at 10 September 2009
MacWorldUK, China tightens rules for online music providers (7 September 2009) <http://www.macworld.co.uk/digitallifestyle/news/index.cfm?newsid=27099> at 10 September 2009
The Register, iTunes, and Sting, banned from China (22 August 2008) <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/08/22/itunes_blocked_china_tibet/> at 28 August 2008
The Register, China pardons iTunes (but not Sting) (26 August 2008) <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/08/26/china_pardons_itunes/> at 28 August 2008
TechDirt, China Realizes It Doesn't Need To Block All Of iTunes (26 August 2008) <http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080825/2219562089.shtml> at 28 August 2008
Digital Music News, iTunes Reinstated In China... Tibet Album Now Included (27 August 2008) <http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/082608ituneschina> at 28 August 2008
TechDirt, China Blocks iTunes After Olympic Athletes Download Pro-Tibetan Music (21 August 2008) <http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080821/0312442052.shtml> at 25 August 2008
guardian.co.uk, China blocks iTunes music store (21 August 2008) <http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2008/aug/21/china.blocks.itunes> at 25 August 2008
Digital Music News, Will the Ban Boost Sales? Tibet Album Pushes Past 10,000 (22 August 2008) <http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/082108tibet> at 25 August 2008
Digital Music News, Great Firewall Growls: China Blocks iTunes Access (21 August 2008) <http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/082008itunes> at 22 August 2008
The Age, iTunes blocked in China after protest stunt (21 August 2008) <http://www.theage.com.au/news/technology/itunes-blocked-in-china-after-protest-stunt/2008/08/20/1219262358153.html> at 22 August 2008
OpenContentAustralia, Bjork in China (11 March 2008) http://ocarr.blogspot.com/2008/03/bjork-in-china.html> at 10 September 2009
Bierstedt, Robert. 1974. Power and Progress McGraw Hill, New York
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
The Age: The Herd
Just a note to suggest that you check out this recent article by the Melbourne newspaper, The Age. The article writes about the 40th Anniversary of Woodstock, the lack of protest music today and the changes in technology that effect/affect they way that political messages are presented and received. Interesting article and well worth taking a look at:
The Age, Spirit of Protest is Alive, Just Different (15 August 2009) <http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/spirit-of-protest-is-alive-just-different-20090814-el5e.html> 2 September 2009
The Age, Spirit of Protest is Alive, Just Different (15 August 2009) <http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/spirit-of-protest-is-alive-just-different-20090814-el5e.html> 2 September 2009
Sunday, August 30, 2009
Absence
Hi just a note to say that due to the illness of a family member I have been unable to post to his page - sorry for the interruption and any inconvenience. I hope to be able to post again soon and thank you for your understanding.
GetUp are increasing the pressure on the Australian Government in an attempt to prevent the introduction of a widespread censorship program - from their latest email:
A decision on the Government's internet censorship filter could be just weeks away. It's crunch time for our campaign.
Live trials are nearly complete on the filter technology which will allow the government of the day to add any 'unwanted' site to a secret blacklist. This isn't China, Saudi Arabia or Iran - we could see a mandatory filter of all internet traffic right here in Australia as early as this year.
The Government could yet put the internet filter where it belongs: in the bin. But that will only happen if politicians feel the heat in their home electorates.
At this crucial time, can you contact your local MP about internet censorship?
Yes - I will request a meeting
Yes - I will send a message
103,564 Australians. That's how many of us have fought together to uphold our democratic principles.
Now let's make sure our politicians see how passionate (and how many) we are.
Picture the scene in your local politician's electorate office. The fax machine is running out of paper - it has a pile of messages every morning. Staffers have received dozens of meeting requests and the telephone message-bank is full. Voters have made it clear: draconian and unaccountable internet censorship is unacceptable in Australia.
Can you make it happen before politicians return Canberra in a fortnight?
Yes - I will request a meeting
Yes - I will send a message
Since we started this campaign in May, it has been revealed that the Government's secret blacklist includes everything from euthanasia and abortion sites to local dentists and tuckshops. It's easy to see how this filter would be open to abuse. We all want our children to be safe online, but the proposed internet filter will miss the vast majority of unwanted content while limiting our online freedoms and holding back the digital economy.
Now is the time to put this internet censorship plan to rest. Thanks for being part of the campaign.
In hope,
The GetUp team.
PS - A decision on the Government's plan to censor the internet may be only weeks away. Fax your local representative today or request a meeting with them to stop internet censorship and protect our democratic values.
Sal
GetUp are increasing the pressure on the Australian Government in an attempt to prevent the introduction of a widespread censorship program - from their latest email:
A decision on the Government's internet censorship filter could be just weeks away. It's crunch time for our campaign.
Live trials are nearly complete on the filter technology which will allow the government of the day to add any 'unwanted' site to a secret blacklist. This isn't China, Saudi Arabia or Iran - we could see a mandatory filter of all internet traffic right here in Australia as early as this year.
The Government could yet put the internet filter where it belongs: in the bin. But that will only happen if politicians feel the heat in their home electorates.
At this crucial time, can you contact your local MP about internet censorship?
Yes - I will request a meeting
Yes - I will send a message
103,564 Australians. That's how many of us have fought together to uphold our democratic principles.
Now let's make sure our politicians see how passionate (and how many) we are.
Picture the scene in your local politician's electorate office. The fax machine is running out of paper - it has a pile of messages every morning. Staffers have received dozens of meeting requests and the telephone message-bank is full. Voters have made it clear: draconian and unaccountable internet censorship is unacceptable in Australia.
Can you make it happen before politicians return Canberra in a fortnight?
Yes - I will request a meeting
Yes - I will send a message
Since we started this campaign in May, it has been revealed that the Government's secret blacklist includes everything from euthanasia and abortion sites to local dentists and tuckshops. It's easy to see how this filter would be open to abuse. We all want our children to be safe online, but the proposed internet filter will miss the vast majority of unwanted content while limiting our online freedoms and holding back the digital economy.
Now is the time to put this internet censorship plan to rest. Thanks for being part of the campaign.
In hope,
The GetUp team.
PS - A decision on the Government's plan to censor the internet may be only weeks away. Fax your local representative today or request a meeting with them to stop internet censorship and protect our democratic values.
Sal
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Off The Grid
Just a note to let you know that I will be away for the next week and will not be posting to this site.
Sally
Sally
Saturday, August 15, 2009
RIP: A Remix Manifesto
I have been a little slow to write about the film RIP: A Remix Manifesto - it has been available to stream for a short time now but I wanted to get a copy of the film that I could keep before deciding whether or not it might be included in my research.
After some delay in gaining access to the film - Australian's cannot download from iTunes USA nor is it available outside the USA from the official website - I finally got a copy off eBay. (It was advertised as a Region 1 DVD but it turns out it has no region coding at all. I have an old DVD player which I was guessing/gambling would have played the Region 1 DVD anyway).
This is a great film which discusses remix culture and the incredible imposition of copyright law. It primarily focuses on the music remix artist Girl Talk however also discusses mashups of other forms of culture as well as the more open attitude to culture taken in countries such as Brazil. With a number of similarities to the movie GoodCopyBadCopy, this film differs largley in the way that is is made - it itself in parts is a mashup of culture, some old and some new.
Indeed, there are a number of curious aspects to the way the film has been put together. At first I wondered whether these would amount to embarrassing errors - for example, it is specifically stated that this film is about a war over ideas however it is an elementary error to say that copyright law regulates ideas. Copyright law in fact regulates expression and is expressly differentiated from laws that regulate ideas. Other intellectual property law such as patents regulate ideas.
In addition to this, the movie characterises Napster1 as being a decentralised file sharing network when of course it is well known that Napster1 was in fact a centralised file sharing network - it required a centralised server in order to index and pass files from one user to another.
Why would this film state two obvious errors? (perhaps there are more that musicians or remix artists would find that are not obvious to me).
It is my view that this is done deliberately to act as an illustration. By including errors in the film, this film serves as the perfect example as to why we should be entitled to remix. Culture of the past is often imperfect, can be added to, altered or changed in a way that makes it more relevant, useful and (in this case for those of us with a background in law) more enjoyable. It is my belief that the errors in this film are intended to invite discussion as well as corrections. If so, I consider this to be a brave tactical decision and one which enables further promotion of the film, increased relevance in the future, as well as aiding in the wider dissemination of the central messages of the film through ensuring people discuss it. [I also wondered whether it might be to bait IP lawyers to remix it in case the creator is sued and he needs some back up.... :-) ]
Just as music mashed up by GirlTalk in part gains its popularity through the ability of people to relate to the samples of songs they already know, any adaptation of this film would refer to the original at the same time as serving as a new creation. In fact in parts of the film, remixes of this very film are used. Completely displacing the notion that the purchased copy is a finished product, the creator has allowed all of the footage of the film to be uploaded to the internet and openly invites others to remix it.
Indeed the very fact that I was unable to purchase this film except via eBay and only then if it would work in my DVD player serves as a further example of the impossibility of the staggered releases of record labels and other media organisations, as well as the impediments of DRM. Of course I would try to purchase the film from eBay (as I am sure many other people have). The creator appears to be very cleverly demonstrating the futility of trying to close culture when the internet is always on and will always allow people to connect and share regardless of the attempts to prevent this. At present it is not even possible to purchase the film for private use in Australia - I could only view the copy I have because of what American's call the First Sale Doctrine. Had this copy been Region 1 encoded and had I not had an old DVD player my rights would have been lost altogether.
OR MAYBE there are no errors in the film at all and this is a lesson in not buying from the authorised supplier? How do I know I have the 'official' copy? perhaps it is a mashed up pirate version... I doubt it, I checked the sellers reputation and store but it is an interesting aspect to the experience of trying to get a copy of this film and the nature of its subject.
I am in the process of trying to organise a non commercial use license to show this film at the Southern Cross University Mixed Up Reels Flim Club night on 8th September 2009 (I am told the licesend copy of the film will arrive next Monday so ...fingers crossed... )
If you're not nearby - stream it, go along to see it at one of the other screenings, or buy it. You will be impressed by the creativity of the footage, the clarity of the message as well as be inspired to become a creator. Great flick!
After some delay in gaining access to the film - Australian's cannot download from iTunes USA nor is it available outside the USA from the official website - I finally got a copy off eBay. (It was advertised as a Region 1 DVD but it turns out it has no region coding at all. I have an old DVD player which I was guessing/gambling would have played the Region 1 DVD anyway).
This is a great film which discusses remix culture and the incredible imposition of copyright law. It primarily focuses on the music remix artist Girl Talk however also discusses mashups of other forms of culture as well as the more open attitude to culture taken in countries such as Brazil. With a number of similarities to the movie GoodCopyBadCopy, this film differs largley in the way that is is made - it itself in parts is a mashup of culture, some old and some new.
Indeed, there are a number of curious aspects to the way the film has been put together. At first I wondered whether these would amount to embarrassing errors - for example, it is specifically stated that this film is about a war over ideas however it is an elementary error to say that copyright law regulates ideas. Copyright law in fact regulates expression and is expressly differentiated from laws that regulate ideas. Other intellectual property law such as patents regulate ideas.
In addition to this, the movie characterises Napster1 as being a decentralised file sharing network when of course it is well known that Napster1 was in fact a centralised file sharing network - it required a centralised server in order to index and pass files from one user to another.
Why would this film state two obvious errors? (perhaps there are more that musicians or remix artists would find that are not obvious to me).
It is my view that this is done deliberately to act as an illustration. By including errors in the film, this film serves as the perfect example as to why we should be entitled to remix. Culture of the past is often imperfect, can be added to, altered or changed in a way that makes it more relevant, useful and (in this case for those of us with a background in law) more enjoyable. It is my belief that the errors in this film are intended to invite discussion as well as corrections. If so, I consider this to be a brave tactical decision and one which enables further promotion of the film, increased relevance in the future, as well as aiding in the wider dissemination of the central messages of the film through ensuring people discuss it. [I also wondered whether it might be to bait IP lawyers to remix it in case the creator is sued and he needs some back up.... :-) ]
Just as music mashed up by GirlTalk in part gains its popularity through the ability of people to relate to the samples of songs they already know, any adaptation of this film would refer to the original at the same time as serving as a new creation. In fact in parts of the film, remixes of this very film are used. Completely displacing the notion that the purchased copy is a finished product, the creator has allowed all of the footage of the film to be uploaded to the internet and openly invites others to remix it.
Indeed the very fact that I was unable to purchase this film except via eBay and only then if it would work in my DVD player serves as a further example of the impossibility of the staggered releases of record labels and other media organisations, as well as the impediments of DRM. Of course I would try to purchase the film from eBay (as I am sure many other people have). The creator appears to be very cleverly demonstrating the futility of trying to close culture when the internet is always on and will always allow people to connect and share regardless of the attempts to prevent this. At present it is not even possible to purchase the film for private use in Australia - I could only view the copy I have because of what American's call the First Sale Doctrine. Had this copy been Region 1 encoded and had I not had an old DVD player my rights would have been lost altogether.
OR MAYBE there are no errors in the film at all and this is a lesson in not buying from the authorised supplier? How do I know I have the 'official' copy? perhaps it is a mashed up pirate version... I doubt it, I checked the sellers reputation and store but it is an interesting aspect to the experience of trying to get a copy of this film and the nature of its subject.
I am in the process of trying to organise a non commercial use license to show this film at the Southern Cross University Mixed Up Reels Flim Club night on 8th September 2009 (I am told the licesend copy of the film will arrive next Monday so ...fingers crossed... )
If you're not nearby - stream it, go along to see it at one of the other screenings, or buy it. You will be impressed by the creativity of the footage, the clarity of the message as well as be inspired to become a creator. Great flick!
FridgyDidge
I just love this photo of the Electronic Frontier Foundation's fridge - it's cool! (pun intended).
Licensed under: Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial Generic 2.0 License
Quinnums PhotoStream Flickr:
Thursday, August 6, 2009
Recent Developments
Two things have occurred this week that are worth a brief mention.
The first is a campaign by Get Up to challenge donations to political parties. Urging Australians to sign a petition to stop corporate and third party political donations as well as cap the amount of money individuals donate to campaigns their email states:
Politicians are elected to work for their employers - the Australian people. But someone else is writing their cheques: to the tune of millions of dollars. Will you join us in calling for an end to corporate and third-party political donations?
Developers given unfettered access to public land; mining companies' rights trumping traditional owners'; childcare services next to poker machines - we may get to vote every few years, but can we match the influence of large corporate donors?
Who's going to change it? The political parties addicted to big dollar corporate sponsorship? This change has to come from those who have a legitimate say over how the country is run: the Australian people. And we need to seize this rare opportunity, while the issue is in the headlines.
I have written previously about Public Choice Theory and how powerful corporate actors in essence dictate policy with respect to intellectual property law here. I refer to the disablement of public governance structures through political campaigns and financial pressure as in effect creating conditions of Private Governance which is perpetuated throughout the world through international treaties and free trade agreements.
Those interested in reading more about the campaign and signing the petition should visit:
www.getup.org.au/campaign/TheBucksStopHere
The second development worth mentioning is the handing down of a preliminary decision in the case of Larrikin Music Publishing Pty Ltd v EMI Songs Australia Pty Limited [2009] FCA 799. This case concerns allegations of copyright infringement against EMI and the composers of the famous Australian song ‘Down Under’ who are alleged to have used a substantial portion of the song ‘Kookaburra Sits in the Old Gum Tree’. While Jacobson J does not consider the substantive copyright argument in the preliminary decision, he has determined that copyright does vest with Larrikin Music Publishing and that the copyright claim can proceed.
Plagiarism was initially raised as an issue on the popular Australian music quiz show Spicks and Specks two years ago. If copyright infringement is established the award of damages is likely to be very high given the popularity of the ‘Down Under’ song.
The first is a campaign by Get Up to challenge donations to political parties. Urging Australians to sign a petition to stop corporate and third party political donations as well as cap the amount of money individuals donate to campaigns their email states:
Politicians are elected to work for their employers - the Australian people. But someone else is writing their cheques: to the tune of millions of dollars. Will you join us in calling for an end to corporate and third-party political donations?
Developers given unfettered access to public land; mining companies' rights trumping traditional owners'; childcare services next to poker machines - we may get to vote every few years, but can we match the influence of large corporate donors?
Who's going to change it? The political parties addicted to big dollar corporate sponsorship? This change has to come from those who have a legitimate say over how the country is run: the Australian people. And we need to seize this rare opportunity, while the issue is in the headlines.
I have written previously about Public Choice Theory and how powerful corporate actors in essence dictate policy with respect to intellectual property law here. I refer to the disablement of public governance structures through political campaigns and financial pressure as in effect creating conditions of Private Governance which is perpetuated throughout the world through international treaties and free trade agreements.
Those interested in reading more about the campaign and signing the petition should visit:
www.getup.org.au/campaign/TheBucksStopHere
The second development worth mentioning is the handing down of a preliminary decision in the case of Larrikin Music Publishing Pty Ltd v EMI Songs Australia Pty Limited [2009] FCA 799. This case concerns allegations of copyright infringement against EMI and the composers of the famous Australian song ‘Down Under’ who are alleged to have used a substantial portion of the song ‘Kookaburra Sits in the Old Gum Tree’. While Jacobson J does not consider the substantive copyright argument in the preliminary decision, he has determined that copyright does vest with Larrikin Music Publishing and that the copyright claim can proceed.
Plagiarism was initially raised as an issue on the popular Australian music quiz show Spicks and Specks two years ago. If copyright infringement is established the award of damages is likely to be very high given the popularity of the ‘Down Under’ song.
Sunday, August 2, 2009
Australia’s Digital Economy: Future Directions
I wrote recently about a report released by the Australian Government called: Australia’s Digital Economy: Future Directions and how the Government is considering the positive and negative impacts of three strikes policies. I wrote to Senator Conroy this week outlining the nature and aims of these proposals, provided a summary of the current state of three strikes programs around the world, outlined the reasons as to why this is a counter productive and unnecessary approach and discussed the most appropriate alternative that should be employed instead – a voluntary or compulsory licensing scheme.
Here’s what I wrote about viable alternatives:
The fact remains that there are far better alternatives available to the government and the music industry to ensure that financial rewards remain for the production of content. These include voluntary collective licensing or the blanket licensing of music. Differing primarily in whether consumers and copyright holders are forced to participate, these schemes enable users to pay a flat monthly fee for the unlimited access to music, use technology to track the downloading of songs and use the collected funds to compensate artists for the use of their works. Whilst requiring some development to be introduced, such a scheme would enable the unrestricted exploration of culture, increase competition in the creative sector by providing an even playing field that does not operate in favour of strong media corporations and address all of the concerns raised above.
Proposals have been developed in the United States by the likes of Professor Fisher, Professor Netanel and the Electronic Frontiers Foundations. At present in the United States, Choruss, a corporation set up with connections to Warner Music, are trialling licensing schemes of this nature in colleges. Trails have also been undertaken by Professor Fisher at Harvard University in other countries.
There is real potential to implement a licensing system in Australia. ABS data as at December 2008 states that there are 6,680,000 Australian non dial up subscribers. Applying a monthly tax to these subscribers of $5.31 per month would recoup the entire sales of the Australian Recording Industry Association for 2008 - $425,638,008. Over a 12month period each non dial up connection would go up $63.72. While on the face of it this appears to be a fairly minor increase, other options are also available - this simply represents the maximum cost placed on the maximum number of people.
A broadband levy or licence could also be scaled to accommodate only the loss of income to the record industry. Taking the peak of 2001 where total sales were $647,620,000 and relating this to the total sales for 2008 of $425,638,008 shows a total drop in sales of $221,981,992. To simply recoup the difference, broadband subscriptions would rise by only $2.77 per month. The levy could be adjusted annually to accommodate the changes in lost income and the number of subscribers. As the number of broadband subscribers increases the monthly levy would be reduced.
Another option would be to spread the levy to include dial up services as well and implement a tiered structure. In this scenario, dial up services would increase by as little as $1 per month, reducing the impact on broadband subscribers. While all internet users would be supporting the music industry, those with the faster connections and greater capacity to download music would pay more of the costs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
