star.power on 29 Jul 2000 17:36:12 -0000

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

[Nettime-bold] <knettime> Terror of consumption

spread my hopes thin
>Craig Brozefsky <> wrote:
>"jen Hui Bon Hoa" <> 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 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

Nettime-bold mailing list