www.nettime.org
Nettime mailing list archives

Re: <nettime> Coming Soon: Hollywood ... [4x]
nettime's compiler on Fri, 11 Jan 2002 02:13:19 +0100 (CET)


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

Re: <nettime> Coming Soon: Hollywood ... [4x]



Table of Contents:

   Re: <nettime> Coming Soon: Hollywood Versus the Internet (Mike Godwin)          
     "G.H. Hovagimyan" <gh {AT} popstar.com>                                              

   Re: [Nettime-bold] Re: <nettime> Coming Soon: Hollywood Versus the Internet (Mik
     "porculus" <porculus {AT} wanadoo.fr>                                                

   Re: <nettime> Coming Soon: Hollywood Versus the Internet (Mike Godwin)          
     Eric Miller <eric {AT} squishymedia.com>                                             

   Re: <nettime> Coming Soon: Hollywood Versus the Internet (Mike Godwin)          
     "Steven Shaviro" <shaviro {AT} shaviro.com>                                          



------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 22:09:00 +0800
From: "G.H. Hovagimyan" <gh {AT} popstar.com>
Subject: Re: <nettime> Coming Soon: Hollywood Versus the Internet (Mike Godwin)

: if content producers effectively lose the 
> right to compensation from and 
distribution of their works because of 
> advances in technology, what do you think 
that's going to do to the quality 
> and availability of content?
> 
> Eric

GH Comments:  
I was sitting around a dinner table in 
France when the conversation invariably 
turned to film.   The other people at the 
table were shocked when I told them I 
found film (especially Hollywood) to be an 
incredibly boring and outdated medium.  I 
posited a hypertextual film that would be 
different everytime you viewed it. Here's a 
question?  How can you copyright 
something that has no fixed form?  
 The copyright debate is a bullshit debate 
that doesn't address new forms of 
expression.  We all know that the film and 
media industry will not stand for anything 
that reduces their profits.  Ultimately who 
cares?  It's more interesting to work for the 
future. There will always be someone trying 
to preserve the status quo. 
- -- 
------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 18:10:50 +0100
From: "porculus" <porculus {AT} wanadoo.fr>
Subject: Re: [Nettime-bold] Re: <nettime> Coming Soon: Hollywood Versus the Internet (Mike Godwin)

> How can you copyright
> something that has no fixed form?
some have said let some ape wiz a typewriter a day  la recherche du temps
perdu will be done, so anyway let the apes sue proust, up, no fixed form but
look down, the fixed shape of your paranoid pretenzion







------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 09:42:07 -0800
From: Eric Miller <eric {AT} squishymedia.com>
Subject: Re: <nettime> Coming Soon: Hollywood Versus the Internet (Mike Godwin)

On Thursday, January 10, 2002, at 06:09 AM, G.H. Hovagimyan wrote:
"How can you copyright something that has no fixed form?"

Quite easily, actually.  just because a narrative is non-linear or 
random doesn't change the fact that someone created that narrative, and 
retains rights under current copyright law.  Examples: role-playing 
games, video games, those "choose-your-own-adventure" books from 
childhood, writing anthologies, CDs, magazines...all of which are 
non-linear (or potentially non-linear) and the sequence is determined by 
the user.  All of which are copyrightable, because a content creator 
mulled over the components, created the elements, thought through the 
potential sequencing, provided mechanisms to negotiate through the 
content, and worked to get the content distributed.   It's a far cry 
from a spontaneously self-creating work that has no fixed form and no 
source of origination.

But I think there's another point of confusion here.  Frankly, I still 
don't understand why the content creators and the megacorporations are 
all getting lumped together on this.  I could care less about whether or 
not Britney Spears and her record label are shortchanged 5% on sales 
because of piracy.  What worries me are the small record labels, the 
independent authors, the unsigned bands, the young artists who need 
compensation in the form of patronage, support, or outright sales.

so I ask again: if content producers effectively lose the right to 
compensation from and distribution of their works because of advances in 
technology, what do you think that's going to do to the quality and 
availability of content?

Eric


Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 00:02:15 -0800
From: "Steven Shaviro" <shaviro {AT} shaviro.com>
Subject: Re: <nettime> Coming Soon: Hollywood Versus the Internet (Mike Godwin)

Eric Miller wrote:
- -------------------------------------

In the end, set aside any resentment of the corporate parents for a
moment, and let me ask a simple question: if content producers effectively
lose the right to compensation from and distribution of their works
because of advances in technology, what do you think that's going to do to
the quality and availability of content?

- -------------------------------------
Answer:
I think it would radically increase both the quality and availability of
"content" (or art) because most content (or art) is made by sampling and
reworking previous content (or art). Far from being an incentive,
current copyright restrictions severely restrict new creation,
effectively turning it into a monopoly of large corporations. 

S

********************************************
Steven Shaviro   shaviro {AT} shaviro.com
http://www.shaviro.com
STRANDED IN THE JUNGLE:
http://www.shaviro.com/Stranded/index.html
******************************************** 


----------------------------

#  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