<nettime> Strategies for Freeing Intellectual Property" by Rick Prelinger

["text warez" <textz@gmx.net>]

"Yes, Information Wants To Be Free, but How's That Going To 
Happen?: Strategies for Freeing Intellectual Property" Rick 
Prelinger 

Why Worry About IP While Chaos Rules? 

As I write in late February 2002, the United States has 
declared itself to be in a state of war. But even as our 
government asserts anti-terrorism as its first priority, 
corporations hustle to make the world safe for business. The 
courts are clogged with intellectual property lawsuits. 
Lawyers are busy churning out cease-and-desist letters to 
alleged copyright infringers. Entertainment conglomerates 
are consolidating their control over the fibers, cables and 
switches on which programming is distributed. Hackers are 
equated with terrorists and are forced to defend their 
ability to explore, reengineer and retool hardware and 
software. Content and advertising continue to combine into a 
tediously promotional happy meal. The limits of permissible 
speech in the mass media tighten every day. Not a quiet 
time, not a happy time, and under wartime cover decisions 
are now being made that will affect all our futures as 
producers and consumers of information, culture, and the 
arts. 


Today, products of the intellect are copyrighted at the 
moment of creation, patented before release to the world, 
and trademarked before sale, born not as contributions to a 
shared body of knowledge or heritage, but as "intellectual 
property." Wars are raging over the ultimate control of IP, 
and the terms of engagement seem to change almost weekly. 
This conflict is likely to envelop us for a long time, and 
as such it's hard to know how it will play out. But this 
isn't an excuse for waiting to act. If there's any chance 
that anti-capitalist models for the distribution and control 
of content will ever work, we need to be thinking beyond 
today's ruling paradigms. 

In this essay, I hope to convince you that although a 
critique and restructuring of copyright law (and the concept 
of copyright in general) is immensely valuable, focusing 
exclusively on changing copyright law is a smokescreen. 
Copyright reformism focuses on fixing copyright law, rather 
than articulating a more fundamentally radical vision about 
how information, ideas, art and culture might be produced 
and exchanged. It constrains us into thinking in limited 
terms, terms that might not necessarily be our own, and most 
especially forces us into defensive positions. When 
copyright "infringement" is equated with stealing and 
terrorism, when the free exchange of content is 
criminalized, and when intimidating legal letters fly 
freely, it is easy to feel defensive, and worse, to behave 
reactively. When we are obliged to defend ourselves against 
assaults motivated by someone else's agenda, we are fighting 
for freedom of expression on unfriendly turf, and are 
unlikely to win what we deserve. 

Reformism is one of the first questions that arises when we 
think about anti-capitalism ways of seeing intellectual 
property. Is it really worth our time trying to solve 
problems created by capitalist economics while capitalism 
still prevails? What do we stand to gain by challenging 
capitalist control over IP while other kinds of property 
remain under the same owners? Why even bother trying to 
synthesize a new theory of IP, a progressive version of 
copyright law, or a strategy to overturn the carefully woven 
net of legislation that benefits the "owners" of IP over the 
rest of us? Perhaps most important, does liberating IP 
benefit the many, or just the relatively few heavy content 
users in the developed world looking for free music and 
movies? 

There are good reasons to develop anti-capitalist 
perspectives on intellectual property. We might, for 
instance, think of freer content as an end in itself, as a 
radically different way of thinking about the distribution 
of knowledge and culture, and as a utopian wedge that might 
lead to freer ways of circulating other goods and services. 
We might imagine a future where content functions to 
increase consciousness, improve the quality of life, and 
integrate culture into daily life, and consider how we might 
get there. And, even as most high-demand IP remains under 
high-level corporate control, there are a few equalizing 
tactics that could tip the balance towards a different kind 
of IP landscape a shared, profit-free body of knowledge, 
culture, and entertainment whose very existence might 
challenge long-lasting concepts of property ownership and 
control and stimulate popular alternatives to winner-take-
all thinking. We might even imagine content that is not 
simply created to distract or entertain (though distraction 
and entertainment can be noble objectives too). Culture can 
illuminate and demystify property relations, and changing 
the way that culture is distributed can lead the way to 
changing how property is distributed. 

And all of us have an interest in halting current trends 
towards increased corporate control over IP. The arguments 
are familiar by now to most of us. By commodifying and 
asserting ownership over ideas, art, culture and inventions, 
corporations control much more than just intangibles. While 
asserting that they stand for the protection of authors' and 
creators' rights, large corporations quite often bind 
creators to self-serving or coercive contracts that cause 
the lion's share of royalties to remain in corporate hands. 
Creativity, innovation, problem-solving, and all kinds of 
social change are fostered and encouraged by the free 
exchange of ideas and inventions. A society that places 
impermeable barriers on the movement, exchange, and 
appropriation of IP, such as we are now doing, places 
frightening limits on its ability to evolve and progress. In 
some cases control over IP actually poses life-threatening 
issues, as in the case of patented drugs that are not 
available at affordable prices to residents of developing 
countries. Finally, the lack of a free (not a free-trade!) 
regime for the exchange of IP that still fairly compensates 
individuals for their efforts tends to prevent developing 
regions build their own content industries that have a 
chance of competing for their own people's attention. 

Copyright Seeks (and Gets) Eternal Life 

Copyright is not likely to disappear all by itself. It may 
be under siege by new access technologies, but it is far 
from dead. The "copyright-based industries" -- publishing, 
entertainment and software -- contribute hundreds of 
billions of dollars to the US economy. Intellectual property 
is our second most valuable export, and more and more of us 
labor to create, manage, distribute, sell and shrink-wrap 
what passes for "content" these days. Though I'd like to 
imagine differently, I find it inconceivable that the large 
corporations that control intellectual property rights will 
stand by as the fences separating their holdings from the 
public domain melt down. 

Copyright law states that works of the intellect are 
copyrighted at birth beginning at the moment when they 
become fixed in tangible form. But unlike organic creatures, 
copyrights enjoy what seem to be an infinitely extendable 
lifespan. Congress's original intent in drafting copyright 
law was to grant exclusive rights for limited terms, linked 
to the life spans of authors, in order that they could enjoy 
the fruits of their labor while alive. Until 1978, 
copyrights generally lasted 28 years and could, if 
formalities were strictly followed, be renewed for another 
28. Publication without proper copyright notice threw a work 
into the public domain. This is why so many older US works 
are out of copyright, unlike works that originate in most 
other countries. After 1978, the US "harmonized" its 
copyright laws with those of most other countries, extending 
the term of copyright for new works created by individuals 
to the span of their lives plus 50 years, and new works 
created by corporations to 75 years. In 1993, renewals for 
older works became automatic. The tragic death of John 
Lennon at age 40 was cited in congressional testimony, as 
paid lobbyists warned that his young son Sean might outlive 
the terms of his father's copyrights, and see John's works 
exploited without proper compensation. In 1998, the largely 
undebated Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act further 
"harmonized" our copyright laws with our European trade 
partners, extending terms to life plus 70 and 95 years 
respectively. These laws have collectively kept hundreds of 
thousands of US works out of the public domain, and restored 
copyrights to perhaps millions of foreign works. Such 
lengthy timespans lock works up for an inordinately long 
time, but then corporations often live longer than people 
do. 

In February 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear 
arguments in Eldred v. Ashcroft, a challenge to the Sonny 
Bono Act. Plaintiff Eric Eldred, aided by a host of lawyers, 
scholars, librarians and archivists, argued that continual 
extensions of copyright law violate the constitutional 
specification that copyright should be for a limited 
duration. The Court's agreement that a constitutional 
question is involved here has sent waves of concern through 
Hollywood and the rest of the community of IP proprietors, 
and excited many others. In contrast to the comparative 
silence surrounding the original legislation, debates over 
the fairness of lengthy copyright terms are now widespread. 
Though it's impossible to predict how the Court will rule, 
it is exciting to see generally arcane IP issues discussed 
in the mainstream press, and the increased growth of 
skepticism around the question of corporate control of IP. 

Corporate copyright holders have also pushed to limit the 
definition of "fair use" and, now, under the Digital 
Millennium Copyright Act of 2000 (DMCA), to prevent just 
about all unpaid copying, performance, distribution and 
collecting of digitally based works. The DMCA encourages 
copyright holders to build protection mechanisms into 
technology, and then criminalizes "circumvention" attempts 
to reengineer the technology, however well-intentioned (and 
necessary) they may be. 

Beyond Copyright Consciousness 

Many commonly circulating ideas about IP predict the end of 
copyright, following two major threads: technology killed 
copyright, and copyright is anachronistic in networked 
culture. Both of these notions are simplistic and 
ahistorical, and I'll try to argue that they're 
shortsighted. What we really ought to be talking about is 
access to works. Though access is related to copyright, it's 
really more fundamental to our freedom to think and 
experience. 

Trying to debunk the idea that technology killed copyright 
is a tiring chore. Yes, the proliferation of new tech tools 
makes it harder to control the unauthorized duplication of 
copyrighted works, and such tools are certainly sustaining 
another thrilling chapter in the arms race between geeks and 
suits. But people are still renting videos and buying DVDs. 
Yes, millions of people used Napster and now other peer-to-
peer services to collect semi-degraded music files, but the 
record companies cut Napster off at the knees. As soon as 
its successors become big enough to pose a threat, the 
record companies go to court to protect their oligopoly. 
(Interestingly, the judge who essentially closed Napster 
down has just opened the way for them to sue the large 
record companies for conspiring to control the recorded 
music business. Stay tuned.) 

Many prominent individuals have lined up behind the notion 
that we live in a post-copyright age. They try to convince 
us of the total irrelevance of copyright, that "information 
wants to be free." Others posit that the disintermediating 
characteristics of the Internet will empower individual 
authors and artists by permitting them to sell their work 
directly to their audiences. People like John Perry Barlow 
and Esther Dyson imagine an era where creators are 
compensated in a royalty-free realm, where reputation, 
expertise, consulting chops and sales of collateral products 
almost magically generate income. This isn't completely off 
the mark, because this works for some people, notably the 
proponents of those ideas themselves. Like so many economic 
schemes today, it presumes a winner-take-all model. But how 
many writers can give away their texts and survive on 
honoraria from guest slots on CNN? And, ultimately, who 
cares enough about most creative people to help provide them 
with a living? As long as IP is bought and sold as a 
commodity, market rules will apply. 

Perhaps copyright needs to be reincarnated in some modified 
form. I see nothing wrong with a system that protects the 
rights of individual creators, especially if it helps to 
equalize their position with regard to the entities that may 
help distribute their work. But what should those rights be? 
I'm not yet prepared to say. In many ways copyright law has 
outlived its social and economic function. And this is why I 
am sympathetic to those who support formative chaos, those 
who rhetorically call for total and complete disobedience of 
copyright law, rather than cloaking their efforts under a 
veil of disingenuous responsibility. If we're to transform 
authoritarian copyright laws into social practices that 
protect creators and benefit society in general, a period of 
flux and experimentation will be essential. 

Experimentation may be essential for yet another reason, 
too. Other kinds of rights are asserted in cultural works, 
rights that are harder to dismiss than copyrights held by 
anonymous corporate entities. These are rights claimed by 
stakeholders who don't hold copyright: unions seeking to 
protect their members against exploitation; creators who 
hold "moral rights" guaranteeing that their work will not be 
performed or distributed in mutilated or incomplete form; 
individuals whose creativity may make up part of what we 
see, hear or read in a particular work. How can an anti-
capitalist framework for IP compensate the writer, director, 
composer, or actors for their work in a film over that 
film's life? How can such a framework guarantee that 
someone's work won't be replayed in a distorted form? Should 
such compensation or guarantees even exist? These are 
difficult questions. 

Copyright law is hundreds of years old. Its long history and 
densely structured system of legal precedents would itself 
be enough to harden it against anyone who would dare to 
reject or ignore its power, and that doesn't take account of 
the power held by the world's largest copyright owners. 
Copyright or, more accurately, the restriction of the right 
to copy and redistribute is believed to be the base of the 
content industry, rapidly growing into one of the world's 
largest and most profitable industries. It is possible that 
one day IP-based industries will together form the largest 
economic sector of all. It is widely believed that copyright 
is necessary for these industries to flourish. It is also 
widely felt that interference with or infringement of 
copyright constitutes interference with the well-being of 
the present and future capitalist economies. And since the 
concept of IP labels products of the intellect as 
"property," unauthorized appropriation or movement of IP 
constitutes theft. Advocacy of theft earns no friends for 
the advocate. These terms trap those of us who believe in 
freedom of expression. 

Perhaps instead we should think of IP as "born free," which 
runs directly counter to the U.S. Copyright Act of 1976, 
which declares that all human works capable of being fixed 
in enduring form are copyrighted at the moment of their 
creation. But beyond that, we should also consider whether 
the struggle over copyright is really the most meaningful 
struggle for us right now. I'm going to propose that we 
focus on access instead. 

Access and Authorship 

"Access" to works of the intellect doesn't just mean being 
able to read, listen, watch, or feel them. Today, it also 
means being able to incorporate other people's works into 
ones own: to quote, resynthesize, recontextualize, sample, 
appropriate, or plunder. Today's reader is also a writer; 
today's listener a sampler; today's spectator an editor or 
director. Many of us are no longer content with simply 
reading, listening or viewing works -- we want to 
appropriate material from other works and make something 
that is more than the sum of its parts. This is a pretty 
obvious point, and it's also obvious that unyielding 
copyright law limits freedom of expression for all of us. 
What's less obvious is that there are also other ways of 
limiting our ability to quote, cutup and recontextualize. 

In order to be an active reader/listener/spectator, we need 
access to materials. Yet aside from current pop culture 
stuff widely available in American superstores, such access 
is currently quite difficult. One reason for the popularity 
of peer-to-peer technologies was the sheer diversity of 
music and sound that they've made available. Much of this 
audio was hitherto inaccessible, locked in record company 
vaults, private collections, archives and radio station 
libraries. In this sense the stuff that's online and 
available via p2p functions as a virtual archive that's 
totally available to all. 

Quite the opposite is true in other media. Our history and 
culture are increasingly becoming private property rather 
than public resource. For instance, consider still 
photography. Hundreds of millions of historical still images 
are now controlled by two large corporations, Getty Images 
and Corbis, who are actively competing for top market rank. 
Unfortunately, these collections are generally inaccessible 
without payment of substantial research and licensing fees. 
In other media, textual material, music and works of art are 
now owned or controlled by a dwindling number of 
rightsholders. It is now highly probable that most access to 
cultural and historical materials will follow the paradigm 
of "billable events," with few exceptions or discounts for 
nonprofit or public users. E-commerce, of course, makes it 
much easier for rights holders to charge for the experience 
of listening to or eyeballing content. 

The function of not-for-profit entities like libraries, 
museums and archives is also changing. They no longer exist 
simply to offer reference or read-only access to their 
holdings. With the proliferation of authoring tools in all 
media and the vast increase in all modes of cultural 
production, many access requests now anticipate the 
reproduction of materials for reuse and public distribution, 
and this trend is running headlong into the limitations of 
copyright law. Although the Internet is dramatically 
increasing the population of creators and publishers, there 
is less preexisting content available for reuse. 

The access problem exists for both copyrighted and non-
copyrighted works. Many public domain works exist only in 
libraries, archives, or private collections, and their 
custodians charge for access. Though fees may pay for 
storage, preservation, cataloging, and the production of 
viewing copies, it ultimately defies common sense for public 
domain works not to be freely available to the public. If we 
act to lessen or to end copyright's authoritarian control 
over access to culture, we must make sure that other 
controls don't take its place. 

Guaranteeing Access Through Preserves and Conservancies 

One transitional means for making content and culture more 
readily available may be the "intellectual property 
conservancy" or "IP preserve." To think about strengthening 
public access to cultural resources is to consider basic 
questions of property and its privatization. It's worth 
looking to history and landscape for precedents and a 
possible solution. In the late 19th and early 20th 
centuries, private corporations exerted unprecedented 
pressures on the "public domain" -- American land and 
natural resources. They owned or controlled key tracts of 
productive land, often as a result of government give aways 
or favoritism. The aggressive pursuit of extractive 
interests such as mining, logging and agriculture threatened 
to exhaust public lands and encroach upon naturally or 
culturally significant sites. In response to this threat, 
the conservationist movement lobbied to organize a system of 
national forests, parks and monuments. By preserving a 
limited public sphere not subject to the exercise of private 
property rights, the benefits of some wilderness and 
cultural sites were preserved for all. 

In much the same way, an intellectual property preserve 
might house content and protect it as public property. The 
preserve would contain textual material, still and moving 
images, works of art, sounds and digital information of all 
kinds, plus the rights to reproduce and disseminate them. 
These assets would be acquired in two ways. First, the 
preserve (supported by private or government funding) would 
purchase certain key resources to build up a core collection 
of content. Second, the preserve would solicit donations of 
content. These donations might not necessarily include the 
physical materials representing the content, but would 
definitely include copyrights or rights to reproduce. 

Why would copyright owners (or owners of public domain 
materials) ever cede their properties to the preserve? 
First, and perhaps most important, tax incentives. Amend the 
tax code to allow substantial deductions or tax credits for 
donating valuable copyrights or materials. Second, following 
the precedent of public land acquisitions, key donors might 
be compensated with private funding. Third, promote public 
recognition that an act of donation is a prestigious deed 
benefitting the world cultural heritage. Active efforts to 
create such organizations are now underway. One, called 
Creative Commons, has been announced and plans to open in 
the first half of 2002. 

There is nothing particularly radical about the practice of 
a preserve. It's an attempt to work within the system, a 
voluntary expropriation, a creation of incentives for 
property holders to do the right thing. Ultimately, though, 
its goals are to rebalance private vs. common property for 
mass benefit. The preserve aims to make a significant 
portion of our intellectual and cultural property available 
to one and all -- both individuals and corporations -- for 
nothing more than the physical costs of duplication and 
transmission. Its concept supports freedom of inquiry and 
freedom of expression by preserving the right to quote, to 
duplicate, to appropriate preexisting material. Though it 
might require the support and expertise of elite elements to 
organize something like an intellectual property preserve, a 
preserve could mount a fundamental challenge to our 
definitions of public and private property. In so doing, it 
would be a greater force for change than any possible reform 
of copyright law. 

Other Models 

The open-source model is rooted in communitarianism and the 
hacker ethic. Though the details of open-source philosophy 
are beyond the scope of this essay (but easily available 
online), it points to a possible future where copyright 
owners might no longer assert a stranglehold over creativity 
and innovation. Open-source software, text, music, movies or 
any other kind of content are released under a license, 
sometimes known as the GPL (General Public License), 
permitting anyone to use, modify, distribute, or publish the 
content in original or modified form. The catch is that 
whatever anyone might add to the original material itself 
becomes open-source and available for free use in the same 
way. Rather than being compensated for simple ownership of 
copyright, people or companies in the open-source world are 
rewarded for the value they add. If a person adds 
significant functionality to a piece of program code, writes 
a good manual, corrals an unruly collection of software 
tools into a coherent package, people buy that and hopefully 
creators make money. Extending this model to other kinds of 
collaborative creative work, such as music and movies, opens 
up fascinating possibilities. 

Then there's simply refusing to recognize the authority of 
copyright. In recent years anti-copyright artists and 
musicians have built a rich and entertaining tradition of 
appropriation, collage, uninhibited quotation, and sampling, 
much of which has coalesced as part of the Plunderphonics 
movement. Work of this kind is at once a harking-back to a 
much simpler world of hunting and gathering and a fast 
flash-forward to a smarter utopian society, where artists 
are free to quote and manipulate the stimuli that inspire 
them. While prominent challengers to corporate IP control 
like Napster get nailed, most individual artists fly under 
the horizon of corporate legal departments (or are 
sufficiently marginal to dodge cease-and-desist letters). 
Their work is refreshing and, from an anti-capitalist 
perspective, points the way towards a crisis of legitimacy 
for copyright, as it encourages individuals to disobey a law 
to which their conscience objects. 

Libraries are one of the last remaining deeply democratic 
institutions in Western society, providing access to arts, 
culture and ideas to everyone. At their best, they stand for 
and actively support freedoms of speech and inquiry, and 
impose no property or income qualifications upon their 
patrons. As access institutions, they are unequalled. Their 
freedom to continue providing these resources to all for 
free (and even to preserve digital information for public 
access) is currently under attack by publishers and 
copyright holders who would like to make every access to 
their works into a "billable event," and we should defend 
their ability to continue doing what they have done for 
hundreds of years. In addition, libraries should be able to 
loan material as they have always done, but with the 
assistance of access technologies such as the Internet, so 
that they serve a worldwide community with a minimum of 
difficulty. 

Another thought that has recently emerged recalls the idea 
of IP preserves. What if certain cultural resources were, by 
popular agreement, placed squarely within open territory? 
There has been discussion in Europe about placing historical 
moving images from the World War II period into the public 
domain , so that they will be free for use by all without 
the sense that anyone is profiting from their exploitation. 
Moving concretely in this direction, the German government-
chartered foundation that controls the copyrights to films 
produced under the Third Reich has reportedly begun to 
forego charging license fees for reuse of clips from certain 
key Nazi propaganda films. Though this is certainly a 
reformist idea, it is easily scalable to encompass ever-
increasing areas of content if there is pressure to make it 
happen. 

Conclusion: Scenarios of the Intangible 

To help frame possible tactics for freeing IP, let me 
propose three non-exclusive scenarios for the future of 
intellectual property. All already have come true, at least 
in part. 

1. The dystopian scenario. The current content grab 
escalates. Greater territories of ideas and culture come 
under ever tighter corporate control. The distribution 
infrastructure itself comes under the control of copyright 
owners. The "model of scarcity" rules: every cultural 
microevent (reading, listening, watching, browsing online) 
becomes a billable event. 

2. The diffuse scenario. This most closely describes where 
we are now. The dystopian scenario is well on the way, but 
there is still considerable "public space" for IP to 
circulate freely, largely because of an active culture of 
resistance to tighter and more centralized control. The 
coexistence of public and private spaces is uneasy, though, 
and highly stratified: content with "mass appeal," whatever 
its ultimate worth, is in general fully under private 
control and costs money to access. Since alternatives to the 
present public/private standoff are underdeveloped, many 
creators choose the default alternative of letting major 
corporations pretend to protect them. 

3. The utopian scenario. This evolves out of both previous 
scenarios. Essentially, control over IP collapses under its 
own weight. People reject (or cannot afford) authoritarian 
and unwieldy systems that limit their access to arts, 
culture, and entertainment. Fringe cultures move to the 
mainstream as mass cultures become too expensive or too 
difficult to access. A "model of plenty" evolves: new means 
of rewarding creators emerge that do not necessarily require 
the intervention of corporations to exist. 

Anti-capitalists seeking to free IP might think about how 
their tactics fit into each of these scenarios. Should we 
acknowledge today's diffuse situation, acting incrementally 
to increase and defend public territory within a mixed 
landscape of public and private IP control? Should we reject 
corporate control altogether, even though it might render us 
marginal for some time? Should we organize and build 
alternative structures for the exchange of IP, structures 
that might help us transition into a post-corporate era? 
Should we do all of these things? 

Rick Prelinger (http://www.prelinger.com) is a film 
archivist and cultural historian. He is currently working on 
a book about the history and culture of radio monitoring and 
a film on menace and jeopardy in American culture. 

RESOURCES 

More detailed information on the issues mentioned in this 
essay can be found in the books listed below. Here also is a 
list of a few websites that offer frequently updated 
information on fast-breaking IP issues. 

Chris DiBona, San Oakman and Mark Stone. Open Sources: 
Voices from the Open Source Revolution. Sebastopol, Calif.: 
O'Reilly & Associates, Inc. 1999. 

Lawrence Lessig. The Future of Ideas: The Fate of the 
Commons in a Connected World. New York: Random House, 2001. 

Jessica Litman. Digital Copyright. Amherst, N.Y.: Prometheus 
Books, 2001. 

Kembrew MacLeod. Owning Culture: Authorship, Ownership and 
Intellectual Property Law. New York: Peter Lang Publishers, 
2001. Kembrew MacLeod trademarked the phrase "freedom of 
expression" as a prank; more details at 
http://www.kembrew.com. 

Center for the Public Domain, a nonprofit foundation 
supporting the growth of a healthy and robust public domain. 
http://www.centerforthepublicdomain.org 

Copyright's Commons, a "coalition devoted to promoting a 
vibrant public domain." Good links. 
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/cc/ 

Detritus.net, a great site devoted to recycled culture in 
all its manifestations. Worth visiting regularly. 
http://www.detritus.net 

The Negativland site has an excellent IP resources section: 
http://www.negativland.com/intprop.html";

Hydrarchist writes:

"Rick Prelinger is a tireless agitator against copyright 
laws, and is responsible for the placing on line of a huge 
volume of public domain films that others can appropriate 
for their own ends. This essay is his contribution to The 
Anti-Capitalism Reader, edited by Joel Schalit." 

http://info.interactivist.net/article.pl?sid=03/01/13/012208


-- 
+++ GMX - die erste Adresse für Mail, Message, More +++
Bis 31.1.: TopMail + Digicam für nur 29 EUR http://www.gmx.net/topmail

#  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@bbs.thing.net and "info nettime-l" in the msg body
#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@bbs.thing.net