<nettime> More Reactions to © Symposium

[hksteen {AT} Desk.nl (hoeksteen)]

>----------
>From:  RAPHAEL PALLAIS[FAX:+1 (212) 391-6182]
>Sent:  Saturday, May 10, 1997 11:17 AM
>Subject:RE: who owns the seeds of hope?  Beware of indigestion, not of
>patents !
>
>Irredentus,
>
>       It gladdens my heart to see that you have not abandoned to the wind the
>more
>negative uses of your neurospores: it's not up to Johnny Walker to negate this
>"divine" negativity which allows you to unaccept the established seudo-truths.
>
>       Speaking of which, in reference to Barreto's open invitation to
>"ventilate"
>some of the "issues/concerns/implications related to intellectual ownership",
>the big seudo-truth lies in accepting the terms in which this "discussion" is
>posited.
>
>       There is nothing to discuss with people who want to discuss copyright:
>you
>either accept it or not.  I happen to reject it, so the only
>issues/concerns/implications for me revolve around the ways and means to
>circumvent and to destroy the defenders of the copyright status quo.  My
>advice to people who want to "keep" their intellectual property is: do not
>divulge it, do not communicate it in any "public" way --just keep it to
>yourself, or, in other words: shut the fuck up!
>
>       One can easily see from the way Parroquin has set up the whole thing,
>that
>it's a big sham, a big pretense, just another masturbation.
>
>       First: I don't believe that Parroquin has any serious questions about
>these
>issues, other than splitting the hair and finding ways to promote himself, the
>sale of his "art" and his permanent vehicle of self-promotion: his tv show in
>the Netherlands.
>
>       Second: It is not true that the "new technologies" have changed the way
>"information and communication have to be reviewed".  The fundamental issue of
>"property" hasn't changed since capital expropriated the church and Napoleon
>dictated his Code, thus setting the judicial and legislative foundation for
>modern forms of individual property.  The only thing that has changed, in a
>seesaw pattern, is the challenge by radicals and revolutionaries to this
>status quo.   As the beholders of alienated communication face up to the
>n-fold increases in the volume of this alienated communication, they have to
>make sure that their controls remain in place, that no substantial "leaks"
>occur which might trigger a "freedom reaction" (as opposed to a "chain
>reaction") amongst the people who have nothing to declare as individual
>property, except their workforce.
>
>       Third:  any one who talks about "illegal information" has his/her brain
>full
>of shit, unless they work for the State Department, the CIA or the FBI, in
>which case they are of course defending themselves from the potential assault
>of the great unwashed.  But for a so-called "artist" and for any number of
>so-called "scientists" to do so only signifies their confusion and their
>submission to the status quo.  They too will be the subject of the future ire
>of those great unwashed!
>
>       Fourth: a perfect warning sign is to read the words "scholars,
>politicians,
>attorneys, journalists, communicators, media activists and opinion leaders
>from all over the world have been invited" --don't count me in this company
>which I despise.
>
>       Fifth: according to Parroquin's invite, "the idea is to deal with the
>subjects in the widest possible way, incorporating as many different points of
>view as possible".  Well, he can keep his volumetric method.  I don't want my
>point of view "incorporated" with other points of view which I reject, despise
>and attack with everything I have.
>
>       A los inteleculos internacionales yo solo digo: up yours assholes!  We
>see
>through you and we despise your inane spectacles.  The day of reckoning
>approaches.
>
>Jorge, I didn't expect anything less than your volcanous response!  In
>response to your question about the legal aspect and history of copyright, let
>me share the little I've gathered over the years.
>
>The legal concept of copyright is about three centuries old.  Look up the
>"Statute of Anne" passed by the English Parliament in 1709 as its first
>formulation.  In comparison, the accumulated English common law dispensed by
>the Magna Carta goes back to 1215.  Marlowe and Shakespeare for example, never
>received a penny in copyright payments (royalties or otherwise).  Patrons
>payed for the pleasure of their creations.  The 1709 Statute became in the US
>Constitution, Article I, Section 8 a Congress power "...to promote the
>progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited times to authors
>and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and
>discoveries".  This in turn led to the first Copyright Act, passed in 1790
>(amended in 1976).  Although the litterature around the "philosophy" of the
>Copyright Act in the American judicial system is full of the crap about the
>Act being designed not to enrich authors and editors but to "promote science
>and the useful arts" (see the 1834 Wheaton vs. Peters controversy), the bottom
>line is: copyright is about commerce.  With copyright either an author or its
>appointed editor/agent can charge for the sale of the property, while without
>it, they cannot --end of story.  Thus, the only "controversy" raised by the
>Parroquin seudo-debate will be: how to make sure that authors get their due
>monies when their "works" get distributed over the global network of the
>internet.  The rest is absolute, undiluted crap that these assholes want the
>rest of the world to swallow.
>
>       And that's all for now, folks!
>


---
#  distributed via nettime-l : no commercial use without permission
#  <nettime> is a closed moderated mailinglist for net criticism,
#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
#  more info: majordomo {AT} icf.de and "info nettime" in the msg body
#  URL: http://www.desk.nl/~nettime/  contact: nettime-owner {AT} icf.de