Legal ownership matters to me because it's how I feed my family. We
have very unalienating meals together. You are extremely welcome to
donate to the table, of course, should copyright cease to be a means
of making my living.
On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 9:13 AM, Spit Books <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> By ignoring we meant transforming writing into useless commodities. If
> you're against business model strategy then so must that of your writing
> otherwise it remains compromised by symbiotic capital relations. Who cares
> if some corporation is gaining or losing money if it's still reproducing
> alienating ideology. We think that the mega-corporation appropriation of
> legal ownership is one part of a mega pressure build up within culture at
> this very moment in time which will and is beginning to cause a decisive
> shift in its make-up and direction. Culture is essentially using itself up
> as mega capitalism exposes it.
>
>
> ========================================
> Message Received: May 20 2009, 08:33 PM
> From: "Séamas Cain"
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Cc:
> Subject: Re: Google's assault on writers' copyright
>
>
> Dear Spit Books,
>
> Thanks for the response.
>
> I remember hippies during the 1960s who thought that they could simply
> IGNORE the war in Vietnam and thus that war and its contexts and
> consequences would not matter to them. However, I thought then and
> now, this was a dangerous illusion.
>
> When the Commons (the "common" lands), throughout Europe including
> Britain, were "enclosed," expropriated for personal benefit and profit
> to the Barons, there were people who chose to IGNORE what was
> happening. After all, opposing property altogether, they did not care
> what a self-promoting élite was doing to and with the Common property.
> However, this illusion, this disconnect, was meaningless as the
> Barons impoverished the bulk of the population. Ignoring a social
> issue, a social problem, does not make it go away.
>
> For some years now, Google and other mega-corporations have been
> steadily eroding or altering the understanding, the traditions, and
> the forms of legal ownership of writings or art ... to their own
> profit. (The so-called "Orphan Works" Act slowly making its way
> through the U.S. Congress is yet another example.) However, IGNORING
> the issue will not alter the consequences. What some of us knew as
> "copyright" during the 1950s will be totally unrecognizable to the
> next generation. And, as with the Commons, Google and other Robber
> Barons will make money off our writings ... and we will not!
>
> Yes, the ideas of the International Situationists can be interesting.
> However, their very ideas, the notions themselves, tend to be
> withdrawn, passive, and self-referential.
>
> Bestwishes,
>
> Séamas
>
> _______
>
> On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 12:27 PM, Spit Books wrote:
>>
>> The solution is simple. Let writing ignore what that article refers to as
>> the 'basic rule of contemporary life – follow the money'.
>>
>>
>
>
--
Editor, Masthead: http://www.masthead.net.au
Blog: http://theatrenotes.blogspot.com
Home page: http://www.alisoncroggon.com
|