Fats, Vitamins and Minerals

When we arrived at Neria’s house in Baclayon, there was this fellow single-handedly building a nipa hut just outside the back yard. It is taking him a long time - the frame of the house has taken two months - because he only gets building materials from around the area, scrounging around for fallen trees, branches, bamboo, if he is not allowed to cut wood from nearby places.

Baclayon is not our home yet but we are nearly there. Two years now - just like this house-builder, we’re taking a long time!

Colleagues,

The group called “Nine Inch Nails” is coming to the Philippines for a concert. The Philippine news website Inquirer.net emailed the group’s lead Trent Reznor a few questions, published on the Inquirer website. What Reznor thinks of record label CEOs is an eye-opener for the public that is heavily being bombarded via “intellectual property rights” (and anti-”piracy”) campaigns that copyright benefits the artists. In reality, copyright is power by a handful of big media giants over the distribution of creative work done by artists. Copyright is power by a few media conglomerates over the artists and over the people.

Thanks to Danny E for the alert on the news article, pertinent section quoted below.

For more on the economics, politics and ideology of copyright, see http://www.copysouth.org/

Cheers!

Fatima

Q. You’ve been very vocal about the state of the record industry and how labels have been greedy about the whole business. How do you think it can be improved, if at all?

Trent Reznor: It’s a kind of Mafia-type run business .. They have systematically taken advantage of artists over the years from The Beatles onwards. You [the artists] do all the work, they loan you money to make records, then you pay them back and they own everything. To see that system collapse is an exciting thing. There isn’t a clear answer on what the right thing to do is right now, and as a musician you’re up against a pretty difficult scenario: most kids feel it’s OK to steal music, and do freely … The good news is that people are excited and interested in music …

As an artist it’s your job to capitalize on that. It means generally swallowing a bitter pill and saying, ‘Hey, people don’t want to buy music, so let me give it to you. I’ll find another way to make money but I want you on my side and hearing my music. So let’s get rid of this walled garden of having to pay to hear it, here it is, give it to your friends. Hey, try to come to our show if you can, or you can buy this T-shirt of ours if you like, and that will help us out. Or, here’s a nice version of our album that we put in a cool package for a premium price and we’re only selling a couple thousands of them.’

There are ways that you can monetize your business, but the traditional way of going to a record store and having to pay for it, those days are over. In the States, there aren’t any record stores left. The only place … is like a Best Buy where you go to buy a washing machine and there’s a tiny rack of DVDs and CDs. I think we’re in between business models right now …

I’m trying everything I can to contribute to when that next model does come up, whatever it might be, whether it’s subscriptions or whatever, where the artist is more fairly represented and has a say and is compensated, and you’re not paying for jets for record label CEOs … They’re in their last moments of death and I’m happy to see them go ’cause they’re all thieves and liars.

From this news report

PS. It’s interesting that Trent Reznor uses the term “stealing” when referring to sharing music (legally “copyright infringement”), but he does not make a moral judgment on “stealing music.” In many other places, the cultural context for sharing (and thus “stealing” and “copying”) can vary, and often sharing (as well as “stealing” and “copying”) are not seen as criminal; (the moral requirement for something to be called  “stealing” is quite high, and it is often ridiculous to steal a copy). This is especially true in places where the concept of private property either does not exist or is not important.

Hi Social networkers and ex-newspaper readers everywhere,

If the Guardian article “With friends like these …” is correct then Facebook (and perhaps other such organisations) should face very intense scrutiny from MI6 (etc.) and not be used by them (or others) even for “personal” use. See MI6 chief’s Facebook details cut

Indeed, if one wishes to seriously investigate the complexity of the problems we are now confronted with by the internet, then I can recommend an article (unfortunately in Dutch) “Nieuws for niks” (news for nothing) by Francisco van Jole in “de Volksrant” dated 27th June 2009.

The article starts off discussing the “Brinkman report” (by the Dutch ex-culture minister who promoted culture because it was “the oil that kept the export industry running”). His current report is now looking for solutions to the global demise of the (printed) news industry. The Brinkman report apparently wishes to introduce an “internet surcharge” (a bit like the BBC funding perhaps) to subsidise the (Dutch?) “print” media. According to the article, it seems that the internet model (both generally and specifically for “news”) doesn’t
really work commercially and yet the news media are being forced directly into that model, like it or not.

Basically, the few successful Internet companies parasite on the traditional news media (something that is still taboo under internet supporters). So the question (according to van Jole) is: Why can’t the internet model support a (hard) news system?

Apparently, Rupert Murdoch is (also) promoting the end of “free” internet use -which is perhaps slightly strange because 10-15 years ago he was promoting the idea that “paid” media were finished and that advertising would make everything free. Now it seems that his prediction has actually proven to be correct -however, the relevant “business model” seems entirely wrong. The reason apparently lies in the metastructure -because (nearly) all the (press) advertising has been sucked up by “free” advertising sites -which make their money through paid “banner” ads.

Indeed, at one point the journalist claims that Google’s strategy is more “colonisation” than business model (and Holland is an “advanced” country -so how much worse must it be in the less powerful “developing” countries?).

So the domain of the problem then shifts (once again). Because the essential banner ads only bring in money for very large scale (meta) sites (such as Facebook, Google, etc…). At this point, van Jole talks about the monopolisation of the internet/IT industry: One company for searching, one company for software, etc….. Apparently, even the Dutch market leader for “free” advertising (marktplaats.nl) is actually owned by US giant eBay. However, this (US) monopolisation process is clearly not limited to the internet -because almost every main street (or shopping mall) in almost every town (in almost every country -on almost every continent) is beginning to look like every other one.

Van Jole, then describes Google (in the words of Murdoch -which is perhaps itself rather ironic) as a “Digital Vampire” -because Google sucks out all the content from the traditional news media while refusing to contribute financially to the industry it relies upon. In the meantime, it (supposedly) has a 20 million turnover based on advertising. None of this is apparently ever given to those who actually produce the content that Google commercially exploits (according to van Jole).

Then we run into the flaw in the article (probably based on the above mentioned “professional blind spot”) because van Jole’s conclusion is that Google should become a giant “collecting society” for the printed media that it parasites on.

This might sound quite convincing, if the same author hadn’t just earlier written about the failure of the music and film industry (which indeed imposes and defends copyright issues so jealously worldwide) and yet is still facing decline. Apparently, the “paid” sector of the “commodified” (electronic?, digital?, broadband?) economy isn’t doing too well iether -despite the apparent early success of iTunes. (See Fatima’s post on “Nine Inch Nails”).

So, all in all, there really does seem to be something truely rotten in the metaphorical internet state of Denmark! Perhaps the Emperor really does have no cloths at all! For more insight in problems arising out of Copyright issues (the “paid” economy) in the developing world, caused by the problems of the developed world, do check out CopySouth copysouth.org . Indeed, one may suspect that the apparent need of the (US) industry to impose stringent copyright rules worldwide is actually having a disasterous effect on the industry itself (to say nothing about human culture) both in terms of financial income and creative ability.

The Internet is for all the Sharks!
Trevor Batten
July 18, 2009

Just in time for the Software Freedom Day celebrations (September 20), we’ve just released Process/yon Artists’ Book ad Dialogues II: Free Software for Slave Society? The PDF book (1.2mb) is accessible thru http://korakora.org/proyekto/sfd08
Enjoy!

Dear friend in the arts,

You might be mildly aware that there is an ongoing campaign towards the strengthening of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) enforcement in the Philippines as the United States Trade Representative (USTR) announced plans in April 2008 to pursue more aggressive IP protection schemes with its trading partners around the world.

This global campaign aims to include stronger IPR provisions (often promoted by the USTR as “world-class” IPR provisions)  in many free trade agreements being pursued with many countries, calling for more sophisticated protections for digital products such as software, movies and music, and implementing stronger protection for US patents and test data (which are monopolized by large pharmaceuticals and needed by domestic regulators for the registration of generic medicines after their patents have expired) in the pharmaceutical industry.

The approval and enforcement of touted “world-class” IPR provisions into trade agreements aim to allow US products and services more access into more markets around the world especially in the developing countries, the liberalization of investment laws to enable more US claims into domestic resource, and the removal of export barriers where these currently exist in national law or in the implementation of obligations under the WTO-TRIPS Agreements.

Today, even higher standards of IP protection and enforcement are being brought upon countries of the developing world through the new narratives of security, border control and police enforcement.

Following the overwhelming demoralization of alternative business, creative cultural practices and development models in many developing countries by casting them in the wide rhetorical sensationalist net of “piracy”, “counterfeit”, “theft” and “illicit”, higher standards in international IP protection and enforcement are being spear-headed by the US through a new non-transparent treaty-making process involving a handful of the wealthiest countries in the world with interests inimical to the domestic development policies of many developing countries.

Touted as the “Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement” or ACTA, this proposed treaty aims to create a new global standard for a stronger top-down enforcement regime covering strict enforcement of intellectual property rights related to Internet activity, criminalization of copying under a wide variety of contexts, and higher IPR enforcement measures in trade in information-based goods hiding behind the issue of false trademarks.

Another forum being used by the US and the wealthiest countries in the world in their IP expansionist agenda is under the World Customs Organization (WCO)’s proposed Standards Employed by Customs for Uniform Rights Enforcement or SECURE. SECURE brings IP enforcement beyond the existing standards of the TRIPS Agreements through the back-door of international border controls, proposing to  enlarge the powers of Customs Administrations to be the watchdog of IP enforcement and give them authority well beyond their current mandate.

While IP units have already been established within the Philippine Bureau of Customs and in customs agencies in other countries, the campaigning, giving of grants and the bullying have apparently not moved the IP agenda up in the time the USTR desires. ACTA and SECURE, two of the many “war against terror” instruments being pushed before the end of term of the Bush Administration, intend to seal with certainty the winnings of the long and aggressive political and ideological IP campaigns launched against the intellectual, economic and cultural sovereignty of developing countries worldwide.

The Arts as IP-Philippines centerpiece

In April 2007, the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines (IP Philippines) celebrated World IP Day with member states of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). The centerpiece of the local celebration was the opening of an art exhibition in a gallery space called “Alab Art Space” located at the ground floor of the IP office building. “Alab” boasts of being the first art space in an IP office in Southeast Asia.

In a special section called “Exhibits Asia” in The Philippine Star, Thursday, April 26, 2007, there were three news articles: (a) IP Philippines celebrates World IP Day, encouraging creativity among Filipino artists, entrepreneurs, inventors; (b) BSA awards citation to Pilipinas Anti-Piracy Team; (c) Pilipinas Anti-Piracy Team cracks down on users/sellers of pirated software in Davao City.

Advertising for the IPO press release included Lacoste, Business Software Alliance (BSA), Microsoft, Vera Law, BNU Intellectual Property Attorneys, iProbe (investigation and consulting firm), and the Pilipinas Anti-Piracy Team (PAPT) consisting of the National Bureau of Investigation, Optical Media Board and Philippine National Police.

As announced in the press release, part of the mandate of the IP-Philippines is training, campaigning and servicing for the protection of IPR as an important strategic tool for national development in the current global knowledge economy, with not a single mention of alternative IP domains such as the commons, open-source and copyleft licensing nor the on-going contestation of the IP regime worldwide especially in the developing countries.

With some kowtowing to the arts in the effort to highlight the rhetoric of “protection of intellectual property rights helps stimulate creativity and innovation”, IP-Philippines celebrated World IP Day through the signing of an MOU with the US Patents and Trademarks Office for the joint effort of safeguarding US intellectual property in the Philippines, upgrading Philippine intellectual property law to be “at par with international standards”, and the creation of mechanisms by which patented technologies may be commercialized.

With the arts being advocated as IP-Philippines’ centerpiece, I call on all artists to challenge the “piracy” and “counterfeit” discourse of the Intellectual Property Rights regime in the Philippines and worldwide, to continue to follow local and international developments in IP protection and enforcement, and to (re)claim and enhance the creative process by taking commentary, questioning and exposing the myths of the IP expansionist regime.

As an artist confronted with the balancing of the multiplicity of perspectives, possibilities and outcomes in the creative process, I am appalled that mainstream media continues to lack miserably in providing a more balanced picture of the true social and political battles being waged against the IP campaigns in the Philippines and worldwide. I am appalled at the lack of a more creative and critical journalism that transcends the template of “good IP enforcers vs. bad pirates” in the stream of anti-piracy actions being urged by the US, a foreign country imposing its will against Philippine sovereignty.

If IPR was created only as a means to encourage further creativity for the ultimate benefit of all society in contrast to the more traditional forms of property rights that are designed to protect the private interests of their owners, then why are protection and enforcement measures more suited for these more traditional forms of property rights being imposed upon intellectual rights? Why are intellectual rights being made more and more absolute like property rights? Why is copying being demoralized as “theft”, “piracy” and “illicit”? Why is copying called stealing even though the original does not disappear?

Is there evidence that without IPR protection, creativity will cease and that works produced will be substandard? Is the business model of IP the only way or the best way to encourage innovation and creativity? Is the selling of an idea and the commodification of culture the way for creators to profit from their labors?

Why are IP protection and enforcement standards and agreements being made by a few rich countries in secrecy, with meetings suddenly announced as concluded, taking the process away from international scrutiny especially in the interest of developing countries?

Is creativity measured by plus points gained with the USTR through catching up on “global competitiveness” and manipulating our legal, social and political systems to be at par with so-called international standards?

Is local creativity and innovation really stimulated by providing the level of IPR protection and enforcement determined by the USTR and by increasing market access for companies (mostly US entertainment, media and pharmaceutical) relying on intellectual property protection?

With our imperceptible compromises, will we still recognize our Privacy, Freedom of Expression Rights and our Creativity when these have been destroyed by the moralistic campaigns of the US-led IP expansionist coalition?

Is society and the creator truly the beneficiary of the global IP regime?

Through our practice and understanding of art, I hope that these questions be constantly asked to challenge the IP agenda. These are the burning issues that define the kind of society we envision for the future; let this not be overwhelmed by the patronage of IP-Philippines and its counterparts in the global IP expansionist regime.

Sincerely yours,
Fatima Lasay
http://korakora.org/proyekto/

In many places, resistance is futile (you will be assimilated). So yes, artists can provide new insights and new forms of resistance in these situations, insofar as they take great effort in understanding how the system works, and that their works enable others to understand how the system works too, and not just be auto-therapeutic visual statements made at the expense of the public.

- From The Spirit of Resistance

Indeed, I believe the greatest social change that I have witnessed over the 30 odd years that I was actively involved in research and teaching aspects of computer/art (in the Netherlands) involved the systematic destruction of knowledge and the “thinking” process.

Back in the 1960/70’s computers were huge expensive (and rather dimwitted) “monsters” that could only be accessed via institutions involved in the active development of (specialised) knowledge. In this context, the computer was a research tool -and so was explicitly documented in ways that would allow the researcher to exploit the maximum potential of their expensive investment. Similarly, the “researcher” also needed to conceptualise their research (and their expensive presence) within the context of the institution they were working in.

However, the situation changed rapidly with the rise of the PC (originally a generic term for a personal computing device -before the term became a commercially encapsulated reference to a specific brand of architecture). The consumerisation of the computer meant that the fruit of many years of slow and painful research by (institutionalised) individuals was bundled and commercially marketed as part of a “miracle machine” that could turn every isolated individual into a master of the universe.

The point that was carefully overlooked in all this was the difference between “performance” and “competence” -i.e. a parrot can repeat English phrases but it does not understand the English language. Similarly, an ‘artist” using an electronic “paint by numbers” system may be producing an image but does not understand the artistic process of investigation. By focuussing on the end product and not the process that produced the product -the public were being sold creative dead ends disguised as creative strategies.

With the rise of the internet -the previous (democratic) “loss of knowledge” was propagated globally by the new “experts” as the latest wisdom. It is frightening to see the way the ancient and forgotten (pre-PC) knowledge was successfully implemented (as effective tools for social engineering) while the total irrelevance of these same conceptual tools were being promoted by a whole new industry of global web-based pundits: All busy synchronising (via on and off-line global conferencing) the promotion of the uselessness and undesirability of any form of systematic enquiry or understanding that might actually reveal the true nature of what was really happening on a global scale.

(If I was a fascist dictator I’d lock up Endemol people for crime against humanity).

- From The Spirit of Resistance

If I was one -then I’m afraid many employees of the universities, the media and many commercial companies would probably join them….. accused of global cultural genocide.

According to the UN, one language disappears across the world every two weeks.

Some of you may have participated in security training seminar where we were resource persons. We probably showed you how to use Hushmail from a Canadian company. Basically, you visit their website and you get to download their Java applet. The applet does the encryption and the e-mail gets sent to the Hushmail, encrypted.

Surprise! Hushmail turned over some of its records to the US Federal government! So, for those who are using Hushmail, “Caveat lector!”

- From a list correspondence

This is very unfortunate. The first and last time I used a nym server was back in 1998, and a few years earlier I’ve been using PGP. But I never really felt secure with the technology (esp the nym server because of the very thought that the server was at a remote location I had no control/access/knowledge of). Although one could be confident insofar as encryption strength is concerned, but there are other dimensions to human
use of technology, for example the social and the political. I think this was part of Trevor’s objections to the topic on promoting the use of encryption/security tools at the LinuxWorld conference last year (or was it 2005?).

It also isn’t fair of Hushmail to not include in their TOS (or am I wrong?) that they could be compelled by U.S. Federal Government to turn over records under the Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty signed with the US. But of course, that would completely undermine the secure email idea irregardless of encryption strength or whether or not passphrases are intercepted/stored in Java or non-Java versions.

Anyway, the socio-political dimension should always be considered in such advocacies on the use of software/technology. By simply focusing on the technical and beneficial, we end up proselytizing technology rather than encouraging a critical and informed position.