The audio track is courtesy of the awesome
Free Music Archive freemusicarchive.org/
and
WFMU wfmu.orgURL:freemusicarchive.org/music/Shake_That_Little_Foot/Shake_That_Little_Foot/Turkey_in_the_Straw_vbrmp3Curator: Oddio OverplayCopyright: Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike: creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/
What is Yours, Ours, and Mine:
Authorial Ownership and the Creative Commons – Emily Apter OCTOBER 126, Fall 2008, pp. 91–114. © 2008 October Magazine, Ltd. and Massachusetts Institute of Technology. In this article Apter refers to ‘Creative Commons’ as “a generic term to refer to aesthetic and intellectual property that rightfully belongs to the public sphere or should be protected as an open source outside the range of corporate copyright law” rather than the copyright movement of the same name. The article explores the world of copyright law, plagiarism and the freedom to use others ideas without fear of legal reprisal. Apter begins by referring to cases where authors have taken inspiration from folk tales and others biographical accounts, then gone on to publish a work which caused them to suffer from being sued by the ‘original’ owner of such a tale. Apter goes on to talk about the work of Jonathan Letham and the idea of ‘imperial plagiarism’ where creative workers take inspiration from primitive, third world or privileged (better) artists. This ‘imperial plagiarism’ idea is applied to the Walt Disney company and it’s plundering of folklore for story ideas. Letham describes the irony that Disney takes others works to produce their animations, yet aggressively pursue legal action with anyone using any of their works. Apter quotes Letham as saying “Don’t pirate my editions; do plunder my visions. The name of the game is Give All.” She uses this to show that inspiration shouldn’t be discouraged, just the act of outright plagiarism. The article then goes onto explore the boundaries of public/private space and where the lines blur. She references a piece of film work called ‘Stealing Beauty’ by Guy Ben-Ner, this is a short film involving people acting out real acts of living within room displays in Ikea stores. Apter ends the article by referring to an interesting case involving an author called Romain Gary who after winning the Goncourt literature prize went onto publish more books under a pseudonym Emily Ajar. One of these works went onto winning another Goncourt prize (which can only be awarded once to an author). Gary then convinced a nephew to impersonate Ajar so he could accept the prize for him. This backfired later when the nephew blackmailed Gary to continue writing for him as Ajar so he could continue to live the highlife. By doing this he had effectively taken over Gary’s copyright. Ironically Gary’s work then went onto being accused of plagiarising Ajar’s work. Apter concludes by bringing up several interesting ideas on ownership and creative practice. “Is free property definable only as freedom from the legalistic strictures that privatize and corporatize signature” “How does one deal legally with the ephemeral ownability of language and creative property?” “What are the ethical and political consequences attendant on the border-policing of the creative commons by copyright and patent holders?” These are several interesting questions that Apter proposes and it all fits in with my research on the creative industries. The article was of interest to me mainly due to the links with the Creative Commons movement (the copyright alternative) and its ties with commercial creativity. I’m investigating the way in which government policy is trying to shape our creative digital industries through policy, and Apter’s thoughts on who exactly owns creativity and if we should have works as a format of free creative common are key to the core of my research. I plan on using this article to bolster the counter argument to strengthening copyright laws and supporting old business models, which the implication from the digital Britain report points towards.
As you know, i was performing laptop sessions as Dj PEXO. But i feel that, i became another Armin Van Buuren clone. Nodaways, I think that its bad. But I want to find my personal identity as a Dj. So, I decided to start to mix ONLY creative commons songs, making possible share new music, and legal and free downloadble stuff.
:-) I love changes....yes!, embrace the change u2.
Ja, was lernen eigentlich die Menschen im Studium die später anderen etwas beibringen sollen? Zusammen mit Torben sind wir der Sache mal auf den Grund gegangen. Und langweiligen Nerd-Talk gibts noch dazu.
Wie immer unter einer CC-by-nc-nd Lizenz, zum freien Weiterverbreiten.
Eine weitere Huldigung an grandiose Deutschpunkbandnamen wie "Exkrementbeton" und Studentenklischees.
Die Audio-Datei steht unter einer CC-by-nc-nd Lizenz. Feel free to share.
Wozu braucht man eigentlich irgendwelche Szenen? Für Musik brauch ich
den Punk nicht, Party geht auch ohne Skinhead, ein Lebensgefühl kann man
leben ohne es Emo zu nennen und gemeinsam für etwas einstehen geht auch
ohne Hardcore.
Die Intelligenz ist ausgerottet und es leben nur noch die Idioten! Zumindest bei uns!
Die Pilotenfolge vom 07.10.2009. Tonarmleuchter und der Jörg nehmen ihr letztes bisschen Restverstand zusammen und übernehmen keine Garantie für das was dabei raus kommt! Zwei unglaubliche Tiefspülbeckenkapitäne im Formationsflug mit ganz viel vom Kurs abkommen. "idiots...", ein neues Sendungsformat von uns beiden, das solltet ihr besser nicht bei der Arbeit hören! Jede Sendung wird über ein Thema gesprochen und sich nicht daran gehalten. Beleidigende Ausschweifungen und Konzeptlosigkeit, beleidigende Konzeptlosigkeit und Ausschweifungen! Wir versprechen alles und halten nichts! Dämlich aufgefallen? Ungut rübergekommen? Kein Problem, wir kümmern uns drum. Wir hauen einfach nochmal drauf und treten nach. Das ganze steht unter einer CC-by-nc-nd Lizenz.
