Ante la inclusión en el Anteproyecto de Ley de Economía sostenible de modificaciones legislativas que afectan al libre ejercicio de las libertades de expresión, información y el derecho de acceso a la cultura a través de Internet, los periodistas, bloggers, usuarios, profesionales y creadores de Internet manifestamos nuestra firme oposición al proyecto, y declaramos que:
Los derechos de autor no pueden situarse por encima de los derechos fundamentales de los ciudadanos, como el derecho a la privacidad, a la seguridad, a la presunción de inocencia, a la tutela judicial efectiva y a la libertad de expresión.
La suspensión de derechos fundamentales es y debe seguir siendo competencia exclusiva del poder judicial. Ni un cierre sin sentencia. Este anteproyecto, en contra de lo establecido en el artículo 20.5 de la Constitución, pone en manos de un órgano no judicial -un organismo dependiente del ministerio de Cultura-, la potestad de impedir a los ciudadanos españoles el acceso a cualquier página web.
La nueva legislación creará inseguridad jurídica en todo el sector tecnológico español, perjudicando uno de los pocos campos de desarrollo y futuro de nuestra economía, entorpeciendo la creación de empresas, introduciendo trabas a la libre competencia y ralentizando su proyección internacional.
La nueva legislación propuesta amenaza a los nuevos creadores y entorpece la creación cultural. Con Internet y los sucesivos avances tecnológicos se ha democratizado extraordinariamente la creación y emisión de contenidos de todo tipo, que ya no provienen prevalentemente de las industrias culturales tradicionales, sino de multitud de fuentes diferentes.
Los autores, como todos los trabajadores, tienen derecho a vivir de su trabajo con nuevas ideas creativas, modelos de negocio y actividades asociadas a sus creaciones. Intentar sostener con cambios legislativos a una industria obsoleta que no sabe adaptarse a este nuevo entorno no es ni justo ni realista. Si su modelo de negocio se basaba en el control de las copias de las obras y en Internet no es posible sin vulnerar derechos fundamentales, deberían buscar otro modelo.
Consideramos que las industrias culturales necesitan para sobrevivir alternativas modernas, eficaces, creíbles y asequibles y que se adecuen a los nuevos usos sociales, en lugar de limitaciones tan desproporcionadas como ineficaces para el fin que dicen perseguir.
Internet debe funcionar de forma libre y sin interferencias políticas auspiciadas por sectores que pretenden perpetuar obsoletos modelos de negocio e imposibilitar que el saber humano siga siendo libre.
Exigimos que el Gobierno garantice por ley la neutralidad de la Red en España, ante cualquier presión que pueda producirse, como marco para el desarrollo de una economía sostenible y realista de cara al futuro.
Proponemos una verdadera reforma del derecho de propiedad intelectual orientada a su fin: devolver a la sociedad el conocimiento, promover el dominio público y limitar los abusos de las entidades gestoras.
En democracia las leyes y sus modificaciones deben aprobarse tras el oportuno debate público y habiendo consultado previamente a todas las partes implicadas. No es de recibo que se realicen cambios legislativos que afectan a derechos fundamentales en una ley no orgánica y que versa sobre otra materia.
(NOTA:Este manifiesto fue redactado conjuntamente por periodistas, bloggers e internautas, en una maratoniana sesión durante la tarde-noche de ayer. Si estás de acuerdo, difúndelo por todas las vías que puedas)
Manifesto en defensa dos dereitos fundamentais en Internet
Ante a inclusión no Anteproxecto de Lei de Economía sustentábel de modificacións lexislativas que afectan o libre exercicio das liberdades de expresión, información e o dereito de acceso á cultura a través de Internet, os xornalistas, blogueiros, usuarios, profesionais e creadores de internet manifestamos a nosa firme oposición ao proxecto, e declaramos que… 1.- Os dereitos de autor non poden situarse por riba dos dereitos fundamentais dos cidadáns, como o dereito á privacidade, á seguridade, á presunción de inocencia, á tutela xudicial efectiva e á liberdade de expresión.
2.- A suspensión de dereitos fundamentais é e debe seguir a ser competencia exclusiva do poder xudicial. Nin un peche sen sentenza. Este anteproxecto, en contra do establecido no artigo 20.5 da Constitución, pon nas mans dun órgano non xudicial -un organismo dependente do Ministerio de Cultura-, a potestade de impedir aos cidadáns españois o acceso a calquera páxina web.
3.- A nova lexislación creará inseguridade xurídica en todo o sector tecnolóxico español, prexudicando un dos poucos campos de desenvolvemento e futuro da nosa economía, obstaculizando a creación de empresas, introducindo atrancos á libre competencia e ralentizando a súa proxección internacional.
4.- A nova lexislación proposta ameaza os novos creadores e obstaculiza a creación cultural. Con Internet e os sucesivos avances tecnolóxicos democratizáronse extraordinariamente a creación e a emisión de contidos de todo tipo, que xa non proveñen prevalentemente das industrias culturais tradicionais, senón de multitude de fontes diferentes.
5.- Os autores, como todos os traballadores, teñen dereito a viviren do seu traballo con novas ideas creativas, modelos de negocio e actividades asociadas ás súas creacións. Tentar soster con cambios lexislativos unha industria obsoleta que non sabe adaptarse a este novo contorno non é nin xusto nin realista. Se o seu modelo de negocio se baseaba no control das copias das obras e en Internet non é posíbel sen vulnerar dereitos fundamentais, deberían procurar outro modelo. 6.- Consideramos que as industrias culturais necesitan para sobrevivir alternativas modernas, eficaces, críbeis e asequíbeis e que se adecúen aos novos usos sociais, en lugar de limitacións tan desproporcionadas como ineficaces para o fin que din perseguir.
7.- Internet debe funcionar de forma libre e sen interferencias políticas auspiciadas por sectores que pretenden perpetuar obsoletos modelos de negocio e imposibilitar que o saber humano siga a ser libre.
8.- Esiximos que o Goberno garanta por lei a neutralidade da Rede en España, ante calquera presión que poida producirse, como marco para o desenvolvemento dunha economía sostíbel e realista de cara ao futuro.
9.- Propoñemos unha verdadeira reforma do derecho de propiedade intelectual orientada ao seu fin: devolver á sociedade o coñecemento, promover o dominio público e limitar os abusos das entidades xestoras.
10.- En democracia as leis e as súas modificacións deben aprobarse tras o oportuno debate público e tendo consultado previamente todas as partes implicadas. Non é de recibo que se realicen cambios lexislativos que afectan a dereitos fundamentais nunha lei non orgánica e que versa sobre outra materia.
NOTA: Este manifesto foi redactado conxuntamente por xornalistas, blogueiros e internautas, nunha maratoniana sesión durante a tarde-noite do 1 de decembro. Se estás de acordo, difúndeo por todas as vías que poidas.
I've never commented publicly on the WTO shutdown in 1999. Late-night nostalgizing with trusted, drunken comrades does not count, and neither do broad assessments of political and tactical implications. I mean to say that I have never spoken in a public forum about my participation in the events, that is, about my personal experiences or analyses thereof. And I'm not starting now.
This year, November 30th will mark the 10 - year anniversary of another Novermber 30th, the one affectionately known as N30, or the Battle in Seattle. People are talking about that distant day, and about what it was like way-back-when-we-were, and about what has changed in the intervening years. Local, and even national, media outlets are offering competing commemorations, 3-part-series, re-interviews, 20/20-hindsight reckonings. Most of them are re-broadcasting the old archived recordings they made at the time. We knew then that the mainstream coverage sucked, and guess what? It hasn't gotten better with age. They're still trotting out the same tired tropes: property damage = violence, police "gone wild" (as though the behaviors they exhibited were somehow exceoptional in quality rather than just scale.) And now these reporters have that extra sheen of smugness provided by retrospection: 'where are all those radicals NOW?' they sneer, 'guess you've all settled down and accepted How Things Are.'
Earlier this week, I was asked by a radio reporter to provide an interview for her segment of the series 'WTO: Ten Years Later.' Her piece, airing tomorrow, means to probe the changes in protesting and policing that have occurred since, and because of, the Battle in Seattle. When I initially spoke with Ms. Reporter on the phone, I got the impression that she was looking for commentary and analysis on police and activist tactics. She seemed (don't they all?) to be well-informed and reasonable. She told me that she would be interviewing the "leader" of the Ruckus Society, as well as former police chief Norm Stamper, and possibly former mayor Paul Schell. We talked about meeting in a coffee shop or in my office, but she suggested it would be easiest if I came to her studio. (She suggested this without mentioning that she wanted me on mic, in the studio, being recorded. Not that it would have been surprising to learn, just that the omission later came to seem like an evasion.) I went to see her the following morning.
That night, I studied. I wanted to refresh my thinking on the subject, and to respond to the most recent analyses available. I read more than 200 pages of documents: academic papers, a RAND Corporation report, a few book chapters on netwars and the spread of non-hierarchical organizations, and a number of essays on the philosophical problems of defining terrorism and the state of exception. I wanted to be ready. I treated the occasion as I would a conference presentation or a debate.
I should have saved my time. We were barely sitting down for two minutes before it became painfully clear that the interview would be a farce. I came as an analyst, fancying myself an expert. The reporter was looking for human interest. She had no notes, no prepared questions, no provocative assertions to debate. She was pleased to learn that I had been a wee lass of 21 years when I started organizing for the WTO ministerial, and her narrative quickly emerged: young (read: naive) woman (read: naive) gets swept up in the romance of revolt, rides the whirlwind of events surrounding the WTO shutdown, tastes teargas, resolves to Do Good Things ForEVER, and promptly settles down to a work-within-the-system variety of comfortable bourgeois liberalism, thereby continuing her 'activism' in a sensible, constructive, adult way. She sometimes shakes her head in a twee and rueful way at her radical youth, but is firmly untroubled by her decision to be a respectable 'public interest' attorney.
Gag, right? A sampling of questions:
1. "So, are all your friends grown up and working for major corporations now?"
2. "I understand [from a third party] that you're attending law school. Do you consider your legal work to be an extension of your activism?"
3. "Would you consider yourself a protester today?"
2. "I'm going to law school for one reason: to increase my power. I've never been an 'activist.' "
3. "I also never considered myself a protester. You don't get it, do you? If the WTO shutdown was a PROTEST, you wouldn't even have mentioned it on your radio station, and you certainly wouldn't be thiniking about it ten years after the fact. Protests are also known as 'rallies' for a reason: they are essentially pep rallies. They provide people within a movement with the temporary euphoria of apparent camaraderie, some slight increase of visibility, and a consolidation of symbolism. A protest, in the contemporary arena of spectacle, is a theatrical event that serves to increase momentum and fortify group identification. It does not change the enemy. The WTO shutdown was not a protest, it was a mass action with a particular goal: to SHUT DOWN the ministerial. And it worked. So, no, thanks for asking, I don't consider myself a protester, now or then."
Under this barrage of banality, my rage simmering unexpressed, I had the acute awareness that anything I said could be snipped apart and stitched back together in completely distorted form. I stonewalled the reporter, telling her repeatedly that I was not interested in discussing my personal history. It became very clear, during the 30 minutes or so I spent at the radio station, that I had failed to evaluate my own motivations for granting an interview in the first place. As I sat there, I realized that my participation was sheer ego gratification. I had been flattered by the attentions of the reporter, by her insinuation that I was a credible witness, or even an unsung expert. The problem is, I don't actually have any authority from which to make statements about the WTO, policing, the militarized state, any of it. In her eyes, I have no authority at all. If I had wanted to establish credibility, I would have had to reveal facts and stories that I don't wish to reveal. It was a stalemate. As the reporter became angrier and angrier at my refusal to divulge any "personal anecdotes" from N30, or to frame my political engagement in the context of a come-to-Jesus redemption story, or to reveal anything at all about my "emotions," "life lessons," or "inspiring thoughts," she got nastier. Eventually, I was shown the door, and it was locked behind me with a resounding click.
Walking away, I was angry with myself for giving in to the temptation. I shouldn't have answered her call; I shouldn't have appeared in the studio; I shouldn't have consented to the manipulation that followed. As I walked further and faster, I became angry with the reporter, as well, for misrepresenting her purpose, for underestimating my clan, for belittling our efforts. But, as always, walking helped to clear my head. And I remembered some basic principles that were very clearly articulated duriing the heady days of 1999.
We don't talk to the media. We don't give interviews; we don't appear on television. When reporters call, we hang up. When reporters attend our public meetings, we take our business into private session. When reporters attend our private meetings, we eject them. It was simple then, and it's simple now: reporters are not your friends. Whatever mild sympathies they may feel for your ethical standpoint, they will never put those sympathies above the demands of their medium, their jobs, their purportedly 'neutral' position. If you are being interviewed, you are being manipulated.
That's why we made our own media. That's why there are Indymedia centers, even today, ten years later, all across the globe. That's why we broadcast pirate radio, and letterpressed broadsheets, and photocopied our own books, and hijacked newspaper boxes to distribute satirical editions of the local rags. That's why we communicated through graffiti and shortwave and hand signals and face-to-face whispers.
I understand that there are tactically legitimate moments to engage with, and use, the mainstream media. But let's not forget: those engagements must be rigorously proscribed and carefully managed. And they must be viewed instrumentally, as means to an end, and embarked upon only when the potential return outweighs the inherent risk. Don't talk to reporters because you want to Tell Your Story or Be Heard. Save your stories and your authentic voices for your comrades and allies - your enemies don't deserve them. They're only listening so they can hurt you later.
"We have finally realized that the Internet is much more than a network of computers. It is an endless web of people. Men and women from every corner of the globe are connecting to one another, thanks to the biggest social interface ever known to humanity. Digital culture has laid the foundations for a new kind of society. And this society is advancing dialogue, debate and consensus through communication. Because democracy has always flourished where there is openness, acceptance, discussion and participation. And contact with others has always been the most effective antidote against hatred and conflict. That's why the Internet is a tool for peace. That's why anyone who uses it can sow the seeds of non-violence. And that's why the next Nobel Peace Prize should go to the Net. A Nobel for each and every one of us."
This is the manifesto of a campaign launched this week by WiredItaly to nominate the net - and thereby all of us - for the Nobel Peace Prize in 2010.
Through the influence of the media and technology on our world, our lives are increasingly characterized by speed and constant change. We live in a dynamic, data-driven society that is continually sparking new forms of human interaction and social contexts. Instead of romanticizing the past, we want to adapt our way of working to coincide with these developments, and we want our work to reflect the here and now. We want to embrace the complexity of this landscape, deliver insight into it and show both its beauty and its shortcomings.
Our work focuses on processes rather than products: things that adapt to their environment, emphasize change and show difference.
Instead of operating under the terms of Graphic Design, Interaction Design, Media Art or Sound Design, we want to introduce Conditional Design as a term that refers to our approach rather than our chosen media. We conduct our activities using the methods of philosophers, engineers, inventors and mystics.
Process
The process is the product.
The most important aspects of a process are time, relationship and change.
The process produces formations rather than forms.
We search for unexpected but correlative, emergent patterns.
Even though a process has the appearance of objectivity, we realize the fact that it stems from subjective intentions.
Logic
Logic is our tool.
Logic is our method for accentuating the ungraspable.
A clear and logical setting emphasizes that which does not seem to fit within it.
We use logic to design the conditions through which the process can take place.
Design conditions using intelligible rules.
Avoid arbitrary randomness.
Difference should have a reason.
Use rules as constraints.
Constraints sharpen the perspective on the process and stimulate play within the limitations.
Input
The input is our material.
Input engages logic and activates and influences the process.
Input should come from our external and complex environment: nature, society and its human interactions.
============================================== Luna Maurer, Edo Paulus, Jonathan Puckey, Roel Wouters ==============================================
We believe that when it comes to decorating, the wife is always right. Unless the husband is gay. We believe in carbohydrates and to hell with the puffy consequences. We believe minimalism is a bummer. We believe handcrafted tchotchkes are life-enhancing. We believe tassels are the earrings of the home. We believe in our muses: David Hicks, Alexander Girard, Bonnie Cashin. Hans Coper, Gio Ponti, Andy Warhol, Leroy Neiman, Yves Saint Laurent, and Madonna. We believe in the innate chicness of red with brown. We believe in being underdressed or overdressed always. We believe in infantile, happy emblems like butterflies and hearts. We believe celebrities should pay full price. We believe in rustic modernism: Big Sur, A-Frame beach houses, raw beams, and geodesic dome homes. We believe in Palm Beach style: Louis chairs, chinoiserie, Lilly Pulitzer, The Breakers circa '72. We believe our designs are award winning even though they've never actually won any. We believe in Aid to Artisans. We believe dogs should be allowed in stores and restaurants. We believe in mantiques - suits of armour, worn chesterfield sofas, heraldic tapestries. We believe you should throw out your Blackberry and go pick some actual blackberries. We believe colors can't clash. We believe in blowing your nest egg on our pots. We believe our lamps will make you look younger and thinner. We believe in irreverent luxury. Link.
Purity in design beauty and comfort for all. Quality for the people. Basics are the common language."
found at the UNIQLO Store London
Just yesterday I stumbled upon quite an awesome doun jacket for the mindblowing price of 49£ at UNIQLO in London. While there is nothing special about my "bargain" I just wanted to share the pleasures of my little shopping experience with you.
You know, the little things giving you the feeling someone really stands behind what they're doing.
Some small things I found simply nice:
1. The inside label of the jacket: They give me the feeling I purchase something valuable and longlasting while kerping it personal and not too informal. And I will enjoy the Softness and Warmness..
2.They don't clutter up my shirts and jackets with stupid logos all over my breast.
"Understatement" for me is a far more sympathic fashion "statement" than any other impressive company logo. Logos are for billboards and TV ads. I won't pay you for carrying around your logo in my shirt.
Don't get me wrong here . I love well designed typography, an intelligent message or beautiful illustrations on shirts.3. Purchase any pants from £20 and they alter them for fre. Just after 3 hours I picked up my trousers now tailored according to my un-Japanese / un-British leg-lenght.
While this little observation is surely just a small example of how retailers might rethink their approach in times of endless choice, I'm really looking forward to seeing more Bands jumppon that train of putting real quality and simplicity over fancy expensive ads and shiny Trend-ware but throwaway-like quality. London has shown me some good examples of how great quality can be achieved at large scale too. MUJI, UNIQLO in clothing and PRET on the food side are just three of many examples.
Depois de toda manifestação da comunidade de fotógrafos contra o regulamento da ação publicitária do HSBC usando Flickr, o Diretor de Marca e Digital do banco, Carlos Alves, postou o esclarecimento sobre o ocorrido.
Leia abaixo:
Caros Ignacio, Louise e demais participantes, Lemos a mensagem de vocês e de outras pessoas e entendemos o seu ponto de vista. Aliás, esta é a proposta da campanha do HSBC: promover a opinião das pessoas sobre diferentes assuntos, através de fotos e vídeos de depoimentos. Acreditávamos que a publicação dessas opiniões em escala nacional seria uma forma de estimular a participação das pessoas. Mas reconhecemos que é preciso mais do que isso. O pensamento do HSBC aqui e no mundo é justamente reconhecer e respeitar os valores das pessoas, inclusive o respeito ao direito autoral de fotógrafos profissionais e amadores. Sendo assim, o HSBC vem publicamente informar que já tomamos as providências para reformular a ação, agora com um regulamento compatível com as expectativas da comunidade. A partir de agora, manteremos a proposta inicial de selecionarmos oito (8) fotos que melhor representarão os temas discutidos e as vencedoras serão devidamente adquiridas pelo HSBC, caso as mesmas sejam utilizadas em campanhas do HSBC. Já solicitamos a alteração do regulamento junto ao Yahoo! (Flickr) e isto deverá ocorrer em breve. Agradecemos a manifestação de vocês e a atenção neste momento. Coloco-me à disposição para esclarecer quaisquer dúvidas remanescentes.
Eu fiz meu comentário na postagem da fotógrafa Paula Mariana sobre o assunto. Não fui a favor ao regulamento do concurso, mas não concordei em chamar quem participou da ação de "prostituto". Ainda acho que quem participou não estava ligando para o valor financeiro, mas pela divulgação de nome, por mais que digam que o crédito em uma foto é obrigatório por lei, e cada um utiliza seu trabalho da forma que bem achar. Uma coisa podemos concluir, nos dias de hoje qualquer atividade que envolva a participação do público (fotógrafos etc...) é preciso ter bastante planejamento, se não, coisas como essas pode acabar com a credibilidade de uma empresa. Lembrando: Eu fui contra e apoiei o #diganaoaoHSBC
