David Goldschmidt
Since the beginning
Works in San Francisco, California United States of America

Discussions (151) Opportunities (3) Events (0) Jobs (0)
DISCUSSION

Re: Re: Unauthorized Use


isn't there a Bill before congress that will allow content companies to dev=
elop (and have pre-installed) technology to prevent the unauthorized use of=
content? yes, there are currently watermarks, scrambling technology, etc =
... but i heard that this new software would come imbedded on all new compu=
ters

maybe this new technology will eventually prevent even simple linking "with=
out written permission"?

I once thought that the internet was beyond the reach of corporate control =
and scumbag lawyers ... but i was wrong. it seems that capitalism is even =
greater than the internet ... afterall it gives thousands of people like Ma=
ry ... a job. g_d bless capitalism.

man i hate being this negative ... i need a joint ... ooops ... i meant lit=
hium/ritalin. (sorry, i keep forgetting that drugs are OK as long as the p=
rofits are going to corporate america)

david goldschmidt

----- Original Message -----
From: Curt Cloninger
To: Mary Walsh
Cc: list@rhizome.org ; ask@eff.org
Sent: Monday, July 15, 2002 12:56 PM
Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Unauthorized Use

Hi Mary,

The image in question does not reside on my machine. It resides here:
http://www.permkids.org/quilt.gif

I am merely linking to it. I don't know whether its creataor purchased th=
e rights to use the image or not. Neither do I have a record of its creator=
's email address.

The site on which the image resides ( http://www.permkids.org ) is a non-=
profit organization caring for Russian street children. My quilt project to=
which the image was submitted ( http://www.playdamage.org/quilt/ ) is a no=
n-profit internet art project.

I've sent a copy of this correspondence to the internet art discussion li=
st at http://www.rhizome.org to facilitate public dialogue. I've also sent =
a copy to the electronic frontier foundation ( http://www.eff.org ).

Please advise.

sincerely,
curt cloninger
http://www.lab404.com

Our records indicate that you are using an unlicensed image belonging t=
o Stone as represented by Getty Images, on

http://www.playdamage.org/nature/index.html . The image in question is =
BE9994-001 by photographer Tim Flach. Unless you can provide records provin=
g this image was purchased, you must cease and desist display of this and a=
ny other Getty brand imagery immediately or pay a licensing fee. Any future=
illegal uses of Getty Images artwork will result in an unauthorized use in=
voice. Thank you for your cooperation,

<<be9994-001.jpg>

Mary Walsh
License Compliance Specialist
Getty Images

122 South Michigan Avenue, Suite 900
Chicago IL, 60603
312-344-4223
312-341-9636 fax

www.gettyimages.com
mary.walsh@gettyimages.com

========================
==========================
=======
This email and its contents are confidential. If you
are not the intended recipient, please do not disclose
or use the information within this email or its
attachments. If you have received this email in error,
please delete it immediately. Thank you.
========================
==========================
=======

Attachment converted: TAD:be9994-001.jpg (JPEG/JVWR) (0000F1AE)

DISCUSSION

Re: killing shakespeare


KALX wrote:
> And also, just for the sheer versatility of the medium we are working
with, it's
> stupid to say that someone in newmedia may reach Shakespeare proportions.
> Shakespeare succeeded in becoming what he is today because he contributed
> something that we had not had before. Nobody in newmedia could give us
anything
> that we do not have. Everything in NEWMEDIA is NEW and the only way to
deviate
> from that is if they give us something OLD, and that would be taking a
step
> back. There is no room for advancement in newmedia, and nobody will excel
more
> than the other unless we are speaking in monetary terms. Newmedia is
simply a
> means of channeling money into our pockets, whilst pretending the product
of the
> work is an end in itself.
>
> Shakespeare worked for the queen.

are you saying that one of the main reasons Shakespeare was so
successful/influential is becasue he was using such as limited medium (pen &
paper)? curious logic.

shakespeare was NOT successful because he gave us something we never had
before ... humans always had [it] ... shakespeare was successful because he
was able to reveal [it]

and my question to this listserv is ... will newmedia authors/artists be
able to reveal other aspects of the human ethos/character??????????????

personally i believe they will be able to reveal other aspects of our
common self.

>Everything in NEWMEDIA is NEW and the only way to deviate
> from that is if they give us something OLD ...

no disrespect ... but that is very simple logic. to base your arguement on
the semantics of the word "newmedia" reflects a rather shallow understanding
of the issue at hand.

david goldschmidt

DISCUSSION

Re: killing shakespeare


i don't think that "8 track, beta or vhs" is the appropriate analogy. those
are technologies ... html et al. is language (with its own grammar). i also
don't think it is accurate to compare [newmedia] to [shakespeare]. my point
was that shakespeare used [pen and paper] to reveal our humanity ... just as
current newmedia artists use html/flash to share/express the human
experience

if newmedia authors have tools that are inherently more powerful (than pen
and paper) ... then shouldn't they be able to alter the way we, as humans,
perceive ourselves?

i am simply drawing a comparison, an analogy ..... [shakespeare] is to
[pen&paper] as [???????] is to [newmedia]

at some point a newmedia "author" will/may come to have the same kind of
impact on humanity that shakespeare currently exerts

david goldschmidt

----- Original Message -----
From: "KALX" <invisible@cfl.rr.com>
To: "David Goldschmidt" <dgoldsch@tampabay.rr.com>
Cc: <list@rhizome.org>
Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2002 3:39 PM
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: killing shakespeare

> Sorry to say, new media will never, ever have as profound an effect on
humanity
> as the work of Shakespeare has, as dated as you may think it is. Just
because
> something is new doesn't mean it's going to have a lasting effect on
anything.
> To say html, xml, flash are the new grammar is like saying that 8-track
and beta
> (and now vhs) will always be around. It is the current dialect for the
internet,
> but it hasn't destroyed the relevance of history, and it surely won't
prove to
> be as long-lasting. The language of the internet is too ephemeral to put
that
> much significance in it. And too ephemeral to say that history that has
had a
> dramatic impact on our culture for centuries is no longer relevant. You
might be
> able to kill Shakespeare by simply overlooking it like the TV generation
has
> ignored books, but you can't deny their influence. And if TV and the
internet
> are the only things that you can draw upon as being relevant, then you
cannot
> hope to make an impact anywhere, because you're dilluting yourself in a
media
> that is so utterly disposable.
>
>
> David Goldschmidt wrote:
>
> > without getting too militant ... i think Killing Shakespeare is like a
> > call-to-arms for the net.art community. why waste your time trying to
> > explain to others how newmedia composition is better than TV, movies,
etc
> > ... that crap isn't even in the same history.
> >
> > for me, Killing Shakespeare is a signal ... a notice ... a wake-up call
...
> > a warning to the rest of the world that human language is evolving and
if
> > you don't understand the language then you don't know what's going on.
if
> > you don't understand the language then you are not part of the
conversation.
> >
> > Killing Shakespeare is not a call to appreciate net.art per se. it is
media
> > literacy. it is letting people know that the old grammar is not as
relevant
> > as it used to be ... and that the new-grammar (html, xml, flash, etc) is
> > changing the way we see the world and ourselves.
> >
> > the phrase "killing shakespeare" may be a bit abrasive but that's what
> > newmedia is doing (for better or for worse)
> >
> > david goldschmidt
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Max Herman" <maxherman@zipmail.com>
> > To: "Max Herman" <maxherman@zipmail.com>; "David Goldschmidt"
> > <dgoldsch@tampabay.rr.com>; <list@rhizome.org>
> > Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2002 3:53 PM
> > Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: killing shakespeare
> >
> > > On Tue, 16 Apr 2002 10:48:34 -0500
> > > "Max Herman" <maxherman@zipmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 15 Apr 2002 18:29:43 -0400
> > > > "David Goldschmidt" <dgoldsch@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> > > > > KILLING SHAKESPEARE
> > >
> > > I hope you don't think I was trying to dis you David. I
> > > think you are on one of the right tracks, all of which
> > > lead of course to Genius 2000. I also just remembered
> > > it's Ezra Cornell, not Elias.
> > >
> > > Steady now 13,
> > >
> > > Max
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Remember thee!
> > > > Ay, thou poor ghost, while memory holds a seat
> > > > In this distracted globe. Remember thee!
> > > > Yea, from the table of my memory
> > > > I'll wipe away all trivial fond records,
> > > > All saws of books, all forms, all pressures past,
> > > > That youth and observation copied there;
> > > > And thy commandment all alone shall live
> > > > Within the book and volume of my brain,
> > > > Unmix'd with baser matter....
> > > >
> > > > Act One Scene Four
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Did you ever wonder what would happen ... what was
> > > > > suppose to happen ... when 500 million people connect?
> > > > > When your mind imagined the possibilities did it get
> > > > > stuck? Did it stop? Did you believe Wall Street and
> > > > > Madison Avenue when they told you what the Internet
> > > > was
> > > > > ... and how it was to be used?
> > > > >
> > > > > I hope you didn't.
> > > > >
> > > > > In the late 1500s Shakespeare mastered the printed
> > > > word.
> > > > > He revolutionized human expression. He changed the way
> > > > > we saw ourselves. "Personality, in our sense, is a
> > > > > Shakespearean invention, and is not only Shakespeare's
> > > > > greatest originality but also the authentic cause of
> > > > his
> > > > > perpetual pervasiveness." so says Harold Bloom, one of
> > > > > America's most respected literary critics. According
> > > > to
> > > > > Bloom, Shakespeare "invented the human".
> > > > >
> > > > > It is happening again. We have discovered a new way to
> > > > > express our common self. Last time Shakespeare did it
> > > > > with mere words. We are not that limited.
> > > > >
> > > > > Silent film, AM radio, black & white television ... the
> > > > > birth of these vehicles are monumental moments in the
> > > > > evolution of man and society. As great as they were
> > > > (and
> > > > > have become) they have never been able to easily
> > > > > overcome the basic tenets of telling a story (of
> > > > sharing
> > > > > the human experience). All follow the guidelines
> > > > > established by Shakespeare hundreds of years ago.
> > > > >
> > > > > Killing Shakespeare is not a revolutionary technology
> > > > > like the ones above but is instead, a simple
> > > > > observation: human language is evolving.
> > > > >
> > > > > A simple observation that newmedia composition can
> > > > > express (and share) the human experience in a way that
> > > > > is not limited to the predictable patterns of film,
> > > > > television and Shakespeare.
> > > > >
> > > > > Unlike film and television, newmedia compositions are
> > > > not
> > > > > telling a story. They offer an [experience]. Unlike
> > > > film
> > > > > and television, newmedia compositions are not passive.
> > > > > You interact ... and your choices determine your
> > > > > [experience].
> > > > >
> > > > > Newmedia artists are less interested in character
> > > > > development and more interested in your experience
> > > > (your
> > > > > development). In other words, as you interact with
> > > > > newmedia creations the only character being developed
> > > > is
> > > > > ... YOU.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > david goldschmidt
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________________________
> > > > Don't E-Mail, ZipMail! http://www.zipmail.com/
> > > > + i get yr point. yr so sharp.
> > > > -> Rhizome.org
> > > > -> post: list@rhizome.org
> > > > -> questions: info@rhizome.org
> > > > -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
> > > > http://rhizome.org/subscribe.rhiz
> > > > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> > > > +
> > > > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out
> > > > in the
> > > > Membership Agreement available online at
> > > > http://rhizome.org/info/29.php3
> > >
> > > ________________________________________________
> > > Don't E-Mail, ZipMail! http://www.zipmail.com/
> >
> > + i get yr point. yr so sharp.
> > -> Rhizome.org
> > -> post: list@rhizome.org
> > -> questions: info@rhizome.org
> > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/subscribe.rhiz
> > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> > +
> > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php3
>

DISCUSSION

copyright hell (and its retroactive)


o Copyright Office Sets Webcasting Royalty Rates; $0.07 Paid By All

Washington -- The U.S. Copyright Office on Thursday made a final
determination of the official royalty rates that webcasters must pay
copyright holders to stream music on the Internet. The Librarian of
Congress, on the recommendation of the Register of Copyrights, rejected a
proposal submitted by a Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panel (CARP) on May
20, and the Librarian issued final rates today. The most significant
difference between the CARP's determination and the Librarian's decision
is that the Librarian has abandoned the CARP's two-tiered rate structure
of $0.14 per performance for "Internet-only" transmissions and $0.07 for
each retransmission of a performance in an AM/FM radio broadcast, and has
decided that the rate of $0.07 will apply to both types of transmission.
Other changes include: some other rates for noncommercial broadcasters
decreased, and the fee webcasters and broadcasters must pay for the making
of ephemeral recordings has been reduced from 9 percent of the performance
fees to 8.8 percent. The Librarian of Congress' ruling goes into detail
explaining why it made changes to the CARP's recommendation, and exactly
what the changes are. The rates will go into effect on Sept. 1, 2002, but
webcasters will be compelled to pay royalty rates retroactively for all
music they have streamed since October 28, 1998. All retroactive royalties
must be paid by Oct. 20, 2002.
http://www.copyright.gov/carp/webcasting_rates_final.html

DISCUSSION

oops


> Correction

A story in yesterday's edition of Digital Media Wire incorrectly quoted
the webcasting royalty rate set by the U.S. Copyright Office. The rate set
was actually 0.07 cent per song per listener, down from the CARP's
recommendation of 0.14 cent, or $0.0007 / $0.0014, instead of the $0.07
and $0.14 figures that were published here.

other links of interest
http://www.riaa.org/PR_story.cfm?id=531
http://www.soundexchange.com/simson_librarian.cfm
http://www.somafm.com/carp
http://www.latimes.com/technology/la-000043391jun21.story?coll=la%2Dheadl=
ines%2Dtechnology
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/06/21/technology/21WEB.html
http://news.com.com/2100-1023-938037.html?tag=fd_top
http://www.wired.com/news/mp3/0,1285,53377,00.html