PORTFOLIO (1)
BIO
I think, theorize, and write about highly irrelevant matters.
Re: Re: Linking vs. Plagiarizing (Re: Turbulence.org)
Hi Ryan,
You misunderstood me. I never said that we need to establish a universal
code of ethics by which everything can be determined right or wrong. What I
suggested was exact opposite of this, that there is no such thing. And, that
is why we need to deal with this in a case-by-case scenario. If two parties
involved in the issue could talk pragmatically and were willing to make
compromises, then there is no need to throw insults or threats. That is all
I meant to say.
-Dyske
You misunderstood me. I never said that we need to establish a universal
code of ethics by which everything can be determined right or wrong. What I
suggested was exact opposite of this, that there is no such thing. And, that
is why we need to deal with this in a case-by-case scenario. If two parties
involved in the issue could talk pragmatically and were willing to make
compromises, then there is no need to throw insults or threats. That is all
I meant to say.
-Dyske
Re: Re: Arcangel/Data Diaries
> You don't have to martyr yourself to make a political statement. Just
> leave the site as is, with the deep link, and wait for someone to
> actually threaten you with something real. Simple civil disobedience
> ought to suffice here.
If civil disobedience is your principle, you must be willing to take the
legal penalty that comes with it. You cannot simply wait for a real threat
and retreat; that's not civil disobedience. So, in this sense, there is
nothing simple about civil disobedience.
-Dyske
> leave the site as is, with the deep link, and wait for someone to
> actually threaten you with something real. Simple civil disobedience
> ought to suffice here.
If civil disobedience is your principle, you must be willing to take the
legal penalty that comes with it. You cannot simply wait for a real threat
and retreat; that's not civil disobedience. So, in this sense, there is
nothing simple about civil disobedience.
-Dyske
Linking vs. Plagiarizing (Re: Turbulence.org)
The issue of linking versus plagiarizing (or "stealing") will be a very
difficult one to regulate and resolve. It is similar to the "fair use"
clause in the copyright laws. What constitutes "fair use" and "linking" is
rather subjective. So, we must approach this problem with the understanding
that linking and plagiarizing are matters of degree, and therefore avoid
imposing overarching rules on others, and view the issue on a case-by-case
basis. Instead of fighting by throwing threats and insults at each other, we
need to learn how to negotiate with due respect to each other.
An extreme example of plagiarizing or stealing at one end of this spectrum
is "inlining" where you embed an asset into your page by specifying an
explicit URL. For instance:
<img src="http://www.moma.org/images/someimage.gif">
Since the image file is still residing on the moma.org server, technically
speaking, you did not copy anything. If you properly credit the image on
your page, you may be able to get away with it, but most of us would agree
that this is unethical, if not outright illegal. Even within this area of
inlining, it is arguable. Some instances of them might be protected under
the "fair use" clause. Google's image search is protected under this clause.
(See: http://www.chillingeffects.org/linking/notice.cgi?NoticeIDI1 )
I once needed to link to a PDF document of a court ruling. Since it was a
public domain document, I had to think carefully before I created my link.
Some other commercial site had a copy of this PDF, and I first thought to
link to this copy, but then I thought that would not be respectful to the
site owner since I would be using their bandwidth for free. If it were in
their commercial or political interest to disseminate this document as
widely as possible, I could justify using their bandwidth, but this wasn't
the case. In the end, I decided to copy the file to my own server and linked
to it. I figured, in this case, copying is the more respectful approach.
For the Internet to be a useful resource for all of us, what is important is
not so much arguing and rationalizing what is right or wrong, but to respect
one another and negotiate pragmatically on a case by case basis.
In this sense, I feel that Jo-Anne has done her part in offering a pragmatic
solution by asking Curt to link to a different URL that meets the needs of
Turbulence.org rather than threatening him with a cease-and-desist letter as
many institutions do.
I understand Curt's assertion that not allowing re-contextualization of
Cory's work is contradictory to his presumed "punk" mentality. (Though I'm
not sure where that claim comes from. "fresh, formalist and punk-rock to the
core" Is this the line in question? If so, is this really describing Cory's
work?) It is true that there is a bit of "punk" mentality in his work if you
are referring to his subversive nature. He is after all subverting the
intended use of QuickTime technology. However, there is a difference between
subverting a medium and subverting someone's rights. Cory does not do the
latter. Even if he submits his work to Apple, they would not have any issue
with his use of the medium. "Punk" does not have to be about subverting the
rights of others. If Turbulence wishes to protect themselves from
deep-linking, then one should respect that wish and perhaps negotiate a
compromise.
Dyske
difficult one to regulate and resolve. It is similar to the "fair use"
clause in the copyright laws. What constitutes "fair use" and "linking" is
rather subjective. So, we must approach this problem with the understanding
that linking and plagiarizing are matters of degree, and therefore avoid
imposing overarching rules on others, and view the issue on a case-by-case
basis. Instead of fighting by throwing threats and insults at each other, we
need to learn how to negotiate with due respect to each other.
An extreme example of plagiarizing or stealing at one end of this spectrum
is "inlining" where you embed an asset into your page by specifying an
explicit URL. For instance:
<img src="http://www.moma.org/images/someimage.gif">
Since the image file is still residing on the moma.org server, technically
speaking, you did not copy anything. If you properly credit the image on
your page, you may be able to get away with it, but most of us would agree
that this is unethical, if not outright illegal. Even within this area of
inlining, it is arguable. Some instances of them might be protected under
the "fair use" clause. Google's image search is protected under this clause.
(See: http://www.chillingeffects.org/linking/notice.cgi?NoticeIDI1 )
I once needed to link to a PDF document of a court ruling. Since it was a
public domain document, I had to think carefully before I created my link.
Some other commercial site had a copy of this PDF, and I first thought to
link to this copy, but then I thought that would not be respectful to the
site owner since I would be using their bandwidth for free. If it were in
their commercial or political interest to disseminate this document as
widely as possible, I could justify using their bandwidth, but this wasn't
the case. In the end, I decided to copy the file to my own server and linked
to it. I figured, in this case, copying is the more respectful approach.
For the Internet to be a useful resource for all of us, what is important is
not so much arguing and rationalizing what is right or wrong, but to respect
one another and negotiate pragmatically on a case by case basis.
In this sense, I feel that Jo-Anne has done her part in offering a pragmatic
solution by asking Curt to link to a different URL that meets the needs of
Turbulence.org rather than threatening him with a cease-and-desist letter as
many institutions do.
I understand Curt's assertion that not allowing re-contextualization of
Cory's work is contradictory to his presumed "punk" mentality. (Though I'm
not sure where that claim comes from. "fresh, formalist and punk-rock to the
core" Is this the line in question? If so, is this really describing Cory's
work?) It is true that there is a bit of "punk" mentality in his work if you
are referring to his subversive nature. He is after all subverting the
intended use of QuickTime technology. However, there is a difference between
subverting a medium and subverting someone's rights. Cory does not do the
latter. Even if he submits his work to Apple, they would not have any issue
with his use of the medium. "Punk" does not have to be about subverting the
rights of others. If Turbulence wishes to protect themselves from
deep-linking, then one should respect that wish and perhaps negotiate a
compromise.
Dyske
Re: Re: Deconstruct the Narrative = Protocolianpositioning
Hi Fee,
<quote>
so you 'reverse-engineer' your work, attempt to add a soupcon to the general
body of work, predict the future directions and stay in the avante garde,
and you are a professional. Or ignore whatever the hell is going on in the
art world, perhaps choosing to focus on the changes you see in the real
world and interpret them (visually, or however) without reference to your
peers and you are a hobbyist? seems a tad disparaging to me.
</quote>
There is no such thing as art that exists independently of how we use the
word "art." So, by "hobby", all I meant to express was my speculation of
what most people would call your work or activity if you ignored the
discourse. In your own mind, it could still be art.
You asked: "Can't it be popular beyond the institutions and be art?"
Part of the reason why we give institutions such authority is because we all
want to define what art is and is not. The word "art" already implies
historical significance in the west. That is, when you are trying to define
what is art, and what is not, you are implicitly trying to define what is
historically significant. So your urge to define "art" is already supporting
the structure of the institutions. If no one minded their work being called
"hobby", then part of the power of the institutions will be undermined.
-Dyske
<quote>
so you 'reverse-engineer' your work, attempt to add a soupcon to the general
body of work, predict the future directions and stay in the avante garde,
and you are a professional. Or ignore whatever the hell is going on in the
art world, perhaps choosing to focus on the changes you see in the real
world and interpret them (visually, or however) without reference to your
peers and you are a hobbyist? seems a tad disparaging to me.
</quote>
There is no such thing as art that exists independently of how we use the
word "art." So, by "hobby", all I meant to express was my speculation of
what most people would call your work or activity if you ignored the
discourse. In your own mind, it could still be art.
You asked: "Can't it be popular beyond the institutions and be art?"
Part of the reason why we give institutions such authority is because we all
want to define what art is and is not. The word "art" already implies
historical significance in the west. That is, when you are trying to define
what is art, and what is not, you are implicitly trying to define what is
historically significant. So your urge to define "art" is already supporting
the structure of the institutions. If no one minded their work being called
"hobby", then part of the power of the institutions will be undermined.
-Dyske
Re: Re: Deconstruct the Narrative = Protocolian positioning.
> [although from the passive/aggressive vibes emanating from your terse
> response, said emo-mojo approach is not so foreign to you after all!]
True. I guess I secretly enjoy being passive-aggressive. That's my style, I
guess.
But the reason why it comes across that way is because I'm actually a very
aggressive person who is trying hard not to give into my aggression. I guess
that is the definition of "passive/aggressive".
Regards,
Dyske
> response, said emo-mojo approach is not so foreign to you after all!]
True. I guess I secretly enjoy being passive-aggressive. That's my style, I
guess.
But the reason why it comes across that way is because I'm actually a very
aggressive person who is trying hard not to give into my aggression. I guess
that is the definition of "passive/aggressive".
Regards,
Dyske