joy garnett
Since the beginning
Works in United States of America

ARTBASE (1)
BIO
Joy Garnett is a painter based in New York. She appropriates news images from the Internet and re-invents them as paintings. Her subject is the apocalyptic-sublime landscape, as well as the digital image itself as cultural artifact in an increasingly technologized world. Her image research has resulted in online documentation projects, most notably The Bomb Project.

Notable past exhibitions include her recent solo shows at Winkleman Gallery, New York and at the National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC; group exhibitions organized by the Whitney Museum of American Art, P.S.1/MoMA Contemporary Art Center, Artists Space, White Columns (New York), Kettle's Yard, Cambridge (UK), and De Witte Zaal, Ghent (Belgium). She shows with aeroplastics contemporary, Brussels, Belgium.

extended network >

homepage:
http://joygarnett.com

The Bomb Project
http://www.thebombproject.org

First Pulse Projects
http://firstpulseprojects.net

NEWSgrist - where spin is art
http://newsgrist.typepad.com/

Discussions (685) Opportunities (5) Events (8) Jobs (0)
DISCUSSION

AP piece in Wired on Steve Kurtz indictment -- not funny


(scroll down and read the last sentence of this article)

WIRED NEWS
Two Indicted in Bio-Art Case
http://www.wired.com/news/medtech/0,1286,64040,00.html
04:44 PM Jun. 29, 2004 PT

An art professor whose use of biological materials made him the target of
a federal terrorism investigation -- which sparked an outcry in the world
art community -- was indicted Tuesday on charges he obtained the materials
illegally.

Steven Kurtz, a University at Buffalo professor, was charged along with
Robert Ferrell, chairman of the University of Pittsburgh's Human Genetics
Department, in a four-count indictment returned by a federal grand jury
seated earlier this month.

Prosecutors said Ferrell used his University of Pittsburgh account with a
biological supply company to order potentially harmful organisms for
Kurtz, which colleagues said Kurtz intended to use in an art project.

"The charges do not relate to bioterrorism," U.S. Attorney Michael Battle
said. "Very simply, this is a case about fraud."

Kurtz is a founding member of the Critical Art Ensemble, which has used
human DNA and other biological materials to draw attention to social
issues, such as genetically altered foods.

As a private individual, Kurtz was not eligible to order the materials
allegedly obtained for him by Ferrell, authorities said.

A call to Kurtz's attorney was not immediately returned.

Outraged by the investigation of Kurtz, artists and academics earlier this
month held simultaneous rallies in Buffalo, New York; Vienna, Austria;
Amsterdam, Netherlands; and Berkeley, California.

A colleague of Kurtz's who was among several people subpoenaed to testify
before the grand jury called the indictment "a total joke."

"It sounds like they're trying to keep face because they overreacted and
made fools of themselves," said the colleague, speaking on condition of
anonymity.

The investigation began in May after Kurtz called 911 to report the death
of his wife, Hope, in their home. Firefighters who responded noticed the
biological materials and notified Buffalo police, who then contacted the
Joint Terrorism Task Force. The JTTF spent two days removing materials
from the home.

The University at Buffalo, in a statement, said it would review the
charges before considering any action, while stressing its commitment to
the academic freedom of faculty members to pursue research.

As for Ferrell, "He is still a faculty member at the university and a
distinguished scientist," spokesman Robert Hill said. "We do hope for a
swift and positive outcome."

Both men face 20 years in prison if convicted.

/////

[!!!]

DISCUSSION

DISCUSSION

Re: RHIZOME_RARE: beta testing: *I'm Voting Bush OUT*


I'm in the throes of dmain mapping: for the next few moments www.imvoting
will be down; but you can access the site at:

http://newsgrist.typepad.com/imvoting/

Improvements and pdf files are coming...

-jg

DISCUSSION

EFF Letter: The Induce Act: Innovation Under Attack


from: http://action.eff.org/action/index.asp?step=2&item)18

///

TAKE ACTION! SEND A MESSAGE

The Induce Act: Innovation Under Attack

Senator Orrin Hatch's new Inducing Infringement of Copyright Act (S.2560,
Induce Act) would make it a crime to aid, abet, or induce copyright
infringement. He want us all to think that the Induce Act is no big deal
and that it only targets "the bad guys" while leaving "the good guys"
alone. He says that it doesn't change the law; it just clarifies it.

He's wrong.

Right now, under the Supreme Court's ruling in Sony v. Universal (the
Betamax VCR case), devices like the iPod and CD burners are 100% legal --
not because they aren't sometimes used for infringement, but because they
also have legitimate uses. The Court in Sony called these "substantial
non-infringing uses." This has been the rule in the technology sector for
the last 20 years. Billions of dollars and thousands of jobs have depended
on it. Industries have blossomed under it. But the Induce Act would end
that era of innovation. Don't let this happen on your watch - tell your
Senators to fight the Induce Act!

///

READ THE LETTER/ SIGN

June 29, 2004

Your U.S. senators

Dear Senator,

I am writing to request your opposition to the Inducing Infringement of
Copyright Act (the Induce Act, S.2560). The Induce Act would make it
illegal to aid, abet, or induce copyright infringement, which could make
companies liable for violations committed by their customers. This would
be an enormous change in our copyright law. In fact, it could threaten
many familiar technologies that have both infringing and non-infringing
uses, like the videocassette recorder (VCR) and the Apple iPod.

In addition to endangering existing products, S.2560 would preclude future
inventions. If the Induce Act is passed, the creators of the next iPod or
VCR will have to subject themselves to approval from every major copyright
holder before even getting to market. This will create an unprecedented
chilling effect on innovators and those who invest in their companies.

Our country has a long tradition of allowing companies to make information
tools, even if those tools can be used to infringe copyrights. This
freedom has fueled decades of innovation and created thousands of jobs.
The Induce Act would stall our nation's engine of innovation and
drastically upset our copyright balance. I urge you to fight it.

Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,

Your signature will be added from the information you provide below.

[form / sign-in ]

-
+

DISCUSSION

Re: Induce Act update


this could pass; why not? these people are idoiots.

here, read this:
http://www.savetheipod.com/index1.php

and no thanks, I will definitely not HAve Fun just yet.

cheers,
jg

On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 steve.kudlak@cruzrights.org wrote:

> What is the chance of this passing? What with this being an
> election year and all? It would be nice if someone can point
> out a good site for tracking bills.
>
> HAve Fun,
> Sends Steve
>
>
>>
>> more, um, *ugh*
>>
>> as noted on Joi Ito's Web:
>> http://joi.ito.com/
>>
>> June 28, 2004
>> Orlowski on Induce Act and hacker activism
>> 11:35 JST Activism - Intellectual Property - US Policy and Politics
>>
>> In an update on the new Induce Act that I blogged about earlier, Orlowski
>> makes an interesting observation about why the IT lobby lost Hatch who is
>> leading this bill and who used to be "on our side."
>>
>> ////
>>
>>
>> The Register Internet and Law Digital Rights/Digital Wrongs
>>
>> Original URL: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/06/26/hatch_induce_act/
>> Dirty rotten inducers - the law the IT world deserves?
>> By Andrew Orlowski in San Francisco (andrew.orlowski@theregister.co.uk)
>> Published Saturday 26th June 2004 09:34 GMT
>>
>> It may soon be possible to carry around an AK-47 assault rifle and an iPod
>> with you down the street - and be arrested for carrying the iPod.
>>
>> That's according to critics of a Senate amendment to the copyright code
>> proposed by Sen. Orrin Hatch this week called the 'Induce Act'. He wants
>> to make the 'intentional inducement of copyright infringement' an offense,
>> and this will extend liability to any manufacturer of a device which plays
>> infringed material, or a shop that sells such a device, they say.
>>
>> Hatch's terse amendment states that "the term 'intentionally induces'
>> means intentionally aids, abets, induces, or procures; and intent may be
>> shown by acts from which a reasonable person would find intent to induce
>> infringement based upon all relevant information about such acts then
>> reasonably available to the actor, including whether the activity relies
>> on infringement for its commercial viability," in which caser the inducer
>> becomes an infringer.
>>
>> However, the amendment also says that "nothing in this subsection shall
>> enlarge or diminish the doctrines of vicarious and contributory liability
>> for copyright infringement or require any court to unjustly withhold or
>> impose any secondary liability for copyright infringement." And it's
>> contributory liability that the RIAA want to see changed.
>>
>> In his floor speech introducing the measure, Hatch said that once people
>> are given PCs, they are bound to infringe. (Many would agree with him
>> there). So he frames his bill as a protection. Hatch said people weren't
>> aware that they were breaking the law by running P2P software, (citing
>> work by Harvard's Berkman Center, which says the Senator quoted them out
>> of context) and therefore running "piracy machines" that had been designed
>> to mislead their users. Therefore, his argument goes, the users are in
>> need of protection from 'inducement'.
>> No exceptions
>>
>> The problem is that 'fair use' isn't on the statute books. It arose from
>> case law, and specifically the Sony vs. Betamax case in 1984 in which the
>> entertainment industry failed to prevent the video recorder being sold.
>> Hatch rather gleefully points this out. "Congress codified no exceptions
>> for 'substantial non-criminal uses'."
>>
>> The act does nothing to address two key issues. The bill insists that only
>> by criminalizing millions of people can we ensure artists get paid, which
>> is supposed to be our common goal. And it fails to recognize that people
>> are always going to exchange music.
>>
>> This is odd, because four years ago Senator Hatch subscribed to both these
>> points of view. He threatened the RIAA that he would introduce flat fee
>> legislation, effectively decriminalizing what he now calls "piracy", if it
>> didn't clean up its act. (See Senator Hatch's Napster Epiphany"
>> (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2001/02/16/senator_hatch_rides_to_napsters/)
>> and Senator Hatch rides to Napster's rescue
>> (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2001/02/16/senator_hatch_rides_to_napsters/)).
>>
>> Despite the contributory infringement clause, the opposition is adamant
>> that this will threaten the manufacture, promotion or sale of devices
>> which play infringing material.
>>
>> "No one will invest in, or invent new innovative technologies if the mere
>> fact that they can be used unlawfully is enough to make both the investors
>> and the inventors liable," said Public Knowledge's Mike Godwin.
>>
>> Mitch Bainwol, The RIAA's chief executive ,has denied that manufacturers
>> are the target - "this is not about going after the device makers," he
>> told the New York Times, and instead is directed at the P2P networks.
>> Hatch himself said the law had purposefully been crafted to avoid
>> bothering manufacturers.
>>
>> "It was critical to find a way to narrowly identify the rare bad actors
>> without implicating the vast majority of companies that serve both
>> consumers and copyright-holders by providing digital copying devices -
>> even though these devices, like all devices, can be misused for unlawful
>> purposes," he said.
>> Payback time?
>>
>> It remains to be seen if this eventually criminalizes the iPod. However,
>> it is incontestable that the debate - as now framed by Senator Hatch long
>> - has left the gravitational pull of commonsense. Take two notions: that
>> artists should be compensated, and that we should be free to exchange
>> culture, and you soon find an abundance of different options. That the
>> debate should have been driven down such a cul-de-sac, is, when you think
>> about it, quite extraordinary.
>>
>> And largely it's the technology community's own fault. They've made it
>> very easy for the MPAA and the RIAA to draft such legislation. Rather than
>> making themselves a nuisance in Washington DC, worrying politicians, and
>> bringing attractive alternatives to the public's attention,
>> technology-literate advocates simply dived out of the way.
>>
>> Why is this so? Many IT people don't like getting involved in
>> demonstrating or lobbying, providing the group with vital inertia to begin
>> with. But that's a symptom, not a cause? Non-IT people like to think IT
>> people are uniquely bad at social relations, and only seem to be talk
>> persuasively to other like-minded IT people. The Internet seems to have
>> exacerbated this fragmentation. There may be some truth to this: the
>> Howard Dean bubble demonstrated how very intense computer-based activists
>> can easily get an exaggerated idea of their own numbers and eventual
>> impact. Or perhaps tech people simply aren't interested in social
>> relations at all: slogans such as "Software freedom!" are baffling to
>> someone whose CD won't play in their car stereo.
>>
>> This week dissent against Hatch's bill has been confined to the Internet,
>> which means it's safely out of sight for most people. Concerned citizens
>> looking for NRA-style talking points will instead find migraine-inducing
>> "rebuttals" such as this one
>> (http://www.corante.com/importance/archives/004563.html), written for the
>> primary benefit of the author. (A double pity, as this is a guy who knows
>> his stuff).
>>
>> Well, perhaps it's a combination of all these factors. Perhaps too, the
>> brief flood of speculative capital into the technology industry in the
>> 1980s and 1990s convinced IT people they didn't have an exalted place in
>> society. For a time, they did, and even now many seem to think so. And
>> underneath, there's the hunch that the market will sort everything out, or
>> the belief that every problem can be solved with technology. Whatever the
>> reasons, the fightback against the RIAA and the MPAA has been as effective
>> as the proverbial one-legged man in a backsid- kicking competition. The
>> entertainment industry should be thankful it has opponents so inept.
>> Opportunity knocked
>>
>> We mention this only because the good Senator Hatch personifies the missed
>> opportunity. He once shared the view of many involved in the technology
>> sector today that the RIAA could not be trusted to clean up its act, and
>> that alternative compensation systems that ended "piracy" could prove to
>> be very popular. That was in 2000.
>>
>> At around the same time, the EFF was campaigning for Napster to be
>> legalized, without offering any suggestions as to how the artists might be
>> paid - thus surrendering its moral authority on the issue. Meanwhile, the
>> RIAA was courting and flattering Senator Hatch.
>>
>> At a special gala awards dinner early in 2001 hosted by the National
>> Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences, Hatch was awarded a "Hero Award"
>> and the diners heard Nashville star Natalie Grant perform one of his
>> songs, "I Am Not Alone", Joe Menn reported in his book about Napster, All
>> The Rave [Reg review
>> (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/10/08/napsters_back_what_did_silicon/)]
>>
>> If turning a Senator is this easy, why couldn't the techies do it?
>>
>> There is hope. The coalition announced earlier this week brought industry
>> into the battle. And the decision by the New York Times this week to
>> publish two op-ed articles on alternative compensation systems (one of
>> which is by William Fisher, whose ideas we explored here
>> (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/02/01/free_legal_downloads/)). This
>> should help to take the flat-fee discussion firmly into the mainstream,
>> where it needs to be. r
>> Related links
>>
>> INDUCE Amendment, from the Senator's Hatch
>> (http://hatch.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Print&PressRelease_id83&suppresslayouts=true)
>> NY Times - Fisher
>> (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/25/opinion/25FISH.html?pagewanted=print&position=)
>> Related stories
>>
>> Why wireless will end piracy and doom DRM and TCPA - Jim Griffin
>> (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/02/11/why_wireless_will_end_piracy/)
>> Music biz should shift to flat-fee, P2P model - exec
>> (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/09/30/music_biz_should_shift/)
>> Free legal downloads for $6 a month. DRM free. The artists get paid. We
>> explain how
>> (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/02/01/free_legal_downloads/)
>> Microsoft, Apple snub consumer freedom coalition
>> (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/06/23/ms_apple_snub_boucher/) MPAA,
>> RIAA seek permanent antitrust exemption
>> (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/11/26/mpaa_riaa_seek_permanent_antitrust/)
>> House bill would cast FBI as copyright Pinkertons
>> (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/06/23/house_bill_would_cast_fbi/)
>> US Senator pauses on PC destruct button
>> (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/06/19/us_senator_pauses_on_pc/)
>> US Senator would destroy MP3 traders' PCs
>> (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/06/18/us_senator_would_destroy_mp3/)
>> Senator Hatch's Napster Epiphany
>> (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2000/10/23/senator_hatchs_napster_epiphany/)
>>
>> Copyright 2004
>>
>> +
>> -> post: list@rhizome.org
>> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
>> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
>> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
>> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
>> +
>> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
>> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>>
>
>
>