Re: FW: Press Release: Copyright Specialists Suggest Content Flatrate
Here in the US, this just in :
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/25/opinion/25FISH.html
Don't Beat Them, Join Them
By WILLIAM FISHER
CAMBRIDGE, Mass.
With 40 million to 60 million Americans having swapped music files
over the Internet, taking a few hundred of them to court as the
Recording Industry Association of American did this week is, as the
legal scholar Randal C. Picker has remarked, "a teaspoon solution to an
ocean problem." For a few months after the lawsuits began last year,
file sharing diminished, but it has now rebounded. If lawsuits aren't
the answer to this problem, what is?
History may give us some guidance. After all, file sharing isn't the
first new technology to have destabilized the entertainment industry.
The way in which the industry responded to the introduction of three
earlier inventions
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/25/opinion/25FISH.html
Don't Beat Them, Join Them
By WILLIAM FISHER
CAMBRIDGE, Mass.
With 40 million to 60 million Americans having swapped music files
over the Internet, taking a few hundred of them to court as the
Recording Industry Association of American did this week is, as the
legal scholar Randal C. Picker has remarked, "a teaspoon solution to an
ocean problem." For a few months after the lawsuits began last year,
file sharing diminished, but it has now rebounded. If lawsuits aren't
the answer to this problem, what is?
History may give us some guidance. After all, file sharing isn't the
first new technology to have destabilized the entertainment industry.
The way in which the industry responded to the introduction of three
earlier inventions
Re: Politics That Makes Peace With the Beauty of Objects
Where is it from?
On Friday, Jun 18, 2004, at 16:29 America/New_York, t.whid wrote:
> This article discusses public.exe (but gets the name wrong)
>
> +++
>
> Politics That Makes Peace With the Beauty of Objects
> By HOLLAND COTTER
On Friday, Jun 18, 2004, at 16:29 America/New_York, t.whid wrote:
> This article discusses public.exe (but gets the name wrong)
>
> +++
>
> Politics That Makes Peace With the Beauty of Objects
> By HOLLAND COTTER
Chalk up one more for NY vs Artists: De La Vega
http://www.gothamist.com/archives/2004/06/12/free_de_la_vega.php
NYT: Street Muralist May Soon Be Looking at Jailhouse Walls
By IAN URBINA
Published: June 12, 2004
The lawyer for James De La Vega, a well-known muralist from East Harlem
who was convicted on misdemeanor graffiti charges this week, said
yesterday that his client deserved community service, not jail time,
and that he planned to appeal.
"This verdict was entirely unjustified," said the lawyer, Daniel J.
Ollen. "We definitely think this case deserves a second look."
Mr. De La Vega, 32, who was arrested on July 17, 2003, while painting
without permission on the side of a Bronx warehouse near Willis Avenue
and Bruckner Boulevard, was found guilty on Thursday of attempted
criminal mischief, attempted making graffiti and possessing graffiti
instruments. He is to be sentenced in Bronx Criminal Court on July 29
and faces up to 90 days in jail.
During his two-day trial, about 25 supporters sat in the back of the
courtroom, some of the them wearing "Free De La Vega" T-shirts. On the
second day of the trial, a court officer asked them to turn the shirts
inside out.
During the trial, Mr. Ollen called his client "an artist, a teacher and
a neighborhood icon" who was intending to improve the warehouse, not
damage it. In a telephone interview yesterday, Mr. Ollen said Mr. De La
Vega's "sole purpose in life is to make things prettier and more
visually thought-provoking, not to lessen their value."
But an assistant district attorney, Karen E. Antoine, argued during the
trial that intent was less important than the fact that Mr. De La Vega
did not have permission to paint on the side of the building.
Several months before the trial, the Bronx district attorney's office
offered Mr. De La Vega a plea bargain involving a year of probation and
no jail time in exchange for a guilty plea, Mr. Ollen said. But Mr. De
La Vega refused, partly on principle and partly because he expected to
win if the case went to a jury, Mr. Ollen added.
On the first day of the trial, the district attorney's office reduced
the charges to Class B misdemeanors that removed the possibility of a
jury trial. "We thought this was a really underhanded tactic," Mr.
Ollen said.
In a statement after the trial, the district attorney's office said:
"It's a simple proposition. You need an owner's permission to paint on
his or her property. The quality of the artwork does not change that
fact."
Mr. De La Vega, who received a Bachelor of Fine Arts from Cornell in
1994, is well known in East Harlem where his chalk drawings have
appeared on sidewalks throughout the neighborhood.
Portraying feelings of entrapment and unvanquished love, Mr. De La Vega
usually drew images of fish staring longingly at each other from
separate bowls. Mr. De La Vega also scrawled various aphorisms on trash
cans and buildings around the city: "Beauty magazines make my
girlfriend feel ugly," was penned on the sides of fitness clubs on the
Lower East Side. And "The best remedy for a cheap person is to have him
pay for everything," was written on the walls of banks and expensive
restaurants near Wall Street.
NYT: Street Muralist May Soon Be Looking at Jailhouse Walls
By IAN URBINA
Published: June 12, 2004
The lawyer for James De La Vega, a well-known muralist from East Harlem
who was convicted on misdemeanor graffiti charges this week, said
yesterday that his client deserved community service, not jail time,
and that he planned to appeal.
"This verdict was entirely unjustified," said the lawyer, Daniel J.
Ollen. "We definitely think this case deserves a second look."
Mr. De La Vega, 32, who was arrested on July 17, 2003, while painting
without permission on the side of a Bronx warehouse near Willis Avenue
and Bruckner Boulevard, was found guilty on Thursday of attempted
criminal mischief, attempted making graffiti and possessing graffiti
instruments. He is to be sentenced in Bronx Criminal Court on July 29
and faces up to 90 days in jail.
During his two-day trial, about 25 supporters sat in the back of the
courtroom, some of the them wearing "Free De La Vega" T-shirts. On the
second day of the trial, a court officer asked them to turn the shirts
inside out.
During the trial, Mr. Ollen called his client "an artist, a teacher and
a neighborhood icon" who was intending to improve the warehouse, not
damage it. In a telephone interview yesterday, Mr. Ollen said Mr. De La
Vega's "sole purpose in life is to make things prettier and more
visually thought-provoking, not to lessen their value."
But an assistant district attorney, Karen E. Antoine, argued during the
trial that intent was less important than the fact that Mr. De La Vega
did not have permission to paint on the side of the building.
Several months before the trial, the Bronx district attorney's office
offered Mr. De La Vega a plea bargain involving a year of probation and
no jail time in exchange for a guilty plea, Mr. Ollen said. But Mr. De
La Vega refused, partly on principle and partly because he expected to
win if the case went to a jury, Mr. Ollen added.
On the first day of the trial, the district attorney's office reduced
the charges to Class B misdemeanors that removed the possibility of a
jury trial. "We thought this was a really underhanded tactic," Mr.
Ollen said.
In a statement after the trial, the district attorney's office said:
"It's a simple proposition. You need an owner's permission to paint on
his or her property. The quality of the artwork does not change that
fact."
Mr. De La Vega, who received a Bachelor of Fine Arts from Cornell in
1994, is well known in East Harlem where his chalk drawings have
appeared on sidewalks throughout the neighborhood.
Portraying feelings of entrapment and unvanquished love, Mr. De La Vega
usually drew images of fish staring longingly at each other from
separate bowls. Mr. De La Vega also scrawled various aphorisms on trash
cans and buildings around the city: "Beauty magazines make my
girlfriend feel ugly," was penned on the sides of fitness clubs on the
Lower East Side. And "The best remedy for a cheap person is to have him
pay for everything," was written on the walls of banks and expensive
restaurants near Wall Street.
Fwd: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Burning Down The House
> your underlying assumption that everyone "ought to" revere anything
> that presumes to call itself "art," regardless of its aesthetic appeal
> to them personally -- that smacks a bit of totalitarianism (or at
> least political correctness) to me.
This reminds me of Leni Riefenstahl. I feel people dismissed her being
a nazi because she got some really hot pics of naked African men. I
still feel like those pics are fundamentally or at least aesthetically
nazi. Weren't her videos and photographs responsible for cementing a
vision of the fascist aesthetic? They've always bothered me.
/ l i z a
> that presumes to call itself "art," regardless of its aesthetic appeal
> to them personally -- that smacks a bit of totalitarianism (or at
> least political correctness) to me.
This reminds me of Leni Riefenstahl. I feel people dismissed her being
a nazi because she got some really hot pics of naked African men. I
still feel like those pics are fundamentally or at least aesthetically
nazi. Weren't her videos and photographs responsible for cementing a
vision of the fascist aesthetic? They've always bothered me.
/ l i z a
Fwd: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Re: Re: Burning Down The House
On Thursday, May 27, 2004, at 05:13 America/New_York, Rob Myers wrote:
>
>> And again I ask myself, why do so many artists seem to hate art?
Because ridicule without wit is so easy. Wit is so 19th century
> This is precisely the kind of art that Saatchi collects, art that
> hates art.
It's a shtick, it's a marketing hook. It's makes it easier for the
publicists to hype.
/ l i z a
>
>> And again I ask myself, why do so many artists seem to hate art?
Because ridicule without wit is so easy. Wit is so 19th century
> This is precisely the kind of art that Saatchi collects, art that
> hates art.
It's a shtick, it's a marketing hook. It's makes it easier for the
publicists to hype.
/ l i z a