If you have read Part 1, downloaded and watched the movie – we are ready to explore part 2 if not – then you won’t understand half of the following;
We now know about the economic hitmen which are basically the first line of defense – who go in to corrupt foreign government leaders.
The second line of defense are the Jackals and of course, as per the namesake, Jackals either overthrow Governments (via funding insurrection) or they assassinate them.
And if all else fails, – the military then goes in.
After the coup – in go the lawyers to organise the “Free Trade Agreements” which of course always results in the country becoming a signatory to TRIPS..
In a document I recently read, a
Works published in almost all foreign countries are entitled to
full
These are:
A work first published in any of these countries by a citizen
or resident of any of these countries is not entitled to
Translation: The residents of these countries continue to enjoy the same rights they have had for thousands of years without paying through the nose for their own culture.
We understand the situation in
Possibly the USA will use this to insist on extending the copyright term yet again to 50 years after the life of the author or any future reincarnations the author might happen to have.
(Don’t panic, according to Nepalese Buddhist beliefs, it is extremely rare to be reincarnated more than 3 times and far more usual to be re-incarnated only once).
The Advantage for
In many non-Western countries there are myriad
demonstrations of very lively cultural practices – partly thanks to the absence
of copyrights and cultural industries. A good example – which stands for most
traditional and popular music cultures such as calypso, samba, rap and so on –
is Algerian raï music.
…
For
He continues ‘that
American companies stand to gain $61 billion a year from the
A substantial part from what the South pays the North for
using intellectual property rights concerns rights to cultural ‘products’.
Transnational cultural industries try to find as many outlets as possible, also
in non-Western countries, for the cultural ‘products’ to which they hold the
rights. Among the most important products are music, films and television
sitcoms. In order to reach their goals they will push away works of art which
are of local origin. Krister Malm and Roger Wallis experienced this on
It has. Nine years after the above was written, who can say
that foreign cultures are not being ridden roughshod over – all in the quest
for the almighty (but technically worthless) US Dollar.
In
Why?
So a very few can obtain financial benefits.
The author concept stands as a gate through which one
must pass in order to acquire intellectual
property rights. At the moment, this is a gate that tends
disproportionately to favour the developed countries’ contributions to world
science and culture. Curare, batik, myths, and the dance ‘lambada’ flow out of
developing countries, unprotected by intellectual property rights, while
Prozac, Levis, Grisham, and the movie Lambada! flow in – protected by a suite of
intellectual property laws, which in turn are backed by the threat of trade
sanctions. (Boyle, 1996: 124–8)
What if, the independents have it right. What if, centralized distribution is not the most effective way of growing an entertainers brand.
Better Remuneration for More Artists
It may seem contradictory to claim that it is to the
advantage of the average artist in Western and non-Western countries to abolish
the copyright system.
However, we must allow ourselves to become aware of the
consequences of such a new, and for many people probably unexpected, situation.
What we will see, then, is that the concentration of attention by cultural
industries on only a handful of artists disappears. This means that a more
normal situation reappears, namely that all artists have a chance to find a
public, in their own local environment or even globally. A diversity of tastes
could flourish, and numerous artists could make a reasonable living. The
abolition of the system of authors’ rights works positively for them!
The Internet provides the average artist with a global
distribution channel which makes it possible to reach local audiences, but also
publics or buyers worldwide. The advantage of the use of the new media is that
artists may create their own networks of interested publics for their work.
They are no longer dependent upon agents, record companies and other
intermediaries that monopolistically control global market access for many
artists. Artists can sell their work themselves by using the Internet. They can
also decide to use the Internet for promotion purposes only, and in this way
create a market for their paintings, designs, films or for their live
performances.
Rhetoric is cheap. But what about Radiohead?
What about the Grateful Dead?
The Grateful Dead only recorded one top-10 song during its 30-year history, but, through clever marketing, the band made more money in 1991 than any other rock group with earnings of thirty-five million dollars.
How?
Firstly the band built trust between themselves and the audience by acknowledging audience participation in their concerts by providing an area just for members of the audience that wanted to record the concerts on tape recorders.
Many of these recordings are shared here http://www.archive.org/details/GratefulDead
So they were suckers….. (music industry executive reaction…..)
Not quite.
They registered a number of trademarks and started merchandising various products through the Grateful Dead Merchandising Company, (GDM), formed in 1980.
Baseball caps, T-shirts, golf accessories, handbags and oh yeah, tapes and CD’s.
How did that work out for them?
Wow!.
Sharing your music seems to have paid of handsomely for the Grateful Dead.
So for the authors, the payoff was in the concerts, the merchandising of the brand with some small change coming from CD Sales.
The copyright system makes it nearly impossible for artists
to create for and within the digital domain while using lots of sources. This
frustrates the development of a completely new artisticfield and pushes artists into illegality.
Viz Youtube and the commercialization of the YouTube meme into a movie.
From the NZ Freedom Foundation website: "Brett Gaylor has made an admiring portrait of his favourite recording artist Girl Talk (Greg Gillis), but also raises some fascinating questions about sampling culture and copyright laws. Audio bricoleur Gillis is a fearless musical magpie, with a whizz-bang knack for snatching the best snippets of the daggiest songs (think Gloria Estefan, Journey and Whitesnake) and recontextualising them into sparkling new tracks to create a bastard pop known as mashup. While these spunky sound collages are thrillingly inventive, copyright laws determine that tracks made from pilfered works (Gillis crams uncleared samples from 21 songs into a three-minute track) are utterly illegal. As the NY Times Magazine stated, Gillis is ‘a lawsuit waiting to happen’. Joyously celebrating remix culture, Gaylor and Gillis articulately argue that the line between inspiration and infringement for a media-literate generation is being increasingly blurred, and that reshaping existing creative works for ‘fair use’ should be free from copyright restriction." -- KD.
Want to watch it in
Rip It Downloads
Sorry! Downloads and DVDs from this web site are only
allowed from within the
You can watch the film right now, though, by visiting the global Rip site: www.nfb.ca/rip.
You can also watch and remix the film at opensourcecinema.org
What cockamamie deluded marketing executive thought that one up?
You can watch via the Web for free as a bandwidth wasting
streaming video but you can’t actually buy the DVD or download it unless you
are in the
So obviously Aussies have to resort to watching it online or grabbing it from the ED2K network
ed2k://|file|RIP.A.Remix.Manifesto.Xvid.avi|1174628352|8C1A8C49980198EC1D2F7FFB93371C8A|/
…..after which, they (that’s you) would doubtless like to
make a donation here.
In
Millions of Indians attend cinema every day. DVD sales are only really appropriate for the expatriate portion of the population that has resettled in distant far off lands.
Therein lies the differences in the model.
Cinema attendances are globally going through the roof. DVD sales and rentals have added billions to the Movie industries bottom line.
In our article earlier this year we pointed out that the movie industry profitability numbers were growing at 7.1% compound growth per annum.
We said:
The “free taste” actually enhances the hedonic value of the movie experience
and leads to more movie admissions at higher prices.
Cinema attendance figures for the last two years indicate
that more people are going to the cinema than at any time in the last sixty
years. Yep – records are being broken, daily.
According to a recent report by Price Waterhouse, the
Ancillary markets and new technologies have revolutionized profit potential. Over
the last decade, ancillary markets have grown by over 30%. The home video
market alone has grown over 200%. The combined worldwide filmed entertainment
market will achieve sales of $118.9 billion in 2009, a 7.1% compound annual
growth rate (CAGR). Source: Price Waterhouse Cooper.
There are very few industries that can claim a 7.1%
compound annual growth. (Then again, there are very few industries that have
millions of PR people working for them for free, downloading files like mad for
the ersatz taste.)
[Graph of Movie Attendances of
the last 13 years here http://www.perceptric.com/Charts/CER.png]
Yet the industry refuses to acknowledge that copying, and sharing of original content amongst those that are unable to attend the venue – or are restricted from doing so as per the above ripremix example, add to the community awareness of “The Brand”.
The Grateful Dead who have walked the sharing talk, understand that the community returns far more than is given away for free.
So when President Obama appointed a new type of Electro God (Dr. Cass Sunstein) last week, to assist in the elimination of Internet rumour-mongering He probably did so based on the “Rambo” meme started by the Content industry.
We have been deluged by the content industry with a steady stream of revolutionary thoughts.
“One man can make a difference.”
“Don’t accept unfairness.”
“It’s OK to kill people who seriously piss you off.”
“You can fight city hall – buy a Bazooka”
Villains, dictators and serial killers (e.g.: Silence of the Lambs) are iconized and turned into heroes via serial episode movies.
So of course when
Why is President Obama surprised ?
Its been happening for decades. Everyone knows that the probability of being killed by a gun increases dramatically if you have a gun in your home.
P2P networks are allowing a large portion of the population to divorce itself from the “ersatz” News broadcasts that we receive on radio and Television.
Newspapers are going to the wall.
The media have for too long been able to influence our consumerism, political beliefs and poll results by tampering with news content in an unhealthy manner.
The Internet is proving to be the undoing of media barons that feel that they have the real inside straight on how the world “should be run”.
The obvious conclusion to the world’s media problems, based on consumer take-up, is that P2P is just another broadcast medium, however, a preferred one by the consumers.
My advice to big industry, Governments and legislators, utilize P2P. Embrace it. Distribute the meme, sit back and wait for the result.
Introducing Internet Filters, Copyright Czars, Copyright Legislation, and printing more money won’t actually stop the revolution it will just make President Obama be remembered for the wrong reasons.
Lessons Learnt.
The concept of Government in association with big business is to maximize profits – regardless of the social or environmental costs, through the use of content restriction, re-writing history and coercion through trade agreements and funding methodologies that benefit no-one but the lender.
The United States of America appears to be the architect of this Global Central Bank based scheme designed exclusively for maximizing the flow of dollars from us (outside the US) to them, (inside the US).
Conclusions:
Copyright is an artefact designed exclusively to encourage the continuation of a society based on debt. A situation that benefits few but harms many.
Copyright does not benefit the authors and creators to “actively encourage” new work. It creates forward contracts which are then funded by debt.
The elimination of draconian (overly extended period) copyright laws would free up the world to new levels of intellectual enlightenment, content creation, wealth creation and ultimately provide the utopian lifestyle for everyone, that so many strive for, so very hard.
Recommendations:
That all Governments consider reducing Copyright to a maximum of 5 years for all articles, books, movies, songs.
This is commonly the mandated maximum period of taxation write-off.
Physical articles (with the exception of some large investment ticket items) are usually depreciated to zero after five years.
After all, why should a digital product receive a more beneficial recognition by Government than a physical article.
That surely, is a serious disincentive to the entire world to produce anything that adds to the wealth creation of a nation.
Possibly the world should take a leaf from the Chinese example. More production, less legislation resulting in more jobs, a more buoyant economy and considerably less crime. (700% less crime according to the stats.)
USA
prison population 0.612% of
China prison
population 0.012% of
N.B. For me, the moon landing occurred exactly as my eleven year old eyes watched it, enthralled, in the school classroom. Why am I so sure.
Because in 1997, I was involved in the experiment to bounce
a laser beam off the mirror, placed on
the moon by a later Apollo Mission. Someone put the mirror up there.
OK – you guys are probably right. The Apollo Moon Landing was a fake – it was indubitably aliens that put the mirror on the Moon set up to allow accurate laser sighting with a return path pointing directly at earth.
Nice helpful Aliens. Hey do you think the Aliens use P2P ? No of course not, they would use A2A.
References:
Smiers, J (2000) THE ABOLITION OF COPYRIGHT Better for Artists, Third World Countries and the Public Domain (ed2K Link).
How to "Truck" the Brand: Lessons from the Grateful Dead By Glenn Rifkin
