[rumori] Re: copyright schemes (was Re: hello)

Lawrence Comras [rumori] Re: copyright schemes (was Re: hello)
Tue, 9 Jun 1998 18:09:07 -0700 (00897469747, 000001bd940c$5e42dac0$a66aaac7ATcomras.interval.com)

this is the message of what used to be known as garage video. if it ever
existed, i'm still waiting for it on the net. at broderbund, where i used
to be a product manager, i was forever pitching what i called "director for dummies" that let users have an easy time of cutting and pasting whatever they could digitize. then publish to a web site as real video, H.263, QT,
Net Show or whatever. what made it different was that it assumed the user
prolly couldn't do their own digitizing, so the program did all kinds of
wierd faux animation/color cycling/pans, zooms, etc. to stills, stuff that
had been scanned in, grabbed or otherwise obtained. it could capture in
real time if you drew a mustauche on the mona lisa for example. but all the
big wigs said nobody wants to make their own media. as a consultant at
interval, there was a greater willingness to consider the proposition, but
ultimately they came to the same conclusion. but where is all the cool
alternative shit on the net? i've always thought that it's exactly those
people who don't watch TV who would be the new garage video "publishers." which i've always thought was around 20% and here you say it would be 17% so
close. think that ultimately, the design i would opt for would be a mark
up language where you could edit a digital video piece where perhaps the
author actually did not have all the segments on their own personal HD, or
server, but could point to different ones out on the net that would still be
within the piece. too slow for today's bandwidth, but not by much. but
even still, i don't think there is an easy-peasy kid-pix-like video editing
program for the PC. no one will make such a program because there is no
evidence people want to roll their own. so i guess i better stop talking
and start getting some of it out there already...

-- axil

>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-rumoriATdetritus.net [mailto:owner-rumoriATdetritus.net]On
>Behalf Of Being and Nothingness
>Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 1998 1:08 PM
>To: 'rumoriATdetritus.net'
>Subject: RE: [rumori] Re: copyright schemes (was Re: hello)
>> In my utopian dream roughly the same portion of society that watches TV
>> (say 83%) makes art, and all sells it to each other, for roughly the
>> same percentage of income as a hot-dog from a street vendor.
> Yes, it takes some time to create a work of art, hence the
>importance of public funding just to keep the work of art alive in
>society. I know I have seen many many intruiging,beautiful, inspiring
>works of art that I would like to own but were unaffordable. The cost of
>materials and time has to be compensated for somehow. That is why I think
>public museums are so important, and free day at the museum is important.
>It at least puts art as an experience into the hands of ppl like me who
>can't spend a fortune on an art collection.
> heck, If I could get a Van Gogh for the cost of a hot dog, I'd be
>a happy person indeed! Okay, I know we are talking about living artists,
>but in 50 years, copyright is a non-issue for works of art, isn't it?
> Anyway, sampling is not a copyright violation. But I think we have
>general agreement about that. Sampling exists everywhere, in everyform of
>art. I think people also call it "reference" or "direct reference".
>Imagine the uproar when people discover that great themes, characters and
>settings have been begged, borrowed and stolen to incorporate into new
>work. The trouble lies in the ability to reproducte faithfully a portion
>of the original even if it is incorporated into a new and unique work.
>Its not like people who pirate software for a living or ppl who burn whole
>CD's and sell them in flea markets. As far as the elements of an
>underground, criminal economy go, we have a long way to go to proclaim
>total non-involvement. The issue of sampling has elements of a
>morality as well as economics when you put in the context of the capital A
>art. It is traditional to weave other's work into your own and in many
>instances unavoidable. Pirating bitstreams to comment on or
>to illuminate other bitstreams is just another form of Art. oh wait, i
>just wound myself into a corner here ... I just heard a collective "duh".
>I don't think art could be freely exchanged even in a non-capitalist
>society where art is generally censored or used as propaganda but I like
>the idea of an art exchange. But then you still just have artists
>exchanging art with other artists. . Yes, I wish art had more
>significance in society then the last episode of Seinfeld or any other
>such ephemera. okay, I hear the question creeping up ... "what is art". I
>didn't say it, it was the voices in my head.
>my 3 dollas canadian.