Mailing list for networked cultures, politics, and tactics

Re: double-plus-unfree digest [byfield, elloi]

On Wed, 2 Mar 2005 22:37:38 -0800 (PST), Morlock Elloi
<morlockelloi@...> wrote:
>> You have to use your imagination.  Film viewers don't need support
>> contracts, but they might like to have more of a say in the sorts of
>> films that get produced, and they might be willing to pay for that.  I
>> certainly would.
>
> The payment is the crucial problem for un-labelled content. [...] If you think that
> freedom-fighting avangarde p2p networks will not copy quality content from
> independents think again.

That's fine with me.  I think you missed my point.  If there was, say, a 
worker's collective of independent filmmakers that produced films on 
subjects proposed and chosen democratically by their paying supporters, I 
would be happy to be one of those paying supporters. And if the resulting 
films were then copied and distributed free of charge, so much the better. 
I'm sure I'm not the only person who would contribute to such a project.

If all I can do is choose among content that's already been created, I'm 
reduced to the role of passive spectator.  I feel about as involved as 
when I have to choose between political parties.  No wonder I'm not very 
interested in paying.  But if paying gave me a say in the subjects covered 
and in the way they're covered, so that I and my like-minded friends could 
get, say, documentaries produced on the subjects we really want to know 
more about (or want others to know more about), that would be a real 
reason to pay.

Ben

(Continue reading)

headers

Morlock Elloi | 3 Mar 07:37

Re: double-plus-unfree digest [byfield, elloi]

> You have to use your imagination.  Film viewers don't need support
> contracts, but they might like to have more of a say in the sorts of
> films that get produced, and they might be willing to pay for that.  I
> certainly would.

The payment is the crucial problem for un-labelled content. Currently only the
big ones can handle the cost of charging for the content and more-or-less
effectively manage piracy problems. It is too expensive for small content
creators to charge for it, and their ability to sell the 2nd copy after the
first one is sold and replicated is nearly zero. If you think that
freedom-fighting avangarde p2p networks will not copy quality content from
independents think again. This is why the business model for small software
publishers evaporated. Especially for good software. And everyone is trying to
get into service model ... but that's a different rant.

The independent micropublishers will flourish when (a) it becomes as easy to
charge/pay for content as it is to put a coin in parking meter (forget credit
cards, secure web sites and related complex & expensive schemes), and (b) when
copying unpaid content becomes prohibitevely expensive in any juristiction
(meaning technological, not legal barriers.)

I find it nauseating that the current freedom fighters are fighting for freedom
for masses to view/copy media outlet crap for free in the guise of freedom of
thought, freedom to program etc (the last time I looked p2p traffic was 100%
corporate media content ... no political manifestos or banned books there).
That it the sickest phenomenon of the Internet age. Good thing I'm not into
conspiracy theories.

=====
end

(Continue reading)

headers

Benjamin Geer | 3 Mar 01:08

Re: double-plus-unfree digest [byfield, elloi]

Morlock Elloi <morlockelloi@...> wrote:

> In media content this likeliness of monetizing is much lower.

You have to use your imagination.  Film viewers don't need support
contracts, but they might like to have more of a say in the sorts of
films that get produced, and they might be willing to pay for that.  I
certainly would.

> 'Value' of the content for the masses *is* created mostly by
> publishing labels.

This is a symptom of the problem I was pointing out.  Alienation can't
be overcome by media alone, because it's inherent in the way people
live.  Slaves who watch great free films are still slaves.  But slaves
who are creating the economic and political conditions for their own
emancipation can certainly make free films to help that effort along,
and will have no need whatsoever to parody the filmmaking of their
former masters.

Ben

headers

NeTtImE'S_kreative_kommons | 2 Mar 23:15

double-plus-unfree digest [byfield, elloi]

t byfield <tbyfield@...>
     Re: Michael Wolff: 'Free Information is Now the Topic in the Media
Morlock Elloi <morlockelloi@...>
     Re: Internet2: Orchestrating the End of the Internet?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2005 14:30:28 -0500
From: t byfield <tbyfield@...>
Subject: Re: <nettime> Michael Wolff: 'Free Information is Now the Topic in the Media

andy@... (Tue 03/01/05 at 06:08 PM -0500):

> michael wolff essentially takes a sledgehammer to 
> the intellectual property / digital rights management 
> culture 
> affecting the mediosphere 
> in this article 
> located at  
> http://cryptome.org/wolff1.html

It all sounds strangely familiar. Jamie Boyle's contribution from
the ~same fortnight's more interesting -- and I don't think he's
using similar phraseology because it's "now the topic in the media." 
Wolff could used a refresher course in immanent critique, imo.

Cheers,
T

(Continue reading)