The main ideas of this presentation are the value of “remixing” concepts, works and tools as art and the importance of keeping an open mind about collaboration. Ippolito points out that there are many shades of copyright protection and that open source art projects exist and are often novel and dynamic. It is difficult, however, to point out specifically how this presentation relates to other texts in the seminar. We have spoken briefly about subversion and activism as art, but charting the exact trajectory that this course will take is problematic at this point.
Ippolito is competent with the subject matter, but the content seems woefully outdated. It is not as if he is “preaching to the choir,” but that issues he brings up have either been resolved somewhat or have been exacerbated extremely. Creative Commons remain an alternative to traditional copyrighting, but recent court cases involving CC licenses reveal some of the unintended consequences of their usage (http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/5823, http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/7680). Also, the recent trial of Fredrik Neij, Gottfrid Svartholm, Peter Sunde, and Carl Lundström of Piratebay.org brought the world of Digital rights management (DRM) into plain and common view as it unfolded and was covered via sites such as Twitter (which was a non-entity when this talk was given). Ippolito specifically stated that the type of hacking or usage that he was encouraging did not involve stealing in the legal sense, but the DRM battles of the last few years have really punctuated the divide between users and producers.
The important and still relevant points of Ippolito’s talk reside in the importance and necessity of open, collaborative art making. Working on projects that are CC licensed and distributed is a relatively new form of art, and it presents interesting challenges never really encountered before by artitsts. Working with this paradigm it becomes necessary to compose with interaction, sharing and collaboration in mind.
Showing posts with label Hacking Copy Right for Fun and Profit. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hacking Copy Right for Fun and Profit. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Joe Pankowski Response1
Jon Ippolito, Hacking Copy Right for Fun and Profit
Ippolito comes to the conclusion that creative commons sites are the way to make clear and legal places for people who want to share material online, and have the ability to do so without threatening large corporation's who either want to protect their materials from piracy or are just plain greedy. There are other reasons why he believes these commons are good, including its ability of creating a level playing field between the smaller entrepreneurs and big businesses by giving the smaller entrepreneurs the ability to pool intellectual resources. One thing I thought was interesting is how the sites he used as examples graphed the movement of ideas, where they originally came from, and there progress so a user could tell if the material shared was useful in relation to what they were working on. He also brought up a good point with mapping where the information, audio, or image came from, so that if you were to use an altered image, and then you altered that image it didn't accidentally end up looking like the original image before it was altered the first time. His image example was the Jeff Koons image. He ended his talk on the idea of taking the creative commons farther and calling for a creative sanctuary. A creative sanctuary is this place where stuff is copy right free, but from what I understood could take in stuff from large corporations that was protected but that somehow strayed into the sanctuary and would be up for grabs. I would think this would make these large corporations uneasy once again and put such sites in harms way.
Ippolito comes to the conclusion that creative commons sites are the way to make clear and legal places for people who want to share material online, and have the ability to do so without threatening large corporation's who either want to protect their materials from piracy or are just plain greedy. There are other reasons why he believes these commons are good, including its ability of creating a level playing field between the smaller entrepreneurs and big businesses by giving the smaller entrepreneurs the ability to pool intellectual resources. One thing I thought was interesting is how the sites he used as examples graphed the movement of ideas, where they originally came from, and there progress so a user could tell if the material shared was useful in relation to what they were working on. He also brought up a good point with mapping where the information, audio, or image came from, so that if you were to use an altered image, and then you altered that image it didn't accidentally end up looking like the original image before it was altered the first time. His image example was the Jeff Koons image. He ended his talk on the idea of taking the creative commons farther and calling for a creative sanctuary. A creative sanctuary is this place where stuff is copy right free, but from what I understood could take in stuff from large corporations that was protected but that somehow strayed into the sanctuary and would be up for grabs. I would think this would make these large corporations uneasy once again and put such sites in harms way.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)