not

dus:
temer :)

lit.veda + new media theory (uz RU formalisti) => expand lit.veda o digi
anglofon works, aj inak neinterpretovane works
digi art: a) digitized (hypertext: 1) Ennslin-US skola, 2) Aarseth-cybertext as lit+pc games–nie via media, ale via text funkcie ~ ergodicka lit),
b) created using digital media

ludifikacia kultury ~ upriamenie na hravy postoj ~ esencia par excellance (pozera na svet cez hru!)

—

literatura nie je moc moja domena, mam teda len par velmi strohych poznamok,
a znozku tipov na suvisiace diela/temy (ktore uz asi poznas) :

paci sa mi moc kombinacia
ludifikácia kultúry & využitie diverzity medialít na zaujatie citatela & co najintenzívnejší zážitok v co najkratšom case
!

bohaty poznamkovy aparat, velmi sucasne pramene (bolter, manovich, hayles, …),
slovencinu si obohatila o viacero novych terminov, nenasiel som floskule,
tomu hovorim poctiva praca!! fii, no, neviem ci som taku kvalitnu phd uz niekedy videl…

pacia sa mi hrave nazvy kapitol

“nesúsledné písanie” je fajn vyraz :)

technicke:
nasiel som malu chybicku – poznamka 259.
na str. 89 je uprostred strany skok na dalsiu, neviem ci to tak malo byt

hih, citujes Szczepanika, s nim robim projekt v brne :)

par tipov:

pre cast Interludium ta mozno bude zaujimat Austinov koncept “speech act”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speech_act

mozno by ta tiez mohli zaujimat boty, umele inteligencie komunikujuce s uzivatelom v realnom case, napr. Alice
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_Linguistic_Internet_Computer_Entity
alebo ELIZA
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ELIZA

tu ma este sean cubitt pracicku:
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/slade/digita/notes.html

v historiach net.artu sa vzdy spomina praca ‘my boyfriend came back from the war’ olia lialina,
skvele je, ze vzniklo vyse 10+ remixov
http://myboyfriendcamebackfromth.ewar.ru/

a na prace Jodi.org by bolo veelmi zaujimave sa pozriet z literarneho hladiska

este ma napada code poetry [ http://burundi.sk/monoskop/index.php/Category:Code_poetry ],
a spam, ale to uz je mimo hypertextu…

zuzana:
moja skolitelka ju mala vypisanu tu temu, tak sme to spolu vymysleli, ona mala, ze hypertext, ja som uz potom z toho pojmu grcala, tak som si to cele prestavila na DF – a to cele je pootm moje.
samozrejme Austina poznam, citala som jeho aj Searla,
projekty Eliza a spol su sice zaujimave, ale stare jak rit – a nie je to moc fikcia, skor iba kvazipsychologicky efekt, ktoremu niekto neskor prisudil katarznu hodnotu v dobe ked fical narative turn.
toho Cubitta som niekde citala ale neviem ci toto :) prezriem
Szcepanika pozdrav :)))) aj mu to mozes posunut od utorka :DD

a ta Oliana je tiez znama, ja som sa uz v prvom semestri studia presytila tymito starymi hypertextovymi projektmi, preto som ako reprezentanta dala Judy Malloy, lebo to je prvy z takych :))

aj to Jodi.org som kukala kedysi.

Myslím si, že prínos Adornovej a Horkheimerovej koncepcie kultúrneho priemyslu a dialektiky osvietenstva pre súčasnosť (i prínos frankfurtskej školy všeobecne), spočíva predovšetkým v neustálom apeli na kritického ducha, v dôraze na problematizovanie kultúrnej prítomnosti, na rozvíjanie interdisciplinárneho prístupu k jej skúmaniu, na odmietnutie fetišizácie akýchkoľvek kategórií, prostredníctvom ktorých definujeme našu kultúrnu prítomnosť a na využívanie dialektickej metódy, ktorá zabraňuje statickému a ahistorickému videniu kultúry.

Zároveň som presvedčená, že koncepcia kultúrneho priemyslu je vo svojej pôvodnej podobe len veľmi málo využiteľná v súčasnej kultúrnej teórii a výskume. Adornov a Horkheimerov prístup k masovej kultúre nie je jednostranne odmietavý a pohŕdavý, ako im vytýkajú mnohí kritici, ale dialektický, tendencia ku kritickej reflexii len negatívnych aspektov až príliš prevažuje. Aplikovanie Adornovho a Horkheimerovho prístupu priam zvádza k pesimistickým teoretickým úvahám, ktoré nesmerujú k žiadnym praktickým návrhom a sústredia sa len na odhaľovanie falošnej podstaty súčasnej kultúry a spoločnosti. Vo všeobecnosti by som ako základný princíp stanovila vyhnutie sa odhaľovaniu negatívnych a seba-deštrukčných tendencií (hoci nepochybne existujú a sami ich pociťujeme) a vyhnutie sa samoúčelnému dokazovaniu využiteľnosti Adornovej a Horkheimerovej koncepcie a platnosti všetkých ich pesimistických záverov. Naopak, je potrebné sústrediť sa na momenty emancipačné, kritické a pozitívne. Postoj kultúrneho pesimistu je v istom zmysle nesmierne lákavý, ak však chceme prekonať základné nedostatky Adornovho a Horkheimerovho modelu, mali by sme zaujať postoj „kultúrneho optimistu“. Z pozície kultúrneho optimistu, ktorého cieľom je pozitívne zužitkovať Adornovu a Horkheimerovu koncepciu, je podľa môjho názoru následne potrebné predovšetkým:

• Položiť dôraz na to, čo Adorno a Horkheimer neuskutočnili: na odhaľovanie pozitívneho potenciálu kultúrneho priemyslu a na kreatívne zapracovanie teórie kultúrneho priemyslu do rôznych projektov a výskumov.
• Zmeniť postoj k samotnej priemyselne produkovanej masovej kultúre.
• Prestať ju vnímať ako manipulujúcu jednotlivca a uprednostniť také ponímanie, v ktorom masová kultúra predstavuje priestor, v ktorom sa jednotlivec rozličnými spôsobmi pozitívne formuje.
• Vzdať sa prísneho presadzovania dialektického výskumu a obohatiť kritickú teóriu o metodológiu empirického sociologického výskumu.
• Dôraz by sa mal jednoznačne presunúť na rozvíjanie možností pre formovanie jednotlivca a formovanie emancipátorských produktov a médií.
• Rozšíriť okruh Adornom a Horkheimerom skúmaných tém v súvislosti s našou pozíciou a potrebami doby. V tejto súvislosti považujem za nesmierne podnetnú tému napríklad kultúrnu sabotáž ako undergroundové kultúrno-kritické hnutie, ktoré má post outsidera, využíva médiá, umenie a paródiu a stáva sa základom pre formovanie špecifickej subkultúry, ktorá v sebe zahŕňa aspekt kritického nazerania na súčasnú konzumnú a informačnú spoločnosť a jej komodifikovanú kultúru a vyjadruje vlastný postoj umeleckými prostriedkami. Téma kultúrnej sabotáže zároveň otvára široký priestor pre skúmanie svojho vplyvu na rozvíjanie kreatívneho myslenia recipientov – aktívnych divákov.

re:
pozeram ze na Kellnerovi si stavala ) tyjo a tiez pozeram, ze v ceskoslovensku sa o nich prestalo pisat v 70-tych rokoch…. resp. potom len zmienky u Budila, Fajkusa a Faya, to je celkom bieda…
to je fajn, ze na to upozornujes v zavere, ze to chyba, a vobec sa mi paci ten zaver….(!!)
magda ma inak phd temu, ktora celkom suvisi s kulturnou sabotazou — konkretne ‘aktivizmus na internete’

ach –> dusanson —
21:38:56 – 16.05.2008
ďakujem za komentár!!! oveľa lepší ako posudok od rankova, kde mi vypočítava kde som zabudol napísať čiarky v texte :)

rád sa s tebou stretnem, ale a) asi som chorý, smrkám b) mám zajtra narodeniny a s tým sa spája zopar rodinných úkonov c) mám prácu na doma a mal by som cez víkend opraviť 21 strán bibliografických údajov

potrebujem si teraz ujasniť tému doktorátu, v oblasti autorstvo, piráti, sociálne siete, alebo i inde.

dusanson –> ach —
18:45:52 – 16.05.2008

Strohy feedback —

Pekny text, v slovencine ani cestine som v podstate nic podobne zatial necital,
zasluznu pracu si odviedol :)
Je sympaticke, ze citujes aj zdroje z tohto roka a je tam siroka bibliografia.
Nenasiel som vela, mozno az ziadne determinizmy — ze by jeden fenomen sposoboval dalsi
(kedze je jasne, ze vsetko je prepojene so vsetkym a cokolvek vplyva na cokolvek ine
[co i len v tazko postrehnutelnej miere]).

Mozem byt aj kriticky?
Snad budem k veci.

Nie je mi jasne, co bola vlastne priorita prace — zamerat sa na ekonomicky (zmeny v modoch
produkcie v prostredi neskoreho kapitalizmu), sociologicky (ako suvisi fenomen prozumenta
so socialnou interakciou), pravny (legalne otazky pri tvorbe publikovanej na internete)
umelecky (kunsthistoricky), alebo iny aspekt autorstva? Alebo ak na vsetky, tak aka je tvoja
pozicia? Si myslim, ze ‘objektivna’ pozicia vyskumnika (resp. pohlad Bozieho oka) sa dnes
neda obhajit.

V zabere “elektronickej komunikacie” spominas len internetove prostredie
(chybaju napr. mobily, satelity) — neskor to myslim na jednom mieste obhajujes,
ale samotny nazov prace je predsalen trochu zavadzajuci.
V ramci internetu je dalsim velmi podstatnym formatom mailing list — vid napr archivy
a nasledne aj papierovo vydane readre zo Spectre alebo Nettime.

Z historickeho pohladu na autorstvo v elektronickom prostredi mi pride zasadne
spomenut, ze to zacalo na poli softveru, a konkretne s licenciami GNU GPL.
Ten reflektuje aj silnu copyleftovu kulturu, s odlisnymi ideami ako CC.

Ad autor –
Spominas Bourdieuove koncepty kapitalu — prisiel tiez s teoriou pola (okolo 1993), ktora by ta
mohla zaujimat. Prezentuje ju ako alternativu voci inym dvom pristupom ku kulturnej produkcii:
(1) (post)strukturalistom, ktori sa zameriavaju na dielo tak, ze ho vytesnuju od socialnych a
ekonomickych podmienok produkcie, a (2) kritickej teorii (oplyvnenej marxizmom), ktora sa zas
obmedzuje na socialny povod autora a/alebo zamyslaneho publika.
Tvrdi, ze zavedenim teorie pola obchadza ich obmedzenia: rozne polia su charakterizovane
poziciami a zastavanim pozicii jednotlivymi umelcami, dielami, spisovatelmi, textami, ktore
si vydobijaju vlastne miestecka v tej-ktorej oblasti.
Bruno Latour, John Law a dalsi idu v tomto este dalej. V actor-network theory sa vyhybaju
antropocentrickemu ponatiu autora (cloveka dominujuceho celemu procesu produkcie,
vratane technologii), a stavaju vedla seba do nehierarchickych vztahov nielen ludi a diela,
ale aj idey, techniky, technologie a dalsie “hybridy”. Klucovym pre tuto teoriu je tiez
radikalne odmietnutie dualizmu priroda – kultura. (Mozno by tu bolo zaujimave rozvit
tiez koncept peer production).

V praci mi chyba uvaha o povahe diela v novych podmienkach.

Zaujimavou je tiez sirsia rola verejnej domeny:
ustava, vzduch, voda, galaxia
(ta sa ale netyka elektronickej komunikacie).

Kapitolka 3.4.3 by si zasluzila rozvit viac.

Nenasiel som odpovede napr na:
– preco maju niektori autori zaujem sirit diela volne?
– preco publikum masovo ignoruje pravne obmedzenia nakladania s cudzim dielom?

Tym ze je praca v slovencine, opis situacie v CC a pripadne GNU GPL v nasom regione (SK, CZ)
by bol urcite velkym prinosom.

Ale treba povedat, ze som si to zatial nestihol precitat cele poctivo, skor len pasaze
a ine letiacim okom.

Co dalej —
pre mna by bolo velmi zaujimave si od teba precitat viac o povahe a produkcii diel
(teda hybridov, amalgamov) v novych podmienkach (teda formou peer-production,
neviditelnej prace, cez socialne siete a podobne) — v ramci toho by bolo autorstvo
jeden z dolezitych aspektov.

Dmytri Kleiner kritizuje Creative Commons aj Benklerovu ideu ‘commons-based peer-production’..

o CC hovori, ze namiesto toho aby podporovala slobodu uzivatela (napriklad GPL definuje slobodu ako 4 slobody uzivatela–to use/share/study/modify), dava autorovi ‘slobodu’ urcit uroven kontroly nad uzivatelom (teda rozne obmedzenia ako noncommercial-only/view-only atd).. cim CC neberie kontrolu z ruk producentov (co je ideou Free Culture), ani vobec nerusi rozdiel medzi producentom a konzumentom, ako tvrdi Lessig.

no a Benklerova teza z Wealth of Networks o ‘commons-based peer-production’ hovori o komunite autorov (peers), ktori spolocne tvoria v prostredi bez vlastnictva (commons). tu zas Kleiner tvrdi, ze tym ze Benklerovo commons ma imaterialnu/digitalnu povahu, tak ti co skutocne profituju v takejto situacii su ti, ktori vlastnia (materialne) prostriedky na vyrobu (nematerialnych) statkov, pretoze tvorcom neposkytuju slobodny pristup, ale na nom zarabaju. no a na to, aby autori prispievajuci do takejto commons neboli vykoristovani vlastnikmi fyzickeho materialu, treba do commons okrem virtualnych prostriedkov (softver, videa, texty, obrazky, atd) produkcie zahrnut aj materialne prostriedky..

q: “where does power lie in the global network society?”
communication is the central power in contemporary society.
via power vs counter-power; multinational corporate media networks vs creative audience; biased/scandal media politics vs insurgent grassroots media politics.
[10] defines power in a Weber-inspired way as “the relational capacity that enables a social actor to influence asymmetrically the decisions of other social actor(s) in ways that favor the empowered actor’s will, interests, and values”

[42-47,418-420] 4 kinds of power in the network society:
* networking power –
* network power
* networked power
* network-making power: “paramount form of power in the network society”; held and exercised by programmers and switchers; analysed via power struggles between the global corporate multimedia networks and the creative audience (chapter 2), the development of media policies in the USA (chapter 2), framing and counter-framing in political campaigns, especially the framing of the US public mind before, during, and after the Iraq war (chapter 3); to scandal politics in Spain in the 1990s (chapter 4), media control and censorship in the USA, Russia, and China (chapter 4); the environmental movement, the global movement against corporate globalization, the spontaneous citizens’ movement that emerged in Spain after the al-Qaeda attacks in 2004, and the Barack Obama presidential primary campaign (chapter 5).

Fuchs about “new web“:
– Tapscott and Williams claim that the “new web” brings about “a new economic democracy (…) in which we all have a lead role“ (2007)
– Kelly argues that the “new web”, where people “work toward a common goal and share their products in common, (…) contribute labor without wages and enjoy the fruits free of charge” (Kelly, 2009, p. 118) constitutes a “new socialism” – “digital socialism”. The new socialism is for Kelly a socialism, in which workers do not control and manage organizations and the material output they generate. Therefore this notion of socialism should be questioned. For Kelly, socialism lies in collective production, not in democratic economic ownership. If “socialism seeks to replace capitalism by a system in which the public interest takes precedence over the interest of private profit“, “is incompatible with the concentration of economic power in the hands of a few“, and “requires effective democratic control of the economy“ (Frankfurt Declaration of the Socialist International, 19511), then Kelly’s notion of socialism that is perfectly compatible with the existence of Microsoft, Google, Yahoo, and other web corporations (as indicated by the fact that he lists Google, Amazon, Facebook, and YouTube in his history of socialism), is not at all a notion of socialism, but one of capitalism disguised as socialism. [critique also by Lessig: http://lessig.org/blog/2009/05/et_tu_kk_aka_no_kevin_this_is.html, http://lessig.org/blog/2009/05/on_socialism_round_ii.html ]
– Castells about ‘new web’ in a refreshing techno-dialectical way that avoids the deterministic pitfalls of technooptimism and techno-pessimism. For Castells, a novel quality of communication in contemporary society is mass self-communication. The three forms of communication (interpersonal, mass communication, and mass selfcommunication) coexist, interact, and complement each other rather than substituting for one another. Castells theorizes mass self-communication based on Eco’s semiotic model of communication as the emergence of “the creative audience” (pp. 127-135) that engages in the “interactive production of meaning” (p. 132) and is based on the emergence of the figure of the “sender/addressee” (p. 130). contemporary Internet = conflict bwn global multimedia business networks that try to commodify the Internet VS “creative audience” that tries to establish a degree of citizen control of the Internet and to assert their right of communicative freedom without corporate control.

Fuchs about autonomy of communicative subjects:
– autonomy in the sense of Kant, understood as the autonomy of the will as the supreme principle of morality (Kant, 2002, p. 58), the “quality of the will of being a law to itself” (Kant, 2002, p. 63)
– autonomy as “true individualism” that Hayek (1948) had in mind, in which capitalism is conceived as spontaneous order that should be left to itself and should not be shaped by political rules (Hayek, 1988)
– autonomy as freedom of speech, taste, and assembly – “the liberty of thought and discussion” – in line with the harm principle, as postulated by John Stuart Mill (2002)
– autonomy as the existence of functionally differentiated self-referential subsystems of society (Luhmann, 1998)
– autonomy in a less individualistic sense as the combination of individual autonomy, understood as subjectivity that is “reflective and deliberative” and “frees the radical imagination” from “the enslavement of repetition” (Castoriadis, 1991, p. 164), and social autonomy, “the equal participation of all in power” (Castoriadis, 1991, p. 136; see also Castoriadis, 1998)
– theoretically unreconciled relationship of private autonomy and public autonomy that Habermas (1996, p. 84) has critically examined
– dialectic of autonomy that Habermas has in mind when he speaks of a “cooriginality of private and public autonomy” (Habermas, 1996, p. 104) achieved in a “system of rights in which private and public autonomy are internally related” (Habermas, 1996, p. 280) and “reciprocally presuppose each other” (Habermas, 1996, p. 417)
– autonomy as the “status of an organized people in an enclosed territorial unit” (Schmitt, 1996, p. 19, for a critique of this approach see Habermas, 1989)
– autonomy as a postmodern project of plural democracy with a multiplicity of subject positions (Laclau & Mouffe, 1985)

For Castells, there are the following new aspects of media politics: the use of the Internet in political campaigns (p. 230), the multiplication of entry points of political reports, on which an interaction between mainstream media and the Internet is based (p. 234), an unprecedented prevalence and significance of scandal politics (p. 246), the easy and immediate diffusion of scandal politics over the Internet by everyone (pp. 247f), an increase of the publicity and perception of corruption and of the impact on public trust (p. 289). The result would be a worldwide crisis of political legitimacy, a decline in public trust, and a crisis of democracy. These crises could possibly, but not automatically result in depoliticization, and would in many cases also create a desire for insurgent politics, social movements, and new public spaces.

artificial hill 80m above the surrounding Brandenburg plain, more precisely the north of Berlin’s Grunewald forest. built by Allies during WW2 from rubble est. 400,000 buildings, higher than the highest natural hill (the Kreuzberg) in the Berlin area. buried underneath the hill: a Nazi military-technical college designed by Albert Speer. Allies tried using explosives to demolish the school, but it was so sturdy that covering it with debris turned out to be easier. In the 1960s a small skiing center was built on the slopes of the hill.

US National Security Agency (NSA) built one of its largest listening stations on top of the hill, rumoured to be part of the global ECHELON intelligence gathering network. is @british sector. found as the bast vantage point for listening to Soviet and East German military traffic. operated by NSA. there till 1989, then equipment removed. vraj vykopali aj escape tunel, but never proven.

in 90s sold from city to group of investors to build hotels+appt, but left untouched. for city is not vyhodne to kupit nazad. lebo bola idea spy museum.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teufelsberg
http://www.lostplaces.de/content/view/36/33/

vo forme newslettra / alebo webu / alebo tlaceneho casopisu? rozni autori, a la http://www.zcommunications.org/zparecon/reimaginingsociety.htm

– promote cultural&ecological commons + alt models for their mgmt (alter copyright; alt economies ~ pay-as-you-like/donations/crowdfunding; “noncommercial” @CC = wrong)
– update education (pillars: amateur culture=youtube; public domain=free pdfs; networking technologies=fb/blogs/forums; collaboration=open methods; globalised knowledge/interdisciplinarity)
– open tools
– new art (as creativity; rather than art as a discipline; thus also transform cult.policies–incl. home-made culture)
– internet of things (expanded connectivity and access)
– revolution of human nature (rather than smashing down the government, or building up communes @desert)
– pro understanding econ/polit/cult/aesth aspects of globalisation @integralist fashion (rather than sci-fi/futurism, or identity politics of marginalised minorities=stigmatism)
– subject to critique: multiculturalism, avantgardism, back-to-origin essentalist radicalism, progress, fundamentalism, neoliberalism, disciplinarism (stratification of knowledge)

filesharing cases @USA:
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_v._Thomas / verdict: $1.92m; ended in a mistrial. But in that case, the judge commented that he believed that the damages sought were something like 1000 times excessive. / Earlier this year (2009), Jammie Thomas Rasset was found guilty of illegally sharing 24 songs via Kazaa. She was ordered to pay a total of $1.92m, or $80,000 per song.
2. RIAA vs Tenenbaum (aj ked v PDFkach je Capitol Recs)

* DMCA act of 1999: (1) $750-$30,000 per song; (2) $750-$150,000 per song if the infringement was “willful”
* T shared mp3s via Kazaa
* 2003, RIAA starts new business-plan, T received a notice (from Sony BMG, Warner, Atlantic Records, Arista Records, and UMG Records) claiming “copyright infringement”, and told him that he could settle the case for $3,500 (via 1-800-DONT-SUE-ME-style call centre). He offered $500, and sent a money order in that amount. That offer was denied.
* 30,000 people have been accused and almost every single case has settled. * The average settlement is between $3,000 – $12,000. * There are actually 133 people in the same docket as Joel (??)
* In 2007, a complaint showed up on his doorstep after years of silence requiring that Joel appear in court. Rather than backing down, like the other 30,000 people, Joel chose to stand his ground and elected to proceed pro se with the help of his mother. Joel filed an answer with a counterclaim asserting abuse of federal power and that the excessive damages were unconstitutional. Joel appeared in court where the Judge ordered the parties into settlement. In the settlement, Joel offered to settle for $5,000. The opposing counsel denied and counter-offered a settlement of $10,500 to be paid over 1 year. Joel declined.
* Aug 2007 – suit filed, accusing T of C infringement for the downloading of 7 music files
* Shortly before the trial, the RIAA increased the number of songs he was being sued for from 7 to 30.
* last week of July 2009 (till 31st) – trial: T is guilty; $675,000 award (jury decided to go to the lower end of willful and chose $22,500 a song); T admitted he down’ed many mp3s; lawyer Charles Nesson said he was a ‘kid’ and internet changed things and music industry had been ‘slow to adapt’; T claimed the law under which he is being prosecuted is unconstitutional
* next: appeal, if fail then file for bankruptcy

Joel Tenenbaum – *1983, @Providence RI, MA in phy+math @Maryland, currently PhD phy

JP Barlow/EFF @ court as expert:
– “economics of ‘file-sharing’ can work to the great benefit of musicians and creators”
– Grateful Dead let audience tape their shows and invented ‘viral marketing’, solving the advertising problem
– internet/p2p “allow us to do which we, as humans, fundamentally need to do: share art”
– “music industry will never be endangered because [..] we as humans absolutely require music, and because in the music business as i know it, familiarity, not scarcity, creates value”
– “online world presents us with a ‘gift economy’, where no moral blameworthiness attaches to non-commercial sharing, and [..] this does not threaten the music industry”
– “recording industry is complicit in allowing itself to hold on to antiquated business models rather than adjust to the changing landscape around them”

Nesson, 2009: RIAA is shifting strategy – contract deals with ISPs, three strike rule ~ 3 times infringes copyright and you’re cut off internet

in email debate the copyleft experts (whom Nesson had planned to call as expert witnesses to testify on Tenenbaum’s behalf) tell Nesson in no uncertain terms that his plan to mount a fair use defense of Tenenbaum’s peer-to-peer activities is a sure legal loser.
* Lessig urges Nesson to argue for outright jury nullification: “I am surprised if the intent is to fight this case as if what joel did was not against the law. of course it was against the law, and you do the law too much kindness by trying to pretend (or stretch) “fair use” excuses what he did. It doesn’t. But if you want to argue it does, then I should think it a big mistake to include Terry on the team, or me for that matter. I have given literally hundreds of speeches where I expressly say p2p filesharing is wrong, and kids shouldn’t do it. I think FREE CULTURE says that more than a dozen times. ”
* William Fisher [proposes replacing much of copyright and DRM with a gov-administered tax-funded reward system, making songs/movies legal to download; pro semiotic democracy]: “neither civil suits against individual downloaders nor secondary-liability suits against intermediaries will solve the crisis in the entertainment industry. The best solution to the crisis, rather, is some variant of the blanket licensing system that I, Neil Netanel, and the EFF have been advocating for some time and that now appear to be gaining some traction.”

lessons:
* you don’t have to accept phone contact from the RIAA lawyers, but could demand correspondence by mail.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIAA_v._Tenenbaum
http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/musicblog/2009/jul/27/filesharing-music-industry
JP Barlow: http://beckermanlegal.com/pdf/?file=/Lawyer_Copyright_Internet_Law/sony_tenenbaum_090410ExpertWitnessReportBarlow.pdf
Nesson, Lessig, Zittrain, Barlow, etc: http://www.scribd.com/doc/13831120/Nessonblog33009

adopted 16 june 2009
via grand coalition (social democrats and conservative party)
led by Minister for Family Affairs Ursula von der Leyen
via usual guise of protecting children (kid prn)
despite 130k signatures (not just hackers and digital activists) @„No indexing and blocking of Internet sites“
#zensursula

DNS queries for sites on a list will be given fake answers that lead to a page with a stop sign. The list itself is maintained by the German federal police (Bundeskriminalamt).

http://netzpolitik.org/wp-upload/zensursula-231×300.png
http://netzpolitik.org/2009/the-dawning-of-internet-censorship-in-germany/
https://epetitionen.bundestag.de/index.php?action=petition;sa=details;petition=3860
http://www.ak-zensur.de/
http://www.thomasmoehle.de/zensur/