public

Artifactuality and Material Culture

Here is a very cool sounding PhD seminar course: Towards a â??New Materialismâ??? Exploring Artifactuality and Material Culture in History of Science, Technology and Medicine

A monthly Ã?resund reading symposium arranged by History of Technology Division, Technical University of Denmark (DTU)/The Danish National Museum of Science and Technology, Medical Museion, University of Copenhagen, & Research Policy Institute, Lund University

Schedule & Reading:

Thursday October 5, DTU, Lyngby
Lorraine Daston, ed., Things That Talk: Object Lessons from Art and Science (2004)

Thursday November 6, University of Lund, Lund
Andrew Pickering, The Mangle of Practice: Time, Agency and Science (1995)
Thursday December 7, Medical Museion, Copenhagen
Sharon Macdonald, ed., Politics of Display: Museums, Science, Culture (1997)
Thursday January 25, Museum in Copenhagen To Be Decided (TBD)
Bill Brown, ed. Things (2004)
Thursday February 22, Museum in Lund/Malmö TBD
Soraya de Chadarevian & Nick Hopwood, ed., Models: The Third Dimension of Science (2004)

Thursday March 22, Museum in Copenhagen TBD
Larsson, ed., Cultures of Creativity: Birth of a 21st Century Museum (2006)
Thursday April 19, Museum in Lund/Malmö TBD
Peter Galison, Image and Logic: A Material Culture of Microphysics (1997)
Thursday May 24, Museum in Copenhagen TBD
Tim Dant, Materiality and Society (2005)
Thursday June 21, Museum in Lund/Malmö TBD
Bruno Latour & Peter Weibel, ed., Making Things Public: Atmospheres of Democracy (2005)

Register before 21 September – More information here. It’s very, very tempting…

(via Perfekta Tomrummet)

Posted on by mklang

Late News From Rome: CC is OK

So I am late, again! But in going through some old mails this was particularly interesting. It is relevant to a post I wrote (4 Sept – Call for Copyright Activists):

Rome, August 7th 2006.

For the first time in Italy, Siae (the Italian collecting society), with a non-expiring resolution active from July 25th 2006, (documento protocollato presso l’Ufficio Multimedialità al nr. 1/290/06/FDP) recognizes the opportunity and right for the public playing of ambient music inside a commercial space, without compensation to be paid, thanks to the adoption of copyleft licensing schemes (like CC, Art Libre, Copyzero x, Clausola Copyleft) or in the public domain.

Inside the ice cream shop Fiordiluna, in the heart of the Trastevere district in Rome, there is a multimedia space (32″ lcd monitor and Bose speaker system) managed by a Linux pc with free software on it, through which audio, video and literary works with copyleft-like licenses or in the public domain are publicly played.

This major historical achievement has been made possible by the work of Ermanno Pandoli (Giapster and Quindicino) who is a member of the Liberius digital window of the FrontiereDigitali network and who has represented the Fiordiluna ice-creamery to Siae.

Those interested in exposing their works inside the ice-creamery may inform the relevant groups inside the FrontiereDigitali network. To obtain more information on the legal and logitical procedures to follow it is also possible to contact the Liberius digital window.

English translation by Luigi Canali De Rossi, Master New Media Association.

This is an excellent way of bringing about change in the present copyright regime. By enabling businesses to avoid paying the collecting societies and (as in the case above) making a name for themselves we can see how creativity can make a difference. And how it can work outside the narrowly defined conventional music models.

Posted on by mklang

Broadcast & Podcast Rights

This is straight from Cory Doctrow at Boing Boing – not even going to edit it. Copyright is under fire from almost every angle imagineable. This is about the aweful Broadcast Treaty.

The Broadcast Treaty is an attempt to force the world’s governments to give a new right to broadcasters, a right to control the use of works they don’t own. The Broadcast Right will allow broadcasters to stop you from copying or re-using the programs they transmit, even if those programs are in the public domain, Creative Commons licensed or composed of uncopyrightable facts.

Fair use doesn’t apply to the broadcast right. It will have its own rules for fair use, separate from copyright. You’ll have to pay your lawyer twice, once to make sure you’ve got a fair copyright use, and again to make sure you’ve got a fair broadcast right use. And you might get sued twice — once for violating copyright and again for broadcast right violations.

Worse yet, they want this to apply to the Internet. A few US corporations — Microsoft, Yahoo — have hijacked the US position on the Broadcast Treaty and now the US is using every trick in the book to get the world’s governments (who roundly reject the idea) to create a “webcasting right” at the same time as the broadcast right.

This is deadly to podcasters. The webcasting right will break podcasters’ ability to quote and re-use each others’ work (even CC-licensed works), and other video found on the net. It will allow podcast-hosting companies like Yahoo to tell people how they can use your podcasts, even if you want to permit retransmissions. And it will hurt organizations that are tying to find novel ways to use podcasts, like

The webcasting stuff has been “narrowed” to try to make it apply only to “professional” webcasts and not podcasts, but this is a short-sighted view of the future of podcasting. The term podcasting was only coined 20-some months ago. The idea that we can predict what a podcast will look like tomorrow is ridiculous — it’s like designing a copyright for printed books ten seconds before the photocopier comes along and changes everything.

Luckily, the webcasting stuff is on the ropes. Mark Cuban, who founded Yahoo’s Broadcast.com, has signed onto an open letter from 20 technology organizations that reject the webcasting right. Last week, dozens of companies, libraries and public interest groups signed an open letter rejecting the treaty altogether.

Now it’s the podcasters’ turn. EFF has created an open letter on behalf of podcasters everywhere, rejecting the webcasting right. WIPO is supposed to be making treaties that protect creators. We podcasters are the Internet’s native creators. WIPO has no business trying to break the Internet so that it is better-suited to the business-models of yesterday’s broadcasters.

If you are a podcaster — or better yet, a podcasting organization — sign onto this letter now! It will be presented Monday morning to the WIPO committee that’s creating the Broadcast Treaty in Geneva. This is your best-ever chance to be heard. Link

Posted on by mklang

I Nailed Yesterday

Yesterday was an amazing day. The printers delivered 75 copies of my thesis as quickly as they could. They were so quick that when I opened the box the books were still warm â?? so now I know what â??hot of the pressesâ?? really means.

I took 51 books with me to the main university library. In return for 50 of my books I got a receipt. I took the last book with me to find the Dean of my faculty. He kindly interrupted a meeting to sign my book. Without his signature I cannot continue the process.

So with a signed copy of my thesis I returned to the office packed up my stuff, handed out a few copies to friends and colleagues before rushing home. From there the family followed me to the main university building to a notice board where I presented myself, my thesis and the documentation that I was allowed to proceed.

The women in charge gave me a hammer and nail which I used to hammer my thesis to the notice board. It was a very satisfying experience.

The process of hammering your thesis is the traditional form of publicising that the thesis has been made public. This is done three weeks before the actual defence so that unknown opponents have a chance to arrive at the defence armed to the teeth… Naturally the act of nailing is not as important as it used to be since the real publication of the date and time is done digitally. But it remains a very satisfying experience for the PhD student.

Update: I am officially on the list of upcoming defences.

Posted on by mklang

Copyright kills again

Once again copyright is used in a way to prevent the public from gaining access to material from dead authors. The first reports on this issue that surfaced in June . Joyceâ??s grandson, Stephen Joyce has limited access to material, attempted to prevent publication of scholarly works, demanded access to literary conferences (New Yorker) – his actions are tolerated since he controls the copyright of James Joyce.

James Joyce died in 1941. His work forms an important part of world litterature in general and Irish littarature in particular. It’s interpretation and exploration is part of world culture and heritage. And yet copyright law enables his grandson to limit this exploration. The grandson of Joyce knows about as much about what Joyce would have wanted as my cat does – if I had one. The point is that copyright is granted as an incentive for the writer – as a thanks for the bonus to society. But what happens when copyright is used to limit access? Doesn’t this mean that the bargain fails?

In another example of copyright abuse concerning dead authors we see that the widow of the works of Jorge Luis Borges is actively preventing re-publication:

Here is the story from The Chronicle Herald I quote it in full since it is short and I could only retreive it by using Google cache.

Despite huge demand, a French publishing house says it has been unable to reprint its critically acclaimed edition of the complete works of Argentine author Jorge Luis Borges because of a dispute with his widow.

French editor Gallimard published the two tomes under its prestigious La Pleiade imprint in 1993 and 1999, but they sold out within less than a year each time, said Francoise Issaurat, spokeswoman for the publisherâ??s press office in Paris.

Borgesâ??s widow, Maria Kodama, inherited the sole rights to his estate when the author died in 1986, although the will was contested. Kodama, whom the publisher says does not want the work reprinted, has drawn fire from Borges scholars who accuse her of denying them access to his papers and of trying to shape interpretations of his life and work.

“We never received the authorization of Mrs. Kodama to reprint the Pleiade collections, which were enormously successful,” Issaurat said. “We could have sold 30,000 copies of each, easily.” Kodama and her representatives were not immediately available to explain why she has not authorized the reprinting. However, Franceâ??s Nouvel Observateur magazine cited the publisher as saying that Kodama was concerned the first edition was riddled with errors and that she had demanded they hire a new editor.

Whether or not you can, want or need to read the works of Joyce & Borges is not the point. (But you should try – they are great for a reason). The point here is to question the rationale of granting copyright terms beyond the life of the author.

Take for exampel Borges “The Book of Imaginary Beings“. It was published in 1967. The book was an expanded version of the Spanish edition “El Libro de los Seres Imaginarios” (published 1957). The Imaginary Beings contains descriptions of 120 mythical beasts from folklore and literature. The book is copyrighted on publication. Borges died in 1986 and according to copyright regulation the copyright protection does not elapse until 2056.

The rationale behind such protection is to ensure that the write profits from his/her writing. To ensure this the state offers the opposite of the market ideology – the monopoly. So far so good. The author has a monopoly on his/her work as a thanks for making this work available to the public and therefore enriching it.

But this sitaution/contract/agreement/understanding fails when the heirs of the creator prevent the communication of the work to a wider audience. They have not created anything so why are they being given this position?

(via Errata)

Posted on by mklang

What is torture?

George W. Bush has admitted to the existence of secret CIA prisons. But in the same speech he says “The US does not torture. I have not authorised it and I will not.”

The fact that Bush admits to the prisons is an important step. But his defence that torture has not been used is strange. Naturally it sounds good but it raises the question whether Bush knows what the definition of torture is.

The Bush administration has been struggling with the definition of the word since, at least, August 2002 (Washington Post).

Lets lend a hand – here is a definition in line with customary international law (ICTY, 10 December 1998, Prosecutor v. Anto Furundzija [1998] ICTY 3, § 160)

The UN Convention against Torture definition provides that torture is â??any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctionsâ??.

But even if we ignore legal definitions. An easily understandable idea is that the presence of secret prisons is not good and borderline torture since secret prisons must cause undue stress to those who are interned.

Posted on by mklang

Gender Equality and Terrorism

The question of why people become terrorists is naturally much older than the present discussion. While the trendy (and simplistic) explanations right now are based upon ethnic and religious boundaries we easily forget our all too close past. Terror groups over the last 50 years have not necessarily followed ethnic or religious boundaries. European terrorism between 1960-1990, for example, has plenty of examples of terrorists attacking their ethnic, social and religious peers.

For example: Brigate Rosse (Italien militant leftists), Black Star (Greek anti-Imperialist, anti-capitalist), Rote Armee Fraktion (German Baader-Meinhof Group), Euskadi Ta Askatasuna (Basque Homeland and Freedom), Real (or True) IRA (Irish Republican Army) and First of October Antifascist Resistance Group (Spain)

So if we can cross of ethnic and religious tensions as to the cause of terrorism â?? what else is there? In recent research collaboration between University College London and Zhejiang Normal University in China arrived at one of the root causes is that there are too many men in society. These men are unlikely to be able to have (much/any?) sex and almost no chance of having families of their own. From the UCL media press release (28 August 2006):

Cultures that favour male babies have bred a surplus of men who will struggle to find sexual partners and could find themselves marginalised in society, warns a new paper co-authored by a UCL (University College London) researcher. As more men discover their lack of marriage prospects, this could lead to antisocial behaviour, violence and possibly more opportunities for organised crime and terrorism, threatening the stability and security of many societies.

There you have it. Research claims that lack of sex makes men into terroristsâ?¦ The solution is naturally to be found in the words of the great John Lennon & McCartney: All you need is love, love, love is all you need.

What a load of…

Posted on by mklang

Call for Copyright Activists

Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary define the word Extortion as obtaining (as money) from a person by force, intimidation, or undue or unlawful use of authority or power.

In order for musicians to get paid copyright collectives began to appear in the 19th century. These collecting societies were formed to ensure that those who create copyrighted material are able to collect the money they are due. In its simplest form the member musician hands over control of his/her economic rights to the collecting society. The collecting society then has the mandate to collect the dues. Once collected these funds are dispersed among the members.

In most (at least European) countries the collecting societies have established themselves as a central part of the socio-economic system. They are powerful interest groups which ensure that they (and in extention their members) are catered to by the political-legal system. By entering into agreements with trade organisations the collecting societies now have established the right to collect money from all businesses that play music, show tv etc to their customers.

Rasmus at Copyriot has written an interesting piece on the way in which collecting societies manage to collect money. In Sweden the most active collecting societies are SAMI and STIM which are able to collect money for any music played in places of business where customers gather.

So large everything from: hotels with music in the lifts, small pizzerias whose music annoys you while you wait for your delivery, hairdressers, businesses that play cheesy music while you are on hold and cafés with music nobody listens to. They are all required to pay to the collecting societies.

Rasmus even relates an event where a policeman at a demonstration in Germany wrote down all the songs played and sent the list to the German collecting societies who promptly sent the organiser a bill. Swedish law would work in the same way. The policemanâ??s superior stated that the policeman had gone too far but the bill still has to be paid. (link to story in German).
The Spanish Case

In 2005 the main Spanish collecting society (Sociedad General de Autores y Editores – SGAE) â?? sued Ricardo Andrés Utrera Fernández, the owner of Metropol, a disco bar located in in Badajoz for not paying SGAEâ??s license fee of 4.816,74 â?¬ for the period from November 2002 to August 2005 for the public performance of music.

On February 17th, 2006, the Lower Court number six of Badajoz, a city in Extremadura, Spain, rejected the collecting societyâ??s claims because the owner of the bar proved that the music he was using was not managed by the society. The music performed in the bar was licensed under CC licenses that allows that public display since the authors have already granted those rights. Specifically, the judge said:

â??The author possesses some moral and economic rights on his creation. And the owner of these rights, he can manage them as he considers appropriate, being able to yield the free use, or hand it over partially. “Creative Commons” licenses are different classes of authorizations that the holder of his work gives for a more or less free or no cost use of it. They exist as â?¦ different classes of licenses of this type â?¦ they allow third parties to be able to use music freely and without cost with greater or minor extension; and in some of these licenses, specific uses require the payment of royalties. The defendant proves that he makes use of music that is handled by their authors through these Creative Commons licenses.â?? (quote from CC)

The full text of the decision (in Spanish) is available here. The Spanish case sets a new precedent in that it confirms that the collecting societies can only collect if the music played is made by members of collecting societies.

Copyright Activists Needed
What needs to be done? Hairdressers and café owners are probably not the most tech or Internet savvy. So to help them the basic idea is to set up a website filled with CC licensed music and easy howto instructions on how to use the music either online or by downloading and creating CDâ??s.

Aside from music arranged by genre, technical information on how to use it, the site should include legal information explaining why the users will no longer have to pay money to the collecting societies.

This copyright civil disobedience could potentially become the most important method for affecting change in the copyright system since it attacks the purse of the collecting society. In addition to this the scheme is legal. This last point does not make it less civil disobedience since the organisation of the site is a form of protest against the extortionary powers which the collecting societies have collected.

Posted on by mklang

The ungood system of academic publishing

Another text on Free Software that I have written has been accepted for publication. This is good news. But then I read the rather draconian copyright and licensing rules which the publisher wants to apply to my text.

Basically the ideas remain mine but if I want to present them I have to re-write the ideas from scratch.

The author retains the rights to any intellectual property developed â?¦While the author may use any and all thoughts and research results developed or accumulated while working on a manuscript, and may rewrite, update, and re-title them for use in other publications, â?¦ the author CANNOT use the verbatim text of the manuscript or any part thereofâ?¦without first obtaining the written permissionâ?¦

From my limited experience this wording is pretty standard. From the academics point of view I â??needâ?? publications. But the situation becomes strange when the topic I am writing about is Free Software which has a large focus on openness and the freedom of ideas.

Let me just point out from the start â?? there is no limitation on the reader to read and develop the ideas. They just cannot slavishly copy the text.

My niggling concern is the fact that I am paid by an organisation to do research (and teach). So I spend my time gathering information and thinking about the implications of what is occurring in my particular field. I may even have applied for public grants to do this work.

Once I write down my thoughts the only way for the others to gain access to them is for my library to buy the book so that others can read it. Which basically means my university is paying twice for this information. First for me to think/write and then to obtain physical access to the information.

Even though I dislike the contents of the copyright agreement I have just signed it did not prevent me from signing it. The problem is one of incentive structures. Had I written the work and then just posted it to my website â?? it would not have been worth anything to my academic peers and therefore to my academic career.

The academic text only becomes valuable after it passes through the quality control system which is in the hands of the publisher. Without a publishing house behind the text the information contained therein is not seen as knowledgeâ?¦

Posted on by mklang

tis done

Today, after spending the whole weekend re-reading and correcting, I approved my thesis manuscript for publication. This means:

1. The printer is pressing the big button

2. There is no turning back – on 2 October I defend

3. No more changes can be made to the thesis

The sensation is one of relief and anxiety. What if I have made a huge error in the middle? Have I said too much? Too little? Have I missed a weak spot in my arguments etc etc. Soon (very soon) the answer to these questions will become clear.

The whole final text and images of the cover can be found here.

Posted on by mklang