Never turn your back on progress. I was offline for a couple of days and the second discussion draft was published along with explanatory texts and the first discussion drafts of the GNU Lesser General Public License. This was a couple of days ago – but still well worth reporting here.
The second discussion draft of the GNU General Public License version 3 was released on 2006 July 27, along with the first discussion draft of the GNU Lesser General Public License.
On 5th of March 1960 Alberto “Korda” Gutierrez took two pictures of Che Guevara. In 1967 the Italian publisher Giangiacomo Feltrinelli received two copies of the famous print at no cost.
Feltrinelli started making posters from the prints with the notice â??Copyright Feltrinelliâ?? down in the corner. The image was on itâ??s way to become an international icon â?? it has been transformed, transplanted, transmitted and transfigured all over the world.
Korda never received a penny. For one reason only – Cuba had not signed the Berne Convention. Fidel Castro described the protection of intellectual property as imperialistic “bullshit”. Does this mean that Korda’s work is in the public domain? Probably not – but it is in a serious grey area.
Today I saw a new chapter in the Korda print. Paul Frank have made their fame (at least in my opinion – but then again this is not a fashion blog) from their cartoon monkey
The Paul Frank monkey is a cultural icon. So is Korda’s Che image. Paul Frank have now playfully (?), respectfully (?), irreverently (?) created a mashup of these two icons into this inevitable (?) conclusion…
When Che t-shirts became popular again (after the fall of the Soviet Union) I remember hearing a few mumblings from people that “young people” were adopting the icons of the revolution without any knowledge about the content, struggle or ideologi – the past had in fact become a trademark belonging to no one. I tried then to argue for the role of the cultural icon – but some still stuck to their guns and argued that the young were adopting symbols without knowledge and the manufacturers were profiteering on the ideology of the revolution.
From Korda to Paul Frank…evolution?…regression? You decide…
This is the first of a series of discussions on the version 3 of the GPL. This post will report on the oddly named process of TiVO-isation.
At times the GNU/Linux desktop operating system is seen as the flagship of Free Software but it is important to remember that while the flagship is important and symbolic it is not the foundation upon which the impact of Free Software should be measured.
The greatest technological foundation of Free Software is the use of stripped down Linux kernels in embedded applications. One such application is the TiVO recorder. The TiVO is an embedded device made up of several GNU packages. The device is capable of recording several TV channels at the same time.
The definition of Free Software is sometimes reproduced in a simple â??four freedomsâ?? format. If software fulfils these four conditions it is Free. If any of the four freedoms is limited in any way the software is proprietary. For the sake of completeness the four freedoms are listed here:
Freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
Freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
Freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
Freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
According to the freedoms it permissible to modify a GPL licensed program without re-distributing it, or running proprietary software on top of the GPL licensed software.
The TiVO has modified GNU/Linux in order to implement DRM within the operation of their video recorder. In compliance with the GPL, they released the source code for these modifications. Users are therefore able to modify the code and the operation of the video recorder. To this extent the TiVO is GPL compliant.
The problem is that TiVO contains a special mechanism that shuts down the machine if the user attempts to install modified software. Therefore the user is allowed to modify the code but is prevented from in reality from using these modifications in the embedded application of the TiVO. This makes freedom 1 into a sham.
The new version of the GPL (version 3) will prevent the compliance with the letter of the freedoms without the compliance to the purpose and spirit of the GPL.
The social and cultural impact of mobile media has received too little study so here is an interesting call for papers to an international conference on social and cultural aspects of mobile phones, convergent media, and wireless technologies – The conference website Mobile Media 2007 will be up in August 2006.
Date: 2-4 July 2007
Place: The University of Sydney, Australia
…This relatively short history of mobile telephony is concurrently marked by the shift of the role of users from consumers to active producers – and mobile media is being heralded as a new site for consumption, democratic expression, individualism, citizenship, and creativity.
We also invite papers on all aspects of mobile media, including, but certainly not restricted to:
* what does it mean to talk about mobiles as media?
* how do we map and theorise the transformations underway with mobile platforms, applications, and networks?
* mobile art
* mobiles and photography
* emerging cultural and narrative forms for mobiles (such as mobile films and videos)
* intersections between mobiles and Internet technologies
* wireless technologies and cultures
* mobile television, radio, and other kinds of broadcasting
* video calling and communications
* sexuality, intimacy, and mobile media
* mobile media and national or regional cultures
* subcultures, minority cultures, majoritarian cultures, and mobile media
* how do gender, sexuality, disability, socio-economics, cultural and linguistic contexts inflect cultural practices in the far-from-even-and-even terrain of mobiles?
* mobile media and political economy
* mobile gaming
* what are the implications of mobile media for our concepts of culture, communication, and media
* mobiles, community, and public sphere
* mobile media, place and space
* ramifications of mobile media for creative, cultural and media industries
* challenges of mobile media for policy, regulation, and legislation.
Most of us have been in the position where we wanted to ask a stupid question â?? but did not ask it for fear of being seen to be stupid. We practice the noble art of silence. That this is common can be seen when someone else asks the stupid question and immediately a group of people in the audience gratefully acknowledge the importance of the question. Fear of standing out from the group is a powerful force of censorship.
The main problem with consensus is that anyone who disagrees is in the unfortunate position of being abnormal. The group is the norm â?? therefore disagreement with the group is abnormal. This is why censorship is dangerous. It creates the impression that anyone with a dissenting voice is abnormal. Fear of being considered outside the group leads most people to conform with the group and practice self-censorship â?? which in turn reinforces the illusion of consensus and the oddity of the dissenter.
Therefore to ensure that social discussions are not limited or quashed voicing dissent is important since it may encourage others to think and participate. Naturally the object of criticism would prefer not to be criticised and may work to prevent the voicing of criticism. This is, in most cases, not taken to extremes. But in the recent years the limitation of dissent has become a legitimate form of government activity.
Since government has a legitimate interesting in protecting all citizens it can be forced to prevent the actions of some citizens to ensure the safety of all. But this principle is being perverted. By identifying themselves as the nation, politicians are beginning to protect themselves from open criticism. Through the use of the extended public defence argument politicians now argue that it is wrong to criticise them since they are acting in the best interests of the nation.
In 2003 Stephen Downs was arrested for wearing a T-shirt with the text â??Give Peace a Chanceâ??.
In 2004 Nicole and Jeff Rank were removed from the event at the West Virginia Capitol in handcuffs after revealing T-shirts with President Bushâ??s name crossed out on the front. Nicole Rankâ??s shirt had the words â??Love America, Hate Bushâ?? on the back and Jeff Rankâ??s said â??Regime change starts at home.â??
In 2005 Charlotte Denis was arrested for wearing a T-shirt with the text â??Bollocks to Blairâ??.
In 2006 Cindy Sheehan was arrested for wearing a T-shirt with the text â??2,245 Dead. How many more?â??
In 2006 Mike Ferner was arrested for drinking coffee while wearing a T-shirt with the text â??Veterans for Peaceâ??.
Another example is the UK law that prevents ANY demonstrations within a mile radius of parliament. This has led demonstrators to meet and conduct an extremely civilised form of protest â?? a tea party at the Winston Churchill statue. On occasion police arrest these demonstrators.
European Commission opened an online public consultation (July-September 2006) on radio frequency identification (RFID) and includes the consultation background paper.
An excellent way to spend part of your summer: Read, think & comment.
The UK Government has launched a public consultation on Part I and III of The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA). Part III of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA), allowing the police to ask for the disclosure of encryption keys or force suspects to decrypt encrypted data has not yet been implemented but the government considers time has come for it. The arguments relate to the rapid development of encryption products and the increased availability to such products including integrated security features in operating systems.
Comments on the two draft codes are expected by 30 August.
(via EDRI)
The Creative Commons licenses were launched in Peru yesterday. This means that users in Peru now can choose CC licenses in their own language and adapted to their legal environment.
From the press release:
â??The Peruvian version of the Creative Commons licenses will be launched after the iLaw Program 2006 being held at Pontificia Universidad Catolica del Peru. Professor Lawrence Lessig of Stanford University, CEO & Chairman of Creative Commons, will deliver the keynote speech on the importance of Creative Commons Peruâ??, says Oscar Montezuma.
â??CC has been very well received in Peru. It has quickly gained the interest of many individuals and institutions ranging from the private to public sector. Success has been such, that I think Peru can eventually become a promising global free culture spot in South Americaâ??.
â??We are proud of the achievements of the Creative Commons community in Peru. This is a success for all Peruvian authors and creators,â?? adds Pedro Mendizabal.
Congratulations to the CC Peruvian Team.
This arrived in my mailbox and thought it might be of interest. SAGE Publications are offering free online full text access to the current and back issues of selected cultural studies journals (see list below) until August 31st 2006.
To access the journals, register at: https://online.sagepub.com/cgi/register?registration=FT6122
The journals include:
Body & Society
Crime, Media, Culture
Cultural Studies, Critical Methodologies
European Journal of Cultural Studies
French Cultural Studies
International Journal of Cultural Studies
Journal of Consumer Culture
Journal of Visual Culture
Media, Culture & Society
Space and Culture
Theory, Culture & Society
Is this limited open access a strange form of the summer sale or are SAGE simply trying to ensure that people have something good to read during their summer holidays?
I recently published an article in a Swedish journal called InfoTrend. The article included an English abstract which you can read below. The journal wanted me to sign a copyright form which I did. Their contract also included a clause granting me permission to reproduce the article on my website – so I feel I must! So here it is. I realise that I probably should refuse to sign all such documents and demand that they implement CC licenses and open access values but then not many articles would be published and I will not be able to spread the word. It’s a catch 22 kind of situation.
Creative common licensing model as an alternative The great land grab between the 15th and 18th centuries was often legitimised by the concept of terra nullius – since the land was not being commercially exploited, it was being wasted and was therefore free for anyone to take. This stance has in hindsight been criticised for its tragic impact on the cultures and ecology of the lands being taken. Thus today the concept of terra nullius has fallen in disrepute. Despite this the concept is being widely used in the debate on the ownership of copyrightable material. The actions of major cultural producers, such as Disney, show that exploiting from the public domain is a profitable business model. This article discusses the implications of these actions and presents the Creative Commons licensing model as an alternative for buildning a body of cultural material, which is secured under copyright, but can still be used in a manner akin to the public domain.