open as in

thoughts on how open-source is kind of tribal.

Stories may have been attributed for a while, yet most things would have formed some kind of common knowledge. Yet the knowledge might have had levels of access. Tribes might have stayed mostly in the same areas of Australia (from what i was told), the language of the north is said to be different to that of the south. Over time the tribes probably knew just about everything there was to know about the place they roamed/lived, and that knowledge would have belonged to the tribe, yet how can we really know how the koori people of Australia lived ? explorers prior to the first fleet might have brought sickness.

No one owns the dreamtime. plenty of great stories that the tribes tell (are these open source?). I spose its hard for a culture that has been so abused to open up though. One story is how the gods got angry a long time ago and turned this tree upside down. Boab tree. cool pic

the koori people see god as being in everything ( i heard) where as the christian sees god as only being in the christian (is that right?). I’ve heard koori’s also believe that everything from white man comes from beneath the ground. They are kind of right these days with that, with all the oil, metal and stuff that makes up the world, that binds our society together.

I kind of figure that Koori (koori is a better used word than aboriginal as aboriginal was a forced term) culture is open (or at least was among the tribes long ago) It would be interesting to collect stories and license them with an open license.

cultural folk or folk as in punk folk

response to person who thought decentralized folk is not a good idea.

what do you suggest- centralize the tunes- put ‘em on a shelf /i-tunes? pay to put your music on i-tunes and get people to pay for it- when 99 percent of what is consumed is owned by labels and the only people that pay for your music are your own fans that you develop at live gigs anyway?

cultural money supports the folk scene in most countries. take away the funding that controls the scene and the resource of the community might create the entertainment that is needed. that’s why its best for artists to pay bookers in Europe up front when they book live performance of shows, cause the scene is totally political. Almost every aspect of the music scene is funded. So punk and i see folk as being punk, is not able to happen while artists are judged on their ability to fill out forms rather than what they create. Yet once you
have bureaucracy in place, its not really possible to get rid of it. So i spose musical bureaucrats are always going to laugh at the idea of decentralized folk. look at u-tube! look at myspace, they don’t pay the rights organizations (osa) , look how successful they are when they use content for free.

APRA create conditions to suit their needs

Although i can find many artists to agree to copy and paste on my myspace “i support reforms for APRA” (with very little effort) not one alternative radio station that I am aware of has mentioned issue’s that relate to APRA and Creative Commons. I have contacted many alternative and public radio stations around Australia to raise the issue, with no result. I started to wonder why, the issue of creative commons licenses and rights organizations is quite interesting for artists and public.

PBS is a radio station based in Fitzroy Melbourne that uses mostly alternative music content. PBS are able to stream content globally under the license fee they pay. PBS possibly get much of the revenue to run their organization through subscriptions from abroad. If PBS started to collect content from artists that were not members of APRA, under something similar to the ownterms contract idea at this link, http://ownterms.pbwiki.com/contract-2 (to lower operating costs and introduce new media to their listeners) APRA who have a monopoly would see this as a threat.

APRA are easily able to manipulate market conditions. APRA create conditions that force “self published” artists to join a network of rights organizations so that media can use that content (without the artist being a member of APRA the media is not legally able to use that artists content) APRA supply content at one price. APRA want recognize Creative Commons licenses. Creative Commons licenses provide a legal platform for use of self published content without the rights organization.

I’m not sure how APRA work out how much users of content pay to be able to stream content, as APRA do not list prices for use of content on their website. Does this create unfair conditions for business? The market is not able to use other content in conjunction with APRA’s content to the users advantage. Its quite simple for content to be tagged and identified as a different media. New technology means that media and creators of media need to be able to innovate. APRA’s blanket license prevents innovation to occur from both the creators and users perspective.

Without all price variables for use of content being listed in an easy and understandable way online, how can users be sure they are being treated on equal terms? How are artists able to judge if they want their content provided at this price? If i had a venue or was running an event i would want the details of how the price for use of content is construction. I would want security that my competitors were paying the same price. Listing the variables used to calculate prices for use of content on APRA’s website (however complex they may be) seems like something the business community would want. A regular audit by the ACCC would ensure consumer comfort. Under the current conditions it appears that APRA are able to create conditions that suit the board.

APRA are able to lock use of non APRA content out of the market and their is clear evidence that they do this. I’m quite sure that I am not the first person to bring these issue’s up with the ACCC, what i want to know is why the ACCC continues to allow APRA to maintain their license in such unfair conditions. Members of the business community are simply not able to go against the rights organization because they stand to loose so much.

story of aboriginal people

the interesting thing about the aboriginal people in Australia is that no treaty was ever signed between the two cultures. In New Zealand yes, yet Australia no. This means that if the tribe/person can claim a tie to the land they can call that land theirs. marbo decision. The kurri people had boundaries that divided tribes that no white man could understand. So treaties were considered to be not possible. well that is one excuse i heard. In Tasmania, every aborigonal person died.

The australian government refuses to say sorry to stolen generation or admit any wrong past action. (although in 2008 they did this) If (now) the Government does, they are admitting liability. Under the laws the english brought to the land the kurri people still own the land, kind of weird ay. Kurri people only represent about 5 percent of the population now, if that.

what i heard: Kurri people were shot up until the 1930’s, kurri’s were considered to be a part of the nature by many farmers. I heard farmers were given licenses to cull the population upto the 1930’s. The kurri people are said to have seen the cattle as an easy meal. So the cattle were seen to have more value than that of the life of kurri person, even though some fought in the WW1. Also: drovers = (old time truck drivers) took young girls and cut their hair short. They were known as drovers boys, when a drovers boy got pregnant they were dropped on the side of the road and the drover pick up another from the next town or mission. This was happening not so long ago. I’ve also heard that even in the 60’s if a white man killed a kurri, nothing much would happen to that person. The person would just have to say that the kurri person was trying to steal “their” car. In the 80’s many kurri people are said to have hung themselves in jail, many say the police did this. These were cases known as black deaths in custody.

Some facts i heard: more english soldiers were killed by Aboriginal gun fire than English solders died in the bore war. The first Australian cricket team that played in England were all kurri people (they have a picture of the team in a county in the UK). Both these facts are not found in our history though plus many more, i spose that would make it not fact.

When i travel and see what the aboriginal people have now to what they had prior to white man. I’m quite certain it was better. Even when white man arrived with the first fleet in 1788 much of the population might have died before that because of contact with previous explores from Europe. Who knows what life was like in Australia prior to white settlement. These people lived on the land for how long, who knows? I imagine Kurri people understood a lot about the land they lived on and the secrets within that land, some probably still do.

kurri people understand things that white people might never understand. I reckon the system we grow up in makes us like bricks, the minds of the original people must have flowed like the rivers. The loss and continued oppression of this culture is really sad for me, especially as a white person born in Australia. The lack of respect for what is left, makes the situation worse. The total lack of eduction about the real history of Australia makes Australia a shallow nation.

I have to check out all these things i wrote, yet all these things above other people have told me at different times of my travels. These people seemed sure about these things, so who’s truth is truth.

canada rights organization

i read this at this link

In Canada the songs organization want to put a 60 dollar tax on every net connection and allow free file sharing. my response that seemed to have got lost in a huge ocean of response. My response was this.

what about art that people want to give away free. why would people pay for that? seems like a law not fair to artists not with labels and publishers. good law for the bureaucracy. what rights organizations tend to forget is that people are just not buying as much content as they used to. people are making more content at home. technology has changed yet the laws have stayed the same. these rights organizations were created for the publishers not the artists. with the net we don’t need them publishers or labels anymore.

we also don’t need them political people making decisions that make life better for corporations than people. what to do?

its not oil free

On facebook they have a group saying that digital music is oil free. response:

facebook group link are they going to delete the post?

one thing that is not oil free is all the money spent on promotion of music via publishers and labels. the best thing you can do for the environment is not pay for content owned by any label or publisher and buy content put out by self publishers, that is not joined to rights organizations. so really its not true that digital music is oil free. if you don’t buy it its less oil free. yet even then maybe having that music helps that published artist sell product via use of that content. its all a scam and you label people know it in your heart. go plant a tree and be real.

market

Norway produce 4 million barrels of oil a day. they have 4.5 million people and each year they buy 1.2 million new computers. 8 percent of people in Norway hunt wild animals on regular basis. for each person in Norway the government has just under 100,000 US dollars in reserve. The goverment has such a huge stash left over that some people are saying that the oil might be best left in the ground. the oil companies are owned by the government and the company pays 70 percent tax. Norway is not a member of the EU.

got 2 mics today at a local market a beyer dynamic opus 69 and a shock mounted dynamic omidirectional re50b . new together they would be around 500 US (in US) i got them for around 100 Euros. both mics work fine. the opus 69 is a much clearer version of the sure standard sm58 road mic. this beyer has a more real sound i reckon. i did buy a beyer m 610 for 2 euros at the market in the Czech republic worth 250 US though. re50b is a braodcast mic, its weird cause i just bought DCR TRV900 sony 3ccd camera and this mic should sit on top well. if i buy the holder, this mic blocks out the sound around, its good for recording stuff. the sony DCR TRV 900 is about the best quality for money 3ccd sony cam (so i read) . its a little old, yet a good one to start with. I bought it broken on ebay for 300 US. to get the head aligned its going to cost 200. today i also bought an old mac laptop for m7572 for 10 euros, yet it has no power supply.

Artists Right to distribute- work in progress

When media in Australia uses works licensed with a Creative Commons Attribution licences the media is given no rebate by the rights organisation. My view is that if commercial media did get a reduction when they used open content, that the market would be more efficient. More local self published content would be used and publishers might take their ears out of their pockets.

My understanding is that commercial media in Australia pays for the use of much of their content this way: Media is issued with a blanket licence to use any content they choose and provides details of what they use to the rights organisations. Users pay a fee that is distributed via the rights organisations to the publishers and artists that created that content.

Things are different in the U.S. In the U.S artists are able to deal directly with media and licence content as they choose and remain members of a rights organisation. This means that Creative Commons Attribution licences are able to be incorporated into the media in the U.S with some success. Consider also: In Australia artists are not able to sell a song, in the U.S artists can. Artists members in Australia must maintain 50 percent of what they create. Different moral rights apply to content in different countries. No glove fits all yet the net crosses many boundaries.

These double standards give the U.S media the ability to steam roll its content globally. Big name acts like Madonna take much of the media’s attention? Are feet getting cold as a result of over exposure of these acts? Do they create the best content?

Rights organisations provide content at one price, this creates conditions where both commercial and non-commercial media shall most likely always use content owned by a publisher, rather than that of a self publisher. Even when the self publisher can show that she or he created content to the media. Almost all artists associated with rights organisations are self publishing artists.

Most artists that can create a song and sing that song in a public place join a rights organisation, why? I reckon its because of the live performance royalties received when they perform a song. Some self publishing artists might tell the rights organisations that they are performing content they created, when really they are singing songs owned by a publisher. This can increase the live performance returns of that artist. Rights organisations create conditions where artists are encouraged to create content that is similar to content already published.

Woody Guthrie wrote the following message in the 1930’s:

“This song is Copyrighted in U.S., under Seal of Copyright #154085, for a period of 28 years, and anybody caught singin’ it without our permission, will be mighty good friends of ours, cause we don’t give a dern. Publish it. Write it. Sing it. Swing to it. Yodel it. We wrote it, that’s all we wanted to do.”

Imagine that copyright is now maintained for over 50 years after death. Much of Bob Dylan’s work would be public now under the conditions of the 1930’s. Copyright keeps on being extended to serve a minority of created works. Is culture better with this extension of author rights and artists not having to register their works?

Artists are often under the illusion that the rights organisations protect their works from theft. If someone steals your art and calls it theirs, its not their job to protect it. Rights organizations collect when your content is performed.

Consider that much of the content used in Australia comes from the U.S. Consider also this: The person with the most steam in the popular music scene might be the programming director of the alternative national youth radio network JJJ, JJJ is a government funded radio network. If most of the exposure that flows into independent music culture comes through government funding, this creates a difficult arts scene.

The way the voting system works for the board of APRA (apra is the Australian rights organization): For every 500 dollars that an artist or publisher collects the artist or publisher get an extra vote. The board is made up by artists that create works for television, popular artist and the publishers that collect the most. Half of the board is made up of publishers and half are creators of content. Albert music who publish ACDC’s music are able to put themselves on the board. Board members are making decisions mainly in the interests of publishers. Board members can’t be expected to make decisions that benefit culture, artists or the arts scene. They are more likely to make decisions that creates better conditions for a karaoke bar than self publishing of art.

I reckon the organisations that keep a check on these monopolies (the ACCC in Australia) must spend a lot of time figuring out how they are able to justify the existence of structures like APRA. When these organisations fail, what shall take their place?

Myspace have their own blanket license system. Myspace are able to collect music content and sell advertising space without paying the artists for use of their content. Almost every popular band in the world must be on Myspace. Even APRA have endorsed myspace by creating their own profile. All live venues and media in Australia have to comply with APRA policy, yet Myspace does not. These double standards create conditions only big venues and big media can stay in step with. Small clubs shut down. Internet radio is also not possible in Australia, only streaming of content from above ground networks.

When I joined APRA (Australian Performing Rights Association) I thought that the organisation was similar to a post office. I cancelled my membership when I realized that APRA was far from anything like a regular post office. Rights organisations create conditions so that publishers can communicate the message of published artists best. With the internet and new technologies here, more is being created. Why can’t what we create be used by media in conjunction with popular media to the advantage of that media. Its seems that works created by few are creating unfair conditions for all.

The community benefits when artists are able to self publish. If Creative Commons licences can be used by media in Australia (and other countries) with an incentive for media to use that content, culture would improve (I reckon). Some might drop their graffiti cans and be more interactive. Many artists give up on art because of the brick wall the rights organisations create. Other artists start out creating art for the community, end up scoring films and making content for commercials. Free Culture and Creative Commons is part of the solution.

cryptography

code brakering has now been called cryptography or maybe it always was. i’m not sure. i found out about cryptography listening to Dan Browns audio book digital fortress, its all a little scary when you think about. secure and not secure. i have been thinking about putting a password on my mac data, yet if a super computer is walking around the block with me, it would know about the password prior to me thinking it up. (is?) it(s) really 1984 through the back door. all your process, paths premeditated within a digital environment. so everyone drifts into apathy and magic fades to shoes put in bin. what to do? with the right software and processing power you can get any information you want, according to Dan Browns book. yet also ‘e wrote that small flies could take pictures of people that wanted to be president having sex with their assistants. that would be an interesting fly to be able to buy at the super market and plug into your laptop. after reading the book i found this link, so the NSA does really exist. I wonder if the NSA read Dan Browns Books to work out what to do next? on ebay soon maybe they are going to start selling machines that attract the NSA mini flying photographic super crypto saucer linked bugs, yet maybe we were cosmically chipped at birth anyway (via ray gun on mars).

the Turkish army (when they took over Europe ) they were made up of orphans, not sure if this is true, someone told me this. every family had to give up their first son to the army and these were the soldiers that took over Europe back hundreds of years. that would be a scary army. so now you might start thinking that in chambers deep beneath the ground they (= us divided by everyone) are inventing you to come and take you over and do a better job of being you for them. or maybe they did that and you forgot.

sound of mu gig

The main act did not show up for sunday night gig, with out a main act the turn out was ok. i like that venue, was nice to have a sound guy rather than always doing my own sound as i did lot on tour around last shows. thinking of buying one of the aer amps, the weight just over 7 kilos (40 watts), yet the problem is that they don’t plug in in the US. its interesting that this is probably the best weight for quality amp in the world, yet few are sold in the US. does this mean that most people in the US who play music have cars. Last time i went to the US, a lot of bookers would not take me on cause i said i would only use public transport. they said you had to have a car to get to the gigs.

open real open or open as in your free to open this can when you buy it

In the last months I have had both my tunes and and photos used in projects because they were tunes/pics that were licensed under
creative commons open licenses. what i find interesting is that most
people license their content using NC (non commercial creative commons licenses). This means the pics and tunes can be only used in a non-commercial context. Non commercial and commercial are really gray areas. As we all know corporations are about lawyers (and .org’s as well). So no corporation is going to take open content that seriously (yet). They can’t be sure that the person did not just upload an unknowen indie band from next door or take someelses pic. So public domain stuff is high risk, creative commons is doing their best to change this. yet things can only ever be so secure. Rights organizations view everything as a commercial use (even the noise comming from your arse if they could!) that is why i see the a creative commons open license as being the way to go for now. Especially for artists that are not with a form of exclusive publishing. Attribution is the future form of creative currency ( i reckon). Non-commercial radio networks for the most are getting 100 percent of their content via small and large publishers, this want change while the small labels that are often funded by the government, via system of grants are being given money, because of the hungry arsses of the people in the rights organizations. its created an ears in pockets arts culture.

So an open license is a license for the people and also people with small business. Although some big business is using open licensed content, if they were to use that open content they are probably going to check up with you to use it. Also BY = attribution. what does this mean, well they have to attribute you for use. is that not what an artist wants. i’m not seeing car comercials with attribution, yet if they want to put you as the creator of the song in the commercial, then that is cool. yet when is that ever going to happen?

also SA (share alike) is it the way to go?

Its interesting that many wiki pages are listed under BY SA, (this means
attribution with share alike function) this means that to use the information from WIKI you have to share the content under the same license. I don’t (agree) with this much. I’ll give you an example
why. I want to sell my camera on ebay, its an old camera. I find some
info that is great through wiki on the camera. I use it, even if i
attribute the user of the license i am still in breech of copyright
law. Now if in the future wiki invent some kind of robot that enforces
the law. like the wiki share alike police. they could get your item
taken down. so really people don’t have access to the sum of all human
whatever. or maybe using selling your camera on ebay is a non-commercial use. Yet these things are always going to be strange

So be open

This is the wiki license at the moment

This is the creative commons BY SA license.

chip

life in the USA

waiters, waitresses, pay tax on what they IRS’ estimate, they earn in tips. maybe if they put the minimum wage up people would not be obligated to tip so much. who’s job is it to work out how much people might tip?

what is Icommons?

At this link find a description of how to build a bottom-up social movement. At this link find an article on how Icommons sees itself governed. At this link find a letter written by Mike Shaver Chief Evangelist at the Mozilla Corporation.

Mike Shaver writes:”Creative Commons has produced a set of licenses that helps not only software developers, but photographers, musicians, authors, bloggers, videographers, poets, DJs, painters , documenters, and journalists. This means that anyone who produces a creative work, which is virtually everyone on the planet, can share their work in ways that they choose.”

On this Icommons wiki you’ll see that a community governance is being drafted. There is no wiki asking the community to be involved in creating any kind of ideology that governs Icommons (yet?).

If you view this link find a call for the summit to more scientific. At this link you’ll find science has it own commons. At this link find an article that asks what is art to Icommons.

If the Icommons mission currently is “iCommons.org’s mission is to provide a valuable service to the global commons community by providing valuable information and networking tools to the social entrepreneurs that make up this movement.”

How many social entrepreneurs within the Icommons community depend on using creative commons licenses to distribute their art/creativity? How many intellectuals/ creators/ artists define themselves as social entrepreneurs? What about the valuable information and networking tools for the people that Mike Shaver from Mozilla mentions?

According to an interview at this link link Ronaldo Lemos chairman of Icommons says. “Icommons is made for those connected to creative commons …..Icommons is the movement creative commons is the legal project”.

If creative commons is the legal project, why does creative commons not have a meeting that brings the lawyers together? If Science Commons is focused on the intellectauls within the movement…? Does’nt it makes sense for Icommons to bring the users of the licenses together as the main focus each year?

Is the creative commons movement made up by those that licenses their creativity with creative commons license or by those that create bureaucracy? According to the description of “how to build a bottom-up social movement”. Step 2 Appoint (not elect) members of the board and employees.

A festival that brought creators that used creative commons licenses and those that create platforms for that creativity could happen in many different parts of the world at different times of each year. Its a huge expense to fly people from all around the world to a remote part of Japan to gather and talk about free culture. Are plans in place to make this a carbon neutral event? How do those outside this movement view this? What of the non-professional/ part time/ full time artists & creators that have an interest in this movement?

meditation retreat

went to meditation place from the 27th of December to the 7th of December in Sweden. Good to clean the inner filters. when you sit a 10 day retreat, your able to serve the students sitting. making the food for 70 odd students is a good way to learn how to practice the technique are regular kind of environment. thinking i’ll sit one hour meditation morning/ one hour at night.