From: Cari Machet (email suppressed)
Date: Sun Jun 28 2009 - 17:25:44 PDT
actually i do believe that everything should be open source
i believe that ideas are in the air
i am native american in part so my mind is a little different that white guy
i was really interested in the circularity of what had occurred
without the judgement really of what was occurring
and whether frameworks people got some cash
that wasn't my point
i was interested in the ubuweb discussion and how it sort of went nowhere
presumable a political football
cause the BIG names in the BIG BIZ of our little underground world are
so all is well - keep your mouth shut kinda thing
pay no attention to the man behind the curtain ...
anyway that is my memory of that discussion
maybe i missed something though
i am interested in reading what he said about it
and of course you are right adam he will make little cash - sure
but ethics - hmmmmn?
Skype carimachet - 646-652-6434
Syria +963-099 277 3243
Amman +962 077 636 9407
On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 12:20 PM, Adam Hyman <email suppressed> wrote:
> I would think that due to the topic of the book, he won’t be making a lot
> of money off of it, if hardly anything.
> And I infer that you are using the term “open source” in a manner to mean
> something like “creative commons,” or freely available to others to use.
> But more to the point, (and I have not seen the book), it sounds like he
> used the discussion as evidence within a topic of his. This is clearly Fair
> Use, and a parallel (in my view) to quoting from someone else’s book when
> you are writing an essay or a book on that writing.
> As the Frameworks discussions are all freely available online through
> Flicker, they can be seen de facto as Open Source already. And Lucas is
> under no obligation (not even ethical) to make his contextual writing on the
> topic freely available. Unless you think that every book of film or art or
> literature criticism that quotes from other sources should also be open
> source. But one could of course write an essay or book quoting from Lucas’s
> writing under the same Fair Use. So his writing (using short sections of it
> in the context of a discussion on the topic) is in that way “open source.”
> On 6/28/09 8:26 AM, "Cari Machet" <email suppressed> wrote:
> interesting circularly
> especially because he makes money off of the publication of frameworks
> and analysis
> HE has a copyright of course
> does the discussion go into open source?
> cari machet
> nyc 347-298-9818
> AIM carismachet
> email suppressed
> Skype carimachet - 646-652-6434
> Syria +963-099 277 3243
> Amman +962 077 636 9407
> On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 10:46 AM, Chuck Kleinhans <
> email suppressed> wrote:
> In a short chapter in his new book Inherent Vice: Bootleg Histories of
> Videotape and Copyrights (Duke U Press, 2009) Lucas Hilderbrand uses a 2006
> discussion thread on Frameworks to study differences in understanding video
> copies. A Frameworker from Portugal asked about getting copies of Peter
> Kubelka's work. David Tetzlaff defended bootlegs and Fred Camper criticized
> them. Others joined in including discussion of Ubuweb, etc.
> The book considers analogue copying via videotape to discuss larger issues
> about the use and perception of media. Hilderbrand is an assistant
> professor at U of CA Irvine.
> Frameworks does provide an ongoing archive of various arguments and
> attitudes about experimental media and is interesting because so many
> different people and forms are used in some of the perennial discussions and
> issues. There's probably room for a more pathological analysis of some
> CHUCK KLEINHANS
> For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.
> __________________________________________________________________ For info
> on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.
> __________________________________________________________________ For
> info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.