Saturday, March 22, 2008

Freedom: Reflections for the Eon Before Us

A very thoughtful expression entitled "A freesoul is a masterpiece in claymation by the Eon blog has caused over here a conscious energy field distortion, and an "impossible to be apt" reaction.

There are many messages in the expression, that like a painting or fine sculpture, you have to look closely, think and pause, and then change your viewing angle, to get all the nuances to appreciate all the subtle artistic messages.

It is the "composed artwork" there in full context of its authorship and source, has caused me to think, reflect, think again, and then well rest, in contemplation.

That is one reason why I cruise the Eon' path.

Excerpt:

A freesoul is
“A freesoul believes
“A freesoul feels self control
“A freesoul likes the way music pushes the connections of his mind along
The thought provocation this time has caused a mindfulness of the fundamental artist's job to bridge the observed with the "felt" - the sensory 'field' disruptions' of the mind - to communicate a message back into the physical realm, for other people to get a values based message.

The carriers of the artists' message, visual or aural, have varied through anthropological studies, apparently dependent on the relative physical possession of art, the tools and the resources to create and sustain the art. In an age of scarcity, the art of war was a concomitant tool necessary that some cultures neglected as they evolved to a peaceful state, past scarcity warfare. In an age of relative scarcity, failing to prepare for the unknowable, lamentably, leave us now with examples of cultures that could not see 'over the hill', to leave us only the artefacts of their to reflect on their civilizations' accomplishments.

"Art" "e" "fact", is an apt term for art reflecting the facts of lost civilizations

Fast forwarding, to the dawn of the Digital Age, The Clash as artist, used "audio" ammunition in their classic Radio Clash EP (1981) to shout the message sounding a perceived threat to artistic freedom.

They felt a battle, with warnings to "everybody hold on tight" alerting the "Noh term (Northern?) armed force network" (the "field" of western and eastern thought?) in a message "that this is no freedom," (supression?) to the 'fight' conclusive to a message of freedom, that everybody's message, "wants to be free" - "anyway to be free."

John Lennon stated the artist's role from his perspective on the last day of his life:
My role in society, or any artist or poet's role, is to try and express what we all feel. Not to tell people how to feel . Not as a preacher, not as a leader, but as a reflection of all of us.1
The reflection of art and the artistic message is now in 2008, in the protective hands of the people.
Is the right to express oneself still really alive and well?

This "Digital Age" is potentially a far freer world, out of the control of authority, but for censorship or outright denial of freedom of expression, association, press (as in a person's press right) and to fundamental freedoms in Canada.

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms:

Fundamental Freedoms

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
a) freedom of conscience and religion;
b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression,
including freedom of the press and
other media of communication;
c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
d) freedom of association.

Our freedoms in Canada don't go out one way to work: they require a lot of respect of the other person or people's same rights, for all to be "free."

Is the Copyright Act still constitutional NOW?

But in wise trades to our fundamental freedoms, I think it be extremely critical now that we do not interfere with other people's messages ("we all are artists") that I can't think it better expressed by a youthful Joni Mitchell, who at a live concert poignantly defends her turn, on her stage, that she was given, to an intruder and to the audience, to quote, "have some respect":



Reference: http://www.youtube.com/v/bIZOtykZ0fA

In the same vein, it does not mean that artist's will not get paid in this "Digital" World 2.0. The link referral is tracked and the share of eyeballs generated should reward the owners of that work. Its popularity is directly commensurate with the reward there. If the cash is not passed on fairly, the work will disappear (in a way this post is an experiment testing this over time).

It may mean that the role of professional publishers in their role as distributors, and their use of copyright law otherwise intended to establish free markets in authored works in the analogue age, has to be examined very critically in light of our digital realm as it exists now.

If they invested badly, why should we care?

The peoples' Charter rights, universal in application over the laws of Canada, have to be considered now, in the face of the chasm of relevance between the author and the publisher in the Digital Age.

From the authors' ("artists") point of view, do they need a "digital" distributor now? Some do not. They may need a manufacturer for physical expressions of their works. They may need for example traditional methods that people want to use still, paper being a fine medium for some expressions still, in the hi-tech, hi-touch world. At retail, is a visual expression enough that you cannot touch? No.

But that said it was never intended that the notion of monopoly grants within a free market, was to grant any other monopoly rights to collude against free markets and fundamental innovations such as the digital publications of works now possible but yet under attack.

Today, schemes that may corrupt the "invisible" hands of free people, should be open to full reexamination (see this post on that re-examination).

The people's expression rights, press rights, to distribute themselves, "passing on", should also generate a feed of cash back to the copyright holders, and to the artists, in every case. The technology is there, in affiliate programs, advertising related schemes, "VIP" distribution of limited items, and on and on and on.

Were the WIPO internet treaties under consideration by Canada now, about the empowerment of individuals in the digital age, there would be support, not questioning and not resistance.

The real question is: do we need all of the analogue publishers rights anymore in the digital realm and their explicit protections in our copyright law, to fulfill the objects of our copyright laws?

If they will conflict with or impair the Charter rights of Canadians, or of fundamental citizen rights elsewhere, is that grant of copy protection really thought through, as it appears now in evidence to chill innovation and individual freedoms beyond the "respect" of others on the Internet, injuring competitive solutions at the most ultimate level, in the hands of the individual.

Distribution Monopolies: Time to bust the Trusts Again?

The obvious question: should those expressions by the "people's press" capitalize on the "artists" work, as in effect by helping make known an author's works, what traditional publishers did? And should they also be so rewarded in parallel, in conflict with the "professional publishers" rights.

In other words, would authors now want to own and control their own publications, and not leave their work in the hands of the publisher, the present analogue system? Say let them advance the publishers interests into the digital realm while at the same time have them put forth an argument precluding compensation of the author, on technicalities, such as the Writers Guild of America had to get through a costly strike to them? Are publishers volunteering anything here elsewhere? I think the adage is "Publish and Perish" to convey the limited marketing power in analogue realms, that authors have to give up everything, including the foreseable digital distribution profit open to the publisher.

The Artists Can Do It Themselves

In fact, the interesting idea today is why cannot the author's and estates of deceased authors buy back their catalogue of largely locked up and unpromoted works from their publishers and set it free to be used and compensated directly by use, bailing out these desperate (or despicable?) publishers who appear to restrain the innovation process not in their perceived favour, by sitting down, building fences and walls, instead of competing with the "bad" copies?

Is a competition based model rather than a monopoly model now most relevent for everyone everywhere? I believe the answer for the maximum respect of everyone's freedom, is resounding yes.

Will the motion picture film producers see the interest in same, as the distributor/studio optimally exploits their works, by sometimes not marketing it, restraining sale, limiting distribution for buzz or threats to lawful governments, or for purposes of limited editions?

Where is the "Imagineer" Today?

We need someone in the U.S. in the former "bastion of freedom," the country most pressing a monopoly based model to the rest of the world, to rise. A digital age Walt Disney, with the free spirit to kick start a revolution in the film industry. Walt was someone to behold, ahead of his time, who saw the future and built it. Were his spirit alive today, it would jump at the Internet, and not seek its control. He would have had a "Film Presentland" with the full imagineering whipped with zealous force into his employees to get it done, and get it done right, for the kids everywhere.

Would a digital Disney do a "Film Presentland" make money hand over fist too, as well as show the kids what the imagination can do and free people accomplish?

Instead, this world needs posts like these to remind there is a choice that we could take in the face of what I see as lost moguls and lost executives seeking to make their legal departments a profit centre.

There is a "collective" opportunity here in the "people's press" that needs little administration or lobbying, but respect for individual freedom, innovation and entrepreneurship, that indeed should be considered first in the opportunity set we have before us.

We can all be free and we all can be creators. For an Eon ...


This is not against film studios who are authors.

This is not against musicians who make music.

This is not against authors and their editors.

This is not against the rights of any authors.

It is against people harming innovation.

It is about copyright gone wrong.

It is all about your freedom.

And your respect,

To live,

Free,

As

One.



1. Interview by KFRC RKO Radio by Dave Sholin, December 8, 1980, on the last day of his life, in "Imagine John Lennon", forward by Yoko Ono, preface by David Wolper, written and edited by Andrew Salter and Sam Egan, Macmillan Publishing Company, (c) 1988, Published by Penguin Studio 1998, p. 242.

2 comments:

Tim said...

Interesting article - yes we can all be artists, although how to pay the rent doing that is far more complex.

Thanks for linking to Radio Clash podcast, but it's not officially anything to do with The Clash, although I take on their message, and try and carry some of it on, about music, freedom and the danger of copyrights in the corporate 21st Century.

Lawrence said...

I agree the "how to pay the rent" is a big issue here, with some present ways of distribution, not particularly author-lay publisher friendly in the Digital realm.

In my beliefs, its sometimes a "why not" that has to be addressed, and in that questioning certain things become exposed. My blogging at Northworthy here is filled with little gems I feel on those lines.

It would be redress of me however to not state how happy I was to find, enjoy and fit your site into this post I took great care with. I see such craftsmanship in your satire, parody and criticism with respect to your passion. I am very glad that you 'crossed the pond' to comment here and see the context of the link.

Lawrence