Re: Arcangel/Data Diaries

> Our link to Cory's piece has regretfully been removed
> altogether perforce.

Curt, had you considered keeping your original deep link on Deep/Young
and simply ignoring/refusing Turbulence's request to change the link?
Although her message was a bit brusque, it's not like Jo-Anne's request
was anything like the insidious surly legal notices typically sent by
Big CorporationsT to intimidate innocent fair-users.

You don't have to martyr yourself to make a political statement. Just
leave the site as is, with the deep link, and wait for someone to
actually threaten you with something real. Simple civil disobedience
ought to suffice here.

Remember, you are in the right here, at least legally*. You don't have
to include copyrights and credits for "fair use".

-Cf

[christopher eli fahey]
art: http://www.graphpaper.com
sci: http://www.askrom.com
biz: http://www.behaviordesign.com

* I am not a lawyer.

> You don't have to martyr yourself to make a political statement. Just
> leave the site as is, with the deep link, and wait for someone to
> actually threaten you with something real. Simple civil disobedience
> ought to suffice here.

If civil disobedience is your principle, you must be willing to take the
legal penalty that comes with it. You cannot simply wait for a real threat
and retreat; that's not civil disobedience. So, in this sense, there is
nothing simple about civil disobedience.

-Dyske

Chris,

Your suggestion is a good one, were the point of Deep/Young to
challenge copyright. But challenging copyright is tangential to the
goals of the project. Deep/Young seeks, in the words of Beuys, to
"produce deepened perceptions of experience. More must happen than
simply logically understandable things. Where objects are concerned
it's more the sense of an indication or suggestion." So I'd rather
this event spark dialogue about the role of wonder and
decontextualization in art than it spark dialogue about copyright law.

Plus, I'm not really down on turbulence. I did find Jo-Anne's
request kind of dorky. But, as The Italian Stallion observes, "You
want to dance, you gotta pay the band. You want to borrow, you gotta
pay the man."

Besides, there is no shortage of interesting "for passion" pieces out
there by artists (and even regular human beings) who give a fig how I
link to their work.

peace,
curt



At 4:20 PM -0500 2/24/03, Christopher Fahey [askrom] wrote:
> > Our link to Cory's piece has regretfully been removed
> > altogether perforce.
>
>Curt, had you considered keeping your original deep link on Deep/Young
>and simply ignoring/refusing Turbulence's request to change the link?
>Although her message was a bit brusque, it's not like Jo-Anne's request
>was anything like the insidious surly legal notices typically sent by
>Big CorporationsT to intimidate innocent fair-users.
>
>You don't have to martyr yourself to make a political statement. Just
>leave the site as is, with the deep link, and wait for someone to
>actually threaten you with something real. Simple civil disobedience
>ought to suffice here.
>
>Remember, you are in the right here, at least legally*. You don't have
>to include copyrights and credits for "fair use".
>
>-Cf
>
>[christopher eli fahey]
>art: http://www.graphpaper.com
>sci: http://www.askrom.com
>biz: http://www.behaviordesign.com
>
>* I am not a lawyer.

Hello everyone,

May be Jo-Anne feels unghappy about all that buzzing testosorone here…

still finding these issues pretty interesting though, let's not hurt people
here and get to something real between us and make some use out it
constructively…then I'm happy to explore whatever falls in front of me -
especially food, larte dinner for me tonight.

Why do female individuals find it hard to take-part with discussions on this
list?

I don't think we need to deconstruct that deeply for the answer of that
one;-)

marc


> Chris,
>
> Your suggestion is a good one, were the point of Deep/Young to
> challenge copyright. But challenging copyright is tangential to the
> goals of the project. Deep/Young seeks, in the words of Beuys, to
> "produce deepened perceptions of experience. More must happen than
> simply logically understandable things. Where objects are concerned
> it's more the sense of an indication or suggestion." So I'd rather
> this event spark dialogue about the role of wonder and
> decontextualization in art than it spark dialogue about copyright law.
>
> Plus, I'm not really down on turbulence. I did find Jo-Anne's
> request kind of dorky. But, as The Italian Stallion observes, "You
> want to dance, you gotta pay the band. You want to borrow, you gotta
> pay the man."
>
> Besides, there is no shortage of interesting "for passion" pieces out
> there by artists (and even regular human beings) who give a fig how I
> link to their work.
>
> peace,
> curt
>
>
>
> At 4:20 PM -0500 2/24/03, Christopher Fahey [askrom] wrote:
> > > Our link to Cory's piece has regretfully been removed
> > > altogether perforce.
> >
> >Curt, had you considered keeping your original deep link on Deep/Young
> >and simply ignoring/refusing Turbulence's request to change the link?
> >Although her message was a bit brusque, it's not like Jo-Anne's request
> >was anything like the insidious surly legal notices typically sent by
> >Big CorporationsT to intimidate innocent fair-users.
> >
> >You don't have to martyr yourself to make a political statement. Just
> >leave the site as is, with the deep link, and wait for someone to
> >actually threaten you with something real. Simple civil disobedience
> >ought to suffice here.
> >
> >Remember, you are in the right here, at least legally*. You don't have
> >to include copyrights and credits for "fair use".
> >
> >-Cf
> >
> >[christopher eli fahey]
> >art: http://www.graphpaper.com
> >sci: http://www.askrom.com
> >biz: http://www.behaviordesign.com
> >
> >* I am not a lawyer.
>
> + ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
> -> post: [email protected]
> -> questions: [email protected]
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>
>

> > Simple civil disobedience ought to suffice here.

Dyske wrote:
> If civil disobedience is your principle, you must be willing
> to take the legal penalty that comes with it. You cannot
> simply wait for a real threat and retreat; that's not civil
> disobedience.

I agree. I was actually assuming that Turbulence would most likely
*not* pursue legal action against Curt, which is what makes the civil
disobedience "simple" in this case.

Maybe I'm naive, but my guess is that:
1) Turbulence would not want to pursue a weak anti-fair-use lawsuit
(deep linking is rude, but not illegal)
2) Turbulence would not desire to raise a big legal stink with a nice
but outspoken chap like Curt.
3) Turbulence probably doesn't have a legal department with enough
free time/budget to care about this anyway.

I didn't mean to suggest that Curt should pull down the site as soon as
the legal threats arrived. I was simply pointing out that he pulled it
down even though no legal threat existed or (in my opinion) was ever
likely to materialize. And even if it did materialize, Curt would
probably win. Pre-emptive surrender, as they say.

-Cf

[christopher eli fahey]
art: http://www.graphpaper.com
sci: http://www.askrom.com
biz: http://www.behaviordesign.com