Free The Arts: An Indignant Rant

--- THIS BLOG HAS BEEN ABANDONED. OUR NEW HOME IS: THE WEASEL SOAP BOX ---

Often you hear about the RIAA and the Canadian equivalent and their numerous attempts to sue people for file sharing, whether they upload or download, but, are these two entities truly representing the needs of the artist, or the needs of the greedy corperations who can capitalize more on the artist's success more than the artist can?

The artists who truly benefit from this are those who are already swimming in a pool of wealth due to the fact that they enter the realm of "rap" and "hip-hop"; flooding the market with a good that is overused.

In a recent BoingBoing article, a backlash in Canada was reported that came from numerous Canadian recording artist, none of whom are known for their rap or hip hop. Similarly, six independant labels pulled out of this organization.

Canadian labels pull out of RIAA-fronted Canadian Recording Industry Ass.

The Canadian version of the RIAA (CRIA) has very little bite due to the strict and heavily enforced privacy laws and the liberal nature of the ISPs who have been reluctant to turn over data, out of concern for their own bottom line profit.

The musical artists are being "protected" by these two sister groups, but at what expense? These groups have no regard for the artist.

The next thing on the chopping board, should the law suits fall out of the style, is logically attacking the upstart radio stations who pay little or no "royalties"; those who use the internet to play music or, the tribute artists and bands; the upstarts who have the gall to mimick the lyrical and musical style of their musical idols.

But, wait, these groups admit that they are tribute groups, so, why aren't they being attacked? They are indeed "infringing" on the copyright property of recorded artists and they perform for a small profit, as tribute artists and bands.

After all, it's easier to attack the vulerable, isn't it? The people who will keel over to your demands. The young and elderly who haven't the means to fight back, or better yet, those who have done nothing wrong.

Since it's trendy to sue people for the downloading of music and movies, should they also be concerned with the artists who draw and write? What about the writers and artists?

There are all kinds of similar "infringements", the biggest one being the Star Wars fan base following. Many of the novels published aren't from Lucas Arts or Lucas himself. They are from fans; the fiction written is based on fan ideas and "what if" notions.

This is an entire culture that lives underground, free of the scrutiny from the peering, proding gaze of the RIAA and the CRIA. But, yet, they are also "guilty" of "copyright" infringement, even though they are also known to admit that they are basing their work on that of another.

The theft of ideas occurs every day in this cultural movement, and it is truly not any different from people downloading, or people who take original music and mix or remix it.

The material is being shared, even if it's not by the artist.

MP3s are music that has been encoded by fans who adore a certain artist and wish to share that music with others.

Fanfiction and Fanart (doujinshi) are fan-based versions of original works of fiction. They translate the author's original idea into the visions or ideas that the fan has in their mind.

Fanfiction Sanctuary

Whether they like it or not, the trend of "freeing" art is going to be here to stay. The capitalist keep trying to get rich off the back of the true artist and the fans who have tried to shown their appreication for the music by buying the track, but, there is a point where enough is enough.

The point of file sharing was to introduce people to an artist at no cost; fanfiction is to allow people a chance to view the original story in a different context.

Both infrige in a way on the original copyright, but, in reality, they are merely means of increasing publicity free of charge for the artists.

Japan has a whole industry notourious for just that; the fan drawn manga industry. The doujinshi artists take the original concepts by the manga-ka and translate it into their own visions. They sell these books for a small fee, but, the practice isn't widely condemned, as some artists, such as Watase Yuu have come out in favour of it, saying that it helps them.

For western nations, what helps fans are laws that don't make it easier for greedy entities to get richer off the backs of those who love music but can't always afford it.

After all, what's more damaging to profits?

Having one person buy a CD and whine to three of their friends about how bad it was and then in turn, those three talk about how bad it was... or... one person downloading an MP3 and deciding that they like it?

The CRIA and RIAA could learn a lesson from a place like Costco, which has various stands in the stores that give away free samples to promote the product, and in turn that free sample entices the consumer to buy the product.

Who then is smarter? The corperate entity that provides free samples to its customer base or that which seeks to "sue for lost profits" because the consumer has a desire to seek a free sample before purchasing the good?

Which would equal more long term profit and consumer loyalty?

The free sample or the heavy-handed tactics?

Art is a form of express, and simply because a few greedy artists who can't see beyond their lavish style that surrounds the need for bling bling doesn't mean that the mamjority has this need.

But, the laws to protect still need to be there; the laws that prevent people from taking credit for others' work.

The sharing of MP3s isn't theft in the way that plagerism is, in fact, it isn't theft. Is it theft when you play a CD for a friend and then you copy that CD for a friend?

Likely not because you've purchased the original CD and likely the burnable blank CD. Or, when you listen to the radio, blank tape cassetts and a recorder allowed for you, the listener to record hours of free music from a station paying pennies on loyalties.

It is theft when you own a CD that you never bought, that was given to you as a present? After all, you never did pay for it did you, someone else did. Does this mean you own the music illegally because someone else bought it?

Or...

If you're like me and you write fanfiction, is it theft when you've stated that you borrowed your ideas from someone else and you post your work for free?

Is it theft when music that you've "ripped" from your Cds and mixed it with other sounds to produce a unique version of the original and then share it for free?

Just how many artists out there are thieves of copyright property as are the sub culture of fanartist and tribute bands? Just who has one original idea that hasn't been thought of or done before?

Just what is the RIAA protecting when they are protecting the rap artists? Are they really protecting the "art" itself, or... just the wallets?

Humanity to the Six Nations: Get a Life!

--- THIS BLOG HAS BEEN ABANDONED. OUR NEW HOME IS: THE WEASEL SOAP BOX ---

In case I didn't make it clear... ATTENTION NATIVES CONDUCTING A SIT IN AT CALEDONIA: we are not impressed. It's been 52 days since you've started and if the government gave a damn, they'd have actually tried to meet with you half way, but, they haven't because you're too damn intent on living back in 1740s, when you were supposedly granted this land. The government says that it got it back in 1841 in order to build a highway. You've had almost 200 years to protest this! It's asinine to wait until someone is developing the land for other people to use (yea, imagine that - other people actually using the land that is part of Canada!).

Trains halted as standoff continues in Caledonia

Don't complain about the police breaking the peace when they make an arrest or two after about 50 days of letting you occupy this area of land. There are many Canadians who don't even own land; they rent, or they're homeless. It's a fact of life. Just because it 'belonged' to your people before the 'white man' came, means squat now.

Demonstrators first occupied the site on Feb. 28 to stop construction by Henco Industries on land they say was stolen from the Six Nations more than 200 years ago.

The province says aboriginals gave up the land in 1841 to make way for a new highway, an agreement a Six Nations spokesperson said was only meant to be a lease.

You know, instead of squawking, you COULD legally by the land after the construction is done and have houses to live in that were built there instead of making a barricade of tents and burning tires.

Further, if you're going to complain about the police breaking up protests... they you haven't been paying attention to Belrus, in which protestors were arrested a mere two to three days after their protests following a questionable election result sparked.

Belarus police detain opposition leader
Canadian journalist leaves Belrus jail

USA: The Nuclear Threat

--- THIS BLOG HAS BEEN ABANDONED. OUR NEW HOME IS: THE WEASEL SOAP BOX ---

In the case of The World vs The United States of America, the Crown Prosecution will now present its evidence that will not only overwhelmingly demonstrate that the US is not only hording massive stock piles of Nuclear Weapons and an array of WMDs, that it is an immediate threat to the world's safety with it's so-called 'War on Terror'.

Aside from the Former Soviet Union, which is now the Federated States of Russia, with its moderate nuclear strength there is only one other country in the entire world with a greater and extremely destructive nuclear capacity and it is the United States of America.



They are followed in the distance by China, France and The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. With two stragglers at the end, barely having 100 nukes between the two of them.

The newest so-called threat, after Iraq, since Iraq has been "neutralised" following an "Accomplished Mission" in Iraq that saw the defeat of Saddam Hussein and his mystical WMD, is Iran.

Before the war, Iraq had been without weapons since 1991 and the entire program was demantled by 1996 and in an investigation by Hans Blix and the UN in 2003, they found no trace of any of the so-called WMD that the Bush Administration repeatedly contended exist in Iraq, much like the link between Iraq and al-Qaeda.

Three years later, there are terrorists running amok, no signs of the WMD and a country left in shambles, all because the USA suffered from a bout of small penis syndrome.

Next on their radar is Iran.

Even if Iran could develop the weapons, the US and Russia both have the capacity to keep the "rogue" nation in check. But, as it stands, there is no real sign that Iran intends to develop such weapons, but rather, they want to use nuclear power as an alternative to traditional fossil fuels.


Editorial cartoon by Patrick Corrigan

The US is worried about Iran getting nuclear weapons. I think we should be worried about the US having the weapons in the first place. They have the capacity to destroy the world and expect to be able to do so unopposed.

During the Cold War, the presence of such weapons in the USSR and the USA kept both nations in check. Just the knowledge was enough to fuel paranoia thnat could only otherwise be triggered by carefully calculated propoganda.

Further, as they are "worried" that Iran might attack Israel, we forget that Israel has an undisclosed nuclear capacity, which they have to this day, refused to comment on.

They were able to demonstrate their military strength during the 6 Days War.

Six-Day War

They not only held their own, but they took what are still known as the 'Occupied Palestinean Territories'. Then, surely if Tehran was such a threat and did point one of its nukes at Israel, Israel could certainly reply in kind...

So, why does the US hang onto its nukes? It's small penis syndrome. They're the schoolyard bully. It's state sanctioned terrorism that they accuse rogue nations of supporting. Bullying isn't physical, it's also psychological. Threatening action is bullying, just as conducting the threatening action is bullying.

As the 'insurgents' go out to suicide bomb military check points, the governments take their words out to accomplish the same objective.

Nuclear Weapon Programs Worldwide
List of countries with nuclear weapons

The victorious write the history.

God: Man, Woman or Asexual?

--- THIS BLOG HAS BEEN ABANDONED. OUR NEW HOME IS: THE WEASEL SOAP BOX ---

With all the religions that exist today, there seems that there is growing uncertainty about which one has the ultimate and thus the right answer to the questions: who are we and why the hell are we here? And even more importantly - just who is God?

For the record: since I know more about the three major religions: Judaism, Christianity and Islam, I will solely be focusing on those, while acknowledging the existence of others and their doctrines. But, for the sole purpose of this tirade, we will leave out the others.

In the beginning...

All religions (and spiritual belief sets) have their own stories of creation, some a common factor that links religions. Genesis is the first book (Books of the Bible) for Judaism, Christianity and Islam. It states that in the beginning God created the heavens and earth.

1:1. In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth,
1:2 the earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters.
1:3 Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light.
1:4 And God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness.
1:5 God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.

There are slight variations on how this part is translated, whether you read the Tanankh, the Old Testament (Catholic version) or the King James version (this is typically found in Protestant places of worship). But, in essence they all have the same core.

What I find interesting is the part where we get to the creation of man and depending on what version you read, there is one stark inconsistency - Adam and Eve were NOT created the same way. In one version, Eve comes first, in another, they are created together and finally, the more widely accepted is that Eve was created from one of Adam's ribs in order to give him a companion.

1:26 Then God said, "Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the wild animals of the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth."
1:27 So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.
1:28 God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth.

Notice the part I bolded. This is where the first inconsistancy occurs and this is important because people tend to put the man first as he was the first created by God.

But, it shows that they were created at the same moment.

Now, since there are many version (read: translations), we'll go with the above which we've cited. Or, we could ignore the above, since it is possible that Adam existed first, but, we'll never know (ah, yes, the beauty of ignorance in being lost in translation).

Adam is allowed to eat of all the fruit within it, except that of the "Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil." (2:19)

Assuming that Adam came first, this is then singularly referring to Adam, or, if they were created at the same time, it could mean that God explicitly didn't trust Adam and believed that Eve wouldn't disobey.

So, if Adam wanted to eat from the tree, he could've allowed Eve to do the "sinning" so he could get to eat his forbidden fruits.

So? What's my point you're sagely wondering as you cast an ever-cursory glance over my non-sensual ramblings, to which you barely take note.

Well, if we consider that there are three entities in the Bible, Heaven, Hell and Earth, then, why are Lucifer and 'God' always taking opposite sides? And the Tree of Knowledge (alias, The Tree of Good and Evil), why was its forbidden?

We could go on the notion that since God created the Heavens and the Earth that Hell has existed long before the other two ever did.

What is my point?

Like any married couple, Lucifer and 'God' could've been in the middle of a nasty divorce and God said, "The hell with this place!" and walked out. Upon closing the door behind her/him, he/she realised that she/he had no place to go so created the Heavens and the Earth. The Heavens would be his/her new home and the Earth would be the court and hence, the battle ground for the divorce.

The female icon in any line of belief is usually associated with life, fertility, flora and fauna. Hence, since God created the Heavens and the Earth; the Earth being the place that was originally full of life and lush gardens could actually be the figure we refer to as Mother Nature. The female is associated with birth, and since God created these places and encouraged fruitfulness between Adam and Eve, God must've been a woman.

Why does the "be fruitful and multiply" line make God a woman? Most mothers are the first in line to encourage their children to have their own children when they are ready. God wanted her creations to have children.

Now, it is entirely possible that when God created Eve and Adam, She created Eve first then created Adam in order to balance out the world, thus, allow for the pair to be fruitful.

From this, we assume that God only created the male out of necessity and perhaps harboured a slight resentment towards men (as Lucifer would be her ex-husband). Why? Recall 2:19, which specifically cites Adam.

Further, we all know that God then banishes both Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden.

They, especially Adam, who was explicitly forbidden, ate from the Forbidden Tree.

So, what knowledge did the tree contain besides their evident nudity?

Perhaps it held the sinister secrets as to the true nature of Lucifer and by eating that apple, Adam had it engrained in his DNA.

And of Eve? God perhaps was having some bad PMS and decided that since Eve was too intent on hanging all over Adam (despite that her mother explicitly said "no"), that She'd cast Eve out and curse her with PMS. And that whole pain thing? Who says they didn't have pain in Eden? Perhaps they just had a lot of Marijuana...