Catherine Rutgers produces colorful inkjet prints based on observations of natural phenomena in an urban environment. The source for her digital art is image capture, or high-resolution scans, of original paintings, silkscreen and photographs, or found objects including leaves, flowers and feathers. Her latest works will be on display at the Cunneen-Hackett Arts Center, 12 Vassar Street, Poughkeepsie, NY until 11/20/05.

Click to Watch Video

CatRutgers.com
cunneenhackett.org

Underground maestros, Rising Up/Rising Down, are hard like labor but bop like blitzkrieg. They’re approachable and vast. You could have fallen from the sky knowing nothing and still lash out to the new sound. Or you could pontificate the arpeggiated textures. They’ve covered all the bases and synergized all the layers into a transcendent experience that’s more real than terror and more fun than violence.

They’re scathing politics for your convulsing pleasure. They’re a beacon in the flames with a sound like iridescent brutality.

Click to Watch Video

Email

Homepage

Big Brother in YOUR printer

October 18, 2005

Slashdot | Carbon Nanotube Memory on the Way: “Cyberherbalist writes ‘Nantero, a nanotechnology company, is expecting prototypes of products using NRAM technology (nanotube-based, non-volatile random access memory) to be available in 2006. In the article at nature.com, it says that ‘the company has succeeded in making circular wafers, 13 centimetres in diameter, that hold 10 gigabits of data.’ And they are ten times faster than ‘flash’ memory.'”

Slashdot | Schneier: Make Banks Responsible for Phishers: “abgillette writes ‘Writing for Wired News, security guru Bruce Schneier says that the only way to stop phishers and identity thieves is to make financial institutions solely responsible: ‘Push the responsibility — all of it — for identity theft onto the financial institutions, and phishing will go away. This fraud will go away not because people will suddenly get smart and quit responding to phishing e-mails, because California has new criminal penalties for phishing, or because ISPs will recognize and delete the e-mails. It will go away because the information a criminal can get from a phishing attack won’t be enough for him to commit fraud — because the companies won’t stand for all those losses.””

Maybe u knew… if not… whatcha think?

“The licenses give creators a simple way to mark their creativity with
the freedoms they want it to carry by default. The license is an
invitation to others to ask for permission for uses beyond those
given by default. A “Noncommercial” license does not mean the creator
would never take money for his or her creativity. It means simply,
“Ask if you want to make a commercial use. No need to ask if you want
to make just a noncommercial use.”

We launched Creative Commons in December, 2002. Within a year, we
counted over 1,000,000 link-backs to our licenses. At a year and a
half, that number was over 1,800,000. At two, the number was just
about 5,000,000. At two and a half years (last June), the number was
just over 12,000,000. And today — three months later — Yahoo!
reports over 50,000,000 link-backs to our licenses. “Link-backs” are
not really a count of how many objects are licensed under Creative
Commons licenses – a single license could cover 100,000 songs in a
music database for example, or a single blog might have multiple
instances of the license. But the growth does measure something: The
uptake of Creative Commons licenses is growing fast, and indeed, far
faster than I ever dreamed.”

———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Lawrence Lessig <lessig@pobox.com >
Date: Oct 6, 2005 12:12 PM
Subject: [cc-info] CC in Review: Lawrence Lessig on Supporting the Commons
To: cc-info@lists.ibiblio.org

So today, Creative Commons launches its first fund raising campaign.
Until now, we’ve lived on very generous grants from some very wise
foundations. But the IRS doesn’t allow nonprofits to live such
favored lives for long. To maintain our nonprofit status, the IRS
says we must meet a “public support test” — which means we must
demonstrate that our support comes from more than a few foundations.
And thus, this campaign.

This email is a pitch, asking for your support. But it is also the
first in a series of emails I will write explaining what Creative
Commons is, and where we’re going with it. This is something I should
have done long ago. There have been many thoughtful (even if some not
so thoughtful) questions raised about who we are, and where we’re
going. I’ve wanted an excuse to answer them thoughtfully before. The
IRS has given me that excuse.

You’re on this list because you’ve signed up to receive information
about Creative Commons or been a friend to CC in the past. If these
weekly emails from me (from now until Christmas, around 500 words in
length, except for this one which is a bit long) will be a bother,
please unsubscribe at
http://creativecommons.org/about/newsletter#unsubscribe .
Alternatively, if you know others who might find these interesting,
please recommend they sign up at
http://creativecommons.org/about/newsletter.

This first email won’t have much news to current friends of Creative
Commons. You probably know all this. My aim in this initial missive
is to explain what Creative Commons is, and why we launched it. There
will be some bragging about what we’ve accomplished so far. Don’t
worry, these emails are from me, and not a press department. There
will be plenty of self-criticism later on. For the moment, let’s
focus on the positive idea that got CC going.

CC: The Story

Creative Commons was conceived in a conversation I had with Eric
Eldred. I was representing Eric in his case challenging the United
States Congress’ Copyright Term Extension Act. Eric was enthusiastic
about the case, but not optimistic about the results. Early on, he
asked me whether there was a way that we could translate the energy
that was building around his case into something positive. Not an
attack on copyright, but a way of using copyright to support, in
effect, the public domain.

I readily agreed, not so much because I had a plan, but because,
naive lawyer that I was, I thought we’d win the case, and Eric would
forget the dream. But nonetheless, long before the Supreme Court
decided to hear Eldred’s plea, a bunch of us had put together the
plan to build the Creative Commons.

We stole the basic idea from the Free Software Foundation — give
away free copyright licenses. Because copyright is property, the law
requires that you get permission before you “use” a copyrighted work,
unless that use is a “fair use.” The particular kind of “use” that
requires permission is any use within the reach of the exclusive
rights that copyright grants. In the physical world, these “exclusive
rights” leave lots unregulated by copyright. For example, in the real
world, if you read a book, that’s not a “fair use” of the book. It is
an unregulated use of the book, as reading does not produce a copy
(except in the brain, but don’t tell the lawyers).

But in cyberspace, there’s no way to “use” a work without
simultaneously making a “copy.” In principle, and again, subject to
fair use, any use of a work in cyberspace could be said to require
permission first. And it is that feature (or bug, depending upon your
perspective) that was the hook we used to get Creative Commons going.

The idea (again, stolen from the FSF) was to produce copyright
licenses that artists, authors, educators, and researchers could use
to announce to the world the freedoms that they want their creative
work to carry. If the default rule of copyright is “all rights
reserved,” the express meaning of a Creative Commons license is that
only “some rights [are] reserved.” For example, copyright law gives
the copyright holder the exclusive right to make “copies” of his or
her work. A Creative Commons license could, in effect, announce that
this exclusive right was given to the public.

Which freedoms the licenses offer is determined both by us (deciding
which freedoms are important to secure through CC licenses) and by
the creator who selects from the options we make available on our
website. The basic components have historically been four: (1)
Attribution (meaning the creator requires attribution as a condition
of using his or her creative work), (2) NonCommercial (meaning the
creator allows only noncommercial uses of his or her work), (3) No
Derivatives (meaning the creator asks that the work be used as is,
and not as the basis for something else), and (4) Share Alike
(meaning any derivative you make using the licensed work must also be
released under a Share Alike license).

These four options — when each is an option — produce 11 possible
licenses. But when we saw that 98% of our adopters chose the
“attribution” requirement, we decided to drop attribution as an
option. That means we now offer 6 core licenses:

(1) Attribution (use the work however you like, but give me attribution)
(2) Attribution-ShareAlike (use the work however you like, but give
me attribution, and license any derivative under a Share Alike license)
(3) Attribution-NoDerivatives (use the work as is, and give me
attribution)
(4) Attribution-NonCommercial (use the work for noncommercial
purposes, and give me attribution)
(5) Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives (use the work for
noncommercial purposes, as is, and with attribution)
(6) Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike (use the work for
noncommercial purposes, give me attribution, and license any
derivative under a ShareAlike license)

(We also offer a couple of other specialty licenses that I’ll
describe in a later post).

These options get added to a basic template license. That template
assures that the creator (1) retains his or her copyright, (2)
affirms that any fair use, first sale, or free expression rights are
not affected by the CC license, and (3) so long as the adopter
respects the conditions the creator has imposed, the license gives
anyone in the world four freedoms: (i) to copy the work, (ii) to
distribute the work, (iii) to display or publicly perform the work,
and (iv) to make a digital public performance of the work (i.e.,
webcasting). Finally, the license also requires the adopter to (1)
get permission for any uses outside of those granted, (2) keep any
copyright notices intact, (3) link to the license, (4) not alter the
license terms, and (5) not use technology (i.e., DRM) to restrict a
licensee’s rights under the license.

The licenses give creators a simple way to mark their creativity with
the freedoms they want it to carry by default. The license is an
invitation to others to ask for permission for uses beyond those
given by default. A “Noncommercial” license does not mean the creator
would never take money for his or her creativity. It means simply,
“Ask if you want to make a commercial use. No need to ask if you want
to make just a noncommercial use.”

We launched Creative Commons in December, 2002. Within a year, we
counted over 1,000,000 link-backs to our licenses. At a year and a
half, that number was over 1,800,000. At two, the number was just
about 5,000,000. At two and a half years (last June), the number was
just over 12,000,000. And today — three months later — Yahoo!
reports over 50,000,000 link-backs to our licenses. “Link-backs” are
not really a count of how many objects are licensed under Creative
Commons licenses – a single license could cover 100,000 songs in a
music database for example, or a single blog might have multiple
instances of the license. But the growth does measure something: The
uptake of Creative Commons licenses is growing fast, and indeed, far
faster than I ever dreamed.

Next week: What problems did we aim to solve and what examples from
the past did we learn from.

To link to or comment on this message, go to:
http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/5661

To support Creative Commons, go to:
http://creativecommons.org/support

For more on the licenses, see
http://creativecommons.org/about/licenses/fullrights

For comics and movies: http://creativecommons.org/about/licenses/how1,
http://mirrors.creativecommons.org/

_______________________________________________
cc-info mailing list

To unsubscribe visit
http://creativecommons.org/about/newsletter#unsubscribe

Or send email with “unsubscribe” as subject to
cc-info-request@lists.ibiblio.org

Creative Commons newsletters are also posted to the CC Weblog. For back
issues please visit http://creativecommons.org/weblog/


Thomas G Henry
Phone: 845.22.88.555
Skype: ThomasGHenry

Community Media
http://ValleyVlog.blogspot.com

Another Look:
http://www.LucidFluid.com

Fine Vlog Advice

October 4, 2005

What Is: Back Again

This applies not only to shooting, but editing… conceptualizing… texty sex text… gahead… gahead… vlog it.. it don’t matter… get be freed