I just answered a poll on the stuff.co.nz website: Should prisoners be given a healthier range of food? Answer: Yes. 62% said no...
It may be a bit farfetched, but I reach the conclusion that this majority-part of the population also believes that prisoners should never be forgiven, they should rot in jail, much like the green loaves of bread we are giving them, they should die because they are bad and they are a threat to society and the status quo. The Status Quo Ante. I do not know what sort of food prisoners eat. I do know that the facilities they are incarcerated in tend to be rather fabcy in this part of the world, which sparks the question that 62% ask: Aren't they meant to be penitent of their actions? Answer: Yes.
We are all filled with a sentiment of remorse when we do something we know is wrong, what if there is no alternative? Should a bank robber be enjailed forever, if all he was trying to do was to provide some means for his family? If this person happens to be black or indigenous in a still racist socoety, how do we know the crime they committed is one they are in fact guilty of?
I'm too naive to think people are bad, and even more to believe that people cannot improve. We all do things we regret and we also do things because we need to. Families do tend to take priority over the system, and mine does too. If I were in a desperate enough situation to have to steal food from a supermarket in order to keep my kids healthy I would steal that supermarket. I'd be scared, no one wants to go to jail; even if it does have satellite TV, a gym, library, etc. There is another factor though, some jails are so much better than the society the criminals live in that it is better and more life-saving to be in jail than to walk the streets in a gang whose use is the protection of communities.
On food, should we give them better food? Yes, why? Because prisons are meant to rehabilitate. This is why there are workshops, criminals are obliged to do community service, go through counselling sessions. They aren't people born naturally defective, we cannot hide them behind high walls forever. Like a toy, if it comes out broken whose fault is it, the toy's or the machine's? I'd say the lattter, we cannot blame something on an inanimate object. We aren't inanimate but we do learn from the way we've been raised. I'd say the environmental factors are key in distinguishing who is going to turn out well or not. Genetics has a role; some people are naturally more aggressive or have more addictive personalities but these genetic differences will be pushed to the for by environmental injustices.
Why should they have better food? Simply because they should learn how to eat healthily so that they do when they leave prison. Then there children, if these prisoners have actually been rehabilitated, will stand a chance to grow healthily and in good environmental conditions.
This system throws more Maori in prison than Pakeha. Maori, as a fact are also poorer, there communities are unsafe due to the lack of jobs and because the youths parents are in prison. How are they meant to give their children a decent childhood if they aren't there? Maori also lost out in their culture, they were pushed away from their original communities and large family units into small private houses, uninhabited for the ten, eleven hours of work a week but for their children, who have no-one to teach them, show them or protect them.
Sunday, May 29, 2011
Friday, May 27, 2011
Scottish independance would open up the European march for freedom.
On the 5th of May the Scottish election took place. A while back now. That the SNP won with an overwhelming turn in vote was surprising. After full scrutiny, it took 69 seats out of 129, a significant majority- with seats they stole from the Libdems and Labour. Alex Salmond, leader of the SNP, is openly pro-worker but also pro-independance, and the you can see the connotations in the speech he gave when he was declared winner: "I'll govern for all the ambitions of Scotland and for all the people who can imagine we can live in a better land. This party- the Scottish party - the national party- carries your hope and we shall carry it carefully and make the nation proud".
Now there are only a couple of reasons to explain why the SNP achieved such a turnaround, despite its support for independance. Either it was simply a product of an anti-coalition vote, or the number of Scottish in favour of independance is increasing. Your choice but it is mine to hope for the latter. We cannot say that those who voted for the SNP weren't at least expecting a referendum for secession.
Scotland is of course like so many other hidden nations of Europe. Both Catalonia and Scotland were empires in their own right, they ended up losing their territories due to monarchies intermarrying. Of course, your average person at the time was no more than a slave, with no freedoms nor any rights. The culture of many territories got at least difused, if not surpressed and/or lost altogether.
What is important though, is that when Scotland actually calls the refendum, which is scheduled for the second half of the five-year term, it will be very hard for nations like Spain to not allow the Basque Country and Catalonia to hold one, or France one for Northern Catalonia and Brittany. There is also the Val d'Aosta, Sicily, Corsega, Napoli, Flanders. the Suomi people, Chechnya... There are so many nations across Europe looking for greater autonomy or independance; what will happen to Northern Ireland? Scotland is just the blow of air that can help reignite seemingly dying embers.
Those opposed to independance give economic and social reasons. I'll address the economic reasons first. It is simply not true that independance will cut-off markets. Capitalism will continue to make its ties regardless of borders or lack therof. I rather think the new international projection will boost the tourism and industry of many of these nations. I'll step in to say that I am looking to argue against the reasons against independance set down by imperialism, and not really from a socialist perspective this time around. Many of these nations mentioned above are currently deemed dependant on central governments because the taxes of these nations go into the treasure chests of these central governments. The Basque country is an exception which many nations are jealous of, as it manages its own taxes.
In terms of social factors, I doubt many of the states would spiral into war. Even though I think Spain could- clause 8 of the constitution says that if the unity of the country is under threat, the military is legally obliged to step in (They have certainly done so every other time Catalonia has seeked greater self-determination). I don't think people would necesarily leave the country even if it does become a new one. Physically your situation hasn't changed, you haven't been thrown in a tumble dryer! People will still live in Catalonia or Scotland and the biggest mistake on the behalf of any new government would be to create differences between the 'natives' and the 'foreigners'.
The way people is going to potray Scotland in the near future is important. Like they already say of Catalonia, they will say Scotland is already breaking up the state. To see how far the nonsense goes in Spain, watch this investigative report. What is a nation though, if there is no shared sentiment of cultural unity?
Now there are only a couple of reasons to explain why the SNP achieved such a turnaround, despite its support for independance. Either it was simply a product of an anti-coalition vote, or the number of Scottish in favour of independance is increasing. Your choice but it is mine to hope for the latter. We cannot say that those who voted for the SNP weren't at least expecting a referendum for secession.
Scotland is of course like so many other hidden nations of Europe. Both Catalonia and Scotland were empires in their own right, they ended up losing their territories due to monarchies intermarrying. Of course, your average person at the time was no more than a slave, with no freedoms nor any rights. The culture of many territories got at least difused, if not surpressed and/or lost altogether.
What is important though, is that when Scotland actually calls the refendum, which is scheduled for the second half of the five-year term, it will be very hard for nations like Spain to not allow the Basque Country and Catalonia to hold one, or France one for Northern Catalonia and Brittany. There is also the Val d'Aosta, Sicily, Corsega, Napoli, Flanders. the Suomi people, Chechnya... There are so many nations across Europe looking for greater autonomy or independance; what will happen to Northern Ireland? Scotland is just the blow of air that can help reignite seemingly dying embers.
Those opposed to independance give economic and social reasons. I'll address the economic reasons first. It is simply not true that independance will cut-off markets. Capitalism will continue to make its ties regardless of borders or lack therof. I rather think the new international projection will boost the tourism and industry of many of these nations. I'll step in to say that I am looking to argue against the reasons against independance set down by imperialism, and not really from a socialist perspective this time around. Many of these nations mentioned above are currently deemed dependant on central governments because the taxes of these nations go into the treasure chests of these central governments. The Basque country is an exception which many nations are jealous of, as it manages its own taxes.
In terms of social factors, I doubt many of the states would spiral into war. Even though I think Spain could- clause 8 of the constitution says that if the unity of the country is under threat, the military is legally obliged to step in (They have certainly done so every other time Catalonia has seeked greater self-determination). I don't think people would necesarily leave the country even if it does become a new one. Physically your situation hasn't changed, you haven't been thrown in a tumble dryer! People will still live in Catalonia or Scotland and the biggest mistake on the behalf of any new government would be to create differences between the 'natives' and the 'foreigners'.
The way people is going to potray Scotland in the near future is important. Like they already say of Catalonia, they will say Scotland is already breaking up the state. To see how far the nonsense goes in Spain, watch this investigative report. What is a nation though, if there is no shared sentiment of cultural unity?
Friday, May 20, 2011
Spain: No time for siesta, we need true democracy first!
Just before Summer, Spain has taken onto the streets under the banner of revolution. Spain is the first European country to take onto the new craze- we need a better revolution and we in the West are entitled to an Arab Spring too! This 2nd Spanish revolution though will not achieve its goals unless it has a clear idea of changing the system though and for the moment, it is only being legal.
Spain was under Arab hands for 800 years in some areas. Although they are, for now, still very racist, I will argue that this is due to the sense of nationalism that has been instilled into Spaniards since the end of the 15th century. Most notably though, this sense of nationalism is a fruit of Franco's many trees which still exist in Spanish society- trees planted to shade and suffocate the saps of Communism and Anarchism, that were not only present but blooming before 1939- the end of the Spanish Civil War and Franco's consolidation into power.
I have talked about Franco's legacy before so if you're interested read here, where I talk about the reasons Franco won, or here where I talk about Spain still being under his influence. Briefly I'll say that, Franco appeared as the second 'great' Spanish dictator in the 20th century and he continued Primo de Rivera's objective of keeping Spain culturally united but speechless. As I've said many a time, Spain is not a country, it is an amalgamation of nationalities, many of which strive for freedom still. During the second republic these nationalities were being given increasing autonomy as the economy was swaying dangerously to the left. The old sources of power: Clergy, nobility and the military; were being slowly pushed out of politics. The nobility was taken down and many churches were burnt as the penitent turned against their priests, the military was also becoming minor but due to the complicated landscape of Spanish unity, they were deemed necessary to quell rebellion. This gave the military an open door to control Spanish politics and only 5 years after the foundation of the Republic, it staged a coup d'etat which would end up abolishing the freedoms of the Spanish people and reintroducing nobility, imposing religion and controlling all autonomy. Franco made it his task to unify Spain under [g]od and design a feeling of unity to keep the industrially more developped, historically independant and socially working class areas of the Basque country and Catalonia in Spanish hands. These two culturally different regions are two of the many, but they have suffered a longer history of suppression; they clung on to marxist and anarchist ideologies as a point of freedom and they fought for it long and hard during the Spanish Civil War.
When Franco took over he imposed a culturally Spanish state in order to force the Basques and Catalans to assimilate. History was rewritten but it hung on to the age of a strong Spanish monarchy in the 16th and 17th centuries, where Spain was devoutly catholic but also a vast empire since the 15th. The focus on these latter two undoubtedly forced an idea of superiority in terms of both religion, thus the anti-islamism and culture, thus the anti-arabism. Of course the 16th and 17th centuries were when the Basques and Catalans were surpressed harshest, for this reason the inculcation Franco taught left a bitter after-taste in the mouths of these two cultures. Underground organisations in the two regions, including terrorist ones, kept the cultures alive and the spirits high, even if the languages were prohibited. The majority of the workers though, not forming part of secret literary circles nor holding any strong positions in the hitherto existing regional governments, were in large part left out and the failure of the USSR and the control over unions in already battered workplaces made them lose their ideology, in public.
Of course, when under oppression one will not happily accept the conditions enforced, he'll only comply. What is known as the first Spanish revolution took place with the coup d'etat. As the existing state collapsed and hid in official buildings, the ideology the Spanish had learnt during their short time of freedom of speech was put into practice. Anarchists, socialists and communists took hold of the factories and social life actually changed. Though it was a civil war, workers continued production and many fought for a better world. Education and civil life continued arguably better than it had done at any previous point in time. 8 million Spanish lived this alternative lifestyle, about half the population at the time. So when Spain became an authoritarian dictatorship, these people must've imprinted this burning desire for a better world to their children.
In the streets now we have the children of the children, but one protesters was reported as saying that she'd been waiting for the revolution for 50 years. The reality though is that the revolution in large part is being used by alternative sections of the Labour party, even if it was started off by anarchists especially. Many of those there are demanding better access to university, higher wages, more jobs, better wages but also a change in the electoral system. This is not a change in the democratic system and this is important, because it is this neo-liberal system which is the root of the problem. Much like in North Africa (and may I say, from day one the protesters themselves have linked this as a continuation of the Arab Spring, sympathising with the efforts of Tunisia, Egypt and Libya), this revolution is being run through the social networks- Facebook but also mobile phones. This is where they are easy to control, the political parties can see what the plans are and thus turn up to them and use them. Spain is voting in the Spanish elections in only a couple of days time, so these protesters have come as a shock to the system. The timing is also perfect because the government will have to see them gone in order to have the non-political period of reflexion just before the elections- during this period no political party is allowed to campaign. The Catalan government has already said that it will not forcefully move Catalan protesters, this way contradicting the decision of the supreme court. And if the regional governments push the protesters out, a chance for a real revolution is more possible. The protesters will be able to see that the system goes against there desires.
It is important to note that these protests have followed the Egyptian model of camping in the main square, they are more widespread then the Egyptian ones started out though. Every capital province has had protesters in some numbers, so that is 49 cities plus others. In different regions they have had different directions. In Catalonia they seem to be more anarchist and anti-system- with wide support from university lecturers. They are calling for an all-out boycott of the Spanish elections. They are also Catalan in spirit, with banners for independance as well. In Madrid they seem to be more mainstream and with more main party involvement, from what I can tell so far.
These protests though will not succeed unless they have an ideology behind them that tells the protesters that it is the system that is wrong. As I've said, anarchists are heavily involved in regions where they historically have been, communists on the other hand are staying away from it. I'm planning on writing a letter to the Trotskyist Communist Party of the Catalan People telling them that I think their position is wrong. They say they are not taking part because the ideas of the protesters seem to be focussed in fixing the system. I think that this is the best chance in 80 years to gain support. It is the task of communists to guide the protesters. At the very least what they will get is a bigger base with which to act next time. The anarcho-syndicalists are calling for a boycott in the elections and they are showing a larger than known presence in the demos, why then shouldn't the trots do the same?
The only way these revolutions can spread is by defying presidential and judicial orders, boycotting too but direction is needed to both teach the protesters about communism but also to show them that past revolutions have been succesful. I think these protests can grow, 45% of Spanish youths are unemplyed and the average of the population is almost 1 in 4. My mum is part of that group and so are friends of mine, they are fed up but they are not active. An organisation can provide information and tactics to get these people active.
The words of a Catalan poet from Valencia pop to mind: No et limitis a contemplar aquestes hores que ara venen, baixa al carrer i participa. No podran res davant d'un poble unit, alegre i combatiu.
Don't just sit there and watch those hours here to come, take the streets and participate. They won't be able to do anything against a united, happy and combative people. Vicent Andres Estelles.
Spain was under Arab hands for 800 years in some areas. Although they are, for now, still very racist, I will argue that this is due to the sense of nationalism that has been instilled into Spaniards since the end of the 15th century. Most notably though, this sense of nationalism is a fruit of Franco's many trees which still exist in Spanish society- trees planted to shade and suffocate the saps of Communism and Anarchism, that were not only present but blooming before 1939- the end of the Spanish Civil War and Franco's consolidation into power.
I have talked about Franco's legacy before so if you're interested read here, where I talk about the reasons Franco won, or here where I talk about Spain still being under his influence. Briefly I'll say that, Franco appeared as the second 'great' Spanish dictator in the 20th century and he continued Primo de Rivera's objective of keeping Spain culturally united but speechless. As I've said many a time, Spain is not a country, it is an amalgamation of nationalities, many of which strive for freedom still. During the second republic these nationalities were being given increasing autonomy as the economy was swaying dangerously to the left. The old sources of power: Clergy, nobility and the military; were being slowly pushed out of politics. The nobility was taken down and many churches were burnt as the penitent turned against their priests, the military was also becoming minor but due to the complicated landscape of Spanish unity, they were deemed necessary to quell rebellion. This gave the military an open door to control Spanish politics and only 5 years after the foundation of the Republic, it staged a coup d'etat which would end up abolishing the freedoms of the Spanish people and reintroducing nobility, imposing religion and controlling all autonomy. Franco made it his task to unify Spain under [g]od and design a feeling of unity to keep the industrially more developped, historically independant and socially working class areas of the Basque country and Catalonia in Spanish hands. These two culturally different regions are two of the many, but they have suffered a longer history of suppression; they clung on to marxist and anarchist ideologies as a point of freedom and they fought for it long and hard during the Spanish Civil War.
When Franco took over he imposed a culturally Spanish state in order to force the Basques and Catalans to assimilate. History was rewritten but it hung on to the age of a strong Spanish monarchy in the 16th and 17th centuries, where Spain was devoutly catholic but also a vast empire since the 15th. The focus on these latter two undoubtedly forced an idea of superiority in terms of both religion, thus the anti-islamism and culture, thus the anti-arabism. Of course the 16th and 17th centuries were when the Basques and Catalans were surpressed harshest, for this reason the inculcation Franco taught left a bitter after-taste in the mouths of these two cultures. Underground organisations in the two regions, including terrorist ones, kept the cultures alive and the spirits high, even if the languages were prohibited. The majority of the workers though, not forming part of secret literary circles nor holding any strong positions in the hitherto existing regional governments, were in large part left out and the failure of the USSR and the control over unions in already battered workplaces made them lose their ideology, in public.
Of course, when under oppression one will not happily accept the conditions enforced, he'll only comply. What is known as the first Spanish revolution took place with the coup d'etat. As the existing state collapsed and hid in official buildings, the ideology the Spanish had learnt during their short time of freedom of speech was put into practice. Anarchists, socialists and communists took hold of the factories and social life actually changed. Though it was a civil war, workers continued production and many fought for a better world. Education and civil life continued arguably better than it had done at any previous point in time. 8 million Spanish lived this alternative lifestyle, about half the population at the time. So when Spain became an authoritarian dictatorship, these people must've imprinted this burning desire for a better world to their children.
In the streets now we have the children of the children, but one protesters was reported as saying that she'd been waiting for the revolution for 50 years. The reality though is that the revolution in large part is being used by alternative sections of the Labour party, even if it was started off by anarchists especially. Many of those there are demanding better access to university, higher wages, more jobs, better wages but also a change in the electoral system. This is not a change in the democratic system and this is important, because it is this neo-liberal system which is the root of the problem. Much like in North Africa (and may I say, from day one the protesters themselves have linked this as a continuation of the Arab Spring, sympathising with the efforts of Tunisia, Egypt and Libya), this revolution is being run through the social networks- Facebook but also mobile phones. This is where they are easy to control, the political parties can see what the plans are and thus turn up to them and use them. Spain is voting in the Spanish elections in only a couple of days time, so these protesters have come as a shock to the system. The timing is also perfect because the government will have to see them gone in order to have the non-political period of reflexion just before the elections- during this period no political party is allowed to campaign. The Catalan government has already said that it will not forcefully move Catalan protesters, this way contradicting the decision of the supreme court. And if the regional governments push the protesters out, a chance for a real revolution is more possible. The protesters will be able to see that the system goes against there desires.
It is important to note that these protests have followed the Egyptian model of camping in the main square, they are more widespread then the Egyptian ones started out though. Every capital province has had protesters in some numbers, so that is 49 cities plus others. In different regions they have had different directions. In Catalonia they seem to be more anarchist and anti-system- with wide support from university lecturers. They are calling for an all-out boycott of the Spanish elections. They are also Catalan in spirit, with banners for independance as well. In Madrid they seem to be more mainstream and with more main party involvement, from what I can tell so far.
These protests though will not succeed unless they have an ideology behind them that tells the protesters that it is the system that is wrong. As I've said, anarchists are heavily involved in regions where they historically have been, communists on the other hand are staying away from it. I'm planning on writing a letter to the Trotskyist Communist Party of the Catalan People telling them that I think their position is wrong. They say they are not taking part because the ideas of the protesters seem to be focussed in fixing the system. I think that this is the best chance in 80 years to gain support. It is the task of communists to guide the protesters. At the very least what they will get is a bigger base with which to act next time. The anarcho-syndicalists are calling for a boycott in the elections and they are showing a larger than known presence in the demos, why then shouldn't the trots do the same?
The only way these revolutions can spread is by defying presidential and judicial orders, boycotting too but direction is needed to both teach the protesters about communism but also to show them that past revolutions have been succesful. I think these protests can grow, 45% of Spanish youths are unemplyed and the average of the population is almost 1 in 4. My mum is part of that group and so are friends of mine, they are fed up but they are not active. An organisation can provide information and tactics to get these people active.
The words of a Catalan poet from Valencia pop to mind: No et limitis a contemplar aquestes hores que ara venen, baixa al carrer i participa. No podran res davant d'un poble unit, alegre i combatiu.
Don't just sit there and watch those hours here to come, take the streets and participate. They won't be able to do anything against a united, happy and combative people. Vicent Andres Estelles.
Monday, May 9, 2011
Revolting.
Apparently my blog isn’t working, I cannot write anything. If I were a conspiricist I’d probably think the government is monitoring my activity with such excitement that they’ve caused my blog to crash. Tough luck for them as my activity lately has been relatively low. We have arrived at that time of the year when we walk out of the library every day with four new books, balancing them on the jacket it’s too hot to wear and limping with our laptop bag that makes us walk lopsided. It is both cold and warm, the rising mists in the morning though should be a warning to not bring a jacket, it’s just too cold though. I wake up shaking and a shower in the nude just doesn’t sound appealing, it doesn’t help that the water practically scalds me as it falls onto my chest- I’m probably only asking for the cold to come back, cling on and want some warmth too. Years ago, a teacher in Lleida told us that it is more rational to take cold showers in winter, because then the temperature difference isn’t as great. Well, easier said then done. I’d much rather boil! My activist-tivity has been low too, I have a radio program though! Me and a socialist comrade are running a show about politics, radio1 on Fridays-10 to 12am. Having done my advertising for the day, Oh! Tune in! 91fm, I’ll jump on to more important issues.
The world is being forced to accept the ACTA bill, its name may be different in your country but do not be fooled, it is no cute and fuzzy four-letter acronym! The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement is an excuse to shut down our freedom of speech and shut us off from a growing culture. Its excuse? Those poor artists: singers, writers, etc. Now don’t get me wrong, I love music and books and photography and painting, I really do! I have not been to an art gallery in a wee while but I hardly have less than a few hours and what’s the point? I would want to appreciate it. I wish I were an artist. This bill though is not actually in their benefit, it is in the benefit of corporations. If it was actually in the benefit of artists the CEOs of Sony et all may choose to cut their salaries a bit, who are we kidding though, these corporates have worked their arses off to get where they are haven’t they? They themselves are probably musicians and have gone through it all already. Meeeek, no wrong. These corporates have simply done a couple of courses in marketing at the local branch of a little known university, their degrees unfinished.
Artists earn shit all from their record sales, it takes them more effort than anything else. Starting off unknown, the first thing you want is to get your name out there, you want to hear your music is being played in Timbuktoo. For every sold song on iTunes, artists get 9 cents, only 10% of the profit, and believe me, that is a lot to music standards. They earn much less off record sales. Many artists are against this law coming in, they have been using alternative ways of spreading their music for free, or for donations and a much higher profit. This law has been put in place to keep the industry on stilts even when it’s being sawed down with every technological change. There have been bands that have ripped fresh music from the concert onto blank cds and giving them to the spectators as they walk out the door. Other bands give free poor quality downloads or payable high quality ones, giving a chance for all incomes and a taster of what the album tastes like. Writers have published their works online, photographers theirs on Creative Commons. Creating an audience is the first step to stardom is it not? And if you are small in this everexpanding world, isn’t it first just a pleasure to know you are wanted, to know people believe you are talented too? After an audience is created one can ask for donations. Artists sell their own locally made merchandise now, the corporations are the only ones missing out.
I don’t feel sorry for them. As an article on Critic says, artists now have to continuously tour, not for the audience but for themselves, to make money from door entries. The profits from cd sales get siphoned away into all sorts of hidden holes.
This bill will restrict us from sharing music or videos, it will not only detain the uploader, it will fine and impinge the downloader’s privacy-potentially cutting him/her off from the internet altogether. It has been said the internet is becoming a fundamental right, on the one hand we applaude when we hear small third-world countries can finally surf the web, on the other we get fined for sharing what we enjoy most? This seems incompatible. With books there are no restrictions to sharing, I can give my book to anyone, I can found a library, with music I’m not allowed to. My preferences must be kept private, I must hide in this socially created bubble a bit more- we must stop sharing, enjoying and laughing together. Even though sharing is what we do and culture is built through references to older material. Mesh-ups are a new thing, born with the rising internet culture. One can now create art through the internet, by picking a song from here, a rift from Japan, a sound effect from Star Wars, put it all together and voila. Here we now have something personal, but global and for everyone. If we can write books referencing Shakespeare, why can’t we make music referencing our favourite band?
With this law we will lose our privacy, possibly our rights to the internet, we will all lose out on music but culture will be affected deeply too. We are being forced into individuals by a system that doesn’t believe in “mass” in any context other than profit and entertainment. We are being dumbed down, we are being titty-fed and milked at the same time and we will never get out of this tiring cycle unless we stand up. Internet has been called a revolution in terms of communications and human interaction, for some reason though we are letting them take it off us.
The world is being forced to accept the ACTA bill, its name may be different in your country but do not be fooled, it is no cute and fuzzy four-letter acronym! The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement is an excuse to shut down our freedom of speech and shut us off from a growing culture. Its excuse? Those poor artists: singers, writers, etc. Now don’t get me wrong, I love music and books and photography and painting, I really do! I have not been to an art gallery in a wee while but I hardly have less than a few hours and what’s the point? I would want to appreciate it. I wish I were an artist. This bill though is not actually in their benefit, it is in the benefit of corporations. If it was actually in the benefit of artists the CEOs of Sony et all may choose to cut their salaries a bit, who are we kidding though, these corporates have worked their arses off to get where they are haven’t they? They themselves are probably musicians and have gone through it all already. Meeeek, no wrong. These corporates have simply done a couple of courses in marketing at the local branch of a little known university, their degrees unfinished.
Artists earn shit all from their record sales, it takes them more effort than anything else. Starting off unknown, the first thing you want is to get your name out there, you want to hear your music is being played in Timbuktoo. For every sold song on iTunes, artists get 9 cents, only 10% of the profit, and believe me, that is a lot to music standards. They earn much less off record sales. Many artists are against this law coming in, they have been using alternative ways of spreading their music for free, or for donations and a much higher profit. This law has been put in place to keep the industry on stilts even when it’s being sawed down with every technological change. There have been bands that have ripped fresh music from the concert onto blank cds and giving them to the spectators as they walk out the door. Other bands give free poor quality downloads or payable high quality ones, giving a chance for all incomes and a taster of what the album tastes like. Writers have published their works online, photographers theirs on Creative Commons. Creating an audience is the first step to stardom is it not? And if you are small in this everexpanding world, isn’t it first just a pleasure to know you are wanted, to know people believe you are talented too? After an audience is created one can ask for donations. Artists sell their own locally made merchandise now, the corporations are the only ones missing out.
I don’t feel sorry for them. As an article on Critic says, artists now have to continuously tour, not for the audience but for themselves, to make money from door entries. The profits from cd sales get siphoned away into all sorts of hidden holes.
This bill will restrict us from sharing music or videos, it will not only detain the uploader, it will fine and impinge the downloader’s privacy-potentially cutting him/her off from the internet altogether. It has been said the internet is becoming a fundamental right, on the one hand we applaude when we hear small third-world countries can finally surf the web, on the other we get fined for sharing what we enjoy most? This seems incompatible. With books there are no restrictions to sharing, I can give my book to anyone, I can found a library, with music I’m not allowed to. My preferences must be kept private, I must hide in this socially created bubble a bit more- we must stop sharing, enjoying and laughing together. Even though sharing is what we do and culture is built through references to older material. Mesh-ups are a new thing, born with the rising internet culture. One can now create art through the internet, by picking a song from here, a rift from Japan, a sound effect from Star Wars, put it all together and voila. Here we now have something personal, but global and for everyone. If we can write books referencing Shakespeare, why can’t we make music referencing our favourite band?
With this law we will lose our privacy, possibly our rights to the internet, we will all lose out on music but culture will be affected deeply too. We are being forced into individuals by a system that doesn’t believe in “mass” in any context other than profit and entertainment. We are being dumbed down, we are being titty-fed and milked at the same time and we will never get out of this tiring cycle unless we stand up. Internet has been called a revolution in terms of communications and human interaction, for some reason though we are letting them take it off us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)