Gained in Translation

A succinct description of my copyright issues from an Estonian blog“showing the ass and the bureaucratic world is in places.”

Sita Sings the Blues is an interesting project. Namely, the film has a good standing for the preparation of Nina Paley Free Culture Movemendi ie maakeeli supporter of the free culture movement, and hence it calls for free to see their movies and others to show. Who has Ninale may want to donate money in your account, but it is not mandatory. Muusikamaailmas is such a free offer their own popularity to gather in silence. It seemed okay, for example, whether the move indiefilmid legally allalaetavateks. Who can be a very jamada to read a film Sita Sings the Blues also legal to write DVD-only 100% after a conscientious must pay royalties to the songs for the movie sound. The fact that some companies have a song from one of 27.5% and 19.25% U.S. soil in the world, showing the ass and the bureaucratic world is in places. Ah, who see the movie Home of the interest-http://www.sitasingstheblues.com

Read the rest…

Share

Rishi shirt design

UPDATE: per suggestion, same design in off-center position on shirt:

rishi_shirt_offset1.jpgrishi_shirt_offset2.jpg

Hopefully this wraps up my “Phase I” shirt designing spree. I just need to know whether y’all prefer the Rishi (or is it Valmiki himself?) just standing there, or playing the violin. And whether you’d buy, or at least desire, either one.

rishi_standing.jpgrishi_violin.jpg

rishi_shirt0001.jpgrishi_shirt0002.jpgrishi_shirt0003.jpgrishi_shirt0004.jpg

These puppies are 4 color, so they’re middle-expensive. I’m not certain, but I’m estimating 1-color shirts to be about $20, 3-color $25, 6-color $30, and totally fancy-pants with multiple colors and metallic/foil inks (like the phonograph) maybe $35. That’s my educated guess.

Share

Free as in Phreedom

Cultural value is related to monetary value, but they are not synonymous. Just as air has more value when it circulates freely, culture is more valuable when it is shared.

Consider the value of language (which is culture). The more people use any particular language, the more valuable it becomes. A scarce language is far less valuable than a common one like English. The more people speak English, the more desirable English becomes; the more songs, books, films, and other communications are produced in English. The value of a language comes from those who use it.

But suppose we commodify language. I’ll start. Let’s say I’m granted a monopoly on the letter “F”. I could have patented a big letter like “E” (12.702% frequency) or “T” (9.056%), but my aspirations are modest. At 2.228%, “F” is below average frequency, so it shouldn’t be any major hardship if I start collecting a royalty of, say, 20 cents per use. Even a pauper can afford $.20 to splurge on an “F” from time to time. And they will! Because you can’t spell “FUN” without “F.” Not to mention “FREEDOM”.

(Since my permission is required for any use of “F,” I won’t permit its degradation in uses I don’t approve of. That word that ends in “uck,” for example. That won’t be allowed under any circumstances, to protect the integrity, quality and reputation of my letter.)

Assigning monetary value to an intangible is the first step towards having its real value recognized. All those other, un-patented letters suddenly seem worthless in comparison. How valuable can “A” (8.167%) be, after all, when you can get it for free? “F” is clearly worth more, or I wouldn’t have invested in privatizing it.

Yet in spite of its clear monetary value, my letter seems to be showing up less and less phrequently. Gradually people adopt cheap phakes instead oph the real thing. They phind a way to spell “PHREEDOM” without paying me.

Soon, the letter “eph” is so scarce, no one recognizes it. Like Avestan, Elbasan, Old Uyghur, and the Dodo, “eph” goes extinct.

And that is the dipherence between cultural value and monetary value.

Share