https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/period-1
Friday, June 3, 2016
i've explained this in my vlogs, but it's a hard thing to find. i have reasons for posting this here.
i do not monetize show footage, nor do i include it in the vlogs. the reason is that it would give the copyright owner on the footage the ability to steal my vlog.
i think that people "out there" may be a little confused about youtube. youtube is not a system where people can post and make money from whatever they want. facebook video largely is exactly this. but, youtube is actually a very controlled system of content management.
here is one example. i was walking through detroit a few months ago, talking into my camera. i happened to walk by a bar that was playing a michael jackson song for a few seconds. understand that this is incidental audio - neither captured with intent, nor inserted consciously. it's not even "fair use"; i had no intention of even using it at all. it was just random background sound. however, sony was then able to take control of the entire half hour vlog and i had no ability to argue against it. i'm left to conclude that the same thing would happen if i recorded myself talking in a mall, a restaurant or anywhere else with background audio.
is that legal? of course not. but, there's no legal mechanism in place to have this discussion. the system is designed to benefit copyright owners at the expense of content creators, with no exceptions or caveats.
now, as it is, i don't really care about recording your band for the sake of recording your band. there will be some exceptions, but i go to a lot of shows and i'm only really deeply interested in a small fraction of it. rather, i'm recording a vlog. take yourself down a notch. it's not about you. it's about me.
but, what that means is that i have to abide by the rules - which not only do not allow me to monetize songs i didn't make (if i'd want to....but it's not what it's about...), but actually would give the artists i'm recording the ability to claim copyright over my entire vlog.
so, please be cognizant of the actual reality, here: in order to prevent record labels and other rentier capitalists from copyrighting my vlogs, i am required to separate performances out of my vlogs. not only am i not cashing in on their performances, but i need to take steps to prevent them from cashing in on my vlogging!
the system is unsustainable; it will have to be changed to take power away from copyright holders. but, for now, it is what it is.
nor do i claim copyright over material i do not own. should that be discovered, i would face punitive measures. the second picture demonstrates what happens when you upload something by an artist in a relationship with a large rentier: sony claimed ownership of the son lux video, whereas universal claimed ownership of the julia holter one.
i do not monetize show footage, nor do i include it in the vlogs. the reason is that it would give the copyright owner on the footage the ability to steal my vlog.
i think that people "out there" may be a little confused about youtube. youtube is not a system where people can post and make money from whatever they want. facebook video largely is exactly this. but, youtube is actually a very controlled system of content management.
here is one example. i was walking through detroit a few months ago, talking into my camera. i happened to walk by a bar that was playing a michael jackson song for a few seconds. understand that this is incidental audio - neither captured with intent, nor inserted consciously. it's not even "fair use"; i had no intention of even using it at all. it was just random background sound. however, sony was then able to take control of the entire half hour vlog and i had no ability to argue against it. i'm left to conclude that the same thing would happen if i recorded myself talking in a mall, a restaurant or anywhere else with background audio.
is that legal? of course not. but, there's no legal mechanism in place to have this discussion. the system is designed to benefit copyright owners at the expense of content creators, with no exceptions or caveats.
now, as it is, i don't really care about recording your band for the sake of recording your band. there will be some exceptions, but i go to a lot of shows and i'm only really deeply interested in a small fraction of it. rather, i'm recording a vlog. take yourself down a notch. it's not about you. it's about me.
but, what that means is that i have to abide by the rules - which not only do not allow me to monetize songs i didn't make (if i'd want to....but it's not what it's about...), but actually would give the artists i'm recording the ability to claim copyright over my entire vlog.
so, please be cognizant of the actual reality, here: in order to prevent record labels and other rentier capitalists from copyrighting my vlogs, i am required to separate performances out of my vlogs. not only am i not cashing in on their performances, but i need to take steps to prevent them from cashing in on my vlogging!
the system is unsustainable; it will have to be changed to take power away from copyright holders. but, for now, it is what it is.
nor do i claim copyright over material i do not own. should that be discovered, i would face punitive measures. the second picture demonstrates what happens when you upload something by an artist in a relationship with a large rentier: sony claimed ownership of the son lux video, whereas universal claimed ownership of the julia holter one.
j reacts to the dnc's actions indicating that they are not taking sanders seriously
yeah.
listen - you can say what you want about this, but the important takeaway is that the dnc is a lost cause. voter suppression in an unorganized territory, in the last two weeks to save an unpopular frontrunner?
if you were to call the dnc the absolute embodiment of mindless foolishness, you'd be on to something. it might be an understatement. but, the idea that bernie has any serious chance of swaying the elites is delusional.
i stated a few months ago that all bernie can really accomplish is a rigorous demonstration of systemic party corruption. he's done that, and it will have long term consequences - the democratic party is done, as a vehicle for anything but the status quo. i stated a few weeks ago that he can't win, but he can sure make the party look stupid for refusing to give him the nomination. i do think that's what you're going to see happen over the next few days.
i've also stated that none of this makes any sense unless he's planning a run, but that the decision to run as an independent must be taken over the careful analysis of voter intention. we'll see if that works out or not.
but, the data that's coming in right now suggests that if you want a lock on latinos, sanders is the better choice. the capitalist refugees from cuba are going to continue to warp the narrative, but understand that this is about money and not about votes.
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2016/06/03/3783185/puerto-rico-polls-closed/
listen - you can say what you want about this, but the important takeaway is that the dnc is a lost cause. voter suppression in an unorganized territory, in the last two weeks to save an unpopular frontrunner?
if you were to call the dnc the absolute embodiment of mindless foolishness, you'd be on to something. it might be an understatement. but, the idea that bernie has any serious chance of swaying the elites is delusional.
i stated a few months ago that all bernie can really accomplish is a rigorous demonstration of systemic party corruption. he's done that, and it will have long term consequences - the democratic party is done, as a vehicle for anything but the status quo. i stated a few weeks ago that he can't win, but he can sure make the party look stupid for refusing to give him the nomination. i do think that's what you're going to see happen over the next few days.
i've also stated that none of this makes any sense unless he's planning a run, but that the decision to run as an independent must be taken over the careful analysis of voter intention. we'll see if that works out or not.
but, the data that's coming in right now suggests that if you want a lock on latinos, sanders is the better choice. the capitalist refugees from cuba are going to continue to warp the narrative, but understand that this is about money and not about votes.
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2016/06/03/3783185/puerto-rico-polls-closed/
j reacts to the media party's new bad math around the dnc delegate process
this is the media party's new nonsense: if there weren't super-delegates, clinton would only need 50% of pledged delegates to win, so she would only need half of the 4051 pledged delegates, which is 2026.
it's entirely circular logic. the party rules are that she needs 58% to win, not 50% to win. of course, if it were true that the party set the threshold at 50%, then that's what she would need. but, they very obviously did not do that.
well, unless you think that a pledged delegate is of equal weight to an unpledged delegate, which is an argument nobody would ever make. one would need to take that entirely ridiculous and elitist position to eliminate the circular logic, but it is itself a contradiction to take an undemocratic position to try and argue for a more democratic position.
just deal with it: the democratic party set the threshold at 58% because they wanted a strong candidate. hillary clinton has failed to meet the minimum threshold to win in the first round. the convention should therefore be seen as round two.
and, nothing could possibly be more american - if you understand what that actually means.
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/the-most-important-number-bernie-sanders-next-week-256
it's entirely circular logic. the party rules are that she needs 58% to win, not 50% to win. of course, if it were true that the party set the threshold at 50%, then that's what she would need. but, they very obviously did not do that.
well, unless you think that a pledged delegate is of equal weight to an unpledged delegate, which is an argument nobody would ever make. one would need to take that entirely ridiculous and elitist position to eliminate the circular logic, but it is itself a contradiction to take an undemocratic position to try and argue for a more democratic position.
just deal with it: the democratic party set the threshold at 58% because they wanted a strong candidate. hillary clinton has failed to meet the minimum threshold to win in the first round. the convention should therefore be seen as round two.
and, nothing could possibly be more american - if you understand what that actually means.
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/the-most-important-number-bernie-sanders-next-week-256
i had an unexpected talk about the hip last night. i couldn't remember the name of this track.
for those unaware, their singer was recently diagnosed with terminal brain cancer. they're doing a final tour. i hope he gets through it.
i think the hip have been overrated in canada, and underrated outside of it. their influence as canadian cultural icons probably never extended outside of a subculture, and that subculture got left in the 90s.
at the end of the day, which is coming soon, they will have amassed a collection of mediocre records and a really, really, really good greatest hits collection. but, as is usually the case with rock bands, the record label will fuck the choices up. hit spotify for some fan takes on this.
for those unaware, their singer was recently diagnosed with terminal brain cancer. they're doing a final tour. i hope he gets through it.
i think the hip have been overrated in canada, and underrated outside of it. their influence as canadian cultural icons probably never extended outside of a subculture, and that subculture got left in the 90s.
at the end of the day, which is coming soon, they will have amassed a collection of mediocre records and a really, really, really good greatest hits collection. but, as is usually the case with rock bands, the record label will fuck the choices up. hit spotify for some fan takes on this.
j reacts to the imminent establishment take down of hillary clinton
guys. listen. this is a set-up.
clinton is not the establishment pick. they hate her. she wants to be the establishment pick. but, the establishment doesn't want her.
they hang on to her in case of emergency. and, they nearly had to break the glass. but, trump is coming around.
who was the establishment pick in 2008? it was not clinton. nor was it mccain. it was obama. and, who got the media? who won? yes, plenty of people understood what was happening. you could look it up.
i'll leave it to the journalists to determine if we've been subject to a charade over the last year, or if the conflict is actually real. but, trump is very rapidly coming around.
the establishment candidate is donald trump. and, they're in the process of taking hillary clinton out to make room for him to walk in.
http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/281973-new-clinton-emails-due-out-in-days-before-convention
clinton is not the establishment pick. they hate her. she wants to be the establishment pick. but, the establishment doesn't want her.
they hang on to her in case of emergency. and, they nearly had to break the glass. but, trump is coming around.
who was the establishment pick in 2008? it was not clinton. nor was it mccain. it was obama. and, who got the media? who won? yes, plenty of people understood what was happening. you could look it up.
i'll leave it to the journalists to determine if we've been subject to a charade over the last year, or if the conflict is actually real. but, trump is very rapidly coming around.
the establishment candidate is donald trump. and, they're in the process of taking hillary clinton out to make room for him to walk in.
http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/281973-new-clinton-emails-due-out-in-days-before-convention
j reacts to the logic around what is acceptable to throw at trump supporters
the eggs are fine. appropriate, even. it washes out. but please avoid glass if you're going to start hurling things at trump supporters. somebody may lose an eye.
let's think this through together.
things that are perfectly fine to throw at trump supporters
- eggs
- tomatoes
- *oranges
- *bananas
- sanitary liquids originating from supersoakers, spray bottles or soap dispensers
- !rhetoric
things that should not be thrown at trump supporters
- glass of any type
- bottles
- pets
- wild animals
- children
- muslims
- migrant workers
- #gavels
* - peeled, only
! - ymmv
# - non-rhetorically
i just want to reiterate that this is entirely appropriate.
these are people that are publicly supporting an open bigot. you have an obligation to make them feel uncomfortable.
just keep your elbows down. which is canadian for "don't throw glass shards at heads full of rocks".
it goes back to what i've said about trump normalizing the absurd. if he can convince you that his discourse is acceptable, the country is already done.
it's one thing to stand back and passively let him win, then start fighting him the next day. it's another thing to show up at the rallies and actively support what he's saying. that can't be seen as socially acceptable. the fact that he's running a major party isn't any kind of excuse for it.
so, there has to be an appropriate and proportional response. i think tossing tomatoes and eggs at supporters is within those bounds.
boycotting business is within those bounds. termination of employment may be, as well.
but no glass. no molotovs...
let's think this through together.
things that are perfectly fine to throw at trump supporters
- eggs
- tomatoes
- *oranges
- *bananas
- sanitary liquids originating from supersoakers, spray bottles or soap dispensers
- !rhetoric
things that should not be thrown at trump supporters
- glass of any type
- bottles
- pets
- wild animals
- children
- muslims
- migrant workers
- #gavels
* - peeled, only
! - ymmv
# - non-rhetorically
i just want to reiterate that this is entirely appropriate.
these are people that are publicly supporting an open bigot. you have an obligation to make them feel uncomfortable.
just keep your elbows down. which is canadian for "don't throw glass shards at heads full of rocks".
it goes back to what i've said about trump normalizing the absurd. if he can convince you that his discourse is acceptable, the country is already done.
it's one thing to stand back and passively let him win, then start fighting him the next day. it's another thing to show up at the rallies and actively support what he's saying. that can't be seen as socially acceptable. the fact that he's running a major party isn't any kind of excuse for it.
so, there has to be an appropriate and proportional response. i think tossing tomatoes and eggs at supporters is within those bounds.
boycotting business is within those bounds. termination of employment may be, as well.
but no glass. no molotovs...
j reacts to the underlying schizophrenia in clinton's arguments against trump
it's hard to disagree with her.
but, the problem with this approach - and the reason it's a losing strategy - is that she's stuck with this glaring problem: the objective facts indicate that she simply doesn't offer much of an alternative to what she's describing. the insider understanding is that she has a reputation for temper tantrums as a negotiation tactic, and that obama had developed a habit of just ignoring her when she went off on them. she's also describing herself. and, the more she takes this approach, the more attention she draws to her own dangerous - if predictable - foreign policy.
some of what she's saying is even simply anti-populist. america has been in europe long enough. has her court allowed her to interact with any "yankee go home" protesters in japan? she's likely only barely aware of such sentiments or how powerful they are, interpreting them as fringe voices from the peasant class.
tearing your opponent down only works if you take the opportunity to build yourself up. that's the point, right. the contrast. if you spend a half hour tearing down your opponent and then say nothing of yourself, you've just kind of lost the plot. you've just given your opponent free publicity. you might think it's bad publicity, but things have a tendency to define themselves differently. because you've implicitly defined yourself in the process - as an angry, spiteful person willing to set up a press conference to tear somebody down. it doesn't matter if what you say is true.
let's say i set up a press conference about oprah and put down a half hour speech about how she needs to lose some weight. this may be a narrative from her husband's term; i haven't seen any pictures of oprah recently. she gained weight, lost weight, gained weight - the tabloids loved it. constant material. but, i could spend an hour explaining that oprah needs to hit the gym and ultimately be correct in everything i say. but, in doing so, i'd be defining myself as an ass as much as anything else.
the thing is that she can't draw a contrast, because there isn't one. one can only control narratives in the presence of ignorance. hillary's foreign policy perspectives are too widely known. everybody knows she's not offering an alternative to what she's describing. and, she isn't. the more obvious she makes that by drawing attention to the topic, the more she places them on a level playing field.
i know she doesn't see it like this. she lives in a bubble of upper class, white meritocracy. but, that's the problem.
so, we heard a lot about donald trump, here. we didn't hear much about hillary clinton. and, while i won't argue with her overall message, or with any of her details, i must point out that if she's going to instigate this argument she must draw more effective contrast - which she can't do, because it's not real and everybody knows it.
trump has won by watching his opponents fuck up over and over. hillary's doing the same thing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wpX0YAbhtvY
but, the problem with this approach - and the reason it's a losing strategy - is that she's stuck with this glaring problem: the objective facts indicate that she simply doesn't offer much of an alternative to what she's describing. the insider understanding is that she has a reputation for temper tantrums as a negotiation tactic, and that obama had developed a habit of just ignoring her when she went off on them. she's also describing herself. and, the more she takes this approach, the more attention she draws to her own dangerous - if predictable - foreign policy.
some of what she's saying is even simply anti-populist. america has been in europe long enough. has her court allowed her to interact with any "yankee go home" protesters in japan? she's likely only barely aware of such sentiments or how powerful they are, interpreting them as fringe voices from the peasant class.
tearing your opponent down only works if you take the opportunity to build yourself up. that's the point, right. the contrast. if you spend a half hour tearing down your opponent and then say nothing of yourself, you've just kind of lost the plot. you've just given your opponent free publicity. you might think it's bad publicity, but things have a tendency to define themselves differently. because you've implicitly defined yourself in the process - as an angry, spiteful person willing to set up a press conference to tear somebody down. it doesn't matter if what you say is true.
let's say i set up a press conference about oprah and put down a half hour speech about how she needs to lose some weight. this may be a narrative from her husband's term; i haven't seen any pictures of oprah recently. she gained weight, lost weight, gained weight - the tabloids loved it. constant material. but, i could spend an hour explaining that oprah needs to hit the gym and ultimately be correct in everything i say. but, in doing so, i'd be defining myself as an ass as much as anything else.
the thing is that she can't draw a contrast, because there isn't one. one can only control narratives in the presence of ignorance. hillary's foreign policy perspectives are too widely known. everybody knows she's not offering an alternative to what she's describing. and, she isn't. the more obvious she makes that by drawing attention to the topic, the more she places them on a level playing field.
i know she doesn't see it like this. she lives in a bubble of upper class, white meritocracy. but, that's the problem.
so, we heard a lot about donald trump, here. we didn't hear much about hillary clinton. and, while i won't argue with her overall message, or with any of her details, i must point out that if she's going to instigate this argument she must draw more effective contrast - which she can't do, because it's not real and everybody knows it.
trump has won by watching his opponents fuck up over and over. hillary's doing the same thing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wpX0YAbhtvY
02-06-2016: two shows in detroit and a hard crash at the end (last day out for a while)
show footage:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pqebb8PH9ac
more footage:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TsorZklwtpY
review:
http://dghjdfsghkrdghdgja.appspot.com/categories/shows/2016/06/02.html
tracks worked on in this vlog:
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/period-1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pqebb8PH9ac
more footage:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TsorZklwtpY
review:
http://dghjdfsghkrdghdgja.appspot.com/categories/shows/2016/06/02.html
tracks worked on in this vlog:
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/period-1
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)