The chain of creative process

              (You can't dance without music)              

            There is no such thing as parthenogenesis in innovation. The creative process of humanity is an evolutionary process where the next is based on the previous. Content within the Internet is mixed and informational experiences are processed to spark further content. The Internet provides a platform that creates conditions for an accelerated creative process. Interest groups can network, topic-relevant information can be spread and topic-irrelevant data can mix to give new perspectives. Genres and disciplines mix in sciences, arts, technology and knowledge. Elements from one field can be trasfered to others and whatever is beneficial will be retained until at some point a whole new 'species' of content is created.  

              Obviously, fairness must be adressed and justice must be given to creators that should be protected from bad practices, unprofessionalism and theft. New creators with few resources are 'easy' victims to immoral exploiters that may have means and resources. However paying IP rights for a background music of your house party video or dancing video is probably the other extreme.

              Yet it seems that the direction of the laws is trending to the protection and benefit of the resource holders who can still access, create and buy cheaply what has been created. New creation will be based on something previously existed and that will progressively become more and more, ownership of those already owning the previous creations. Generation of new material will be slowed down.    

              Based on the evolutionary nature of creativity a vicious circle is set where the more you own the more of what is new will be yours because it will be based on the previous.

Words like e.g.'press' are already being censored from the Internet in apps like 'adwords' based on trademark. Proportionally using words in a book or a thesis to make a point will automatically make the writers legally indebted or by omitting the words or examples will make their argument weak.

         At the same time where patriot acts and terror laws that remove civil rights from individuals based on 'common benefit' or 'social well being' and 'emergency' are being passed, who is to dictate that innovation, education and social progress isn't 'social benefit' and 'common well being' in 'times of emergency ' more important than corporate copyright profits.

P. Siegkas

Cris Anderson how video and the web powers global innovation

(e.g. in relation to the article:  the kids dancing in the video would have to pay rights for the music in there videos)

YouTube video on ACTA law



If it looks the same, sounds the same, feels the same then it just might be...



Templ. based on Shepard Fairey's Obama campaign

  If the responsibility for the state of the Greek economy and society was to be shared amongst its citizens, then the two major parties that governed over the past decades would have to bear most of it.
        They had the power, the vote and the public means to fulfill their promises and change what they had pointed out as wrong during their campaigns and yet they didn't.
        Even now as they try to make Greece more competitive they result in the 'easy' solution of salary and pension slashes as if to admit that they can't fight the obvious enemies of competitiveness. They cannot fight corruption, exhausting bureaucracy, slow unresponsive state, missing infrastructure for new businesses ...e.t.c...
       The question is: if they could correct these why didn't they do it already and why would people believe that they would be able to do it now.
       Even if there are some well intended individuals within these parties, will they be able to rise above the corrupted mechanisms that surrounded them over the past decades?
      On the other hand small parties pose alternatives that appear questionable or incomplete with some of them rigidly clinging on ideologies of the past.
Having an electoral law designed to undermine independent candidates and with a strong dependence between media exposure and resources it is hard for people to organise and form movements with solid demands and proposals.
         However, the informational revolution and the technical capabilities in informational management of our times provide with the tools, for people to connect, communicate and resolve issues. New ideas and initiatives can form and reach the public that is the only true judge. The time has never been as ripe for a social dialogue as it is now.
    

P. Siegkas