Molotov_2

©

shit, these guys were taking it to the next level. They were making music with video samples and making political statements too boot. Yep, that new art form was already here.

Thanks to the internet, better copying tools, non-linear editing programs, and hi-speed connec-tions, we have the ability to create like never before, and have access

Back in 1995 my buddy Ian asked me if I wanted to make psyche-delic videos and play them on old TV's while his band "The Mighty Afros" played. From that moment on I became what is now known as a VJ and my journey with appropriating intellectual property began. My first hurdle was copying VHS movies from the video store. I soon figured out that if I passed the video signal from one VCR through the Panasonic video mixer I was borrowing and into a second VCR I could make a decent copy of the movie bypassing the Macrovision protection. This seemed to be my method of choice for a long time. I would load my Apple clone (yeah, they had those once) with stolen footage, edited loops with a pirated copy of Adobe Premiere and made VCD's that would play on my hacked APEX DVD players. That was until in 2000 I could afford a computer with a DVD burner and Norwegian teen hacker Jon Johansen broke the CSS (Content Scrambling System) that prevented artists like me from sampling Hollywood for use in high energy Drum and Bass music.

There weren't many people like me in Atlanta back when I started, but I could feel that the folks who were doing this were on the cusp of new art movement. I used to think that some fed fuck would break down my door and arrest me for "stealing". But I must admit it gave me a thrill to know I was doing something illegal. One day I went to my favorite video store and saw a tape by the Emergency Broadcast Network. Holy fuckin

the most numerous and diverse palette in the history of video art. If you've been appropriating footage for a while, you know how amazing this time is. But the problem is that most of the video out there has tight copyright restrictions and copying and altering remains illegal under current intellectual property rules in the US and beyond. If you are like me, your passion surpasses your fear and you roll the dice with every creation, with the hope that the long arm of the MPAA doesn't come after you.

Let's rewind for a bit. Back when

Grand Master Flash was sampling vinyl and creating hip-hop was he afraid of what Chic was going to do to him for snagging the beat from "Good Times? I bet in the back of his mind was a little something bugging him. In the end he and others said "fuck it" and went on to create what would become a mega industry and probably the most exciting music form of the last 100 years.

The multi-billion hip-hop industry is now controlled by folks who are against anyone sampling or appropriating sounds without paying exorbitant fees. I am sure you can see the hypocrisy in this. The are benefiting from innova-tions created by breaking the rules they created and enforce. The RIAA and the MPAA might be shooting themselves in the foot by spreading fear on would be innovators who could in turn be creating the next "hip-hop".

There are folks like Creative Commons, who

are working on more flexible models that bypass these archaic rules and that hope to provide fertile ground for sample artists, while protecting original creators. Then there are folks like CrimethInc who advocate a more free for all mentality. In any event, we are in the midst of an intellec-tual property battle and one where I hope the innovators, the creators and the risk takers will prevail.

I hope that this second issue of Molotov! provides insight, tools and inspiration for the next generation of thought thieves.

The Battle for C reative Innovation

. . . . . . . . the stimulator

WWW.SUBMEDIA.tv

Published by subMedia in the occupied land now known as Vancouver, British Columbia in Canada. Graphic Design and Layout by (oriaingraphics.com). Post Production and DVD authoring by subMedia. All complaints, hate mail, articles/video/audio/art submissions, recipes, or death threats should be sent via electronic mail to: [email protected] The author of this work hereby waives all claim of copyright (economic and moral) in this work and immediately places it in the public domain; it may be used, distorted or destroyed in any manner whatsoever without further attribution or notice to the creator. No rights reserved. All parts of this disc/pamphlet may be reproduced, re-transmited, in any form by ant means, electronic or mechanical, especially including photocopying if it's done at the expense of some unsuspecting corporation. other recommended methods include broadcasting of over pirate TV/Radio, reprinting tracts in unwary newspapers, and just signing your own name to this and publishing it as your own.

ask ollyDear Volly:

My life partner gave me "The Anarchist's Cookbook" forWinter's Solstice (she knows I'm a budding chemist,hee hee). But all those common household ingredientsare leaving my hands chapped and raw. Please, don'tget me wrong ? I'm not ashamed of having the roughhands of a worker, I just don't want my baby to jump amile every time I try to touch her. Help!Yours, Miz Sandpaper Hands

ASK

Music/MashUps/Beats/Mixes

Art on VanguardAnonymousMindWalkLady EveKumaFLUINAV

Ready to print PDF version of Molotov! #2

Plus Weblinks, Ebooks and more bonus clips

On t

he D

VDOn

the

DVD

ROM

Intellectual Property Violations by:

Mini Destroy"Thank Your Precious Universe"

subMedia"USE"

Keir Smith"Oh So Criminal"

The Black Lantern"The Terminator"

subMedia"George Bush Don't Like Black People"

Shane Daniels"United State of Mind-Hypocrisy"

subMedia"Fun with Bar Codes"

Carbon Defense League"Re-Code.com"

Aaron Valdez"Jam the Tram"

Aaron Valdez"So"

Tron VS Akira (2000)2 hour VJ/DJ mix by the 571mul470r and DJ Brian Parris

Pilot Episode of: "It's the End of the World as We know it and I Feel Fine"

BONUS Videos

Dear Sandpaper Hands:You're in luck. I once "dated" a miner

whose calluseswere so thick, I made him wear gloves to bed. And that's how we

discovered the solution to what is also ailing you. Before you go to bed at

night, put some olive oil on your hands and then wrap them in platic.

You may feel a little silly, but you'll have butter-soft hands by

morning. And if you need some good oil, let me know, I have a

friend who imports olive oil made by a women's collective in

Palestine.Yours in solidarity,

Volly

Do you have an activist/etiquette question?Address correspondance to [email protected]

By Voltairine Declare

shit, these guys were taking it to the next level. They were making music with video samples and making political statements too boot. Yep, that new art form was already here.

Thanks to the internet, better copying tools, non-linear editing programs, and hi-speed connec-tions, we have the ability to create like never before, and have access

Back in 1995 my buddy Ian asked me if I wanted to make psyche-delic videos and play them on old TV's while his band "The Mighty Afros" played. From that moment on I became what is now known as a VJ and my journey with appropriating intellectual property began. My first hurdle was copying VHS movies from the video store. I soon figured out that if I passed the video signal from one VCR through the Panasonic video mixer I was borrowing and into a second VCR I could make a decent copy of the movie bypassing the Macrovision protection. This seemed to be my method of choice for a long time. I would load my Apple clone (yeah, they had those once) with stolen footage, edited loops with a pirated copy of Adobe Premiere and made VCD's that would play on my hacked APEX DVD players. That was until in 2000 I could afford a computer with a DVD burner and Norwegian teen hacker Jon Johansen broke the CSS (Content Scrambling System) that prevented artists like me from sampling Hollywood for use in high energy Drum and Bass music.

There weren't many people like me in Atlanta back when I started, but I could feel that the folks who were doing this were on the cusp of new art movement. I used to think that some fed fuck would break down my door and arrest me for "stealing". But I must admit it gave me a thrill to know I was doing something illegal. One day I went to my favorite video store and saw a tape by the Emergency Broadcast Network. Holy fuckin

the most numerous and diverse palette in the history of video art. If you've been appropriating footage for a while, you know how amazing this time is. But the problem is that most of the video out there has tight copyright restrictions and copying and altering remains illegal under current intellectual property rules in the US and beyond. If you are like me, your passion surpasses your fear and you roll the dice with every creation, with the hope that the long arm of the MPAA doesn't come after you.

Let's rewind for a bit. Back when

Grand Master Flash was sampling vinyl and creating hip-hop was he afraid of what Chic was going to do to him for snagging the beat from "Good Times? I bet in the back of his mind was a little something bugging him. In the end he and others said "fuck it" and went on to create what would become a mega industry and probably the most exciting music form of the last 100 years.

The multi-billion hip-hop industry is now controlled by folks who are against anyone sampling or appropriating sounds without paying exorbitant fees. I am sure you can see the hypocrisy in this. The are benefiting from innova-tions created by breaking the rules they created and enforce. The RIAA and the MPAA might be shooting themselves in the foot by spreading fear on would be innovators who could in turn be creating the next "hip-hop".

There are folks like Creative Commons, who

are working on more flexible models that bypass these archaic rules and that hope to provide fertile ground for sample artists, while protecting original creators. Then there are folks like CrimethInc who advocate a more free for all mentality. In any event, we are in the midst of an intellec-tual property battle and one where I hope the innovators, the creators and the risk takers will prevail.

I hope that this second issue of Molotov! provides insight, tools and inspiration for the next generation of thought thieves.

The Battle for C reative Innovation

. . . . . . . . the stimulator

WWW.SUBMEDIA.tv

Published by subMedia in the occupied land now known as Vancouver, British Columbia in Canada. Graphic Design and Layout by (oriaingraphics.com). Post Production and DVD authoring by subMedia. All complaints, hate mail, articles/video/audio/art submissions, recipes, or death threats should be sent via electronic mail to: [email protected] The author of this work hereby waives all claim of copyright (economic and moral) in this work and immediately places it in the public domain; it may be used, distorted or destroyed in any manner whatsoever without further attribution or notice to the creator. No rights reserved. All parts of this disc/pamphlet may be reproduced, re-transmited, in any form by ant means, electronic or mechanical, especially including photocopying if it's done at the expense of some unsuspecting corporation. other recommended methods include broadcasting of over pirate TV/Radio, reprinting tracts in unwary newspapers, and just signing your own name to this and publishing it as your own.

ask ollyDear Volly:

My life partner gave me "The Anarchist's Cookbook" forWinter's Solstice (she knows I'm a budding chemist,hee hee). But all those common household ingredientsare leaving my hands chapped and raw. Please, don'tget me wrong ? I'm not ashamed of having the roughhands of a worker, I just don't want my baby to jump amile every time I try to touch her. Help!Yours, Miz Sandpaper Hands

ASK

Music/MashUps/Beats/Mixes

Art on VanguardAnonymousMindWalkLady EveKumaFLUINAV

Ready to print PDF version of Molotov! #2

Plus Weblinks, Ebooks and more bonus clips

On t

he D

VDOn

the

DVD

ROM

Intellectual Property Violations by:

Mini Destroy"Thank Your Precious Universe"

subMedia"USE"

Keir Smith"Oh So Criminal"

The Black Lantern"The Terminator"

subMedia"George Bush Don't Like Black People"

Shane Daniels"United State of Mind-Hypocrisy"

subMedia"Fun with Bar Codes"

Carbon Defense League"Re-Code.com"

Aaron Valdez"Jam the Tram"

Aaron Valdez"So"

Tron VS Akira (2000)2 hour VJ/DJ mix by the 571mul470r and DJ Brian Parris

Pilot Episode of: "It's the End of the World as We know it and I Feel Fine"

BONUS Videos

Dear Sandpaper Hands:You're in luck. I once "dated" a miner

whose calluseswere so thick, I made him wear gloves to bed. And that's how we

discovered the solution to what is also ailing you. Before you go to bed at

night, put some olive oil on your hands and then wrap them in platic.

You may feel a little silly, but you'll have butter-soft hands by

morning. And if you need some good oil, let me know, I have a

friend who imports olive oil made by a women's collective in

Palestine.Yours in solidarity,

Volly

Do you have an activist/etiquette question?Address correspondance to [email protected]

By Voltairine Declare

Disney,

Lawrence Lessig

into the room where our wives and friends were going to see the picture.

The boys worked from a music and sound-effects score. After several false starts, sound and action got off with the gun. The mouth organist played the tune, the rest of us in the sound department bammed tin pans and blew slide whistles on the beat. The synchronization was pretty close. The effect on our little audience was nothing less than electric. They responded almost instinctively to this union of sound and motion.I thought they were kidding me.So they put me in the audience and ran the action again. It was terrible, but it was wonderful! And it was something new! Disney’s then partner, and one of animation’s most extraordinary talents,Ub Iwerks,put it more strongly:“I have never been so thrilled in my life. Nothing since has ever equaled it.”

Disney had created something very new, based upon something relatively new. Synchronized sound brought life to a form of creativity that had rarely—except in Disney’s hands—been anything more than filler for other films. Throughout animation’s early history, it was Disney’s invention that set the standard that others struggled to match. And quite often, Disney’s great genius, his spark of creativity, was built upon the work of others.

This much is familiar. What you might not know is that 1928 also marks another impor-tant transition. In that year, a comic (as opposed to cartoon) genius created his last independently produced silent film. That genius was Buster Keaton. The film was Steamboat Bill, Jr. Keaton was born into a vaudeville family in 1895. In the era of silent

film, he had mastered using broad physical comedy as a way to spark uncontrollable laughter from his audience. Steamboat Bill,Jr. was a classic of this form, famous among film buffs for its incredible stunts. The film was classic Keaton—wildly popular and among the best of its genre.

Steamboat Bill, Jr. appeared before Disney’s cartoon Steamboat Willie. The coincidence of titles is not coincidental. Steamboat Willie is a direct cartoon parody of Steam-boat Bill, 2 and both are built upon a common song as a source. It is not just from the invention of synchronized sound in The Jazz Singerthat we get Steamboat Willie. It is also from Buster Keaton’s invention of Steamboat Bill, Jr., itself inspired by the song “Steamboat Bill,” that we get Steam-boat Willie, and then from Steamboat Willie, Mickey Mouse.

This “borrowing”was nothing unique, either for Disney or for the industry. Disney was always parroting the feature length mainstream films of his day. 3 So did many others. Early cartoons are filled with knockoffs—slight variations on winning themes; retellings of ancient stories. The key to success was the brilliance of the differences. With Disney, it was sound that gave his animation its spark. Later, it was the quality of his work relative to the production-line cartoons with which he competed. Yet these additions were built upon a base that was borrowed. Disney added to the work of others before him, creating something new out of something just barely old.

Sometimes this borrowing was slight. Sometimes it was significant. Think about the fairy tales of the Brothers Grimm. If you’re as oblivious as I was, you’re likely to think that these tales are happy, sweet stories, appropriate for any child at bedtime. In fact,the Grimm fairy tales are, well, for us, grim. It is a rare and perhaps overly ambitious parent who would dare to read these bloody, moralistic stories to his or her

child, at bedtime or anytime. Disney took these stories and retold them in a way that carried them into a new age. He animated the stories, with both characters and light. Without removing the elements of fear and danger altogether, he made funny what was dark and injected a genuine emotion of compassion where before there was fear. And not just with the work of the Brothers Grimm. Indeed, the catalog of Disney work drawing upon the work of others is astonishing when set together: Snow White (1937), Fantasia (1940), Pinoc-chio (1940), Dumbo (1941), Bambi (1942),Song of the South (1946), Cinderella (1950),Alice in Wonderland (1951), Robin Hood (1952), Peter Pan (1953), Lady and the Tramp (1955), Mulan (1998), Sleeping Beauty (1959),101 Dalmatians (1961),The Sword in the Stone (1963), and The Jungle Book (1967) notto mention a recent example that we should perhaps quickly forget, Treasure Planet (2003). In all of these cases, Disney (or Disney, Inc.) ripped creativity from the culture around him, mixed that creativity with his own extraordinary talent,and then burned that mix into the soul of his culture. Rip, mix and burn.

in1928, a cartoon character was born. An early Mickey Mouse made his debut in May of that year, in a silent flop called Plane Crazy. In November, in New York City’s Colony Theater, in the first widely distributed cartoon synchronized with sound, Steam-boat Willie brought to life the character that would become Mickey Mouse. Synchro-nized sound had been introduced to film a year earlier in the movie The Jazz Singer. That success led Walt Disney to copy the technique and mix sound with cartoons. No one knew whether it would work or, if it did work, whether it would win an audience. But when Disney ran a test in the summer of 1928, the results were unambiguous. As Disney describes that first experiment, A couple of my boys could read music, and one of them could play a mouth organ. We put them in a room where they could not see the screen and arranged to pipe their sound

Disney,

Lawrence Lessig

into the room where our wives and friends were going to see the picture.

The boys worked from a music and sound-effects score. After several false starts, sound and action got off with the gun. The mouth organist played the tune, the rest of us in the sound department bammed tin pans and blew slide whistles on the beat. The synchronization was pretty close. The effect on our little audience was nothing less than electric. They responded almost instinctively to this union of sound and motion.I thought they were kidding me.So they put me in the audience and ran the action again. It was terrible, but it was wonderful! And it was something new! Disney’s then partner, and one of animation’s most extraordinary talents,Ub Iwerks,put it more strongly:“I have never been so thrilled in my life. Nothing since has ever equaled it.”

Disney had created something very new, based upon something relatively new. Synchronized sound brought life to a form of creativity that had rarely—except in Disney’s hands—been anything more than filler for other films. Throughout animation’s early history, it was Disney’s invention that set the standard that others struggled to match. And quite often, Disney’s great genius, his spark of creativity, was built upon the work of others.

This much is familiar. What you might not know is that 1928 also marks another impor-tant transition. In that year, a comic (as opposed to cartoon) genius created his last independently produced silent film. That genius was Buster Keaton. The film was Steamboat Bill, Jr. Keaton was born into a vaudeville family in 1895. In the era of silent

film, he had mastered using broad physical comedy as a way to spark uncontrollable laughter from his audience. Steamboat Bill,Jr. was a classic of this form, famous among film buffs for its incredible stunts. The film was classic Keaton—wildly popular and among the best of its genre.

Steamboat Bill, Jr. appeared before Disney’s cartoon Steamboat Willie. The coincidence of titles is not coincidental. Steamboat Willie is a direct cartoon parody of Steam-boat Bill, 2 and both are built upon a common song as a source. It is not just from the invention of synchronized sound in The Jazz Singerthat we get Steamboat Willie. It is also from Buster Keaton’s invention of Steamboat Bill, Jr., itself inspired by the song “Steamboat Bill,” that we get Steam-boat Willie, and then from Steamboat Willie, Mickey Mouse.

This “borrowing”was nothing unique, either for Disney or for the industry. Disney was always parroting the feature length mainstream films of his day. 3 So did many others. Early cartoons are filled with knockoffs—slight variations on winning themes; retellings of ancient stories. The key to success was the brilliance of the differences. With Disney, it was sound that gave his animation its spark. Later, it was the quality of his work relative to the production-line cartoons with which he competed. Yet these additions were built upon a base that was borrowed. Disney added to the work of others before him, creating something new out of something just barely old.

Sometimes this borrowing was slight. Sometimes it was significant. Think about the fairy tales of the Brothers Grimm. If you’re as oblivious as I was, you’re likely to think that these tales are happy, sweet stories, appropriate for any child at bedtime. In fact,the Grimm fairy tales are, well, for us, grim. It is a rare and perhaps overly ambitious parent who would dare to read these bloody, moralistic stories to his or her

child, at bedtime or anytime. Disney took these stories and retold them in a way that carried them into a new age. He animated the stories, with both characters and light. Without removing the elements of fear and danger altogether, he made funny what was dark and injected a genuine emotion of compassion where before there was fear. And not just with the work of the Brothers Grimm. Indeed, the catalog of Disney work drawing upon the work of others is astonishing when set together: Snow White (1937), Fantasia (1940), Pinoc-chio (1940), Dumbo (1941), Bambi (1942),Song of the South (1946), Cinderella (1950),Alice in Wonderland (1951), Robin Hood (1952), Peter Pan (1953), Lady and the Tramp (1955), Mulan (1998), Sleeping Beauty (1959),101 Dalmatians (1961),The Sword in the Stone (1963), and The Jungle Book (1967) notto mention a recent example that we should perhaps quickly forget, Treasure Planet (2003). In all of these cases, Disney (or Disney, Inc.) ripped creativity from the culture around him, mixed that creativity with his own extraordinary talent,and then burned that mix into the soul of his culture. Rip, mix and burn.

in1928, a cartoon character was born. An early Mickey Mouse made his debut in May of that year, in a silent flop called Plane Crazy. In November, in New York City’s Colony Theater, in the first widely distributed cartoon synchronized with sound, Steam-boat Willie brought to life the character that would become Mickey Mouse. Synchro-nized sound had been introduced to film a year earlier in the movie The Jazz Singer. That success led Walt Disney to copy the technique and mix sound with cartoons. No one knew whether it would work or, if it did work, whether it would win an audience. But when Disney ran a test in the summer of 1928, the results were unambiguous. As Disney describes that first experiment, A couple of my boys could read music, and one of them could play a mouth organ. We put them in a room where they could not see the screen and arranged to pipe their sound

is fit only for looting.The marketplace of ideas, like any marketplace,

I. "Intellectual Property" We have all been taught from our youth that "there is nothing new under the sun." Whenever a child has an exciting idea, an older person is quick to point out either that this idea has been tried before and didn't work, or that someone else not only has already had the idea but also has developed and expounded upon it to greater lengths than the child ever could. "Learn and choose from the ideas and beliefs already in circulation, rather than seeking to develop and arrange your own," seems to be the message, and this message is sent clearly by the methods of "instruction" used in both public and private schools throughout the West.

Despite this common attitude, or perhaps because of it, we are very possessive of our ideas. The concept of "intellectual property" is ingrained in the collective psychosis much deeper than the concept of material property. Plenty of thinkers have appeared who have asserted that "property is theft" in regard to real estate and other physical capital, but few have dared to make similar statements about their own ideas. Even the most notoriously "radical" thinkers have still proudly claimed their ideas as, first and foremost, their ideas.

Consequently, little distinction is made between the thinkers and their thoughts. Students of philosophy will study the philosophy of Descartes, students of economics will study Marx-ism, students of art will study the paintings of Dali. At worst, the cult of personal-ity that develops around famous thinkers prevents any useful consideration of their ideas or artwork; hero-worshipping partisans will swear allegiance to a thinker and all his thoughts, while others who have some justified or unjustified objection to the conceiver of the ideas will generally have a difficult time not being prejudiced against the ideas themselves. At best, this emphasis upon the "author-owner" in the consideration of propositions or artwork is merely irrelevant to the worth of the actual propositions or artwork, even if the stories about the individual in question are interesting and can encourage creative thinking by themselves.

The very assumptions behind the concept of

"intellectual property" require more attention than we have given them. The factors that affect the words and deeds of an individual are many and varied, not the least of them being her social-cultural climate and the input of other individuals. To say that any idea has its sole origins in the being of one individual man or woman is to grossly oversimplify. But we are so accustomed to claiming items and objects for ourselves, and to being forced to accept similar claims from others, in the cutthroat competition to acquire and dominate (before we are acquired and dominated) that is life in a market economy, that it seems natural to do the same with ideas. Certainly there must be other ways of thinking about the origins and ownership of ideas that warrant consideration. for our present approach does more than merely distract from the ideas.

Our tradition of recognizing "intellectual property rights" is dangerous in that it results in the deification of the publicly recognized "thinker" and "artist" at the expense of everyone else. When ideas are always associated with proper names (and always the same proper names, in point of fact), this suggests that thinking and creating are special skills that belong to a select few individuals. For example, the glorification of the "artist" in our culture, which includes the stereotyping of artists as eccentric "visionaries" who exist at the edge (the "avant garde") of society, encour-ages people to believe that artists are significantly and fundamentally different from other human beings. Actually, anyone can be an artist, and everyone is, to some extent; being able to act creatively is a crucial element of human happiness. But when we are led to believe that being creative and thinking critically are talents which only a few individu-als possess, those of us who are not fortunate enough to be christened "artists" or "philoso-phers" by our communities will not make much effort to develop these abilities. Consequently we will be dependent upon others for many of our ideas, and will have to be content as spectators of the creative work of others—and we will feel alienated and unsatisfied.Another incidental drawback of our association of ideas with specific individuals is that it

promotes the acceptance of these ideas in their original form. The students who learn the philosophy of Descartes are encouraged to learn it in its orthodox form, rather than learning the parts which they find relevant to their own lives and interests and combining these parts with ideas from other sources. Out of deference to the original thinker, deified as he is in our tradition, his texts and theories are to be preserved as-is, without ever being put into new forms or contexts which might reveal new insights. Mummified as they are, many theories become completely irrelevant to modern existence, when they could have been given a new lease on life by being treated with a little less reverence.

So we can see that our acceptance of the tradition of "intellectual property" has negative effects upon our endeavors to think critically and learn from our artistic and philosophical heritage. What can we do to address this problem? One of the possible solutions is plagiarism.

II. Plagiarism and the Modern Revo-lutionary Plagiarism is an especially effective method of appropriating and reorganizing ideas, and as such it can be a useful tool for a young man or woman looking to encourage new and exciting thinking in others. And it is a method that is revolutionary in that it does not recognize "intellectual property" rights but rather strikes out against them and all of the negative effects that recognizing them can have.

Plagiarism focuses attention on content and away from incidental issues, by making the genuine origins of the material impossible to ascertain. Besides, as suggested above, it could be argued that the genuine origins of the contents of most inspirations and propositions are impossible to determine anyway. By signing a new name, or no name at all, to a text, the plagiarizer puts the material in an entirely new context, and this may generate new perspec-tives and new thinking about the subject that have not appeared before. Plagiarism also makes it possible to combine the best or most relevant parts of a number of texts, thus creating a new text with many of the virtues of

the older ones—and some new virtues, as well, since the combination of material from different sources is bound to result in unforeseeable effects and might well result in the unlocking of hidden meanings or possibilities that have been dormant in the texts for years. Finally, above all, plagiarism is the reappropriation of ideas: when an individual plagiarizes a text which those who believe in intellectual property would have held "sacred," she denies that there is a difference in rank between herself and the thinker she takes from. She takes the thinker's ideas for herself, to express them as she sees fit, rather than treating the thinker as an authority whose work she is duty-bound to preserve as he intended. She denies, in fact, that there is a fundamental difference between the thinker and the rest of humanity, by appropriating the thinker's material as the property of humanity.

After all, a good idea should be available to everyone—should belong to everyone—if it really is a good idea. In a society organized with human happiness as the objective, copyright infringement laws and similar restrictions would not hinder the distribution and recombi-nation of ideas. These impediments only make it more difficult for individuals who are looking for challenging and inspiring material to come upon it and share it with others.

So, if there truly is "nothing new under the sun," take them at their word, and act accordingly. Take what seems relevant to your life and your needs from the theories and doctrines prepared by those who came before you. Don't be afraid to reproduce word for word those texts which seem perfect to you, so you can share them with others who might also benefit from them. And at the same time, don't be afraid to plunder ideas from different sources and rearrange them in ways that you find more useful and exciting, more relevant to your own needs and experiences. Seek to create a personally constructed body of critical and creative thought, with elements gathered from as many sources as possible, rather than choosing from one of the prefabricated ideologies that are offered to you. After all, do we have ideas, or do they have us? CrimethInc Ex-Worker's Collective