Proper tea: some thoughts on piracy
By Psyche | June 29, 2010
You can subscribe to our RSS feed, follow us on Twitter, and find us on Facebook.
We're so Web 2.0.
Khephra directed me to a recent episode of Greg’s Occult of Personality podcast in which he was interviewed.
It’s subject was the Occult Digital Mobilization, or Digimob for short, a community of occultists which gathers ebooks and other files for distribution in quarterly digests via BitTorrent.
While there is a selection process, its ins and outs weren’t discussed in detail, nor were copyright issues or the moral implications in a wider sense, and they displayed a superficial understanding of how the artist/writer/creator is affected and what the impact is for the larger culture.
Though danced around, arguments for piracy tend to run the same way:
The argument is that a pirated good rarely substitutes for the authentic original. Instead it allows the product to reach populations that can’t afford the original or otherwise wouldn’t have bought it.1
The above excerpt is from a book I recently picked up, Chris Anderson’s Free: How Today’s Smartest Businesses Profit by Giving Something for Nothing, a marketing book on how companies are using the concept of free to build their customer base, and how it works.
Free is often used as a model to direct consumers to another product or service which the user does pay for, and this was touched upon in the podcast as well in terms of books driving workshop sales, and so forth. The distinction here, of course, is that these businesses opt-in to this model.
Digimob has their critics, and culture-protection is a subject I touched upon a while ago, but it bears revisiting, especially in the wake of other posts which have cropped up on various blogs.
Piracy is still theft
Q: Why do anarchists drink herbal tea?
A: Because proper tea is theft.2
In Free, Anderson describes piracy this way:
The reason piracy is a special class of theft is that the cost to the rightful owner are intangible. If you make a music album that is then pirated, the pirates haven’t taken something you own, they have reproduced something you own. This is an important distinction, which boils down to the reality that you don’t suffer a loss but a lesser gain.3
Of course this isn’t strictly true. The “lesser gain” may not be a gain of any sort, and widely and crudely pirated books can and do impact an author’s income, however small the royalties from that sale could have been and has wider implications.4
There are various authors who deliberately declare their work as out of copyright, either copywronged, copylefted, or describe a specific Creative Commons license which allows for reproduction of their works. For example, most of the works of Hakim Bey, the Principia Discordia, or authors whose works have come out of copyright due to the laws of their country.5
Problems arise when liberties are taken with authors who have not elected to have their works distributed far and wide without compensation. As someone who’s been writing for the Internet for fourteen years, this includes me.
Most of what I publish online is freely available, however, it is not available for reproduction6 without my express permission. When I find my content has been reproduced without my permission I send nasty e-mails. I don’t make a living from this,7 but I do expect that my right to distribute my work how and where I Will should be respected.
I’m not blameless, but I am interested in exploring what it is we’re doing here. Why do we think it’s reasonable to reproduce things which do not belong to us?
Back to Digimob
Interestingly, only the first half of the Occult of Personality interview is available to general listeners – the second half of the interview is hidden behind a paywall, and only available to paid subscribers.
What kind of mixed message does this send? And how long until Greg’s podcasts are included in Digimob’s next release?
Update: I should probably note that my aim isn’t to rag on Khephra or Digimob, but these sorts of practices do make me uncomfortable, especially as someone who’s trying to make a living from my creative endeavours. I don’t expect everyone to agree, but I do feel that a copyright should mean something, and that an artist has a right to be paid for what they produce.
Popularity: 40%
Footnotes:
- Anderson, Free, p. 71 [back]
- It’s an old joke, but I like it. [back]
- p. 71 [back]
- Piracy also affects sales stats, which describe how well a book is doing in the market, whether it should be left out of print, reprinted, or whether the publisher should bother buying another book from that author, for example. [back]
- Jane Austen’s a recent example with rather dramatic results, see the cheese of Pride and Prejudice and Zombies: The Classic Regency Romance – Now with Ultraviolent Zombie Mayhem!
, and other spin-offs. [back]
- With obvious exceptions for brief excerpts and fair use. [back]
- Though I’d love to. Believe me. [back]
Related posts:
- Appreciating Crowley
- Chaotes then and now
- I did it
- Occult Profiling: Where it comes from and why it’s worth fighting
- Magick versus religion
Category: Essays & Opinion,Occulture
Save & Share: Del.icio.us Digg Facebook Reddit Stumble it! Twitter
A lot of people who think copyright should be ignored have a serious entitlement issue. Because they think they *should* have access to something they want, they force their views on others through their actions, instead of working within the parameters already set for the material in question by the person(s) who actually created said material. I don’t care what your ideals are–forcing them on unwilling parties, especially through actions, isn’t going to win you many converts.
Such people also have a tendency to set themselves against some actual (or, in many cases, perceived) system. While in quixotic battle with said system, these people are doing more harm to the individual authors and artists than they are to the support system that allows said creatives to distribute their work–and receive compensation for it–beyond their own individual resources.
Yes, there are examples like Corey Doctorow and any of a number of other writers in various genres who get more sales precisely because they release their works into the wild for free. And that’s a great thing that shows the value of the freedom of information to move and travel. However, it should be prerogative of the author/artist to decide what gets released and how (whether through a publisher and that publisher’s contracted parameters, through self-publishing, etc.)–not that of some entitled third party lacking the patience, impulse control, or respect to work within the creator’s preferred parameters.
Agreed. These sorts of digests and file-sharing should be opt-in. It’s especially harmful to artists who are still actively trying to make a living from their works.
Just typed out a long comment for this on my iPhone only to have Reeder crash and eat it. Grrr. *cough* Anyway, annoyance aside, I’ll try to cover the same ground -
Great, thoughtful write-up! Every bit as thorough, incisive and spunky as I’ve come to expect from your writing. I especially appreciated the link to the forum chat, in which some good discussion was taking place!
Re. “opting-in”, some authors have, but this would be impossible to implement on a global net. For example, one author provided content for a submissions digest that had been excised from one of his books (e.g. charts, illustrations, etc) on the condition that Digimob *not* release his most recent publication. Less than six months later there was a pdf up at TheOccult.bz and within days it was in our inbox as a submission. The author was contacted and notified, but the item was released.
TheOccult.bz is far less … communist-ic than Digimob. And they are only one of several semi-public depots. There are nuances of consumption and production that get lost in haphazard generalizations.
Re. the “entitlement” counter-argument, to be perfectly honest, I’d have to concede this point. Many of the people serviced by Digimob aren’t very healthy. On the other hand, many of those serviced by Digimob are brilliant, ethical, and scholarly. Regardless, I am *very* confident that none/few of those who are involved in making the releases available for the public are involved out of a sense of “entitlement”. “Service” ≠ “entitlement” in any meaningful way.
It’s important, also, to note how copyright is articulated through classist hegemony. For instance, historically copyright was designed to consolidate and perpetuate the interests of capital – not the interests of producers. And it’s been subverted over the decades to solely represent the ideologic worldview of the plutocrats. Of what socio-economic class would Internet “piracy” be most prevalent? Do you think those of an upper-middle class income have difficulty paying for books, movies, or music? On the other hand, what percentage of African American children are on foodstamps? What percentage of Americans/Canadians/X read more than 3 non-fiction books a year?
As well, the classist roots of occult studies in general factor into this discussion. How many “working-class” practitioners of the occult have you met? In my experience, more often than not, in the West, practitioners of esoteric spirituality are overwhelmingly white and overwhelmingly *not* troubled to buy a $40 book. But that isn’t the reality for everyone, and it reflects a very hubristic worldview.
Insofar as “new talent”, here I think it’s important to note that the naysayer’s argument hinges upon an assumption – and a hasty one at that! Essentially, the idea is that when an item is digitized and released onto the net the creator of the content is “losing money”. But this is specious. Avatar was not only the highest grossing movie of all-time, but also the most pirated movie of all-time. And several independent films have catalyzed global followings through digital distribution that would’ve been completely impossible without.
Likewise, if “new talent” has content people appreciate, it *WILL* be digitized. Simply wishing it wouldn’t is rather foolish. In that case, do we criminalize an inevitability or do we renegotiate our economic prejudices?
In consideration of the classist ideologies which it juxtaposes, Digimob’s imprimatur is fundamentally emancipatory. That’s something that shouldn’t get lost in the dissonance, either.
To turn this argument on its head, I buy used books as often as I can. *None* of that $ goes to any of the authors. Is this similarly dubious?
Regardless, I’m glad the podcast has sparked dialogue! I also hope it leads to even further collaborations among digital renegades who identify with esoteric spiritualities.
Copyright as “classist hegemony” seems a bit of a stretch, and gets right back to the entitlement issue you dismiss in the quote above.
Many writers, for example, offer works for free online, via pamphlets, podcasts, YouTube videos, and other media of their own accord. They also write books, published via traditional methods and I think they have a right expect payment for those efforts.
Just because someone is poor does not mean they have the right to take from the livelihood of someone else – which is exactly what piracy enables. That pirated book represents (at least) one less sale.
Authors, by and large, aren’t rich folk. You may remember the RAW campaign in 2006, Robert Anton Wilson was sick, and couldn’t afford rent. He’d written dozens of books, had lecture series, videos, the Maybe Logic Academy, and he still could not get by. Authors of varying renown were spreading the word and everyone who could afford to was contributing, including myself.
“I can’t afford it” ≠ “I should steal it”
I’m not “wishing” it wouldn’t be the case, I’m exploring an uncomfortable reality: piracy – perhaps especially book piracy – has a very real effect on an author’s income.
The used book market is a different matter: in that case the original copy of the book has already been bought and paid for, and the author has received their royalties. It’s made it through the system.
I guess I’d like to see it more the way CDs used: you buy it, you can rip it and use it how you want, as long as it’s for personal use. If traditional books came with CD versions though, I doubt anyone would be terribly interested in reading them on an inferior format when they already had the superior book.
Have you thought about creating an ezine, free for distribution to which contributers could submit their own content? It’s been a while since there was a decent occult ‘zine. (Or perhaps I’m looking in the wrong places…)
Not a stretch at all: the concept of copyright is fundamentally hegemonic. Any system that involves negotiation is hegemonic. For more background on the concept of hegemony, *the* foundational source is Antonio Gramsci.
And I think you might have a very confined sense of what “payment” actually entails. Reputational capital is far less tangible, for instance. But, in all fairness, that is more than a little idealistic. Reputational capital won’t necessarily put food on the table or pay for college. However, capitalization is a lot easier if you have reputational capital than if you don’t.
But, to be unequivocal, I would also agree that producers of cultural capital should be compensated. In fact, I’d be so radical as to claim that the fundamental role of the state should be to foster and protect the production of cultural capital.
“Take the livelihood of someone else”? Uhh… Do you mean like how Nike “takes the livelihood” of young girls in Malaysia? Or how Xe “takes the livelihood” of innocent civilians? Or, to be more proximal to the cultural industries, like how having access to professional-grade musical equipment “takes the livelihood” of musical experts?
I think the idea of “taking someone’s livelihood”, as you have used it here, is very reminiscent of the “They took our jobs” worldview, and that’s not something I can easily abide. I don’t think underprivileged people who aren’t good participants in their own exploitation are “taking someone’s livelihood” by downloading digital content. I think that’s a terrible misattribution of culpability.
I can’t with any accuracy say whether or not RAW ever wanted to be rich, but I can say with a high degree of confidence that he didn’t write books to get rich. And if he were young and writing books today, I don’t think he’d be apologizing for the publishing industry or the capitalists…
Hrm… Again, I think this might be a poor attribution. Thinking of digital content as “theft” opens up all sorts of epistemic contradictions. However, you’ve previously stated that epistemic fidelity wasn’t a governing priority for you, so perhaps this is an instance of that in play.
If I steal a car, a tangible, material item has been reducted. If I download an mp3, nothing has been reduced.
In the field of cultural studies digital production/consumption has been discussed at great length. Although from a different era, you might try Theodor Adorno, who wrote very critically on cultural production and simulacra.
Like piracy had a “very real effect” on the income of Avatar? That aside, given that you cited RAW a few paragraphs previous, this statement makes a staunch contrast: he never would’ve agreed with fundamentalist pronouncements like that. Some authors experience negative financial effects, some none, some positive. It’s hardly a clear-cut, unambiguous cause-effect relationship.
Yes, the book “made it through the system” at some point in an unknown past. The author received their royalties – maybe a few pennies for each copy. The capitalists received their $ several times throughout the used book’s lifespan, though; and at no benefit to the author. At each step in the process capitalists exploit the producer of cultural capital for their own gain. *That’s* far more akin to thievery in my esteem.
This isn’t how the politics behind CDs works at all. We cannot ignore the legal precedents set by the RIAA, BPI, and IFPI. When you buy a CD, according to them, you are only buying temporary access – you don’t actually own the content. Here’s a recent example of how these companies view us consumers:
Thinking of dead trees as “superior” to ebooks seems about as reasonable to me as thinking that blue pens are “superior” to black pens. Either of them could be “superior”, depending on the task at hand. In contrast, I would suggest that there are a great many tasks for which dead trees are poorly suited which ebooks can accomplish with great ease, and vice versa.
First and foremost, I retired from the project and have no further input in its operation. The path they create will be their own.
Second, I know of a few occult e-zines. Several have been included in digests. However, an e-zine totally sidesteps the issue. An e-zine can’t embed a video, include zip files, or include a directory of pdfs.
Finally, as I mentioned previously, the pdfs and avis and mp3s are going to spread through the net regardless. If Digimob didn’t release public digests, the pdfs would still be getting made, spread, and traded. In that capacity, Digimob stands in juxtaposition to the elitists.
You are deliberately misreading me and projecting what you expect me to say rather than listening to what I am saying.
I did not define payment because it is up to the creator to decide how and where their works are displayed and, likewise, to set their terms.
If an author releases works freely online, then reputational capital may be all they’re seeking. If they publish a book for which there is a currency value, then that is the term of that product.
Though I would be interested in learning how you feel the state should compensate artists? Our Conservative government has drastically cut arts spending, and is destroying the magazine industry with these cuts, but even under the most arts-loving Liberal leadership there was no model that could have afforded artists compensation enough to actually live on.
I’m not sure why you bring up Nike – a corporate entity – when I offered a concrete example of a writer who was not able to pay his rent. If you want to discuss pirated shoes, that’s another matter entirely. This is misdirection.
Whether RAW wanted to be rich is besides the point. He couldn’t pay rent. He should have been able to.
This is flatly rude. If you continue in this vein we will not have anything further to discuss. Fair warning.
The quote in the original piece above from Chris Anderson better clarifies the position you’re trying to hold. Copying an mp3 does indeed represent a “lesser gain”, also representing a reduced income for the creator(s).
All authors experience the negative effects, some authors are in a position to better afford the cut better than others. That’s hardly the same thing.
The capitalists exploit the producer? Seriously? This is where you’re going with this?
I used to manage a new/used bookstore. There is simply no correlation between selling a used book and pirating an ebook. A book represents a single physical instance of a product, ebooks can be copied an infinite number of times. In the old model, the author has been paid, in the new pirate model, the author may never receive payment.
Did you read the link highlighted by “superior book” or are you just being facetious?
I’d love some ‘zine recommendations, but “somebody’s gadda do it” isn’t a reasonable argument for enabling piracy, it’s another moral whitewash.
Will the full content for OOP be included in the next Digimob Digest?
Hrm… Well, I must apologize, then, because I actually did *not* deliberately misread what you wrote *or* project what I expected you to say. In that case, it seems as though this is a prime example of socio-linguistic dissonance. And that reminds me of Deborah Tannen’s That’s Not What I Meant: How Conversational Style Makes or Breaks Relationships and You Just Don’t Understand – Women and Men in Conversation. Her analyses are hardly definitive, but are very provocative. She illustrates many of the subcontextual games that underly misunderstandings of meaning, and provides very powerful maps for examining the games we bring to bear.
Also, I find myself confused over your referencing of RAW while actively avoiding his understandings. I’m not sure where all the premature certainty is coming from, but I don’t think it’s warranted in this situation.
To make it categorical and explicit: I am not interested in misconstruing your intentions or arguments.
I’m not so sure producers of cultural capital typically have that much agency or autonomy. Take, for instance, the process of revisions a typical book goes through before it hits the consumer. Consider, for example, how much gets excised, revised, and re-tooled. Or, to take the discussion into another cultural arena, consider the amount of “artistic freedom” most bands have when selecting which songs they play or include on their albums. Some have a great deal of control. Most have very little. Pink Floyd, for example, is not only an iconic rock legend but also a vocal critic of how the music industry prevents artists from “setting their own terms”.
However, that’s not to suggest I think artists *shouldn’t* have control over the way their product/art is consumed. It’s just that I think control is a little more ambiguous, and is articulated in contexts beyond the influence of producers of cultural capital.
Yes, entrenched within the union battles over declining funding for education as I am, I’m very sensitive to and actively engaged in resisting Canada’s progressive campaign against culture.
As for “how the state should compensate artists” and “no model [existed] that could have afforded artists compensation to actually live on”, I’d suggest there are plenty of models available – but they aren’t capitalistic. One of my personal favourites – a figure I think most everyone should be acquainted with – is Buckminster Fuller. His worldgame provides a frame for considering what we’re capable of vs. what we’re doing.
No, it is a misattribution. I brought up Nike to illustrate how consumerism facilitates “theft of livelihood”. More specifically, I aligned “theft of livelihood” with capitalist exploitation. This is not misdirection at all.
Well, I share an affinity for RAW so I’d certainly like to think that he was comfortable – which, by necessity, includes economic stability. But it’s impossible for me to say what he should have done to pay the rent. That, I think, would be rude.
“Flatly rude”? In a previous discussion you argued categorically that epistemic fidelity was not a governing priority for you. I hardly think referencing this inclination qualifies as “rude” or ad hominem.
However, I can well understand the desire to avoid getting bogged down in masturbatory e-debates. I have found that – more often than not – people who engage in such activities rarely string together cogent arguments. That doesn’t seem to be the case here.
A “lesser gain” of 1s and 0s? No, I don’t think we’re referencing any meaningful gain at all. And, again, you have the *assumption* that a mp3 correlates with a reduced income for the creator(s). The genres of breakbeat and dubstep, for instance, are generally defined by their open source-ness. Tracks are made by pro-amateurs who release them into the wild for free, often without attribution.
Copying an mp3 can correlate with a reduced income for the creator(s), but it doesn’t necessarily reduce income. This is “counting chicks that haven’t hatched”.
Take for example, U2 – a heavily downloaded band. Do you think their income has been considerably reduced thanks to mp3s? Or, perhaps even more powerfully, how about Pink Floyd, whose “The Dark Side of the Moon” has its own CD-printing plant in Germany? All their music is freely available on mp3 and yet they still sell more albums than many new “stars”.
Further, I also think there’s value in differentiating between divergent forms of cultural capital. Not all cultural capital is equal. The production of an artist is fundamentally dissimilar with the production of a capitalist. Therefore, much of the “music” that’s trotted out and popularized is really more aptly described as a commodity than art. Similarly for literature. Again, Adorno’s analyses can be especially incisive in this particular domain.
Exploitation is fundamental to capitalism. Capitalism is fundamental to copyright. Consequently, yes, I think capitalist exploitation is germane to our discussion.
I’m always mixed on this issue. I’m one of those people, that often ends up buying physical copies of things I’ve enjoyed pirated. That’s not to say every tv show, movie, album, or book I’ve downloaded and enjoyed has made its way legally to me, but many have. I also share for that reason, I’ll burn CDs and share them, and in some cases the friend buys the original, and sometimes not (with most of them, not), and that’s there choice. With music, specifically, I like exposing people to something new.
With books, I can’t read ebooks, I can’t sit there and do it, but I can browse at my leisure to see if there is something in the book I want. Though, I have to admit, searching ebooks is a hell of a lot easier than physical books.
I think the issue with the podcast is a great mixed message. After just reading Postman, I have McLuhan’s “The medium is the message” burnt into my mind. The idea of the full episode being purchased is a great indication that the podcaster doesn’t fully believe in the freedom of information, unlike podcasters who did free shows but would ask for donations.
<3 McLuhan. From the sound of it, we use ebooks in a very similar way. ;)
Just to clarify re. the format, all that was in-keeping with the host's preferences. He's recently re-launched the site and is trying hard to monetize his efforts. You're right in pointing out a certain contradiction in ideology, but the synchronies are far more valuable and productive. There aren't, after all, many occult-themed podcasts.
Some thoughts
Firstly, “big publishing” is seriously concerned about e-book “piracy”. If Macmillan head honcho Brian Napack has his way, then the same tactics now being used to combat music/film sharing will be employed by book publishers – i.e. takedown notices/lawsuits, file tracking – there are already companies offering tracking services (Bay-TSP for example); Macmillan recently advertised for a Digital Piracy Director and, as with claims about music/film piracy, companies such as Attributor are asserting that 9 million pirated book copies were downloaded in a 3 months period (late 2009) with a claimed lost revenue of nearly $3bn.
Of course the concern over ebook distribution & control has been going on for years now – the recent proliferation of portable reader devices is fuelling this current round – along with the precarious position the book publishing industry is generally, currently in. And its not the first time that social-technological changes have worried publishers. Some Victorian publishers were, after all, against the idea of public libraries. In the 1970′s, there was the concern over the availability of photocopiers on book sales. More recently, we’ve had the row over Google Books.The current recession is seeing a lot of traditional publishing channels crashing & burning – and subsequently, some people are finally waking up to the idea that the models they’ve built their businesses around are just plain broke – and have been for some time. Whilst some publishers, like Macmillan, seem to be going down the draconian route, others, are using the current uncertainty to develop new approaches and models – projects like Bookserver for example, or year zero writers.
I’ve been actively involved in producing free occult material since the mid 1980s – my first ever “publishing” venture being a free “chain book” which was mailed out to an initial group of people with a note attached with the suggestion that if they liked the content, they could add something to it and pass it on (the idea came about after I saw a book which had a “people photocopying this book will be automatically cursed” tagline on it). Throughout the late 1980s and early 1990s, I experimented with free magazines and one-shot digests, and “Chaos Servitors: A User Guide” first appeared as a hypertext book for the Atari ST. The advent of the world-wide web and pdfs was a great advantage, as it meant I could eliminate mail & printing costs and still get material out there. Admittedly, New Falcon were a mite pissed off when, after they published the book length “Condensed Chaos” I put the original chapbook version on-line, so I agreed to change the title of the pdf version and they were fine after that.
I’ve probably been fortunate in that (so far) the only time I’ve had to really rely on income from book sales in order to make a significant difference to my quality of life was prior to the advent of the vast reproduction machine which is the internet. Time was when my book royalties just about paid my isp/web hosting bills. Now they don’t even do that, but that’s more because of expansion of my online requirements rather than shrinkage of income.
This is the shake-out period for publishing in general. Yes, there’s a lot of sabre-rattling going on about “piracy” – I suspect that in part, it’s because the so-called piracy issue is easier to focus on than more fundamental & long-term issues. Unauthorised distribution of material is never going to go away (even before the internet, there was book “piracy” by people doing “rogue editions” of sought-after books). Some pundits are predicting that ebook pricing is going to have to fall considerably in order for the market to grow – which is obviously going to have an impact on those who are reliant on direct sales.
How this all this will affect occult publishing is anyone’s guess. Maybe there’ll be a situation where hardcore aesthetes will buy their delux “talismanic editions” in order to revel in the haptic experience of tomes bound in the vatgrown skin of their authors, whereas geeks who don’t care about look ‘n’ feel will have a free or low-cost pdf. Now’s probably a good time for authors and other content producers to have a hard think about what they want to achieve with their content and how best to go about it.
In review of Abraxas I made a similar comment regarding occult journals. The cheap, mass produced versions of the 80s and 90s seem to be all but gone, but Abraxas has given us a new idea of how occult journals can be published. I just hope that’s not going to be the only viable model.
It’s true, ultimately we must wait and see what happens, but I still feel we should discuss what’s happening while it’s happening, as creators and consumers.
Books are beautiful things, and I’m not looking forward to a world without them.
Yes, Google’s the elephant in the room we’ve totally ignored: They’ve been digitizing tens of thousands of books, and many more are on the horizon. They’ve repeatedly flouted international law and I suspect they’ll get their way whether I like it or not.
Some publishers seem to be warming to the idea that they’ve been neglecting a significant income stream. Litigiousness is quite lucrative. In one class-action suit the producers of “Hurt Locker” are suing tens of thousands. If they are successful they stand to “earn” more money through bankrupting “disposable” citizens than they do by exploiting artists and producers of cultural capital.
I also think there’s going to be a continued market for “talismanic editions”. Even when these items are digitally recorded (as in the case of Andrew Chumbley, for example), the simulacra is hollow in comparison to its originals (few as they may be).
Lastly, I agree that “Now’s probably a good time for authors and other content producers to have a hard think about what they want to achieve with their content and how best to go about it.” As Charles Leadbeater argued in We Think, producers of cultural capital have all sorts of ways to use ICTs to build community, enhance creativity, crowd-source problematization, and articulate democratic participation.
so this is exactly how brainless I am, midway through reading your post I accidentally dropped my computer mouse and shut the internet explorer by mistake and I could not locate your article once again right up until 3 days afterwards to finish reading through from the point i stopped at mainly because I did not remember how I linked here to begin with ahaha anyhow it was worth the delay..regards