Year: 2023

The Genoa #G8 Summit protest

The Genoa #G8 Summit protest, which took place from July 18 to July 22, 2001, was a significant event in the history of modern protest movements. The protest drew an estimated 200,000 demonstrators from all over the world, who came together to block the event and voice their concerns about the power and influence of the #deathcult in the G8 countries.

The G8 Summit, which brings together the world’s eight most powerful countries, is a controversial event that has long been the target of protest movements. Critics of the G8 argue that it is an undemocratic institution that seeks to set the rules for the world at large, without real accountability to the people it purports to serve.

The protesters who gathered in Genoa were determined to block the event and make their voices heard, and they were met with an extremely violent and heavy-handed response from the Italian police. Dozens of protesters were hospitalized, more were taken into custody after night raids on two schools housing sleeping #NGO activists and #indymedia journalists.

The treatment of those who were taken into custody was barbaric. Protesters were beaten, sexually assaulted, and denied access to medical treatment. Many of those who were held in custody were subjected to psychological torture, including sleep deprivation and solitary confinement. Despite the brutality of the police response, the protesters remained resolute, Seeing the G8 Summit as a symbol of everything that is wrong with the world.

The Italian government was later brought to trial in the European Court of Human Rights, where it was found guilty of violating the human rights. The court ruled that the police response to the protest was excessive.

A story about outreach

The #openweb has become an integral part of our daily lives, with almost every aspect of our existence now touched by it. However, over the years, concerns have grown about the centralized nature of the internet and the power politics this creates. The rise of social media giants such as Facebook, Twitter, and Google has brought this issue to the fore. These platforms, #dotcons, are centralized and controlled by a handful of powerful corporations, which poses a significant threat to user privacy and freedom of expression.

In response to this, a disparate group of committed libertarian “cats” from the Fediverse community decided to take #directaction to promote decentralized and #openweb models of the Fediverse to the European Union (#EU). The Fediverse is a collection of decentralized social networking platforms that use the ActivityPub protocol to interconnect with each other.

The Fediverse crew participated in EU events, conferences, engaged with policy-makers. They explained the benefits of decentralized and autonomous models of the #openweb and how they can shape a more humane online world. As a result, a minority of people in the #EU became interested in these technologies and began to adopt them in a soft rollout of “official” instances.

The huge growth of Mastodon, one of the most popular social networking platforms in the Fediverse, due to the #Twittermigration attracted a diverse and vibrant community of users from across the EU and the world. This growth helped to validate the importance of decentralized internet and its potential to shape a more humane world.

From this seed, today, ActivityPub, Fediverse, and Mastodon continue to grow to becoming important players in the EU’s efforts to promote a more humane internet. The unspoken grassroots outreach and community-building efforts by the #Fediverse “cats” have empowered us, and helped to shift the EU closer to being what they say they are.

The story of the mouse and the elephant making friends is a reminder that even the most Eurocratic and ossified institutions can embrace radical grassroots movements. The Fediverse “cats” have shown that by working together, we can be a part of the change we would like to see. The #openweb is a powerful tool, and it is up to us to use it.

In conclusion, the efforts of the Fediverse community to promote decentralized and autonomous models of the internet in the EU have been successful. Our outreach and advocacy have helped to shift the EU closer to promoting a more humane internet, and the growth of platforms such as Mastodon has validated the importance of these models. This change and challenge is up to us., please don’t step back and let “them” take over shaping this path.

The Mess We’ve Made: Neoliberalism.

Over the past 40 years, humanity has created a complete mess of our society and environment. #Climatechaos, the degradation of the biosphere, and growing global inequalities are not separate issues but different facets of the same problem. This problem is the #neoliberal economic system that has spread across the world through globalization, promoting high production and high consumption lifestyles and prioritizing economic growth over environmental sustainability and social equity. It is a #deathcult we all worship.

The #neoliberal economic system has created a world that is not only incompatible with a functioning Earth System at the planetary level, but also eroding human and societal well-being, even in the wealthiest countries. The consequences of continuing on the present trajectory are dire. Collapse is the most likely outcome.

To have any hope of turning this around, we need to prioritize social equity. This requires a fundamental shift in our economic system, where sustainability and equity are prioritized over short-term greed. A transition to a more socialist economy is a path out of this mess.

The transition to a more sustainable and equitable economic system will not be easy, but it is necessary. It requires us to fundamentally change our values and priorities as a society. This cannot be done without social friction and more mess, we need to stand up and fight for a more sustainable and equitable world. It is well pastime to reject the #deathcult of neoliberalism and build a humane and better world for all earths creatures.

The 1999 Seattle WTO protests were a strong moment in the history of globalization and global trade

The 1999 Seattle WTO protests, known as the Battle of Seattle, were a turning point in the history of globalization and global trade. The protests took place from November 30 to December 3, 1999, during the World Trade Organization’s (#WTO) Ministerial Conference, which aimed to launch a new round of trade negotiations. However, the negotiations were overshadowed by a massive demonstration that turned into a battle between protesters and law enforcement.

The protests drew tens of thousands of activists, including labour unions, environmentalists, anti-globalization campaigners, and anarchists from across the United States and the world. They came to express their opposition to the #WTO and its policies, which promoted corporate interests at the expense of workers, the environment, and humans. The protesters criticized the WTO for its lack of transparency, undemocratic decision-making processes, and the negative impact of globalization on economies, workers, and the environment.

The protesters organized a range of activities, including marches, rallies, teach-ins, and direct action. They blockaded streets, disrupted traffic, and shut down the #WTO’s meeting using various tactics, nonviolent civil disobedience, such as chaining themselves together, locking themselves to buildings and vehicles, and staging sit-ins. Some protesters engaged in violent confrontations with the police, breaking windows, looting stores, and setting fires.

The police response to the protests was controversial and criticized for its use of force and violation of protesters’ rights. The police used tear gas, pepper spray, rubber bullets, and flashbang grenades to on the protesters. They also arrested more than six hundred people, including peaceful demonstrators, journalists, and bystanders. The police’s tactics drew widespread condemnation from human rights groups, civil liberties advocates, and some progressive political leaders.

The Seattle protests had significant political and social implications, both in the United States and internationally. They exposed the growing divide between the proponents and opponents of neoliberal globalization and sparked a global movement against corporate-led globalization. The protests also marked the emergence of a new kind of activism that combined environmental, labor, human rights, and social justice concerns into a unified anti-corporate agenda. The Seattle protests were a part of similar protests around the world, including the Genoa G8 summit protests in 2001 and the Occupy Wall Street movement in 2011.

In conclusion, the 1999 Seattle WTO protests were a strong moment in the history of globalization and global trade. The protests represented a clash between two world-views, #deathcult agenda that championed corporate-led globalization and the progressive’s that demanded a more equitable and sustainable economic system. The Seattle protests remain a powerful symbol of popular resistance to the last 40 years of dogmatic neoliberalism, unaccountable corporate power and a call to action for a more just and democratic world.

The carnival was a reminder that resistance is possible

The Carnival Against Capital was a global day of protest that took place on Friday, June 18th, 1999. It was a response to the 25th G8 Summit, which was being held in Cologne, Germany at the time. The carnival was organized as an international day of action to protest against the capitalist system and the role of the G8 in maintaining it. The event was also known as #J18, and it was inspired by previous protests such as the Stop the City protests in the 1980s, Peoples’ Global Action (#PGA), and the Global Street Party (#RTS)

The main rallying cry for the Carnival Against Capital was “Our Resistance is as Transnational as Capital.” This was a call to action for people around the world to come together and resist the global capitalist system. The event was organized by a loose coalition of groups and organizations who shared a common goal of fighting against capitalism and its impact on people’s lives.

In London, a spoof newspaper was produced to promote the event, alongside other publicity. On the day itself, the carnival started with a Critical Mass bike ride, which saw cyclists taking to the streets to highlight the problems of car culture and promote alternative forms of transport. This was followed by an action by the Campaign Against Arms Trade, which aimed to draw attention to the role of the arms trade in perpetuating war and conflict.

Later in the day, a large march converged on the London International Financial Futures Exchange for a street party. The exchange was chosen as a symbolic target because it represented the heart of the global financial system. The street party was a festive and creative event, featuring music, dancing, and street theatre. It was also an opportunity for people to express their anger and frustration at the system that was causing them harm.

The Carnival Against Capital was not just limited to London. There were protests in over 40 cities around the world, including Barcelona, Montevideo, Port Harcourt, and San Francisco. Using then new technology, the protests were reported on the internet by independent media activists from London and Sydney, in a step towards the #Indymedia network. This was a significant development in the history of protest movements, as it allowed activists to bypass the mainstream media and communicate directly with each other and the wider public.

The legacy of the Carnival Against Capital lives on today. It was a powerful moment in the history of the anti-globalization movement and showed that ordinary people could come together to challenge the #mainstreaming globalist thinking. The event inspired many people to become involved in activism and to work towards a fairer and more just world. The carnival was a reminder that resistance is possible, and that another world is not only desirable but also achievable.

The solution to the #geekproblem

One of the ways the world of technology is in a mess is due to the problem with institution’s limited funding of the social side of #openweb. Unfortunately, much of the funding that is given ends up feeding parasitic NGOs, which does little to nothing to solve the problems. The existing funding for functional coding also contributes to the #geekproblem by not pushing anything outside the basics. It’s up to people with shovels to clean up this mess, but the question remains – who funds them?

Technology has become an important part of our daily lives. We rely on the internet for everything from communication and entertainment to work and education. However, despite the many benefits that technology offers, there is a growing problem in the industry. Many of the software programs that we rely on are failing because they are built on the wrong foundation.

The #geekproblem software that dominates the tech industry today is built on a foundation of “control”. Developers focus on creating systems that regulate the user’s experience, from how they access information to how they interact with others. However, what many fail to realize is that good societies are built on a foundation of “trust”. When we trust the people and institutions around us, we are more likely to cooperate and work together on common goals.

Unfortunately, the current commercial approach to technology development is leading to piles of #techshit. People don’t trust these #dotcons programs, and they don’t trust the people who create them. This lack of trust can lead to a breakdown in society, that is accelerating the break-down of our environment

The problem is compounded by the fact that the tech industry struggles to communicate this simple understanding to the wider public. Developers are so focused on narrow #geekproblem agenda, technical jargon and complex systems that they often struggle to explain their ideas to others.

One way to address this problem is to fund the social side of tech. By focusing on the human aspects of technology, we can create programs that are not only technically sound, but also easy to use and trustworthy. We need to bridge the gap between the technical and social aspects of tech and create a more holistic approach to technology development.

However, there are very few institutions that fund the social side of #openweb tech. Many of these institutions focus support on parasitic #NGOs that don’t understand the technical side of things and are not interested in building trust. If we continue down this path, we will only feed the #techshit pile.

To make a difference, we need to fund the social side of tech in a way that supports both technical expertise and social understanding. We need to create programs that are not only technically sound but also easy to use and trustworthy. We need to invest in initiatives like the #OMN and that promote communication, cooperation, and trust within the tech industry.

Ultimately, the solution to the #geekproblem is to realize that good societies are built on trust, not control. We need to build technology that reflects this reality and invest in the social side of tech. By doing so, we can ensure that technology continues to serve us and not the other way around.

Keep building a better world, one link, one line of code at a time

Once upon a time, in a world dominated by the #dotcons, closed-source technology and centralized decision-making, a small group of passionate activists and developers came together to reboot an old way of building technology. They believed that technology should serve the needs of people, not just the interests of big corporations and governments. They called themselves the community.

The community believed that openness and trust were the keys to creating technology that served the needs of people. They codified the existing #FOSS, open-source working practices as a process called the , which consisted of four #KISS principles: open data, open source, open “industrial” standards, and open process. They believed that by embracing these principles, they could create technology that was more transparent, collaborative, and decentralized.

The first principle of the was open data. The community believed that data should be freely available to everyone, so that anyone could use it to build new tools and uses. They created a platform #OMN where people could share data openly and collaborate on projects together.

The second principle of the was the #mainstreaming idea of #opensource. The community believed that software should be free and open for anyone to use, modify, and distribute. They created a library of #FOSS software that people and community can use to build new tools and services.

The third principle of the is open “industrial” standards. This principle was a little more complex, but it basically meant that technology should be built using open, standardized protocols that anyone could use. This would ensure that technology was interoperable and that people could easily switch between different tools and services.

The fourth and final principle of the was open process. This principle was perhaps the most important of all. The community believed that technology should be developed using transparent, collaborative processes that anyone could participate in. They organized on a platform https://unite.openworlds.info/ where people could share ideas, collaborate on projects, and make decisions together.

Over time, the community grew and expanded. They built new tools and services that were based on the principles of openness and trust. They created a vibrant ecosystem of developers, designers, and users who worked together to create technology that served the needs of people, not just the interests of big corporations and governments.

And so the community continued to grow and evolve, creating a more healthy vision for technology. They knew that their work was just the start, they were determined to keep pushing forward, to keep building a better world, one link, one line of code at a time.

Composting the Last 40 Years of Social Sh*t: Understanding Political Motivations and Embracing Openness and Trust

In today’s world, it’s common to feel overwhelmed by the barrage of information, opinions, and ideas flooding our #dotcons social media feeds and news outlets. From political debates to social issues, it is a challenging to navigate through the noise and understand what’s really happening.

A way to cut through the clutter to gain a better understanding of the political landscape is by using a metaphorical shovel to compost the last 40 years of social sh*t. By digging deep and examining the roots of political motivations, we can understand the forces driving the right and left wings of politics.

Firstly, understand that the right-wing is motivated by fear and the desire for control. Whether it’s fear of losing power, fear of change, or fear of the unknown, the right prioritize maintaining the status quo over progress and innovation. This translates into policies that restrict individual liberties, limit access to healthcare and education, and perpetuate systemic inequality.

On the other hand, the left-wing is motivated by trust and openness. Rather than relying on fear and control, the left prioritizes transparency, collaboration, and inclusivity. This leads to policies that prioritize social welfare, protect human rights, and promote equality and justice.

However, it’s not just politics that require an openness and trust-based approach. In the tech world, the framework provides a similar role in promoting transparency, collaboration, and decentralized decision-making. By embracing the principles of the :

* Open data – is the basic part of a project https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_data with out this open they cannot work.
* Open source – as in “free software” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_software this keeps development healthy by increasing interconnectedness and bringing in serendipity. The Open licences are the “lock” that keep the first two in place, what we have ain’t perfect but they do expand the area of “trust” that a project needs to work, creative commons is a start here.
* Open “industrial” standards – this is a little understand but core open, its what the open internet and WWW are built from. Here is an outline https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_standard
* Open process – this is the most “nebulous” part, examples of the work flow would be wikis and activity streams. Projects are built on linking trust networks so open process is the “glue” that binds the links together. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Process

helps ensure that technology is used for the benefit of “us”, rather than “them”. But, as with any tool or framework, and left-wing politics can only work if people are willing to pick them up and use them. This means taking a #DIY (do-it-yourself) approach to politics and technology and embracing the power of the communertys to create change.

Tilling the fertile soil of hope requires a commitment to openness, transparency, and collaboration, but it also requires simplicity. Keeping things simple, or #KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid), helps to prevent people from getting bogged down in complexity or becoming trolls on social media. By focusing on a simple but powerful vision of openness, trust, and collaboration, we can work towards creating a more ecological, just and equitable world.

In conclusion, composting the last 40 years of social sh*t requires a willingness to dig deep and examine the roots of political motivations. By understanding the fear-based approach of the right and the trust-based approach of the left, we can better navigate the political landscape. Embracing openness and trust-based working helps to ensure that technology is used for the benefit of all, while keeping things simple can prevent us from getting bogged down in complexity or becoming trolls. It’s up to each and every one of us to pick up the shovel and start tilling the fertile soil of hope.

Liberal trolls – are often not WHO they think they are

DRAFT to be edited

http://hamishcampbell.com/2023/02/14/archiving-the-openweb-in-a-personal-way/

http://hamishcampbell.com/2023/02/12/thinking-about-why-openweb-projects-fail/

It’s hard to get a thried out of mastodon, hopeful this is in the right order and not missing bits. As usually, if you would like to be anonymous with no linking please say so, thanks.

Made a blog post, if you reply your text might be added to this if you don’t tell me not to 🙂

We are talking about this blog post http://hamishcampbell.com/2023/02/12/thinking-about-why-openweb-projects-fail/ I sent to the people I had archived the conversation as a seed for a blog post, the guys jump in with limited good faith.

@bob Note that my posts are CC-BY-NC. If you’re quoting me, then you need attribution, otherwise it looks like your own work.

The blog is to take transitory content “a toot” and make it more long-lasting and link it into a flow of social memory. I would love a codebase that had this built into its #UX Now, if someone made code to automate credit and archiving work just as well, I would be happy to use it.

@elplatt yes, in general it’s good practice to quote or block quote and attribute. Right now, it’s not clear who said what

I don’t tend to do “good practice” as I do this #DIY and don’t get paid for my time. I have two ways to “anonymize” text, if I keep the flow then I take the names out and put Q. and A. as the voices, if it’s out of the flow I just put “from the #openweb” this makes it quick and simple to archive things I value without jumping though impossible conversations each time. If people won’t credit and ask, I add it, it’s the polite thing to do.

Then nuttyness starts – from @elplatt I’d prefer not to be associated with plagiarism. Please remove my content. Thanks.

It says from the #openweb in BOLD, so it’s not plagiarism (Plagiarism is the fraudulent representation of another person’s language, thoughts, ideas, or expressions as one’s own original work.) . But happy to remove stuff if people don’t won’t it archived. (I updated the blog post to add bob as he asked to be, then move the FROM THE OPENWEB under bob. Have a look and tell me what you won’t http://hamishcampbell.com/2023/02/12/thinking-about-why-openweb-projects-fail/

whaw that is bad behaver: @elplatt #GreatjusticeNet has blocked campaign.openworlds.info for plagiarizing fediverse content [IMAGE] lie about someone then block their instance.

Q. Interesting to think about, if this was an argument, should I keep the stuff online or remove it if asked? What’s the good path for this?

@bob Friendly reminder to always credit people for their work. Avoid making it look as if you wrote something, which you didn’t. This is really just courtesy, or treating people with care. Saying “this came from the internet” isn’t sufficient. There can also be cases where people request to remain anonymous, but that is typically rare.

That is way too much work is the problem, in grassroots activism the are to meany borderline nutters, so my work practice is a reflection of this. Good to remember all #OMN projects are CC licence and not for profit, so with this understanding its best just to hold the nuttiness and talk as a first step. People to people, not law/rights/property etc 🙂

@bob Well, in the case of plagiarism this isn’t really a law thing it’s just an act of courtesy to say who quotes originate from. (we get a bit lost here as it’s nothing to do with plagiarism, it is about a liberal troll) Ripping people off is what BigTech does. We need to be better, and treat people well. (its not about ripping people off it is about a liberal troll)

Nobody is doing plagiarism, nobody is stealing. Nobody is ripping anyone off, we are talking in good faith, I hope. Best to put bad words and judgments to one side https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plagiarism it is not, now what else is the issue?

To @bob you are missing the point of what we/am talking about, and pushing a liberal private property view agenst a “commons” view.

Now this does bring up the issue of licence, my instance is the same as bobs CC-BY-NC so in theory I have the right to reuse content without asking as my blog is also CC-BY-NC, but I am polite and go a stage further if I am unshore if a person wants to be linked I initially publish post with “from the #openweb” post the URL to get feedback.

@bob This isn’t a stage further. It’s the BY part of the CC license. It doesn’t necessarily require links, but some indication of who the content is by.

Morally, you would be in most cases wrong to push this, but legally you are right. Now comes the issue of me making this into a blog post. I need to quote him in the post, but it would likely increase the bad feeling if I did this with name and LINK, under CC-BY-NC I have the right to use his post, he can’t say NO but morlay should I name and shame him or just leave the mess as an anonymous example of working practice?

@bob Under CC-BY-NC I have the right to use his post, but not without attribution.

I can see no copyright notice https://greatjustice.net/about But his personal sight is https://elplatt.com/ CC so let’s assume for now. Added the link though it feels like trolling, very happy to remove it

For the blog post, would likely need to look at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use as am pretty sure at this stage he would say no text, but the is no story without the text, and he has already given me the right to use the text under CC-BY-NC if I link to him, the instance blocking and CC licencing cross site is icing on the cake.

NEED TO CHECK THIS

Thinking more about this, I likely did not need to have this conversation at all, as a journalist criticizing a “work” is a clear case of fair use. I anonymize the text so that I can freely reinterpret it, which is what the archives are for, and labaled (FROM THE OPENWEB) to stop people thinking it was my work TICK then it’s just a working document and a good example of a clash of Liberal ideas.

The CC side of the conversation is not wrong, it’s just NOT what my actions are based on, OK, this makes more sense. This conversation is ltraly a liberal troll storm in a tea cup, that’s what happens if you talk to people about archiving 🙂

This is based on the idea that this is a working document (which all my blog posts are, they get updated and reused all the time) So it’s not an act of publishing (which in this case it was not as I was still drafting, asking if people wonted attribution)

But would be when I mythically called it finished… round in circals in the world. The second story on the post is more finished, the text there is changed/transformed, so from the #openweb is OK.

hamishcampbell.com/2023/02/12/

 

 

Archiving the #openweb in a personal way

I spend a bit of time copying conversations off transient communication, microblogging, #failbook, chat etc. and archive this on my blog. I don’t tend to do “good practice” in this as I do it #DIY and don’t get paid for my time 🙂

I have two ways to “anonymize” text, if I keep the flow then I take the names out and put Q. and A. as the voices, if it’s out of the flow I just put “from the #openweb” this makes it quick and simple to archive things of value without jumping though impossible conversations each time. If people won’t credit and ask, I add it, it’s the polite thing to do.

Now if someone made code to automate credit and archiving work just as well, I would be happy to use it 🙂

Back in the day talking to traditional media

Hamish Campbell, an independent journalist, shared his experience selling footage to corporations in an interview. He explained that corporations often contact them to buy footage, but they won’t generally take the edited programs as a whole because they are too conservative. They ask for the price, the corporation often did not want to pay, Campbell’s team tells them to “f*** off.” However, if they want the story, they’ll pay for it. It’s a game that has to be played, pretending to be independent and not part of the campaign, and always saying the video was shot using professional equipment, no matter what camera was used. Please remember to send the invoices after the negotiation, we tended to, forgets this bit.

Interviewer: Can you tell us about your experience selling footage to corporations and how you handle those negotiations?

Hamish Campbell: We used to sell some footage here and there, but it was mostly just enough to pay for broken cameras and equipment repairs. Corporations often contact us asking to buy our footage, but they won’t generally take the edited programs as a whole because they are too conservative. We tell them the price, which is usually around 400 pounds a minute, and if they don’t want to pay it, we say “f*** off”. If they want the story, they’ll pay for it, and if they don’t want it, they’re not going to broadcast it anyway. It used to happen all the time, and we always say “f*** off” to corporate media repeatedly till they agreed to pay.

Interviewer: How do you navigate the process of selling footage to corporations?

Hamish Campbell: It’s a game you have to play. You have to speak a certain language and pretend to be a certain person, and everyone knows it’s pretending. You’re an independent journalist, you’re professional, it doesn’t matter if the footage was shot on a tiny camera or a professional one. You have to present yourself as independent and not part of the campaign. After a bit of back and forth, we usually end up telling them to “f*** off” three times, and then they’ll pay us some money. But I always forget to send the invoice.

History of copyleft activist grassroots video distribution

Hamish Campbell, the founder of #VisiononTV, began his journey into copyleft video through his project called #RoughCuts. In a recent interview, Campbell shared how RoughCuts started as one of the first copyleft video projects that encoded activist video in MPEG-1 format, an early standard format for video. He would burn CDs with an hour of different films and create a user interface using HTML to make it easy for people to watch them on their computers.

The CDs were sold for five pounds each, the project was designed to be a sustainable #DIY media distribution platform. People were encouraged to buy the CD, copy it, and give it away for free, and the revenue generated from the CD sales would help fund national screening tours, pay for travel expenses and equipment repair.

As the technology of the web advanced, people could watch videos online at a reasonable quality, which made the CDs obsolete. Hamish took a break from RoughCuts until the technology caught up a year or two later, and he started VisiononTV, a webTV project distribution platform for on-the-ground screenings. People could watch the videos on the web, but the primary focus was on taking the content offline and showing it on big screens to an audience in the same room.

Hamish Campbell’s RoughCuts project was a pioneering effort in the field of copyleft video, which paved the way for his later project, VisiononTV. His approach of creating sustainable DIY media distribution platforms continues to inspire and influence media activists around the world.

A interview with Hamish Campbell on grassroots media and tech

Interviewer: Can you tell us about your project #RoughCuts and how it started?

Hamish Campbell: Before I did #VisiononTV, I started a project called RoughCuts, which was offline copyleft video. It was one of the first copyleft projects with video, encode in the MPEG-1 an early standard format for video, about VHS quality video. You could fit an hour on a cheap CD. I would burn these CDs with different films, and an interface to the front of it using an HTML page, so you put the CD in your computer, and this web page would pop up with a list of all the films with a bit of information and a link to play the film. Then I would copy these in a CD burner. I’d go around the country doing screenings and I would sell the CDs for five pounds if people wonted to support the project.

Interviewer: How did you fund national screening tours for Rough Cuts?

Hamish Campbell: I funded national screening tours by selling these CDs, which were available for free if people wanted to copy them. So, I said, buy the CD, then go home, and copy it and give it all to your friends. It was a take-it-away-and-distribute-it-yourself project. It was sustainable DIY media distribution, so the person who was doing it could be sustained and could actually make a little bit of money to travel around and pay the expenses, repair cameras, etc.

Interviewer: How did the technology change of the web impact RoughCuts?

Hamish Campbell: The technology of the web moved on, so people actually could put video on the web and watch it on the web in reasonable quality. So then, why buy a CD? Why have a physical medium? It became an obsolete project. So then I kind of stopped doing that for a while, but then a year or two later, the web technology caught up, and it was really easy to do web video. So I thought, let’s do a webTV project distribution project for on the ground screenings, so people can watch on the web, but what it’s really about is taking it off the web and showing it on a big screen to a bunch of people in the same room. That’s how #VisiononTV came about.