nettime Serbian Unity Congress responds to Srebrenica-related arrests of Serbs
Fully expectedly, they sound quite displeased. The letter also discovers the reason why those arrests happened suddenly after so many years of those people being good workers and quiet neighbors: the new Assistant US Attorney of Nevada formerly worked for the ICTY involved with Srebrenica case. ivo --- Forwarded message follows --- SUC responds to arrest of Serb immigrants in Phoenix, Arizona Serbian Unity Congress FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: Andy Verich 202-463-8643 The Honorable Alberto R. Gonzales Attorney General Washington, DC 20503 Sir: If has come to our attention that there has recently been a sweep of arrests of Serb immigrants. They include men and women up to 65 years in age, many of them formerly victims of war crimes who spent time in concentration camps during the war in Bosnia Hercegovina. This wholesale attack follows other similarly-based arrests of Serb immigrants during the last year. The people in question have been charged with lying on an affidavit they signed during the immigration process denying that they served in military forces during the war. The arrests have been focused on those who are located in Phoenix and other parts of Arizona. Coincidentally, these arrests have taken place since Ms. Camille Bibles became the new Assistant US Attorney in Nevada. Ms. Bibles was formerly a lawyer for the Office of the Prosecutor at ICTY involved in the Srebrenica case. Coincidentally also, after the arrests, the indicted were approached by ICTY prosecution representatives to testify as witnesses in the ICTY Srebrenica and other trials. After being jailed for not answering truthfully on the affidavit about his military service, one of the arrested parties was threatened with indictment as a war criminal if he did not testify in one of two cases at the ICTY. He had been identified by a Serb (protected) witness. But when official transcripts showed that the protected witness who fingered him admitted to lying about this man, the war crimes charge was dropped. We are an organization of Americans of Serb background throughout the United States and our membership and friends are very concerned with the discrimination implications in this action. Morever, we are concerned and upset that the deep and terrible wounds of the Bosnian war and tragedy are not being allowed to rest and heal. Have not those people suffered enough? We are not aware of a similar wholesale attack on the basis of an affidavit on the tens of thousands of Croatian or Muslim immigrants from Bosnia Hercegovina who also served in various military units during the war. We are very concerned that: This action represents selective prosecution based on membership in an ethnic group, therefore ethnic profiling; There has not been any prosecution of members of any other ethnic groups involved in this or other civil conflicts solely on the basis of membership in a foreign army. Can you please assist in assessing this problem by answering the following critical questions: Has your office conducted identical or similar investigations of other ethnic groups who were involved in the civil war in Bosnia or elsewhere and have been admitted to the US? If so, when, where and how many members of the other ethnic groups have been indicted? Or, if not, is this simply limited to Serb immigrants? Have your representatives applied the same due diligence and in proportionally the same number of cases in examining members of other ethnic groups as you did with the Serbian immigrants? If not, why not? Please give us the specifics in this answer. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation. Very truly yours, Best regards, Nenad Vukicevic President, Serbian Unity Congress Cc: Secretary Condoleeza Rice, Department of State Secretary Michael Chertoff, Department of Homeland Security Congressmen Dan Burton, Rahm Emanuel, co-chairmen, Serbian Congressional Caucus Senate and House Committees on the Judiciary Senate and House Subcommittees on Immigration and Refugees (Alex, 12 December 2006, 17:23) These people are war criminals. They were told not to put any military information on the application. they are good hard working people who deserve to live peacefully and try to change their status from refugees to citizens. Of course, if anyone is directly responsible for committing a crime they must pay the price and do the time. With all due respect to all the good and Bosnians not all Serbs are war criminals. (Big John, 12 December 2006, 23:04) =95 Don't forget St. Louis MO. as there are thousands of Bosnian Muslim criminals lurking in the shadows. (John, 12 December 2006, 23:42) =95 =AB we are concerned and upset that the deep and terrible wounds of the Bosnian war and tragedy are not being allowed to rest and heal.=BB I am concerned that Mr Vukicevic seem to care more about alledged
Re: nettime Copyright, Copyleft and the Creative Anti-Commons
Copyright, Copyleft and the Creative Anti-Commons Anna Nimus (http://subsol.c3.hu/subsol_2/contributors0/nimustext.html) A Genealogy of Authors' Property Rights An interesting article, although I don't agree with its (implied) conclusions. The author has not always existed. The image of the author as a wellspring of originality, a genius guided by some secret compulsion to create works of art out of a spontaneous overflow of powerful feelings, is an 18th century invention. True, but I don't think this is as simple as often claimed. Authors were celebrated during antiquity too, and the idea of plagiarism would not have emerged if there had not been some concept of ownership to an intellectual achievement. Martial who coined the word was plagiarized by the somewhat poorer poet Fidentinus who published Martial's poems as his own. But opposing this was no self-evident attitude at that time. Oral tradition was strong and it was often of highest virtue to tread in someone's footprints, to imitate and even outdo the model. Horace commended Lucilius for his total dependency on the Greek comedy, and Pliny the younger was only flattered to hear that one of his orations was very much alike one of Demosthenes' speeches. Plautus, who was copied by a row of authors from Ariosto and Molière and on to our days, took most of his stuff from Greek authors - but gave them a Roman touch. This should have been to Horace's liking but he blamed Plautus for not being sufficiently faithful to the originals! And Cicero even claimed that the ancestors' works constituted a common pool for everybody to share, although he himself undoubtedly contributed and increased this pool with certain findings of his own Originality was nevertheless desirable. Seneca writes in his letters that whatever we have incorporated, it may still not remain unaltered, then it will not become a part of ourselves. In the mid 1750s, Edward Young and Samuel Richardson were the first to argue that the work of an author, since it was a product of his unique personality, was more truly an author's property than the material objects produced by a worker. Well, I believe this notion was well on its way already in Milton, Sidney, Pope, and Defoe. Even ancient Greece had it in a strange way, since many Greeks saw writing as something so incredibly personal that they regarded a reader as being raped by the writer. One way of escaping this fate was to have slaves (rhapsodes) reading out loud. (Another extreme - and modern - version of this view was Ayn Rand's; she held intellectual property as so immensely personal that it could not be inherited.) If property is theft, as Proudhon famously argued, then intellectual property is fraud. Property is theft because the owner of property has no legitimate claim to the product of labour. Note that even Proudhon changed his mind about intellectual property. In Théorie de la Propriété from 1863 he says it was really the common man's protection against the state: La propriété est la seule capable de s'opposer à l'Etat. But if physical property can be stolen, can intelligence or ideas be stolen? In ancient and medieval times the intellectual and physical property was not yet separated. Especially when a book could cost a person twenty or thirty sheep, the owner would not always let just anybody copy it, but held on to it, despite the fact that information can be shared without (material) loss - in Jefferson's words, as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Earlier one believed that the owner of the physical item, the book, also got the ownership of copies done on the basis of this book, as a farmer who owns a cow also owns the cow's offspring. When the bearer (medium) of information was separated from the information itself this was a big step forward, that made issuing to the public possible. The most famous rant against piracy was Samuel Richardson's 1753 pamphlets denouncing unauthorized Irish reprints of his novel Sir Charles Grandison. Defoe is not bad either: This is really a most injurious piece of Violence, and a Grievance to all Mankind; for it not only robs their Neighbour of their just: Right, but it robs Men of the due Reward of Industry, the Prize of Learning, and the Benefit of their Studies; in the next Place, it robs the Reader, by printing Copies of other Men uncorrect and imperfect, making surreptitious and spurious Collections, and innumerable Errors, by which the Design of the Author is often inverted, conceal'd, or destroy'd, and the Information the World would reap by a curious and well studied Discourse, is dwindled into Confusion and Nonsense. [...] I think in Justice, no Man has a Right to make any Abridgment of a Book, but the Proprietor of the Book; and I am sure no Man can be so well qualified for the doing it, as the Author, if alive, because no Man can be capable of knowing the true Sense of the Design, or of giving it a due Turn like him
Re: Re: nettime Copyright, Copyleft and the Creative Anti-Commons
Apropos of Anna Nimus's text, Felix Stalder wrote: Which seems to leave as the conclusion that within capitalism the structure of copyright, or IP more generally, doesn't really matter, because it either supports directly fundamentally-flawed notions of property (à la CC), or it does not prevent the common resource to be used in support of capitalist ends (à la GPL). In this view, copyfights appear to articulate a secondary contradiction within capitalism, which cannot solved as long as the main contradition, that between labor and capital, is not redressed. Is that it? It is indeed interesting to see how the meaning of a text is reproduced -differently - within the heads of different people. I read the text, but didn't trace any contradictions in the syllogisms put forth: in fact, I'd say they resonated with my own feelings about Creative Commons: their inability to influence policy making, let alone ignite a society-wide discussion about the property form itself. In my opinion, even on a purely technical level, the entire spectrum of licenses (perhaps with the sole exception of the attribution sharealike?) offered by CC only facilitate that anything posted on the Web, any word posted on a weblog, is easier to enclose within the bounds of copyright law in accord with the mandates of an irrational...or rather, in accord with irrational mandates. Put bluntly: Creative Commons is a commercial in which the figure of the revolution and the theme of the freedom of information entwine with the Creative Author to commodify more things. Of course, this is not the case with the GPL: while it allows commercial (re)use, it does not permit private appropriation - and this is important, but I will not make this digression even longer than it necessarily has to be, and besides I don't think that a long analysis of the licenses discussed in the essay is capturing the essence of the discussion: intellectual property is property. Unless we are willing to err on metaphysics, which I find unlikely, we must admit that the distinctions and the categories forced upon the discussion by Lessig et al. (that is, that intellectual property is fundamentally different from material property because it can be reproduced at negligible or no cost, and whatever follows) are nonsensical to say the least, and reactionary at worst. That said, neither the GPL, even when applied to the totality of material production, begets a world freed from private property. The relation of private property remains the relationship of the community to the world of things...the community as universal capitalist. What is however equally important is that ultimately this movement to oppose universal private property to private property is expressed in bestial form. Which makes things infinitely more interesting than a contradictory regime predicated on what is fair to use, and what is not on the basis not of your needs, but on the inherent properties of the product. Whereas, in antithesis to this predicate, a GPL'ed regime recognises my need and the instrinsic qualities of the product (of the object of my need) as the same, thus avoiding the antinomy to which CC myopically subscribes. g. # distributed via nettime: no commercial use without permission # nettime is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: [EMAIL PROTECTED] and info nettime-l in the msg body # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@bbs.thing.net
RE: nettime Copyright, Copyleft and the Creative Anti-Commons
Hi, I guess the point is that if you are an author, who is willing to accept money for a work that is offered by someone, who is willing to pay for the work is counter-revolutionary. :)) If that was not true, then the author wouldn't have had any problem with markets for cultural goods (aka commercial appropriation). But if there are markets there will always be disputes on how the revenues from a market are divided between different contributors who participated in the process of production, from the paper maker, via the writer, illustrator, type-setter, printer, book-binder, publisher, distributor to the retailer. I see copyright and copyleft as different solutions to the problem of revenue sharing. Different in term of how the solution is reached: through lobby-power in legislation or through grassroots organization. In this respect the whole 'Death of the Author' discourse is totally indifferent. It is not the author's ontological status that defines how we think about property rights in intellectual creations but raw power. The way to change the hated copyright system is not by denying it but to gain control over it. User (reader) rights, non-monetary ideals are underrepresented in current copyright legislations because there was no institution that could aggregate the interests of the disperse, atomized individual readers. File-sharing networks just do that. File sharers are a match to RIAA and other interest groups. though the first experiments with gaining political momentum have failed, i hope there is a next time, and/or there is no need for a political arm for file-sharing. b.- - Balazs Bodo http://www.warsystems.hu/ Fulbright Visiting Researcher and Fellow Stanford Law School Center for Internet and Society http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/ Budapest University of Technology, Department of Sociology and Communications Center for Media Research and Education http://mokk.bme.hu/ # distributed via nettime: no commercial use without permission # nettime is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: [EMAIL PROTECTED] and info nettime-l in the msg body # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@bbs.thing.net
Re: nettime Copyright, Copyleft and the Creative Anti-Commons
Felix Stalder wrote: In this view, copyfights appear to articulate a secondary contradiction within capitalism, which cannot solved as long as the main contradition, that between labor and capital, is not redressed. Is that it? Hello Felix, that is more or less it, yes, free culture is bankrupt in the absence of free production. So long as capitalism is the dominant mode of production, the majority of the marginal contribution to production of free culture will be captured by way of economic rents and accumulated by capital owners. Regards, Dmytri Kleiner http://www.telekommunisten.net Robotnik # distributed via nettime: no commercial use without permission # nettime is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: [EMAIL PROTECTED] and info nettime-l in the msg body # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@bbs.thing.net
nettime Navigating through the Crisis of Copyright
[This is an edited conglomleration of lectures held in the autumn of 2006, at Wizards of OS (Berlin) and at Art|Net|Work (Aarhus university). Concepts are based on Piratbyran's (www.piratbyran collaborative experiences from the copyfight, for example the ongoing controversies after the raid against thepiratebay.org. KEYWORDS: darknet, metadata, grey zones, kopimi, symbolic/imaginary/ real copyright, originality, compensation, DRM, P2P, individualization of peers.] BETWEEN ARTWORKS AND NETWORKS: NAVIGATING THROUGH THE CRISIS OF COPYRIGHT Copying is an universal fact. It's nothing we can decide for or against, but it can take place more or less public. That assumption is the simple basis for the concept of darknets. Piracy in itself is not dependent on one single infrastructure. It finds lots of ways besides the open file-sharing networks, including physical offline routes. Thus the alternative to *peer-to-peer* piracy is not *no* piracy, but rather *person-to-person* piracy. Quite similar to the good old trading of cassette tapes, the digital person-to-person piracy can for example use local wireless networks, burned dvd:s, usb memory sticks, chat software or, not to forget, e- mail. The attempts to stifle file-sharing networks aim at downscaling piracy. But in effect, it's not so much about reducing the total quantity of copyrighted data that is exchanged, as it is about the scale of the networks themselves. Downscaling the swarms of peers accessing each others' archives, while keeping bandwidth constant: That does not mean less piracy, but less *pluralism* in what is really shared. If you have to rely on the archives of your personal social networks that is, on darknets then your available archive is so much more limited that in the end of the day, the dominant players of the copyright industry will keep a great amount of control over in what directions you will be able to develop your taste, even if they cannot inhibit the reproduction of their own content. That means a certain amount of predictability for them, which they regard as highly important. During the second half of the last century, they adapted business models that was all about finding more and more sophisticated methods for predicting and controlling tastes. Thus they tried to ensure that the huge investments made in an artist's first hit would be more than returned by a whole series of albums that would sell well regardless of their quality. In a larger perspective, the ongoing war against file-sharing networks is more a war for securing this predictability, market synchronization and control, than it is about defending copyrighted works against their unauthorised reproduction. A pyramid. That is the default image used by the Motion Picture Association of America to visualize online piracy. The pyramid theory rhetorically suggests that anti-piracy measures can cut the head of piracy. By taking away the small number of suppliers, the whole networks will dry up. Needless to say, this assumes that file- sharing networks are basically about distributing blockbuster movies, and only blockbuster movies. And indeed, if you've made your whole career in a business where the top ten is everything, then you will probably get such an impression when just looking at the top ten list of The Pirate Bay. But what happens if we instead of the pyramid take the well-known image of the long tail, that lets us consider the quantitative relation between the few hits and the many non-hits? Then it becomes clear that the war against piracy is attacking the distribution of all those smaller niches that together makes up the majority of data in larger file-sharing networks while pirated copies of the big hits are usually possible to get hold of anyway. Copyright enforcement in the 21st century has changed its fundamental character. Anti-piracy today is NOT an all-out war against the unauthorised copying of copyrighted data. Such a war would be impossible to wage, as the weapons of mass reproduction are already decentralized into every single home. Rather, anti-piracy fights against the copying of UNcopyrighted METAdata; against the indexing, interlinking and globalizing of private archives. That is exactly what the ongoing case against The Pirate Bay is about: Not the distribution of copyrighted data itself which takes place between millions of peers but the distribution of metadata such as filenames, checksums and addresses. Of course, copyright *cannot* today be about regulating protecting an exclusive right to copying. Using digital information, even if only visiting a website, means copying that information to another place, beyond the possible supervision of any copyright enforcer. A computer works by copying bits all the time: From ROM to RAM, from www to cache, from device to device or client to client or peer to peer. Wireless networks and portable devices complicates the question of how to distinguish local file transfers from
nettime Delose
Delose On the disaster of the future planet now ...If one person, sane to a degree, may be found willing and ready to sacrifice his life and the life of others, for his beliefs in the now and hereafter, the world is doomed. ...And yet it is a commonplace among us that the swarm of men and women shall bring the scythe to bear on all others who covet not the truth. The Cusp of Information, a continuing digression The plethora of the world, its fecundity (potential for production of organism and information) is at its maximum. Future knowledge will no longer be at the beck and call of its past; if anything, it will be vastly reduced as power grids collapse, desertifications and extinctions set in. What I am writing now, what you are writing, has no chance for survival. Records, archives, require potential wells which become more and more difficult to maintain in environments which are increasingly adverse. If we are headed towards any singularity, it is the collapse of the Sememe, the disappearance of universals as the world turns towards isolated and violent localizations. Think of the chains of supply and demand that produce for example this computer - chains that span continents as a result of research and sterile laboratories that construct the truth-value of the isolated molecule or atom. All this disappears in the maelstrom of disease, inundation, mafia and gang rule, suicide bombers, new forms of terrorism still undreamed. The Internet provides a convenient model; created within regimes of relative trust and open communication in spite of the cold war, it now proves so leaky that Usenet is rendered useless; the ratio of spam to personalized email is probably four or five to one; hackers continue to bring down data-bases, operating systems, and hardware for fun and profit; communality creates hundreds of distributed and problematic best friends; and what's left of the Net can just as easily (perhaps more easily) be used by criminal organizations, however defined, than by the rest of us. Packets or no packets, without the power grid, without wireless or functioning computers, perhaps without broadband, what passes for transparent information will become bottle-necked, hopelessly entangled, dysfnctional; one can imagine ghost-mail for example, ghost- sites passing for the real thing which no longer exists. And it's no longer true that technology will save us (it never was), that the ruin of the world will revert to universal efflorescence; temperature rise is fast-forward, and whatever changes might bring back a temporarily sustain- able equilibrium will take tens of thousands of years at best. The Sahara for example is nowhere near greening, and what's lost in the Amazon - a premonition of information in general - remains lost. There's no there there because the sentence is cut off in mid- sentence with nowhere to go. Was it Hawking who recently pointed out that humanity's only chance (forget the rest of the biosphere) is space travel? Shall we take our problems elsewhere, only to repeat them - to create places defined by escape velocity, strategies of escape, one from another? And how do we live with ourselves without the most radical desensitization, objecti- fication, in relation to the untold and unbelievable suffering we bring to the remaining animals on the planet? (For as Foreman has pointed out, we have already done a good job of ridding most of the continents of their megafauna - Africa is the last to go.) In the future, even our knowledge of these things will have disappeared, along with the last of the last of their species, of any _other_; without communication pipelines, the clean and proper use of the electromagnetic spectrum, what happens in one part of the world will remain in that part of the world. Be assured it will be in ignorance, it will be in violence, permeated by gangs, deeply religious hysteric. Some few will remain. Information, in the sense used here, will not, and only its residue, dissolution and chaos, the symbolic of the broken hard-drive, will remain. (I should add one literally cannot cope with this, with this second-sight permeated by information, hence one's tendency towards suicide, which must be continually monitored. Not that one wants to disappear, voluntarily, from this world, not yet. In any case, we shall die within the beginning of the worst of it, although who, then, shall know of that, shall think otherwise? If wisdom is thinking otherwise, wisdom as well is close to its final site, final citation. One cannot think otherwise, with so much knowledge, structure, text and sub- text, at one's disposal.) My Life in Spades (reworked from http://www.asondheim.org/biog.txt which is continually updated.) A bad catch... Acconci and Acker (later) and Laurie Anderson (later), I found myself in Acconci; she had a drawing of his on the wall which she'd turn backside Allison staying in Amherst, New
nettime Keeping track of online news... for non-profit organisations
A Free Software friend of mine Subramanya Sastry [EMAIL PROTECTED] has created this superb tool (called NewsRack) that allows you to electronically track news published on certain subjects (of your choice). You can set up the keywords, and it will keep track of the news. Check up how it works for Goa, the former Portuguese colony on the west coast of India, where I live and work: http://floss.sarai.net/newsrack/Browse.do?owner=fredericknoronhaissue=goacatID=1 It's meant primarily for non-profit organisations, and you could try it out too. Sarai.net in New Delhi has a server that allows you to create alerts for themes of your choice. -- FN M: 0091 9822122436 P: +91-832-240-9490 (after 1300IST please) http://fn.goa-india.org http://fredericknoronha.wordpress.com http://www.goa-india.org http://feeds.goa-india.org/index.php # distributed via nettime: no commercial use without permission # nettime is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: [EMAIL PROTECTED] and info nettime-l in the msg body # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@bbs.thing.net
nettime The Network of Waves - Public Agency in Hybrid Space
dear nettime, This essay was written for the new issue of Open (#11), cahier about art and the public domain - Hybrid Space. The essay introduces the overall theme of the issue, and suggests some strategic considerations on the use of hybrid space. More information on the issue can be found at the website of NAi Publishers: http://www.naipublishers.nl/art/open11_e.html and at the website of Open: http://www.opencahier.nl The journal was presented at De Balie, Centre for Culture and Politics in Amsterdam, on November 18, with the annual SKOR lecture, delivered this year by Saskia Sassen: Public Interventions - The Shifting Meaning of the Urban Condition. The lecture is available on-line at: http://www.debalie.nl/terugkijken See also: http://www.debalie.nl/artikel.jsp? podiumid=mediaarticleid=85601 best wishes, eric --- The Network of Waves Public Agency in Hybrid Space by Eric Kluitenberg The office space above which I live, in a corner house in the Indische Buurt, somewhere in Amsterdam East, used to house a local police station. At that time I was not yet living there. The place was briefly in the national news because of a fair-sized riot which took place there. A couple of Moroccan youths were brought to the station for some minor offence. Their friends thought that this was not right, so they followed the police back to the station to besiege the policemen there. It was not just a few friends who ran after the policemen, but a much larger group which suddenly turned up at the station, coming from nowhere at the precise moment when the youths were brought in. At that time this phenomenon, later known as a 'flash mob', [1] was still relatively new. The police on site were unpleasantly surprised, and had to issue a hasty call for reinforcements to negotiate with the besiegers. When it was all over a police spokesman said that it was a disgrace that the Moroccan youths had used their mobile phones to mobilize a mob. How else could these youths all have known at the same time that something was going on at which their physical presence was 'urgently desired'? And exactly where they needed to be? What the spokesman meant was that the youths had compiled mailing lists for text messages and then used texting to get together as many people as possible as quickly as possible. Texting with mailing lists was a popular application, because at that time text messages could still be sent and received free of charge. A few years ago 'flash mobs' received a good deal of attention from the mass media. Semi-spontaneous public gatherings of groups of people, hardly if at all known to one another, nondescript, with no determining characteristics such as banners, uniform or logo, briefly performed some collective synchronous action, and then dissolved back into 'the general public'. Directions and information about the gathering were sent out by text messages, or e-mails, telling participants where, when and what. These short messages could easily be sent on to friends and acquaintances with the aim of starting a chain reaction resulting in the appearance of an unpredictably large mob at a predetermined time and place. Reclaim the Mall!! The 'flash-mob' phenomenon is thought by some people to have originated in a few relatively unmanageable actions in large shopping centres in American towns, disorganizing them temporarily and playfully. These actions generally had no political significance. This all changed at the end of the 1990s. The 'Reclaim the Streets' movement, [2] highly active at the time, which used to organize illegally orchestrated 'street raves' in the public spaces of large towns, made intensive use of text and e-mail address lists to organize quasi-spontaneous street parties. They did however give these street parties a layered political agenda. The parties were generally given concrete political and social themes and were linked to particular actions, such as support for a strike by London Underground staff. The movement's desire to also use these actions to free public space from its economically determined function (for instance transport, shopping or advertising) was succinctly expressed in the slogan 'The streets for people!'. The parties followed a fixed procedure. The evening before, a sound truck with a generator, a DJ kit and a large number of loudspeakers would park in a wide street. Shortly before the start a double collision would be staged at the beginning and end of the street. The crucial factor here was the provision of information for the participants, who were, in principle, unknown to the organizers. Participants therefore received a short message containing simple directions to the place, the date, the time and a few instructions, such as 'wait for the orange smoke -- that's when the rave will begin'. The double collision meant that
