Further, why do we almost always (choose to) disregard our indigenous communities in regards to how their intellectual property rights – namely, the Copyright Act 1968 , affects them – directly or indirectly?

While the rest of society is protected and is making money off the back of intellectual property laws under the Copyright Act, all is well and good, but this Act has failed to protect our indigenous cultures sufficiently.

Especially when it comes down to intangible intellectual property – described in 2003 by the Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage as:

“the practices, representations, expressions, as well as the knowledge and skills, that communities, groups and in some cases, individuals recognize as part of their cultural heritage…”

This also includes oral teachings on laws, traditions, and rituals that are passed on through the generations.

The convention held in Paris was not ratified by Australia yet should have been as the acknowledgement of traditional knowledge and culture is important both nationally and internationally. Australia needs to lead, not lag behind.

The Copyright Act fails our indigenous cultures in that it does not protect their intangible intellectual property and the first step forward is to amend it to protect their cultural heritage.

It fails to recognize the original idea or information that is placed in a composition in indigenous art .

Indigenous art (source: Šrotíř David, under CC Attribution ShareAlike 3.0, Attribution ShareAlike 2.5, Attribution ShareAlike 2.0 and Attribution ShareAlike 1.0 Unported License)

Most (if not all) indigenous artworks have an underlying story that has been a part of their heritage for many centuries. The stories are sacred and of immense importance to their cultures, however, this type of intangible material is legally left unprotected.

The current laws do not protect Aboriginal techniques and styles of painting (such as the ‘dot’ and ‘x-ray’ styles which are location and community specific, and used as a form of communication between generations).

The Copyright Act also does not cover indigenous unrecorded songs and dances. 

These should be covered as indigenous cultures have never traditionally written their stories and histories in books, recorded their songs on tape or videotaped their dances – this has always been disseminated orally and in person. And in many cases presently continues to do so.

Aboriginal person playing the Didgeridoo (source: White House photo by Chris Greenberg / public domain)

It is yet another failure of our legal system to adequately protect our indigenous community, and certainly these issues affect many other indigenous communities globally.

Another two major problems are also apparent with the current Copyright Act.

Firstly, a legal owner of copyright must be an individual.

This presents numerous problems for indigenous communities, a significant one being a lack of understanding from our part about how their communities are structured and their functionality.

Indigenous communities usually have communal ownership, something which our current laws do not recognise, nor understand.

Indigenous people are able to recite and discuss certain local lore and knowledge, but they do not have the automatic right to utilize it. This needs to be agreed upon collectively, as a community.

Libertarians may jump and shout when they hear there should be more laws for IP, but their arguments are philosophically based and really, at the end of the day, we are talking about current laws not providing sufficient protection for our indigenous communities, where this protection exists for others (us).

It is a huge inequality that needs to be rectified and the best way to do that is to amend the Copyright Act so it recognises and protects intangible indigenous intellectual property and ownership.

Come on Rudd! You said sorry, now show us you mean it!

Take our mini poll and let us know what you think.

Fellini (Source: Walter Albertin/United States Library of Congress's Prints and Photographs Division under the digital ID cph.3c22919)

With the end of the 2009 Lavazza Italian Film Festival and the forthcoming 16th anniversary of master filmmaker Federico Fellini’s death (31st Oct), the time has come to ask what made his films so important to film history and why they consistently appear on many (Time, IMDB, Empire) all time ‘best films’ lists.

The main reason why Fellini is still revered so long after his death was that the man was a creative genius.

Federico Fellini (author: Italiamia under CC Attribution ShareAlike 3.0 license)

At a time when Hollywood was making wonderful blockbuster epics such as ‘Lawrence of Arabia’ (1962) and ‘The Great Escape’ (1963), Italian born Fellini made films such as ‘La Dolce Vita’ (1960) and ‘8 ½’ (1963) – some of his greatest films.

In anticipation of his next film, Fellini had a hard time coming up with a new concept and narrative, so he decided to make a film about just that – a filmmakers’ struggle.

‘8 ½’ is about a director (Fellini’s alter ego, ‘Guido’ played by Marcello Mastroianni) who has a creative block as he allows his fears and anxieties to overtake him. This then leads to a midlife crisis of sorts. From there ‘Guido’ enters a world of introspection, memory and fantasy.

This film is high on symbolism as most of Fellini’s movies are. He had a lifelong fascination with the circus, vaudeville characters and religion.

The insightful, often tragic portrayals of outcasts in society within his films, such as ‘Cabiria’, a prostitute who tries to find love from ‘Nights of Cabiria’ (1957) and ‘Gelsomina’ a girl who gets sold to a cruel circus owner from ‘La Strada’ (1954), are heartbreaking . Yet ultimately you are full of admiration for their strength, resolve and human spirit.

Both of these characters were brilliantly played by Fellini’s wife, Giulietta Masina (who died a year after Fellini).

Fellini’s fascination with the circus and vaudeville began in his childhood in a small town named Rimini (Italy) where the travelling circus would come and entertain the town.

Fellini never forgot these childhood impressions and these were manifested throughout his films.

Following is a scene from ’8 1/2′ (source: Desvelos)

On the biographical nature of his films he colourfully stated:

“Cinema is an old whore, like circus and variety, who knows how to give many kinds of pleasure. Besides, you can’t teach old fleas new dogs.”

He was brought up a staunch Catholic but is highly critical of religion in his movies.

In his own way he does portray a reverence for it. This love/hate relationship with religion led the Vatican to attempt to ban ‘La Dolce Vita’ and they succeeded in the end.

It was mainly seen as immoral as it juxtaposed religious icons (such as the statue of Jesus floating over Rome) against a backdrop of new ‘profane’ Italian modernism based on the economic boom of the late 1950s. It also treated themes such as sexuality and suicide in a very casual manner for the time.

‘La Dolce Vita’ also criticized Rome’s vision of itself and depicted it as an ‘over civilized’ ‘moral wasteland’ in which the Italian government thought unacceptable. Remember it was in the early 1960’s, however his critique of society is arguably still valid today (especially with Berlusconi at the helm).

There are so many levels of meaning and complexities in Fellini’s films, it really is a shame more people aren’t exposed to them anymore.

Here is the infamous Trevi Fountain clip from ‘La Dolce Vita’ (source:  juliabarnum)

Another scene from ‘La Dolce Vita’ (source: brushstrocksrock)

Walking into most chain movie rental stores is a sad experience as many master filmmakers, such as Fellini, are mostly no longer available.

Fifteen years ago the ‘arthouse’ sections were bursting, and today they’re virtually non-existent. But that’s another issue altogether.

If you had the chance to see his films, you are definitely one of the lucky ones. If you haven’t and you get the opportunity – don’t miss it!

Here is a video excerpt of an interview with Fellini (source: stockhausen/bbc 1965)

His masterful response on being called a genius:

“Nietzsche claimed that his genius was in his nostrils and I think that is a very excellent place for it to be.”

RIP Fellini.

It is a part of the series ‘Transparency’ and is a collaboration by GOOD and Lifelong Friendship Society.

I should show this to the Senator for Broadband, Comms., etc Stephen Conroy  as he plans to introduce ISP filtering.

I believe Mr Conroy means well – I mean, we all want illegal, abusive sites to be banned – but in the past, our government has mistakenly banned websites . 

These people lost a lot of their business without even realising that they were mistakenly blacklisted!

In theory I suppose it is a good idea to blacklist illegal websites that are abusive – but only if they build a system that is error free and reliable.

What do you think about Internet censorship?  

 ’Murdoch’s MySpace Is Probably Pretty Much Worthless‘ on The Huffington Post website.

Interesting…
Any thoughts on your part?

Rupert Murdoch (source: worldeconomicforum/cc-by-sa-2.0)

Rupert Murdoch has stated that he wants to begin charging for access to his online news websites.

I get that he needs to find a new source of revenue and a new business model to keep up with the times, as traditional newspaper revenue goes down the gurgler.

I get that based on his Wall St Journal online business model of subcriptions, he has seen that this can work.

I get his motivations - and yet I don’t agree with him.

Here’s why:

• Murdoch is basing his new model on the  success of the Wall St Journal (online). This is a service focused on providing business and finance news to a niche audience who are affluent. They would most likely have financial interests and may rely on the information the WSJ provides. The WSJ also provides original content (according to his website that is –  I wouldn’t know because, surprise, I don’t subscribe). 
• Murdoch’s other news services do not provide original content. Most of the news they report is derived from wire services - therefore:

Why would people want to pay for a service when they can read the same content for free elsewhere?

Now unless every news service starts charging for content (the probability of that happening is low as there will always be free and accurate alternatives on the web), I can’t see how Murdoch’s model will work to the level he is expecting.

I have no doubt that he will have some success, but it will be nowhere near his projected outcome.

Another thing, he is on a mission to stop news aggregators such as Google News, Crikey, and many others using ‘his’ content for free.

• it is fair to say that it is not Murdoch’s own content as the majority of his news originates from wire services (as stated previously) 
• news aggregators direct more traffic to Murdoch’s websites - he should be paying them - I definitely would not click onto his websites otherwise 
• many people want a variety of news sources to form the basis of their news consumption – not just the one ‘authoratitive’ source – that’s a digital immigrant’s way of thinking- not a digital native’s.

Murdoch is definitely not thinking far enough ahead and what’s worse is he is trying to tackle this new digital challenge with the wrong approach. 

Murdoch needs innovative and forward thinking people working for him – something which he seems to lack when dealing with the online world.

Would you subscribe to his online news websites? Do you think Murdoch is heading in the right direction?

‘Ardi’ (Ardipithecus ramidus) is a fossil that is 4.4million years old and was found in the early 1990′s from the Afar Depression in the Middle Awash river valley of Ethiopia.

Ardi Source: Science/AAAS/JH Matternes

After 17 years of studying Ardi and other nearby fossils researchers have now officially published the results in the Science journal.

Ardi is a million years older than our other infamous fossil- Lucy. We didn’t really know much about that earlier stage of evolution until Ardi came along.

Whether Ardi is directly linked with our line of ancestry is yet to be determined, however she will most likely be related to us and can give us an insight into our evolutionary road.

Professor Tim White (University of California, Berkeley) who is one of the main scientists on this project says,

“This is not an ordinary fossil. It’s not a chimp. It’s not a human. It shows us what we used to be.”

How Ardi is different from other fossils

Certain features of the fossil seem to be very similar to attributes found on extremely archaic apes, whilst other traits are likened to later human-like species.

Ardi's Attributes Source: Science/JH Matternes

For example, Ardi could both walk like us and was an excellent scaler of trees like the apes. This, according to team member Prof. Owen Lovejoy (Kent State University, Ohio) was all thanks to Ardi’s:

“opposable great toes and … a pelvis that allows her to negotiate tree branches rather well. So half of her life is spent in the trees; she would have nested in trees and occasionally fed in trees, but when she was on the ground she walked upright pretty close to how you and I walk.”

Ardi’s upper pelvic bones were situated so that she could walk on two legs without staggering side to side like a chimp (possibly in order to be able to hold food for its’ monogamous partner in return for sex).

Ardi could also climb trees due to the powerful muscles in her back legs supported by her ape-like lower pelvic bones.

Watch this video detailing the find (care of Associated Press).

So did sex impel Ardi to walk on two legs? 

Most probably. According to Prof. Lovejoy, Ardi’s teeth can further explain her ability to walk on two legs and it all links in to monogamy and sex.

He states that in mating battles, great apes/monkeys would use their lengthy upper canine teeth as weapons. But Ardi’s canines were smaller and “feminized” to a stumpy, diamond form.

This change implies a major social transformation in behaviour because the male Ardi would no longer be violently wrangling over sex with many females but just focus on one female.

She would provide sex as long as he provided food - he could only do that if he could carry the food to her – which means he would have to walk to keep his hands free.

Ardi - our evolutionary missing link?

Ardi could be the missing link we have been looking for. More research into other fossils found next to Ardi need to be analysed before anything more can be determined. It is looking likely according to the experts. Stay tuned…

For more indepth information visit:

Discovery Channel Website

Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) aims are to please the company’s stakeholders, improve its branding on a wider level and ultimately make more money, all via adhering to ethical/value based behaviours that are arguably beneficial to specific or broader societies.

All great and good if it benefits us while still making the companies a tidy sum. No problem at all. What a fantastic way to do business, dare I say, revolutionary?

It is revolutionary in the sense that the traditional ‘bottom line’ approach is now becoming the ‘triple bottom line’, where a sole fiscal focus has been replaced by a combined social, environmental and economic goal for the company.

You can’t argue with that, right?

To put it simply, yes and no.

It is a positive shift in the way business is done because corporations are now also recognizing that ethical behaviour will lead to more profit.

Many companies are trying to become more socially responsible, just look at most corporate websites and you will see their CSR campaigns prominently displayed.

Australia is ranked 9th in the world  for the Responsible Competitiveness Index (2007), not bad.

'Responsible Competitiveness Index Rankings 2007' © AccountAbility 2007

For example, McDonalds CSR campaign is extensive and delivers page after page explaining how they put the values that they purport into practice.

In particular in their ‘Employment Experience’ section, they categorically state,

‘We respect the right of employees to associate or not to associate with any group, as permitted by and in accordance with applicable laws and regulations.’

Yet McDonalds has had a very long and dodgy history with unionized labour.

Their advertising was ruled in court (in the infamous McLibel case 1997) to be exploitative to children, their food causes obesity and other health related problems and their commitment to keeping the minimum wage – at a minimum – is truly abhorrent.

Coca-Cola also has an extensive CSR campaign with a section titled ‘Global Workplace Rights Policy’ which states that their employees have the right to associate with unions.

However many (450 so far) unionists have been murdered in Colombia. More recently, one union leader was murdered and several others unionists tortured at their bottling plant.

In August this year, a U.S. court dismissed the case against Coca-Cola due to lack of evidence.

Here is a trailer for a forthcoming documentary on the issue:

(source: nfb and National Film Board of Canada):

Lipton Tea CSR claims to provide housing, education, health, etc. for their employees in the developing world. Yet they fail to mention that these benefits only apply to a small percentage of their workforce who are employed full time.

In Pakistan for instance, Lipton employs the majority of their workforce on a casual basis – these workers do not receive any benefits (including sick leave) or job security.

It is PR spin at its worst.

See for yourself.

(source: iufasia)

I could go on and on – but I think you get my point here.

Ok, the world is not perfect – agreed.

We do need to understand CSR for what it is. It can be beneficial for both the company and society.

However it is also imperative that we continue to have a healthy amount of scepticism for CSR and an increasing awareness of the company’s actual behaviour.

Ensuring companies are held accountable when they falter in their CSR commitments remains all important.

This is where people and the internet can act as watchdog’s and make an enormous difference in keeping this revolution an honest one.

To Censor, or Not to Censor...(source: Piotr VaGla Waglowski, public domain)

On certain websites in the past, I have commented and replied to articles produced by others where I have disagreed with what was being written.

I have not always been published by them in the comments section resulting in my frustration and wasted time trying to get my point of view across.

This led me to conclude that this was censorship being misused in the worst possible way – where other reasonable perspectives cannot be heard.

However, when moderating my own blog I came across a comment I did not want to publish – I too wanted to censor the comment and not have a publicly dissenting voice on my blog.

I came to the conclusion that I did not want to be like those who have censored my comments – and whether I liked it or not, everyone has a right to be heard.

So I approved it.

This has made me feel good about moderating a website, knowing that I will not censor comments based on whether I like them or not – as some (many?) major news websites do.

Have you ever been censored or censored others? Did it frustrate you like it did me?

Power to the people!

Found this on there – what an amazing kid! (source: GeekDad74x)

View This Poll

Till next time…