The Basement Tapes Wikifilm!

By mila

This is the script for the film. I'm laying out everything I plan to do or hope to do.

This film is not finished - this film will never be finished [that's what we've been saying for 4 years!]. This writing is not meant to be perfect - instead it is meant to be dynamic. I am not editing myself as I write. I am being open. I'm like a bird, I'll only fly away.

I'm begging for help! Any page in this wikifilm can be edited. If you want to add something you think should be filmed, or that you have filmed, STEP UP! Wise man once say about this site: MORE BOOTY SHAKIN', LESS COUCH POTATIN'!

If thoust thinks the wording can be improved upon or otherwise ameliorated, then thoust must act to change at once!

Every page, except this one, can be edited. (Why? Because this page generates the Table of Contents).

We will create a feature documentary from this wiki. It will play in theaters and on TV. Everyone who contributes will get a credit. So choose your handle wisely.

Below are the chapters of the film as I see them. Please - comment, change, act, create. Changing is not breaking - changing is evolving. Structure is dissolving. Music is revolving.

Add new comment

Exlusion and Property Rights Theory

On April 2nd, 2007 Anonymous says:

For better or worse, and depending on your political point of view, modern capitalism has been enabled in large part due to the development of institutions that support exclusion and property rights. This is one of the most fundemental concepts in economic theory, and a key to understanding the very underpinnings of a co-operative society that engages in trading of goods, services, and knowledge in order to maximize scarce resources.

Perhaps these are dry subjects for some who just want a polital quick fix a la "The Corporation", but these may be valuable concepts to sprinkly into the project to prevent it from seeming naiive or hypothetically shallow.

See : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_rights_(economics)

Also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglass_North

scarce resources

On June 19th, 2007 Anonymous says:

Perhaps. But even economists recognize that so-called intellectual property rights are actually non-scarce, non-excludable. They don't behave like material goods.

Ownership is also about quality control.

On April 6th, 2007 pondus says:

Hi,

Brett, great interview on CBC. I'm the guy that started this thread, but I'm not the anonymous person who replied ;)

As an avid open source developer, I'm sometimes puzzled about how the Open Source concept is bantered around, without any real understanding of how it works in the real world. Opens Source software projects are often very restrictive in nature, and have very few people who are actually allowed to contribute to the source tree; this usually happens only after many months or even years of proving that they can cut it as a core developer.

Sadly, we live in a world short on modesty, where millions of talentless people suffer from the delusion that they have something to offer the world. Just watch the American Idol, or worse, go to an independent film festival where 16 mm camera wielding film makers pretentiously snub their noses at digital video, yet have no original ideas and nothing important to say.

So, I imagine that editors actually do a very important job that has nothing to do with profit, but for which ownership is a requirement: Quality Control ! This is perhaps offensive to some, but the fact is, we live in a world where not everyone has equal
talent. Some people just have betters skills, better insight, better tastes, usually as a result of years of hard fought experience and dedication.

Also, when producing anything, it usually helps if someone is ultimately accountable both for the budget, the plan, the message, and the final product. ;) But then again, Wikipedia is a great counter example of how something that anyone can contribute to actually produces pretty decent quality.

So, ownership is not just about profits, just as capitalism is not just about greed and money. As flawed as it is, it is really more of a legal framework where respect for private property and ownership has evolved naturally as the most workable system of co-operation available to human kind at the moment.

Too bad that overconsumption is currently destroying the world. Who needs yet another film, really ;)

pondus

"One tenth inspiration, nine-tenths perspiration." ... Edison

On April 25th, 2008 r39525 says:

pondus wrote...
"Sadly, we live in a world short on modesty, where millions of talentless people suffer from the delusion that they have something to offer the world."

Wow. That's quite a statement.

I would have to say everyone has talent to some degree, but talent is only one factor in the process of creating anything; art, music, software, hardware, pros, poetry, food, etc. I see art everywhere and amazed am at the abundance of talent, drive, commitment and craft around me every day.

What you reject as talentless art may impress someone else as the best thing they've ever seen. The painter Jackson Pollock was ridiculed by many for his new form; pictures that do not depict anything real. Would anyone call him talentless now?

Ideas are plentiful. What's rare is bringing something into beaning.

Well, that's my take on it.

Peace, Love, Laughter,

Rob:-]

ouch!

On April 6th, 2007 brett says:

Hi Pondus! Thanks for returning.

>As an avid open source developer, I'm sometimes puzzled about how the Open Source concept is >bantered around, without any real understanding of how it works in the real world.

The concept of Open Source is expanding beyond software. Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_content

>Opens Source software projects are often very restrictive in nature, and have very few people who are >actually allowed to contribute to the source tree; this usually happens only after many months or even >years of proving that they can cut it as a core developer.

This isn't a project like that ;) . Ultimately, the film Basement Tapes will be assembled by me, but this space (the website) should be about Creative anarchy. It isn't owned by anyone and should be fluid. This is the difference between art and software - art needs a LOT of influence.

>Sadly, we live in a world short on modesty, where millions of talentless people suffer from the delusion >that they have something to offer the world.

damn! Luckily, we live in a world where increasingly, millions of people REALIZE they have something to offer the world!

>Just watch the American Idol, or worse, go to an independent film festival where 16 mm camera >wielding film makers pretentiously snub their noses at digital video, yet have no original ideas and >nothing important to say.

I love going to independent film festivals! Filmmakers snub their noses at conventional forms and have a lot of important things to say.

modern capitalism

On April 2nd, 2007 brett says:

Thanks for the comment! I'd love to discuss this with you further.

I think you said it best when you mentioned that our economic system has been built to maximize scarce resources. And here is the rub: ideas are not a scarce resource! If we continue to treat them as such, we are applying old models to our new realities.

Treating thought like property will not work.

We're all naiive now - things are changing!

hmmm

On April 2nd, 2007 Anonymous says:

ideas may not be scarce...but good ones are.

so whats the suggestion?

On April 2nd, 2007 brett says:

Is this the same anonymous? If you register, that'll help us with the conversation :)

So - good ideas are scarce, and we need to create an incentive for people to come up with them or else they won't happen - is that the argument?

This was the original spirit of copyright - provide a limited term during which the author can be the sole party to exploit the work. The original copyright term in the US was 14 years.

Now we can see that this has been extended for the life of the author plus 75 years - 95 in the case of works owned by corporations. The result is that there is less and less work available for others to build upon.

I would advocate for a balance. Give the exclusivity as incentive to create, but recognize that this is a necessary evil that should only be employed for a limited term.

Turning ideas into content

On January 22nd, 2008 Montag says:

Good ideas may not be scarce, but good content can be.

The primary problem is taking a good idea and making good content out of it. It doesn't happen without hard work and funding. You couldn't crowd-source the movie Lord of the Rings, for example. First, you need a script. It takes time to write a script, and in that time the writer has to keep fed. You also need a dedicated crew, even if only a small core, but the more experienced the crew the better. To get an experienced crew you need money, because while the crew is working on your film, they won't be working anywhere else. To get money, you need investors, and investors need a return on that investment. They want to ensure they'll get that return through trust in the producers to make a good product and force of law, that is, the copyright that ensures only people giving money back to the production will be able to use the final product.

This is an example for film, which is a bit extreme since film is an incredibly expensive medium and is therefore bound more by money than most others. But it shows why some projects might need the traditional model, while other projects could benefit more from a freer one.

Good ideas are not scarce.

On April 3rd, 2007 Ryan says:

Good ideas are not scarce. Or rather the absence of copyright protection would not stymie creative incentive. Creativity flourished long before copyright protection. Just look at the renaissance. Without shared ideas there would be no modernism, beat generation, punk, elvis, old testament... to name a few.