7 ms·

#abolishcopyright. Musicians if you’re listening, find a different way to earn a living than depending upon the enslavement of ideas (and by extension, individu

by breck 6y ago

#abolishcopyright. Musicians if you’re listening, find a different way to earn a living than depending upon the enslavement of ideas (and by extension, individuals). Copyright is abhorrent, and needs to go. There are better ways.

dpatterbee 6y ago
This is an interesting take I haven't heard much before. Could you expand on what the alternatives are?
- dontblink 6y ago
  Mostly merchandising and touring.
  - falcolas 6y ago
    How does an author do this? An artist? How much money can the 20th musician in a day doing a tour expect to really make? An orchestra? How about movies? They'd cease to exist (barring a few youtube-quality productions).
- breck 6y ago
  It's an exciting time for alternatives. Patreon, Twitch, Cameo, OnlyFans, et al, are providing ways to connect with your community and earn a living through their support, which is not only very important during shutdowns when live events are harder, but will be a long term trend. On the production side costs continue to drop, and if we #abolishcopyright cost of living across the world will drop dramatically, so will be easier to balance the budget.
  - toyg 6y ago
    > if we #abolishcopyright cost of living across the world will drop dramatically I sincerely doubt that. Food and shelter won't magically cost less because there is no copyright.
- jedimastert 6y ago
  Other than performance and merchandise, I think Patreon is really the big ticket right now. I suppose, in reality, this has been the case for around 3 decades now. Unless you have the marketing department, you don't make money from music sales.
  - falcolas 6y ago
    Patreon works because everybody's not on there. If I tried to give $1 to every artist that I listen to on Spotify, I'd be paying out hundreds of dollars a month. Throw in books, videos, movies, and TV shows (all of which rely upon copyright), I'd be paying out thousands of dollars. I could scale back my contribution to each artist to pennies each (which doesn't actually work, given the $0.30 cent/3% CC cut), but then we're back to where we are today. Patreon (and their ilk) is not tenable at scale.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
jmercouris 6y ago
You'll have to enlighten me. What are the better ways? Why should you not own copyright to that which you produce?
- toyg 6y ago
  > Why should you not own copyright to that which you produce? You don't want to use that line of argument, since authors and musicians are among the very few categories of workers with that privilege. As much as I agree with you (and actually think that privilege to be expanded to all workers), you won't find any solidarity from the common public on that line.
  - falcolas 6y ago
    > since authors and musicians are among the very few categories of workers with that privilege Don't forget software developers. All of our various licenses (and even our work-for-hire for various companies) relies upon copyright as well. There's also reporters, photographers, journalists, YouTube content creators, TV, and movies, just to name a few off the top of my head.
    - toyg 6y ago
      In practice, very few of these actually benefit from copyright. Most do work-for-hire, which is effectively a negation or renounce to one’s IP rights; and opensource is effectively a way to do the same. The ones who can actually extract direct benefit from IP are “ the 1%”, so to speak.
  - justynadorsz 6y ago
    This is interesting. I didn't know that most people were against copyright.
- juancn 6y ago
  Copyright and patents creates artificial scarcity. The things protected are not scarce, they are abundant. Ideas and information are easy to copy/reproduce. So we built a fake framework on top of something plentiful and cheap to copy, to make it more expensive so some people can make money out of it.
thatguy0900 6y ago
Well, in the article it says that they are doing this partly because coronavirus has wiped out a lot of live music. If they can't stream for profit and they can't do live shows what do you suggest?
- cwkoss 6y ago
  Get a job that pays. Not everyone is talented and lucky enough to be paid a comfortable wage for the products of their hobbies.
RhodesianHunter 6y ago
I think this is a bit like the 2A argument. There's a really happy medium that neither side ever talks about. Just dramatically reduce the legal length of copyrights. One year maybe?
- mchusma 6y ago
  The US Constitution set copyright originally as 14 years, extendable by another 14. This sounds about right. I think artists would not be dissuaded from working and would monetize the roughly the same with 20-30 year copyright terms.
  - ccsnags 6y ago
    Most artists work for free. Some of the best artists I know have day jobs. The promise of fame and fortune is a product of an industry that is based on physical media being the only way to share information. The bit has liberated music for everyone yet we cling to the past.
    - falcolas 6y ago
      > Some of the best artists I know have day jobs. Most artists with regular output do not. The problem with a day job is it takes away from what a person can produce. For example, a content creator (i.e. YouTuber) with a day job is lucky to get out one-two videos a week. A full time content creator can produce one to two videos a day, often with better quality since they can focus on the work.
      - ccsnags 6y ago
        With the state of advertising on youtube, patreon, ad reads and super chats are a more reliable way to monetize than copyrighting the video. Youtube content creators are a good example of people monetizing art without the need for copyright. Donations and voluntary funding are key parts of the content creator world already. Copyright is not particularly important unless they are getting strikes from a copyright troll.
ccsnags 6y ago
Artist and Dev here. Yes to this. Having an imagination means you can think of different ways to monetize your work that isn’t trying to put an imaginary wall around ideas and information.
- justynadorsz 6y ago
  Also, artist and dev here. I don't agree. First, ideas are not copyrighted anyway. Second, you are both vague about those "different ways" of earning. Please expand on that.
  - ccsnags 6y ago
    Patrons. Sell merch. Sell tickets. Super chats. Patents and copyrights are literally ideas put on paper that one is claiming legal dominion over. Unless you are making physical media, your products are your ideas. It’s a tradeoff, not a cure for problems artists face. The current system favors wealthy institutions over artists. No one is willing to donate to a giant record company but fans of the work will readily give money to the artist just because they like them. Patronage is a better system for artists.
    - falcolas 6y ago
      > Patrons. Sell merch. Sell tickets. Super chats. None of those scale. I pointed this out elsewhere, but how much money would a creator on Patreon make if all creators were on Patreon, hoping to make at least $1 per month per follower? Musicians alone would push me into the hundreds of dollars (which really means a vast majority of musicians would make nothing from me; less than they're getting via Spotify). How much are you willing to pay for tickets to the 20th tour in a week that's in your area? For their merch? As for myself, precious little. Probably not enough to even cover their tour costs, let alone the cost of producing the music (and merch) in the first place. > Patents and copyrights are literally ideas put on paper that one is claiming legal dominion over. Patents and copyrights make it practical to cover the costs of realizing those ideas in the first place. Ideas aren't worth anything until they're realized, be it in writing for a book, or a performance for a song. Books often take a minimum of 6 months of full time effort to produce. There's multiple people involved - the writer, the editor, the proofreader, the typesetter. How do they pay for it if they can't make any money from actually selling the book? Music takes weeks or months of effort in a studio to produce. How do you recoup those costs if you can't sell the output?
Taylor_OD 6y ago
Your bringing up another issue entirely. What do you think about the unionization effort?
- adwn 6y ago
  > Your bringing up another issue entirely. That's the poster's modus operandi here: he doesn't miss an opportunity to advertise his two favorite topics – abolishment of intellectual property and his own whitespace-based data notation – whether it's on-topic or not.
  - breck 6y ago
    Aloha anonymous coward, The correct term is #ImaginaryProperty Yours truly, Breck Yunits
adwn 6y ago
> #abolishcopyright This isn't Twitter. I'm not sure what you hope to accomplish by using hashtags on HN, but it makes you look like an immature child – similar to writing "M$" in the 90s and early 00s.
- breck 6y ago
  Thanks for the feedback. I understand that Twitter supports hashtags better, so that will be my preferred place to post things like #AbolishImaginaryProperty #EndPatents #BringBackNapster #LiberateIdeas
- ccsnags 6y ago
  #thisguyknowswhathashtagsmeanbutisajerkaboutit
  - adwn 6y ago
    > #thisguyknowswhathashtagsmean[...] I don't, actually. Please, enlighten me as to the purpose of hashtags on HN.
kmeisthax 6y ago
We've had two decades to envision alternative funding models for music production, and all of them are substantially worse for the musician than "assign a creator's monopoly to the musician and civil liabilities for those who fail to negotiate proper licenses to it". Free markets are designed to allocate scarce goods; with the corollary any person whose work is not scarce does not get to eat. Ergo, if you want certain kinds of nonscarce goods to be made, you need to make them artificially scarce for some limited period. This is particular to creative works. Free Software gets around this with lots of subsidies, commodified complements, corporate investment, and occasional labors of love. The fact that software is highly collaborative and that licenses like the GPL exist helps. A handful of collaborating developers can produce a spare-time project that is actually useful to other people who will sponsor development of further improvements to the project. Music does not work that way.
- falcolas 6y ago
  I largely agree with this. If you want music to be libre, someone needs to subsidize the cost of creation: The wages for the musicians for one-two months, the wages of the technicians, the rent for the studio, and also subsidize the cost of writing the song in the first place. The current paradigm amortizes those costs among all listeners of a song, with some profit for the facilitators.
  - ccsnags 6y ago
    An artist isn’t entitled to having their work funded unless someone voluntarily funds it. This does not require legal fiction. Entire genres of music have been created from inexpensive musical equipment and free software. Art has never been more accessible to the people than it is now.
    - falcolas 6y ago
      > An artist isn’t entitled to having their work funded unless someone voluntarily funds it. Then we simply never get their work. Some people would absolutely continue to create for the fun of it, but they'll remain the minority. Movies you'd watch in a Theater? Completely gone. Commercially funded TV shows, gone. A vast majority of books, written by full time writers and researchers, gone. And I'll also posit that most music would go away too. Even the amateurs I know expect to be paid for a gig. Most musicians are not willing to busk for a living. And, don't forget, software development relies heavily upon Copyright as well (licenses, your work-for-hire, etc).
beckman466 6y ago
dear Breck, I've been appreciating your posts on IP, and your campaigning for this cause overall. I'm wondering if you knew that Karl Marx summed up the desire of communists in one sentence [in The Communist Manifesto]? "...the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property." [1] That's it. That's what all the fuss is about. It was a revelation to me because it seemed too simple at first, yet that's all that communists desire to bring about. This desire includes abolishing 'intellectual property' (trade secrets, copyrighted material, patented processes etc.). As you rightly described, any human knowledge originates socially to start with: “We are all putting grains of sand on mountains built by our ancestors”. This inheritance is what we aim to communize. Even though the communist manifesto is over 170 years old, Marx' critique remains as relevant as relevant as ever: capitalist firms caused the opioid crisis in the US; all over the world there's a landlord crisis - with many suffering homelessness (despite there being vacant buildings) [2]; capitalists have moved much of the industrial production to the global south - e.g. clothes are produced in sweatshops in China/Bangladesh/Eritrea; Playstations are causing wars in Congo [3]; our smartphones are made with conflict resources [4]; and we have a toxic e-waste crisis that is blocking us from re-using black-boxed hardware/components (as well as trade secrets and patents stopping many from being able to learn about technology and science in the first place - artificial scarcity of expertise created by capitalists) - as well as well as this e-waste leaching chemicals and poisoning the land, predominantly in the global south [5]. With 'abolishing private property' we don't mean that we want to get rid of the idea of all property systems. We want to get rid of today's bourgeois property system, as it has allowed a small minority to exclude others and plunder the commons [6], resulting in the division of labor and alienation. It's not about having a big or small capitalist government (capitalist governments are the ones who grant monopolies in the first place). We want full democracy in the workplace. That is what we call socialism, communism, or a communist production system. We also believe that this system, communism, is humanity's true nature. The reason we have been persecuted is because many capitalists are very happy with their 'haul' (and the power-over others domination that comes with it), and because we communists want to continually ask the question: "how we can constantly expand who benefits from new science and technology?" (which we refer to as communizing/socializing the means of production). I'm a bit scared this might be something you already know, so please do let me know if I've overstepped. My yearning by writing this is to meet my needs for connection, clarity and cooperation, yet this might not be the best strategy. I also want to share with you this awesome video I watched a few days ago, in case it interests you: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--TsGaNyr0U https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--TsGaNyr0U [1] The Communist Manifesto (chapter 2), https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-m... [2] Push (2019) - a short new documentary about venture capital and the financialization of housing. Trailer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2iLWpuZrd-I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2iLWpuZrd-I, full: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qWSVG9nsRa4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qWSVG9nsRa4 (you can easily download with yt1s.com if you're not currently in the US/Canada, if it's geo-blocked) [3] Inside Africa's 'PlayStation War', https://www.wired.com/2008/07/the-playstation-2/ https://www.wired.com/2008/07/the-playstation-2/, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2J7efsz_Y-c https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2J7efsz_Y-c [4] Blood in the Mobile, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tv-hE4Yx0LU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tv-hE4Yx0LU [5] Agbobloshie, Ghana https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mleQVO1Vd1I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mleQVO1Vd1I [6] Professor Guy Standing on 'rentier capitalism', https://www.resilience.org/stories/2017-08-03/book-day-corruption-capitalism-guy-standing/ https://www.resilience.org/stories/2017-08-03/book-day-corru...

by breck 6y ago

dpatterbee 6y ago

This is an interesting take I haven't heard much before. Could you expand on what the alternatives are?

dontblink 6y ago
Mostly merchandising and touring.
- falcolas 6y ago
  How does an author do this? An artist? How much money can the 20th musician in a day doing a tour expect to really make? An orchestra? How about movies? They'd cease to exist (barring a few youtube-quality productions).
breck 6y ago
It's an exciting time for alternatives. Patreon, Twitch, Cameo, OnlyFans, et al, are providing ways to connect with your community and earn a living through their support, which is not only very important during shutdowns when live events are harder, but will be a long term trend. On the production side costs continue to drop, and if we #abolishcopyright cost of living across the world will drop dramatically, so will be easier to balance the budget.
- toyg 6y ago
  > if we #abolishcopyright cost of living across the world will drop dramatically I sincerely doubt that. Food and shelter won't magically cost less because there is no copyright.
jedimastert 6y ago
Other than performance and merchandise, I think Patreon is really the big ticket right now. I suppose, in reality, this has been the case for around 3 decades now. Unless you have the marketing department, you don't make money from music sales.
- falcolas 6y ago
  Patreon works because everybody's not on there. If I tried to give $1 to every artist that I listen to on Spotify, I'd be paying out hundreds of dollars a month. Throw in books, videos, movies, and TV shows (all of which rely upon copyright), I'd be paying out thousands of dollars. I could scale back my contribution to each artist to pennies each (which doesn't actually work, given the $0.30 cent/3% CC cut), but then we're back to where we are today. Patreon (and their ilk) is not tenable at scale.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

jmercouris 6y ago

You'll have to enlighten me. What are the better ways? Why should you not own copyright to that which you produce?

toyg 6y ago
> Why should you not own copyright to that which you produce? You don't want to use that line of argument, since authors and musicians are among the very few categories of workers with that privilege. As much as I agree with you (and actually think that privilege to be expanded to all workers), you won't find any solidarity from the common public on that line.
- falcolas 6y ago
  > since authors and musicians are among the very few categories of workers with that privilege Don't forget software developers. All of our various licenses (and even our work-for-hire for various companies) relies upon copyright as well. There's also reporters, photographers, journalists, YouTube content creators, TV, and movies, just to name a few off the top of my head.
  - toyg 6y ago
    In practice, very few of these actually benefit from copyright. Most do work-for-hire, which is effectively a negation or renounce to one’s IP rights; and opensource is effectively a way to do the same. The ones who can actually extract direct benefit from IP are “ the 1%”, so to speak.
- justynadorsz 6y ago
  This is interesting. I didn't know that most people were against copyright.
juancn 6y ago
Copyright and patents creates artificial scarcity. The things protected are not scarce, they are abundant. Ideas and information are easy to copy/reproduce. So we built a fake framework on top of something plentiful and cheap to copy, to make it more expensive so some people can make money out of it.

thatguy0900 6y ago

Well, in the article it says that they are doing this partly because coronavirus has wiped out a lot of live music. If they can't stream for profit and they can't do live shows what do you suggest?

cwkoss 6y ago
Get a job that pays. Not everyone is talented and lucky enough to be paid a comfortable wage for the products of their hobbies.

RhodesianHunter 6y ago

I think this is a bit like the 2A argument. There's a really happy medium that neither side ever talks about. Just dramatically reduce the legal length of copyrights. One year maybe?

mchusma 6y ago
The US Constitution set copyright originally as 14 years, extendable by another 14. This sounds about right. I think artists would not be dissuaded from working and would monetize the roughly the same with 20-30 year copyright terms.
- ccsnags 6y ago
  Most artists work for free. Some of the best artists I know have day jobs. The promise of fame and fortune is a product of an industry that is based on physical media being the only way to share information. The bit has liberated music for everyone yet we cling to the past.
  - falcolas 6y ago
    > Some of the best artists I know have day jobs. Most artists with regular output do not. The problem with a day job is it takes away from what a person can produce. For example, a content creator (i.e. YouTuber) with a day job is lucky to get out one-two videos a week. A full time content creator can produce one to two videos a day, often with better quality since they can focus on the work.
    - ccsnags 6y ago
      With the state of advertising on youtube, patreon, ad reads and super chats are a more reliable way to monetize than copyrighting the video. Youtube content creators are a good example of people monetizing art without the need for copyright. Donations and voluntary funding are key parts of the content creator world already. Copyright is not particularly important unless they are getting strikes from a copyright troll.

ccsnags 6y ago

Artist and Dev here. Yes to this. Having an imagination means you can think of different ways to monetize your work that isn’t trying to put an imaginary wall around ideas and information.

justynadorsz 6y ago
Also, artist and dev here. I don't agree. First, ideas are not copyrighted anyway. Second, you are both vague about those "different ways" of earning. Please expand on that.
- ccsnags 6y ago
  Patrons. Sell merch. Sell tickets. Super chats. Patents and copyrights are literally ideas put on paper that one is claiming legal dominion over. Unless you are making physical media, your products are your ideas. It’s a tradeoff, not a cure for problems artists face. The current system favors wealthy institutions over artists. No one is willing to donate to a giant record company but fans of the work will readily give money to the artist just because they like them. Patronage is a better system for artists.
  - falcolas 6y ago
    > Patrons. Sell merch. Sell tickets. Super chats. None of those scale. I pointed this out elsewhere, but how much money would a creator on Patreon make if all creators were on Patreon, hoping to make at least $1 per month per follower? Musicians alone would push me into the hundreds of dollars (which really means a vast majority of musicians would make nothing from me; less than they're getting via Spotify). How much are you willing to pay for tickets to the 20th tour in a week that's in your area? For their merch? As for myself, precious little. Probably not enough to even cover their tour costs, let alone the cost of producing the music (and merch) in the first place. > Patents and copyrights are literally ideas put on paper that one is claiming legal dominion over. Patents and copyrights make it practical to cover the costs of realizing those ideas in the first place. Ideas aren't worth anything until they're realized, be it in writing for a book, or a performance for a song. Books often take a minimum of 6 months of full time effort to produce. There's multiple people involved - the writer, the editor, the proofreader, the typesetter. How do they pay for it if they can't make any money from actually selling the book? Music takes weeks or months of effort in a studio to produce. How do you recoup those costs if you can't sell the output?

Taylor_OD 6y ago

Your bringing up another issue entirely. What do you think about the unionization effort?

adwn 6y ago
> Your bringing up another issue entirely. That's the poster's modus operandi here: he doesn't miss an opportunity to advertise his two favorite topics – abolishment of intellectual property and his own whitespace-based data notation – whether it's on-topic or not.
- breck 6y ago
  Aloha anonymous coward, The correct term is #ImaginaryProperty Yours truly, Breck Yunits

adwn 6y ago

> #abolishcopyright This isn't Twitter. I'm not sure what you hope to accomplish by using hashtags on HN, but it makes you look like an immature child – similar to writing "M$" in the 90s and early 00s.

breck 6y ago
Thanks for the feedback. I understand that Twitter supports hashtags better, so that will be my preferred place to post things like #AbolishImaginaryProperty #EndPatents #BringBackNapster #LiberateIdeas
ccsnags 6y ago
#thisguyknowswhathashtagsmeanbutisajerkaboutit
- adwn 6y ago
  > #thisguyknowswhathashtagsmean[...] I don't, actually. Please, enlighten me as to the purpose of hashtags on HN.

kmeisthax 6y ago

We've had two decades to envision alternative funding models for music production, and all of them are substantially worse for the musician than "assign a creator's monopoly to the musician and civil liabilities for those who fail to negotiate proper licenses to it". Free markets are designed to allocate scarce goods; with the corollary any person whose work is not scarce does not get to eat. Ergo, if you want certain kinds of nonscarce goods to be made, you need to make them artificially scarce for some limited period. This is particular to creative works. Free Software gets around this with lots of subsidies, commodified complements, corporate investment, and occasional labors of love. The fact that software is highly collaborative and that licenses like the GPL exist helps. A handful of collaborating developers can produce a spare-time project that is actually useful to other people who will sponsor development of further improvements to the project. Music does not work that way.

falcolas 6y ago
I largely agree with this. If you want music to be libre, someone needs to subsidize the cost of creation: The wages for the musicians for one-two months, the wages of the technicians, the rent for the studio, and also subsidize the cost of writing the song in the first place. The current paradigm amortizes those costs among all listeners of a song, with some profit for the facilitators.
- ccsnags 6y ago
  An artist isn’t entitled to having their work funded unless someone voluntarily funds it. This does not require legal fiction. Entire genres of music have been created from inexpensive musical equipment and free software. Art has never been more accessible to the people than it is now.
  - falcolas 6y ago
    > An artist isn’t entitled to having their work funded unless someone voluntarily funds it. Then we simply never get their work. Some people would absolutely continue to create for the fun of it, but they'll remain the minority. Movies you'd watch in a Theater? Completely gone. Commercially funded TV shows, gone. A vast majority of books, written by full time writers and researchers, gone. And I'll also posit that most music would go away too. Even the amateurs I know expect to be paid for a gig. Most musicians are not willing to busk for a living. And, don't forget, software development relies heavily upon Copyright as well (licenses, your work-for-hire, etc).

beckman466 6y ago

dear Breck, I've been appreciating your posts on IP, and your campaigning for this cause overall. I'm wondering if you knew that Karl Marx summed up the desire of communists in one sentence [in The Communist Manifesto]? "...the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property." [1] That's it. That's what all the fuss is about. It was a revelation to me because it seemed too simple at first, yet that's all that communists desire to bring about. This desire includes abolishing 'intellectual property' (trade secrets, copyrighted material, patented processes etc.). As you rightly described, any human knowledge originates socially to start with: “We are all putting grains of sand on mountains built by our ancestors”. This inheritance is what we aim to communize. Even though the communist manifesto is over 170 years old, Marx' critique remains as relevant as relevant as ever: capitalist firms caused the opioid crisis in the US; all over the world there's a landlord crisis - with many suffering homelessness (despite there being vacant buildings) [2]; capitalists have moved much of the industrial production to the global south - e.g. clothes are produced in sweatshops in China/Bangladesh/Eritrea; Playstations are causing wars in Congo [3]; our smartphones are made with conflict resources [4]; and we have a toxic e-waste crisis that is blocking us from re-using black-boxed hardware/components (as well as trade secrets and patents stopping many from being able to learn about technology and science in the first place - artificial scarcity of expertise created by capitalists) - as well as well as this e-waste leaching chemicals and poisoning the land, predominantly in the global south [5]. With 'abolishing private property' we don't mean that we want to get rid of the idea of all property systems. We want to get rid of today's bourgeois property system, as it has allowed a small minority to exclude others and plunder the commons [6], resulting in the division of labor and alienation. It's not about having a big or small capitalist government (capitalist governments are the ones who grant monopolies in the first place). We want full democracy in the workplace. That is what we call socialism, communism, or a communist production system. We also believe that this system, communism, is humanity's true nature. The reason we have been persecuted is because many capitalists are very happy with their 'haul' (and the power-over others domination that comes with it), and because we communists want to continually ask the question: "how we can constantly expand who benefits from new science and technology?" (which we refer to as communizing/socializing the means of production). I'm a bit scared this might be something you already know, so please do let me know if I've overstepped. My yearning by writing this is to meet my needs for connection, clarity and cooperation, yet this might not be the best strategy. I also want to share with you this awesome video I watched a few days ago, in case it interests you: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--TsGaNyr0U https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--TsGaNyr0U [1] The Communist Manifesto (chapter 2), https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-m... [2] Push (2019) - a short new documentary about venture capital and the financialization of housing. Trailer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2iLWpuZrd-I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2iLWpuZrd-I, full: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qWSVG9nsRa4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qWSVG9nsRa4 (you can easily download with yt1s.com if you're not currently in the US/Canada, if it's geo-blocked) [3] Inside Africa's 'PlayStation War', https://www.wired.com/2008/07/the-playstation-2/ https://www.wired.com/2008/07/the-playstation-2/, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2J7efsz_Y-c https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2J7efsz_Y-c [4] Blood in the Mobile, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tv-hE4Yx0LU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tv-hE4Yx0LU [5] Agbobloshie, Ghana https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mleQVO1Vd1I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mleQVO1Vd1I [6] Professor Guy Standing on 'rentier capitalism', https://www.resilience.org/stories/2017-08-03/book-day-corruption-capitalism-guy-standing/ https://www.resilience.org/stories/2017-08-03/book-day-corru...