I, for one, am 100% comfortable with a mass transit themed meme. The more people appreciate the cultural tropes of subway travel, (one hopes) the more attachment and value people invest in the system. (Again, we hope.)

So far there are U.S. highway and cosmos maps riffing on the metro. To get a better peek at Sam Loman’s interpretation of the body, you can click the image above. (When you land, be sure to take a stroll around the data visual goodness that is Information Aesthetics.)

Lethem doesn’t just pen a worthy and beautiful ode explaining and celebrating the culture of sharing — that is Our Culture, or to be even clearer, all culture — he also includes a Surprise of Genius Proportions. (So, my Skimming/Half-Reading Kin, if you really want to know why this is such a great read, you’ll just have to make it through to the end.)

I know “Long Form” articles can be a struggle in the World of a Thousand Browser Tabs, but whether you’re an old copyleftist or someone still trying to wrap your head around “this whole free culture thing,” take the time to treat your mind by clicking here.

All mankind is of one author, and is one volume; when one man dies, one chapter is not torn out of the book, but translated into a better language; and every chapter must be so translated… (John Donne)

,

Some coworkers passed along a link to this incredible portrait of the US rail system as told by Amtrak. Cameron Booth, the map’s creator offers some insight about his project:

Presenting the latest in my series of transit-styled diagrams, the entire Amtrak passenger rail system in the style of a subway map. Surprisingly, I haven’t seen another take on this anywhere else on the internet, but I guess it is a fairly monumental undertaking (Good thing I’m the patient type!). Every last station is shown, the result of a lot of research on both Amtrak’s official site and Wikipedia. This version has all station names and route information listed.

You can read more about the map on his blog.

As for what this says about Amtrak, well, either this confirms that Chicago is the center of the universe and New England is the only bastion of society left in a chaotic and drifting world — or that we have to do a heck of a better job reaching out to the central United States. I know large tracks of the West are farmlands and that people and cities tip towards the water, but that’s no excuse for investing too little time into exploring more thorough connections of rail system. Although Amtrak may consider these low-populations density areas a suck on their revenue, there are bigger things at stake than making profit. When we leave areas with a lower populations density without access to public transportation, what we’re doing is further isolating the isolated: both in belief systems, limited employment options, their dependence on cars, and any number of other things a progressive can whine about.

So, let’s see some public encouragement for more rail development. Amtrak may not be ideal — it’s a monopoly, it’s subsidized by the government, it’s the best rail service, it’s the worst rail service, it’s the only (national) rail service — but its rails give great foundation for sensible expansion with smart urban development. Let’s hope $8 billion for high-speed rail projects the Obama Administration allocated from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act will do (at least some of) that.

According to Arstechnica, one way to answer this question is ask another: “not whether some change [to copyright law] would produce less money for rightsholders, but whether some change would remove incentives to create. Has file-sharing reduced creators’ incentives?”

Given the results of their recent research study, Arstechnica turned to Felix Oberholzer-Gee of Harvard and Koleman Strumpf of the University of Kansas for insight. Oberholzer-Gee and Strumpf are a little biased:

The publication of new books rose by 66 percent over the 2002-2007 period. Since 2000, the annual release of new music albums has more than doubled, and worldwide feature film production is up by more than 30 percent since 2003… In our reading of the evidence there is little to suggest that the new technology has discouraged artistic production. Weaker copyright protection, it seems, has benefited society.

There are unarguable flaws with Oberholzer-Gee and Strumpf’s evaluation of their study –

(1) just because music and movie sales didn’t crash doesn’t necessarily prove that weak copyright had a positive impact so much as it didn’t have (as great a?) negative impact;(2) that the French music industry can more empirically show damage as a result of copyright in a similar market (of course, the French music market is smaller than the American market, which continues to throw it’s weight – and sales – around Europe…);(3) even Ok Go, a band that just split off from EMI to make their own label where they could make their own music and publish it the way they want without restrictions acknowledges smaller, newer bands are still dependent on the major labels for support and distribution — and who are the people that lose money in peer-to-peer sharing? Not Rhianna….(Link to come.)

The particulars of this particular study aside, it’s good to see the press (we can call Arstechnica “the press” right? ….Right?) digging at such a meaty thesis: is “stronger” copyright “better” copyright? In the next few months, especially as ACTA considerations rise, we need to make sure that this question makes it into the minds of as many people as possible.

Quick sketch from last week’s viewing of an incrediblely thought-provoking film.

“Walking on Eggshells” is a 24-minute documentary about appropriation, creative influence, re-use and intellectual property in the remix age. It is a conversation among various musicians, visual artists, writers and lawyers, all sharing their views on why and how we use and create culture, and how intellectual property law, originally designed to provide people with incentives to create, sometimes hinders creative production far more than it enhances it.

Watch the full film as a Youtube playlist here: WALKING ON EGGSHELLS

OR click HERE to view the film in its entirety on Vimeo

What is art? Art is speech; art is both expression and the means of expressing oneself. Art encompasses written and spoken language, but isn’t bound to the lexicon. (I can guess what you’re thinking — “PRETENSION!” — but bear with me here.)

If we can agree that art is expression then there are two interpretations of how it can function: (a) art is static: what is expressed is pushed into the world and the only form of “interaction” we can have with it is “appreciation” — essentially, we can know the art exists and, on occasion, we can stare at/listen to it.

But, let’s step back. Consider that if art is expression, if art encompasses language but isn’t cornered by the limitations of using words to express ideas, might there be a form of — gasp — artistic conversation? Enter (b) art is active: as an “expression,” art makes “appreciation” active. That is, when we encounter art, we can take our reflections, interpretations, (mis)understandings, questions … and turn them back to the art. We can respond to art with art.

In fact, art is a two-way conversation. It’s about culture, it’s about politics, it’s about the wildness of human survival, it’s about people’s opinions about the way the world works. When someone writes an opinion article in a newspaper, you can write back to them. You can quote them; you can critique them or support them or reference them because you’re able to quote them. You can quote other people, too. All words are open. When someone expresses themselves in writing, you can respond in writing.

When someone expresses themselves in any other another medium, however, the law says that you do not have the freedom to fully respond to them in that medium. You can’t respond to a musician in music; you can’t reply to a film in film, to an ad with an interpretation of the ad’s image. You are only allowed “to listen,” to consume the author’s point of view. “Artists” may not be saying anything different than writers, but they say it differently — they speak in pictures, in paint, in c notes, in steel. Copyright tells you that this difference in medium means something. We need to be critical and respond. Ask, “Really?”

What’s the threat of the big bad remix? What happens when I respond to you without words that in any way threatens your liberty, creativity, or “ownership” as an original author? Just like any good written material, an “artistic” response should (and will) cite the source material. So you can’t see the credit in a footnote written on the page because you’re listening to an audio file or checking out an infographic? Check the meta-data. As our technology has evolved, so too has our ability to thoroughly, appropriately, and consistently give credit where credit’s due.

You say the original author is going to lose revenue? How? Because someone will steal their material? That’s why we define a line between plagiarism and fair use. Plagiarism and fair use are different. The copyleft is not advocating for plagiarism. No one is advocating for the dissolution of proper citation and respect for creation. What we want — and what we should be demanding — is the other right: the right to fair use. The right to respond. Journalists and newspapers don’t fear becoming obsolete because someone is quoting them. In fact, they thrive on quotation. Quotation is recognition. Quotation breeds capitol. So, don’t tell me copyright incentivizes. Copyright doesn’t incentivize. Fame incentivizes. Recognition for skill and quality incentivizes. Excitement, interest, conversation, and shared knowledge capitol incentivize.

Technology has made it easier than ever before for the average person to compose photographs, edit video, cut sound, paint — and write. Major news-media groups may look down their noses at the blogs that have popped up all over the Internet, but blogging provides a critical platform for Joe and Jane Anybody to write about and respond to … anything. Most blogs function by quoting up a storm, but when people use parallel platforms to try to post remixes of music or a depiction of a culture-jammed Mickey Mouse to a blog or website their work may be taken down. The populist particulars of blogs and art remixes on the Internet is a subject deserving more thought for a later time, but the take away message is this:

There is no excuse to silence “artistic conversation” because of proprietary fears. People have the intelligence, the ability, and the tools to create, engage, and respond with art. We know this because people are already creating, engaging, and responding in text — and lo, the world has not come to an end. Money still changes hands. Bylines still appear under headlines. We still recognize individuals for their thoughts and words and achievements.

Why should communication be any different through “alternative,” non-textual means? I don’t know. I don’t understand the fear. It’s fine to choose to sit out on the conversation — to look, to watch, or to listen without choosing to respond to art, but remember that this is a choice that you get to make. And when it’s my choice, I want all my options available to me.