Matze Schmidt on Sun, 12 Feb 2012 02:31:47 +0100 (CET)

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

<nettime> ACTA Act

|<---------- Width: 72 Chars - Fixed Font: Courier New, 10 ----------->|

For the n0name newsletter


Ali Emas


In the subway I had to ask three young women, who had tacked the 
word on their jackets or put it on their mouth protection, "What is 
ACTA?". One of them just said: "Youtube". This direct and perfect 
hook-up of the locutive and the illocutive parts within the act 
of speech <in the speech act theory the act of speeking which 
linguistically always means something extralinguistic>, by which 
Reality and Adress of its Finding coincide, caused in my case -- 
smart online -- already the perlocution, this action convinced for 
operation, in which the result of the speech act time-wise coincides 
with its execution. I don't remember, had forgotten every plea. 
The trade agreement that has been protested in February was already 
not up-to-date anymore in the seconds of the selection of 
apppropriate search engines and was discarded by the government in 
a play of words, "ad acta" in the words of the electronic press.

But the act and its linguistical appeal (or the other way round), 
did they not fall apart in this? If this agreement complicates 
juridically more than it resolves for the capital, therefore harms 
the mittelstand, and when the resistance forms en massive while 
simultaneously they abandon the intentions to ratify the 
agreement, to what extend therefore is "conscient what ACTA means" 
(modified quote Markus Beckedahl,

Some wrote about the ratio of distribution and that a tightened 
Copyright Law would not bring the little author any profit. Exactly 
the piratistic ostensible self-employment. Or do they want Diversity?

In front of the Mall, in cheap gold and red stone before the 
concrete, the "mobile" sausage vendors are standing in the cold and 
the even attacked ACTA will do nothing. The Office for Public Order 
and Regulation says: "Prohibition would be an intervention in the 
freedom of trade." So prohibition, the tightened protection of the 
Copyright Holder of the idea to let people even those in wheelchairs 
sell sausages with hawker's trays would disturb diversified 
competition. At this point locution, illocution and perlocution 
coincide again: The assertion in language about the fact of business 
competition and the course of action with the help of an assertion 
in language and the persuasion by this speech act are one. What kind 
of tape with the sign "ACTA" at the mouth changes that? Again merely 
the Power of Speech instead of the Power of Activeness. Both are 
separable despite of Speech Activism.

#  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:
#  archive: contact: