Sunday, January 13, 2013

Aaron H. Swartz

In Memoriam:

Aaron H. Swartz (November 8, 1986 – January 11, 2013) - writer, archivist, political organizer, and internet activist

Tuesday, June 26, 2012

That NPR Post Everyone’s Talking About

That NPR Post Everyone’s Talking About

Story by chaps676
Published on June 26, 2012 in Read

If you checked into almost any social media outlet last week, you might’ve caught the hubbub: Emily White, a new intern for NPR’s All Songs Considered, published a blog post confessing that she’d only bought 15 CDs in her lifetime, yet has more than 11,000 songs in her personal iTunes library. The article reveals a young music lover, struggling to understand the broken system of music distribution. “As I’ve grown up, I’ve come to realize the gravity of what file-sharing means to the musicians I love. I can’t support them with concert tickets and T-shirts alone. But I honestly don’t think my peers and I will ever pay for albums,” she wrote. Neither White or NPR probably had any inkling of the backlash her article would provoke, aggravating old wounds that were deeper than anyone thought.
In the most thorough response to Emily White’s blog post, David Lowery, a 51-year-old college professor who founded the bands Camper Van Beethoven and Cracker, schools White on the unfair economics of the music business. Lowery’s response is worth reading; with a lifetime of experience in the business, he makes many excellent points. One comment, directed at White’s millennial brethren, stands out:
“Many in your generation are willing to pay a little extra to buy ‘fair trade’ coffee that insures the workers that harvested the coffee were paid fairly. Many in your generation will pay a little more to buy clothing and shoes from manufacturers that certify they don’t use sweatshops… Your generation is largely responsible for the recent cultural changes that has given more equality to same sex couples. On nearly every count, your generation is much more ethical and fair than my generation. Except for one thing. Artist rights.”
While others have been quick to point out that the millennials aren’t the only generation to engage in music theft, Lowery drives the point home in a way that had never crossed my mind: many are willing to pay $5 for a latte they’ll consume once, but not $9.99 for an album that lasts a lifetime.
In a way, I feel bad for Emily. She unknowingly put herself at the center of a greater debate surrounding artistic rights and technological evolution. Her short, honest blog post got everyone slinging arrows and pointing fingers, when what we really should be asking is, how do we recreate the music industry as a system that rewards artists in a world of file sharing?
The bottom line is that if you are an artist whose work can be digitally reproduced, times are tough. Music streaming services like Spotify and Pandora are attempting to grow subscriber bases that will result in bigger and better royalty payments to record companies and their artists. Crowdfunding sites like Kickstarter provide musicians the chance to produce and distribute their work without a large record label acting as the middleman. Still, no one has found the magic formula.
The most immediate, positive outcome of this conversation is that it begs us to reflect on our own consumer habits. I, too, grew up on the digital divide, witnessing the waning days of cassette tapes, the era of CDs, and the rise of file sharing programs like Napster and LimeWire, but I left music piracy behind when I began meeting and making friends with hardworking musicians. Perhaps the key lies in that personal connection. If you feel like you know the musician behind the sounds pouring from your headphones, it changes your idea of what music is worth.

Chappell Ellison is a designer, writer and design writer. She currently lives in Brooklyn, New York where she serves as a contributor for The Etsy Blog and design columnist for GOOD.

Monday, June 18, 2012

Letter to Emily White at NPR All Songs Considered.

Letter to Emily White at NPR All Songs Considered.

The Trichordist
Artists For An Ethical Internet

Recently Emily White, an intern at NPR All Songs Considered and GM of what appears to be her college radio station, wrote a post on the NPR blog in which she acknowledged that while she had 11,000 songs in her music library, she’s only paid for 15 CDs in her life. Our intention is not to embarrass or shame her. We believe young people like Emily White who are fully engaged in the music scene are the artist’s biggest allies. We also believe–for reasons we’ll get into–that she has been been badly misinformed by the Free Culture movement. We only ask the opportunity to present a countervailing viewpoint.
My intention here is not to shame you or embarrass you. I believe you are already on the side of musicians and artists and you are just grappling with how to do the right thing. I applaud your courage in admitting you do not pay for music, and that you do not want to but you are grappling with the moral implications. I just think that you have been presented with some false choices by what sounds a lot like what we hear from the “Free Culture” adherents.
I must disagree with the underlying premise of what you have written. Fairly compensating musicians is not a problem that is up to governments and large corporations to solve. It is not up to them to make it “convenient” so you don’t behave unethically. (Besides–is it really that inconvenient to download a song from iTunes into your iPhone? Is it that hard to type in your password? I think millions would disagree.)
Rather, fairness for musicians is a problem that requires each of us to individually look at our own actions, values and choices and try to anticipate the consequences of our choices. I would suggest to you that, like so many other policies in our society, it is up to us individually to put pressure on our governments and private corporations to act ethically and fairly when it comes to artists rights. Not the other way around. We cannot wait for these entities to act in the myriad little transactions that make up an ethical life. I’d suggest to you that, as a 21-year old adult who wants to work in the music business, it is especially important for you to come to grips with these very personal ethical issues.
I’ve been teaching college students about the economics of the music business at the University of Georgia for the last two years. Unfortunately for artists, most of them share your attitude about purchasing music. There is a disconnect between their personal behavior and a greater social injustice that is occurring. You seem to have internalized that ripping 11,000 tracks in your iPod compared to your purchase of 15 CDs in your lifetime feels pretty disproportionate. You also seem to recognize that you are not just ripping off the record labels but you are directly ripping off the artist and songwriters whose music you “don’t buy”. It doesn’t really matter that you didn’t take these tracks from a file-sharing site. That may seem like a neat dodge, but I’d suggest to you that from the artist’s point of view, it’s kind of irrelevant.
Now, my students typically justify their own disproportionate choices in one of two ways. I’m not trying to set up a “strawman”, but I do have a lot of  anecdotal experience with this.
“It’s OK not to pay for music because record companies rip off artists and do not pay artists anything.” In the vast majority of cases, this is not true. There have been some highly publicized abuses by record labels. But most record contracts specify royalties and advancesto artists. Advances are important to understand–a prepayment of unearned royalties. Not a debt, more like a bet. The artist only has to “repay” (or “recoup”) the advance from record sales. If there are no or insufficient record sales, the advance is written off by the record company. So it’s false to say that record companies don’t pay artists. Most of the time they not only pay artists, but they make bets on artists.  And it should go without saying that the bets will get smaller and fewer the more unrecouped advances are paid by labels.
Secondly, by law the record label must pay songwriters (who may also be artists) something called a “mechanical royalty” for sales of CDs or downloads of the song. This is paid regardless of whether a record is recouped or not. The rate is predetermined, and the license is compulsory. Meaning that the file sharing sites could get the same license if they wanted to, at least for the songs. They don’t. They don’t wanna pay artists.
Also, you must consider the fact that the vast majority of artists are releasing albums independently and there is not a “real” record company. Usually just an imprint owned by the artist. In the vast majority of cases you are taking money directly from the artist. How does one know which labels are artist owned? It’s not always clear. But even in the case of corporate record labels, shouldn’t they be rewarded for the bets they make that provides you with recordings you enjoy? It’s not like the money goes into a giant bonfire in the middle of the woods while satanic priests conduct black masses and animal sacrifices. Usually some of that money flows back to artists, engineers and people like you who graduate from college and get jobs in the industry. And record labels also give your college radio stations all those CDs you play.
Artists can make money on the road (or its variant “Artists are rich”). The average income of a musician that files taxes is something like 35k a year w/o benefits. The vast majority of artists do not make significant money on the road. Until recently, most touring activity was a money losing operation. The idea was the artists would make up the loss through recorded music sales. This has been reversed by the financial logic of file-sharing and streaming. You now tour to support making albums if you are very, very lucky. Otherwise, you pay for making albums out of your own pocket. Only the very top tier of musicians make ANY money on the road. And only the 1% of the 1% makes significant money on the road. (For now.)
Over the last 12 years I’ve watched revenue flowing to artists collapse.
Recorded music revenue is down 64% since 1999.
Per capita spending on music is 47% lower than it was in 1973!!
The number of professional musicians has fallen 25% since 2000.
Of the 75,000 albums released in 2010 only 2,000 sold more than 5,000 copies. Only 1,000 sold more than 10,000 copies. Without going into details, 10,000 albums is about the point where independent artists begin to go into the black on professional album production, marketing and promotion.
On a personal level, I have witnessed the impoverishment of many critically acclaimed but marginally commercial artists. In particular, two dear friends: Mark Linkous (Sparklehorse) and Vic Chesnutt. Both of these artists, despite growing global popularity, saw their total  incomes fall in the last decade. There is no other explanation except for the fact that “fans” made the unethical choice to take their music without compensating these artists.
Shortly before Christmas 2009, Vic took his life. He was my neighbor, and I was there as they put him in the ambulance. On March 6th, 2010, Mark Linkous shot himself in the heart. Anybody who knew either of these musicians will tell you that the pair suffered depression. They will also tell you their situation was worsened by their financial situation. Vic was deeply in debt to hospitals and, at the time, was publicly complaining about losing his home. Mark was living in abject squalor in his remote studio in the Smokey Mountains without adequate access to the mental health care he so desperately needed.
I present these two stories to you not because I’m pointing fingers or want to shame you. I just want to illustrate that “small” personal decisions have very real consequences, particularly when millions of people make the decision not to compensate artists they supposedly “love”. And it is up to us individually to examine the consequences of our actions. It is not up to governments or corporations to make us choose to behave ethically. We have to do that ourselves.
Now, having said all that, I also deeply empathize with your generation. You have grown up in a time when technological and commercial interests are attempting to change our principles and morality. Rather than using our morality and principles to guide us through technological change, there are those asking us to change our morality and principles to fit the technological change–if a machine can do something, it ought to be done. Although it is the premise of every “machines gone wild” story since Jules Verne or Fritz Lang, this is exactly backwards. Sadly, I see the effects of this thinking with many of my students.
These technological and commercial interests have largely exerted this pressure through the Free Culture movement, which is funded by a handful of large tech corporations and their foundations in the US, Canada, Europe and other countries.* Your letter clearly shows that you sense that something is deeply wrong, but you don’t put your finger on it. I want to commend you for doing this. I also want to enlist you in the fight to correct this outrage. Let me try to to show you exactly what is wrong. What it is you can’t put your finger on.
The fundamental shift in principals and morality is about who gets to control and exploit the work of an artist. The accepted norm for hudreds of years of western civilization is the artist exclusively has the right to exploit and control his/her work for a period of time. (Since the works that are are almost invariably the subject of these discussions are popular culture of one type or another, the duration of the copyright term is pretty much irrelevant for an ethical discussion.) By allowing the artist to treat his/her work as actual property, the artist can decide how to monetize his or her work. This system has worked very well for fans and artists. Now we are being asked to undo this not because we think this is a bad or unfair way to compensate artists but simply because it is technologically possible for corporations or individuals to exploit artists work without their permission on a massive scale and globally. We are being asked to continue to let these companies violate the law without being punished or prosecuted. We are being asked to change our morality and principals to match what I think are immoral and unethical business models.
Who are these companies? They are sites like The Pirate Bay, or Kim Dotcom and Megaupload. They are “legitimate” companies like Google that serve ads to these sites through AdChoices and Doubleclick. They are companies like Grooveshark that operate streaming sites without permission from artists and over the objections of the artist, much less payment of royalties lawfully set by the artist. They are the venture capitalists that raise money for these sites. They are the hardware makers that sell racks of servers to these companies. And so on and  so on.
What the corporate backed Free Culture movement is asking us to do is analogous to changing our morality and principles to allow the equivalent of looting. Say there is a neighborhood in your local big city. Let’s call it The ‘Net. In this neighborhood there are record stores. Because of some antiquated laws, The ‘Net was never assigned a police force. So in this neighborhood people simply loot all the products from the shelves of the record store. People know it’s wrong, but they do it because they know they will rarely be punished for doing so. What the commercial Free Culture movement (see the “hybrid economy”) is saying is that instead of putting a police force in this neighborhood we should simply change our values and morality to accept this behavior. We should change our morality and ethics to accept looting because it is simply possible to get away with it.  And nothing says freedom like getting away with it, right?
But it’s worse than that. It turns out that Verizon, AT&T, Charter etc etc are charging a toll to get into this neighborhood to get the free stuff. Further, companies like Google are selling maps (search results) that tell you where the stuff is that you want to loot. Companies like Megavideo are charging for a high speed looting service (premium accounts for faster downloads). Google is also selling ads in this neighborhood and sharing the revenue with everyone except the people who make the stuff being looted. Further, in order to loot you need to have a $1,000 dollar laptop, a $500 dollar iPhone or $400 Samsumg tablet. It turns out the supposedly “free” stuff really isn’t free. In fact it’s an expensive way to get “free” music. (Like most claimed “disruptive innovations”it turns out expensive subsidies exist elsewhere.) Companies are actually making money from this looting activity. These companies only make money if you change your principles and morality! And none of that money goes to the artists!
And believe it or not this is where the problem with Spotify starts. The internet is full of stories from artists detailing just how little they receive from Spotify. I shan’t repeat them here. They are epic. Spotify does not exist in a vacuum. The reason they can get away with paying so little to artists is because the alternative is The ‘Net where people have already purchased all the gear they need to loot those songs for free. Now while something likeSpotify may be a solution for how to compensate artists fairly in the future, it is not a fair system now. As long as the consumer makes the unethical choice to support the looters, Spotify will not have to compensate artists fairly. There is simply no market pressure. Yet Spotify’s CEO is the 10th richest man in the UK music industry ahead of all but one artist on his service.
So let’s go back and look at what it would have cost you to ethically and legally support the artists.
And I’m gonna give you a break. I’m not gonna even factor in the record company share. Let’s just pretend for your sake the record company isnt simply the artists imprint and  all record labels are evil and don’t deserve any money. Let’s just make the calculation based on exactly what the artist should make. First, the mechanical royalty to the songwriters. This is generally the artist. The royalty that is supposed to be paid by law is 9.1 cents a song for every download or copy. So that is $1,001 for all 11,000 of your songs. Now let’s suppose the artist has an average 15% royalty rate. This is calculated at wholesale value. Trust me, but this comes to 10.35 cents a song or $1,138.50. So to ethically and morally “get right” with the artists you would need to pay $2,139.50.
As a college student I’m sure this seems like a staggering sum of money. And in a way, it is. At least until you consider that you probably accumulated all these songs over a period of 10 years (5th grade). Sot that’s $17.82 dollars a month. Considering you are in your prime music buying years, you admit your life is “music centric” and you are a DJ, that $18 dollars a month sounds like a bargain. Certainly much much less than what I spent each month on music  during the 4 years I was a college radio DJ.
Let’s look at other things you (or your parents) might pay for each month and compare.
Smart phone with data plan: $40-100 a month.
High speed internet access: $30-60 dollars a month. Wait, but you use the university network? Well, buried in your student fees or tuition you are being charged a fee on the upper end of that scale.
Tuition at American University, Washington DC (excluding fees, room and board and books): $2,086 a month.
Car insurance or Metro card?  $100 a month?
Or simply look at the  value of the web appliances you use to enjoy music:
$2,139.50 = 1 smart phone + 1 full size ipod + 1 macbook.
Why do you pay real money for this other stuff but not music?
The existential questions that your generation gets to answer are these:
Why do we value the network and hardware that delivers music but not the music itself?
Why are we willing to pay for computers, iPods, smartphones, data plans, and high speed internet access but not the music itself?
Why do we gladly give our money to some of the largest richest corporations in the world but not the companies and individuals who create and sell music?
This is a bit of hyperbole to emphasize the point. But it’s as if:
Networks: Giant mega corporations. Cool! have some money!
Hardware: Giant mega corporations. Cool! have some money!
Artists: 99.9 % lower middle class. Screw you, you greedy bastards!
Congratulations, your generation is the first generation in history to rebel by unsticking it to the man and instead sticking it to the weirdo freak musicians!
I am genuinely stunned by this. Since you appear to love first generation Indie Rock, and as a founding member of a first generation Indie Rock band I am now legally obligated to issue this order: kids, lawn, vacate.
You are doing it wrong.
Emily, I know you are not exactly saying what I’ve illustrated above. You’ve unfortunately stumbled into the middle of a giant philosophical fight between artists and powerful commercial interests. To your benefit, it is clear you are trying to answer those existential questions posed to your generation. And in your heart, you grasp the contradiction. But I have to take issue with the following statement:
As I’ve grown up, I’ve come to realize the gravity of what file-sharing means to the musicians I love. I can’t support them with concert tickets and t-shirts alone. But I honestly don’t think my peers and I will ever pay for albums. I do think we will pay for convenience.
I’m sorry, but what is inconvenient about iTunes and, say, iTunes match (that let’s you stream all your music to all your devices) aside from having to pay? Same with Pandora premium, MOG and a host of other legitimate services. I can’t imagine that any other legal music service that is gonna be simpler than these to use. Isn’t convenience already here!
Ultimately there are three “inconvenient” things that MUST happen for any legal service:
1.create an account and provide a payment method (once)
2.enter your password.
3. Pay for music.
So what you are really saying is that you won’t do these three things. This is too inconvenient.  And I would guess that the most inconvenient part is….step 3.
That’s fine. But then you must live with the moral and ethical choice that you are making to not pay artists. And artists won’t be paid. And it won’t be the fault of some far away evil corporation. You “and your peers” ultimately bear this responsibility.
You may also find that this ultimately hinders your hopes of finding a job in the music industry.  Unless you’re planning on working for free.  Or unless you think Google is in the music industry–which it is not.
I also find this all this sort of sad.  Many in your generation are willing to pay a little extra to buy “fair trade” coffee that insures the workers that harvested the coffee were paid fairly.  Many in your generation will pay a little more to buy clothing and shoes from manufacturers that  certify they don’t use  sweatshops.  Many in your generation pressured Apple to examine working conditions at Foxconn in China.  Your generation is largely responsible for the recent cultural changes that has given more equality to same sex couples.  On nearly every count your generation is much more ethical and fair than my generation.   Except for one thing.  Artist rights.
At the start of this I did say that I hoped to convert you to actively helping musicians and artists. That ultimately someone like you, someone so passionately involved in music is the best ally that musicians could have. Let me humbly suggest a few things:
First, you could legally buy music from artists. The best way to insure the money goes to artists? Buy it directly from their website or at their live shows. But if you can’t do that, there is a wide range of services and sites that will allow you to do this conveniently. Encourage your “peers” to also do this.
Second, actively “call out” those that profit by exploiting artists without compensation. File sharing sites are supported by corporate web advertising. Call corporations out by giving specific examples. For instance, say your favorite artist is Yo La Tengo. If you search at Google “free mp3 download Yo La Tengo” you will come up with various sites that offer illegal downloads of Yo La Tengo songs. I clicked on a link to the site where I found You La Tengo’s entire masterpiece album I Am Not Afraid Of You And I Will Beat Your Ass.
I also found an ad for Geico Insurance which appeared to have been serviced to the site by “Ads by Google”. You won’t get any response by writing a file sharing site. They already know what they are doing is wrong. However Geico might be interested in this. And technically, Google’s policy is to not support piracy sites, however it seems to be rarely enforced. The best way to write any large corporation is to search for the “investor’s relations” page. For some reason there is always a human being on the other end of that contact form. You could also write your Congressman and Senator and suggest they come up with some way to divert the flow of advertising money back to the artists.
And on that matter of the $2,139.50 you owe to artists? Why not donate something to a charity that helps artists. Consider this your penance. In fact I’ll make a deal with you. For every dollar you personally donate I’ll match it up to the $500. Here are some suggestions.
Nuci’s Space.   This is Athens Georgia’s home grown musician health and mental health charity.  This would be a nice place to donate money if you were a fan of Vic Chesnutt.
Music Cares. You can also donate to this charity run by the NARAS (the Grammys).
Health Alliance for Austin Musicians.  Friends speak highly of this organization.
American Heart Association Memorial Donation. Or since you loved Big Star and Alex Chilton, why not make a donation to The American Heart Association in Alex Chilton’s name? (Alex died of a heart attack)
I’m open to suggestions on this.
I sincerely wish you luck in your career in the music business and hope this has been enlightening in some small way.
David Lowery
EDITOR’S UPDATE. 12:42 PM Central  6/19/2012 .  Trichordist does not allow any anonymous posting.  We generally like to verify people are using their real name or an identity that we can track back to a real person. We think think this keep the tone of the debate more honest and civilized.  But it takes a lot of work. This post has gone completely viral and we are getting thousands of visitors a minute.  While we normally enjoy our readers comments it’s not possible to verify and moderate this volume of comments.  We are just 4 guys doing this part time when we aren’t doing our other jobs.  If you feel like this somehow infringes your freedom of speech I would remind you that you have the entire world wide web to share your opinions about this article.  We will from time to time  continue to randomly select comments based on our personal whims for publication. We will also respond thoughtfully, nicely, rudely, absurdly or however we feel at the time. That’s our freedom of expression.
EDITOR’S UPDATE 11:12 PM Central 6/20/2012.  You realize we had over half a million visits to this site the last two days?   We will probably never get through the volume of comments.  However we are still from time time randomly selecting  comments and publishing. Especially people who’ve posted good, intelligent or funny comments before.  And many many of your comments have been great.  We especially enjoy those that maybe disagree but seek to find common ground.
Lately though we’ve adopted some totally random rules to cut down on the sheer volume.  If your IP address has “23″ in it we immediately delete w/o reading.  If your wordpress handle has “girl” or “free” or “media” or “Tech” we delete immediately.  If you start with foul language or are extra angry we delete.  Unless of course we want you to look stupid then we publish your comments.   Today  we searched  for all comments that contained the words “market” “zero”  or  ”marginal” and bulk deleted. This was specifically cause we don’t really want to explain that fixed costs really do matter and no matter what you heard from some idiot on the internet. If you play bass we delete.    Also “”McPherson”: bulk delete. The use of the words “consumer” , “ointment” , “dude”, “gatekeepers” and “dubstep” also resulted in a fair number of deletions. We are only joking about some of this.   If you feel that this somehow infringes your freedom  you have the whole free internet out there to express we’ve infringed your freedom.

Wednesday, August 3, 2011

eBook Piracy and Copyright in the Philippines

Posted by Charles at 11:54 AM
Thursday, January 20, 2011

This past week, the “controversy of the week” happens to be eBook Piracy and Copyright. Troisroyaumes and Jamyee Goh have link round-ups in their corresponding websites.

I’m an author so I do want to get paid for my work, whether it’s print or electronic. However, I live in a country where right across the street, vendors are selling pirated DVDs (the fact that Blu-ray never caught on here--or have yet to--should clue you in as to the living conditions here) so to be naive about piracy is ludicrous. In an ideal world, people would compensate everyone justly but the reality is we don’t live in a fair society, nor is the distribution of wealth equitable. That’s not to justify piracy, but it’s there to shed light as to how the current practices and laws can be unfair.

Having said that, when it comes to the Philippines, I find the idea that authors are complaining about eBook piracy funny. Not because it’s irrelevant, but because there’s bigger fish to fry when it comes to infringement on copyright, at least in this country. The entire university ecosystem subsists on photocopying books and textbooks.

Sunday, July 31, 2011

Oxford University Press books in pdf

Oxford University Press book list... same price PhP 20.00 per file :)

For orders, please send email with your name and contact number to

Tuesday, July 26, 2011

Routledge books in pdf

Here's the second batch... same price PhP 20.00 per file

Routledge publications

For orders, please send email with your name and contact number to

0203088743.Routledge.Fifty. Key.Jewish.Thinkers.2007.pdf
0203169050.Routledge.Hume.May. 2003.pdf
0203467124.Routledge.Fifty. Major.Thinkers.on.Education. Sep.2001.pdf
0203929861.Routledge. Renaissance.Theory.Jan.2008. pdf
0415002400.Routledge.A. Dictionary.of.Ancient.Near. Eastern.Architecture.Jan.1988. pdf

Monday, July 25, 2011

Other University Presses in pdf

Here is the third batch. Again, PhP 20.00 per file.

I'm still consolidating my anthropology and archaeology e-books, along with Michel Foucault books. I'll post them as soon as i'm done. Thanks

Other university presses

For orders, please send email with your name and contact number to

0226282538.University.Of. Chicago.Press.The.Second. Scientific.American.Book.of. Mathematical.Puzzles.and. Diversions.Aug.1987.pdf
0226299570.University.Of. Chicago.Press.Corruption.and. Reform.Lessons.from.Americas. Economic.History.Apr.2006.pdf
0226313379.University.Of. Chicago.Press.Fins.into.Limbs. Evolution.Development.and. Transformation.Feb.2007.pdf
0226317943.University.Of. Chicago.Press.Globalization. and.Poverty.Apr.2007.pdf
0226450589.University.Of. Chicago.Press.Selective. the.Construction. Commemoration.and. Consecration.of.National. Pasts.Feb.2008.pdf

Wednesday, July 20, 2011

Med Textbooks

College Medicine Textbooks in CHM format

PhP 20.00 din lang bawat file!!!

For orders, please send email with your name and contact number to

(Lange)Review of Medical Physiology_22ed(Ganong).CHM
0071443193_Current Diagnosis and Treatment - Emergency Medicine (McGraw-Hill, 2008).CHM
0071461531_Current Diagnosis & Treatment In Family Medicine, 1Rst Ed (2007).chm
0071494308_Current Medical Diagnosis and Treatment 2008.CHM
0323041353 - Ferri's Clinical Advisor 2008_ Instant Diagnosis and Treatment.CHM

Sunday, February 13, 2011

Gateway Cineplex Cubao (3D Movies)

FYI lang sa lahat ng mahilig manood ng 3D movies sa gateway cubao:

may option kayo not to get the "complimentary" / "free" popcorn and drinks, if you opt not to, you would be paying PhP 70.00 LESS sa ticket price.

kung insist naman nila na you still have to pay for the popcorn and drinks, kindly ask them to issue a receipt specific to the food items purchased.

madalas wala silang resibo, and this is in violation of BIR policies. demand official receipts for every purchase made :)

i work outside the "system" and let's just call this my consumer advocacy hehehe

Monday, April 12, 2010

Pirates of Carriedo

This blog is where you can avail a variety of your favorite DVDs at a very very very reasonable price! Titles range from the rare films of the 1920s to present, art films to box office hits, local to international cinema, independent to hollywood movies. Name it and we are likely to have them!

Sit back and enjoy the movies! Pirates of Carriedo will bring to you your favorite movies at a very affordable price!

For orders, please send email with your name and contact number at

Enjoy the serach for pirated DVDs!!!

Wednesday, September 2, 2009

In Memoriam: Alexis Tioseco (1981-2009) and Nika Bohinc (1979-2009)

In Memoriam: Alexis Tioseco (1981-2009) and Nika Bohinc (1979-2009)

Wishful Thinking for Philippine Cinema
March 15, 2009, 3:57 am
By Alexis A. Tioseco

(Shorter version originally published as an addendum to an article in Rogue Magazine, extended final version which appears below published in Philippines Free Press week of December 13, 2008).

I wish that the Film Development Council of the Philippines would understand the value of the money they’re given and consider going to Paris and spending P5 million of their P25 million allotment for a showcase given by a young festival an investment, and not just a vacation.

They support filmmakers with finished films to go abroad to festivals for the pride they bring their country—I wish instead they would support their films locally, and help them get seen by a larger Filipino audience.

I cry for the loss of Manuel Conde’s Juan Tamad films.

I cry for a country that can’t convince that one Filipino-American who owns the only known print of Conde’s Genghis Khan in its original language to return (i.e. sell) the film back to his mother country.

I cry for the generations of Filipinos, myself included, that can no longer see Gerry De Leon’s Daigdig ng Mga Api, and instead have scans of movie ads to admire on the internet (with sincere thanks to Simon Santos and James De la Rosa).

Monday, June 15, 2009

IP Address Alone Insufficient To Identify Pirate, Court Rules

IP Address Alone Insufficient To Identify Pirate, Court Rules
Written by enigmax on June 15, 2009

Anti-piracy groups and lawyers across Europe are unmovable - they say that since they logged a copyright infringement from a particular IP address, the bill payer is responsible. Now a court in Rome has decided that on the contrary, an IP address does not identify an infringer, only a particular connection.

Right across Europe, many countries are being targeted by anti-piracy evidence gathered by outfits such as Swiss-based Logistep. After tracking alleged infringers, legal action is taken to force ISPs to hand over the identities of the person who pays the bill on the particular account linked to the allegedly infringing IP address. Lawyers operating in tandem with companies like Logistep, such as ACS:Law in the UK, insist that since they have an IP address, this automatically means that the bill payer is the copyright infringer or at least liable for the infringement.

Friday, June 12, 2009

Open Letter to a Young Director

Dear Raya,

Your tita has to get these things off her chest before she risks those unhealthy things that happen when one “holds a fart in,” as the expression goes.

Yesterday morning , maybe at the hour you just arrived from Europe, I left Pasig City for Bataan on a community outreach project and made sure I could hitch a ride back to Mandaluyong City so I had enough lead time to line up for the 8 p.m. screening of your much-lauded Independencia.

Wednesday, June 10, 2009

Torrent Link: Serbis (2008)

Serbis (2008) french release (subs FR)

A drama that follows the travails of the Pineda family in the Filipino city of Angeles. Bigamy, unwanted pregnancy, possible incest and bothersome skin irritations are all part of their daily challenges, but the real "star" of the show is an enormous, dilapidated movie theater that doubles as family business and living space. At one time a prestige establishment, the theater now runs porn double bills and serves as a meeting ground for hustlers of every conceivable persuasion. The film captures the sordid, fetid atmosphere, interweaving various family subplots with the comings and goings of customers, thieves and even a runaway goat while enveloping the viewer in a maelstrom of sound, noise and continuous motion.

Friday, April 3, 2009

Torrent Link: Let The Right One In (2008) Full DVD

Let the Right One In (2008)

Torrent Link:


Oskar, a bullied 12-year old, dreams of revenge. He falls in love with Eli, a peculiar girl. She can't stand the sun or food and to come into a room she needs to be invited. Eli gives Oskar the strength to hit back but when he realizes that Eli needs to drink other people's blood to live he's faced with a choice. How much can love forgive? Let The Right One In is a story both violent and highly romantic, set in the Stockholm suburb of Blackeberg in 1982.

Although this Swedish film is based on a best-selling novel of the same name, "Let the Right One In" is cut from a different cloth than most vampire tales.

Director : Tomas Alfredson
Writers: John Ajvide Lindqvist
Cast : Kare Hedebrant, Lina Leandersson, Per Ragnar, Henrik Dahl, Karin Bergquist
Genre: Drama, Horror,Romance,Thriller
Language: English 5.1, English 2.0, Swedish 5.1, Swedish 2.0
Subtitle: English, Spanish Lat.
Special Features: Yes
Country: Sweden

Thursday, April 2, 2009

NOT an April Fool's Joke : The X-MEN ORIGINS: WOLVERINE movie, soon in Q!!!

Download "The X-Men Origins: Wolverine" movie from your favorite torrent sites NOW...

'Wolverine' leak: Hollywood's mixed response

Apr 1, 2009, 06:08 PM | by Christine Spines

Categories: Movie Biz

Wolverine_l_3 When a high-quality, full-length work print of X-Men Origins: Wolverine surfaced on Internet bittorrent sites last night, early speculation was that this was a doomsday scenario for Fox and the filmmakers behind the tentpole, which is not due to be released until May 1. The response today from competing producers and studio execs, however, has been more measured. One producer behind another major summer franchise insists that while piracy is a serious problem that needs a "focused and visionary response" from the movie industry, a leak like this may not actually cut that deeply into Wolverine's ticket sales.

"People who are going to download and watch it on their computer were either never going to pay to see it anyway or they're the type of super-fan who was going to go 10 times in the first week," he says, citing a leaked version of Iron Man that circulated a week before its blockbuster opening. "Seeing a spectacle movie like this one on your computer is not the same as seeing with a communal audience, and I don't think this is going to hurt them that much."

On the other hand, a high-ranking theater exhibitor sees much more dire consequences for the franchise. "This is a disaster," he says, referring both to the free downloads resulting from the leak and to the subsequent bad reviews making their way around the Web. "It's tens of millions of dollars lost."

It's certainly a sign of our digital file swapping times, and many in Hollywood are viewing it as a chilling cautionary tale. "If there's been a tutor in my life about this stuff, it's Steven Spielberg," says director Brad Silberling, whose Land of the Lost is due to hit theaters June 5. "There's a reason why directors are control freaks. Between marketing and publicity and all the other areas that get their hands on a film, you have to monitor it. You never like hearing about something like this happening an inch away from a movie being released."

Fox and the filmmakers have released an official response, vowing to track down whoever is behind the leak, while competing studio execs seem to be engaging in some wishful prognosticating about whether audiences will still show up for the big theater experience, regardless of other cheaper options. "That movie is a spectacle and the audience wants spectacle," says the exec with his own tentpoles due for release this summer. "I predict it still opens with a seven in front of it."-- Additional reporting by Nicole Sperling and Josh Rottenberg

Monday, March 30, 2009

On Hiatus

Pirates of Carriedo will be on hiatus from April 6 to April 24, 2009.

Orders will still be accepted but orders which will come after the 6th will be processed on th 24th onwards. Thank you so much for patronizing Pirates of Carriedo!

Enjoy the beach and the sun! Wear sunscreen... Enjoy the power and beauty of your youth! (...sabi nga sa song ni Baz Luhrmann)

Tuesday, March 24, 2009

Updated DVD Movie List

Here's an updated DVD movie list with corresponding prices in Excel file. We are sure that you will find something that would definitely interest you.

Kindly send email to for your orders. Thanks!

Wednesday, March 11, 2009

Torrent Link: Cronos (1993) Guillermo del Toro

Torrent Link:


Cronos was made in 1993 and still represents one of the most original takes on the vampire genre in recent years.

The film, Guillermo Del Toro’s third film, tells the story of Jesus Gris, an antique seller, who happens upon a golden scarab hidden in the base of a statue of an archangel. When the scarab, an invention of a 15th century alchemist, pierces his hand, Jesus finds himself changing: he has more energy, appears younger and begins to have problems with the brightness of the sun. Also he can’t stop himself allowing the scarab to pierce him.

Throughout he is visited by a non-made up Ron Perlman (Hell Boy). Perlman plays the nephew of a dying millionaire who has managed to track down the scarab and wants it for himself thus beginning a game of cat and mouse that provides much of the film’s tension.

That the film is an earlier example of Del Toro’s work is evident. In 1993 he has yet to win the critical acclaim and independence he fought so hard for after the disaster that was Mimic. Yet you can see his trademark craft in putting Cronos together, the layers of subtext, the idea that humanity is the monster - the real villains in this film are all humans - and the use of mythology to explore human themes of addiction, family and death. For such a short film (only ninety minutes) it really does pack in a whole lot of story.

The visual effects do date the film slightly as does the quality of the film print from which the DVD was mastered but this doesn’t really distract from what’s going on. Del Toro’s skill as a make up designer (his early career was spent doing this) are overall what keeps the effects in the game and more than makes up for the absence of CGI or modern prosthetics.

The cast was and is largely unknown to me. However the performances from the entire cast were very good but two deserve mention in particular. Tamara Shanath, who plays Aurora, turns in a wonderfully nuanced performance for such a young actress and provides the film with it’s heart as the film’s protagonist, Jesus, attempts to hide his addiction from her. The other is that of Perlman who delivers a brilliantly three dimensional performance as the vain, long suffering, nephew of millionaire De la Guardia. A chilling and intelligent performance.

There’s a lot to like here. This is smart horror delivered in a slick movie that’s not afraid to make you laugh, cry or scream. Most likely all three. I recommend it without reservation.

Thursday, November 27, 2008

Dangerous Living: Coming Out in the Developing World (2003)

Dangerous Living: Coming Out in the Developing World (2003)

Dangerous Living: Coming Out in the Developing World is the first documentary to deeply explore the lives of gay and lesbian people in non-western cultures. Traveling to five different continents, we hear the heartbreaking and triumphant stories of gays and lesbians from Egypt, Honduras, Kenya, Thailand and elsewhere, where most occurrences of oppression receive no media coverage at all. By sharing the personal stories coming out of developing nations, Dangerous Living sheds light on an emerging global movement striving to end discrimination and violence against gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered people.

Format: DVD5
Runtime: 62 minutes
Country: USA
Disc: 1
Price: PhP 60.00

IMDB Review

After two viewings, I've concluded that DANGEROUS LIVING is one of the finest documentaries focusing upon the global LGBT human rights struggle that I've seen; it's lone major flaw is that it left me wanting more.

The film is structured around the well-publicized and much-protested persecutions and torture of a number of gay men arrested in what was presumed to be a comparatively safe environment in Cairo, and the incident is used as a touchstone to explore what gay, lesbian and trans-gender activists in a number of other countries have had to endure. Activists from Brazil, Honduras, Namibia, Uganda, Egypt, Pakistan, India, Malaysia, Vietnam, Fiji and The Philippines are interviewed, and in every instance I wanted less voice-over, and more 'in their own words' discussion. I also would have liked to hear more about where conditions have improved, and how those improvements were obtained. DANGEROUS LIVING does also manage to hint at the link between the LGBT rights struggle, and the broader fight for human rights around the globe, and likewise suggests (an opinion I share) that state-sponsored homophobia has been heavily shaped by Western influences. Both of these issues still await further cinematic exploration.

I'm of the opinion that the fight for LGBT rights is global, and that we are overdue a documentary that would make that plainly clear to Western LGBT communities who may take certain freedoms for granted, and - in relying so heavily upon voice overs, I'm not certain that this film does that effectively in its' comparatively brief running time. Still, this is both a moving and an infuriating film, and it does work as an inspiration to further research; to paraphrase the late writer and activist Paul Monette, a difficult life can take you to the core of your being; teaching you what has to be fought for and how - DANGEROUS LIVING does this often, with moving reality.

At the risk of cheer leading, I would strongly encourage others to seek this film out.