I found possibly my worst ever example of a obliterated public footpath today at Cerrig-tranau-uchaf by the Dyfi floodplain. Signs gone, barbed wire, overgrown brambles and a bridge reduced to a steel bar!

6/* I’m interested in talking through these tensions. If a creative commons of film and a post-extractivist filmmaking economy is the aim, how do we navigate getting there?

5/* there is also the question of the right to refuse use of your knowledges (rushes). Non-commercial restrictions don’t prevent extractivist colonising purposes.

4/* talking with @paulakahumbu.bsky.social at the 2023 @bectu.bsky.social Autumn Gathering she spoke of her frustration, as a maker of African-led nature documentaries, that the non-commercial restrictions inhibited the possibility of a successful indigenous filmmaking, keeping the power in the UK

3/* you can see that by doing this you build a non-capitalist filmmaking ecology. However, while this prefigures a (from our perspective) desirable post-extractivist filmmaking economy, the restriction to be non-profit makes it difficult to exist in the world as it is.

2/* And that this would be done on a non-commercial and share-alike basis (meaning whatever is made is made available on the same terms - the film it is used in can also not be used in for-profit filmmaking). This is an anti-capitalist position.

That is, an ontology of land as private property. He recommends E P Thompson’s ‘Customs in Common’ 1991 for further reading. archive.org/details/cust...

Speaking after with 1st witness, historian James Vaughn (Chicago): enclosure began earlier under the Tudors, yet the shareholders of the EIC intersected heavily with the landed classes. The two processes intersect. More, enclosure provided the ontological basis for EIC model of colonialism.

The answer is it requires further research, but it demonstrates the interlinked dynamics of the nexuses of power between state and corporate actors, and the individuals who benefit from these legal fictions of state and corporation.