Tadej Pogačar
Vuk Ćosić

Do you ever get the feeling you’re being cheated?

[acoustic space intro]


In the beginning, 0 and 1 were hardly aware to be in the world. To have a body, a sensibility, a mind. Then, one day, after being assembled, shared and exchanged in any kind of permutations, they finally took consciousness of themselves. They crystallised in the shape of an aseptic string – long enough not to be memorised by human beings, but short enough to enter the URL’s field of a browser. They attached it a nice suffix (.org) and gave birth to 0100101110101101.ORG.

Since then, lots of people have been dealing with 0100101110101101.ORG. In actuality, only few understood if this string hides some real "human flesh", or an entity that composes and decomposes autonomously, according to a Fate that We as Humans, are no longer able to interpret.

Since 0100101110101101.ORG came into being (someone talks about an X day, by the end of 1998, in Bologna) many have tried to grasp its real intentions but very few have been able to understand them. The web art world, was the first who have seen one of its most notorious sites sucked by the vortex of zeroes and ones.

Hell.com, seemingly an anti-web site built in 1995, with no public access and/or contents, was a sort of conceptual black hole in the net. Within three years, Hell turned itself in a launching pad for cool designers and leading net.artists, a private parallel web. Surface was the first on-line exhibition promoting artists like Zuper!, Absurd, Fakeshop and many others. In February 1999, a limited number of visitors were invited to access the exhibition, namely the Rhizome mailing list subscribers, which were given with a password allowing the access to Hell.
In the 48 hours of opening, hidden in the mob, 0 and 1 entered the web site and downloaded the whole of it. Then, they uploaded it on their own web site, in anticopyright version, making it wide open to all netizens. The action was enough to upset Kenneth Aronson, owner of Hell.com, who blamed 0 and 1 for theft and threatened them with an international lawsuit for copyright laws violation. Today, one year and half later, the "stolen" Hell.com is still freely available in www.0100101110101101.ORG.

Russian net.artist Olia Lalina, founder of the first web gallery Art.Teleportacia (selling works of early net.art), was the second blow. When someone asked "how can you sell a work of net.art if everyone can access it for free?", Lialina always claimed that the originality of a net.art work is guaranteed by its domain name, its URL. The owner of a work, according to the Russian artist, should have his own access to the server hosting the work. The fact that the work could be mirrored on other sites is irrelevant: it may well be of public domain, but only the owner has the right to access the original URL through a certificate sold by the curator.

Needless to say, Art.Teleportacia was quickly sucked by the string known as 0100101110101101.ORG. The same site that was selling "original" domain art, in June 99 was doing it twice, with no great variation of prices...

September 1999 was the time of Jodi.org, the Ascii Art web site built by Joan Heemskerk and Dirk Paesmans. Since then, 0 and 1 used to randomize their downloads, uploading in their web site weird hybrids of their victims. The Jodi web site, instead, was just cloned as it was. Downloaded and uploaded with no variation at all.

The international press (The New York Times, Le Monde, El Pais, etc.) realized that, in the friendly world of net.art, there was a site dedicated to systematic plagiarism. This raised a wave of debate about the "commercialisation of web art", and the very nature of net.art.

Nobody seemed to notice, however, that in the information-overload of present times, visibility and access are the main questions: maybe, the cloning of a net.art work feeds its "aura", turning upside down the famous assessments of Walter Benjamin on the mechanical reproducibility.

On Christmas Day, 1999, the Los Angeles-based site www.plagiarist.org (such an appropriate name, indeed!) acted in 01-style and duplicated www.0100101110101101.ORG. Shortly after, 01 responded by linking plagiarist.org in the opening page of 01.ORG, conceptually cloning a clone of their own clones!

The Year 2000 opened with two retroactive pranks.

For a whole year, the domain name www.vaticano.org hosted a seemingly official web site of the Holy See, similar to the www.vatican.va (official Vatican domain name) but with slightly modified contents: heretical texts, songs of crap teeny-bopper bands, and stuff. For 12 months, thousand of people had visited the web site without realising the prank. At the expiring of the first year of contract, Network Solutions prevented the renewing of it and sold the domain name. Needless to say, the author of this smart fake site was 01, and the old vaticano.org is still on-line in 0100101110101101.ORG.

In February 2000, PROPAGANDA (the official 01 e-mail newsletter) announced to the world "The Great Art Swindle": the invention of life, works and death of the Serbian artist Darko Maver by 01.0RG. A pure act of mythopoeia, in 1999 the "Darko Maver Affair" took by storm the Italian art world, with several exhibitions, articles and debates about this maudit artist (whose supposed works were - actually - trash pictures from web sites like www.rotten.com).
At the ‘99 Venice Biennial, a self-styled "Free Art Campaign" showed even a short movie on Maver ("The Art of War").


May, 1998

0100101110101101.ORG invents the life and works of an imaginary Serbian artist named Darko Maver. The project lasts two years and involves dozens of people from several cities, culminating with the disclosure of the prank the day after Maver is presented at the 48 Biennial of Contemporary Art in Venice.



Q.: But [Darko Maver] exists only in media fiction, he’s somehow "virtual"?

A.: The media universe is becoming more and more independent from reality. The fiction of TV, even strongly distorted, depends in any case from reality. In the modern media system, in particular with the development of the Internet, this condition is going to disappear: virtual existence is less and less bound to the real one. If 0100101110101101.ORG hadn’t claimed the prank, Darko Maver would still go on existing, setting many people buzzing through exhibitions, documentaries, catalogues and so on.

Q.: What have you tried to prove through this action?

A.: 0100101110101101.ORG has tried to show the mechanisms which hold contemporary art, to make clear that critics and curators are able to create an artist, apart from the value of his works; this phenomena is currently accepted or taken for granted and people undervalues its impact. In Darko Maver case 0100101110101101.ORG has simply bypassed intermediaries, succeeding in bringing more attention on process than on art works. Darko Maver, in his declared inexistence, is paradoxically more authentic than hundreds of presumed artists. Art is a sort of alchemy that, instead of changing metal in precious stone, transform shit into gold (Piero Manzoni sold his excrement at the same price of gold). Potentially everything can be art, the point is only to know the rules of the game, and its tricks as well.

Q.: How do you think your activity could awake the audience critical mind?

A.: A way can be, for example, to insinuate doubts: Darko Maver has been completely constructed on nothing, therefore in a similar way also all the other artists could be the same. Secondly, removing the aura of myth surrounding the artist as creative genius, isolated from the world and inspired by a muse, fatal ideas that have been dragging on since Romanticism.

Q.: And do you fell you succeeded in your intentions?

A.: From zero to the Venice Biennial in one year, neither Peggy Guggenheim would have been able to do better.


15 December, 1998

The activists buy the domain name vaticano.org, which they use to create and maintain, for an entire year, an "official" organ of information for the Holy See, a huge site aesthetically identical to the real one but with slightly modified contents. Within 12 months 200.000 persons visit "vaticano.org", without realizing, even for a moment, that the web site contents have been "retouched". The site was result of the collaboration between 0100101110101101.ORG and Luther Blissett. The detournement of the holy texts involved tens of Blissett from the whole country, who were about to add German, Spanish and English language sections to the main, Italian one. Dozens of texts in which one could find everything: "heretical" proclamations, invented words, unpardonable errors and songs by 883 [an Italian teeny-bopper band], perfectly put in a "plausible" context. From the site it was possible to address letters directly to the Pope. Strange instructions "hijacked" pilgrims in the most remote places. A "Free Spirit Jubilee".

At the expiring of the first year of contract, Network Solutions (the company that sells Internet Domain Names), prevented 0100101110101101.ORG from renewing the contract of "vaticano.org", which had been regularly bought. Network Solutions refused all the attempts of payment and, at the expiring of the contract, sold the domain name to a catholic association in Rome, right away.


- 11 May, 1999: 0100101110101101.ORG starts to produce the "hybrids", files obtained by mixing together stolen works from other Internet artists.

- 11 May, 1999: A copy is made of Hell.com, the most popular Net art museum. The mirror site is published in an anti-copyright version without password protection. After only two hours 0100101110101101.ORG receives the first threat of legal proceedings for copyright violations from the creators of Hell.com. However, the mirror site remains.

- 9 June, 1999: The activists download and modify Art.Teleportacia, the first art gallery to appear on the Web. The gallery’s exhibition, "Miniatures of the Heroic Period", is renamed "Hybrids of the Heroic Period" and the works on display are radically altered. A long debate on the Web follows between Olia Lialina, creator of Art.Teleportacia, and the supporters of 0100101110101101.ORG’s tactics.

- 12 September, 1999: A clone of the website belonging to net.artists Jodi is published on the website of 0100101110101101.ORG, this time without any modifications, to demonstrate that certain ideas and practices - such as the authenticity and uniqueness of an artwork - must be considered obstacles to the development of Web art.



Q.: You got known in the net scene, because you made a complete copy of the art site Hell.com, and put it on your site. Tell me what you did exactly...

A.: We are subscribed to the net.art list "Rhizome". There we heard that they would open a door to Hell.com for 48 hours, for a show called "surface". It was only for Rhizome subscribers, and you needed a password to look at it. We had never seen Hell.com, but we had heard about it, and we knew that it was the biggest museum of net.art. So, during these 48 hours of opening, we downloaded all the stuff of their site. This was not as simple as it seems, it took us 26 hours. Then we put it on our website and sent an e-mail with just the URL repeated hundreds of times to several mailing lists and newspapers.

Q.: Did you get a reaction from Hell.com?

Date: Mon, 10 May 1999 21:42:33 -0700

open_source_hell.com HTTP://WWW.0100101110101101.ORG/hell.com

please immediately remove this material from your server
you are in violation of international copyright laws which are clearly posted in the copyright information contained in our source code.
also of note,
it appears as though you have violated the copyrights of quite a few of our members individually



on behalf of these individuals we request that you also remove these materials from your server as well


it would make sense to use your “abilities” to attempt something *original*





Q.: Would you agree, that what you are doing is only of interest, or only makes sense at all, because you are doing it within the art system?

A.: If you do what we do with a work of art, the operation has a value in itself. If you work with contents that are not art, it becomes more difficult to distinguish the operation from the content. If you steal the Disney site, you are acting against Disney. 0100101110101101.ORG is not interested in doing this kind of actions. We work on other contradictions like originality and reproduction, authorship and network, copyright and plagiarism. You don’t have to be explicitly political to do something political.

Q.: But that is in the nature of the web anyway. Anybody can look at the source code of a website, and see how it has been done, and they don’t need some smart artist to do it for them...

A.: We didn’t invent anything, we only made it explicit. Of course, we don’t claim any kind of copyright for our way of doing. Anybody can download whole sites. You just need some software, and you don’t have to be worried about copyright infringements. Our point is that there is a different way of behaving towards the work. You can choose your attitude, or what you want to do with the piece. You are not obliged to just look at it. You have the tools to do something else.
Cloning is just one of the things you can do with these works. You can modify them, you can add things, you can put them in a different order, you can even destroy them, you can do anything you want. We would like to see some more of this kind of interaction on the net.
The point is that on the net, as well as in the real world, there is not "geniuses", inspired by the muse, there is only a huge, endless exchange of information and influences. The "knowledge" is only a big plagiarism. Even in the "real world" there are a lot of people doing interesting things about these topics, like Piero Cannata on Michelangelo and Pollock, like Aleksander Brener, who created a new painting over the Malevich’s one...

Q.: ...and took away the possibility for people to look at Malevich’ "Black Square"...

A.: They can look at it in catalogues.

Q.: Brener is considered to be this Anti-Christ of contemporary art now, the scary anti-artist. Where do you place yourself?

A.: We don’t consider ourselves "artists" but "beholders". We are not against art, we are not anti-artists. We have seen what happened to Dada or Surrealism and all the other historical avant-garde, it doesn’t matter if you call yourself an artist or an anti-artist, the only thing we care about are "contents".

Q.: So you might as well stop doing what you are doing, because it will be recuperated anyway....

A.: This obsession of "being recuperated" is just a Situationists paranoia. If nobody gives a shit about what you do is not necessarily because you are so radical, but more probably because you don’t have anything to say. Anyway if you meant "recuperate" as "becoming rich", we hope that somebody is going to recuperate us.


Subject: Journalist’s Inquiry Re: Hell.com
Date: Fri, 14 May 1999 10:57:18 -0500
From: Matthew Mirapaul mirapaul@nytimes.com
To: 0100101110101101@0100101110101101.ORG


My name is Matt Mirapaul, and I write the “arts@large” column for The New York Times on the Web. From time to time, I have reported on the activities of Hell.com to my readers, so I was aware of the “Surface” event in January. I’ve seen “Luther”’s net.time posting, which also appeared in this week’s Rhizome Digest, but would you be so kind to fill me in a bit more on what you’re doing and why you’re doing it, please? It might make an interesting article.


Matt Mirapaul



Q.: Who is 0100101110101101.ORG?

A.: 0100101110101101.ORG never answers this kind of question. Anonymity is not merely a "proper name" matter but deals also with backgrounds and biographies. 0100101110101101.ORG’s activity is not concerned with artistic individuality.

Q.: Who is your favourite Futurist?

A.: Benito Mussolini. The fascist revolution has been the most coherent development of avant-garde utopias. The overcoming of the barrier between art and life - the slogan of the historical avant-garde - and the dream of modelling reality according to aesthetic canons found their most implacable and rigorous author exactly in Mussolini.

Q.: Does America need a national missile defence system to defend itself against nuclear attack?

A.: No.

Q.: How are Web art and music related?

A.: It is happening more and more frequently that musicians produce their music starting from sampling - Negativland is one of the most concrete examples - and from rearrangement of sounds, taken from the infinite number of available sources. Anyone is therefore, at the same time, a producer of raw materials, transformer, author, interpreter, and listener, in a circuit of co-operative creation and fruition. 0100101110101101.ORG proposes the same practice in art; the "hybrids" are just some samplings of the materials we have at our disposal. Nowadays the problem of creativity is not creating something new but learning how to use what already exists.

Q.: Is the subversion of viewer expectation an important part of your artistic technique, or are you just mean?

A.: 0100101110101101.ORG is interested in the subversion of the means. A good movie, like a good painting or a good novel, conveys the energy that its author has put into it; the subversion of the means becomes a metaphor for subversion tout court and wakes up the consciousness of the beholder. A movie by Jean-Luc Godard, for example, is successful because it imposes the beholder to take up a position. It is not so much a matter of renewing contents as of renewing the mechanisms of fruition. Only by deconstructing such mechanisms can we understand and, if necessary, modify them. We do not need other objects of art, but works of art able to make the beholder more conscious.

Q.: What advice would you give readers interested in starting their own Web art collection?

A.: To look in their cache folder.

Q.: Could you summarize your position concerning the concepts of "author" and "originality"?

A.: Theoretically every work of art can be reproduced, but with Net art the reproduction is absolutely identical to the original one. It follows that it becomes a "non-sense" to perpetrate such concepts that seemingly functioned in the real world. The notion of author in general, and therefore concepts like authenticity and plus-value, are strictly connected to the economic, institutional, and juridical aspects of traditional art. After the invention of printing, so with the automation of text reproduction, it became necessary to define the rights of the author as inventor and not only as artisan. The figure of author was born in a very particular economic and social organization - it’s only too natural that it fades into the background when the system of communications and social relations changes. The non-prominence of the author conditions neither the cultural production nor the artistic creativity. Net art requests new production, preservation, and fruition criteria that often conflict with the old rules of the art system, like the necessity of critics and museums. The creation of new forms of commercialization of intellectual property appears to be evidently necessary.

Q.: What are you currently working on?

A.: At the moment 0100101110101101.ORG is engaged to solve the contradictions of capitalism.

Q.: Are there any links readers should check out?

A.: Neue Slowenische Kunst, Johannes Baader, Negativland, R.D. Laing, Richard Stallmann, Alfred Jarry, I/O/D, Godard, Pan Sonic, Marcel Duchamp, Leni Riefenstahl, Luther Blissett, etoy, Alexander Brener, Mongrel, Werner Herzog, Nezvanova, Kraftwerk, Carpenter, RTMark, Bertolt Brecht, Sex Pistols, Rainer Werner Fassbinder and Ernest Hemingway.


Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 18:49:44 -0800 (PST)
From: viewer at starsixtyseven vieweratstar67@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: [0100101110101101.ORG] plus 3mb
To: PROPAGANDA@0100101110101101.ORG
Cc: twhid@mteww.com

Dear 0100101110101101.ORG,
We have a strange request. In the past you(s) have made copies of web sites as your work. Hell, Jodi, Etc. all have come under your gaze. My (our) request is this...have you ever copied a site by request? The 3mb is a work on thin ice. Any day a spring will come and this will all melt away. Perhaps the 3mb could be swallowed hole by you(s). Have you ever had a willing subject?



Q.: Which is the difference between the clones of the sites you made and the "original" ones?

A.: Copies are more important than their original, although they do not differ from it. Copies contain not only all the parameters of the work that is being copied, but a lot more: the idea itself and the act of copying.


Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 21:00:01 +0900
From: Marc Voge marc@totalmuseum.org
Organization: Total Museum
To: jodi@0100101110101101.ORG, jodi@jodi.org
Subject: Project 8, Seoul

Dear jodi,

Hi, I’m Marc Voge, and I’m the guest curator at the Total Museum of Contemporary Art in Seoul, South Korea. I would like to invite you to participate in Project 8, a prestigious international show that features eight Web artists this year.
In the recent past this annual group exhibition has invited such well-known artists as Tony Cragg, Thomas Ruff, Toni Grand and Andy Goldsworthy. The Total Museum is also proud to include in this year’s Web Project 8 the SFMOMA Webby Award-winning Korean artist Young-hae Chang.
The show is scheduled to open on December 1, 2000, and each Web artist’s honorarium will be $1000 U.S. For this sum, we invite you to create an original piece that can be E-mailed to the Total Museum site by mid-November. We realize that the two months between now and then is a relatively short period. Our hope is that we can inspire Web artists to undertake short-term projects with original results. We also plan to create a CD-ROM of the exhibition. I hope you will participate. Please feel free to E-mail me any questions you might have at marc@totalmuseum.org.
I look forward to hearing from you soon.

Yours truly,

Marc Voge



Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 13:22:39 +0900
From: Marc Voge marc@totalmuseum.org
Organization: Total Museum
To: jodi@0100101110101101.ORG
Subject: Re: Project 8, Seoul

Dear jodi@0100101110101101.ORG,

Thanks for the piece! It’s great! I love it! Theres only one problem. I realize now that I’ve made a terrible mistake -- that you’re not jodi, you’re jodi@0100101110101101.ORG. You see, I just received an E-mail from jodi who says you’re a “fake.” According to jodi, you’re a group of Italian artists in Bologna (a city that I love, by the way) pretending to be jodi. It’s really too bad, because your work is original -- and quite different from jodis work. Why are you pretending to be jodi? Why not just be yourselves?


Marc Voge


January 2001

0100101110101101.ORGlaunches his last provocation: life_sharing. Like Napster and other "peer-to-peer" software, from the moment life_sharing (an anagram of file sharing) begins, every Internet user will have free 24-7 access to 0100101110101101.org’s computer: all the artists’ archives, current projects, software, and even private e-mail will be available to the public. In applying open source’s General Public License model to the artists’ own computer server, life_sharing radically challenges the concept of privacy and explores the contradictions of intellectual property in an open-source age.



Q.: A clear implication of the life_sharing project is the breach of the boundary between personal and public life and between personal and public data. Is there any risk in this, or have you entirely sanitized, or even fabricated the data you make available? What are the consequences for the way you work, communicate, and live generated by this openness of process?

A.: life_sharing is 0100101110101101.ORG. It is its hard disk entirely published, visible and reproducible by anybody: public property. 0100101110101101.ORG will not produce material explicitly as "content", except where it is technically required. We will use the computer as we have always done. Naturally, it is impossible to ignore that we are so "opened". Any internal or external connection modifies the entire structure, thus affecting the project itself -- for example, in the manner of acting and expressing.
Consider the increasing tendency toward intrusion in the private sphere -- not only by big corporations -- and the consequent efforts of people trying to preserve their own privacy. 0100101110101101.ORG believes firmly that privacy is a barrier to demolish. life_sharing must be considered a proof ad absurdo. The idea of privacy itself is obsolete. A computer connected to the Net is an instrument that allows the free flow of information. This is its aim. Anything blocking this free flow shall be considered an obstacle to be overcome. 0100101110101101.ORG solves the dualism between public and private property. It proposes an empirical model that fosters the free distribution of knowledge that grants, at the same time, its fruition.
From now on, the product of 0100101110101101.ORG will be its own visibility. life_sharing is the root under which will come other services, all directed to show to what degree our life can be monitored. We want to show as many forms of data as possible on us: not only in the transparency of the hard disk, but also by analyzing economic transactions: the use of credit cards; physical movements; purchases. 0100101110101101.ORG will show the enormous amount of information that is possible to find on a person in the present society.

Q.: In life_sharing, you invoke the GNU Public License (GPL) a particular form of license for software developed by the Free Software Foundation. This license allows users of a piece of code to make changes to it, to adapt it for their own purposes, so long as they then make those changes publicly available to other users and do not "close" the code as it develops. The GPL is a document that has excited interest outside of programming circles, providing a link to other takes on collective or open authorship, redefinitions of copyright, intellectual property, and so on.

A.: The fact of adopting Linux as operating system and consequently the GPL license, is absolutely not an allusion, but the result of political choices, and for technical and legal reasons. We are working, together with a lawyer, to develop a license that we want to apply to all the files in which no other license is specified. This license is directly inspired by the GPL but will be extended to all cultural products, granting the possibility of:
-- using the product
-- modifying the product
-- distributing copies, modified or not, of the product (freely or with payment)
This license also prevents the addition of any restrictions -- avoiding the possibility of products covered by this license being added to or combined with any other products under any different form of license. Up until now, 0100101110101101.ORG has not placed any of the things it did under copyright. First of all, because 0100101110101101.ORG has never produced anything.
0100101110101101.ORG only moves packages of information, diverts their flow, observes changes, and eventually profits from it. Visibility is the real problem of the Net. If someone uses your music, your words, or images, he is only doing you favour. Many people have spontaneously reused 0100101110101101.ORG (www.plagiarist.org, www.geocities.com/maxherman_2000/hell.phpl, www.message.sk/warped). If someone else profits from 0100101110101101.ORG, it’s because of their own merit. In the end, it is doing the same as what we did: profit is always inevitably mutual.

Q.: Yes, so this is this surplus, happening also in the economy of visibility. Developing this, it seems there are two basic forms of approach to the knot of problems pointed to by the terms appropriation/plagiarism/anticopyright, etc. One is illustrated by Hegel when he says, in Elements of the Philosophy of Right, "To appropriate something means basically only to manifest the supremacy of my will in relation to the thing. "The other approach is the generation of contexts in which the creation of dynamics of circulation and use that have greater or lesser degrees of openness -- not the imposition of will -- prevail." A different formulation of this might be found in the statements of anti/copyright commonly used in the underground and radical media in Italy and elsewhere, where copyright is open to further non-profit users, or for participants in social movements, but closed to proprietary reproduction. Thus, on the "inside" an open context is created, but the proprietary weapon of copyright is still maintained for use against for-profit use. The fiction of the will is used in this sense as a legalistic shield in order, in essence, to dissolve it. Do these two forms correspond in some way to the two modes of operation that you have spoken about?

A.: The fact that 0100101110101101.ORG is explicitly no-copyright is surely strictly linked to commercialization, but not in the sense in which it is often used. It is common to mistake "no-copyright# for "no-profit". 0100101110101101.ORG is compatible with monetary retribution, under different forms. life_sharing, being a project financed by an institution, is one of these. "Free" software, Negativland’s music, Wu-Ming’s books, are all examples of cultural products that have been able to reconcile the no-copyright model with commercialization. No-copyright is no longer solely an underground practice, but a wider cultural "production standard."
This means, in the first place, being conscious that your own knowledge is not innate, but that it is a synthesis of different cultural products. Recognizing this means making our own knowledge shareable and thus usable not only by ourselves but by anyone, even commercially, imposing simply that nobody can subsequently restrict this possibility to others.
The problem of copyright is increasingly more important. It deals not only with software, art, or music, but is invading every field of human life. Let’s consider, for example, the field of genetics. In 1987, in apparent violation of the laws that govern the concession of patents on natural discoveries, a revolutionary decree was made in which it was declared that the components of human beings (genes, chromosomes, cells, and tissues) could be patented and considered the intellectual property of anybody who first isolates a length of DNA, describes its properties or functions, proposes an application, and pays some money for a patent. This implies that, for example, when a person wants to have a genetic code test, they may have to pay a percentage to the company that holds the copyright of one or more of their genes. "Manifest the supremacy of my will in relation to the thing." This signifies that all the times that it is necessary, every time we found ourselves in front of a distance that doesn’t belong to us, that we share a book, a film, an idea, we can say: "It is mine! I did it!"


From: “TheExplicit” redaction.explicit@oem.es
To: hell.com@0100101110101101.ORG
Date: Sat, 18 Dec 1999 19:51:11 +0100

Who the fuck are you?


Site: HTTP://WWW.0100101110101101.ORG
E-mail: BIENNALE@0100101110101101.ORG


[acoustic space intro] SNAFU, introduction to Nobody dare to call it plagiarism!, interview with Snafu, Acoustic.Space, October 2000.

[britannica] Taken from 0100101110101101.ORG: They’re Not Just Mean, interview, Britannica, 21 July 2000.

[unita] Taken from Abbiamo svelato i trucchi dei critici - gli 0100101110101101.ORG raccontano qui come "intervengono" nelle loro operazioni "beffarde", interview with Antonio Caronia, l’Unita, 14 February 2000.

[telepolis] Taken from Keine Künstler, nur Betrachter, interview with Tilman Baumgärtel, Telepolis, 9 December 1999.

[haaretz] Taken from Life imitates art and art imitates itself, interview with Uri Pasovsky, Haaretz, 19 September 2000.

[acoustic space] Taken from Nobody dare to call it plagiarism!, interview with Snafu, Acoustic.Space, October 2000.

[fuller] Taken from Data-Nudism, interview with Matthew Fuller, Walker Art Center, 1 January 2001.