Artists and Hackers

Intellectual Property and Indigenous Heritage

Lee Tusman
You’re listening to Artists and Hackers, a podcast on art, code and community. We talk to programers, artist, poets, musicians, botmakers, students, and now legal scholars in an effort to look at online artmaking and a history of technology and the internet. We’re interested in where we’ve been and speculative ideas on the future.

In this season of the podcast we’re working with the Engelberg Center for Innovation Policy at NYU Law.

This season we’ve been examining the world of copyright and how it relates to creative artworks and code, not because we’re interested in property on its own but because we’re interested in how artists and creators working on projects with current technology are running into societal issues that may or may not be addressed by law. In our interview with Michael Weinberg, Director of the Engelberg Center, he spoke about the monkey selfie legal case and how copyright is grounded in the idea that it’s a person that possesses copyright.

Creative Commons Director Kat Walsh spoke on the creation of creative commons as a hack on copyright when legislators wouldn’t step in to support work created and dedicated to the public. In our interview with programmer and artist Ramsey Nasser, he spoke about co-creating the Anti-Capitalist Software License due to a need for open source software licenses that do more to address the conditions of how software is written, allowing individual programmers and coops to use one’s code for example, but preventing a for-profit corporation from doing so. Creative Commons and the Anti-Capitalist Software License are two responses to perceived imbalances from copyright law, part of a community of folks interested in ethics and open source. In today’s episode, we’re looking at issues that come up in indigenous communities, and one initiative to respond to the limitations of the law and to reassert cultural authority in one’s own heritage, culture and data.

Jane Anderson
My name is Jane Anderson.

Lee
And Jane, what’s your area of specialty?

Jane
My area of specialty I would probably say is intellectual property law combined with questions of decolonization and histories of museums and anthropology I guess.

Lee
How did you get into working this way, in this area?

Jane
I began this work by doing a PHD in law in Australia around intellectual property and indigenous knowledge. So I did a PHD in intellectual property and indigenous knowledge particularly focusing on the way in which intellectual property law had come to a subject of indigenous knowledge. Particularly in relationship to Aboriginal art and for me that was a super interesting question particularly because it required me to think about the history of intellectual property law. Its emergence as a particular body of law as well as kind of how it was able to or how it continues to bring in new kinds of subject matter as that emerges. So how does it protect digital technology? How does it protect? So it’s fascinating to think about such an old body of law being able to consistently adapt to new social and cultural innovations as they happen in order to either protect them or bring them under its domain. And I was interested in why it hadn’t thought about Aboriginal art and then when it did, how it responded.

Lee
Okay, if I understood you right, for part of this it sounds like, and correct me if I’m wrong in any of this, it sounds like you’re saying that copyright law and other legal structures were able to absorb and deal with technology and the ways that maybe artists are working in this way but not so much able to kind of support and work with Aboriginal knowledge and culture, is that accurate?

Jane
Yeah, so I was interested particularly in that work about how it is that the law itself is functioning to create a particular kind of subject or object that it then is able to protect and particularly was interested in why you know in this is a really quite a specific kind of question about why in 1970 in Australia did intellectual property law or copyright in particular become concerned with the framing of Aboriginal artistry? And needing to bring it into a form of protection when for you know, hundreds of years it had never cared. So what was that tipping point, and then what did the law need to do in order to bring Aboriginal art under its umbrella? And to do that it needed to make Aboriginal artists. It needed to make an Aboriginal artist. So that wasn’t necessarily a given. And it also needed to identify Aboriginal art as a particular kind of subject matter or work that copyright law could protect. And that also wasn’t necessarily a given.

Lee
And what did you find? I’m curious why did that become a priority for legal structures to be able to identify, define an Aboriginal artist and to support their work in a copyright context?

Jane
Well I think that the 1970s in Australia was a particular moment where Aboriginal activists were starting to say, hey how come everybody is copying our work and nobody recognizes us as artists and yet we are artists, and what does it mean for all of our work to end up on tea towels and fabric and tables and no attribution or no recognition of where this has come from. And that was a complex question in many ways partly because it’s about the construction of indigenous people to start with, within a social framework like settler colonial framework in Australia where indigenous people only became citizens in the late 1960s, 67. But it’s also responding to a certain kind of economic market that was emerging around Aboriginal art as well. So there were different forces that were both political as well as cultural that were pushing law to actually work to accommodate and include indigenous artists in the copyright framework.

Lee
So as I’m hearing you say this, one thing it makes me think about is if we’re, if there’s an emphasis on the individuality of an artist or an artistic ideal and this is something that you know from my background making art I’m thinking of of this as like you know this something I run up against too which is this idea that art comes from a singular person. So I guess my question is what have you found in terms of of kind of either legal support or rejection or lack of support for collective cultural ownership and knowledge?

Jane
I found that the law doesn’t do a very good job in protecting collective knowledge. It can accommodate the individual, so it works really well for a singular Aboriginal artist for instance, but it doesn’t work so well if that singular Aboriginal artist is drawing upon collective knowledge or is also part of a collective of writers creating works that draw on long-standing Ancestral traditions. It can’t accommodate that complexity and I think that that starts to tell us a lot about the cultural specificity of the law itself. It also tells us how difficult it is for different kinds of worldviews to be incorporated into the categorical frameworks of Western or Euro intellectual property law.

Lee
Are there examples of this that you could describe, examples of where there’s been a need to support collective ownership and ways that you’ve had to be creative to help figure out some kind of framework to support that?

Jane
Yeah, I mean I would preface this and probably come back to it that one of the big challenges in the area that I work in is the language of ownership to start with, and the framework of property itself conditions what’s possible to think about and what’s possible to talk about. So I’m just going to bracket that and come back to it. But there were a number of cases in Australia that emerged from this moment in the 1970s into the 80s and 90s where Aboriginal artists brought cases around the appropriation of their art onto carpets in particular. And their argument had to be framed within one that the law could recognize. So there’s kind of singular Aboriginal artists but what they were portraying were totemic clan designs that had been passed down through generations of families that they were responsible for conveying. They weren’t owners in that property way but they had very clearly delineated responsibilities to convey the work in a particular way and they felt that when it was put on a carpet, for instance, that there was a whole lot of cultural harm that happened in that appropriation. And and I think the cases are very interesting in the sense that of course we’re talking about a work and the appropriation of a work but that was because that’s what the law needed in order to recognize the validity of the claim. But what the Aboriginal artists were talking about which the law couldn’t necessarily respond to was it wasn’t just a work. Like the content of that work really mattered. It was a narrative of significance to those communities that told people where they came from and what their responsibilities were to particular animals and particular places and there’s a whole deep dimension to what was being conveyed in that work that then made that sense that the disrespect or the cultural harm in appropriating it. It wasn’t just a pretty snake that was being drawn. It was an animal of significance to that community and to take that design and the copy the form of that snake in a particular way did significant harm to how the representation of that story could be conveyed into the future. So these are elements that obviously couldn’t be recognised necessarily and I think what was also interesting and in these cases is that the community members the artists who had brought the claim they acted as a collective together in relationship to these cases. They took the the damages collectively and divided them. They really came together in order to kind of make the same claim. That was also not only from what was at stake and and why there was this particular kind of harm but also in seeking the remedy they acted as a collective as well.

Lee
Have you found examples of this here in the United States as well? I know you work for example, as a professor at NYU. I’m curious to hear if there’s similarities in these kinds of circumstances here in the US or is it a pretty different ecosystem?

Jane
There’s definitely similarities across these spaces. Not only in how the law responds but also in the ways in which indigenous people and indigenous communities find themselves subject to that body of law. The work that I do in the United States is a little bit more focused on where indigenous people have lost their rights to control cultural knowledge either in relationship, and and when I’m talking about cultural knowledge I’m talking about sound recordings or films or photographs or languages that are owned and controlled by non-indigenous people and that particular problem which is enormous and populates our archives, libraries and museums in multiple ways because that’s where all that material now comes about because of a certain rationale in studying indigenous people and it’s a product of a particular kind of extractive logic of research where people come in, document, record, study and take all of that material out again leaving indigenous communities with very little including control over those representations.

Lee
Is this in some of this phenomenon What led you to starting Local Contexts?

Jane
Yeah, it’s exactly why I started Local Contexts. I guess for at least 10 years I had been working both in Australia and in the United States on the problems of who owns indigenous cultural material within archives, libraries and museums and what does it mean to try and repatriate or reach that material if the legal ownership is held by a non-indigenous person. And I had worked with communities around building different kinds of intellectual property strategies to respond to these kinds of problems, but I got to a point where I mean you can’t retroactively go back and fix some of those problems, right? That control was really taken away from communities for a really long period of time. The length of copyright is quite extraordinary and so it became important to try and think through what our other kinds of mechanisms that could be developed that can support indigenous interests in regaining control and being able to make decisions about how this material gets utilized into the future and so I originally started thinking, okay, well maybe licenses could do this job. You know, maybe there’s a license that Creative Commons haven’t yet developed that could specifically address indigenous interests in this area. That seemed like a good idea initially until the kind of the light went on again which was but actually indigenous people don’t own this material to start with and they need to be copyright holders to have a license. So it was a bit like, oh back to the drawing board. And so Local Contexts really began as an initiative to think through how could you develop something that actually brings indigenous cultural authority back into certain kinds of authoritative spaces like archives, libraries and museums. But more than that, how can you push against a property model? How could you bring or how could you create something that asks for the recognition of cultural protocols?

Jane
And what that was speaking to probably goes back to what I mentioned at the very beginning around Aboriginal art that what’s in a photograph or what’s in a sound recording is really what matters. It’s not that it’s a sound recording. It’s not that it’s a photograph. It’s the content has has the most important or conveys the most important information and that’s what’s so valuable to indigenous people, and that has always been governed by cultural protocols that exist within every indigenous community. They just haven’t been recognized as law, haven’t been incorporated into Euro-american law, and so it was an interesting and kind of a provocative proposition to say well, how could you do that? And if the law is failing indigenous people, why is that? And I think the answer to that is multiple. There’s multiple answers to that. But one of them is that the law was never designed to support indigenous interests in the first place. So it can on the sides do that work but centrally it doesn’t and won’t and can’t, so what else are you left with to actually do that work that indigenous communities demand to be done in a respectful, thoughtful, responsible, relational way. And that’s where Local Contexts came from.

Lee
And with that background, can you say a little about how Local Context works.? On your website it says that Local Contexts provides a new set of procedural workflows. What does that mean? What does Local Contexts do in that context?

Jane
So Local contexts provides a set of digital tags that allows communities to put either information around attribution or correct provenance, or protocols around knowledge sharing back into contexts where their cultural material currently sits. And to do that takes a little bit of work. So what’s important about the digital tagging or labeling system is that you know the intervention is really at the level of digital infrastructures in many ways. That’s partly because so much of this material has been digitized and circulates without anybody having any sense that there are indigenous protocols around how this should be utilized, when it should be heard, how it should be listened to. And an invitation to be actually engaging with the communities whose material it continues to be and so in many ways the digital tag system is an intervention at a metadata level, but it’s also asking people who encounter indigenous cultural material to think a little bit about how it came to be where they’re viewing it and that these communities still exist and still have rights in relationship to how this material should be used even if they’re not recognized as copyright rights. So communities customize their labels and then they work with institutions to implement them into institutional contexts where that material currently sits or they customize their labels and use them on their own websites just as particular kinds of markers to say and this is the right way of engaging with this material. We don’t want you to use this in a commercial context. We do want you to engage with us. We are really happy for you to kind of use this material for educational reasons. And I think that that’s what the the labels do is that they provide an avenue for indigenous communities to articulate what their expectations are in relationship to using their cultural material.

Lee
Can you give examples of how this has worked in the past?

Jane
Yeah, so I mean I can give you the example that is probably the most cited example, but there are many others and this is the one that involves the Passamaquoddy sound recordings. These Passamaquoddy sound recordings that were made in 1890, they’re the first sound recordings made on native lands in this country. And the story of the sound recording themselves is interesting in the sense that they get lost. And then they’re refound, and they end up at the Library of Congress, but they never were made for Passamaquoddy people. They were kind of a sound experiment that the researcher Jesse Walter Fewkes was doing as he became the head of the expedition into Hopi and Zuni lands later in 1890. So it’s kind of testing his equipment, and the sound has never really made it back to the Passamaquoddy. No one thought of returning to them or to share them, and it wasn’t until really the 1980s that it happened. But the technology was really poor, and so when those recordings did get returned they were so scratchy people couldn’t really understand what was on them. So it took another shift in technology to be able to hear those recordings in a different kind of way, and in that process the Passamaquoddy decided that they wanted to use the Traditional Knowledge Labels as part of their work. Both determining the content, like what were these songs about, and sharing that traditional knowledge or that information back to the Library of Congress in a way that they felt comfortable doing partly because they were using these labels to demarcate what exactly were Passamaquoddy continued interests in these recordings.

Lee
Sorry, I have a pretty good knowledge of working with Creative Commons material since I’ve been with my own art and music I’ve used a Creative Commons label to identify work of mine that I want to be able to to share and have other people be able to reuse in various ways, and provide a context for how that can be reused. It can’t be used commercially but it can be used non-commercially and has to be shared, for example. The labels that Local Contexts has come up with, does it work in a similar process? I’m curious about some of the specifics of these tools.

Jane
Yeah, it really does work in a similar process in a similar way, and you know we were in conversation with Creative Commons very early in the development of the labels. The primary difference between the labels and Creative commons is that we use the labels when you don’t have any legal right. The labels come in to operation because those rights don’t exist. For those communities in order to utilize a Creative Commons license, for instance, like you were just saying that you could do it, you can use a creative commons license because you hold the copyright in the work itself in the first instance. If that copyright is held by a third party you can’t use the Creative Commons license, and so this is where the majority of indigenous people find themselves in relationship to their cultural material, is that they’re not the owners of it. So what the difference with our tool is to Creative Commons is that it provides a mechanism that allows communities to convey their cultural interests in a way even if they’re not the legal rights holders, and I guess I would say the other thing that the labels do which is different to Creative Commons is that we’re operating within a different cultural paradigm of responsibility around the content itself, which is why we have multiple kinds of labels. So we have a seasonal label which speaks to concerns that communities have around when particular stories are told at particular times of the year, and that there are restrictions around when certain kinds of songs are sung or when certain kinds of stories are told because of the environment. That’s a nuance that Creative Commons doesn’t get to because it’s focusing on use of a work, not the cultural frameworks in which that work has meaning across kind of a spectrum that connects knowledge to land and to place.

Lee
One similarity that I’m thinking about, and correct me if I’m wrong, is that the use of labels and even licenses is often in addition to kind of a legal structure is often a signpost or indicator of something. It’s a way of creating a symbolic meaningful statement about one’s work or a group’s work or a community’s work. How much do you think of this labeling as doing something like that providing a symbolic statement versus a a particular legal framework, for example?

Jane
Yeah I think that’s a great question. It is very symbolic in in one way because it’s pointing to something that might not otherwise be seen. It’s pointing to the existence of cultural authority that might not otherwise have been thought about for a variety of reasons, and so in that sense that kind of icon. But the labels deploy one that’s trying to get a visual recognition into a different kind of way. And think what the labels do by then kind of making that step so in the absence of there being anything that could support or make visible already existing indigenous cultural authority around this material, adding a label is a step towards a next place, which is indigenous communities being at the table making decisions over how that material gets used. In the future I feel like it’s important that labeling in this instance or a particular kind of the Traditional Knowledge Labels or the Biocultural Labels is not an end in itself. It’s part of a process that is elevating and making visible indigenous rights in a way that means that indigenous people are part of future decision-making about their cultural forms of representation.

Lee
Thanks so much, and thanks for taking so much time speaking with me.

Jane
Thanks Lee, bye.

After speaking with Jane, I was eager to talk with a community using Local Contexts to contextualize their work and to find out a bit more on how it’s going. I spoke with Courtney Papuni from the Te Whakatōhea iwi. An iwi is a people or nation in Maori society.

Lee
Can you say your full name.

Courtney
My name is Courtney Papuni.

Lee
Can you so identify your your tribe, or your iwi, if I’m saying that correctly?

Courtney
Yep, I have a few but the one that I do work for at the moment is Te Whakatōhea here which is located in Ōpōtiki area, which is the Bay of Plenty of New Zealand Aotearoa so we’re on the East Coast of the North Island.

Lee
Correct me if I’m wrong here, my understanding is that things like photographs, music recordings, film dictionaries and other materials relating to the iwi and and actually indigenous communities in general were often done or taken without permission, and by people outside the community. I’m curious how this has affected how your community could determine how items could be shared or used or presented?

Courtney
I’m not sure so much about recordings but definitely our histories. And our stories were usually told by what we would say are tauiwi, people that aren’t Maori. So they recorded our histories in the past and often it was with a lens that was very foreign to how we would view the world. So growing up learning about our own history we would learn it from a Pākehā or colonized view of things, but oftentimes when they did record our stories it would actually be our tipuna or our ancestors that would contribute some of that kōrero. So the the problem lies where our iwi or our community don’t know that that information is out there. And you know with intellectual property rights and stuff like that, like copyright and all of that stuff, it often has caused us to become disconnected with our knowledge, but also to have no say over where it’s stored. And so at the moment I’m working on a project to help at least put our Whakatōhea voice on our taonga, our stuff, our knowledge that’s out there at the moment. So a lot of our knowledge and taonga which is I guess gifts or artifacts, I think might be a good english word, sit outside of our iwi like our museums or libraries or archives. So generally they were taken by people as collectors items or were recorded by people that weren’t from our community. Does that make sense?

Lee
It does and I can imagine that this phenomenon has really accelerated as the internet has become so ubiquitous today and data or artifacts or digitized gifts I think was the other word you used, as these can be digitized in various ways or not, there’s even less an ability.

Courtney
I don’t know if you’ve ever heard of haka or Maori performing arts where we sing and do poi and that’s a big deal not just in our iwi but as a whole community of Maori so Kapa haka and stuff like that is very important. So this stuff is still happening because the companies in other countries are taking our images and putting it on their… well one of our friends, her face was put on a shower curtain and she’s quite well known. She wouldn’t like me to say famous but she’s very well known in the Maori community and her face was put on a shower curtain in China without her permission. So yes stuff is out in the internet and it’s being used without our permission and I think using the Traditional Knowledge Labels as a way that we can help reign in that behavior and and ask people to be more ethical about how they use our precious taonga, our people’s faces, our stuff, our knowledge, stuff like that.

Lee
I’m really curious if you could explain what the Traditional Knowledge Labels are, what they mean to you, and how you’ve customized them?

Courtney
I Think what they mean to me personally is an opportunity for us to to guide researchers and institutions on how we wish our knowledge to be accessed and used. There’s nothing out there at the moment that guides anyone on anything so if the information is available they can use it however they like without even verifying the information. Whereas if there’s a label therefore people who are interested in the ethical use of the information they come across it there’s a label there that we have customized to show them how we wish to use that information and I think that’s really important because there’s nothing out there like that I’ve seen at the moment that indigenous peoples can use. I mean there’s data sovereignty and some other really cool crop up that’s happening out there but this is the one that we’ve been given to trial and from what I can see so far especially working with, learning from indigenous communities in the states that are already using them it’s actually quite an easy to use tool.

Lee
Do you have one at hand that you’d be able to share?

Courtney
The one we always talk about is Attribution. So the Attribution label can be used to correct historical mistakes. So there could have been an issue for instance, who wrote a song. So after I finish here with you we’re going to start assessing labels for our waiata app. Now waiata in english is song so our iwi’s got a song app. So songs that are from our iwi have been put into this app for our iwi to access and learn. So there’s a song in there that has been a bit contentious in terms of who wrote it, who actually was involved in the writing of it. So if I was to talk about a label we would put probably Attribution on there because it’s correcting a historical misunderstanding of who wrote the song. So there’s lots of historical misunderstandings when it comes to our mātauranga, our knowledge. And so if I was to talk about a label it would be Attribution because we could use that to correct historical mistakes and then you could use Verify, the Verify label, to show external users that the information that they have come across has been verified by the people that the information is about.

Lee
One of the things I’m also thinking about is how often copyright rewards individual or corporate ownership and I’m curious how you’ve either run up against this or needed to respond to this in terms of collective ownership or community ownership or even different consideration of what ownership even means in different contexts.

Courtney
Yeah, actually we have come up against it because we’ve recently been given links to audio recordings of people from our iwi on radio stations and whatnot. So we’re allowed to put labels on them. But we have to be aware that they also have copyright rights somewhere else. So I’m not really sure how we’re going to navigate that space. But how we have done it for our iwi is taught them. So at our one that I told you about earlier we taught our attendees that were there about copyright. And how in the past it’s been used to disenfranchise us or disconnect us with our taonga. And they had no idea. Like why would you unless you needed to know? Well we know generally about copyright but we have never really talked about how it’s been used to disinherit indigenous people from their taonga. We have come up against it but we’re still navigating that space with the institution that have gifted it to us, well, given us the metadata for those files. We’re still trying to figure it out over here. Have you had any conversations with other indigenous communities that have come up against that?

Lee
I haven’t yet. I’m really interested but I haven’t yet.

Courtney
Me too because quite often in this project we’ll look to the ones that have done it first, like the Penobscot and Passamaquoddy people. They had the wax cylinders I think and I think that was repatriated back to them but I’m not sure about the copyright stuff here. But I’d be really interested to know if you do find out.

Courtney
The way indigenous people look at things and the way tauiwi look at things are so different. We don’t own anything really. We’re whakataki even of knowledge that’s in our songs. One person might write the song. But generally the collective knowledge is what helped inform that song. You know what I mean? So we don’t really own… Yeah, indigenous people are guardians of their stuff. So copyright to me is just… It just doesn’t work. Not for us, and not for the way we view the world. It cracks me up. But we only just really are reawakening to all of this. There’s like many people before me that have done this type of work. But myself personally, I’m just doing this project. It’s where I can open my eyes and it’s waking me up to stuff I had no idea about.

Lee
It sounds like both really important and really interesting work.

Courtney
Yeah, definitely. I’ve met some really amazing people that have been doing this stuff for decades. I sat in a training last year with a First Nations woman over in the states and she was just in tears. She’d been doing it for four decades and she could finally see light in terms of putting their voice on their knowledge and their artifacts and gifts and stuff that they’re gonna make in the future as well. It’s pretty cool, pretty cool.

Lee
That’s cool.

Courtney
Yeah, yeah, very lucky.

Lee
Well thank you so much, I really appreciate you speaking with me today. It’s really interesting. I really enjoyed speaking with you. I learned a lot.

Courtney
You are welcome. Glad to be of some help and I look forward to seeing what other cool stuff you find along your path.

Lee
I started doing research into today’s episode when I was looking into ideas of decolonization and cultural appropriation and how that was dealt with in copyright. And I was quickly connected to Jane Anderson, a lawyer and professor of NYU Law and a co-founder of Local Contexts, which was created to deal with the needs of indigineous communities and local organizations who wanted a practical method to deal with the intellectual property materials of their cultural heritage materials. Especially when it comes to issues of ownership. And what I find interesting about Local Contexs, similarly to Cultural Commons, it’s a kind of hack on copyright. In this case with Local Contexts, they’re dealing with imposed western values of ownership, which you can hear Courtney acknowledge as not really working with their iwi and having their cultural works, artifacts and music - these are just a few examples, taken, quote unquote owned by museums or other entities that may have plundered these cultural heritage, dozens or hundreds of years ago, or are presenting community songs and oral works from these communities. According to the copyright system, these works generally aren’t owned from the communities in which they’re from because they were taken a long time ago for example, or the community didn’t quote unquote copyright them originally because they weren’t property, they were an inherent part of that community and its heritage. Local Contexts is one attempt at addressing this, and it’s being used and adapted by indigineous and local communities worldwide, so I was really interested in hearing how it’s being used and how it’s going as it’s developing. In Courtney’s iwi they’re using Local Contexts because of these issues, a need to state and share how the community want the work of their community and cultural heritage to be shared, accessed and presented, and Local contexts is a framework for asserting indigineous organizing, governance and decision-making. This way of working is meant to empower the community using it, and to guide future collections and public presentations and scholarship of cultural heritage and indigineous data. And it’s a very practical system addressing inequity and using legal tools in the here and now, but clearly also serving as a needed model to guide how law should be reformed in this area. For that, I was really excited to learn and hear how it’s being used and adapted. And if you have thoughts or suggestions on other communities that are working in different ways to adapt the law and how it’s practiced, to adapt to a community’s cultural assets, culture, art and other creations, I’d love to hear about it.

Your’re listening to Artists and Hackers. Thanks to today’s guests, Jane Anderson and Courtney Papuni.

You’ve been listening to season 3 of the podcast, produced with the Engelberg Center for Innovation Law and Policy at NYU Law. My name is Lee Tusman. Our audio producer is Max Ludlow.

Our music on today’s episode is Greenish Blue by Golden Grey, Away by Meyan, Termites by Xylo Ziko and MC808 by Koi Discovery. All tracks from the Free Music Archive.

You can find more episodes, full transcripts and links to find out about our guests and topics on our website artistsandhackers.org. You can find us on Instagram at artistsandhackers and Mastodon at artistsandhackers at post.lurk.org you can always write to us on our website, sign up for our email list, suggest episode ideas, and please leave us feedback whereever you get your podcast.

Thanks for listening.