Sunteți pe pagina 1din 37

thirty minutes or less

Adam David

Sunday, April 19, 2015

Let this be a notice to all concerned: the hypertext found poetry project Hi Maam Sir, published in PDF
as It will be the same/but not quite the same., is no more. It has been deleted from its blog and
Mediafire folder as an effort to comply with a cease & desist letter sent by the lawyers of Anvil
Publishing and Noelle Q. de Jesus & Mookie Katigbak-Lacuesta, the editors of the anthology Fast Food
Fiction Delivery, who have accused me of copyright infringement and threatened me with up to
PhP600,000 in fines and imprisonment of up to twelve years.

Hi Maam Sir is a work of literary criticism. It is a part of what aims to be a multimedia critical response
to the short story anthology Fast Food Fiction Delivery. The first part of the critical response is the essay
Nutrition Facts: Always Look at the Label, a microreview focussing on what I perceive to be the
anthologys lack of an acute curatorial framework. HMS was the second part of this critical response. It
was meant to demonstrate what I think is a flattening of aesthetics, politics, language, and form in
contemporary English-language short story writing in the Philippines.

Here is how HMS worked: I went through the anthology and copied four sentences per story
specifically the first and last sentences, and two random sentences somewhere in between. Sometimes
a sentence would have five words, sometimes ten. Some sentences were around fifty words long, and a
few were made up of a single word. I typed them all out in four rows and encoded a hypertext machine
in Javascript to generate random combinations of what amounted to roughly two hundred and seventy
two sentences, which I predicted would come up with new stories expressing coherence despite their
disparate origins.

HMS was also intended to be a continuation of my critical and creative practice: one of my main
branches of critical and creative exploration of the last ten years is what I call drawing the infinite from
the finite, a development of my interest in Constrained Writing. For every project that I do, I give myself
strict, pseudo-mathematical rules to guide their creation. For HMS, the rules were to gather roughly two
hundred and seventy two sentences from sixty eight stories, have them randomly assemble in groups of
four sentences each, potentially resulting in upwards of twenty million new stories.

I maintain that HMS is well within the territory of Fair Use. I maintain that the process from Fast Food
Fiction Delivery to Hi Maam Sir was thoroughly transformative, resulting in absolute, doubtless, and
significant difference between the two, to the point that one will never be confused for the other. I
maintain that the spirit of the project has been and always will be literary criticism, as exercised
creatively. I maintain that I have never earned a centavo from HMS, and I never will. The decision to
delete HMS is strictly motivated by nothing more than personal economic realities.
ORDER IN THE FOOD COURT*
April 18, 2015 at 12:31pm
We, concerned writers and supporters of literature, voice our dismay over the legally-registered demand of
Noelle Q. de Jesus, Mookie Katigbak-Lacuesta, and Anvil Publishingeditors and publisher of Fast Food
Fiction Deliveryfor Adam David to take down his online reappropriations of the contents of the anthology.
David selected excerpts from various pieces in the collection, retyped them, and plugged them into a
website coded to generate random combinations of these passages. Davids work, accessible through
Mediafire and Blogspot, is consistent with the trajectory of his writing, whichfrom The El Bimbo
Variations to Than Then Thanhas questioned notions of originality and displayed an impertinent stance to
literary tradition and an aggressive repurposing of source texts, often to humorous yet critical effect.

De Jesus, Katigbak-Lacuesta, and Anvil, through their lawyers, have accused David of four grounds of
copyright infringement and have threatened him with a fine of PhP150,000 and imprisonment of one to
three years for each count. Hence, David stands to be fined as much as PhP600,000 and be imprisoned for as
long as 12 years. The grounds for infringement are: (1) reproduction right, (2) other communication to the
public of the work, (3) publishers right, and (4) moral rights. In other words, the editors and publisher have
accused David of: not securing permission from the copyright owners, disfiguring the original form of the
anthology material, failing to acknowledge the anthologys contributors, and giving the public access to the
anthology outside the conditions set by the publisher.

We are distressed by these accusations because we feel that the demand:

1. implies an unwillingness to participate in the kind of discourse that is necessary to the development of
literary practice, even if and specially when such engagements are informed by negative critique;

2. exhibits a disregard for literary practices that have persisted over the past 500 years, specially in the light
of copyist tendencies and the aesthetics of collage as evident in Cervantess Don Quixote, T.S. Eliots The
Waste Land, to the Conceptualists of the late 20th century;

3. with its emphasis on how Davids violation of copyright allegedly erod[es] the integrity of every short
story in the book, is based on an outdated notion of author as singular, original, and propertied, hence
reducing the work solely into a commodity and diminishing the agency of the reader by turning her into a
mere consumer;

4. rather than encouraging discussion, demonstrates instead censorship through intimidation and
harassment; in effect, by taking the legal (read: costly) route, the conflict between various aesthetic and
creative viewpoints deteriorates into a battle of financial resources.

To conclude, the demand of de Jesus, Katigbak-Lacuesta, and Anvil signifies an aversion to practices that
seek to advance the many ways in which authors produce materials, readers engage with texts, and
literature responds to its changing social, technological, and cultural contexts. We denounce this attitude of
conservative literary gatekeeping, we resist the policing of the literary community, and we oppose the forces
that coerce our writers into silence.

(500 WORDS)

Mark Anthony Cayanan


Vincenz Serrano
Conchitina Cruz
Raymond de Borja
Angela Stuart-Santiago
Katrina Stuart Santiago
Carlos Quijon, Jr.
April Sescon
Denise OHara
Baryon Posadas
Florianne Jimenez
Naya Valdellon
Allan Popa
Richard Gappi
Glen Sales
Indira Endaya
Petra Magno
Lilledeshan Bose
Jacob Walse-Dominguez
Franz Joel Libo-on
Glenn Diaz
John Bengan
Maryanne Moll
Zosimo Quibilan, Jr.
Nanoy Rafael
Victor Dennis Tino Nierva
EJ Galang
Ergoe Tinio
Vladimeir B. Gonzales
Jay Salvosa
Marrian Pio Roda Ching
Harris Guevarra
Eliza Victoria
Mesandel Virtusio Arguelles
Ronald V. Verzo II
Beverly Wico Sy
Ellie Esquivias
Mayo Uno Martin
Edgar Calabia Samar
Andrew Albert J. Ty
Oliver Ortega
Honey de Peralta
Laurence Marvin Castillo
Donna Miranda
Marlon Hacla
Aldus Santos
Ramon Damasing
Alyza Taguilaso
Christoffer Mitch Cerda
Ken Ishikawa
Erwin Lareza
Bubuy Balangue
Jeremy De Chavez
Pepito Go-Oco
Ramon Guillermo
Apol Sta. Maria
Mark Benedict Lim
Jun Lisondra
Paul de Guzman
Sandra Nicole Roldan
Elmo Gonzaga
Mabi David
Paolo Jose Cruz
Joselito D. Delos Reyes
Martin Villanueva
Angelo V. Suarez
Gina Apostol
Timothy James Dimacali
Joseph Salazar
Mark Angeles
Jema Pamintuan
Erik E. Tuban
Julian Dela Cerna
Alvin Yapan
Althea Ricardo
Perfecto T. Martin
Carlo C. Flordeliza
Bernice Roldan
Joseph de Luna Saguid
Karla Quimsing
Kuya Doni Oliveros
Erika M. Carreon
Vicente Garcia Groyon
Kristian Cordero
Eduardo Dayao
Marguerite Alcazaren De Leon
Janise Claire Salvacion
April-Joy Eufracio
Ina Alleco Roldan Silverio
Daryll Delgado
Rodrigo dela Pea, Jr.
Om Narayan Velasco
Sonia Pascual
Vince Dioquino
Kristine Ong Muslim
Joey Clutario
Moreal Nagarit Camba
Ronald Benusa
Gesuina Marie Puangco
Bea Mariano
Zeny May Dy Recidoro
Daniel Lorenzo Pineda
Jewel Castro Aragon
Keith Bustamante
En Villasis
Shin Acabado
Sarah Raymundo
Chiles Samaniego
Gabriela Lee
Francis Paolo Quina
Faye Cura
Kristine Marie Reynaldo
Poklong Ananding
Lolito Go
Katrina Navarro
Lawrence Bernabe
Ned Parfan
Ana Micaela Chua
Rogelio Braga
Christian Tablazon
Carlos Piocos
Monica Macansantos
Carlos Antonio M. Cruz
Dana Lee Delgado
Katrina Macapagal
Jerry B. Gracio
Camille Banzon
Jose Perez Beduya
Jessica del Mundo
Ringo Bunoan
Jose Leonardo A. Sabilano
Jasmine Nikki C. Paredes
Romulo Baquiran, Jr.
Theresa Russel Padillo
Jefferson Chua
Carljoe Javier
Katrina Tankeh
Arby Medina
Joshua Paradeza
Trizha Ko
Patrick Bautista
Noel Pascual
Josel Nicolas
Giancarlo Abrahan
Ferdinand Pisigan Jarin
Ram Hernandez
Roy Vadil Aragon
Louise Vincent B. Amante
Chiles Samaniego
Zola Gonzalez Macarambon
Tilde Acua
Chuckberry Pascual
GlennFord B. Tolentino
Mykel Andrada
Noel Villa
Jody Lorraine Felizadio
Carlo Antonio Cielo
Patricia May B. Jurilla
Owel Alvero
Shane Carreon
Janssen Cunanan
PLURAL: Online Prose Journal
Lystra Aranal
Neobie Gonzalez
Pedantic Pedestrians
Billy Candelaria
Cindy Cruz-Cabrera
Eric Cabrera

_______
* The signatories of this statement are acting in their capacity as individuals, not as representatives or
members of organizations and institutions.

Like Comment Share

Vijae Alquisola, Paolo Enrico Melendez, Angelo V. Suarez and 292 others like this.

140 shares


Mark Anthony Cayanan Pepito Go-Oco Tulisan Ngdiliman Apol Sta. Maria Mark Benedict F. LimJun Lisondra Paul
de Guzman Sandra Nicole Roldan Elmo Gonzaga Paolo Jose Cruz Joselito D. Delos Reyes Martin Villanueva Angelo
V. Suarez Gina Apostol Timothy James Dimacali ...See More
April 18 at 2:12pm Edited Like 26


Sonia Pascual Support!
April 18 at 12:57pm Like 1


Daryll Delgado William Ragamat
April 18 at 1:06pm Like


Nico Quejano Infringement agad? Hindi ba ito papasok sa limitation ng copyright? o sa allowed exemptions? or...
FAIR USE??? Na kasama for purposes of Education, Commentary at Criticism?
April 18 at 1:58pm Like 14


Ramil Digal Gulle But isn't this exactly the sort of thing that needs to be settled in court? I mean, are the petitioners
asking Anvil et al to withdraw the cases filed vs. David? So here: if you say Adam has the right to reappropriate
others' works, what about the rights of the authors? Let's have each side present their cases. And then, ideally, find a
way to settle this out of court. But I would really like to hear both sides' positions. Even with a court case, the
discourse does not have to end. What's fair use? What's infringement? How do we balance the rights of Adam as one
author vis a vis the rights of other authors? This is an issue we need to thresh out as a community.
April 18 at 2:21pm Like 4


Joseph De Luna Saguid Wow, Ramil, wow. Pero di naman unexpected na ganito ang magiging reaction mo rito.
April 18 at 2:30pm Edited Like 15


Monica Macansantos I've only found a review of the book in Adam's blog. Is this the contested article? I tried
googling order in the food court but found nothing.
April 18 at 2:50pm Edited Like

Chingbee Cruz Hello, Ramil. The signatories are expressing dismay over the existence of the demand letter and the
statement explains why they (we) are troubled by it. Some of the signatories are contributors to the anthology. I think
this is an indication that your equation (Adam's rights vs. authors' rights) is too simplistic. One is not necessarily pitted
against the other.
April 18 at 2:59pm Like 46

Chingbee Cruz Hello Monica, here are the links:

http://himaamsir.blogspot.com/2015/02/constipation-no.html

http://wasaaak.blogspot.com/.../thirty-three-and-two-more...
thirty minutes or less
HIMAAMSIR.BLOGSPOT.IN

April 18 at 3:06pm Like 3

Monica Macansantos Thanks, Chingbee.


April 18 at 3:09pm Like

Mark Anthony Cayanan Hi Ramil. I for one helped draft and signed this statement primarily because I perceive the
move made by Anvil as being oppressive: I approached the issue from the position of someone who reads literature
and has encountered--even if I feel occasionall...See More
April 18 at 5:47pm Edited Like 51

Mark Anthony Cayanan And following what I just said, isn't this statement/letter then indicative of the desire of the
undersigned to want the discourse maintained, especially in a space where having opinions won't be met with
punitive measures?
April 18 at 3:18pm Like 11

Ramil Digal Gulle Guys, the issue is not about Adam's opinion or his artistic position. If this thing goes to court, then
the issue is whether or not he violated copyright law. Now, Adam and Anvil, and the other authors, still have a lot of
time to settle the matter between themselves, out of court. Personally, I hope this gets settled without court
intervention. But why immediately conclude that the lawsuit is equal to oppression or censorship? Also, a case like
this is not unique. Similar cases have happened in other countries. And some of the artists who reappropriated
others' works have done so successfully without getting jailed or fined. It's also not fair to the other authors if you tell
them they're censoring Adam by suing him. They do have the right to sue if they feel they've been wronged. We
should not "censor" them, either. I've been sued for libel by a supermodel. I thought it was for a stupid, unjust reason,
but I never begrudged her the right to sue me.
April 18 at 3:35pm Edited Like 3

Adam David "... no matter how ornery he may be ..."

That's not how you spell "horny."


April 18 at 3:23pm Like 23

Kristine Ong Muslim Mr. Gulle, saklaw ng conceptual lit yung randomizer. It is an accepted artistic practice. Found
text ang tawag dyan.
April 18 at 3:32pm Like 4

Kristine Ong Muslim "or anyone else who does the same thing--?" - google mo si Vanessa Place, sya lang maisip
ko offhand
April 18 at 3:34pm Like 1

Ramil Digal Gulle In other words, we should all nut up and man up when it comes to what we publish. We can either
get sued or get killed. We can't just whine when shit gets real. That said, again, I sincerely wish this gets settled out of
court.
April 18 at 3:38pm Like

Ramil Digal Gulle Kristine Ong Muslim I know. But if this goes to court, Adam has to convince the judge. And Anvil
and the other authors. I'm not saying what Adam did was wrong. Am just saying that if Anvil and the other authors
believe he infringed on their rights, they also have the right to do something about it.
April 18 at 3:42pm Like 2

Adam David Re: nutting up, not whining when shit gets real, you may be confusing this statement as my own.

Kung hindi pala obvious, let me state it as clearly and as plainly as possible: I did not write this statement. Sa Monday
ko pa ilalabas yung sa'kin.
April 18 at 3:43pm Like 7

Adam David Although with regards to nutting up, not whining when shit gets real, maganda rin pag-isipan yan vis a
vis siccing lawyers at your critics. I like that think piece very much.
April 18 at 3:44pm Like 8

Adam David As in, I really really *really* like that think piece very much.
April 18 at 3:45pm Like

Monica Macansantos Well Adam did cite his source material...


April 18 at 3:45pm Like 1

Ramil Digal Gulle Adam David I wasn't referring to you personally re the manning up and whining. It was just my
reaction to the statement. I think the case might get thrown out by the fiscal, anyway. But my own view of the matter
is obvious in the fact that I didn't sue you for that aa/bb appropriation of my work. Speaking as someone who's been
sued for what I wrote, I actually think the statement that Mark helped write is on the panicky side. Everyone should
just stay cool. And just write what and how you want to write.
April 18 at 3:58pm Like 1

Chingbee Cruz A few things, Ramil:

1) Yes, copyright infringement is being invoked by the demand letter. Artistic position, however, does come into play
in this particular case. It would be good for you to read Jonathan Lethem's The Ecstasy of Influence and David
Shields's Reality Hunger. These are collage texts that also explicitly discuss the tensions between private property
and open-source culture. Certain artistic practices exist precisely to interrogate and undermine copyright (among
other things).

2) There is not much time, unfortunately, to settle this matter out of court. The demand letter states that Anvil and the
FFF editors (let me again clarify that the letter is NOT from the individual contributors) will take Adam to court if he
does not take his site down by Monday.

3) The threat of a lawsuit is not particularly hospitable to discourse. The demand letter is asking for obedience:
comply or we will take you to court. Delete your site or we will sue you. If discourse is to happen, it will only happen in
court. Why is this a problem? Because going to court costs money. You will have to shell out money if you wish to
continue speaking. Like you, we would be very happy for this not to have to go to court. But the demand for
compliance in two days is making the choice to go to court very difficult. If you do not have the lawyers, resources,
time, to go to court (and very soon), then compliance becomes the more practical option. Your lack of resources (and
the access to resources of the opposing party) end up defining the conversation. It steers it toward compliance rather
than actual discussion.
April 18 at 4:18pm Unlike 56

Stuart Santiago ang sad


April 18 at 4:27pm Like

Chingbee Cruz I don't have much patience for language of the man-up-nut-up kind, but I'll try to move past that and
address your dismissal of this statement as 'panicky'. The threat of almost twelve years of prison and over half a
million pesos in fines because of a randomizer is a bit... overblown, don't you think? I understand that you are very
worried about the authors whose rights were violated because their words were randomized, but I bet they will be
okay this weekend. You won't have to be too busy protecting them. I am, however, concerned over how Adam will
make sure that by Monday, he has all the lawyers and resources he needs so he can work toward staying out of jail
and not owing Anvil and the FFF editors a ridiculous amount of money. I think it's cause for alarm, but I suppose
those who man up and nut up would simply be bewildered by such a reaction.
April 18 at 4:46pm Like 59

Adam David Worth mentioning rin siguro na the statement was shown to lawyers to get their professional opinion on
the words written before this was made public? At as far as I know - wala ako sa discussion, e, so not privy to what
was actually said, so not very sure - wala namang nagsabi na OA yung statement, na panicky siya.
April 18 at 4:59pm Like 1

Kristine Ong Muslim Mr. Gulle, haphazardly written tong magiging sagot ko sayo. Kasi malapit na mawalan ng
internet dito. Pasensya in advance.

May kontribusyon ako dun sa anthology na yun. Hindi nababoy ng randomizer ang akda ko. One-time rights. After
nun, reverted na sa writer. Matagal na ko nagsusulat, na-appropriate ang gawa ko in multimedia forms.

Unang una, consider the implications of harassing critics, kasi uso yan dito sa Pilipinas. Katulad na lang nung film
critic kamakailan lang, di ko na matandaan pangalan nya basta binantaan sya dito sa facebook ng mga directors. Sa
tingin mo tama ba na puro blind praise lang gawin ng mga book reviewers sa mga libro dito sa Pilipinas? Vocal critic
kasi si Adam David. Yan puno't dulo nitong legal skirmish na to, sa tingin ko.

Pangalawa, naisip ko how the Phil. lit scene will look to other writers/editors in other countries. Gusto mo sikat tayo
kasi landmark case to. Importante ang parteng to para sa kin kasi we are not in a vacuum. There is such a thing as
world literature, salamin yan ng iba't ibang kultura, iba't ibang way of looking at the world; it is imperative that we
become a part of it because what's the point di ba. Kasi may unique tayo na boses, unique na karanasan. Parte yun
ng napakagandang puzzle pieces na kelangang isulat at i-add sa isang napaka complex at vibrant na literatura. Now,
advantage ba sa tin bilang manunulat na Pilipino na manatiling ignorante sa trajectory at evolution, mga styles at
movements, sa larangan ng sining at panitikan? Proud ka ba maging ignorante at kulelat at intellectually lightweight
for the rest of your life? Ako, tagabundok ako, backward ang buhay dito sa min at di ako nag-aral ng tungkol sa
literatura, pero kahit papano gusto ko maging parte ng panitikan na hindi stagnant. Sa tingin mo ba, Mr. Gulle, dapat
ikulong mga katulad ni Joseph Cornell, ni Marcel Duchamp, mga poets na gumagawa ng sonnenizios on lines from
other poets, etc. Maraming pwdeng ihambing sa randomizer. Apparently, the trinity of Anvil/de Jesus/Lacuesta can't
see this. Bakit tayo tutulong bilang manunulat na i-oppress ang boses ng mga kasama natin?
April 18 at 5:06pm Like 41

Lolito Go i'm signing myself in.


April 18 at 5:33pm Like 1

Oliver Ortega "We can either get sued or get killed." Wow naman. Dahil lang sa pagsusulat? Ako na ang hiyang hiya
para kay Mei Magsino atbp namatay nang dahil sa pagsusulat. Ganoon lang pala kasi ka-matter-of-fact yun.
April 18 at 5:53pm Like 24

EJ Galang Oliver wala e, she didn't nut up.


April 18 at 5:57pm Like 11

Adam David Man pills lang yan.


April 18 at 5:58pm Like 5

EJ Galang Kung yung reaction statement yung "panicky", how would we then describe yung mang sindak with a
lawsuit na may malaking fine at may jailtime over a randomizer? Labo.
April 18 at 6:01pm Edited Like 9

Adam David "Gentlemanly" yun.


April 18 at 6:01pm Like 2

EJ Galang Gentlemanning up
April 18 at 6:02pm Like 3

Adam David Gentle man pills.


April 18 at 6:02pm Like 2

EJ Galang Nasosobrahan na ba tayo sa Daredevil at akala natin ganun lang kadali maghanap ng abogado na
superhero para mgbigay ng hustisya sa mundo?
April 18 at 6:03pm Like 3

Adam David Avocados at law. Kailangan natin niyan.


April 18 at 6:04pm Like 2

Adam David But seriously, I had no idea na ganun kataas ang stakes ng writing life dito - get sued or die. Now I
know. Marami pa talaga akong kakaining big ass.
April 18 at 6:05pm Like 20

Adam David Gusto kong measure yan ng pagiging ganap na manunulat sa Pinas. So Kristine Ong Muslim! Yang six
books mo na published internationally? Hindi yan sapat na pruweba na ganap na manunulat ka.
April 18 at 6:35pm Edited Like 7

Ramil Digal Gulle Am not saying "get sued or get killed" is right. But it's real, whether we like or not. Does that
situation need to change? Of course. And nowhere did I say it's a "requirement" or validation of one's writerly
existence. But then I believe none of you here were ever sued for something you wrote? With the prospect of getting
jailed and paying a huge fine? Well, I went through that. And I went through the legal process. And not once did I ever
consider retracting or disowning what I wrote. It's stressful and nerve-wracking, yes. It feels unfair, yes. But that's
when shit gets real. And no, I'm not rich enough to afford a lawyer. It's naive to be bewildered by what's happening,
though. Lorca, Rizal, etc. all had to pay a price for what they wrote. Why should any of us be exempt from such
possibility? Writing is not fun and games. It's not cute. I'm not saying I'm especially brave or blessed with more
testosterone. But it's a question of what you are. You're a writer and you stand by what you write. So you get
threatened with jail for what you write--well, do you stand by it and pay the price? Or do you retract and disown what
you wrote and then whine later on how you were "oppressed by the system"? Snarky remarks on FB won't solve this.
If something like this happens to you, face it as part of what being a writer or artist is. Not just here but anywhere
else.
April 18 at 6:59pm Like 2

Joseph De Luna Saguid Here's one snarky remark coming up!


April 18 at 7:15pm Like

Beverly Wico Siy Nang mabalitaan ko ito, ang una kong naisip, bakit kailangang idaan sa mga abogado ito?
Napakahirap bang imbitahan ang isa't isa para magharap-harap at mag-usap? Ang liit ng komunidad ng manunulat
sa Pilipinas, bakit kailangang paliitin pa ito ng ganitong usapin?
April 18 at 7:37pm Like 34

Ramil Digal Gulle And yes, your response is panicky because there is NO lawsuit. Adam is NOT being sued yet.
What should happen is that Adam, Anvil, and the FFF editors should meet and settle this amongst themselves. Kaya
dapat mag-usap muna sila. Malungkot nga ito, Beverly Wico Siy. Kaya nga dapat, di na paabutin sa korte.
April 18 at 7:44pm Like 2

Timothy James Dimacali Gusto ko lang sagutin ang angas ni Ramil Digal Gulle: Wow, what a ham-fisted argument,
very whiny and so unbecoming of a supposed writer who claims superiority because he thinks none of us have been
sued before.
I have, but you don't see me flaunting it here. And even then, I still move that this be settled out of court.
April 18 at 7:45pm Like 9

Ramil Digal Gulle Timothy James Dimacali It's not about "angas". I was simply trying to help some of the more naive
commenters here face facts. And I have repeatedly suggested here that this be settled out of court. You can't afford
to be naive about the consequences of what you write or publish. And what's with this "superiority" remark? I don't
think getting sued is a badge of honor. And to mention I was sued is not necessarilly "flaunting" out of a sense of
superiority. Citing myself as an example is perfectly reasonable--but only as a case of, yes, you CAN get sued for
what you write. The more important question is, as a writer, what are you going to do about it. I got very lucky
because the matter was settled out of court. Because if not, jail was a very real possibility. But I would have gone to
jail without recanting or retracting--which is what any writer should do if he or she believes he did the right thing in
writing/publishing his piece. And no amount of FB posts would have gotten me out. So see? I'm ALL for settling the
matter out of court.
April 18 at 7:58pm Like 4

Adam David "Why should any of us be exempt from such possibility?"

Hmm. I'm not reading this statement that way, I think - but I am admittedly biased, it has to be said. Ang reading ko sa
statement ay, Does the punishment fit the crime? Was there a crime to begi...See More
April 18 at 7:58pm Like 12

Kristine Ong Muslim Kasi naman Adam David, next time, hold your breath and kiss ass ka na lang dahil nandito ka
sa Pilipinas. Kahit basura ni-rereview mo, kahit level ng pagsusulat ay tipong "white as snow, black as night," purihin
mo to high heavens. Please lang. Para di ka na pag-initan. To hell with integrity. Bago lang ako nag "nut up" dito,
dami kasing copra, pinulot ko kasi ginalaw ng mga aso.
April 18 at 8:16pm Like 12

Adam David You invoked Lorca and Rizal, and with invocation of the names of these writers comes the
circumstances of their deaths. Sabi nga ni Hesus, Your words, not mine.

Or maybe you were just talking about the libel suit against you?
April 18 at 8:24pm Edited Like 2

EJ Galang @Ramil Still can't see how a statement that expresses dismay over a disproportionate reaction, which is
a threat to sue with a large fine and jailtime, is panicky just because the lawsuit hasn't been filed yet. It's true that
writers get sued for both ridiculous and noble reasons but we don't expect that to happen over a randomizer
especially not from fellow writers and a publisher that supposedly promotes art and literature. If all you're saying is
that people have a right to sue, I don't think the statement was against that at all.
April 18 at 8:29pm Like 10

Ramil Digal Gulle Adam David Someone also invoked the assassination of journalist Mel Magsino. Does her death,
and the deaths of Lorca and Rizal have any similarity at all to your case? Or mine? I was just pointing out that for
WHATEVER reason, writers can and are being sued, being killed. I was just surprised that some so-called writers find
that fact surprising. I was sued for what I thought was a very silly, facile reason by a supermodel. I don't think she was
being fascist about it. But she did have the right to sue me, under the law. But then, isn't the existence of a libel law,
in a way, fascist? What I'd like to know is if a copyright law is fascist as well...?
April 18 at 8:32pm Like

Oliver Ortega "I was just pointing out that for WHATEVER reason, writers can and are being sued, being killed. I was
just surprised that some so-called writers find that fact surprising." E DI WOW!!! Talagang NIREITERATE MO PA ang
conclusion ko tungkol sa takbo ng pag-iisip mo! Hindi ko na papatulan yung fact na hindi mo naintindihan ang point
ng collective statement na ito (pakibasa please ang paragraph na may #4 for your own clarification) o na kinoconflate
at ineequate mo ang sarili mong danas kina Magsino, Lorca, at Rizal, pero yung humirit ng ganitong kadeadpan na
statement habang patuloy ang impunidad ng pagpatay sa mga mamamahayag (to think na journalista/kolumnista ka
somewhere), susme, mag-isip-isip muna sana bago humirit!
April 18 at 9:46pm Edited Like 13

Ayrie Ching "But why immediately conclude that the lawsuit is equal to oppression or censorship?" - Uhh, please
look up the concept of chilling effect which involves not just lawsuits, but even a threat of a lawsuit.

"I was just pointing out that for WHATEVER reason, writers can and are being sued, being killed. I was just surprised
that some so-called writers find that fact surprising." - Because to treat this as normal is tantamount to conceding that
there is no point to asserting our rights. Lalo na kung ~WHATEVER~ reason, lalo na kung 'yung ~WHATEVER~
reason na 'yun e wala naman talagang point.

And jusko in this case David's work has a legitimate place in the universe that is literature, as many have already
pointed out (intertextuality, found text, etc.), which makes choosing to take an obviously financially-challenging
recourse AKA legal action in the Philippines no less, before even considering a conversation and level-headed
discourse, an act of oppression and censorship, if not harassment.

Hindi ko magets 'yung logic ng "e eto naman 'yung status quo, bakit ba pumapalag," over a rights-based perspective.
Kung magreresign lang din pala tayong lahat sa status quo, e para saan pa't may mga karapatan tayo. Jusme.
April 18 at 9:03pm Like 25

Oliver Ortega Huling hirit na, para kay Mr. Gulle, so let me break it down for you: "intimidation and harassment". Nuff
said.
April 18 at 9:43pm Edited Like 11

Joseph De Luna Saguid E DI WOW nga talaga! Tanggap na tanggap na na ganyan ang nangyayari sa mga
manunulat! Na kinakasuhan at pinapatay para sa mga naisulat. At walang ibang puwedeng gawin kundi man up! Ano
bang klaseng pag-iisip 'yan?! At yung pinupunto mo na wala pa naman...See More
April 18 at 10:14pm Edited Like 22

Adam David "But then, isn't the existence of a libel law, in a way, fascist? What I'd like to know is if a copyright law is
fascist as well...?"

One could probably say that laws are like tools, and just like how a hammer can be used to both build a house or
bash...See More
April 18 at 9:27pm Like 11

Chingbee Cruz What I find absolutely fascinating about your comments, Ramil, is that you actually say things that
are in agreement with our statement, yet you deliver them with a belligerence that of course can only mean you are in
absolute disagreement with the statement.
Case in point: "But then I believe none of you here were ever sued for something you wrote? With the prospect of
getting jailed and paying a huge fine? Well, I went through that. And I went through the legal process. And not once
did I ever consider retracting or disowning what I wrote. It's stressful and nerve-wracking, yes. It feels unfair, yes. But
that's when shit gets real." Well, doesn't our statement exist precisely because of a situation similar to what you just
described? And isn't the statement about questioning the very system that coerces a writer to retract what he/she
wrote?

Another: "Lorca, Rizal, etc. all had to pay a price for what they wrote." This implies that the current situation of Adam
(the threat of a lawsuit) is another case of being made to pay the price for what one has written, which then implies
that the very system that does so is oppressive (after all, you cite writers we think of as noble as examples). So it
looks like we are on the same page here: Anvil and the FFF editors are being oppressive.

Another: "What should happen is that Adam, Anvil, and the FFF editors should meet and settle this amongst
themselves. Kaya dapat mag-usap muna sill." My goodness, agree! But as you can see, the demand letter was
already served by Anvil and the FFF editors. The letter is not asking for discussion; it is asking for compliance.
Discussion is foreclosed by the very gesture of a demand letter.

Ah, but you contend that "your response is panicky because there is NO lawsuit. Adam is NOT being sued yet." True.
"See you in court" becomes real come Monday, if Adam's site remains up, kaya sige na nga, sorry ha, Sabado
palang pinag-uusapan na namin, haha. In any case, since you do agree that the system is oppressive, then the very
threat of a lawsuit is itself something to contest, yes? And since the threat is already occurring, then isn't it perfectly
logical to also already be responding to it? You've also begun ask if the libel law, the copyright law, are fascist. Yes,
we do need to look into that. The Cybercrime law, which many writers are against, was invoked in Adam's demand
letter. The law is not beyond question, and here is a case where literature might be able to deconstruct our existing
laws.

I must say, it's a very man-up-nut-up thing for you to do to reduce the hundred-some writers who are making a
statement about Anvil and FFF editors vs. Adam to "naive commenters" who make "snarky remarks on FB." There
are ideas being tossed, knowledge being produced, questions being asked as this issue is being fleshed out. Sure,
it's Facebook, and the very nature of the platform also produces a lot of vapid blather, but there is also thoughtful
discussion at work, and I can only hope that that doesn't slip through the cracks because people are being
dismissive.
April 18 at 9:31pm Like 39

Adam David O baka dapat si Butch Dalisay ang magsabi ng mga bagay na'to sa'yo para maging kapani-paniwala?
April 18 at 9:31pm Like 11

Angelo V.
Suarez https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10152850959916239&set=a.160132756238.117547.701371238&
type=1&theater
Angelo V. Suarez

Because there is no emoji for communicating how vile Anvil Publishing is for the threat of lawsuit sent Adam David's
way for his work of critical appropriation,...

See More
April 18 at 9:38pm Like 11

Adam David Basta, kung ako ang tatanungin, mas mabuti nang maging snarky kesa maging smarmy.
April 18 at 10:11pm Like 3

Angelo V. Suarez Adam, I'd rather be smarmy than be editor of an anthology titled "Fast Food Fiction Delivery"
threatening a poet who doesn't make money out of appropriating the anthology for a much more interesting literary
assemblage w/ a lawsuit for committing the said appropriation--& carrying out the threat w/ the institutional sanction,
support, even partnership of a commercial patron that is the affiliate publisher of the country's biggest bookstore
chain.
April 18 at 10:16pm Edited Like 13

Ayer Arguelles Gelo, kanina ka pa inaantay ni Joseph. Haha.


April 18 at 10:17pm Like 4

Joseph De Luna Saguid Aba aba aba, nababaliktad ang usapan, Ayer. Ikaw nga ang naghihintay ng comments
ni Angelo. Hahaha.
April 18 at 10:18pm Like 1

Ayer Arguelles Nauna yung comment ko e, so...


April 18 at 10:19pm Like 2

Angelo V. Suarez Sorry, lumabas kasi ng bahay para mamasyal & mag-unwind & mamili ng ilang gamit para sa
bahay--because I'd really rather spend my money on these things rather than on a lawyer I'd be forced to spend on
shld a trio of privileged entities w/ spending power decide to bully me for the thankless job of trying to enrich the
collective artistic undertaking that is Philippine literature. Tapos nang makarating ako sa thread na 'to, nasabi na
halos lahat ng dapat sabihin--& eloquently at that especially c/o of Bolix--save for a few colourful insults maybe!
April 18 at 10:38pm Edited Like 13

Adam David Oi, final call na pala for this year's Palancas.
April 18 at 10:30pm Like 7

Angelo V. Suarez "specially in the light of copyist tendencies and the aesthetics of collage as evident in Cervantess
Don Quixote, T.S. Eliots The Waste Land, to the Conceptualists of the late 20th century" - Of course maraming
nilaktawan dito in the spirit of brevity, pero gusto ko lang ding i-point out na--as many of you surely know--bahagi si
Villa ng illustrious company of appropriators na ito via his suite of Adaptations, so certainly may strain of deliberately
appropriative writing ang kasaysayan natin ng modernismo sa panitikan. But I guess kebs lang sila sa kasaysayang
ito, 'no?
April 18 at 11:13pm Like 11

Chingbee Cruz Gelo, iniisip ko nga on the part of the editors De Jesus and Katigbak-Lacuesta (isasantabi ko na ang
Anvil kasi korporasyon yan, sa profit lang nakatutok yan) na dala ng kanilang cultural capital sa literary community ay
malamang sa alamang ay nangyari yun kasi sila ay literary experts. Pero bakit parang napaka-alien ng konsepto ng
appropriation sa kanila? Tingin ko dapat sakop naman ito ng kaalaman mo kung ikaw ay nagtuturo ng literatura,
nagjujudge sa literary awards, nag-eedit ng literary anthology. Yung kahit hindi ka practitioner ng appropriation sa
extent ninyo ni Adam, halimbawa, e alam mo naman yun, at alam mo naman ang kasaysayan nun. As in hindi mo
siya mamimistake na bagay na dapat sampahan ng kaso ng copyright infringement. So ano ba ito, hindi talaga alam,
o alam naman pero kebs? Either way, but why?
April 19 at 12:00am Like 17

Joseph De Luna Saguid 'Yan nga ang tinutumbok ko sa status ko tungkol sa pagiging guro din nila. Parehong
nakakatakot yung alam nila na may ganyang literary history/tradition at kebs lang at yung wala sila talagang alam na
may ganyang nag-e-exist na tradition. Kaya nga sila ang mas pinagtutuunan ko ng pansin kaysa Anvil.
April 19 at 12:06am Like 3

Beverly Wico Siy Miss Jeng, heto po.


April 19 at 12:14am Like 1

Katrina Stuart Santiago Balita ko, na nasabi ko na kay Adam, copyright page ang beef ng editors. Which prompts
me to ask the pinaka-basic question: EH BAKET WALA YUN SA DEMAND LETTER?!?!? So kung wala bang
copyright page, oks na? Liban pa sa diskusyon tungkol sa FACT na sobrang layo ng FFFD sa IWBTSBNQTS, na
madaling mapatunayan kung basahin mo sila pareho.
April 19 at 1:13am Like 1

Ayer Arguelles Hindi ko alam kung alin ang mas masahol: Hindi nila talaga alam o alam naman pero kebs. O
parehong masahol yung dalawa o alinman sa dalawa. Edi wow talaga.
April 19 at 1:35am Like 3

Katrina Stuart Santiago Sa'kin ang pinakamatindi ay yung kawalang awareness kung gaano embarrassing na
kinakasuhan nila ang isang manunulat ng isang simplistic at by-the-book na pagsangguni sa batas tungkol sa
copyright infringement, samantalang sila mismo bilang manunulat ay...See More
April 19 at 1:42am Like 16

Adam David For better context regarding me, FAST FOOD FICTION DELIVERY, and Ramil Gulle (yep, this is not
our first threeway tango) > http://www.interaksyon.com/.../inkcanto-the-genius-of...

INKCANTO | The genius of Cherie Gil and a literary fight on Facebook


The actress displays not just her genius as an actor but a high-level...
INTERAKSYON.COM
April 19 at 5:53am Like 9

Marguerite Alcazaren De Leon Nakakalungkot ^

"Joining a community, an establishment, does make a young writer dependent on a prevailing system and power
structure. But then this is true for all fields, not just in writing. Any field that has become institutionalized will have
a power structure, a bureaucracy, standards, qualifying tests, etc.

"So if a writer doesnt want old writers to have a say on his or her writing or literary career, then its only logical to
refuse to join the establishmentanybody can write, blog, or post on the Internet nowadays anyway. Yeah. Fight the
power and all that."

*laslas*
April 19 at 8:08am Edited Like 8

Adam David Man pills.


April 19 at 1:18pm Like

Chingbee Cruz Dahil ngayong araw pala ang deadline, hindi bukas. Adam David on the takedown of Hi Maam Sir
and It will be the same/but not quite the same. Mabuhay ang panitikan.http://himaamsir.blogspot.com/
thirty minutes or less
HIMAAMSIR.BLOGSPOT.IN

April 19 at 4:49pm Like 8



Adam David Heto pala ang scans ng sulat ng mga lawyer, kung me interesado pa sa inyo.
>https://www.facebook.com/media/set/...
April 19 at 6:47pm Like

Roy Vadil Aragon personal na pakikisimpatiya po at pakikiisa from the ilokano writing community. pipirma rin ako sa
manipestong ito for artistic freedom. agbiag dagiti nawaya a mannurat!
April 19 at 8:31pm Like 11

Louise Vincent B. Amante pakisama po ang aking pangalan sa signatory. maraming salamat.
April 19 at 9:42pm Like 4

Louise Vincent B. Amante Salamat po. pero Louise Vincent po, hindi Louise Vicente.
April 20 at 8:05am Like

Adam David A really really good FAQ on Fair Use > http://www.teachingcopyright.org/handout/fair-use-faq

Fair Use Frequently Asked Questions | Teaching Copyright


The Copyright Act gives copyright holders the exclusive right to reproduce works for a limited time period. Fair
use is a limitation on this right. Fair use...
TEACHINGCOPYRIGHT.ORG
April 20 at 8:35am Like 2

Angelo V. Suarez Tagging Eileen Tabios, who may or may not have read or heard about this issue, but who I reckon
might have a special interest in it.
April 20 at 1:35pm Like

Kristine Ong Muslim Sa ibang bansa, sophisticated aspects na ng conceptual/appropriative work


pinagkakaabalahan nila. Yung tipong epekto ng race/gender nung nag-aappropriate sa source text, mga ganung
level na. Tayo stuck pa rin sa copyright na usapin. Stone Age na Stone ...See More
April 20 at 5:45pm Like 13

Sonia Pascual Ang haba na rin ng discussion dito - ang concern ko rito ay maging precedent siya na acceptable at
gawing practice ang pananakot than pag-discourse. Kung ang una nilang naisip na step ay padalhan yan ng letter
from lawyers, as if walang ibang way na i-surface ang issue sila, lalo na maliit naman ang mundo ng mga writers (at
published writers at that) - asan ang space for discourse? Shut up or go to jail. Baka dapat manawagan tayo sa mga
editors para mapag-usapan ito, pero with that demand it says hindi sila interesado - walang hininging explanation
dun, ang demand ay to bring down the randomizer, end of discussion, no discussion.
April 20 at 8:15pm Like 7
Ukol sa Fast Food Fiction Anthology at sa Randomizer
project
(Mikael de Lara Co)

April 19, 2015 at 6:05pm


Siguro ang dami ko nang Facebook friend na hindi bahagi ng literary community/ies, dahil ang totoo, hindi
naman napuno ang FB feed ko nitong bagong isyu ukol sa sulat ng mga editor ng Fastfood Fiction antho,
threatening legal action laban sa proyekto ni Adam David. May mga tropa pa ngang kinailangang ituro ako
sa direksyon nung mga thread at post para maka-catch-up ako sa nangyayari. Wala naman akong stake
dito, hindi ako contributor, at labas sa once-in-a-blue-moon na inuman at pakikipagkuwentuhan/FB chat
tungkol sa craft sa ibang batang manunulat, parang malayo na rin talaga sa mundo ng panitikan ang milieu
na ginagalawan ko.

May bahagi sa aking ayaw nang makisawsaw sa usapan. Pero may ilang mga bagay na hindi pa lumilitaw sa
nangyayaring mga diskusyon, at pakiramdam ko, hindi tama na tumengga lang ako sa tabi kung may
kaalaman akong makakatulong sa paglilinaw ng mga bagay-bagay. Kaya siguro, hihilingin kong i-indulge ng
mga taong bukas sa diskurso (na may prerequisite na good will) itong mga punto rito.

Sa pagkakaintindi ko, may proyekto si Adam na ginamit yung mga akda dun sa Fastfood Fiction para
lumikha ng panibagong akda. Ang nakikita kong pusisyon dun, kritisismo ito, ehersisyo sa appropriation;
nagtutulak/ginagawa tayo nitong aware sa mga boundary ng sining, especially as regards itong panahon ng
electronic reproduction; it raises valid questions about art, sa context na ginagalawan natin. Ok yun.

Tapos, nakatanggap si Adam ng sulat na, basically, sinasabing itigil mo yan. Threat of legal action ito, ha,
hindi sulat na Pards, pakitigil naman. So medyo solid at maaaring pagmulan ng kaba para sa mga taong
hindi par for the course ang pagtanggap ng mga ganung sulat. (Hindi ko alam kung gaano kaanghang ang
partikular na wording ng natanggap ni Adam, pero nung nakatanggap ako ng sulat mula sa SkyCable dati,
threatening legal action kapag hindi ko isinurrender ang cable box nila dahil ipinaputol ko na ang cable
subscription, nabadtrip din ako). May mga magsasabing OA ang legal action, at hindi mahirap mag-agree sa
ganitong pananaw.

Hindi rin mahirap mahulog dun sa lumalabas na naratibo ngayon, gawa ng mga statement, comment, etc.
mula sa mga sumasang-ayon/nagsisympathize kay Adam: May isang panig na nagtutulak ng sining, at may
isang panig na pumipigil nito; na may starving o at least hindi mayaman/makapangyarihang panig ng mga
artist, laban sa big bad publishing at mga writers na may connect sa establishment. Ganun ang optics ng
isyu, at gawa na rin ng katahimikan ng side nina Mookie at Noelle, madaling mahulog sa ganung naratibo.

Pero, yun nga, kailangan ding maging fair, at maging wary sa optics na lumalabas dito; kailangang kilatisin
ang mga nakalatag, at hanapin yung mga detalye sa likod ng clutter of whats increasingly appearing to be a
PR game. So, ano ba yung fair? Unang hakbang, I guess, is to get the side of Mookie et al. So tinanong ko
siya.
Sa naratibong lumalabas so far, mayroong mahahalagang detalye mula kay Mookie na hindi pa
nababanggit, or at least hindi pa nagiging evident, at makakatulong sa pagpusisyon sa bagay na ito.

So: Alam na naman natin yung proyekto, di ba: Randomizer ng mga linya mula dun sa antho. Ang tawag
dun sa karapatan na baguhin, irevise, itransform ang mga akda, moral rights. At yung moral rights, hawak
yun ng authors ng akda.

Maaalala ang konseptong ito dun sa recent na isyu tungkol sa bagong rules ng Palanca, na fortunately e
naayos naman nila. Kung maaalala, umalma ang literary community dahil isa dun sa mga nakasaad sa rules
na unang pinropose ng Palanca, e ang pagsurrender ng moral rights ng akda sa kanila kapag nagsubmit ka.
Bad yun.

So, isa dun sa mga ubod ng isyu ngayon: Basically, nilabag ng proyekto ni Adam (may malisya man o wala,
at naniniwala naman akong wala,) ang moral rights ng authors. May pasabi o paalam ba siya sa mga may-
akda? Sa pagkakaintindi ko, ayon din sa kuwentuhan sa isa sa mga authors na kasali sa antho, wala. Para sa
iba, okey lang yun, kebs; sa iba, baka hindi. In any case, ang karugtong na tanong: Kung nabadtrip tayo sa
Palanca, may iba bang set of standards na dapat i-apply kay Adam? May free pass ba dapat ang mga tao na
gusto lang namang isulong ang sining? Kailangan pang pag-isipan yan. Pero hindi nun nabubura yung
katotohanan na, legally, at may magsasabing as a matter of decency rin siguro, may maling nangyari sa
paggalaw ng akda, nang walang paalam, habang ang moral rights nito e hawak pa nung mga author.

Ikalawa palang punto: Ika ni Mookie, nilagyan ni Adam ng sarili niyang copyright ang ebook; as in copyright
Adam David 2015. Hindi mo naman kailangang maging abugado para mapa-hmm sa pagka-copyright na ito.
May nire-raise itong mga tanong, kabilang na ang, Paano yung mga may-akda ng orihinal na gawa? Shared
copyright na ba ang mga linya nila ngayon? Kung gusto silang i-quote ng kung sino sa Tumblr, sino ang isa-
cite? Kailangan pa sigurong pag-isipan nang malalim ang mga implikasyon nito sa sining at sa diskurso ng
appropriation, pero yan yung facts: Ang mga linyang galing sa isip at panulat ng ibang tao, ni-randomize sa
isang proyekto, at ang final product, nilagyan na ng copyright ng iba.

So, kung ikaw ang isa sa mga may-akda na nagpasa kina Mookie at Noelle in good faith ng akda mo, at
nakatanggap ng maliit na kabayaran at kopya ng libro mula dito, what would you expect your editors to do
kaya? Kung ikaw ang editors, ano ang kilos mo? Puwedeng go lang sa proyekto ni Adam, pero paano kung
mayroong ibang mga writer na magsabi (at nagsabi na nga yata,) na, huy, teka, nagpasa ako sa iyo in good
faith, e, bat mo naman hinahayaang ganyanin yung akda ko? Ano ang recourse nina Mookie at Noelle?

Ang nakikita ko ngayon dito, nagiging unwitting participant ang marami sa isang PR gamekampihan natin
yung mga kinakawawa ng establishment, ayan na naman ang malalaki at makakapangyarihan, niyuyurakan
ang rights natin. Pero, as I put forward dun sa point ko re: reaction natin sa moral rights/Palanca issue, yun
ba talaga ang pinaka-fair na sipat dito?

At ang mga tanong na nare-raise sa isyu na itoukol sa moral rights, ukol sa paglalagay ng sariling copyright
sa isang appropriated worksino ang sasagot niyan? Madaling sabihin na, siyempre, dapat, tayo, bilang
literary community. Diskurso nga ang panawagan ng mga tao, at yun naman ang nasa ubod ng maraming
argumento ukol sa nangyari: Bakit dadalhin sa legal sphere ang isang bagay na puwedeng pag-usapan as a
literary community? Pero, and this brings me to a very important point, isang malaking pero, pero, pero.
Pero: May avenue pa ba talaga para makapagdiskurso ang mga panig?

Nanggagaling ako sa depinisyon ng discourse bilang something that requires good will. Sa pagbasa ng mga
thread, pag nakakita ka ng pananaw na taliwas sa lumalabas na mayorya dun sa thread, mahirap hindi
maawa sa mga tugon sa kanyatulad sa nangyari kay Ramil. May mga hirit na petty. May naghahamon ng
suntukan. May kuyog ng mga barkada. Sa ganitong platform ba talaga mahahanap ang sober, level-headed,
fair discourse? Nahihirapan akong maniwala dun.

Coming from that din: Hindi makakatulong na iwasan ang lente ng mga personalidad sa usaping ito. Sabi
nga ng isa ko pang nakakuwentuhan, away ito ng celebrity literary couples. Ayaw kong isiping ganun lang,
pero, dahil nga sa kakulangan ng (at platform para sa) sober, level-headed, fair discourse, kasali sa equation
yun. Hindi puwedeng tanggalin sa usapan ang histories nina Adam/Chingbee/High Chair vs
Mookie/Sarge/kung sino man ang mga nakakasama nilang binansagan nang may basbas ng literary
establishment. (Oo, aware akong para sa marami, kabilang ako sa latter.) Kailangang maging aware na fluid
at amorphous ang usapin ng motivations dito, on both sides, at kailangang ilapat din ang lenteng yun sa
maaaring implikasyon ng proyekto, at ng proseso sa likod nito.

Case in point: Ang daling isipin na nag-uugat ang lahat ng tensyon/conflict/misunderstanding/distrust mula
sa kakulangan ng disenteng ugnayan. Madali sana kung may email si Adam kina Mookie na, Huy may
proyekto ako, di maganda ang sipat ko sa libro nyo, sana okey lang; pahingi naman ng email addresses ng
contributors, magpapaalam ako kasi may appropriation na mangyayari sa mga akda nila. Ang dali rin sana
kung, kaysa threat of legal action, may email din si Mookie na, Huy, heads-up lang, ibaba mo naman yun,
parang may mga legal issues dito at baka tamaan ka later on.

Again, pero: Wala nang ganung recourse, e. Sa maraming kadahilanan, pero sa isip ko, foremost ang
umusbong na kultura ng criticism na let me say this in the most hurtful way possible. Yung kultura na may
free pass kang magsalita ng mga bagay na usually e hindi mo naman sasabihin nang harapan, so long as
youre articulating/fighting for these big ideas sa art. Na walang halaga ang mga personal relationships natin
sa community na ito, katabi ng big ideas na yun. Na ang nagdedefine sa iyo bilang mahusay na artist e yung
adherence/subscription mo sa big ideas na yun-- kung minsan simple human decency be damned. From this
culture, nagkaroon ng tensions; naamplify ng mga chismisan sa loob ng mga kampo; nagatungan. Wala
nang back channels; kapag may events, wala nang pansinan. Nagkasakitan na, e. Nakakalungkot din, at
interesante ngang buksan ang usapan, sa kung paanong yung mga taong nananawagan ng discourse as
regards this issue right now, e nakacontribute o patuloy nga sigurong nakaka-contribute sa erosion ng
kultura ng sober, level-headed, fair discourse with good will sa loob ng literary community, dahil sa mga
hiritan sa admittedly not-the-most-conducive-to-levelheadedness na medium ng social media. Simpleng
pikon lang ba ang iba? Simpleng kupal lang ba ang iba? Laro ba ito ng pinakawitty na hirit? Baka puwede rin
natin itong pag-usapan sa mga susunod na panahon.
So, ayun. Alam kong kapag nabasa ito ng marami, malamang dumating din ang kuyog sa thread ko; hindi
naman malayong posibilidad ang paglapag ng ad hominem attacks, paglipat ng issue sa trabaho ko; baka
nga isisi pa sa gobyerno ang isyung ito, e. Hindi ko rin maaalis na, sa laro ng kampu-kampo, ang perception
is that I sit squarely within one camp of the literary landscape. May susubok himayin ang motibasyon ko. Par
for the course yan, at sanay na rin ako. Good luck na lang sa akin. Naisip ko lang na mas maling manahimik;
ang masasabi ko lang, pinilit kong maging fair, sober, at level-headed dito.

Salamat sa pagbasa.
Like Comment Share

Carlomar Arcangel Daoana, Paolo Enrico Melendez, J. Neil C. Garcia and 136 others like this.

21 shares


Dave Buenviaje Ang alam ko may legal issues sa derivative works. May lusot ba sa fair use? According to Drea
depends on the purpose of the work, declaration of the holder of the copyright. Magandang usapan 'to.
April 19 at 7:16pm Like 4


Exie Abola Salamat, Kael.
April 19 at 7:23pm Like 6


Karl R. De Mesa Fair use and parody laws for entertainment and satire cover this, unless said works have been used
to make money (needs to be tons and tons usually to make a case) off the stuff. But nice thoughts on the ish. Pet
cause ko ang FOE btw kaya lang ako making the sawsaw.
April 19 at 8:00pm Like 4


Egay Samar Kael, bilang mambabasa at nagtatangka ring magsulat, hindi kaya mas "objective" (kung posible man
iyon) sa isyung ito na nakita ko ang libro, ang website, at ang demand letter para makapagbuo ng posisyon bilang
outsider sa isyu pero may at stake din bilang mambabasa nga at nagtatangka ring magsulat. Ibig kong sabihin, sa
sandaling nakinig na ako sa mga "pinagmumulan" at "interpretasyon/paliwanag" ng mga sangkot sa pangyayari, mas
lalayo ako sa tingin kong isyu (sa tingin ko lang naman) at lalo ngang makukulayan ng personalidad ang pagtataya
ko. Kaya gusto kong igiit na hindi mga tao o institusyon ang pinapanigan ko rito kundi ang mga paninindigang
kinakatawan nila sang-ayon sa personal kong ebalwasyon sa nangyayari sang-ayon sa tatlong dokumento/teksto:
ang FFFD na libro, ang website ni Adam, at ang demand letter na made public na rin.
April 19 at 8:15pm Like 21


Louie Jon A. Snchez Salamat dito, Kael.
April 19 at 9:00pm Like 2


Isabela Cuerva Hi Kael. Just want to say na bilang isang wide-eyed-bushy-tailed-kuno na "budding writer" na wala
ring alam masyado tungkol sa IP rights sa Pinas, thank you for this post. The entire weekend I've been afraid to get
involved, not just because most of the parties involved are former instructors/workshop panelists/editors who I have
equal amounts of respect for, but also because most of the posts I've seen are terrifyingly hostile.

Sa totoo lang, natakot akong maging part ng literary community/ies because of this particular issue (wow may threat
of legal action, shet baka may makulong, wow may hostile Facebook posts, wow nasaan na popcorn ko shet daming
away daming sawsaw AYOKO NAAAA) but somehow this post has made me feel somewhat hopeful that maybe
level-headed discourse is possible--hopefully over beer and books and not over social media and/or demand letters.
April 19 at 9:24pm Like 23

Karl R. De Mesa Joel Pablo Salud


April 19 at 10:50pm Like

Jacob Walse-Dominguez Tamang-tama at very sobering nga ito. Salamat Kael!


April 20 at 1:38am Like 2

Pheelyp Aytona I've just heard of this kaguluhan now. Yours seems like a much needed level-headed, conciliatory
voice. Thank you for choosing not to remain silent.
April 20 at 3:08am Like 5

Alvin Yapan
Yesterday at 10:06am Like

Alvin Yapan Sana mabasa ito ng parehong panig sa usapan.


Yesterday at 10:07am Like 8

Maryanne Moll Thanks for this, Kael. Gusto Ko sanang I-share SA wall Ko.
21 hrs Like

Maryanne Moll Pero weird Di Ko ma share. May pipindutin yata or something. Anyway I'll just tagMarne Kilates

Carlomar Arcangel Daoana


April 19 at 2:17pm Edited

Last year I wrote a piece for the Fiction class of Mark Curry at La Salle. It was inspired by my set
visit to the ABS-CBN soap "Walang Hanggan" as I was tasked to cover the grand wedding of the two
main characters. (Hence, I named the characters after the actors. "Julia" is Julia Montes and "Rodel"
is Rodel Nacianceno, the real name of Coco Martin.)
I worked on the story, which would be eventually titled, "Tulle, Chiffon, Organza," with the help from
the inputs of my classmates and the editing suggestions of Sir Mark. A couple of months later, I
submitted it to the flash fiction anthology, "Fast Food Fiction Delivery," which was edited by Mookie
Katigbak-Lacuesta and Noelle de Jesus and published by Anvil Publishing. For my efforts, I was
monetarily compensated and given a contributor's copy.
So imagine my surprise when I found portions of my short story copied, mangled and repeated
(along with the other works in the anthology) for the manuscript organized and deliberated upon by
Adam David, titled "It will be the same but not quite the same." One such portion runs for about 45
words. (My story only has 499 words.)
Was my permission sought? Was the nature of the experiment explained to me and how my words
would be used? Was I acknowledged as a co-creator? Was I ever credited? No at all counts.
I entrusted my work to the editors of Fast Food Fiction Delivery, not to Adam David.
So what do I do now when it seems all I have written and will ever write will be fair game to such
experiments? What do I do now when my writing, which is the sole source of my livelihood (I have
never taught in a university nor own a private business), can easily be undervalued and
compromised.
I fully endorse whatever legal action that my publisher and editors may plan to take against Adam
David and that they can count on my full participation on this matter. Because while I believe that the
court of law may not be perfect, it will be the final arbiter to such claims of unfairness, not the court of
public opinion.
Unlike Comment Share

You, Chuck Smith, Mikael De Lara Co, Susan S Lara and 123 others like this.

3 shares


Sarah Ramos
April 19 at 2:25pm Like


Sarah Ramos So confused huhu.
April 19 at 2:26pm Like


Jasmine Jumawan Sorry to hear that Carlomar Arcangel Daoana. I hope this gets resolved and you get the credit
that is truly due to you.
April 19 at 2:31pm Like 3


Carlomar Arcangel Daoana Thank you Jasmine . My editors are proactive about this.
April 19 at 2:56pm Like 6


Lui Bacaltos A case for the IPO (intellectual property office) to handle. PagingGracenono Taomusic!
April 19 at 3:08pm Like 1


Christian Esguerra Feel very bad for you, bro
April 19 at 4:47pm Like


Raydon Reyes I hope this gets resolved soon.
April 19 at 4:47pm Like


Anne Camit Intellectual property violations in a world where the "copy-paste" culture precedes the necessity to be
original just because it's hard to do. Tsk tsk good luck Carlomar
April 19 at 5:02pm Like 1

Nadia Camit Upton Oh nooooo!! Sampalin mo ng sampal ni Cherie Gil! Daig pa ang mang aagaw ng asawa!
Magnanakaw ng idea!
April 19 at 5:14pm Like

Jim Pascual Agustin I'm mostly an outsider in this matter, but I have to say a few words since my work appears in
the anthology and I am friends with Noelle De Jesus and Mookie Katigbak Lacuesta as well as having been published
by Anvil over two decades ago. Adam David I only know from a few odd articles by him I have read.
I think it was heavy handed of the publisher to take the legal route to something that is clearly and foremost a literary
exercise. As long as it is not a clear cut act of plagiarism - that is claiming a whole work belonging to someone else
as your own - then the field is wide open for any form of discourse whether you agree with the output or not.
You put it out for others to see, then be ready for any and all forms of reaction to it. It isn't a matter of who has the
bigger legal/financial backing - as we are trading in words here, words and imagination. And I dare say no to any form
of gagging of creativity - even those I may not find worthy. Each creative attempt is worth something, even if just one
other person thinks so.
To silence one voice is to silence all who dare to raise a voice. I know that as I am currently in a country that has a
more dire situation than this little teacup storm.

ps I'm on a different time zone and may not be able to respond as quickly as others here.
April 19 at 6:31pm Edited Like 21

Carlomar Arcangel Daoana Hi Jim, thanks for the comment. As you may know, your position is shared by a handful
of other contributors to the book, a fact which I respect. Call me old-fashioned but I don't see it that way. Lines from
my story were lifted verbatim and I felt offended by that. Should I have remained silent and took it all in? Should I
have written a lengthy exegesis exploring my discomfort about it? Where does Adam right as an artist begin and mine
as a copyright holder end? For me, this is an issue about copyright infringement and I say, who better decide on that
than the courts? While it is Adam's right to exercise his creativity, it is also my right to find legal recourse through the
intervention of my publisher and editors who are responsible for the book. How is that wrong? Isn't that a more civil
way to do it than to court public opinion?
April 19 at 7:03pm Edited Like 13

Jim Pascual Agustin It's a literary engagement, Carlomar, and should first be treated as such. To call in lawyers is a
knee-jerk reaction that shows weakness - in one's own work as well as in the creative process which means an
openness to each and all possible ways of viewing the world, including the world created by other writers. Has David
claimed your work as his or has he merely played with parts of it to create something new? I don't even have a way to
see for myself for now all his work has been taken down. To threaten someone into silence is one of the worst things
in the world. We all know where that leads. Or do we?
April 19 at 11:07pm Edited Like 21

Carlomar Arcangel Daoana Hi Jim, the work carries his byline and a copyright notice, which assert his authorship.
In no way was my name, as those of others, mentioned in any part of the work. Again, I insist that questions about
copyright--of which there are corresponding laws--will be best answered in the courts. Your suggestion on how I
should behave in response to a particular stance is prescriptive. Again, I don't see it the way you do. Hence, my
statement.
April 19 at 7:38pm Like 12

Jim Pascual Agustin I have to get back to this discussion later, Carlomar, as I have to go out for a few hours with
my family. Good to talk about it instead, right? Who needs lawyers?
April 19 at 8:11pm Like 2

Carlomar Arcangel Daoana Yes, I agree Jim, nice talking.


April 19 at 8:12pm Like

Jim Pascual Agustin Just to add - with my few minutes left online here - huge companies like Disney and the lot are
busy trying to pass an international law that will curb the use of the internet... for their copyright claims that they say
amount to billions. Something to think about when the term copyright comes up. Who makes money out of this? In
terms of creativity and literary freedom - or any sort of freedom of expression - who benefits from threatening
someone to shut up? Why? I prefer dissonance and a chaotic journey through some kind of discourse over a boot.
Each and every time.
April 19 at 8:16pm Like 7

Carlomar Arcangel Daoana I will still have to connect what you just said to this but thanks for bringing that up.
April 19 at 8:18pm Like 2

Jim Pascual Agustin Cell about to run out of battery. I would like to see David's work and be able to compare it to
the source, but even that has been made impossible with a gag order. A heavy hand does not win a conversation.
April 19 at 10:28pm Edited Like 2

Carlomar Arcangel Daoana Hi Jim. As far as I know, there's no gag order, as is obvious, since only the courts can
issue that. The demand letter has been complied with and I'm not in the position to answer why.
April 19 at 10:35pm Edited Like 3

Jun-Jun Sta.Ana Yay!!!! Sulong!!!!!


April 20 at 12:25am Like 1

Jim Pascual Agustin Carlomar, please see my public call here on FB.
April 20 at 6:31pm Like 2

Angelo V. Suarez I sympathize w/ you for being a fellow laborer who trades in words & gets remuneration for no
other form of work but writing. I, too, have no other source of income but my day job & the occasional sideline; I am in
debt on multiple counts--from owing money for help that went a long way in allowing my child to be born, to owing
money for rent & other practical matters. I am not an academic either, & since having begun to make a living outside
of an academic institution I have never sought to make a living w/in academic structures. We do not make money
from literature, & I find this inability to make money off it not only a source of freedom but a wellspring of productive
resistance. Poetry is our chance to make work outside of the instrumentalizing scope of labor. I have always been on
the side of protecting poetry for allowing us to play outside of the demands of material circumstance--but w/
acknowledgement that such play can only take place when material circumstances allow us to partake of such a
privilege; this is the role activism plays, finding ways to secure our freedom/s. Adorno lamented the co-optation of
free time by work, that we only ever allow ourselves to rest to enable us to work better, harder, & more efficiently the
next day for the benefit of whoever controls the capital we work our asses off for; I take poetry to be the 1 instance we
can take back our free time, to make work that refuses to be instrumentalized by the people we work for, that
exhausts us even when what work demands is that we rest. It depresses me no end that you feel Adam's work has
economically exploited you when it has been to no economic advantage of his, in a field where innovation is as much
injunction as responsibility & to nobody's economic gain. Of course I do not demand that we all experience the
production of literature as a kind of self-sabotage in that it demands from us no less than the leeching of our own
resources, but please do not fault those who do not make money out of literature for testing the limits of this freedom
afforded by not turning to literature for the accumulation of capital--especially when the faulting takes place by way of
legal action those of us interested in innovation as responsibility have no economic means of countering.

I have not responded in all channels talking about this matter on the side of Mookie, Noelle, & Anvil because I simply
have no respect for that side, but I am responding to you because your sentiment as a laborer in writing is 1 I fully
sympathize w/. I respond to you as a fellow laborer also working in poetry.
April 20 at 7:14pm Edited Like 16

Angelo V. Suarez I wish we cld all redirect our anger at the systems that force us to monetize our poetry, not at the
poets who attempt to challenge these systems of oppression w/ formal experiment.
April 20 at 7:07pm Like 14

Carlomar Arcangel Daoana Hi Gelo. I think we have established our individual positions on the matter and I see no
point in re-articulating mine here. Suffice to say that I have never seen literature as a source of capital (whether
economic or, what is currently bandied about, cultural) and that I write poems (and in the case of FFFD, a story) for
self-fulfillment and a sense of aliveness of being a person in the world (I know, bourgeoisie). I admire people who
write literature "for testing the limits of freedom" even if at first look, it seems they are just merely testing other
people's patience (or is that the first step?). I was thinking that Adam's project could have been more collaborative,
given how generously he harvested from other people's works published in the book and how willing some of the
contributors support his project. I, for one, won't dismiss it. Alas, that wasn't the project. What was published (and
taken down) interfered and violated what I felt was something that I owned, having been the original creator of the
text. I wish my feeling were otherwise but that's how I perceive this and by extension, our country (with its prevailing
laws on copyright and intellectual property). I wish this were otherwise as well, but Adam is governed by those laws
too. And so given that there is a conflict between his perceived right to exercise artistic freedom (by using other
people's works) and my perceived right to be acknowledged as the owner of the work, who can better settle the
conflict? Definitely not the mob. Now that this is moot and academic (the works have already been taken down), I still
believe that this should not prevent him to exercise his creativity. After all, El Bimbo Variations, considered as his best
work, did not liberally crib from other people's texts. Thank you for reaching outAngelo. It's been a long time since we
last talked.
April 20 at 7:36pm Unlike 13

Angelo V. Suarez I only raise the matter of making money off literature because of this paragraph--

"So what do I do now when it seems all I have written and will ever write will be fair game to such experiments? What
do I do now when my writing, which is the sole source of my livelihood (I have never taught in a university nor own a
private business), can easily be undervalued and compromised."

--w/c gives the impression that Adam's work has economically disadvantaged you, that it has leeched capital off you.
But yes, lines have been drawn, & my post is less to convince you to join our side (you've more than shown you're
well beyond convincing) than to provide even a token voice of dissent to complementJim Pascual Agustin's. I do so
as well to indicate that this cld set a precedent for silencing not only Adam's practice, but the practice of multiple
poets interested in this trajectory of writing--& so the affront to Adam is also an affront to entire writing communities
whose practices stand to be silenced, including mine.
I am not reaching out; I am declaring myself to be your enemy hereon for your side's malicious silencing of my &
other poets' appropriative practices.
April 20 at 7:52pm Edited Like 12

Glenn Diaz
16 hrs

What I replied to Butch D's email:


I'm mostly concerned--more angered, to be honest--by the bringing in of lawyers, although I do
understand that it is a recourse for anyone who feels aggrieved. I've read several posts defending
the action of Anvil, saying that it is not supposed to come off as threatening or coercive, that it is in
fact a gesture of courtesy. I'm not sure. Maybe I've read and internalized too much Kafka to feel
otherwise. I felt it was really heavy-handed. Generalizations aside, I suppose anything, even merely
"informative" missives, that arrives in the mail rubber-stamped by a lawyer or a law office feels
threatening (not to mention that it had outlined the severe penalties, including jailtime and up to
P600,000 in fines).
I can imagine that the very possibility of having to go to court for something that one feels is a
legitimate and, for Adam, consistent artistic and critical practice, is not only demeaning but stifling.
The chilling effect will have to factor in somewhere. As it is, the culture of criticism that we have
hereabouts is already, well, uncritical and unrigorous and really next to nothing. On the other hand, I
feel that Adam's take on the anthology, rendered through the "randomizer" (which he had since
taken down) is guided by a valid theoretical framework, which really can't be said for a lot of critical
activities that other writers--who are often also the critics--venture to do. The fact that the Cybercrime
Law--which many writers resisted--was invoked was also disconcerting.
On the other hand, maybe this is the expected opinion of someone who hasn't published any book
and who feels, maybe like you, not so preciously attached to what I write and have written. In
general, my frustration also stems from the de facto refusal to engage in the critical conversation that
Adam has started--mainly about the (lack of ) curatorial framework that governs such anthologies.
The editors could've written an essay addressing Adam's criticism of the project. Instead they bring
in lawyers. To be sure, clarifying the grey areas of our copyright laws may be one of their reasons for
sending the demand letter. But now all we have are angry, angry writers.
Like Share

Mark Anthony Cayanan, Joseph De Luna Saguid, Ayer Arguelles and 40 others like this.

2 shares


Andrea Pasion-Flores Not really inclined to do this, Glenn, but just distinguish between the review and the other act
involving the book with the "randomizer".
15 hrs Like 1


Glenn Diaz Hi, Andrea! Point taken, although inclined to think that it's the major part of the entire critical exercise.
15 hrs Like 3


Andrea Pasion-Flores Someone else's poetics might be just plain ol' plagiarism for others. But moot now, isn't it? I
remember not so distant history when writers were faced with the possibility of summary execution armed with just
the courage of their convictions. Are we, writers of this age, made of so much less not to have stood our ground to
say our version of the truth? I am, quite frankly, disappointed that writers seem so easily cowed by the so-called
establishment. Lawyers are not all guns for hire, many are armed with nothing more than words as well. Much much
more fired when they have nothing more than the belief in the merits. Oh well. Kapuy. Sad. Done with what I have to
say.
14 hrs Like 1


Glenn Diaz It would've been interesting if the case had gone to court, but maybe not so for the parties involved. I will
never be privy to the specifics of Adam's decision beyond the "personal economic realities" he'd cited, but I will say
that I would've done the same thing, and would have been prompted by the same fundamental reason. I reserve for
another day deciding what constitutes real "courage of conviction" in this case--soldiering on toward a principled but
protracted, time-consuming, and expensive legal struggle or, I speculate, coming to terms with how such a decision
will impact one's life on a daily basis and so must be approached realistically.
14 hrs Like 8


Rowena Torrevillas I apologize for not knowing the backstory here. Please fill me in, Glenn. Is it regarding a review
by Butch (Dalisay?) ?
13 hrs Like


Glenn Diaz Hi, Mom Wena! Here. https://www.facebook.com/notes/mark-anthony-cayanan/order-in-the-food-
court/10152867491758284

I think Sarge posted Butch's first email.

Mark Anthony Cayanan


ORDER IN THE FOOD COURT*
We, concerned writers and supporters of literature, voice our dismay over the legally-registered
demand of Noelle Q. de Jesus, Mookie Katigbak-Lacuesta, and Anvil Publishingeditors and
publisher of Fast Food Fiction Deliveryfor Adam David to take down his online reappropriations of
the contents of the anthology. Davi...
Continue Reading
13 hrs Like

Rowena Torrevillas Thanks very much, Glenn. I'll start my catch-up now.
13 hrs Like

Glenn Diaz Butch D's first message:

Hi, Glenn,...See More


10 hrs Like 7

Chingbee Cruz Hello, Andrea. The statement released by writers "so easily cowed by the so-called establishment"
calls attention to the history of appropriative practices in literature. Yes, "someone else's poetics might be just plain ol'
plagiarism for others," but if one reads literature, if one reads the modernists, the postmodernists, the avant-garde,
the conceptualists, one will find that there is more than enough reason not to reduce and dismiss certain texts as
"plain ol' plagiarism"--there are traditions and practices that one can read the 'plagiaristic' texts alongside, which can
help frame them, illuminate the thinking that is going on as well as the gaps in the thinking. In the case of the
randomizer project, one can ask why apply this form to the FFF anthology, why the randomizer as a form of critique,
how this critique engages with local literary tradition and practices, and so on. Is there legal basis to demand that the
site be shut down? Sure. Is there literary basis to keep the site up? YES. There is also legal basis to keep the site up
if this had gone to court (that Adam put the site down is NOT an admission of guilt but a refusal to use up limited
resources on a court case). By threatening to take Adam to court, Anvil and the FFF editors ignored the arena of
literature altogether--where there is so much proof of the validity of appropriation as an artistic practice and where
disagreements in creative practice are engaged in through literary debate. Their goal is clear: to take a particular form
of creative-critical practice to court and shut it down. There is no denying that legal action entails financial resources,
not just words. The playing field obviously becomes skewed in favor of Anvil and the FFF editors when what should
be material for literary debate becomes a trial in court. I am bewildered by your invocation of summary executions
and writers facing them "armed with just the courage of their convictions" here. I know it is meant to belittle the anger
expressed by writers over such a minor thing as a demand letter, but it also (perhaps inadvertently, I can't imagine
why this would be intentional) aligns the moves of Anvil and the FFF editors with the moves of an oppressive state,
doesn't it? In any case, my anger over the demand letter and the threat of legal action is not caused by my
cowardliness and my lack of conviction when it comes to my creative practice, but my revulsion toward a mainstream
literary publishing house and so-called literary experts who would rather pursue legal action than engage in literary
debate, who would instumentalize the law to coerce local writers to maintain a narrow-minded view of literature and
remain ignorant of literary history and tradition. I condemn the very existence of that demand letter and all that it
implies because there are bigger causes to fight for, bigger reasons to go to court, and I am insulted that Anvil and
the FFF editors are wasting so much of our time, our energy, our words, by coercing us, through this threat of a court
case, to defend a creative-critical practice that going back to reading your literature would easily prove to be valid.
6 hrs Like 11

Andrea Pasion-Flores Thanks for your comment, Chingbee. In this war of words, if this is all it really is, so publicly
conducted in the heat of emotion, then I pray you and Adam do have the last word.
4 hrs Like

Chingbee Cruz Please do not reduce this issue to something that involves only me and Adam, which implies that the
others who have weighed in on the issue are extraneous, unthinkingly intervening in an isolated case or a private
matter. If you are invested in literature, please consider why other writers and readers are concerned by the
repercussions of the demand letter's existence on literary production. If you are invested in author's rights, please
consider why a number of authors, including some who are part of the FFF anthology, are not in support of the threat
of legal action.

Butch Dalisay:

I just got off a boat and am in a van on my way back to Puerto Princesa, after island-hopping all
weekend in Balabac close to the Malaysian border; beautiful waters, challenging you, like Robert
Graves, to come up with all variables of green.
So you'll excuse me if I find it a bit hard to focus on this latest literary tempest in Manila, which is
clearly impossible to escape, having received phone calls and email messages about it from certain
parties involved.
But being still a couple of hours away from Puerto and sitting in the front seat with phone in hand, I
might as well try to compose a response.
Yes, I've heard about the Anvil/Adam David controversy and the general issues involved, including
the footnote about my work being one of the most "quoted" in Adam's pastiche.
No, I haven't seen the piece in question--I've religiously stayed out of Facebook--although I can
imagine what it's like. I think I saw a similar piece by Gelo Suarez, employing the short bios that
writers usually append to their contributions in anthologies (translated into Spanish and published by
the Spanish Embassy in a recent issue of Perro Berde), and I remember remarking, "Hmmm, that's
interesting. Now let me think about what it all means."
That's pretty much what I would have said about Adam's work if it's anything like Gelo's, adding
perhaps that--as both authors surely know--the technique itself is nothing new, as rappers and
musicians have done similar "samplings" of other artists' songs for many decades now (see, even an
old, boring guy like me knows that). And I very likely would have left it at that, seriously, and moved
on. (I might even have felt flattered, even for possibly all the wrong reasons, to have been so
generously sampled).
But now, apparently, another full-blown furore has erupted on Facebook over this issue, and since
you asked for my opinion, here it is, even as I'm sure it will please no one entirely:
1. The sampling itself is no skin off my back and no big deal to me. If it makes for wit or art to
somebody else, then good for them. I respect Adam's right and ability to stir things up, as everyone
knows he's wont to do.
2. That doesn't mean that other people will feel as casually about things the way I do, and clearly
they don't. Anvil and the anthology editors have every right to sue Adam for copyright infringement if
their lawyers say this happened, and Adam should expect no less. If you play anti-Establishment
gadfly, you should expect--indeed you should want--the Establishment to bite back. And most times,
the Establishment wins (in which case, were I the gadfly, I'd be happy, because the loss would
vindicate what I've been saying all along about hegemony and all that).
3. I hate it myself whenever lawyers have to step into the picture to sort things out and possibly
make an even bigger mess of things, but as corny an intrusion as it may be, sometimes it's a good
thing for the law to take its course, if only for us non-lawyers to see how it works (or doesn't). There's
a long history of jurisprudence in the US and the UK covering sampling, but I'm curious what a Pinoy
judge will make of this case. I might even write a short short about it.
4. Not that I'm in any way eager to appear before a judge as a witness in this or any other lawsuit.
I've faced two
libel cases and both were nasty nuisances and a total waste of my time--as they were meant to be. If
it were up to me, I'd leave everything to karmic justice, and who knows, Adam's sampling may yet
prove more interesting and more enduring to readers than our originals (in which case Anvil can
make a more meaningful demand for royalties). As far as I'm concerned, I have four book projects to
finish, and poker tournaments to play in my spare time, and I stay out of Facebook precisely to avoid
vexations like this. There are writers whose work and whose persons I don't like and would dearly
love to pick a fight with, but why bother? In the very least, there are demons larger than ourselves
worth battling.
I hope Anvil and Adam sort things out amicably between themselves, but if they can't, then bring the
lawyers in to nuke the landscape so we can all return to our pedestrian pursuits, once the pretty
mushroom cloud settles down.
(Finished in a Jollibee in Narra, Palawan.)
(And I'll probably regret this, but yes, you may circulate this response in FB or wherever; but in full,
please--no sampling on this one--so the context of whatever I'm saying comes through. I might post
this on my blog, but i don't think I really have much more to say about this.)
Butch Dalisay
Angelo V. Suarez
April 19 at 5:21pm Edited

"The decision to delete ["Hi Ma'am Sir"] is strictly motivated by nothing more than personal economic
realities."
Adam David takes down the appropriative work "Hi Ma'am Sir" & its .pdf iteration "It will be the
same/but not quite the same" after the threat of legal action for copyright infringement has been
thrown his way by the publisher of the anthology that was the project's source text, Anvil Publishing--
incidentally & tellingly the affiliate publisher of the country's biggest bookstore chain--as well as by
the anthology's editors, Mookie Katigbak-Lacuesta & Noelle Q. De Jesus.
The threat of legal action itself for copyright infringement in a field w/ a long & rich modernist tradition
of appropriation is disgusting, w/c in my eyes makes Anvil, Katigbak-Lacuesta, & De Jesus not only
disgusting but enemies of literature. & literature being one field that looks for the new as an iteration
of freedom, I wld go as far as say Anvil, Katigbak-Lacuesta, & De Jesus have presented themselves
as enemies of freedom. There is no other way to deem it, given their unwarranted & bourgeois anti-
intellectualist recourse to instrumentalizing the law for silencing a practice--as well as entire
communities of writing for its chilling effect--that enriches Philippine literature precisely by deviating
from the market demands they have become beholden to.
As a poet working in the vein of conceptualism-constructivism who uses appropriative methods to
explore the challenge to private property as a legitimate compositional concern, I empathize deeply
w/ Adam's work & struggle--more so as a Filipino worker w/ limited economic means that curb our
access to quality public services, utilities & infrastructure including, yes, legal counsel. That Anvil,
Katigbak-Lacuesta, & De Jesus resort to a rhetoric of privilege many in the field they work in--
literature--do not & cannot afford to speak is a show of power that is nothing short of malicious.
I cannot reconstruct HMS for anybody, but I do have a copy of "It will be the same/but not quite the
same." Message me if you're interested in a copy; I am giving it away online w/o charge to anybody
interested just as Adam gave it away w/o charge to anybody online.
For more information about this matter, kindly refer to the collectively signed statement posted
by Mark Anthony Cayanan:https://www.facebook.com/notes/mark-anthony-cayanan/order-in-the-
food-court/10152867491758284
#Anvile
thirty minutes or less
HIMAAMSIR.BLOGSPOT.IN

Like Comment Share

Mark Anthony Cayanan, Joseph De Luna Saguid, Ayer Arguelles and 59 others like this.