Pad.ma Launch: The Left, the Right and the Rights by Sebastian Lütgert
Duration: 00:42:47; Aspect Ratio: 1.778:1; Hue: 349.983; Saturation: 0.046; Lightness: 0.151; Volume: 0.085; Cuts per Minute: 0.748; Words per Minute: 130.428
Summary: Sebastian Lütgert introduces Pad.ma
https://oil21.org/
Introduction by Madhushree Dutta. Jan Gerber and Sebastian Lütgert. At the launch of
https://Padma at Jnanapravaha, Mumbai, on 29th February (leap year), 2008.
Okay, now I have the most pleasurable task of the evening, to introduce the most endearing and gentle pirates of the 21st century, Sebastian Lütgert and Jan Gerber.
Well, they're engaged with Oil21 and their engagement with "The Oil of the 21st Century", which is the basis of their name - that is IP, intellectual property - is manifold and multidisciplinary. You can start writing - they write, research, author, produce, provoke, provide and create sites, sites which are essentially under construction, always being layered.
I invite them to unveil the latest of their sites, the beautiful
Padma, but be careful, they will show you one site and for them, tomorrow morning it will be passé and they will work more on it. So don't expect to open the same site on 1st of March.
Sebastian and Jan.
For tonight, Jan is the back end and I'm the front end.
And I have to first reduce the amount of computers on this table.
By 50 percent.
Before I show the Padma, the actual archive, I still wanted to share a couple of thoughts or concepts with you that kind of inform the practices of archiving as we did it. When this phase of production for Padma, in the Padma project started, we had in December, end of December, a two-day event here in Bombay that was titled Archive Access Anxiety.
-> Archive, Access, *Anxiety*
elaborate on the anxiety part
And the striking thing there is, of course, the Anxiety Part, and I want to actually elaborate or go back a bit to this anxiety kind of trope or topic. So even though it's just a few thoughts I had about images in general, it would be titled The Left, The Right, and The Rights.
it's a few thoughs about images, but it's titled
THE LEFT, THE RIGHT AND THE RIGHTS
1. THE LEFT AS PERCEPTION
we're all more or less coming from from an era where the left was strong
and that is rare, and may cause misconceptions about what constitutes the left
one would be that you join it by joining it's "opinions"
(that you're against the war, or don't like the president, or whatever)
We are all more or less, even though we forget about this quite often, coming from an era when the left was strong as a movement. And we also tend to forget that this is historically actually quite rare, and that may cause misconceptions about what constitutes or what may constitute the left.
One would be that you join it by joining its opinions, that you're against the war, that you don't like the president, or whatever. And I think that's not such an interesting type of definition. One that I have found incredibly useful is one that French philosopher Gilles Deleuze has given in an interview in the early 90s.
-> deleuze
the left is not a matter of opinion
the left is a matter of perception
a type of perception that begins at the horizon
likened to a "japanese" mode of perception
where what you see first is the world, the periphery
and you, yourself, is what you see last
He was asked, what is the left? Are you part of it? And he said, yes. So what is it, this concept of the left? And he defined it as not being a matter of opinion, but actually said the left is a matter of perception.
It's a special mode, a type of perception that begins at the horizon. He likened it to a Japanese mode of perception, where what you see first is what lies furthest, the world, and you yourself is what you only see last.
whereas the right is exactly that type of perception
that percieves: me, my room, my house, my steet, my neighborhood, my city, my province, my country, the other countries.
(this is pretty universal: the indian right doesn't seem different from the european right, in that regard)
Whereas the right, and there it's relatively easy to explain, is the exact opposite type of perception. It's that kind of perception that perceives, here's me, there's my room, there's my house, then there's my neighborhood, my city, then my province, and then the other countries.
This type of perception is what constitutes the right. And that is pretty universal. The Indian right doesn't seem too different to me than the European right, in that regard, form of perception.
but now if the left is a matter of perception,
perception brings us to the image
But now, if the left is an issue or a matter of perception, then perception, of course, brings us directly to the image.
2. THE IMAGE IN CINEMA
it is also, generally, rather unclear what is an image.
alone regarding
the image in cinema, countless attempts have been made to define it,
and these theories only apply to cinema. photography is different again...
And as with the left, it's relatively unclear, in general, theoretically, what an image is, alone the image in cinema. Countless attempts have been made to define the image in cinema. And all these definitions or theories then don't hold for photography, and there's a whole other set of theories about, or definitions of the image.
mid 20th century french new wave / cahiers du cinema (godard/daney) idea about the image:
I want to use one that comes from a point that Lawrence has also addressed, mid-20th century French thinking about cinema, be it the practices of Langlois, be it the circle around the magazine Cahiers du Cinéma, the new wave, Nouvelle Vague directors.
Like, they had an idea about the image that was incredibly simple, and Serge Darnay, late editor of Cahiers du Cinéma, even said once, Cahiers du Cinéma is just this one idea, and that helped them to go for 40 years.
in the cinematic image, there is always something missing,
and there is always a surplus ((-> lacan))
And it's the idea that in the cinematic image, there's always something missing, and there's always something more. There's always a surplus. In other words, the image is always less than an image, and at the very same time, it's always more than an image.
or, in other words: the image is always less than an image,
and at the same time, it is always more than an image
more than an image in the sense that it makes references to a world outside the screen
that it makes use of certain politics, and, maybe most importantly, that it is a part of a history,
not just the history of the world, history-history, but also the history of cinema
It's more than an image in the sense that it makes, quite obviously, a reference to a whole world that is outside the screen.
That it makes use of certain politics, it's part of certain politics, and maybe most importantly, that it's part of a history. And that's not just the history of the world, history, history, but also the history of cinema itself.
but it's also less than an image in the sense that what it deals with is often outside the frame,
or it's not yet there, or it is an image that is still waiting for another image,
that needs a cut, an association, to be made, before something can become visible
But it's also less than an image in the sense that what it deals with is very often outside the frame, or it's not yet there, or it is an image that is still kind of waiting or in need for another image, that needs a cut, an association to be made, before something can become visible.
And that's why, actually, the mode of perception that is the left can be so enormously beneficial in making cinema, because it allows to make visible what is not there, what is not there anymore, or what is not yet there, to make visible shapes of things to come.
And that's one of the greatest things that cinema can do, of course, is to actually make visible shapes of things that are not there, but that are to come. And that's also why the right, actually, has hardly produced any great filmmakers, because the type of perception that begins at home can, very obviously, only produce propaganda for what already exists.
It's, in a way, tautological, and any filmmaker who is forced to produce propaganda, then that's, of course, this type of perception that is the right.
Which leads us to another misunderstanding about documentary film, or about footage, that documentary was just, you go there, and you film it as it is. I mean, of course you do, but that's not what anyone will see.
One can never see in cinema how things are in reality, or how they really are, but in fact, as a documentary filmmaker, you go there, and if you're lucky, you'll find an image that makes something visible, which is not necessarily in the image.
It may be before or after the image, or in between two images.
So, what is this image, then, an image in cinema? In cinema, and I find this, whoever, there's many people I could attribute this thought to, I find it intriguing, not just, but also because it's quite a simple thought.
Day for night
François Truffaut
Jean-Luc Godard
La nuit Americaine
Mumbai
On what is an image and an anecdote about Francois Truffaut, Jean Luc Godard and Jacqueline Bisset that makes it clear what an image in cinema is, or what makes it an image.
Sebastian refers to the film La nuit Americane. More details at
http://0xdb.org/0070460
There are many people I could attribute this thought to – in cinema, an image is when you can see something. I find it intriguing – this simple thought. And these moments are rare. In a film maybe you'll see one or two but thats already too much. A good example is an anecdote that I quite like. Its early 70s, and Francois Truffaut has made his film La nuit Americane (The American Night or Day for Night), and Jean Luc Godard was asked that – Have you seen the film, how did you like the film? And he said that – The film, I don't know. But you know, Truffaut, there's one image missing from your film. One image is missing and what is that image? It is when a few weeks ago I saw you and Jacqueline Bisset who is the main actor in the film walk on the street and enter that café, there. Because I think this image would be beneficial, its missing from your film because it shows why you made the film. You made the film to hang out with Jacqueline Bisset and its quite strange if this is the constitutional moment and if you want the core of your film, why don't you show it? That's what an image is, would be. That's what it means when you see something or something becomes visible. And you see why Truffaut made La nuit Americane and it becomes visible why he made it.
cinema
image
invisible
visible
In cinema, an image is when you can see something.
The moment when something becomes visible. And these images, these moments are rare, like ideas, maybe. You'll find one or two, or if you're really lucky, you have two or three in a film, but that's already almost impossible.
So, a good example is an anecdote that I quite like. It's the early 70s, François Truffaut has just made his film La Nuit Americaine, and Jean-Luc Godin was asked, like, hmm, have you seen the film? How did you like the film? Like, and he said, hmm, the film? Okay, I don't know, but, you know, François Truffaut, there's one image missing from your film.
One image is missing. And what is that image? It is when, a few weeks ago, I saw you and Jacqueline Bisset, who's the main actor in the film, walk on the street and enter that cafe there. Because I think this image would be beneficial.
It's missing from your film, it's not in, because it shows why you made the film.
You made the film to be able to hang out with Jacqueline Bisset. And it's quite strange that if this is the constitutional moment, or if you want the core of your film, why don't you show it? That's what an image is.
That's what an image would be.
That's what it means, that you can see something, that something becomes visible. It's not that you see François Truffaut or Jacqueline Bisset, that they became visible. They're visible anyway or not, but that's not the point.
It's that you see the reason why Truffaut made La Nuit Americaine, that it becomes visible why he made it. And it's not that you're just told why he did, as right now by me, but that you can actually see it with your own eyes in the image.
That's precisely what would be cinema.
As opposed to television. Interestingly enough, this very school of cinema has always regarded the image in television as something completely different. They are very poor, obviously. We all kind of know there's anchormen, limousines, press conferences.
And that's because they are images that are only to be read, not to be seen at all. That's the idea. There's endless voiceover to distract your sense of visual perception.
And what the voiceover says is basically there is nothing to see here.
So then if cinema is the medium to make things visible, television is a medium to transmit orders. It's also there could be many people to attribute this idea to.
And that's then, of course, also why cinema doesn't work on television generally. It works better on computers, as you will see in a moment.
It doesn't work there because in the television image, there's never something missing or something more. This doesn't work in this technical framework. Or in a sense, everything is missing from the television image, from the stream of television images, and everything is elsewhere.
Problem with cinema.
What we're dealing with here is, of course, something, a third medium, which is digital video.
And now if the image in cinema is when you can see something, the moment you can see something, and the image in television is when you have to read something, when you have to follow, read something, then the image in digital video is when you can compute something, calculate something, make a calculation with something.
And that is something, again, completely different, and it changes quite a lot.
A digital video is basically a number. It's a simple number, even though it's a very large number, but an instance of, it's the magnetic state of a part of a hard drive. It's the sum of the packets that are going through a network.
It's something that can be kind of assessed with very positivist ways of, or positivist sets of tools. You can copy it, and you will get precisely the same number. And if you lose the copy and are lucky, you can just compute that number again.
And, of course, you can, with digital video, calculate all kinds of things. You will also see a few in a moment. How long it is, what's the average color, what other film is visually similar, etc., etc.
But the most interesting property of digital video is, of course, that it can be so easily copied and modified and distributed.
And that's, in very many cases, also exactly the point where the anxiety part, where a lot of the anxiety comes in.
In the age of digital reproduction that we seem to be living in, the concept of intellectual property has become technically obsolete.
And not only obsolete, but actually obscene, insulting even.
Because neither can you, like, intellectually be the owner of a large number, nor can you practically keep a large number from entering into all kinds of equations, like the additions and multiplications that take place in worldwide peer-to-peer networks, which use the same infrastructure as banking, news, communication, etc., etc.
An effort to help images escape from the realm of ethics and morality, and to make them enter again into the realm of politics.
There are basically - simplification - 2 laws that govern this world of digital data exchange. Moore's law and Murphy's law. Moore's law in its most vulgar form says everything becomes twice as cheap, twice as fast, twice as big - whatever - every 18 months.
Murphy's law in its original form says, whatever can theoritically go wrong will eventually go wrong. And in this special case this just means - evey bit of copyrighted material will eventually be copied illegally. These are kind of fundamental laws of the information age. And its historically a relatively very new situation and I think it should not be feared, but rather embraced. But there is a lot of anxiety, it doesn't really depend on where you go, you'll find it in all sorts of different types of contexts. The question of - the issue of anxiety brings us to the question of the rights, and the management which has become so fashionable of rights. The goal of digital rights management - the big term, the umbrella on top of all these attempts to keep numbers secret and make bits behave differenlty - goal of digital rights management is basically to suspend the fundamental laws of information. As such, actually, rights management is just a fancy new name for plain old censorship. In the context of cinema, rights management is an attempt to end its history once and for all. To transform cinema into the art of making sure that nothing can be seen. Making sure that nothing can be copied, that this DVD doesn't work on this computer, this operation is not permitted, that this download will expire in 2 days, that this film won't run on a digital screen, that this archive will be lost, encoded in proprietary unreadable formats - gone forever. This doesn't just affect the archivist or the so called consumer, but also the producer and director. You need to sign contracts before you can make an interview, you can't use certain footage because its unclear who shot it, or you can't film this building because the architecture holds a copyright to its visual features. And it seems as if the world of rights management takes a divorced concept of the spectacle and then even escalates it further - its not just what you see and what exists. And what exists is good, but now it is even what you see if what your rights are, and these rights are good. And I think at this very point, practices of the digital and the practice of cinema have to team up, have to form some sort of coalition, and its also what in the end pad.ma might be about, in a way. It may be part of a larger effort to help images escape from the realm of morality and rights and to make them enter again, the domain of politics. Because in the end all these so-called moral or legal problems of cinema or making video - what am I allowed to film? What am I entitled to screen? - are a matter of politics.
Adding description here: an annotation for with or against the thesis.
PADMA10
There are basically, simplification, two laws that govern this world of digital data exchange. That's Moore's law and Murphy's law. Moore's law, in its most vulgar form, says everything becomes twice as cheap, twice as fast, twice as big, whatever, every 18 months.
And Murphy's law, in its original form, says whatever can theoretically go wrong will eventually go wrong. And in a special case, it just means every bit of copyrighted material will eventually be copied illegally.
These are kind of fundamental laws of the information age and it's historically a very new situation and I think it should not be feared, but rather embraced.
But there is a lot of anxiety, always. Also, it doesn't really depend on where you go. You will find it in all kind of different types of contexts.
And the issue of anxiety brings us to the question of the rights and the management, which has become so fashionable of rights. The goal of digital rights management, which is the big term that kind of is the umbrella on top of all these attempts to make bits, keep numbers secret and make bits behave differently.
The goal of digital rights management is basically to suspend the fundamental laws of information.
As such, actually, rights management is just a fancy new name for plain old censorship.
In the context of cinema, rights management is an attempt to end its history once and for all, to transform cinema into the art of making sure that nothing can be seen, making sure that nothing can be copied, that this DVD doesn't work on this computer, operation not permitted, that this download will expire in two days, that this film won't run on a digital screen, that this archive will be lost, encoded in proprietary, unreadable formats, gone forever.
And this doesn't just affect the archivist or the so-called consumer, but also the producer, the director.
You need to sign contracts before you can make an interview. You can't use certain footage because it's unclear who shot it, or you can't film this building because the architecture holds a copyright to its visual features.
And it seems as if, in a way, the world of rights management takes, like, Deboe's concept of the spectacle and then even escalates it further. It's not just what you see is what exists and what exists is good, but now it is even what you see is what your rights are and these rights are good.
And I think at this very point, I think digital practices of the digital and the practice of cinema have to team up, have to form some sort of coalition, and that's also what, in the end, PADMA may be about, in a way.
It may be part of a larger effort to help images escape from the realm of morality and rights and to make them enter, again, the domain of politics. Because, in the end, all these so-called moral or legal problems of cinema or making video, what am I allowed to film, what am I entitled to screen, are a matter of politics, the image of this kid or the image of this riot or this argument in my kitchen last night.
I may not include it in a film or maybe not even take it in the first place, but not because of anyone's entirely fictitious rights like privacy, copyright, religion, political so-called sensibilities, et cetera, et cetera, but because of my politics of filmmaking.
And these decisions are political and they're just fine.
One of the questions encountered at a couple of occasions when working on Padma was a question I actually find that it's an interesting, it's a peculiar and interesting question.
This question of, or this imagination, the question, can this, my image, now that it's digital and can be copied, can it be misused by the right? But, and I think it cannot, not if it's an image, not if there's something in it that can be seen, something that is at the same time more and less than just the pixels on the screen.
If you think about it, think about an image from Vertigo. Scotty follows Madeleine up the church tower and Madeleine is in front of him and then he looks down the stairs and then this very famous thing happens, something strange changes in time and space, Vertigo, and he can't move anymore.
Take this image, can this image be used by the right? It's an interesting question, but I think in the end the answer is no. Or take an image from the Matrix, Neo is on the roof of a skyscraper, Agent Smith is following him, or even many instances of any Agent Smith and they're shooting at him and then again something strange happens.
We know, we're familiar with the image, the Matrix, bullet time. He can somehow, something strange happens in space and time and he can escape the bullets. This image, can it be used by the right? It's a funny question, it's a, no, it probably can't.
And if you have made an image that can, then it's probably because its mode of perception of the world was already precisely the mode of perception that constitutes the right.
And the question is not so much if the right has the rights to use something, the question is if the right has the politics to. And I think that by definition it rather has not. But even if it happens, I guess these instances of misuse or abuse of digital footage are not such a big deal.
In a way it's Murphy's Law, again, everything will be appropriated by the right always. This is kind of also one constant that one has to develop politics for rather than ethics.
Interestingly enough, to close with and then to come to the archive, Deleuze's other, second definition of what could constitute the left is about a certain approach to the precise question of rights.
that the left, what could be the left, whatever, is not so much invested with the law but rather with the case, with cases.
The idea that, it's the idea that rights actually cannot be deduced or should not be deduced from abstract principles but have to be created and maintained in concrete and specific situations.
And that is then what the left could be, making an investment not in the universal declaration of some abstract rights, be it human rights or copyrights or the rights of corporations or the rights of the army to do this and that, but an investment in cases where actual abuse of rights is happening and where political intervention is possible.
It doesn't mean at all to give up your universalism but it means to actually put it into practice. It's not to create rules, but to create exceptions.
And that's again hopefully one of the ideas behind Padma.
It's not, Padma is not an order.
It doesn't have the form of an order like all your images have to go online, this is how it has to be done, there's no alternative, follow or be late.
But it's a proposal.
It's a concrete and very specific environment, it's a social context not in the sense of worldwide online social networking or whatever the current buzzwords are, but as a product of friendship among the people who have produced it and the desire to extend this friendship and a result of the politics they share and also of the differences they share.
So what you're going to see now, Padma, the archive is not YouTube at all. It doesn't say this is how the world is and how it should be, it's rather an invitation to a process of imagination.
And I'm almost tempted to present it as an imaginary archive.
Imagine we had done all this. Imagine people had annotated for two months. Imagine they had collected 40,000 layers of annotation. Imagine we had produced all this code and put it together. Imagine all this was possible and I think it makes sense to approach it this way.
Imagine this was possible then the question is what would you do with it? Could it be useful for you? For whom? Could it be interesting? And I really think this is an open question. It can turn out, I hope it's not going to be that way, it can turn out, it's all complete crap, we should spend our time differently, it's possible.
But this has to be tested and in that sense it's a project, it's something that just starts, it's not a finished something. It's an invitation.
Now, if you want to smoke a cigarette, there's now five minutes of technical difficulties probably, but...
Huh? Stay here! It's a means of production also this website, it's not so... In general, presentations of websites are always highly precarious I find because it's also again Murphy's Law, everything that can go wrong will go wrong.
pan.do/ra live archaeology
That's how Padma looks from the front, from May 1st on, which is this... March? Oh, sorry.
Which is the day after tomorrow, March 1st on.
We don't have two more months to fix that.
It will be reachable at pad.mar. Just pad.mar. This is relatively simple and easy to... pad.mar.
This is how it looks from the front but I'm going to enter via the index.
This is basically... I mean, this is like the index of the archive. This is the list of videos that are collected there. This is, of course, going to grow but they all have... I mean, this is kind of...
Since... In terms of material, most of this is footage in the sense of it's not finished films but be it outtakes of films, be it images produced around the production of a film. Obviously, there's no standardized image for them but for everyone we've chosen and actually editors of the archive can choose this one poster image if you like that represents them.
You can sort them by all kind of... If you want to find the longest one or the most recently published one or whatever, you can kind of find them.
this is now how a single item in the archive looks like.
It's just an example. It's just one of hundreds.
So basically, there is a shorter or longer kind of introductory description of or contextualization of the whole clip or of the whole video of this one instance of footage.
As you can already see here, it's possible to download these films.
They are in what we call medium quality. It's 640 times 600 pixels wide. So that means two things. A, it's possible to download them because these files are not so insanely big and B, it also means that this is material that is quite useful for private home or informal use but it's definitely also not the type of material that a TV station is now going to download and broadcast in high definition.
It's not high definition. And the original material of course still resides with the people who made these films or will reside within the archive.
The website itself deals with this type of material.
And with an even more pragmatic type of material that you're going to see in a second. So you can download them. There's a help button here because downloading, because both the encoding of the videos of the aura and the downloading method BitTorrent, we've chosen them because they allow a maximum of openness and flexibility when it comes to actually downloading and using these images.
But since not everyone is familiar with BitTorrent as a distribution method, and not everyone is familiar with the video formats, the technicality of video formats. There's a lot of information on the side, what you need to install to watch these videos or how the download actually works.
In the end, it's pretty painless and simple.
And here you have some metadata. Now, of course, that's not just all. You can already here when mouse overing this image kind of get an idea, you get a preview actually already what's going on. This is Duhu Beach, you probably all know it.
So you can switch now to, like let's say, go through it here, let's say this is something that interests me. You can now switch to a second view, that is the editor view. And basically what we've done is we've taken the paradigm of a video editor.
Everyone who's familiar with video editing software will kind of recognize this.
the thing here, so basically you have a player, you have an in point and an out point. And you can set these kind of in and out positions as you like.
And these images of the in point and the out point will change accordingly. And this is the player, so most importantly you can actually play this.
and what you see here below is the timeline. So it's a visual representation of the film where one pixel represents one second of film and it really allows you to at a glance see what's happening in the film.
So now something is going to change in the image, faster cuts or more movement at least.
Here's now the red stuff. So this gives you an option to actually preview or get an overview of the structural features, the cuts, the colors of the film. If you want to see something blue, this is here.
And obviously you can also see again here, night will fall.
The 40,000 layers, even though not 40,000 layers per video, annotation is what you see here on the right side. We have basically, I'm going to close it. I mean this now is updating while we're playing.
So what you see in keywords here or in description here is different from what you may see in this part. And you can actually select it and then you see the exact zone, the exact span of the clip that this description applies to.
For the moment, there's four different types of annotation. There's locations, which are actual locations, keywords, which are a bit more freeform, like all types of short keywords that seem to apply either to the whole video or to certain small parts of it.
There's a description, which is like, while the keywords are just short tags, if you want, the description can be a more elaborate, longer kind of piece of prose. it's also a place where you could paste like an article or make more complex type of references to a video.
And then you have a transcript, that's something that doesn't apply for this type of footage, where you can enter an actual transcription of what's being said. That's a bit like subtitles, but it can be more, it can be longer portions, it can be more detailed.
these are for now the four types of, the four different types of annotation. And again, they are layered in the sense that multiple people who contribute to this archive, even though the number of contributors now in the initial phase is only two people have actually added annotation to this video, but this is now open for users to annotate and to add.
What they can't do is you can't modify someone else's annotation, it's not that now someone is going to vandalize the thing by editing what you just wrote, but you can add new layers.
To do that, everything until now, every visitor of the site can do, but if you actually want to add content, add your own descriptions, what you need is to register with the site, to get an account. This is extremely simple, you just type in the name you want to pick, choose a password, and if you like, enter your email address, but not even that is mandatory, and register.
And once that is done, can I log in now already? Okay.
Ah, you have to type in an email address, okay.
So I do it again.
Okay, so I even made that account before, so it should be relatively easy to log in for me now.
We have thought of everything.
This is what I wanted.
Very good. So, first successful log in to the system.
If I go to the list of videos now again, and of course by now I know where I want to go to. I don't have to search the whole thing, but I will probably just search for beach, because I remember it was the beach video that I wanted, and here it is.
There's quite a few things with beach, though.
So now I'm, and here you already see it highlighted like Juhu Beach, you find the, and that's what the yellow markers are here, things tagged with, or somehow described with beach, turn that off.
Let's say now I want to tag this part of, I noticed that there is these parachutes here in this part of the video, and I just want to, I mean it's a relatively stupid type of example, there's a lot more interesting things to tag than parachute, but just as an example, so let's say, and visually you can already see where it starts actually, I set my in point here, my out point, this is the end of the parachute episode, I put it here, and now I can add a keyword that's parachute, and it will be saved.
Pad.ma requires JavaScript.
