..on Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 10:44:23PM +0200, adam hyde wrote: > hey > > on the copyright issue ... > > i think it would be a good opportunity to provoke people to think about > copyright - to release a statement way outside of the arguments of this > debate, and go for the throat. in my mind that is a statement outlining > that we think the current debate is ridiculous because copyright is > broken and useless. > > so, perhaps the position to take, and one that might provoke people to > think and might also catch some news-space, is to tell people that we > dont want copyright at all...
Hrmm.. as you (very) well know there is nothing wrong with copyright in itself, in fact copyright can't be avoided. Since the 1886 Berne convention it's been a naturally assigned right at the point of creating something: you can't not-have-made something you've already made. It's the terms of which that are later defined and it's here that problems propogate.. There are socially destructive forms of copyright and socially creative forms of copyright. The GPL is very much a copyright license as are all the creative commons licenses (as you know), both of which were created to be productive at the user level. The difference between socially destructive copyright (no right to remix / no right to learn from / what you buy is not yours to share) and socially productive/creative copyright (right to remix, modify, distribute) needs to be emphasised. To these ends I think one of the terms that really needs to be squashed is 'CopyLeft'; it implies that Creative Commons and the GPL are somehow 'anti-copyright' which is far from the case. This confuses people greatly and only serves to undermine any real education on positive, albeit reformist, directions in policy that benefit the public in general. Cheers, Julian > > > On Sun, 2009-07-12 at 14:46 +1200, Douglas Bagnall wrote: > > hello list. > > > > You have probably heard of fuss over "section 92a", a proposed amendment > > to copyright law that would allow for your internet connection to be cut > > when someone says you are using it piratically. It got passed as law, > > put on hold, thrown out, and is now perhaps fighting its way back. > > > > Throughout all of this ADA has had no position. It seems to me that we > > share considerable membership (that's you list subscribers) with the > > Creative Freedom Foundation who led the battle against section 92 -- but > > we probably also share members with APRA and SPADA who supported the > > proposal. So if we do take a position, it is not immediately clear what > > it should be. > > > > The CFF and its opponents are being terribly pragmatic and tactical in > > what they call for. They are fighting over what the actual law will look > > like, letter by letter. Personally I'm in favour of a far more anarchic > > situation than anything the CFF dares advocate. I understand their > > reasons, of course, but it makes me wonder: if ADA expresses an official > > opinion, should it be unashamedly fringe? Should put out press releases > > like they did manifestos 100 years ago? > > > > Probably nothing will come of this. I'm just curious as to whether ADA > > members want their trust to be making statements on stuff like this, and > > if so, what they want said. > > > > Douglas > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Ada_list mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://aotearoadigitalarts.org.nz/ > -- > Adam Hyde > Founder FLOSS Manuals > German mobile : + 49 15 2230 54563 > Email : [email protected] > irc: irc.freenode.net #flossmanuals > > "Free manuals for free software" > http://www.flossmanuals.net/about > > > _______________________________________________ > Ada_list mailing list > [email protected] > http://aotearoadigitalarts.org.nz/ -- Julian Oliver home: New Zealand based: Madrid, Spain currently: Madrid, Spain about: http://julianoliver.com _______________________________________________ Ada_list mailing list [email protected] http://aotearoadigitalarts.org.nz/
