On Tue, 2009-07-14 at 14:54 +0200, Julian Oliver wrote: > It depends how you look at it. All a copyright license covers are the terms of > copying and downstream distribution. If a license says "you're allowed to > relicense, copy and claim full authorship for my work" it's still a license, > just a very open and rather pointless one. Without copyright (as 'naturalised' > from authorship by the Berne convention or otherwise) there would certainly be > very little cultural production: we wouldn't have a history of art as made by > artists, as work would be re-attributed at whim. Citation would be extremely > difficult - thus the derivative work - and so it follows that concepts as > posited by people, as objects of thought, would lose their vernacular, > critical > and cultural power.
im not sure i agree...Berne was sometime in the late 1900s...do u think we had no history of art or cultural production before then? we seem to have quite a rich knowledge of artists pre 1900s. If you take copyright back further to british law we are talking sometime around 1660 - I think we have maintained a lot of the vernacular, critical and cultural power of the Renaissance (which more or less ended before copyright was a legal notion), for example... so i really dont think this marriage of copyright to attribution or cultural development holds. In fact, I would say that copyright has killed attribution in many ways as copyright attributes credit to the people that pay for the work. Who holds the copyright for Walt Disney films? Certainly not the creators, but the Disney Corporation... As far as i see it, its hard to say copyright is pro-culture. You can say culture hasn't completely died under copyright. I would agree with this. But it hasn't helped. adam > > Copyright can be pro-culture - it's just that /most/ copyright is broken, > perverted by the 'free' market - exploited to the contrary. > > > However, regardless of my beliefs, the position of saying copyright is > > broken is more provocative and might encourage more people to think > > about it than taking a position on the wording of legislation. > > It may do that, yep, as long as people are educated as to the options > otherwise. > As it stands I come across a lot of people that claim there is only Copyright > (aka RIAA style) and Public Domain, which reflects a gross lack of education > on > the topic.. > > Cheers, > > Julian > > > > > On Tue, 2009-07-14 at 11:28 +0200, Julian Oliver wrote: > > > ..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/ > > > > > -- > > 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/ > -- 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/
