On Tue, 2009-07-14 at 15:31 +0200, Julian Oliver wrote: > > > > 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... > > I think you're mixing the license with the concept here. Copyright licenses, > like people, come in many shapes, sizes and dispositions. There are > pro-culture > copyright licenses, like that Lawrence Lessig and Richard Stallman have > created, > and then others, like those that give the RIAA federal rights to carry > submachineguns and fly black helicopters.
I would not describe the GPL etc as pro-culture licenses. They are necessary hacks to a system whose default position is to stop the flow of information. That is the default position for copyright licenses but it is also the inherent rationale of copyright. So I dont agree with either the ideal of copyright or its legal manifestation. However back to the hacks..., each of these systems (CC / GNU licenses) is also necessarily stopping the flow of information because there is very limited scope for license interoperability. Until recently CC did not themselves understand how their own licenses were interoperable. So information cannot even flow between 'open licenses'. This is ridiculous. These licenses are not 'pro-culture' they are (somewhat clumsy) hacks to a faulty system. shall we open the floor to others? ;) adam > > > 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. > > Copyright is just a concept, and there's nothing wrong with the concept in > itself IMHO.. > > Cheers, > > Julian > > > > > > > > > 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 ... > > > > > > rp > > > > > > 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/ > -- 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/
