adam wrote:
> this looks good although (just for reference) the section :
>
>> Those who suggested we oppose
>> copyright as a concept were proposing this as a posture and not
>> meaning to eschew its protection for their own work.
>>
>
> isnt accurate at least on behalf of the points i made, as i do oppose
> copyright. Its not a provocative stance, although in this context it
> would have been provocative
>
> I don't mean for you to alter the text, just pointing out that my
> position on copyright isn't theatre
Yes, sorry. I had misgivings about that paragraph, which I knew didn't
really capture your position. In retrospect I should probably have left
it at the first sentence ("Most of us support the idea of copyright in
general, if only due to a lack of plausible alternatives").
However, if I were to try defending the sentence, I would treat the two
clauses separately and note that you initially put forward no-copyright
as a provocation[1], and also that you, in practice, do not eschew
copyright because you (e.g.) use the GPL. Then having established each
part I would try to pretend the conjunction didn't imply something else.
Another thing I might do is try to change the subject, and ask how your
no-copyright stance interacts with your uses of copyright, and with
various other stances you have taken on copyright issues, such as the
essays making nuanced distinctions between licenses and arguing that
software piracy hurts free software, and so forth[2]. What about all
that?, I would say, and generally try to make your position the topic,
rather than my misrepresentation of it. But I'm not defending the
sentence because I agree it is misleading and I am truly sorry.
douglas
[1] http://list.waikato.ac.nz/pipermail/ada_list/2009-July/002615.html
[2] People could turn to page 106 of the Aotearoa Digital Arts Reader
available from http://www.clouds.co.nz/012/, or just google.
_______________________________________________
Ada_list mailing list
[email protected]
http://aotearoadigitalarts.org.nz/
