On 10/24/2010 05:07 PM, marc garrett wrote: > > Having said all this, I feel that is Geert as an individual does propose > some interesting arguments. What he proposes may not necessarily sit > right, but they address important questions around how and why things > 'should' always be free. If we want something to be free, perhaps the > motives and ideas need to be explored more regularly or more deeply, > rather than everyone just accepting and adopting the idea of it as an > absolute. It's a bit like accepting democracy without knowing why its > there in the first place - perhaps we just need to remind ourselves why > we have it.
Yes I agree that the ideas should be examined. I don't just disagree with the Lovinks of this world on why or what or how should be "free", I disagree with the Lessigs and Benklers as well. I don't even agree entirely with Stallman. ;-) I have many questions about free culture. Is it simply a rebranding of "freedom of speech"? Is the American constitutional legal idea of "protected versus commercial speech" a useful one? What is the economic impact on authors of translations and artists of prints of high quality website images under free licences? How do we get to and the economic organization that I agree with every critic of Free Culture is still sorely lacking but *without* trying to break it? Is copyleft an over-reaction to the need for Fair Use? - Rob. _______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing list [email protected] http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
