Of course information isn't free universally. Some information might be free and others not. It all depends on the context. Even academic work, once totally free, is now quite possibly covered by patents. Hey, even things like football scores and describing the game isn't free. We are in a world increasing making information a real property.
I would think this topic is best left off the group and taken to a private venue. But that is my position... Peace, Chuck Wegrzyn Seth Johnson wrote: > I think -- nay, I know -- that information IS free. I also know > that the elements of all published works are intrinsically free, > as well. I think that if we keep our sights on that, then it is > possible that in the practical working-out of what life is like > with ubiquitous connectivity, that our freedom to use and > distribute any work that has been published as a whole, will > become expressed among our civil rights. > > > Seth Johnson > > Florent THIERY wrote: >> Just curious: is there anybody on this list >> who thinks that music should >> be free, or that information wants to be >> free? If so, what do you mean? >> >> I do. I do think i should have the ability to get access to a >> global music network, and listen to what i want. Exactly like >> going in a library and look at evrerything before buying. >> >> I'm not saying i want to OWN the files, i just want to stream >> them with good quality. To me, one of the best recent >> approaches are: >> - Jamendo.org: biggest european portal of creative commons >> licensed artists; uses partial p2p distribution >> - Last.fm: no p2p >> >> Both are (basically) free. Both allow artists to get revenues. >> And neither takes full advantage of P2P. >> >> I believe that this usually comes from people who are >> against (the enforcement of) copyright law. >> >> Yup. I'm french, and it's become recently illegal to circumvent >> anything related to drms. And i don't like that. And i'm not >> the only one. >> >> Some of these people are against it for utilitarian >> reasons. But some people believe the enforcement of >> copyright is immoral, and are against it for that >> reason. >> >> It IS immoral. Why would a huge artist be protected only >> because he sells 10000 albums a week? Who cares about the >> little artists whose copyright isn't respected? Why do the >> people get caught downloading latest madonna single? Because >> the current copyright and revenue system does culture >> obfuscation, and people listen to SHIT. It's a fact. Only music >> purists even have a little notion of how vaste, how huge the >> world of artists is. Isn't there a problem there? And why do >> huge stars become sooo rich, when all the other artists get >> poorer? >> >> I'm a fervent believer that jamendo-like models will prove >> viable, at least for semi-pros. They make money with derived >> products, concerts (using geo mashups), and donations. >> >> Future is within independant artists, labels and distribution >> systems. Because self production is everyday easier, because >> self distribution is too. >> >> Just imagine a P2P system that is transparent to users and to >> majors, and that uses the monetary value of resources >> (computing, bwth and HDD) shared by users to pay the copyrights >> (for RIAA labels) or to give direct ad/resource revenue to the >> artist/label. >> >> You would get a fair trade music model, intercompatible with >> the current system. >> >> And i'm pretty sure that the company who would create such a >> network wouldn't be a commercial one, but a non-profit one. >> Alexandria's music library. Musicopedia. Who knows? >> >> --------------------------------------------------------- >> _______________________________________________ >> p2p-hackers mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.zooko.com/mailman/listinfo/p2p-hackers > _______________________________________________ p2p-hackers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.zooko.com/mailman/listinfo/p2p-hackers
