..on Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 10:44:23PM +0200, adam hyde wrote:
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
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.
On Sun, 2009-07-12 at 14:46 +1200, Douglas Bagnall wrote:
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.
Ada_list mailing list
Founder FLOSS Manuals
German mobile : + 49 15 2230 54563
Email : adam(a)flossmanuals.net
"Free manuals for free software"
Ada_list mailing list
home: New Zealand
based: Madrid, Spain
currently: Madrid, Spain