6 ms·

Under a western concept of ownership, yes. There are systems of ownership, particularly among tribal societies, where things are owned by a collective. The inte

Under a western concept of ownership, yes. There are systems of ownership, particularly among tribal societies, where things are owned by a collective. The interface can get weird, but if you think of the tribe as a corporation that is its own legal entity distinct from the members it's not actually that foreign.

Y_Y 5y ago
What I don't like about that concept is that it imposes restrictions on people in the tribe that I feel are unfair. If you want to share some of your Maori knowledge with a non-Maori how can you go about it? Do you need approval from 51% of all official members, or the board of directors or what? I think that cultural heritage belongs to humanity as a whole, and even if it didn't then there would be plenty of people who would just take what they "inherit" from their ancestors and share it with the rest of the world.
- spoonjim 5y ago
  There is a corporate analog here in the form of a non-disclosure agreement. If you don't want to be part of the Maori community anymore, you can leave, like you can quit your job at Apple, but you're still not allowed to share Apple's knowledge with anyone else.
  - Y_Y 5y ago
    But you don't opt-in to being Maori, nor can you opt-out. If you say that you could just stop hanging out with other Maori then fine, but does that disinherit you from the cultural heritage?
    - spoonjim 5y ago
      I guess I’m just saying that your access to the cultural heritage can be contingent upon you following the rules (ie Don’t tell outsiders). If you break those rules, the community should be allowed to ostracize you within the bounds set by law (ie no burning your house down or anything).
- blacktriangle 5y ago
  Not only unfair, they're downright restrictive to growth. There's a reason that no civilization with such concepts of tribal ownership has developed into anything worthwhile, they're basically living the tragedy of the commons at its maximal level.
  - cool_dude85 5y ago
    >There's a reason that no civilization with such concepts of tribal ownership has developed into anything worthwhile Which civilizations are "worthwhile" and which are not?
    - blacktriangle 5y ago
      Hard to say, but I'd argue getting past the iron age on their own is a good start for a metric.
  - KittenInABox 5y ago
    Ascribing one person's position (the person suggesting sovereignity licenses) to be an examplar of how entire cultures haven't "developed into anything worthwhile" is racist. Relevant XKCD comic, of course: https://xkcd.com/385/ https://xkcd.com/385/
- SuoDuanDao 5y ago
  I'm not familiar with the Maori in particular, but most traditional cultures prior to the Gutenberg revolution had special knowledge that they tried to keep to themselves. Typically there were a class of people who were responsible for both ensuring that the knowledge didn't get lost or become available to the wrong people. Typically learning this knowledge required first committing to guarding its secrecy, so I wouldn't agree it's an unfair restriction on the people who have it. It might not be useful for the culture in the long term, but then again it might. These cultures have seen some ages pass. If the argument is just that everyone benefits when licenses are more free I wouldn't disagree, but having the option to impose different licenses doesn't seem like a bad thing. And whatever the details, that's what this boils down to, a particular set of restrictions on the use of a particular set of data.

Y_Y 5y ago

What I don't like about that concept is that it imposes restrictions on people in the tribe that I feel are unfair. If you want to share some of your Maori knowledge with a non-Maori how can you go about it? Do you need approval from 51% of all official members, or the board of directors or what? I think that cultural heritage belongs to humanity as a whole, and even if it didn't then there would be plenty of people who would just take what they "inherit" from their ancestors and share it with the rest of the world.

spoonjim 5y ago
There is a corporate analog here in the form of a non-disclosure agreement. If you don't want to be part of the Maori community anymore, you can leave, like you can quit your job at Apple, but you're still not allowed to share Apple's knowledge with anyone else.
- Y_Y 5y ago
  But you don't opt-in to being Maori, nor can you opt-out. If you say that you could just stop hanging out with other Maori then fine, but does that disinherit you from the cultural heritage?
  - spoonjim 5y ago
    I guess I’m just saying that your access to the cultural heritage can be contingent upon you following the rules (ie Don’t tell outsiders). If you break those rules, the community should be allowed to ostracize you within the bounds set by law (ie no burning your house down or anything).
blacktriangle 5y ago
Not only unfair, they're downright restrictive to growth. There's a reason that no civilization with such concepts of tribal ownership has developed into anything worthwhile, they're basically living the tragedy of the commons at its maximal level.
- cool_dude85 5y ago
  >There's a reason that no civilization with such concepts of tribal ownership has developed into anything worthwhile Which civilizations are "worthwhile" and which are not?
  - blacktriangle 5y ago
    Hard to say, but I'd argue getting past the iron age on their own is a good start for a metric.
- KittenInABox 5y ago
  Ascribing one person's position (the person suggesting sovereignity licenses) to be an examplar of how entire cultures haven't "developed into anything worthwhile" is racist. Relevant XKCD comic, of course: https://xkcd.com/385/ https://xkcd.com/385/
SuoDuanDao 5y ago
I'm not familiar with the Maori in particular, but most traditional cultures prior to the Gutenberg revolution had special knowledge that they tried to keep to themselves. Typically there were a class of people who were responsible for both ensuring that the knowledge didn't get lost or become available to the wrong people. Typically learning this knowledge required first committing to guarding its secrecy, so I wouldn't agree it's an unfair restriction on the people who have it. It might not be useful for the culture in the long term, but then again it might. These cultures have seen some ages pass. If the argument is just that everyone benefits when licenses are more free I wouldn't disagree, but having the option to impose different licenses doesn't seem like a bad thing. And whatever the details, that's what this boils down to, a particular set of restrictions on the use of a particular set of data.