4 ms·
Copyfarleft, Copyjustright.
- lupin_sansei 17y ago"property is the enemy of freedom. It is property, the ability to control productive assets at a distance, the ability to ‘own’ something being put to productive use by another person that makes possible the subjugation of individuals and communities." Sure. That's why the USSR, China, North Korea, Cuba and all places that restricted property ownerships are so well known for their freedoms. How can a sane person not think twice for a second about that statement?
- deleted 17y ago[deleted]
- tricknik 17y agoUSSR, China etc have very strong property rights, property was very strickly enforced.
- tricknik 17y agoActually, what sane person reads the sentance "The ability to control productive assets at a distance, the ability to ‘own’ something being put to productive use by another person that makes possible the subjugation of individuals and communities" without seeing how well this applies to the USSR, China, etc. Property is still just as much property when it is owned by the State, the King or The Corporation. It is important to understand the distinction between property and possesion. Proudhon: "I prove that those who do not possess to-day are proprietors by the same title as those who do possess; but, instead of inferring therefrom that property should be shared by all, I demand, in the name of general security, its entire abolition."
- davidw 17y agoIf I may be allowed a moment of snark: "The 19th century is calling, and it wants its failed ideology back". This is pretty much just politics, in any case.
- pbhjpbhj 17y agoI'm with him right the way except where he dis's CC-NC-SA. Surely if someone from the copyfarleft community works on the project then they too will be releasing it free and so how is the work not endogenic. CC-NC-SA simply puts up a wall, that PD does not, to prevent exploitation from outside the sharealike community (to coin a term). I can see that without [intellectual] property if we wish to enjoy artistic works we must establish a way of paying artists; the question is will we do any better than copyright? It is only really the long terms [monopoly periods] that stop copyright from performing its duty to aid movement of creative works into the public domain AND allow ample time for artists to gain reward from that work. Oh yeah and viva la revolution comrades.
- tricknik 17y agoHi, thanks for the comments. For example take the book 54 by Wu Ming, released under a NC license, because it is NC this prevents both Random House and the local Anarchist bookshop from havin free terms, Copyfarleft allows the bookshop to have free terms, but not Random House. That way the bookshop could independenlt manufacture and sell copyfarleft material without any violation, but Random House would need to negotiate a licence with the authors, exactly as they did for 54.
- pbhjpbhj 17y agoThe Anarchist Bookshop can produce it, just not commercially, in copyright law commercial damage can be made by giving stuff away for free but I've always assumed in CC that commercial means anything above material costs. You say the Anarchist Bookshop (I'm not sure if that's a real example?) could then sell the work, why, why should they sell it I thought this was about removing rental costs on intellectual items. What's your criterion for allowing a reseller to make profit, political persuasion? Now I'm confused.
- tricknik 17y agoMaterial costs, like all prices must include rent, interest and wages. CC removes rent only on the IP, not on the location the store is in, for example, which still must be included in the final consumer price. Manufacturing books and selling them is commercial activity even when undertaken by an anarchist book shop. The anarchist book shop, presumably works collectively and thus has no external shareholders, and therefore can only have income, not profit. The point of copyfarleft is to prevent value derive from free terms from being captured by non-producing capital owners.