Crosbie Fitch wrote: > > You mean FC had a real position once before? What happened to it? > > Surely, FC has a position that advocates cultural freedom?
I think that FC.o has been a "big tent" organization, accepting both people who believe in limited copyright and people who think that copyright is generally a bad idea. I think it's probably a good idea to keep it that way, rather than excluding one of those demographics. I'm not sure that FC.o itself has ever had a specific position on exactly how much copyright there should be in an ideal creative system, or what ideal copyright laws would look like. There are just too many options, too many possibilities... choosing just one ideal system for creative regulation / incentives would be absurdly difficult, and is as much an empirical question of "what would benefit society most at this time" as a question of principles. That's not to say that having a specific position, a "model copyright code" wouldn't be valuable, but it may be beyond the resources / expertise of a student organization. (Perhaps Prof. Lessig would have ideas about who would want to take on such a project?) Personally, I think that limited copyright is more practical than no copyright or bizarre copyleft-only regimes, but I'm interested in exploring systems that provide freedom and creativity without requiring copyright. We should feel free to think outside the box and investigate other possibilities, even if they may seem impractical at first. Peace, ~Nelson Pavlosky~ Co-founder, FreeCulture.org http://nelson.freeculture.org _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
