Sorry, Janet, if you thought I was name calling! I was only saying that the work so far has been largely fun and a learning experience - so fear not that CC might have "wasted" resources on TOT.
But I am merely a humble student of the law, so your comments below about big picture ideas are beyond my area of expertise. They sound great and will, I hope, be very useful to the others here who are better suited than I to "think big." All the best, Dana On 2/28/07, Janet Hawtin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 2/28/07, Dana Powers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > What other ways can we support the commons and explore options for free > > > culture. > > > If you are asking whether I could have better spent my time doing > > other projects besides TOT, well maybe. I suspect I could have done > > lots of things. Maybe CC would have hired someone else to do it. But > > they didn't have to pay me much, and I learned quite a bit. I doubt I > > would have done something that you would have cared much about had I > > not. At the very least I'm glad TOT has begun to peek ever so slowly > > into the thoughts of non-lawyers. > > Why does this always come down to name calling. It is not about sissies. > It is not about me not caring about CC and its potential and actual function. > > Commons and free culture are important concepts and words at this > point in time not just for me but for all of us. > > As far as I can see it is about parallax between the names and ideas > which groups use to attract communities and funds, and then the > organisational structures and functional practices which they actually > engage in. > > I am probably clumsy about my understanding of 304c and 304d > I feel I am not clumsy about my care to use the word commons in > contexts where it means people can participate, and to think about > free culture as an idea which is important to foster and engineer for > regardless of the current state of play of law which does not care > much about either concept. > > If these two organisations choose to use a 501 model of attracting > funds but then find themselves unable to look outside of existing law > or to experiment with ways to engineer and campaign for commons and > free culture then that is a great shame. > > I have been interested in creating and authoring in a way which > generates value but does not achieve value through restricting access. > I have been working on a card game and matrix to help show people > about these ideas. I have come to both groups looking for discussions > and ideas which are about generating value while honoring commons and > free culture and am disappointed to find that the letter of the > existing copyright law is the primary beacon and is more scrupulously > attended than the ideas of commons or free culture which are more > loosely handled. > > These two groups hold valuable conceptual positions. > This is because the copyright law is not supportive of commons and free > culture. > The community recognises and supports the value of these concepts > which start from a different perspective than that which generates > copyright law. There is value in sharing and participation; it is > enabling. Copyright is about generating value through control, commons > and free culture are about generating value from participation and > collaboration. The value of commons and free culture as a position and > organisation is directly related to people's ability to connect the > concept with actions which support the core idea. If the groups use > existing law as the guiding light in preference to supporting the > commons or free culture where those choices arise, then there is much > which is not being discussed, tried, tested. > > If all the ideas generated by these groups look only at value via > restriction of access then the momentum of people's interest in > commons and free culture > cannot even work towards new models. > > My question is not about caring about one person's choice pf project > which will certainly be something which will be worth knowing inside > out in a few years, it is about thinking beyond the model which is > generating a lack of participation and access, and looking to develop > case studies and discussions around ways that people use commons to > generate value, and use free culture as the first principle on which > to build. > > Start with a small project, anything, that looks at ways people > generate value in a shared context perhaps do practical experiments > with a range of models or survey the groups that use those models > already to see how value is generated and sharing is implemented. > Populate the websites and wikis with people's exploration of a2k based > economics. If that is out of scope for Creative Commons and Free > Culture groups, then fine, my question was and is how can we look at > other models. Which groups are having a go. > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > [email protected] > http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss > _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
