oh gosh, another 'which free is free culture about?' thread? free as in speech, free as in beer are important. but yeah we must not forget about free as in huey (liberate from unreasonable and unwarranted enclosure) there's a lot to be done on this last & controversial front, but i believe we should focus on the most egregious cases where cultural freedom is impeded, for instance public domain content that's locked away in permission-only archives and rights managed (FREE THE [PD portion of the] BETTMAN ARCHIVE), as well as culturally important work that's stuck in licensing limbo like Eyes on the Prize.
On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 12:28:35 -0400 "Thomas \(TJ\) Olsen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I personally disagree with your interpretation, Free >culture is as it says > freeing culture from binding limitations placed on it by >the traditional > copy right system. > > tj > ----- Original Message ----- >From: "Crosbie Fitch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "'Discussion of Free Culture in general and this >organization > inparticular'" <[email protected]> > Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2007 4:42 AM > Subject: Re: [FC-discuss] free scholarly resources for >literary criticism? > > >> >From: Thomas (TJ) Olsen >>>I do like the idea, however do feel that freeculture as >>>an >>>entity should not atempt to support hacking of jstore, >>>rather >>> atempt to set the framework for an open--cc--free >>>culture >>>oriented repository, the trouble then becomes how to >>>convince >>>journals and scholars to use it. >> >> Perhaps people read 'free culture' and think it's about >>setting culture >> free? And this could understandably confuse some people >>into thinking >> that >> it sanctioned 'liberating' culture from behind the >>closed doors of >> commercial libraries. >> >> It actually means 'cultural freedom' for PEOPLE. >> >> People are being liberated - not culture. >> >> It means that people should be free to enjoy the culture >>they have, i.e. >> the >> published culture they've purchased or been given. >> >> Cultural freedom does not constitute a right to seize >>what you don't have. >> >> If you have purchased a music recording, then the >>restoration of your >> liberty (otherwise suspended by copyright) means you can >>share it, mix it, >> perform it, etc. After all, it's your property. >> >> However, if it's not your property then you have to buy >>it. Liberty does >> not >> warrant theft. >> >> If you want a music recording that you don't have, then >>buy it - find >> someone who has a copy (or who'll make one) and sell or >>give it to you. >> Don't steal it. >> >> As for jstor.org, if you want copies of any journals, >>then buy them. >> >> Free yourself, not someone else's property. >> >> Giving away your property free of charge is a personal >>choice. You can't >> demand it from others. >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
