I think MJ Ray has summed things up very well indeed. I don't doubt that students may well provide the greatest resource for FC.org in terms of mobilisation and organisation (the '.org' bit), I'm just slightly concerned that the nature of the constituents is creeping into the mission (the 'FC' bit). Maybe that's just the way it goes. If you don't turn up, you don't get included - in the organisation or its mission. Nevertheless, a strongly student aligned movement is likely to only obtain student aligned concessions - at best. I can easily imagine university campuses obtaining an educational exemption from copyright infringement as long as all unauthorised copies/derivatives are digitally signed (or have other DRM) and are not distributed outside the university networks. As for me having an idea to set up a new non-student oriented movement, I don't think I had that idea. I was merely thinking that FC.org, despite its student constituency, might reconsider whether it really needed to reinforce this aspect in its mission title. There is a danger that rather than explain the constituency it instead distorts the motivation and the mission, i.e. it is not students promoting free culture for all, but students demanding free culture for themselves - as in "Students for Free Beer". However, Conor, if you'd like to set up a new movement, that's up to you, and I have no claim to the names. I think it would be best to avoid splintering. It did seem strange to have http://freeculture.org <http://freeculture.org> and http://www.freeculture.org.uk/ <http://www.freeculture.org.uk/> (see http://freeculture.org/blog/2005/09/22/free-culture-uk/ <http://freeculture.org/blog/2005/09/22/free-culture-uk/> ). I'm interested in any movement towards free culture (for everyone). I'd also be interested in a movement toward copyright abolition. In practical terms I have far more interests than time. I am dedicating my time toward the promotion and development of non-copyright based revenue mechanisms in order to try and demonstrate that a voluntary exchange of art for money in a free market is a better thing than the compulsory suspension of liberty (copyright) or confiscation of money (taxation). These are the domain names I've used in this area: www.digitalartauction.com <http://www.digitalartauction.com> , www.digitalproductions.co.uk, <http://www.digitalproductions.co.uk,> www.quidmusic.com <http://www.quidmusic.com> , www.contingencymarket.com <http://www.contingencymarket.com> So, my post wasn't out of indignation that FC.org isn't including l'il ol' me, but to express concern that FC.org may be in danger of being unnecessarily exclusive - which may not be in FC.org's best interests. Who knows?
_____ From: Conor Schaefer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, 3 October 2007 9:03am To: Discussion of Free Culture in general and this organization in particular Subject: Re: [FC-discuss] FreeCulture.org is now Students for Free Culture Interesting to know some background on this. Nonetheless, I think there is a void to be filled; as I said early, diversity can help us, no? I understand there's the issue of achieving and maintaining molarity of interested persons, a point Christina made earlier, but I don't think we're running that risk here. In fact, I think we can reach out to many more people by setting up shop with a label different from FC.org/SFFC, which would operate in addition to it. Since it was Crosbie's idea, I'm going to wait awhile, offering him the initiative. I googled for "artists for free culture" and got zero hits. That's bad! I'd like to buy the domain name www.artistsforfreeculture.org <http://www.artistsforfreeculture.org> and get things moving. But for the time being, I say we defer to Crosbie's initiative. What say you, good sir? Conor MJ Ray wrote: "Fred Benenson" <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Crosbie: why not consider an organization such as iCommons which has much broader goals and membership? I can't speak for Crosbie, but I think Crosbie is on this list mainly for the same reason I am, because freeculture-UK was closed down in its favour. As I understand it, iCommons has anti-commercialism written into its foundations (thereby closing it off from artists who need to make money from their free culture creations), uses hum-votes to makes decisions and doesn't record its meetings. If there must be another "open and free culture" group, then we'll get there eventually, but there's a natural desire to avoid duplication of overheads. It's disappointing to see so many missed opportunities and this vital task left to telling the Crosbies of this world to go DIY, instead of incorporating their support into your efforts. Hope that explains,
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
