On 10/3/07, Conor Schaefer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I'll take this chance to open the issue of "factionalization" to the list. > I personally do not think this threatens the goals of the FC movement in > general. As I've already said, I think diversity in a beneficial thing, in > that we can increase the total number of people working toward achieving > social change by appealing to their slightly more individualized interests. >
I completely agree - A pluralist free culture movement is far more likely to gain momentum than one with a very narrow remit or very specific values. I would absolutely not leave SFFC, as I think it still a very valuable > organization. I do, however, also believe that more groups are needed, given > SFFC's recent narrowing of its mission. > Again, agreed. However I would like to suggest that SFFC attempts to widen it's membership to educational institutions outside the US. I can't do this in the UK as I am not currently studying (not yet, at least) - but I think more could be done to promote student free culture activism globally. I am very happy to work with SFFC to acheive this in the UK (if you feel it would be worthwhile), despite not being eligible to be a member of any student organisation. I think an artists free culture movement / organisation would be very valuable - as so many of the debates about FC are framed in legal / technical terms, it'd be great to have a space where the same issues could be discussed from a cultural / critical perspective, and I think this would do a great deal to increase support for FC in the arts world (where a lot of the same issues are discussed, albeit in different terms). In general, i think the FC movement has a problem in communicating with artists (due to the language difference described above), and a dedicated artists' free culture organisation could do a lot to address this. This was also the main rationale for the free art manifesto i'm working on. Very keen to help get this going - would it be appropriate to discuss this on this SFFC list, or elsewhere? Many thanks, Tim Thoughts? > > Conor > > Crosbie Fitch wrote: > > 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 and > http://www.freeculture.org.uk/ (see > 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, > www.digitalproductions.co.uk, www.quidmusic.com, 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]<[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.organd > 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" <[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]://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
