I'd be careful to understand whether the mission of students for free culture is to pursue freedom against any constraint, or freedom against unethical constraint.
Copyright is an unethical constraint of cultural freedom, but then it's also an unethical policing of the private domain (prohibiting copies and derivatives even in the privacy of one's home, e.g. upon one's own computers). The AGPL utilises copyright's policing of the private domain to force disclosure of otherwise private source code. Some, in thinking that any increase in 'freedom' as defined by Stallman is a good thing, thus support this violation of privacy. Others, who believe that the public's cultural liberty ends at the boundary of the public domain with the private domain, do not support a violation of privacy in pursuit of 'freedom to inspect source code', just as they wouldn't support 'freedom to inspect another's diary'. Indeed 'freedom' can be so applied to anything that one covets, e.g. 'freedom to use someone else's car'. There is no fundamental goodness to 'freedom' per se - unless one has a utilitarian or even nihilistic (as opposed to a natural rights) philosophy. Now there may well be great things to be said for open network services, but that doesn't mean that closed network services are reprehenisble, despicable or unethical - even if they are commercial. Whereas, cultural constraints in the form of patent and copyright are unethical, despite the excuse that they were created to provide a commercial reward for the public's benefit. It must also be said that irrespective of the human right to privacy, a corporation being immortal has no such right, though it may effectively benefit from the rights of its human constituency. Corporations may also abuse the confidence of their customers in how they exploit the information they collect from them, but it doesn't follow that corporate transparency should be obligatory, or a lack of it is intrinsically abusive. The question is, is SFC in pursuit of cultural emancipation, or is it evangelising the benefits of openness in all things? Liberty or transparency? Let's not allow 'freedom to inspect' to be confused with cultural liberty. It is a good thing to be able to inspect someone else's private facilities, their collection of information and intellectual works, but it is not a natural right - it does need permission or payment. Simply because you gave them some of the information they have collected does not give you the right to retrieve it - though they may have agreed to provide details of what they have collected from you upon request. I suggest culture should be free from the unethical constraint of copyright and patent, but not also free from the ethical constraint of another's privacy. _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
