On 06/11/11 00:21, Kevin Driscoll wrote: > > The FSF refers to the GPL as a "clever hack." Hardie argues that > because the license depends on a functioning copyright regime, it can > not fundamentally challenge or transform U.S. copyright law nor the > ideology it reflects. Furthermore, because of the transnational > circulation of software via the internet, the "clever hack" may > actually assist in the establishment of a compatible copyright regimes > in other nations.
I spoke about Creative Commons as part of a talk in Serbia in 2005 and I did feel like I was promoting a solution to a problem that the audience wasn't yet facing. But I don't think that volunteers talking about copyleft are going to have more of an effect on national policy than WIPO and the WTO. And when copyright maximalism spreads, it is better to be prepared for it. > My takeaway from the essay is probably not novel to anyone on here: > that the promises of free culture require more fundamental change than > simply porting free software's "hack." Part of why Creative Commons is > an important tool (a means) but not an end? Absolutely. Reform is vital. In my experience nobody is just concentrating on licenses (although maybe some of us should talk about the other things we are working on more...). Copyright law is an important arena for cultural freedom *because it is increasingly used to restrict it*. The mistake of marxisant critics of free software and free culture is to conclude either that this is the entire content of those movements or that copyright licences have to be used to effect changes within society other than to copyright law. > PS. To be fair to Hardie, there's a sizable population of people who > really enjoy digging into this kind of writing. I'm a subscriber to that journal... ;-) - Rob. _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freeculture.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss FAQ: http://wiki.freeculture.org/Fc-discuss
