On the topic of hacking a system that's harmful or used abusively, sometimes there isn't a critical mass of people willing to consider a complete paradigm change. One way to identify the people who are sympathetic is to offer a hack of the existing system -- kind of like a test case. Through more dialogue with the people who respond to your hack, you are (hopefully!) adding to the critical mass of people who would like to see more radical change. Deb
On 7 November 2011 15:47, Karl Fogel <[email protected]> wrote: > Kevin Driscoll <[email protected]> writes: > >> "Matthew Z" <[email protected]> writes: > >> > >>> > http://www.metamute.org/en/Change-of-the-Century-Free-Software-and-the-Positive-Possibility > > Wow. > > I usually try hard to avoid such directly negative statements in public > forums, but... I'm sorry, I just can't find a single positive thing to > say about that article. > > It's awful. It's a difficult feat to be wrong conceptually, factually, > *and* stylistically, but the author has managed it. Inasmuch as I can > make out what the article is trying to say, it appears to largely > misunderstand its topic. If one cannot see the fundamental importance > of a mode of production in which labor cannot be alienated from the > fruits of its work, then one cannot understand the significance of the > free software movement. (Viz: "The focus on freedom in FLOSS does not > concern, and even denies production and labour.") > > I couldn't finish it. I have a certain number of minutes left on this > Earth, and I'd rather spend them doing almost anything else. > > -Karl > > >>> If anyone has read this, I would love to hear some thoughts > (especially from > >>> those ironic apologists who support notions of "free culture" as > guided by > >>> capital). > >> > >> The author spends so many words on sneering and scare-quoted terms that > >> whatever point was being made is lost in the turgid wall of text. > >> > >> It appears to be little more than an avalanche of assertions and > >> accusations and strained metaphor, with no clear indication why the > >> reader should take any notice. I recommend the author take a course in > >> clear composition and writing. > > > > > >The decision to write in this style is as mystifying as the writing > >itself. That said, I found at least one intriguing idea in here for us > >to consider. > > > >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. > > > >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? > > > >Kevin > > > >PS. To be fair to Hardie, there's a sizable population of people who > >really enjoy digging into this kind of writing. Steven Johnson wrote a > >funny little memoir about it in NYT a few weeks ago: > > > http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/16/books/review/i-was-an-under-age-semiotician.html > >_______________________________________________ > >Discuss mailing list > >[email protected] > >http://lists.freeculture.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > >FAQ: http://wiki.freeculture.org/Fc-discuss > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.freeculture.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > FAQ: http://wiki.freeculture.org/Fc-discuss >
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freeculture.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss FAQ: http://wiki.freeculture.org/Fc-discuss
