I'll take a look at the etherpad later, but I'd caution against doing a whole point-by-point rebuttal of the letter. I think a concise response focusing on just one or two main points would ultimately be more effective. (But I'm no longer a student, and I can't say that I speak for SFC, only as an independent supporter of free culture)
The points that stood out for me as asking for response are first: the main thrust that individuals have a responsibility to pay the structures currently set up to support artists and petition the government in support of the "property rights" framing that in turn supports these entrenched players and to not question whether this all makes sense in the context of the Internet, which is the best media distribution system the world has ever seen. The second is: "What the corporate backed Free Culture movement is asking us to do is analogous to changing our morality and principles to allow the equivalent of looting." Changing the metaphors underlying "culture as property" is a possible outcome of the Free Culture movement. We are having a conversation about how to have a free culture where artists can live happily. Entrenched players may join in, but they have to realize that "looting" is a word that comes out of their framing of the issue; we may not accept that framing as what is needed to support a 21st C (conected) culture. -Nate
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freeculture.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss FAQ: http://wiki.freeculture.org/Fc-discuss
