On 12/01/12 15:04, Dmytri Kleiner wrote: > I'll start with the later. The well known success of Free Software has > created a kind of delusion among cultural producers, which has lead to > the phenomena often referred to as "Free Culture." Yet, software and > culture, for the most part, are at fundamentally different end of the > productive process and thus share little in common.
I think I understand and to quite some extent agree - probably because I am familiar with Dmytri's work - but this distinction is a bit confusing to me. I understand software as part of culture. I wonder if the term "art" is more appropriate here? But then again, art is very much a commodity, like software. You can find people who write code as art and you can find people who write code as commodity - as you can find people who do art for, well art's sake, and you can find people who do art to make cash, lots of cash, and those buying it are rich people with capital at hand, because owning it is cultural capital - nice to show off - and because it is a way of investing. The art business is basically a Ponzi scheme, isn't it? m -- http://commoning.wordpress.com "...I thought we were an autonomous collective..." _______________________________________________ empyre forum empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au http://www.subtle.net/empyre
