On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 3:43 AM, Alexander Berntsen <[email protected]> wrote:
> That's like saying that people should have the "freedom" to make > proprietary software. That is not a freedom, it is a power over > others[0]. The free software movement is concerned with end-user > freedoms. > The free software movement is concerned with end-user freedoms for *software*, hence the name of the movement. To be specific, quoting from [0], "Freedom means having control over your own life. If you use a program to carry out activities in your life, your freedom depends on your having control over the program." That said, the free culture movement, and its associated principles, are substantially separate from the free software movement. An individual can fully believe in the rights of an end-user to have control over the software that affects their life, while still believing that artists and creators should have control over how others use their artistic creations (to a given extent). Artwork is not code, and does not exert a control over your everyday processes. That said, I wholly agree with al3xu5. While I do believe in some aspects of the free culture movement, specifically that copyright is too restrictive in its current form and the viewers should have some rights, I do not believe that viewers should be able to commercially derive and re-use any non-software copyrighted work they receive a copy of. The original purpose of copyright was to protect the commercial interests of artists, and I believe *some* form of that protection is still appropriate. [0] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-even-more-important.html *-- * *Tyler Romeo* Stevens Institute of Technology, Class of 2016 Major in Computer Science
