Copyright, Copyleft and the Creative Anti-Commons
Anna Nimus (http://subsol.c3.hu/subsol_2/contributors0/nimustext.html)
A Genealogy of Authors' Property Rights
An interesting article, although I don't agree with its (implied) conclusions.
The author has not always existed. The image of
Apropos of Anna Nimus's text,
Felix Stalder wrote:
Which seems to leave as the conclusion that within capitalism the
structure of copyright, or IP more generally, doesn't really matter,
because it either supports directly fundamentally-flawed notions
of property (à la CC), or it does not prevent
Hi,
I guess the point is that if you are an author, who is willing to
accept money for a work that is offered by someone, who is willing to
pay for the work is counter-revolutionary. :))
If that was not true, then the author wouldn't have had any problem with
markets for cultural goods (aka
Felix Stalder wrote:
In this view, copyfights appear to articulate
a secondary contradiction within capitalism, which cannot solved as long
as the main contradition, that between labor and capital, is not
redressed.
Is that it?
Hello Felix, that is more or less it, yes, free culture is
I'm not sure I understand the main thrust of the argument.
On the one hand, GPL-type copyleft is criticized for not preventing the
appropriation (or, more precisely, use) of code by commercial, capitalist
interests. These still manage to move profits from labor (employees /
contractors who
Copyright, Copyleft and the Creative Anti-Commons
Anna Nimus (http://subsol.c3.hu/subsol_2/contributors0/nimustext.html)
A Genealogy of Authors' Property Rights
The author has not always existed. The image of the author as a wellspring
of originality, a genius guided by some secret compulsion
