"While communication technologies have created a world flush with knowledge, creativity, and communication, works of culture are more tightly controlled and restricted today than ever before. A rapidly expanding copyright regime makes the use, modification and distribution of almost all documented human expression the exclusive right of its creator. Copyright today is automatic, extensive, and lasts for more than a century. Our culture today, is owned..."
via copyrighteous http://mako.cc/copyrighteous/20071211-00
http://whygive.wikimedia.org –
Category: Philosophy Tags:
- Login to post comments
kiba
16 years 42 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago
I have a few issues with this article
They used "the culture is owned".
It is more accurate to say it is monopolized. You see, copyright control the people's copies. So it destroys the people's legal ability modify the content/software, something they would normally be allowed to if we adopted a private ownership system.
If the free culture achieve what it wants to achieve, than everybody will be owners of more stuff. The culture will still be owned, just not in an monopolistic and corrupting way.
Another point, the realist who want to reform copyright and allow noncommercial aren't realist at all about the commercial activity. Copyright law if reformed/abolished, would destroy the existing reliance on copyright but not the general ability to make a living.
There are many business models that you could adopt(mass patronages, live concert, etc) that doesn't relies on controlling what people can do with it.
The reason why you don't see many people making a living off of free culture because people simply don't try for one reason or another.
We already have business and enterprise that thrive on free culture and freedom. Look at RedHat and other big guys in the linux distro market.
All what we need is more people trying to make a living from it, not just contributing to the movement.