[Foundation-l] Clearing up Wikimedia's media licensing policies

[Ray Saintonge]

luke brandt wrote:

>Ray Saintonge wrote:
>  
>
>>luke brandt wrote:
>>
>>    
>>
>>>Ray Saintonge wrote:
>>> 
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>The first clause in the quotation is remarkable for its ambiguity.  My 
>>>>first inclination was to read this as indicating that property is 
>>>>essential to the definition of culture, or that a society that does not 
>>>>believe in capital does not have a culture.  A more acceptable 
>>>>interpretation is that a culture does not exclude the existence of 
>>>>property.  In other words
>>>>   
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>>>A free culture is not a culture - without property
>>>>>
>>>>>A free culture is not - a culture without property
>>>>>     
>>>>>
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>>>Having artists be paid is acceptable in both circumstances.  In 
>>>>accounting terms, property is an asset on the balance sheet; getting 
>>>>paid belongs in the revenue portion of the financial statements.
>>>>   
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>Hi, and thanks for your thoughts. In clarifying the quote how do you
>>>think you should take into account the second sentence - seemingly the
>>>counterpoint and twin of the first in the quotation, which is in
>>>essence: "A culture without property ... is anarchy, not freedom."  - luke
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>One really needs to look at that second sentence in its entirety: "A 
>>culture
>>without property, or in which creators can't get paid is anarchy, not 
>>freedom. ..."
>>
>>Does payment imply property?  Is that second premise an explanation or 
>>an alternative.  If I really wanted to emphasize grammatically fine 
>>points I would suggest that in order to be an explanation a comma would 
>>be required after "paid".  I hesitate to cast this into the areana of 
>>capitalist (property) versus Marxist (payment) dialectic.  There is a 
>>certain idealist thread in Marxism that forsees an anarchic workers' 
>>paradise; some doctrinnaire views of libertarianism might get us there 
>>too.  That aside, I can see neither the capitalists nor the Marxists 
>>promoting anarchy.  Wikinomics is in its infancy, and in that context it 
>>is perfectly understandable that Lessig would use the jargon of the 
>>society around him. 
>>
>>There are a lot of grammatically negative words in the Lessig quote, and 
>>I wonder if he would have done better to express things in more positive 
>>terms.  Even "free" has a basis in an absence.
>>
>>One of the consequences of living in a paradigm shift is the destruction 
>>of presumptions.  That curse of interesting times escapes its box, and 
>>makes itself felt where it was not expected. 
>>
>>The fact is that there are a lot of people providing a lot of 
>>intellectual effort for nothing other than the personal satisfaction of 
>>doing a good job.  They need to put food on the table as much as anybody 
>>else. There is a profound disconnect between work and compensation for 
>>that work.  The marketting and manufacturing structures that supported 
>>the enterprises that have heretofore been highly profitable are no 
>>longer needed, casting aside an army of Willy Lomans.
>>
>>Most of us who have an interest in Wikipedia and this mailing list also 
>>have an interest in free access to knowledge.  We are highly critical of 
>>the notion of intellectual property, particularly copyright.  Property, 
>>as we traditionally define, it generates revenue solely on the basis of 
>>its own existence.  Is that the kind of property that Lessig considers 
>>to be the antidote to anarchy.  In summary I agree with him in relation 
>>to creators being paid, but have serious reservations in relation to 
>>property.
>>
>>Ec
>>    
>>
>Once again, thanks. For myself, I don't see the absence of that comma
>being significant except stylistically. Lessig seems to have quite
>deliberately positioned himself four-square in the 'Adam Smith camp' if
>it may so be described. Doing so entails consequences for the particular
>'freedom' paradigm that the movement espouses, doesn't it? - eg perhaps
>our attitude on NC ... that's just one small reason why Lessig's axioms
>need examining carefully, in my thinking on this, just as you did :)
>Maybe there are other views. Take care - luke
>
I would hate for the entire philosophy of open access to be reduced to 
an argument about old economic philosophies.  Whether you believe that 
Adam Smith or Karl Marx  was right about some detail, you have to make 
the point without mentioning the name, especially Marx's.  In the midst 
of a true paradigm shift, as for Ivan Karamazov, everything is 
permitted.  Adam Smith  economics are deeply engrained in American 
establishment thought; it's a lot more safe than the rebellious 
uncertainties that Jefferson supported.

Ec