[FC-discuss] Free Software and Free Culture

[Crosbie Fitch]

> From: Nelson Pavlosky
> That said, there has been no consensus on to what extent we should 
> promote free software to the exclusion of all else... must all students 
> involved with FreeCulture.org run free software all the time? 

I'd behave today as one would tomorrow.

If someone is selling a copy of something in the right place at the right
time, that wasn't stolen, there's nothing wrong with paying them money for
it. It doesn't matter if it has (c) written on it anywhere or a shrinkwrap
license - ignore it. If it has a click-thru license click 'yes' to
everything - it's hogwash FUD (you've bought a copy, not a license).

If someone offers you a copy of a published work (made with or without the
copyright holder's permission) that wasn't stolen, there's nothing wrong
with accepting it as a gift or even paying them money for it.

If you have a copy of a published work that wasn't stolen, there's nothing
wrong with using, sharing, copying, studying, selling, or building upon it.

And all this on the strict proviso that you never use copyright or patent
law yourself (except in order to nullify their effects completely - not just
partially as in CC-NC).

NB 'stolen' means removed from someone else's private property without their
permission (including the removal of whole/partial copies/derivatives
manufactured on someone else's private property). 'published' means made
available to the public by the author or with their consent.

In other words, the first four steps are easy:
1) Do not steal intellectual property, or otherwise violate the human right
to privacy
2) Do not lie, plagiarise, or misrepresent
3) Do not prosecute (or threaten to prosecute) people for enjoying their
human right to liberty
4) Enjoy your human right to liberty, and ignore the threats of those who
would prosecute you for it

The following, harder step is a boycott step.

5) Do not use, accept, or distribute published works produced by those who
prosecute (or threaten to prosecute) members of the public for enjoying
liberties suspended by the commercial privileges of copyright and/or patent
(except to nullify them), nor patronise or promote the authors, artists,
producers, publishers, or retailers of such works.

I don't know about you, but in my book all published works belong to the
public. The use of copyright and patent is an anachronistic hangover from a
bygone era that still supported slavery and racial inequality. To boycott
contemporary culture because it has been so unethically tainted seems to be
a Pyrrhic strategy. It belongs to the public, so assert possession and
embrace it - do not dispossess it. Enlighten misguided artists, but do not
shun them.

If free culture is associated with penury and abstinence (thou shalt not
possess works with satan's sigil '(c)'), then it's going to be compounded
with the mistaken notion that free culture artists must also work for
nothing. The 'spartan Stallmanite' image is not going to be endearing to the
wider population outside FS cognoscenti (no disrespect to RMS intended).

Why not simply say "Enjoy culture freely, it's yours - but do not deny this
freedom from those to whom you sell your work, it's theirs"?

Enjoy cultural freedom. SELL FREE CULTURE!

I like that. Pleasure, culture, money, and liberty in six words ('Sell' dual
with 'evangelise' too). What could be a more succinct and welcome message?
Have fun, enjoy life, keep on buying the culture you like, keep on sharing
it with your friends, but if you build upon it and sell any of your own,
make it known that you would be done by, as you do. Exchange your labour in
a free market with money from an appreciative and emancipated audience.