<a href="http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7661663613180520595&q=23c3">http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7661663613180520595&q=23c3</a><br>^for those of you who haven't seen yet. Very interesting speech.
<br><br>One of his overall points seemed to be that all of the free culture movements need to put their differences aside and work together if we want to win this battle. So I was thinking about my recent entry into the movement, and how it was, and still kind of is, a bit difficult for me to juggle all of the acronyms and organizations and such. What if there was some master "free culture movement" website that explained all of the different groups and compiled all of the blogs and speeches etc. I know that decentralization is important, but unity is important also.
<br><br>As a side note, something that interested me in his discussion of the newer non-commercial/commercial aspect of cc licensing options, was that he didn't seem to define non-commercial very clearly. If I post a song that is published under a non-commercial-only cc license to my myspace, it's noncommercial in the sense that I do not expect to get any money from it, although myspace will because of ad revenue. If I post the same song to my blog hosted on my own server with google adsense ads on it, I will be making money off of that song IF the presense of that song on my blog gives me more hits, or gives me more interesting adsense links. Thus, although my intention was not commercial, the song has a commercial use. Similarly, one could post a bunch of songs to his/her blog claiming it was fair use because they were not selling them, while they watch their ad revenue go up as people flock to their site to access the song. "free riding" outside of "commercial" use, or rather, with INDIRECTLY commercial use. Anyone else have thoughts on this?
<br clear="all"><br>-- <br><a href="http://www.madebyparker.com">http://www.madebyparker.com</a>