PDA

View Full Version : Do you think the free culture movement will grow?



SonnHalter
February 24th, 2009, 04:16 AM
thread over. free culture doesn't equal communism. sorry for already flawing your thoughts.

Stan_1936
February 24th, 2009, 04:19 AM
no chance.

zmjjmz
February 24th, 2009, 04:33 AM
Although I don't know enough about sociology to know if it will grow, I certainly hope it does.
An expository documentary would be cool too.

bsharp
February 24th, 2009, 05:16 AM
do you think we need an "inconvenient truth" for Free culture?

Considering the limited impact that An Inconvenient Truth has had, along with the factual errors (http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/environment/gore.html) that have been found within, I think we should find something else to allude to...

As for the original question, yes I do think it will grow. I think we should take the Gandhi approach here, you can't force a philosophy on anyone, people have to adjust to it. I think it's only a matter of time and once it catches on, it will explode (metaphorically, not literally :lolflag:)

):P

miegiel
February 24th, 2009, 06:10 AM
Without proprietary, oppression, feudalism, ownership and property rights you wouldn't know what freedom is. As you know you are awake, because you know what it is to be asleep.

Just because proprietary, oppression, feudalism, ownership and property rights exist doesn't mean you are bound to the paradigm they spawn from. You can own a piece of canvas, some wood and paint, but it's impossible to own an image and writing into law that you can won't make it possible either. Though you might be able to convince people that you can and convince them to act accordingly, there is now way you can hold ownership of something that can exist in everyone's mind. Good ideas are viral, with or without the web.

The worst that can happen is that you believe a thought can be owned by something that has no conscience, can feel no love or hate. Or you can believe to be free and notice you actually are when you bump into someone who isn't.

Culture is free by definition, inconvenient for some businessmen, but true none the less :twisted:

lykwydchykyn
February 24th, 2009, 06:33 AM
If I may, it sounds like a bit of a one-sided movement to me. I'm not in favor of some of the draconian copyright-enforcement laws out there, but how does this "free culture" plan on supporting and encouraging the development of art/music/video/software/or other "content"? I agree that the pay-per-copy business model is outdated, but what does this free culture suggest replacing it with?

bsharp
February 24th, 2009, 06:43 AM
If I may, it sounds like a bit of a one-sided movement to me. I'm not in favor of some of the draconian copyright-enforcement laws out there, but how does this "free culture" plan on supporting and encouraging the development of art/music/video/software/or other "content"? I agree that the pay-per-copy business model is outdated, but what does this free culture suggest replacing it with?

You are absolutely correct. If everything is totally free there is no incentive to create anything. The ideal setup would be somewhere in between Ballmer and Stallman. With Ballmer, developers receive compensation and can afford to live, but we (as consumers) receive a crappy product along with strict limits on music/video/software. Stallman removes the tyranny but not every developer is devoted enough to the cause to live in their cars. Basically what I'm trying to say is the the middle of the road is the best approach here :KS

As for the replacement for the current model, I have no idea :lolflag:

miegiel
February 24th, 2009, 04:56 PM
If everything is totally free there is no incentive to create anything.

People don't only create for money. There are plenty sports where you won't become a millionaire by being the best, often the costs are higher than the profits. Students in art schools compete with each other without getting money for what they make.

Of course you need to make money. But once you've made enough for your rent, food and some extra, money is no longer a goal but a means. A means to get what you are really competing for, attention, acknowledgment, status, respect, sex, comfort, power, love, etc. With money can get you those things, but you don't need money to get them. Form a band, get on stage and attract a crowd and you'll get a free beer and more. It might not pay your rent, but there are plenty of other ways to make money at the side. Like an artist friend of mine, she's got 2 bands and plays for free or peanuts. While she makes money writing translations and doing voice-overs in commercials.

Daishiman
February 24th, 2009, 08:39 PM
Agreed. People have been creating things throughout centuries for causes different from money.
Also, even artists in areas where copyright are nil and plagiarism is rampant still make loads of money. The fashion industry in most places in the world has no way to "protect" itself from designers imitating their own styles, yet you don't see them complaining that they´re going to starve; it's simply the nature of the business.

Same thing with jewelers. Imitating a piece of jewelry is a piece of cake in comparison to designing and making the first one. Those who see a piece of jewelry as an art form corresponding to an artist will spend a considerable amount for an original. Those who can't afford it or who don't see such things in a piece will buy imitations.

Likewise, if you need software designed to get the job done, you'll hire people to have it done for you. Whether then someone might use that software for themselves is not relevant, as they will probably still have to customize it and tailor it to their needs.

95% of software developers work on custom software. For all practical purposes we don't need most of the copyright "protection".