By Falkvinge on Infopolicy columnist Zacqary Adam Green (also creator of the excellent Your Face Is A Saxophone cartoon).
Already used in my presentation today at the Linux Collaboration Summit, (pdf, odp, slideshare).
By Falkvinge on Infopolicy columnist Zacqary Adam Green (also creator of the excellent Your Face Is A Saxophone cartoon).
Already used in my presentation today at the Linux Collaboration Summit, (pdf, odp, slideshare).
Posted 2013-04-16, filed under Creative Commons, Intellectual Protectionism, Open Source, Peeves, Public Domain.
Last one should possibly read:
“Screw it. Just save anyone who can afford to sue the headache of getting in their way.”
I appreciate this but it is very simple-minded. I completely reject the awful and invalid assertion that the only reason people behave certain ways is because of threat of punishment. Look at the research from people like Dan Ariely. The reasons people do or do not cheat or do or do not obey the rules are quite complex, and threat of lawsuits is actually far down the list.
Furthermore, promoting the (gross) assumption that people behave only given threat of punishment etc. is a message that hurts Free Culture more than helps it.
Rob, I thought you’d say something like that. But I’m struggling to think of anyone who would sue that BY-SA has given a headache. Too bad there isn’t a headache inducing copyleft widely used for cultural works. (And not the kind of headache caused by the now irrelevant FDL.) Maybe a GPL will yet gain traction.
Aaron, I’m familiar with behavioral economics. People don’t choose to follow rules or not primarily due to possibility punishment, probably more amply demonstrated in the domain of copyright by ignoring it than by compliance with free licenses. I do not read the assumption that you do into the graphic; note can. But way may also disagree concerning describing the nature of copyright and how to help free culture. I think that promoting the assumption that copyright is the most appropriate info regulatory arrangement for encouraging sharing extremely short sighted.
Mike, my concern about the graphic is simple. It’s appropriate to send the intended message that we do actually have practical control over what people do. However, I am concerned about the all-too-common message I see out there to the effect of “don’t ask people to do something or not do something if you don’t have the power to enforce your request.” I see this manifested in arguments to the extent of:
Person A: “Don’t say those offensive things.”
Person B: “You can’t tell me what to do. Don’t you understand free speech?”
But person B’s freedom of speech doesn’t include freedom from criticism or freedom from others telling them to shut up.
The reason to respect someone’s wishes to exclusive copyright or for mild things like attribution etc. does not depend solely on what you can get away with. Even when we disagree with their request, I don’t like criticizing their request on the basis that they can’t enforce it.
The graphic here certainly makes some good points, I’m just mentioning some concerns about this angle.
whoops, typo, meant “…message that we DON’T actually have practical control…”
Retaining the means to act hatefully is not a good way to discourage the type of conversation you cite above. There ought be a polite license though; maybe I’ll actually work on it soon — much of the required background has been done by previous efforts all of which I still need to write about.
Also, though I’m being serious above, one of the great things about the infographic is that it isn’t very serious. Free culture takes licenses and copyright too seriously, and even if you disagree on that point, free culture is in desperate need of critique, and poking fun of its totems is one item on that agenda.
Finally, I promise to blog about another “best CC infographic ever” soon!
Sounds great. And yeah, I totally respect the need for light-heartedness and inner critique. Still, I don’t like the all-too-common refrain that by saying you are being light-hearted or joking that means you are free from critical response (although I know that’s not what you meant here).
I’ll check out those other links. I actually just spent a while reading all the codes-of-conduct and everything I could find. I wasn’t satisfied with any and have formulated my own that I feel really good about. So check out the Snowdrift.coop/w/conduct proposal (and the connected honor guidelines). I’d love your feedback. At any rate, I care as much as anyone about polite, friendly discourse. Cheers!
Nothing is free from critical response, ever! :-)
I’ve long been attracted to pancritical rationalism, but am all for something like pancritical avatism as well, so long as it is aesthetic rather than violent.