Free culture is NOT defined by licenses. If there...

2009-04-20T04:20:00.000+02:00

Free culture is NOT defined by licenses. If there is any consensus on this, a good chunk of free culture fanatics need to find a better name for their movement and goals. The replacement of copyright with more sensible social norms for sharing is an important part of sharing culture.

> - I even think that "free culture" term is an oxymoronic one. There is no
> free culture. Every culture defines its own rules, which is lowering
> freedom. Of course, I am not against culture, but I, simply, think that
> "free culture" is a similar phrase to "free prison". There are no such
> things.

I think it's oxymoronic for the opposite reason - there is no rational way to impose 'rules' on culture, which is by definition a set of things freely and implicitly shared... it is like "free thinking", as though anything but a nightmare could prevent thoughts from being free.

> - Yes, it is better to have non-proprietary knowledge than proprietary
> knowledge. As well as capitalism is better than feudalism or slavery.
> However, licensed knowledge and capitalism are just far away of anarchist
> political positions.

you can come up with toy universes and cultures in which any obscure or counterproductive system looks 'locally better'. I think this is a much more practical discussion than 'political positions of a social group'. What is the best way to ensure that almost all factual knowledge is available at almost no cost in almost all circumstances to almost everyone in the world? This is a practical question that enough info and reflection would allow us to answer, in any given year.

> - And, inside of current social organization I think that the best option
> for one anarchist project is to choose the most pragmatic one.

Sounds reasonable to me.

SJ

Comments on millosh's blog: Anarchopedia changed its license

Free culture is NOT defined by licenses. If there...