1. Content
  2. Index
  3. Search
  4. RSS/Subscribe

Repression or Enlightenment? · Thursday October 07, 2010 by Crosbie Fitch

Is ACTA, the reprise of the Statute of Anne (to favour a beholden Stationers’ Company for the ulterior purpose of suppressing sedition), the proper future for mankind’s culture, or the last and futile reinforcement of an unethical 18th century anachronism, a cultural yoke?

Are we beginning to see a new enlightenment, a recognition of the corruption and injustice of copyright, or the last glimpses of the enlightenment that could have been but for new repressive laws that enable the censorship of dissident websites, and disconnection of dissidents, critical of, inducing infringement of, or infringing copyright – on accusation alone1?

Just how powerful do you want corporations to get? To be at least equal to, and ideally superior to, human beings? To have control over mankind’s culture? To have control over mankind’s technology? To be so enriched and empowered that they have control over ‘democratically elected’ governments and tax funded infrastructure and services?

If you think that people should not only come first, but that legislatively created and privileged entities are an abomination, then a first step would be to at least stop believing in one of their unnatural powers, their privilege of copyright, to instead recognise our human and natural right to copy, as derogated by copyright from our cultural liberty. Once you’ve recognised the cultural liberty that copyright has taken from us you can then understand why it should be restored, in the interim by copyleft licensing, and ultimately by copyright abolition.

Some artists, even some lawyers, have begun to question copyright. Here’s a short video showing some of them, who’ve most recently dared to voice such questions:


Walking on Eggshells: Borrowing Culture in the Remix Age from Brendan Schlagel

From Maria Popova’s blog article Remix Culture Spotlight: Walking on Eggshells .

See also: Art Outlaws Without Lawful Reward.
_____________________

1 It doesn’t even have to be copyright related. Given an evidence-free pretext these laws can be used to excommunicate any site or anyone, e.g. those facilitating the means to reveal the state’s corruption – ask Julian Assange of WikiLeaks.

To Censor or Not to Censor · Sunday March 27, 2011 by Crosbie Fitch

With mouths now being blurred on TV to protect the delicate minds of deaf children who’ve learnt to lip read, it’s refreshing to see Anna’s uncensored sign language rendition of the unbowdlerised version of Cee Lo Green’s Fuck You!

Still, of course, subject to removal from YouTube upon a DMCA copyright takedown notice – should any copyright holders feel so inclined…

 

About

Contact

Recent Articles

Recent Comments

Topics

Rights

Natural Right

Legal Rights

Life

Equality

Fraternity

Violence

Privacy

Being Privy

Confidentiality

Personal Data

Publication

Truth

Attribution

Authenticity

Moral Rights

Plagiarism

Representation

Veracity

Liberty

Censorship

Disclosure

Freedom of Speech

Freedom vs Liberty

Official Secrets Act

Piracy

Property

Apprehensibility

Facility

Identifiability

Copyright

Copyfarleft

Ineffectiveness

Modulation

Neutralisation

Patent

Software

US Constitution

'exclusive right'

Sanction

Contract

Inalienability

Licensing

NDA

Abolition

GPL

Business

Models

Incorporation

Immortality

No Rights

Regulation

Culture

Miscellany

Links

Principles

Amnesty International

Copyleft (Wikipedia)

Electronic Frontier

Free Culture F'n

Free Culture UK

Free S/w Foundation

Pontification

Against Monopoly

One Small Voice

Open...

P2Pnet

Question Copyright

Paragons

GratisVibes

Jamendo

SourceForge

Wikipedia

Protagonists

Downhill Battle

Publishers vs Public

Proof

Rethinking Copyright

Papers

Against Monopoly

Ecstasy of Influence

Libertarian Case

Post-Copyright

Practitioners

Janet Hawtin

Nina Paley

Rob Myers

Scott Carpenter