You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Licenses and Freedom
This is getting more into the idea of intellectual property, a notion I reject in the first place. You can't own ideas. Once an idea is made public, you can't control how other people use and modify those ideas. Involving governmental violence is destructive aggression against the rights of others, not a defense of your own rights.
That said, Creative Commons, CopyLeft, BipCot licenses, and the like are all ways to work within the corrupt system to protect those who would use your ideas from government violence. After all, government in its infinite benevolence (in the US at least) has decreed that every written work falls under its copyright law unless you specifically say otherwise.
I was trying to sidestep that inevitable 😂
You haven't answered my question. It's straightforward. As you argue on the basis of the system, consider the same, on that basis.
A Creative Commons license is still permission to do something otherwise "illegal." The only difference is that this is one of the few areas where the individual has some measure of power to sidestep the government's overarching system, and it still only has any power because governments agreed to recognize it. It's a "solution" to a problem that only exists in the first place because government declared something "illegal."
[comment depth reached]
Found this today, very much in line with what you're saying. https://web.archive.org/web/20060813134245/http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.xhtml
Food for thought.
That's true actually, I probably should have seen it. Thanks for the reply.
Again it's an interesting perspective. I choose this license for those reasons, that while it is broadly recognised, by most people not just the government, it's best to pay the lip service, otherwise you risk being taken advantage of. I wish it weren't so.
Still, the idea of privacy complicated matters a bit here. I've looked at it a bit on my blog, you'd probably have a good take on that stuff too.
One thing is that property is something that people are going to be very reluctant to let go of. I think there's a strong case for it but it's not without problems, especially in intangibles like digital media, ideas, mythology etc. I think criticising the premiss of violence only goes so far because it seems really removed and theoretical, cof which I'm sure you're aware. I could read this post as being a way to make that theory relevant.
If it's intangible, it isn't property.