Message 02690 [Homepage] [Navigation]
Thread: oxenT02678 Message: 2/2 L1 [In index]
[First in Thread] [Last in Thread] [Date Next] [Date Prev]
[Next in Thread] [Prev in Thread] [Next Thread] [Prev Thread]

Re: [ox-en] Fwd: Can the Civil Society redefine Public Domain (beyond legal frameworks?)

Franz Nahrada wrote:

but to an increasing overload of creative and scientific
work with buerocratic procedures and requirements.
I thought it would be less? It seemed to me that it would be much easier to recognize a base work as being an open item, hence all items making use of it must also be open - contrary to our current system where you are forced to verify that every separate aspect of a thing as defined by law must be shown to be legally available for the particular instance?

From:		minciu_sodas_en
Richard Nelson <rick>

In the Ethical Public Domain definition there is no statement like the
above that will ensure harm upon the dedicator, rather there is a reverse
of this statement that "ethically and morally (but not legally) calls upon
the users of the work to voluntarily consider the conditions for use
specified by the author of the work to be binding so long as the user
finds a benefit and if a payment is called for the user should respond to
the author or "PayItForward" to the heirs or community in which the author
works or lived".

Creating our own Ethical Public Domain Definition will free us from the
legalistic approach to creative works.

Let me start by saying I find the impetus for this to be quite reasonable - I would welcome any clarification on anything I seem to misunderstand.. I am very curious to see where this leads :)

It seems to me - adding further components to a contract-type social construct is heading down the path of 'legalistic approach'. If you are asking for someone to do something 'voluntarily' - then there is no need to codify anything? The idea itself is a reaction to the 'presupposition that all people will act without ethics if force of law is not present' - and gives strength to it, though you recognize it as a 'false assumption'. The concept of maintaining something for heirs (communal or biological) states that you have less respect for everyone existing concurrently - as well as that intellectual items are able to be owned? Also, it places historical momentum on current events - such that you abrogating the selbstentfaltung of future generations to your own..

Organization: projekt

Thread: oxenT02678 Message: 2/2 L1 [In index]
Message 02690 [Homepage] [Navigation]