I found this interesting, and telling.
Kim Weatherall is an IP academic in Australia, and she's pretty prominent down under in advocating the positions of the Free Culture Commonists. She has a prominent blog, etc.
Kim has constructed a class called "Alternative Freedoms: Open Access, Open Source and Open Content Licensing." Her syllabus and class notes are online here.
Early in the notes, in the background section, I found this portion of her notes interesting:
Okay, notice that the driving forces behind the "open" movement are FEELINGS.
I agree with Kim completely. It isn't legal jurisprudence, sound economics, or anything else that is driving the Free Culture Commonists. It's feelings. Beliefs and feelings. No evidence.
And the problem with operating on feelings, rather than on facts and evidence, is that you end up coming to conclusions that are absurd, such as Larry Lessig's recent contention in Wired magazine that "innovation will continue to suffer" as a result of the Grokster decision.
Of course, Lessig cannot muster even a bit of empirical evidence that innovation is suffering. But he doesn't need to, because it isn't empirical evidence that drives these folks--it's feelings.
Kim Weatherall is an IP academic in Australia, and she's pretty prominent down under in advocating the positions of the Free Culture Commonists. She has a prominent blog, etc.
Kim has constructed a class called "Alternative Freedoms: Open Access, Open Source and Open Content Licensing." Her syllabus and class notes are online here.
Early in the notes, in the background section, I found this portion of her notes interesting:
For the most part, there are two key concerns lying behind the open source and open content movements:[those are direct quotes as of 9/12/2005. I note this because Kim's notes are dynamic, and subject to change and edits]
- A feeling that, in some contexts, the 'default rules' of copyright - that permission is required before any use can be made of copyright-protected material, that others cannot take and modify existing material without first negotiating permission - is often not useful and does not reflect the preferences of creators nor the best model for certain forms of creativity. Some believe, for example, that computer software is best built collaboratively - outside the usual 'market' model of copyright;
- A second feeling that the default rules of copyright have been getting too protective of the interests of copyright owners.
Okay, notice that the driving forces behind the "open" movement are FEELINGS.
I agree with Kim completely. It isn't legal jurisprudence, sound economics, or anything else that is driving the Free Culture Commonists. It's feelings. Beliefs and feelings. No evidence.
And the problem with operating on feelings, rather than on facts and evidence, is that you end up coming to conclusions that are absurd, such as Larry Lessig's recent contention in Wired magazine that "innovation will continue to suffer" as a result of the Grokster decision.
Of course, Lessig cannot muster even a bit of empirical evidence that innovation is suffering. But he doesn't need to, because it isn't empirical evidence that drives these folks--it's feelings.