Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-uk - Re: [Cc-uk] FS vs CC?

cc-uk AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Cc-uk mailing list

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "David M. Berry" <d.berry AT sussex.ac.uk>
  • To: Tom Chance <lists AT tomchance.org.uk>
  • Cc: cc-uk AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [Cc-uk] FS vs CC?
  • Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2005 18:36:30 +0100


Tom, A really well written email and one with which I concur.

In reply to Andres though, I would though like to point out that thinking that dissent is a 'bad thing' or that its 'unity is strength' are political sloganeering from the 20th century. I believe that free culture offers us a more radical moment when we consider that our discussions, ideas and plans are all public. Just think about that for a moment. We are a truly transparent (dis) organisation that is genuinely open to others. That's not to say we don't sometimes disagree, or that the disagreements can be internal as well as external. Regardless, the discussions are open. That is very different from bureaucratic organisations that fight to prevent any leakage from their public facade, we on the contrary reveal in the publicness of open, honest and free debate.

This means that there is no party line, decisions are reasoned out and subject to contestation and it is (thankfully) difficult to get authoritarian 'leaders' who seek to lead us down to the promised land. Not only that but this is mirrored in a message that is not only politically, socially and economically important and convincing, but also allows others to see how we got here. No membership cards, no gatekeepers and most of all no fiction of a univocal representational framework for our actions and practices. To me this is in addition to the message of free culture, and weirdly confirms it all.

Secondly, I think you are right that the multinationals are sharpening their knives. But staying safe and quiet won't spare Creative Commons from attack. Sticking to the old organisational frameworks (like centralised, hierarchical bureaucracy) will be to play by their rules. Instead, it is important to stick to the ethical and political principle that makes the whole thing worthwhile and justified. And the political can only function where there is contestation and the clash of ideas and thoughts. We each subject our ideas to each other to both test and improve them. This results in an intersubjective improvement in all our skills, knowledges and most importantly makes our case more watertight.

I also support Creative Commons, and will continue to do so providing it does not lose its focus and beliefs. Everyone makes mistakes and this includes organisations that are trying to be innovative and creative in their approach. But that has to be tempered by critique and feedback. Once we submit to the King (as Foucault would have called it) or the party line, regardless of whatever it might be, contrary to our own beliefs and feelings, I fear the life and animation that drives the free culture movement will be lost.

Creative Commons aims to supply the licenses, that is fair enough, but they do not (unlike the open-source initiative) attempt to take over the discourse. Or at least not yet. And you don't have to look far to see that the CC is supported by many people who have a number of different radical, libertarian, social, communitarian or progressive ideas.... but all seem to agree that the untrammelled ownership of culture is a bad thing.


- David













Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page