cc-eyebeam AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Creative Commons-Eyebeam Forum 2003 November 12-19
List archive
- From: marek_walczak AT yahoo.com
- To: cc-eyebeam AT lists.ibiblio.org
- Subject: [cc-eyebeam] Re: why art shouldn't be property
- Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2003 13:48:38 -0500 (EST)
> The answer, I think, is open licenses. By extending the noncommercial,
> sharealike, and open source requirements attached to such licenses we can
> envision a future in which an artist's legacy benefits people instead of
> benefiting institutions.
I'm totally lost. It seems like you've outlined one paradigm where artists
earn very little to another one where they earn nothing at all! In such a
context, can you explain where the money would come from?
Thanks.
-
[cc-eyebeam] why art shouldn't be property,
jippolito, 11/16/2003
-
[cc-eyebeam] Re: why art shouldn't be property,
marek_walczak, 11/17/2003
- [cc-eyebeam] Re: why art shouldn't be property, jippolito, 11/18/2003
-
[cc-eyebeam] Re: why art shouldn't be property,
marek_walczak, 11/17/2003
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.