permaculture

[Toby Hemenway <hemenway@jeffnet.org>]

on 8/1/00 Lance wrote:

> We are too far along the pathway of no return to
> squabble about ownership and copyrights.  PERIOD.

The point of this discussion is not who owns what. It's about ethics--which
lies at the heart of permaculture. This discussion proves how difficult to
grasp ethics are. 

In this case, Mollison has worked hard to produce a book and logo, and has
built up a reputation and recognizability for both himself and the field
he's created. If someone else uses that work without permission or credit,
they are using Bill's energy, creativity, and reputation to get a free ride.
That is not ethical, and for those who care, it's not legal either.  Bill is
simply asking that we do our own work--on principle--and if we ride his
coattails we offer something in return.

It's not a question of Bill wanting more money or prestige (he doesn't,
believe me). It's a question of paying for what you take from someone else.
It's up to the inventor to decide whether he wants to give his work away,
not the user--that's a basic ethical principle. Lannce mentions Napster. The
artists who support Napster do it because they believe it will improve their
own recognition and income eventually, not because they believe ripping off
their music is a good idea. They expect, rightfully, something in return for
their efforts. 

Pc concepts (e.g. ethics, philosophy) and Pc techniques may seem like two
separate subjects. But if those who do the practice aren't firmly grounded
in the ethics, Pc will go the way of science and engineering: a set of
powerful techniques that serve whatever selfish or narrow goals its
practitioners are limited to. Ripping off a logo, even to promote a "good"
idea (and just incidentally, a money-making workshop), is still stealing.
The end does not justify the means; unethical means can only demonize a good
end.

Toby