Freedom or Copyright? - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation (FSF)
ott at enolink.de
Sat Feb 9 23:15:11 UTC 2008
Alex Hudson <home at alexhudson.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 2008-02-09 at 22:48 +0100, Matthias-Christian Ott wrote:
> > > You're passing a judgement on the quality of the culture based on the
> > > mode of production. That's what I meant by 'elitist'.
> > I don't see why this is elitist. But essentially my critique is a
> > critique of the mode of production.
> It's elitist because you're saying art produced and not given away is
> worth less than art given away.
I don't understand what you mean. Search Wikipedia for culture industry
to get an idea of what it means. That's all I have to say.
> > > That's the fundamental economic difference between this idea and free
> > > software: free software essentially precludes a single business model
> > > from several. This gift system effectively precludes all business
> > > models. That's unjustifiable.
> > Well, that's your opinion. If you do everything just because of money
> > and to get rich, we have different world views.
> > I didn't say that gift economies work as well as scarcity economies in
> > terms of making money.
> > I just said it's possible with a little help from the solidarity of
> > the people. You wont become a millionaire by accepting donations, but I
> > could do concerts etc.
> We're not arguing over whether or not it's "possible", of course gift
> economies are possible - they exist.
> And your statement that you won't become a millionaire is also patently
> false. RMS' example of Radiohead - who hadn't made a penny from digital
> art before they effectively gave away "In Rainbows" - made millions of
> The high-profile artists will make large amounts of money in virtually
> every type of economy other than a communist/planned economy. If your
> goal is to prevent people from getting rich, a gift economy isn't what
> you want.
I was supporting this kind of system as a huge compromise within the
economical framework to produce another consciousness.
Just critically analyse and question the term "high-profile". Think
about demand and how it's created, ...
But generally I think we talk at cross purposes with different
intentions, world views or what ever you call it in mind.
This discussion leads (under the current conditions) to nothing else
than confusion and misunderstandings.
This is the typical result of such a discussion in the end there are
just beliefs and opinions.
More information about the Discussion